Conceptual design

1. Mission requirement
As a requirement, each participating team has to simulate the delivery of an emergency package (payload) to stranded crew of an Antarctic expedition on a blended wing/body radio controlled transport vehicle. The aircraft can be of any configuration of a blended wing/body and the wing aspect ratio must be greater than or equal to 2.0. The payloads to be used are four 400-gram Dick Smiths Chicken Gravy packets each with dimension 180mm x 130mm x 40mm. The ultimate aim is to achieve highest wing loading with best payload weightto-take-off weight ratio.

Time consideration
A total time allowance of 30 minutes is given to perform 3 flights, which does not include refuelling. As soon as the payloads are given, timer starts. Within 30 minutes, the team needs to install the given payload, start the engine and complete an allocated circuit (approx. 600m per circuit) before landing and such process is to be repeated twice more. In order to complete the mission as quickly as possible, the following points are taken into consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. Ease of payload accessibility Height lift coefficient Short take off and landing Capability of rapid turn

Take off
For all flights, there is a maximum takeoff distance of 300 meters. The wheels must be off the runway within this distance. If the aircraft is unable to meet this constraint, a zero score will result for that flight. In order to take off early, a good stalling characteristic is required.

2. Aircraft configuration studied

Aircraft design parameters were selected based on experience and general aircraft knowledge. These parameters are used as a basis for selecting aircraft configurations. Parameters such as empennage configuration, wing design and landing gear are to be considered in conceptual design phase. Initial configuration parameters are analysed to limit the number of aircraft

configurations to be studied in detail. The critical configuration parameters are then further analysed to optimise the aircraft.

Initial configuration parameters studied

To narrow the range of aircraft configuration variations for further study, a few different main configurations are investigated in the initial phase of conceptual design. The following table shows the initial configurations. 1 2 3 4 Wing Conventional C-wing Box wing & canard Box wing Tail Horizontal, and vertical stabiliser V-tail Tailless V-tail Propulsion Tractor Tractor Pusher Tractor

Table 1

Conventional and C-wing configurations are considered to have very good stability, but they lack performance at wing loading, since a large plan form area is required. Box wing with canard configuration on the other hand, are good at lifting but again perform badly at wing loading, as additional plan form area is introduced. Moreover, with the specific engine power, it is not practical to use pusher. The box wing with V-tail tractor is the best configuration out of all configurations studied. Hence it is chosen for further analysis. Rough computational models, including C-wing, box wing, and V-tail tractor of different detailed configuration, based on the same performance requirements are built and analysed using Solid Works.

Figure 1

(Disregarding the Bended-wing-box configuration)

Figure 2

(Disregarding the blended-wing-body characteristic)

Figure 3

(Disregarding the blended-wing-body characteristic)

Critical configuration parameters studied.

For the purpose of conceptual design, the aircraft parameters considered to be critical are wing loading and structural weight. Assuming all other parameters are relatively similar, it is found that the configuration shown in figure 1 is the most effective design. Although figure 3 indicates similarities to

figure 1, it is less efficient due to doubling of blended portion, which in turns reduces the plan form efficiency.

3. Trade off table

The trade off table shows the advantages and disadvantage of various configurations that have been studied.

4. Computational modelling and analysis

In order to analyse the aircraft performance, a series of calculation, with the aid of MatLab programming, is performed using some fundamental equations.

Total aircraft weight

The total aircraft weight includes the weights of key internal components, structure, and joints. The key component includes engine, propeller, servo, receiver and propulsion battery. Measurement is taken for the sizes and weights of each component, which are likely to be used for the actual aircraft. A table of component weight is as below: Engine with muffler Propeller Servo Receiver Battery
Table 2

807 g 60 g 17.8 g 50 g 50 g

The structure is assumed to be built from foam and wood materials, further reinforced by a layer of carbon sheet on both side, forming a sandwich structure. The structure is built using solid works with rough dimension extracted from existing remote control planes. The weight of joint is estimated from previous construction experience. Using Solid Works with build-in key components and carefully defining the mass properties of the structure, the total weight and centre of gravity (CG) location are obtained. The origin system below shows the location of CG. Mass = 3356.694 grams Volume = 33566943.74 cubic millimetres Surface area = 2995782.27 square millimetres Centre of mass: (millimetres) X = 468.57 Y = 137.29 Z = -0.75

