Page 1

Contents
1. Executive summary: .................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Management summary:............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1. Team organization: ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.2. Project schedule:............................................................................................................................. 6
3. Conceptual design..................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Mission requirement and rules.......................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1. Flight course:................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2. Mission profile: ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.3. Overall score: .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2. Translating mission requirement to design requirement:..................................................................... 9
3.2.1. Score sensitivity analysis:................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.2. Converting mission requirements into design requirements .......................................................11
3.2.3. Plane selection ..............................................................................................................................12
3.2.4. Fuselage selection:........................................................................................................................13
3.2.5. Propulsion selection:.....................................................................................................................14
3.2.6. Wing selection: .............................................................................................................................14
3.2.7. Empennage selection:...................................................................................................................15
3.2.8. Landing gear configuration: .......................................................................................................... 15
4. Preliminary design: ................................................................................................................................. 16
4.1. Design and analysis methodology: .................................................................................................. 16
4.2. Design and sizing trades:..................................................................................................................17
4.3. Mission model (capabilities and uncertainties): .............................................................................. 17
4.4 Estimates of aircraft lift drag and stability characteristics: .................................................................. 18
4.4.1. Wing airfoil selection: ...............................................................................................................18
4. 4.3. Stability characteristics: ........................................................................................................... 23
4.5. Aircraft mission performance estimission: ......................................................................................24

Page 2
5. Detail design:........................................................................................................................................... 25
5.1. Structural characteristics: ................................................................................................................25
5.2. System and subsystem design: ........................................................................................................ 27
5.3. Propulsion characteristics:...............................................................................................................28
5.4. Weight and balance: ........................................................................................................................32
5.5. Flight performance parameters: ...................................................................................................... 34
5.6. Mission performance: ......................................................................................................................34
6.0. Manufacturing Plan and process: ...................................................................................................... 36
6.1. Manufacturing procedure, selection and assembly: ....................................................................... 37
6.1.1. Fuselage manufacture...............................................................................................................37
6.1.2. Wing manufacture ....................................................................................................................38
6.1.3. Empennage...................................................................................................................39
6.1.4. Landing gear manufacture ..............................................................................................40
6.2. Manufacturing process selection..................................................................................................... 41
7. Testing plan:............................................................................................................................................ 42
7.1. Batteries:.......................................................................................................................................... 43
7.3. Wing testing: .................................................................................................................................... 44
7.3.1. Aerodynamic testing: ................................................................................................................46
7.4. Fuselage testing: ..............................................................................................................................47
7.6. Flight testing: ................................................................................................................................... 48
8. Performance result: ................................................................................................................................49
8.1. Key Subsystems Performance:......................................................................................................... 49
8.2. Flight Performance:..........................................................................................................................50
9. Reference ................................................................................................................................................51

Page 3
1. Executive summary:
This report summarizes the design efforts of conducted by Dreamers fin of Military Institute of Science And
Technology for the 2013-2014 AIAA / CessnA/ Raython Missile system Student Design/Build/Fly
competition. The purpose of Military Institute of Science And Technology DBF is to develop an aircraft that
maximize the total score according to the competition rule.

DBF rules state that the total competition score consists of the report score the total mission score and the
RAC (rated aircraft cost). The RAC is the empty flight weight of all 3 missions. The total mission score is the
multiplication of taxi-mission and flight mission score. Again flight mission score consists of the individual
flight score for all 3 missions Ferry flight, maximum load mission and emergency medical mission. The
requirement of first mission is to fly as many as laps as possible within 4 minutes. The second mission
consists of flying 3 laps while carry two wooden blocks which simulate cargo. The requirement of third
mission is complete 3 laps as soon as possible while carrying two attendance and two patients.

The aircraft design is reached by first generating numerous design concepts capable of completing the
mission requirements. Figure of Merit (FOM) analyses are completed on each concept to select the final
configuration. The selected configuration is comprised of a high wing mono-plane.

Payload is stored in undercarriage box for M2 and M3. The final construction consists of a composite
structure of balsa wood, Depron and covering film.

With the full confidence of design we had and concluding the design was the only feasible match for our
requirements, the iteration was put to an end. The defined aircraft has a RAC of 3 lb-ft and is capable of:

Completing 3 laps within 4 minutes at the first mission

Flying 3 laps with 4 internal payloads at the second mission
Flying 3 laps with all possible payload configurations at the third mission

2. Management summary:
Team Dreamers fin comprises of fifteen student members, two advisors and one pre-tech flight inspector
from the aeronautical engineering department of Military Institute of Science and Technology.

2.1. Team organization:

The members were filled in the organizational flow according to their skill. The team leader is in the focus of
the flow who distribute tasks and recieves output from all other sub-flows and reports to the assistant
advisor and then to the chief advisor. Any suggestions from the advisors was again regulated through the
team leader to the sub-flows. Each sub-flows constitutes of 1-4 members depending on the requirement of
the task they had been assigned; they interadted with each other upon design alteration or any other
technical requirements. A graphical representation of the flow is shown in fig.

Page 4
Page 5
2.1.2. Project schedule:
The team had almost 6 months to design and contruct the protoype. Here goes the project schedule

Page 6
3. Conceptual design
The 2013-14 AIAA DBF competition rules detail mission and technical inspection requirements for the
aircraft. Combining the competition rules with previous MIST DBF experience yields a comprehensive set of
design requirements and considerations that drive the deign process. To begin determining aircraft
configuration, a variety of aircraft concepts are generated. Then a FOM analysis is used to select competitive
configurations for further consideration. FOM analysis is also used to select the aircraft sub-systems.

3.1. Mission requirement and rules

The rules for AIAA design/build/fly competition for the 2013-14 academic year specify several requirement
for all aircraft;

1. The aircraft must perform all missions in 1 configuration.

2. Maximum take off distance 40 ft.
3. Maximum propulsion battery(Nicad or NiMH)weight of 1.5 lb.
4. 15 amp fuse limited current.
5. No structure/component may be dropped from the aircraft during flight.
6. Aircraft and pilot must be AMA legal.
7. TOGW must be less than 55 lb.
8. Taxi mission must be attempt prior to flight mission 2.
9. Maximum assembly time 5 minutes.
10. The competition consists of 4 missions. One taxi mission and three others flight mission.
11. Ground taxi mission-rough field taxi.
12. The aircraft will be required to taxi across a 408 course shown as below:
13. Two obstacle will be placed on the course, approximately 1/3 and 2/3 the length of the course. The
obstacles will extend from the centerline to one edge and the height will be that of a standard
24(actual dimension 1 by 3 ) on edge,(3 vertical). see fig
14. If the taxi mission is completed successfully, then TS=1. Otherwise, TS=0.2

3.1.1. Flight course:

The nominal flight course is shown below in the figure

Page 7
1.40 ft takeoff 5.3600 turn to the left

2.500 ft upwind leg 6.1800to the right

3.180oturn to the right 7.500 ft upwind leg

4.1000 ft downwind leg 8.landing on paved runway

3.1.2. Mission profile:

Mission one: ferry flight

The first mission is a ferry mission requiring aircraft to complete as many as laps possible in the allotted 4
minutes. Flight time starts when the throttle is advanced for takeoff. The M1 score,defined by equation
1,depend only on the number of completed laps, Nlaps.

