[2009]

SupervisedBy:
MSSehrishMehmood
DepartofElectricalEngineering,
HITECUniversityTaxilaCantt.
[Feb25,2009]
ThunderBolt
HITECUniversityTaxilaCantt.
TeamMembers
NisarAhmed
HarisJadoon
JabranGhani
SheikhM.Arshad
GhazalArshad
SaniaAli
DesignBuildandFly
Competition2009
FinalDesignReport


DEDICATION


Dedicated to our beloved parents and respectful
Madam Samina.
2

TableofContents
1 Executive Summary 5
1.1 Design Variables 6
2 Management Summary 7
2.1 Architecture of the Design Team 7
2.2 Technical Groups 7
2.3 Scheduling, Configuration and Document Control 9
3 Conceptual Design 10
3.1 Mission Requirements 10
3.2 Alternative Configurations 12
3.2.1 Aircraft Type 12
3.2.2 Final Configuration Selection 13
3.2.3 Geometry and Performance Charts 14
4 Preliminary Design 17
4.1 Design Parameters 17
4.2 Mission Profile Optimization Analysis 18
4.3 Performance Parameters 19
4.4 Performance Code 19
4.5 Aerodynamic Model 19
4.6 Aerofoil Selection 19
4.7 Preliminary Design Result Table 21
4.8 Performance 22
4.9 Conclusion 22
5 Detailed Design 23
5.1 Structural Stability 23
5.2 Wheels 23
5.3 External Payload Release System 23
5.4 Avionics System 24
5.4.1 Servo Selection and Placement 24
5.4.2 Electronic Speed Control and Radios 24
5.4.3 Landing Gear Systems 24
5.5 Disassembly Method 25
5.6 Drawing Package 25
5.6.1 Three Views Drawing with Dimensions 26
5.6.2 System Layout and Payload Accommodation 28
5.6.3 Structural Arrangement 28

3

6 Manufacturing Plan and Processes 29
6.1 Fuselage 29
6.2 Wings 29
6.3 Wheels 29
6.4 Rated Aircraft Cost 29
7 Testing Plan 30
8 References 31
4

1 Executive Summary

This report describes the process used to
design Thunder Bolt, HITEC University entry
2008-2009 DBFC (Design Build and Fly
Competition). The goal of the design was to
maximize the competition score, which is a
combination of the report score, the total
flight score and the rated aircraft cost (RAC).
The process of designing our aircraft and
taking it to the point of flight test consists of
the sequence of steps, as illustrated in
Figure 1.1.

The conceptual design analysis focused on
selecting the configuration that would
maximize the competition score. The
competition rules were analyzed to
determine design requirements, and to
identify the most important elements of the
RAC. It was found that for all designs, there
are three major missions. Therefore, the
airplane was optimized to perform these
three missions.

Figure 1.1

The empty weight of the airplane was seen to be the most significant contributor to the RAC; so
minimizing the empty weight was a major objective throughout the design process. The ability to
disassemble the airplane was also a factor since the airplane needed to be place in a 4 ft x 2 ft x
1 ft box at the end of each mission. A chart was used to investigate some of the possible airplane
configurations. These were narrowed down through qualitative arguments to some configurations
that were analyzed using a figure of merit (FOM) analysis. The analysis included the RAC,
predicted mission performance, qualitative scores for ground handling, internal payload storage,
external payload storage, stability and control, and manufacturability for each configuration.
Based on the FOM analysis, a flying wing configuration with vertical stabilizers was determined to
provide the highest competition score. We were faced with the following complications in the
other design configurations:
5

1). Complications are to be faced with respect to the available manufacturing processes.
2). In case of flying wing models, handling of center of gravity is very difficult.
3). In case of Pusher vs. tractor aircraft, more power is required to accomplish the mission.
Also tedious calculations are involved in this
design.