Figure 4

Parasite Drag
Drag of the aircraft depends on many drag components. These components are analysed and combined into an overall drag equation. For the conceptual design, the zero-lift drag slop, Cdo,l is assumed to be zero in all calculations. 1. Tail boom drag Assume no turbulence, no axial flow with no separation, the drag associated with the tail boom is then only due to skin friction and can be approximated using an equation for draft on a flat exterior plate. As depicted in white (1999) the skin friction drag coefficient is defined as: C DOtb = 0.031 Re L
1/ 7

Equation 1

The tail boom length is a function of wing area since the size and location of the empennage together stabilise the main wing. When the wing area is increased, the tail boom must be lengthened for aircraft to maintain stability. The volume ratio of an aircraft is defined as: LS V = t t C Sw
Equation 2

The common volume ration for bi-plane is approx. 0.5, and tailprojected area can be found using regression method, and hence the length of tail boom can be found. By using iteration method, the best tail boom length and tail area can be found. 2. Main wing drag Based on research information, Clark Y aerofoil is the most common and well-designed aerofoil, for the conceptual design purposes, the main wing is assumed to have a Clark Y aerofoil-section. This aerofoil has parasitic drag coefficient, obtaining from the NACA full-scale wing tunnel test result, Cdow=0.009. The reference area for this drag coefficient is the plan form wing area. 3. Fuselage drag A streamline aerofoil shape is chosen for the fuselage to accommodate the payload and produce additional lift. This fuselage has a parabolic shaped nose, a cylindrical centre section, and a parabolic shape tail. The centre section is sized to 180 millimetres in diameters and 180 millimetres long so that the rectangular payload would easily fit inside. The nose and tail sections are sized according to a percentage of the remaining length with the nose containing 25% and tail 75%. The finesses ration (d/l) of the complete fuselage is considered to be the largest diameter of 180 mm divided by the total length. An empirical equation from Hoerner (1965) is used to estimate the parasitic drag of the fuselage from the fineness ration and skin friction coefficient. It is defined by:
C dwet = C f (1 + 1.5( d / l ) 3 / 2 + 7( d / l ) 3 )
Equation 3

where d is the maximum diameter of the fuselage and l is the total length of the fuselage. The skin friction coefficient Cf is defined by Hoerner to be:

C f = 0.427 /(log(Re) 0.407)

2.64

Equation 4

For any given diameter there exists a fuselage length that will produce minimum amount of drag. Substitute Cf to Ddwet equation, the Cdof can be found. 4. Landing gear drag Drag on gear is mainly due to pressure drag. The frontal area of struts, Ss, come from detailed drawings on Robert Mfg. Inc.s website. The struts have a diameter of 12.7mm, and length of 137mm, the wheels have a diameter of approximately 80mm and thickness of 25.4mm,

which is found in White (1999) to have Cdos=0.82 based on frontal area for laminar flow at Reynolds numbers above 10000. From Hoerner (1965) m the wheels could be approximated as supercritical sphere for their drag coefficient. This coefficient had a value of Cdowh=0.1. 5. Final coefficient of drag equation When the product of all the previous drag coefficients and areas are summed, the resulting drag coefficient is defined as:
Cdo = (Cdotb * Stb + Cdoth * Stf + Cdow * Sw + Cdof * Sf + Cdos * Ss + Cdowh * Swh) Sw
Equation 5

where Cdo is the coefficient of drag on takeoff and rotation. It was important to note that the landing gear chosen for conceptual design is not retractable. Since the maximum flight range required from the competition is less than 1.5 km, and drag component is relatively less important.