M1 score=2*(N_Laps_flown/max_N_Laps_flown)

Mission two: Maximum load mission

The mission 2 required to carry cargo(66 6 wooden blocks) as many as possible to complete 3 lap.the
M2 score, defined by equation 2 ,depend only on the number of cargo flown.

M2 score=4*(N _cargo _flown)/max_ N _ cargo_ flown)

Mission three:Emergency medical Mission

The third mission is emergency medical mission. The aircraft must take off within the allotted distance and
complete 3 lap as soon as possible with required medical passenger. Two patients on gurneys simulated by
wooden blocks 9long 4 wide 2 high oriented flat and lengthwise, ballasted to 0.5 lb each. And two

Page 8
attendants positioned one beside each patient simulated by 6 tall 2 wide 4 long ballasted to .5 lb each.
The M3 score, defined by equation 3, depend only the fastest time flown.

M3= 6* (fastest _ time _ flown/ time_ flown)

3.1.3. Overall score:

Total score will be computed from written report score,total flight score and rated aircraft cost(RAC) using
this formula:

SCORE = Written Report Score * Total Mission Score / RAC

The total Mission Score is the product of the Taxi Score, TS and Flight Score, FS: Total Mission
Score = TS*FS

The flight score is the sum of the individual mission flight scores: Flight Score = FS = M1 + M2 + M3

The RAC is a function of empty weight: RAC = EW

Empty weight will be measured after each successful scoring flight: EW = Max(EW1, EW2, EW3)
EWn is the post flight weight with the payload removed

3.2. Translating mission requirement to design requirement:

3.2.1. Score sensitivity analysis:

A sensitivity analysis was performed using the scoring equation from the competition rules to gain an
understanding of how different aspects of the planes performance affect its overall performance

Due to the impact of mission 2 in regards to the overall design of the aircraft it was necessary to determine
how the number of cargo affects the overall score in competition. The estimation and the calculation made
were best on the fact the more cargo that is carried the slower and the heavier the aircraft will be. The aircraft
will be progressively heavier with an increasing number of cargo flown because in increasing number of
cargo mandate a larger structure to encase cargo. This will lead an increase in wing span corresponding the
total weight. So this will significantly impact the RAC (Empty Weight). In principle, this would also make the
aircraft slower due to the fact it would lead to more drag. Because there is a limit on the power available for
the propulsion system best on maximum current and maximum battery. The speed of the aircraft will
drastically affect the scores Mission-1 and Mission-2. Based on this estimation we decide to carry 2 cargos for
Mission-2 on the other side taxi mission which also affects the total flight mission. The change of score
regarding the flight mission, taxi mission and RAC is given below:

Page 9
Figure: Flight efficiency ratio VS Flight Score

Figure: Effect of taxi mission score on flight mission score

Page 10
 Figure: RAC VS total score

3.2.2. Converting mission requirements into design requirements

The team aimed for a light aircraft with a minimum RAC, so that it can accomplish maximum number of laps
within 4 minutes, fly the second mission with maximum possible payload and safely finish the third mission
within the possible fastest time.Design requirements for different missions are given below:

Table 2: Design requirement for taxi mission

Mission requirement Design requirement

Ground clearance High wing
Turn ability
Aircraft should not be airborne Maintain sufficient thrust
High payload capability Large internal volume
Ground handling Landing gear

Table 3: Design requirement for mission 1

Page 11
 Short take off High lift drag ratio
High static thrust
Low stall velocity
Low wing loading
High airspeed Minimize parasite drag
Low wing loading
Sufficient thrust at high airspeed
Fastest turn time High load factor
Enough thrust to assure sustained turn
Land successfully Adequate static and dynamic stability

Table 4:Design requirement for mission 2

High internal payload capability High lift to drag ratio

Large internal volume
Short take off High static thrust
Low wing loading
Low stall velocity
Three lap flight Efficient propulsion system
Land successfully Adequate static and dynamic stability

Table 5: Design requirement for mission 03

Short take off High lift to drag ratio

Low wing loading
High payload capability Large internal volume

High airspeed Sufficient thrust at high air speed

Minimize drag at cruise velocity
High wing loading
Land successfully Adequate static and dynamic stability

3.2.3. Plane selection

Weig
ht

Figure of Monoplane biplane Lifting body Canard

merit
Weight 5 3 2 5 3
L/D ratio 4 4 3 5 2

Page 12
Payload 4 3 3 4 4
integration
Stability 3 4 3 3 3
Manufactura 3 3 3 4 2
bility
Total 64 52 82 54
Monoplane: monoplane is the most conventional practice in aviation sector .better aerodynamic
characteristics with reasonable RAC penalty and design simplicity makes it as the best choice for the overall
design solution.

Biplane:the biplane was considered to have more lift for a given wing span than the monoplane.the biplane
configuration,has more drag than the monoplane due to complex structure,which leads to adverse
aerodynamic effects due to the close proximity of the wings.

Lifting body: high lift to drag ratio but poor stability.

Canard: Canard use a lifting wing in front of the main wing for stability. this offers greater overall lift as the
control surface also produce lift. With this configuration main wing is positioned in the downwash induced by
canard or forward wing. This can increase the induced drag from the main wing, which decrease the overall
lift to drag performance

3.2.4. Fuselage selection:

FOM Weight Airfoil Thick bullet long bullet Square box

Weight 5 5 3 4 3
Payload 4 4 4 3 3
capabili-ty
Speed 3 4 3 4 2
Total 53 40 44 33

Airfoil:Ithas best aerodynamic performance due to low drag coefficient and large internal volume so high
payload capability.

Thick bullet:This fuselage can accommodate 3 internal payload bt with a higher weight and wetted area

Long bullet:The main advantage of this shape is good aerodynamic characteristics, but its higher weight at
same payload capability with compared to airfoil shaped fuselage.

Square box: Very poor in aerodynamic characteristics due to higher wetted area and excessive sharp edge.