During the preliminary design analyses, the
critical design variables were determined, an
optimum design was developed, and the
design was refined with known
aerodynamic, stability and control analyses.
We decided to achieve our goal by the
following sequence.
1.1 Design variables:
The considered design parameters, which
affect the aircraft performance the most are
listed below. A baseline model was
developed using these variables.

Figure 1.2
We have got the standard values, based on the experiments and analysis, and use these values
to get the optimum design to accomplish the mission.

1). Required Geometry of the plane
2). Aspect Ratio
3). Wing Loading
4). Cubic Loading
5). Stall Speed
6). Engine Performance
7). Desired Lift
8). Drag
9). The Take off speed
10). Horizontal tail location on vertical tail
11). Wing root thickness to cord ratio
12). Wing tip thickness to chord ration
13). Type of landing gear
14). Horizontal tail root thickness to Chord
ratio
15). Number of blades

The results of the optimization led to an airplane with a wing area of 700 in, an aspect ratio of
5.5, a fuselage length of 46in and a 13x8 propeller. The detailed aerodynamic analysis led to the
selection of the NACA-6412 airfoil for the wing and the conventional tail surfaces.
In the detailed design analyses the payload system design was finalized, the final components for
the airplane were selected, and the manufacturing drawings of the airplane were generated.

6

2 Management Summary
2.1 Architecture of the Design Team
The Design Build and Fly team at HITEC University consisted of undergraduate students from
Electrical Engineering Department. There were 6 members. The team was split into a number of
technical groups with a designated leader for each. At a higher level the team was under the
supervision of four experienced members; the team leader (TL), chief design engineer (CDE),
assistant chief manufacturing engineer (ACME) and chief manufacturing engineer (CME). The
team leader was responsible for running meetings, fund-raising, procurement and other
administrative tasks. The chief design engineer kept the airplane design progressing and
delegated tasks to the other technical groups. The assistant and chief manufacturing engineers
were responsible for construction and flight-testing of the airplane. Each member of the design
team belonged to at least one technical group.
Table 2.1 shows personnel assignments and each individuals level of participation.
2.2 Technical Groups

Each technical group was assigned a leader who was responsible for getting the group to meet
the deadlines set forth by the CDE and the rest of the team. The aerodynamic group was
responsible for evaluating the lift and drag and other important characteristics for flight of the
airplane. They were also tasked with selecting the airfoils for the wing and conventional tail and
setting the wing twist. The CAD Modeling group modeled the external shape, structure and
systems of the airplane using a CAD tool AutoCAD. The configuration selection group consisted
of all the team members who were present at the first few meetings. The goal of this group was to
select the best airplane configuration to complete the specified missions.
7

Table 2.1 Personal assignment and level of contribution.

Member Name
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

G
r
o
u
p
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s

C
A
D

M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

F
l
i
g
h
t

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

F
u
n
d

R
i
s
i
n
g

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

P
r
o
p
u
l
s
i
o
n

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
a
y
l
o
a
d

D
e
s
i
g
n

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
l
e
m
e
t
r
y

S
y
s
t
e
m

Ghazal Arshad 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 1
Jibran Ghani 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3
Nisar Ahmed 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
Sheikh M. Arshad 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3
Haris Jadoon 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 3
S a n i a A l i 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2


The flight-testing group was in charge of all testing of the system test bed airplane and the
competition airplane. A very successful fund-raising drive was run by the fundraising group,
securing approximately 40,000 Rupees for use on the project from various sources, within the
university and outside. The manufacturing group was given the task for construction of the
airplane and other test articles. The payload design group worked to optimize the payload fairing
design and performed a CFD analysis. The performance and optimization group analyzed the
performance of the airplane and optimized the design to obtain the highest contest score. The
propulsion selection group was responsible for identifying and modeling candidate propulsion
systems to be applied to the airplane and analyzed by the performance and optimization group.
The report-writing group was responsible for documenting the design and writing the report. The
stability and control group was in charge of analyzing the static and dynamic stability
characteristics of the airplane and sizing the control surfaces. Structural design, analysis, and
testing of the airplane were carried out by the structural analysis and testing group. The systems
selection and testing group selected all of the sub-systems included on the airplane, including the
servos, radio, landing gear and brakes. The telemetry group was in charge of developing a real-
time telemetry and inertial navigation system to aid in flight-testing of the airplane.
8