Induced drag
Since the main wing is an elliptical loading distribution, the lift-induced drag can be approximated from the equation:
Cdi = Cl 2 AR
Equation 6

Takeoff and accelerated climb

The take off distances required to accelerate from rest to a speed V can be approximated by assuming constant thrust and neglecting rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Given that,

1 mV 2 sg = 2 F
Equation 7

V2 =

2W C L
Equation 8

Provided:

w=W

S
Equation 9

f =F

Equation 10

Hence,
sg = W fg C L
Equation 11

By using V=1.2Vs, and F as an appropriated mean thrust value, ground run can be calculated. However, due to the ignorance of rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, the true ground run way will greater than the estimated value. After transition the aircraft climbs steadily at an angle c, which can be assumed to remain constant, at least for a few seconds. We define the point at which the screen height is as h sc , the distance from point of lift-off is to the horizontal project of screen height is as Sa, and the total run way is defined as S=Sass. During transition there is some increase of speed and there is also a variation f lift coefficient, so that the drag does not remain constant. Nevertheless for the purpose of estimation the distance Sa, the motion of the aircraft can be reprinted adequately by specifying mean values of the speed and lift coefficient and regarding these as constants. Hence angle of climb can be described as: c=f - , where is the ration D/L in the steady climb after transition. By assuming small climb angle, Sa= Hsc/c Because the drag is not a critically important criteria in this competition, drag is simply referenced from the data sheet at an angle equals to climb angle. The propulsive efficiency ratio was defined to be the ratio of the efficiency at an instantaneous speed divided by the efficiency at the cruise speed. The power available throughout the accelerated climb is assumed to be the greater of either the power required at the cruise velocity or at takeoff. The total time required for the accelerated climb was computed using the average velocity of the climb. The performance of the aircraft in climb is directly proportional to the power to weight ratio and the lift coefficient of the aircraft. This competition requires the aircraft to carry a mass of 1.6kg, which can be considered to be dead weight, as it has no aid in improving the performance of the aircraft unlike a heavy engine for example. To improve our climb performance we must keep the weight of the airframe to an absolute minimum without jeopardising structural integrity. The only things that can be improved on weight reduction are the airframe, undercarriage and

size of radio equipment. Choosing smaller servos and receivers will result in an increase in cost and maybe underpowered control surfaces. Increasing lift coefficient is achieved by changing the dimensions of the wings and other lifting surfaces. Having a highly cambered wing can improve lift but nevertheless may result in more drag and slower flight. A symmetrical wing can have the opposite effect. Therefore a wing profile is chosen to allow for both speed and lift. A CLARK Y wing will be appropriate. Flaps are one way of increasing the lift coefficient of a wing. If a flaperon system is integrated into the wing, the climb rate of the aircraft on take off can be increased and deceleration of aircraft can be more rapidly done by allowing a slower stall speed.

Steady level flight

The drag figure during steady level flight can influence the fuel burn rate, and thus the total weight required. Assuming moment equilibrium exists, such that the 'trimmed' drag polar defines the relationship between CL and CD, a free body diagram can be drawn as follow:

This is assuming that the thrust line is aligned with the body x-axis, which is the case for the final design. The equations of motion are thus:
T cos() C D q S = 0 T sin() + C L q S = W
Equation 12

Where T = Thrust Alpha = angle of attack L = Lift W = Weight V = Aircraft's velocity vector q = Dynamic pressure, (*V2)/2 S = Wing area

The aircraft is expected to cruise at the optimum or near-optimum velocity (no airspeed indicator is available) where it is sensible to assume that W >> T*sin(alpha). The dimensional drag figure is therefore calculated as follow:
D =C D q S + W2 eARq S
Equation 13

where AR is the aspect ratio. Since engine is provided and cannot be swapped, the power required for level flight is a parameter that needs to be checked on to ensure that aircraft is actually flyable. Given that L = W during level flight, the power required can be

2 2 W 2 Pr = S SSL
Calculated as follow:

CD 3 C 2 L
Equation 14

where is the density ratio, ( at cruise altitude) / ( at sea level) It is noted that propeller is made up of airfoils itself and it will cause a certain amount of power loss, therefore the actual power (or brake power, BP) required from the engine shaft is given by:
1

BP =

Pr
Equation 15

Where p is the propeller efficiency factor, typically tops at around 0.8 to 0.9 The actual thrust in newtons created by the propeller can be predicted by the following:
Equation 16

T =

BP p V

where V is the aircraft's velocity.