Page 13
3.2.5. Propulsion selection:

FOM Weight Single tractor Single pusher Twin-tractor

Thrust to weight 5 5 4 2
Efficiency 3 4 3 2
aerodynamics 2 4 4 2
Total - 40 37 20

Single tractor: Single tractor propulsion system is comparatively light weight and of better propeller
efficiency. Although the possibility of certain aerodynamics inefficiencies remains due to the slipstream of the
propeller, the system can be considered the most effective one.

Single pusher: This propulsion system benefits from higher aerodynamic efficiency. but it exhibits lower
propeller efficiency.Additionally, mounting the propulsion motor on the rear portion of the aircraft requires a
relatively strong structure which increases weight.

Twin tractor: Twin tractor propulsion system can generate highest thrust while maintaining the lowest
efficiency. It causes massive weight increase and poor aerodynamic characteristics due to the desired flow
over the3 wing

3.2.6. Wing selection:

FOM Weight High wing Low wing Midwing

Weight 4 4 3 4
Speed 4 4 3 3
Stability 3 5 2 3
Total 47 30 37

Page 14
3.2.7. Empennage selection:

FOM Weight Conventional t-tail V-tail

Weight 5 4 3 4
Efficiency 4 5 4 3
Drag 2 3 4 3
Total 46 39 38

Conventional: Conventional tail can provide adequate stability and control at the lowest weight. Although, it
may suffer from the wake effect of the wing, but a suitable positioning of the conventional tail can meet the

FOM Weight Bicycle Tricycle Trail dragger

weight 5 4 5 4
Ground handling 4 1 4 3
drag 3 4 3 3
Total 36 50 41
desired requirements.

T-tail: The T-tail lifts the horizontal tail clear of the wing wake and prop Wash, which makes it more efficient
and hence allows reducing its size. But inherently T-tail is heavier than a conventional tail because the
vertical tail must be strengthened to support the horizontal tail.

V-tail: Although V-tail was intended to reduce wetted area but extensive NACA research concluded that V-tail
has no advantage of reduced wetted area over a conventional tail. Generally a V-tail offers reduced
interference drag but at some penalty in control-actuation complexity

3.2.8. Landing gear configuration:

.

Bicycle: Bicycle gear arrangement is very light and produces less drag, but the aircraft must take off and land
in a flat attitude which is unrealistic for short take off.

Tail dragger: tail dragger gear provides higher propeller clearance, has less drag and weight, and allows the
wing to generate more lift for rough field operation than the tricycle gear.with the assist of an efficient pilot
team, the tail dragger was consider as the best solution.

Tri cycle: Although tricycle assures better ground handling, but increased weight and drag is a limiting factor
for this arrangement.

Page 15
Overall conceptual design:

4. Preliminary design:
After completing a conceptual sketch, now it was time to define, iterate critical design variable for each
discipline and optimize them to maximize total flight score. Aerodynamics, propulsion, stability and control
and structures were evaluated for each of the individual design iterations. Every iteration and final
optimization was driven to maximize overall score.

4.1. Design and analysis methodology:

The preliminary design was done iteratively and was optimized for all the missions to assure highest possible
score. First Raymers method was used to size design parameters. Then, the defined design was analyzed to
evaluate the performance for different missions.

The performance analysis was initiated based on the theory from Andersons Introduction to Flight and
Aircraft Performance and Design books. Individual design parameters were used as an input and the
performance result in each iteration was monitored to explore any further improvements in those
parameters. If improvement were monitored at any point the next iteration was started from that point.

Constraints Yes
Abandon

Initial Sizing

Minimize Weight
Overall Score
M1, M2, M3 Revised Layout Maximize Speed
Increase
Maximize Turn Rate 90
80
70
60
50
Change Design 40
Variables No 30
20
10
0
Page 16 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
4.2. Design and sizing trades:
The most important goal of the design is to minimize the weight while maintaining the speed and the ability
to maintain the take off distance . To do this, number of iteration was done to determine the minimum power
required to meet the performance needs. propulsion system efficiency is estimated from preliminary
experience and previous MIST DBF experience. So static thrust is the driving requirement for M2 and M3 to
satisfy the 40ft takeoff requirement.

To size the aircraft, an initial weight is estimated. Next, Raymers method is utilized to determine thrust to
weight ratio(T/W) as a function of wing loading for critical design cases. As climb doesnt affect the mission
score directly so cases are analysed for takeoff, stall, cruise, and sustained turn for all missions. Consider all
the term including the static thrust of a motor within limited current we choose the design point. in the
analytic equations of the function the aspect ratio, Oswald efficiency, parasite drag and co efficient of lift was
taken as 5,.90, .02, 1.8 respectively. The equations were then graphed and select the design point.

A
Figure: Design trades

stall of 25 ft/s is selected as a starting point based on past MIST DBF experience in designing aircraft for high
payload ratios and high speed, which yields a maximum wing loading 1.13 lb/ft 2..These values show that a
wing area of 4.70 ft is required within a takeoff thrust around 4 lb.

4.3. Mission model (capabilities and uncertainties):

The missions have to perform four segments on the course.

Take off: Take off distance at ever mission is 40 ft and this segment is at maximum throttle. Flaps are down
for payload mission, increasing Clmax.

Page 17
Climb: As climb doesnt affect the mission score a moderate climb rate is maintained for every mission for
safety the aircraft climbs to 50 ft altitude to enter the cruise condition at every mission.

Cruise: This phase is maximum duration is all segments. At mission 2 and 3 cruise is maintained at maximum
L/D condition.

Turns: The course contains two types of turn. A 180 degree turn and a 360 degree turn. Sufficient throttle is
maintained to initiate a sustained turn. Turns are assumed to complete at cruise velocity for our mission.

There are specific limitations and uncertainties of mission model.

Winds: Head winds, tail winds and cross winds were neglected as they were found to have minimum effect
on mission perform for reasonable performance.

Interference drag: Drag contribution from individual components can be estimated with good accuracy but
interference between different components is difficult to estimate especially between the fuselage and wing.
Interference drag was thus assumed to the 20% of the total drag.

Propeller performance: Propeller efficiency varies based on RPM and free stream condition for initial
analysis.

Battery output: Battery voltage and current draw vary throughout the flight. For this analysis a constant
voltage and current were assumed.

4.4 Estimates of aircraft lift drag and stability characteristics:

4.4.1. Wing airfoil selection:

Airfoil section considered three factors:

Ease of manufacturing
Lift at low Reynolds numbers and drag at cruise
High lift at low Reynolds numbers is essential to meet the T.O. requirement. Low drag increases flight
speeds and improves the score for M1 and M3.

The following parameters were used to select the airfoil:

Low drag at lift coefficient.15 and Reynolds number for M1 and M3.
High Clmax to take off within 40 ft.
Effect of lift coefficient of wing loading for the take-off in mission 2 and 3 was analyzed to predict a
required lift coefficient. Effects of lift coefficient on stall velocity for various wing loadings were also
analyzed for better understanding of required airfoil.

Page 18
Figure: effect of CL max on stall velocity for different wing loading

Reynolds number have a significant impact on the performance of an airfoil. For various flight
conditions, the Reynolds number was calculated by estimating propulsion, weight and wing
geometry. Reynolds numbers for critical flight conditions are shown in table 4.2. mission 1 is
evaluated for cruise conditions since it has the fastest speed and mission 2 and 3 is evaluated at take-
off condition.

Table: Flight Reynolds number

Flight condition MAC Reynolds number

Mission 1 cruise 240,000
Mission 2 and 3 take-off 167,000

High performance airfoils were researched using the UIUC airfoil database. The four airfoils consider
were E210, NACA 23012, MH 80, 3DT062.

MAC airfoil take-off performance (Re= 167,000)

Page 19
Fig: XF LR5 computational results for take-off performance

Page 20
Figure: XFLR5 pitching moment analysis at cruise

Cruise MAC airfoil drag polar (Re=240,000)

Figure: XFLR5 computational results for cruise performance

Page 21
Table12: Aerofoil selection

Parameters weight E423 MH80 NACA23012 SD7062

Clmax 5 5 3 4 4
(L/D) 5 5 3 3 4
Stall 3 4 3 2 2
Manufacturability 3 4 4 4 4
-dCm/d 2 5 3 3 2
total 84 57 59 62

Finally the table showed E423 was the best aerofoil for the wing which will be able to generate desired amount of
lift with good aerodynamic performance.
To be more precise of our calculation we analysed our total body using fluent.the cl versus cd graph is shown
below:

Fig:coefficient of dag and lift of total body

Static pressure contour:

Page 22
4. 4.3. Stability characteristics:
To meet performance goals, the aircraft is designed to have excellent static stability characteristics allowing it to
remain stable even when payloads shift in flight. To ensure required stability, the aircraft aerodynamics were
analyzed according to the following standard design principles.

o Center of gravity was placed ahead of the aerodynamic center with a static margin of 10%.
o Payload compartment was near the center of gravity to reduce center of gravity travel.
o Propeller centerline was collinear with the center of gravity preventing pitch moment.

To ensure dynamic stability, the aircraft aerodynamic stability derivatives were calculated using tornado
vortex lattice method. They are listed in the table below:

Page 23
 CL Derivatives CD Derivatives CY Derivatives
CL 4.7279 CD .233355 CY 2.1763e-14
CL -2.2158e-05 CD 5.8722e-06 CY -.22288
CLP 1.1142e-08 CDP 1.9647e-06 CYP -.055176
CLQ 8.0936 CDQ .28781 CYQ 2.8061e-12
CLR 1.0298e-07 CDR 7.3912e-07 CYR -.28951
Roll derivatives Pitch derivatives Yaw derivatives
Cl -1.6115e-13 Cm -2.3085 Cn 9.0386e-15
Cl .0076807 Cm 5.5853e-06 Cn -.15231
ClP -.48574 CmP -5.907e-08 CnP .0086581
ClQ -2.8223e-12 CmQ -15.7454 CnQ 3.1234e-13
ClR .068179 CmR -1.0022e-07 CnR -.20333

4.5. Aircraft mission performance estimission:

Flight theory from Andersons Introduction to Flight was used to estimate the performance and
tabulated as below:

Mission performance parameters Mission one Mission two Mission three

Page 24
Gross weight(lb) 3 5 5
Take-off distance(ft) 20 30.25 30.25
Stall velocity(ft/sec) 22 26.25 26.25
Cruise velocity(ft/sec) 40 48 48
Maximum payload - 2 2
Number of laps 4 - -
Total lap time(minute) - - 3.56

5. Detail design:
Final dimensional parameters of the aircraft are presented at the following table:

Horizontal stabilizer Aileron

Span 18.68 inch Span 23inch

Wing Chord 5.3 inch % of chord 20%

2 0
Span 4.70ft Area 99.715 in Max a 25
Chord .940ft Vertical stabilizer Rudder
Aspect ratio 5 Span 7.73 inch Span 6.6 inch
2
Wing area 4.42ft Chord 5.3 inch % of chord 30%
2
Airfoil E423 Area 39.88 in Elevator
Span 18.68 inch
Static margin M1 8% % of chord 30%
0
Static margin M2/M3 10% Max e 25
0
Incidence 0

Fuselage

Length 23 inch

Width 10 inch

height 10 inch

5.1. Structural characteristics:

Aircraft weight will be minimized in order to competitive. To that end, the design phase focus on removing
excess material.

Wing: during maneuvering, wing withstands the major loads, structural arrangement of wing mainly focused
on sustaining a 3.42g load during mission, which is equivalent to 3.25g for mission 2 and 3 spars are design to
sustain the bending and twisting moment during maximum load condition.

Page 25
Figure: V-N diagram for mission 1

Page 26
Figure: V-N diagram for mission 2 and 3

5.2. System and subsystem design:

The fuselage contains several sub-systems, a payload, area, a forward motor section and electronic area.

The payload area is sized to accommodate the attendance and patient while having minimum structure weight and
low drag contribution. Another consideration is payload (6*6*6) for mission 2. To achieve this, the fuselage was
shape line a symmetric NACA 0024 airfoil. To fit the attendance and patient and 2 payload for mission 2, the
fuselage shape is shown:

Page 27
For specific details regarding payload arrangement, refer to drawing, displaced in latter part of detail design
section.

5.3. Propulsion characteristics:

Propulsion system contains motor, propeller and battery pack. In preliminary design section, different models of
motor, propeller and battery pack is brought under consideration to compare with our initial estimation made
from the mission requirements. The list of components with required characteristics then gone through Figure of
Merit (FOM) analysis for finding the best one.

Propulsion system considerations from mission requirements:

1. For taxi mission low current draw and low thrust is required so that the ac completes the 40 ft ground
without getting airborne.

2. To complete maximum possible laps high excess power and low rpm, that is, low current draw is needed
in M1.

3. High thrust is required on takeoff in M2 and M3 to reach take off velocity within 40 ft.

4. Sufficient power and high current draw is required to carry payload in M2 and M3 considering the
limitation of 15A fuse.