Turning.
During the competition, four-banked turns would be required in each flight. In order to maximise the rate of turn, the upper limit of load factor needs to be determined.

The ration of turn is a function of load factor and velocity, and its defined as:
= g ( n 2 1)1 / 2 / V
Equation 17

The load factor is limited by the structural strength and the stalling characteristic of an aircraft. For an aircraft when the gust load requirement is satisfied there is sufficient strength to allow for a load factor up to about 2.5 or 3. For an aircraft with a stall speed Vs, flying at a fixed height with a constant speed V. N=V/Vs, and n =N^2. Thus the upper limit of load factor at a particular flying speed can be determined. Since the load factor is related to the bank angle, as show below, the maximum bank angle can be calculated.
n = (1 + tan 2 )1 / 2
Equation 18

A responsive aircraft is one of the key criteria. The aircraft is to be manoeuvred around markers and complete a 360 deg turn within the circuit. The larger the radius when turning the more time used to complete the turn. An aircraft that will manoeuvre with tight turning circles will generally have a low aspect ratio wing with relatively large control surfaces and high angles of deflection. Reducing the aspect ratio will reduce the overall lift of the wing but using a box wing design can add more lift by without losing lift due to tip vortices. Here a low aspect ratio wing that generates sufficient lift can be achieved. A box wing can allow a high roll rate due to the shortness of its wingspan when combined with relatively large control surfaces. What is wanted however, is an aircraft that can correct itself after banking, i.e. good turning stability; therefore a high top wing to generate turning stability with possibly some slight positive dihedral is desired.

Descent and landing

The landing manoeuvre is broken up into approximately the same steps as takeoff. The landing speed Vl is usually specified as 1.3Vstall. 3 seconds of free roll is always necessary for an aircraft. The landing distance required to land is defined as:

1.69Wl Sl = SC l max g[ D + (WL W ) ]

Equation 19

To obtain the quickest possible lap of the circuit we will need a fast cruise speed but a fast landing speed is unwanted. To bleed airspeed flaps can be used to create more drag and/or spoilers to create more drag. This will enable a shorter transition from cruise to landing. For an unlikely but possible power-off landing the aircraft should not have a steep glide slope. This comes back to the lift of the aircraft and the weight of the design. This ratio has to be thus if the engine cuts out the aircraft will not require a steep dive to gain speed to land and not stall in the process. Cross wind landings must also be accounted for. Aircraft with large side cross-sectional areas do not handle crosswind landings very well. This means that the fuselage area has to be redueced and one way of doing this is by using a tail boom design as only the tail operating push-rods need to be concealed. A conventional undercarriage design can most likely handle the rough landing conditions the best, as the landing strip is grass. A steerable nose wheel using the rudder servo can be incorporated for ground manoeuvrability.

Uncertainty
Since the box-wing configuration is a brand new concept, not enough resource is available. Most of the sizing to designing the aircraft is referenced from bi-planes. Because the box-wing has less drag and higher lift, thus the maximum lift to drag ratio in practical situation should be higher than that of bi-plane. For the purpose of conceptual design. We assume the MAX (L/D) to be 23.

5. Results
Based from calculations, it is found that the critical parameters are expected within the range of what is shown below. Main planform area (m^2) Total weight (kg) Maximum Load factor Wing span (m) Length
Table 3

0.159-0.22 2.5 3.3 2.5-2.8 1.1-1.2 1.1- 1.2

6. Conclusion

After considering results from conceptual design, some important conclusions were drawn. 1. Box-wing with a V-tail is the most suitable configuration 2. The weight of the overall structure is approximately 3 Kg, however, it can be reduced if we can integrate both balsa frame and foam structure 3. The best wing loading can be achieved by carefully consider the aspect ratio of the main wing 4. A better wing loading can be achieved by carefully designing the fuselage profile.