Propulsion Weight:

An important constrain in propulsion system selection is keeping the weight in an adequate level. Using more
thak8n necessary creates problem. Using historical weight build ups the aircraft has set preliminary limits of 0.16 lb
for a motor, 0.56 lb for the battery pack, 0.031 lb for the propeller, 0.075 lb for the ESC and 0.013 lb for the fuse.
The entire propulsion system is limited at 0.84 lb total. We need to supply adequate power, but more power
causes more weight. The extra weight increases RAC which decreases the score. So, we had to k8optimize the
weight according to of the total propulsion system to keep the weight as low as possible. The selected
components after optimization are listed in the following table:

Table: Propulsion weight estimation

Component Name Weight (lb)

Motor T motorMN4014 0.328
Propeller 144.7 0.1
Battery Elite 2000 0.992
ESC Turnigy AE -30A 0.055
Total 1.475

Power and Efficiency Analysis:

The power requirement assumptions are needed for further assumptions on propeller, electrical components and
total system efficiency. The power required for takeoff is higher than the in-flight power. So, the product of takeoff
velocity and thrust required is the maximum assumed required power for each flight mission. Considering total
system efficiency 40% the power required from battery is then assumed basing on the initial assumptions. The
power required for aircraft and batteries for each mission is shown in the following:

Page 28
Table: Required Power Estimation

Missions PR for aircraft PR for battery

Mission 1 85 106
Mission 2 and 3 187 234

Propeller Analysis:

The propeller diameter and pitch are selected considering the required thrust and velocity for each mission. For
M1 no payload is installed and short takeoff is needed. So, we need high pitch propeller to increase the velocity.
For M2 and M3 payload is installed, so weight is increased. High thrust is needed to cope up with this weight. High
velocity is not required as takeoff distance is high. So, propellers of k8large diameter but low pitch should be used.
Propellers with a range of pitch and diameter are analyzed using Ecalc and JavaProp. A moderate propeller is
selected for all flight missions. The selected propeller and three other propellers is shown in the table with voltage,
current and thrust ratings:

Table: Propeller Specifications

Propellers RPM Voltage Current Draw (amps) Thrust (lb)

145 6830 17.4 16 4.6583
155 6633 18.7 18 4.8589
144.7 6680 18.73 13.1 4.2747
163 6469 18.62 24 5.0728

For the chosen propeller current draw is comparatively low than the other propellers though other parameters are
comparatively high. But current draw should not be beyond limit. Also from the airspeed versus motor current
graph, there is an exponential increase in the current draw for increasing airspeed where the graph is steeper in
the high airspeed. It indicates constant current draw in the low airspeed and a moderate change for increasing
airspeed. This indicates that the performance of the motor is dependable as sudden change is quite risky for our
initial specifications. This propeller is chosen for its low current draw. Thrust is also low but the performance is
favorable than other propellers. This is the main reason for choosing this propeller.

Page 29
Using Motocalc the following graphs are made for the chosen propeller:

Fig. 144.7 propeller thrust analysis

Battery analysis:

NiMH batteries are chosen over NiCad because they have a higher energy density and they are not prone to
suffering the memory effects that can affect NiCad cells. Battery voltage is 1.2V/cell, but practically falls below the
nominal value. The calculations are completed using this consideration. The battery should be of a moderate
discharge rate to meet the mission requirements. Different models of batteries that can provide necessary power
are shown in the following table:

Table: Battery Specifications

Battery Capacity (mah) Weight per cell No. of cells Total weight (lb) Current (Amp)
(lb)
Elite 3300 3300 0.137 16 2.192 30
Elite 2400 2200 0.091 16 1.456 22
Elite 2000 2000 0.062 16 0.992 20

For receiver and servo power source KAN 1/2AAA (250 mAh) 4 cell battery pack was used which can supply 2A
current.

Table: Rx and Servo Battery Pack

Battery Weight/cell (g) Total weight (g)

KAN 250 mAh 5.3 21.2

Motor Analysis:

Page 30
The motor selection is done basing on the power required and weight of the motor. A balance between maximum
power and weight is maintained for better performance. Assuming that the overall system efficiency is 40%, the
maximum power of the motor is 270W and average power available is 100W. The models considered primarily
should have a better power to weight ratio, so the weight should be kept in a minimum level. The current draw
must not increase 15A. As the propeller used for M2 and M3 is relatively long, the KV of the motor should be kept
low for low current draw and slow discharge of the battery. The motors considered based on these considerations
are listed below:

Table: Motor Specifications

The final selected motor was Tiger MN4014 brushless motor:

Brand Model KV (rpm/V) Weight Current Thrust

(lb)

T motor MN3508 580 0.18 15.28 3.8911

T motor MN4014 400 0.328 14 4.0322

T motor GOLD A2204 1400 0.079 12 2.9652

T motor C22-16-25 1800 0.055 17 4.2571

T motor 2812-14 1534 0.13 22 5.6438

Figure: Main Propulsion Motor.

Speed Controller:

Page 31
A turnigy AE 30A Brushless Speed controller of 25g weight was used. Team removed the +V cc connection from the
speed controller to receiver to disable the battery elimination circuit to ensure receiver was separately powered. A
picture of the speed controller is given below:

Figure: Speed Controller.

Receiver and Transmitter:

Various properties of the selected receiver are tabulated as below:

Table: Receiver and Transmitter

Model name Weight Channel Fail safe Power Voltage Frequency

mode
Fly Sky FS- Low weight 9 Channel ok Low power 4.8 volt 2.4 GHz
R9B consumption

Fuse:

A 15 Amp rated ATO fuse was used.

5.4. Weight and balance:

Table: Weight and balance

Page 32
 MISSION-1 MISSION-2 MISSION-3

WEI WEI WEIG

COMPONENT CG MOMEN CG MOMEN CG MOMENT
GHT G HT (lb)
S (in) T (lb- (in) T (lb- (in) (lb-in)
(lb) HT
in) in)
0.55 18.08 (lb)
0.55 18.08 0.55 18.08
WingStructure
9.944 9.944 9.944
0.56 18.2 0.56 18.2 0.56 18.2
Fuselage
10.192 10.192 10.192
0.11 41.87 0.11 41.87 0.11 41.87
TailBoom
4.6057 4.6057 4.6057
Vertical 0.06 55.37 0.06 55.37 0.06 55.37
stabilizer 3.3222 3.3222 3.3222
Horizontal 0.08 55.37 0.08 55.37 0.08 55.37
stabilizer 4.4296 4.4296 4.4296
0.11 12.9 0.11 12.9 0.11 12.9
LandingGear
1.419 1.419 1.419
0.1 2.4 0.1 2.4 0.1 2.4
Propeller
0.24 0.24 0.24
0.28 3.2 0.28 3.2 0.28 3.2
Motor
0.896 0.896 0.896
Speed 0.07 7.5 0.07 7.5 0.07 7.5
Controller 0.525 0.525 0.525
Receiverwith 0.046 27.8 0.05 27.8 0.046 27.8
Battery 1.2788 1.2788 1.2788
Propulsion 0.94 12.319 0.94 12.319 0.94 12.319
batterypack 11.57986 11.57986 11.57986
0.05 16.4 0.05 16.4 0.05 16.4
wingServos
0.82 0.82 0.82
0.025 52.2 0.025 52.2 0.025 52.2
TailServo
1.305 1.305 1.305
0 0 1 14.02 1 13.02 13.02
Payload 1
0 14.02
0 0 1 21.78 1 20.868 20.868
Payload 2
0 21.78
Total
2.981 50.55716 4.981 86.35716 4.981 84.44516
AircraftC.G. 16.9598 17.33731 16.95346

Page 33
5.5. Flight performance parameters:
Following table demonstrate the flight performance parameters of the deigned aircraft

Table: Flight performance parameters

Parameters Mission one Mission two Mission three

CL max 1.2 1.8 1.8
CL cruise
e .9 .9 .9
CD0 .02 .02 .02
L/D cruise 11.74 13.29 13.29
L/D max
2
W/S(lb/ft ) .678 1.13 1.13
T/W static 1.36 .96 .96
Stall velocity(ft/sec) 18.47 23.84 23.84
Take off distance (ft) 25.81 36.56 36.56
Cruise speed (ft/sec) 34.04 43.95 43.95
Empty weight (lb) 3 3 3
Gross weight (lb) 3 5 5
Load factor, n 5 3.7 2.5
Corner speed (ft/sec) 32.5 33.5 30
Turn rate (deg /sec) 84.6 60 43

5.6. Mission performance:

After the acquisition of all design parameters, empty weight and propulsion data, the final mission performance
can be estimated.

Mission 1-Ferry flight

Performance of mission is predicted as below:

Table 26: Mission one performance summary

Takeoff distance (ft) 25.81

Cruise velocity (ft/sec) 34.04
L/D 11.74
Number of laps 3
Flight time (sec) 232.53
Energy consumed (kj) 58.13

Mission 2: Take-off mission:

Performance of mission is predicted as below:

Table 27: mission two performance summary

Takeoff distance (ft) 36.56

Cruise velocity (ft/sec) 43.95
L/D 13.29

Page 34
Number of internal payload 2
Flight time (sec) 207
Energy consumed (kj) 51.75

Mission 3: Emergency medical mission:

Performance of mission is given below:

Table 28: Mission three performance summary

Takeoff distance (ft) 36.56

Cruise velocity (ft/sec) 43.95
L/D 13.29
three lap time (sec) 207
Energy consumed (kj) 51.75

Page 35
5.7. Drawing Package:

Page 36
 23.03

4.72

10.00
56.41

13.83

18.68
5.30

ISOMETRIC VIEW

11.28

TOP VIEW 5.30

56.41
54.80
18.68
1.18
1.97

23.20

FRONT VIEW
20.71
1.97
1.9

0.79 10.00
7

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: Military Institute of Science and Technology

SIDE VIEW DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon
Missile Systems - Student
Design/Build/Fly Competition 2014

DRAWN BY: NURUL HUDA DATE DOCUMENT TITLE:

STANDARD LAYOUT
CHECKED BY: Z.M SHAHJAHAN 2/23/2014 DWG NO. 1 A2
ALI SHEET 1 OF 5
SCALE:1:10

Page 37
 2

12
11

13
6

5
?
NAME SERIAL
FUSELAGE 1
WING 2
FLAPARON 3
MOTOR MOUNT PLATE 4
4
TAILBOOM 5
10
VERTICAL STABILIZER 6
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER 7
RUDDER 8
ELEVETOR 9
PROPELLER 10
SERVO MOTOR 11
CONNECTING ROD 12
BOLT 13

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: Military Institute of Science and Technology

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile
Systems - Student Design/Build/Fly
Competition 2014
DRAWN BY: NURUL HUDA DATE DOCUMENT TITLE:
COMPONENT LAYOUT

A2
CHECKED BY: Z.M SHAHJAHAN
ALI 2/23/2014 DWG NO. 2 SHEET 2 OF 5

Page 38
 7

3
1
6.00

1 6.00 4

4.00

NAME SERIAL
00 FUSELAGE WITH MISSION 2 1
4. PAYLOAD
2
FUSELAGE WITH MISSION 3 2
PAYLOAD
MISSION 2 PAYLOAD 3
9.00
5
LOAD CARRIER FOR MISSION 3 4

MISSION 3 PAYLOAD (PATIENT) 5

MISSION 3 PAYLOAD 6
(ATTENDANCE)
AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE 7

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: Military Institute of Science and Technology

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile
Systems - Student Design/Build/Fly Competition
2014
DRAWN BY: NURUL HUDA DATE DOCUMENT TITLE:
PAYLOAD CONFIGURATION
CHECKED BY: Z.M SHAHJAHAN 2/23/2014 DWG NO. 3 A2
ALI SHEET 3 OF 5
SCALE:1:10

Page 39
 DETAIL M
SCALE 1 : 2

I M
N
J

DETAIL J
DETAIL I SCALE 1 : 2
SCALE 1 : 2

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: Military Institute of Science and Technology

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile
Systems - Student Design/Build/Fly Competition
2014
DOCUMENT TITLE:
DRAWN BY: NURUL HUDA DATE
DETAIL VIEW
CHECKED BY: Z.M 2/23/2014 DWG NO. 4 A2
SHAHJAHAN ALI
SCALE:1:10
SHEET 4 OF 5
Page 40
 1
2 3

21 20

19

18

17

8
11 22

16

7
15
10

NAME SERIAL
FUSELAGE BULKHEAD 1
FUSELAGE BULKHEAD 2
12 RIGHT WING 3
LEFT WING 4
MOTOR MOUNT BASE 5
PROPELLER 6
6 MOTOR 7
14 FUSELAGE SUPPORT 8
5 FUSELAGE MAIN SPAR 9
13 MOTOR HOLDER 10
FUSELAGE FRONT SPAR 11
RIGHT SERVO CONNECTION 12
WING RIB 13
WING RIB WITH SPAR SUPPORT 14
PAYLOAD DOOR 15
WHEEL 16
TAILBOOM SUPPORT 17
ESC BATTERY 18
ESC 19
SERVO 20
4 LEFT SERVO CONNECTION 21
FLAPARON 22

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: Military Institute of Science and Technology

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile
Systems - Student Design/Build/Fly Competition

DRAWN BY: NURUL HUDA DATE

DOCUMENT TITLE: SKELETON
CONFIGURATION
A2
CHECKED BY: Z.M SHAHJAHAN
2/23/2014
ALI DWG NO. 5 SHEET 5 OF 5
Page 41
6.0. Manufacturing Plan and process:
Manufacturing process describes the construction methods and materials used. Manufacturing process was
comprised of first, second and final prototype construction and material selection. For each aircraft prototype a
model was created in Solidworks 2013. First prototype was built by plastic wood with initial design. Several
experiments were done on it. Then, we modified that design and built the second prototype with solid foam. This
prototype was not compatible with payload configurations. Revising the previous two prototypes the team
entered into the phase of final prototype production, which was still in process at the time of report submission.

6.1. Manufacturing procedure, selection and assembly:

The team considered various parameters for process selection of manufacturing components and assembling
them.

Manufacturability
Production accuracy
Manufacturing duration
Shock absorption
Market availability
Repair ability
Available technology
Easiness to assemble
Experience
Within the shortest time & precision with available technology, the team selected the proper manufacturing
process. Details description & results are given below.

6.1.1. Fuselage manufacture

Fuselage structure consists of two main spars and four ribs. Tow ribs made out of balsa sheet sandwich provided
the wing mount. Ribs and spars are made with laser cut balsa (and will be re-enforced with glass fiber cloth).
Bottom structure of the fuselage holds and supports the internal payloads which are also made of balsa wood. The
opening door of the payload section is made out of balsa. At the front part of the fuselage, balsa made box holds
the battery pack which can be easily separated while required.

Table 31: Fuselage construction process

Figure of merit Weight Continuous solid foam Balsa with Pod Molded
structure bulkheads, spars structure shell
Manufacturability 3 4 5 3 4
Strength to withstand 5 3 5 4 5
deformation
Repair ability 4 3 3 3 2
Experience 4 5 4 3 3

Page 42
 Total 49 68 53 57

6.1.2. Wing manufacture

Wing ribs and spars were made of laser cut balsa wood. Foam was used between the ribs to maintain a rigid shape.
Skinning of the wing was done by covering film as smoothly as possible to reduce the skin friction drag.

Table 32: Wing manufacturing process

Figure of merit Weight Skeleton of balsa Continuous foam with Continuous foam
spars & ribs single spar structure
Manufacturability 3 3 3 4
Strength to withstand long 5 5 4 2
span
Weight 5 5 4 4
Repair ability 4 4 3 4
Total 75 61 58

Page 43
 Figure: Wing (second Prototype)

6.1.3. Empennage
The empennage needs to be rigid to prevent aero-elastic instabilities, yet light at the same time. Laser cut balsa
frame with covering film was used to manufacture the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Rudder and elevators
were also made of thin balsa sheet. Empennage section was connected to the fuselage through the tail boom. The
tail boom was a balsa made box structure fabricated with covering film.

Table 33: Empennage manufacture process

Figure of merit Weight Fabricated Balsa Continuous Solid foam with balsa
frame balsa fabrication
Weight 5 5 3 4
Strength to withstand torsion, 5 4 5 3
bending
Manufacturability 4 4 4 3
Repair ability 4 5 4 3
Total 81 72 59

Page 44
 Figure: Empennage (Second prototype)

6.1.4. Landing gear manufacture

Since industrially manufactured landing gears were not available, the team had to manufacture their own landing
gear. Special rubber wheel was attached with thick aluminum sheet to manufacture the landing gear. Angular
alignment of the landing gear provided the required suspension.

We faced few problems while testing taxing over the Palruf roofing panel and decided to add springs in the landing
gears to make them shock-absorbing. But it made the model heavier so instead we made the landing gears as stiff
and strong as possible.

Table 34: Landing gear manufacturing process

Figure of merit Weight Thick aluminum Thick stainless steel Solid aluminum
sheet sheet rod

Page 45
 Weight 5 4 3 3
Strength to withstand bending and 4 4 5 4
twisting
Manufacturability 4 4 3 3
Total 52 47 43

Figure: Landing Gears (Prototype)

6.2. Manufacturing process selection

The overarching manufacturing process selected for fabrication plays a critical role in aircraft weight and overall
flight score. Manufacturing methods for RC aircraft can be categorized into several primary groups:

Solid foam structure: Fuselage and wings can be made of solid foam. Foams are light weight
material. But poor strength and construction complications to accommodate the payloads and
electrical components are the drawbacks of this structure.

Balsa wood skeleton: Thin aerofoil sections, spar and ribs can be made of balsa to construct the
wing and other control surfaces. Bulkheads, spars, can be also made from balsa structure to form
the fuselage. So the whole skeleton frame work can be made of balsa structure. Its lighter and
well stronger. Complex structures can be made efficiently by laser cut.

Plastic wood structure: Plastic wood skeleton is easier to manufacture, but its low strength and
relatively more weight is a limiting factor. Moreover plastic wood tail boom cant sustain the
bending and twisting moments during flight. Our first prototype was made of plastic wood and
empty weight of the aircraft was 4.5 lbs.

Page 46
 Molded composite: Molded composite can ensure the perfect strength and weight but for
manufacturing complications and unavailability in local market, it was not possible for the team
to go for it.

Table 29: Material selection

Figure of merit Weight Solid foam Plastic Wood Laser cut balsa Molded composite
Weight 5 5 3 4 4
Strength 5 2 3 5 4
Manufacturability 4 3 3 4 2
Repair ability 3 2 3 4 2
Material availability 4 5 5 4 2
Experience 4 4 3 5 3
Total 89 83 109 74

We finally chose laser cut balsa for production of major component. Used materials for different
manufacturing components are listed below.

Table 30: Selected Materials For Different Components

Manufacturing components Material

Structural Members Balsawood
Skinning Covering film
Undercarriage Aluminum
Adhesive UHU glue & fiber tape
Part Manufacturing CAD-designed laser cut
**Fiberglass sheet will be used to re-enforce in the final model.

7. Testing plan:
Testing of different parts and components were done to validate them before using them in main design. It
included battery packs, motors, wing structure, fuselage etc. Various tests were performed to insure performance
to the maximum level.

Page 47
7.1. Batteries:

Batteries were tested to determine the minimum number of cells needed to perform all the missions.
After several calculations and testing 16 of super high AA rate NiMH cells were selected to be the final battery
pack, each delivering 1.2 volt having a C rate of 10. That made the entire pack 448 grams (16 oz) .

Figure: NiMH cell

7.2. Motor testing:

Page 48
A static thrust was performed to measure the power available experimentally. A test stand was made using an L-
shape arm that transferred the horizontal thrust of the propulsion system to a vertical force that a digital scale
could measure. Air-Screw brand propeller was used for the test.

Figure: Motor thrust testing

7.3. Wing testing:

Wing testing was initiated to verify the capability of the wing to withstand all loadings that arise during flight. Tests
were performed on entire wing assemblies and the main spar. The test detected potential failure point which
helped the team to modify the wing structure.

Page 49
Figure: Loading test on the main spar

Page 50
7.3.1. Aerodynamic testing:
The aerodynamic system is first tested during the preliminary design phase in the wind tunnel at MIST. The test is
to evaluate CL, CD and CM performance at various angle of attacks and checks the flow over the airfoil (E423).

Figure: Wind tunnel test on E423

Page 51
7.4. Fuselage testing:
Fuselage testing was done to validate our design guess to match mission requirements. Initially we made our
prototypes mainly with solid foam, so we couldnt attach payloads but we did get the measurements we needed
from those models and changed our design accordingly. Glass fibers didnt shipped while writing the report so we
couldnt use it on our prototypes but we will do in the final model.

Figure: Fuselage
7.5. Taxi mission testing:

Taxing was done to verify the capability of the landing gear to overcome the roof setting without making it
airborne and keeping it stabile at the same time. Testing helped to find out the suitable size of the landing gear.
We found out that if we make the landing gear stiff and strong enough it will efficiently work well maintaining a
good score in all the missions, keeping the model lighter.

Figure: Taxing over the roof

Page 52
7.6. Flight testing:
Flight testing was done with the prototypes excluding the payload setups. Though they didnt flew for long but
they gave us some crucial data that helped us to develop our main design. First prototype was a hand thrown
model. We made the second one flew from its own wheel and it flew beautifully. We used a solid foam fuselage
for the second model and avoided extra detailed frame work for prototypes to shorten the manufacturing process.

Pre flight

Transmitter ok Battery (type-NiMH) ok

Receiver ok Propulsion ok

Startup Procedure

CG check done Motor on

Transmitter Program done Static test done

Transmitter on Receiver on

Radio

Range check done Directional check done

Servo checked

Shutdown procedure

Receiver off Propulsion off

Transmitter off

Battery Post Flight

Heat Voltage (V)

Transmitter cold 9.6

Receiver cold 15

Page 53
 Figure: Flight test (second prototype)

To characterize the performance of the whole aircraft, flight testing was done. Basic performance data including
cruise speed, take-off distance, lap times, climb time and turn time recorded.

8. Performance result:
8.1. Key Subsystems Performance:
As a third world country we dont have the access to necessary lab facilities or other equipments to measure or
validate our electronic equipments. So, we had to improvise as much as we could to test our materials.
Motor static thrust:
Some tests were done to measure the performance of the motor. The power out puit varies depending upon the
dimension of the propeller. So we used several configuration to get as much as thrust under the 15 amps
limitation. Air-screw brand propellers were used for the tests.

Table: Static thrust test data

Propellers RPM Voltage Current Draw (amps) Thrust (lb)

14*5 6830 17.4 16 4.6583
15*5 6633 18.7 18 4.8589
14*4.7 6680 18.73 13.1 4.2747
16*3 6469 18.62 24 5.0728

Page 54
Wing structure:
Multiple wings were built and tested. Each one had slight changes in terms of design and materials. They gave
some failure points to work on.
Table: wing structural test

Wing Materials Weight Max Load

(g) (lbs)

Wing1 Solid Foam 200 10

Wing2 Solid foam with Aluminum spar 345 26

Wing3 Balsa spar, ribs, foam core 80 28

8.2. Flight Performance:

For the evaluation of flight performance we did all the missions with our prototypes, simulating all the
requirements. From those experiments we found out about the short comings of our design.

Mission Parameter Expectation Test result

M1 Max speed 36 ft/s 40ft/s
Stall speed 18 ft/s 19ft/s
Turn time 4s 9s
No. of Laps 3 2
Lap time 216 s 300s
RAC Weight 3 3.6
M2 Take-off weight 5 lb 5.6lb
Max speed 43 ft/s 40ft/s
Stall speed 25ft/s 20ft/s
Loading time 4min 2min
Takeoff distance 35ft 37ft
RAC weight 3lb 3.6lb
M3 Takeoff weight 5lb 5.6lb
Takeoff distance 35ft 31ft
3 Laps time 195s 203s

From the test result we pointed out two major problems. First one was, we didnt find the appropriate motor that
would give the needed thrust under 15 amps rating.
The second problem was with the structure. We couldnt make our models light enough, while giving them enough
strength. So, for further improvement we will be using glass fiber cloth on the spars and various balsa parts in the

Page 55
final model.

9. Reference

1. Our previous year design report

2. AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competotion-2013/14 Rules,31 october 2013
http://www.aiaadbf.org/2014_files/2014_rules_31Oct.html
3. Purser.P. and Campbell, J.,Experimental Verification of a simplified Vee-tail Theory and analysis of
available data on complete models with vee tails , naca 823,1945.
th
4. Raymer,d.p(2006),Aircraft design: a conceptual approach (4 edition), Washington,dc,AIAA inc.
5. Anderson J.D(2005),Introduce to flight,Tata mcgra hill.
6. UIUC airofoil co-ordinate database
<http://aerospace.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html>
7. Airfoil investigate database <http://www.worldofkrauss.com>
8. Javafoil
9. XFLRS#
10. Torenbeek, EG (1982),synthesis of subsonic airplane design,Klumen academic publishers.
11. Corce,T.C(2003),design of aircraft, Pearson education, inc.
12. Roskam,j.Methods of estimating drag poler of subsonic airplanes,published by aurther,1971.
13. Hoemer,s.fluid dynamic drag,published by aurther ,1958.
14. Roskam,j. Airplane design, roskam aviation and engineering crop, Ottawa ,KS,1985.
15. Stinton,d, The design of the airoplane, Granad, London, 1983.
th
16. T.H.G megson, Aircraft structures for engineering students (4 edition).
th
17. Anderson J.D, Fundamentals of aerodynamics (5 edition) ,Tata Mcgraw Hill.
18. Aircaft weight and balance handbook (2007), FAA-H-8083-1A
19. eCalc-online propeller calculator http://www.ecalc.ch
20. Team WSU DBF design report 2012-13.AIAA/Cessna/RMs design build fly. Wichita state university.
21. Team san jose university design report 2012-13.AIAA/Cessna/RMS design build fly. San jose university.
22. Bernard etkin. Dynamics of flight: stability and control.
23. John d. Anderson, jr.aircraft performance and design.

24. Tornado, the Vortex lattice method.

http://www.redhammer.se/tornado/

Page 56