2.3 Scheduling, Configuration and Document Control
The first task for the team was to set an aggressive, yet achievable schedule. In order to meet the
aggressive schedule, two team meetings were held each week from December through April. In
addition, each technical group met at least once a week when it had an approaching deadline.
Figure 2.1 shows the milestone chart for the design, construction and testing of Thunder Bolt.

Figure 2.1 Milestone Chart
To facilitate easy communication and document control, an email newsgroup was set up for the
design team members. In addition, the minutes of each meeting were typed up and sent to
members of the team for a record of what was discussed. Storage space was also set-aside on
the Yahoo Groups for storing team computer programs, documents, and drawings.
9

3 Conceptual Design
Due to the knowledge, gained till now, it has decided by our team that the design should be as
simple and basic as possible due to our limited experience in the field of aerodynamics and
aircraft modeling. Other factors for this consideration are cost effect, complexity of the design,
resources available and the described constraints including the climatic factor.

During the conceptual design phase, the team aimed at choosing an aircraft configuration to
optimize for performing each mission through an explicit Figure of Merit (FOM) screening
process. Multiple tail, gear, and payload configurations were narrowed using the same process.
3.1 Mission Requirements
The purpose of this contest was to design and construct an aircraft that would complete all
missions in an efficient manner. The External Payload Mission (EPL) requires an aircraft capable
of containing and dropping a payload of up to 3lb of air tube, while the Internal Payload Mission
(IPL) requires the same aircraft to fly the same mission profile with the same tube in its fuselage.
The final aircraft design will complete each mission efficiently while having an optimal rated
aircraft cost.

Mission and Design Requirements
Teams must complete the flight missions as outlined in the rules and regulations. Teams will have
a maximum of three flight attempts. A flight attempt is defined as advancing the throttle stick for
take-off or going past the two min preparation time. The best single flight score from each of two
different mission types will be summed for the team total flight score.

Payload Requirement
The aircraft must be configured to support both wing tip external payload carriage and fuselage
internal payload carriage. Each payload is a 12-inch long 3-inch PVC tube. The total payload will
be of 3 lbs weight. External payload must be carried on a point located within 3 inches of the wing
tip of the largest span wing. One payload point will be located at each wing tip.

External Payload Mission
Aircraft will begin the mission with external sensor payload packages. Aircraft will take-off and fly
one lap. Aircraft will take-off and fly one lap. After landing the aircraft will taxi to a specified
location and remotely deploy the PVC tube. After the ground crew would have done his job
aircraft will take off again and fly one lap. On landing, the aircraft must cross the take off start line
and come to a complete stop.
10


Re-Supply during Mission
Aircraft will begin the mission with two internal sensor payload packages. In this mission aircraft
has to fly. On landing the aircraft must cross the take off start line and come to a complete stop
and the grounds crew will have to reinstall the payload.

Structural Requirement
The airplane maximum weight may not exceed 55lb. During technical inspection, the airplane
must undergo upright and inverted wing tip tests at the maximum payload capacity without failure.

Airplane Dimensional Requirements
At the end of each mission the airplane must be disassembled and placed within a 1ft x 2ft x 4ft
box. The disassembly time is counted in the mission times, which dont end until the box is closed
and latched.

Take off Requirement
The maximum takeoff distance for each mission is 150 feet. The wheels must be off the runway
within this distance.

Flight Course
The orientation (direction) of the flight course will be adjusted based on the prevailing winds as
determined by the Flight Line J udge. The flight course will be positioned to maintain the greatest
possible safety to personnel and facilities. The nominal flight course is shown in the Figure below.

11

3.2 Alternative Configuration
Alternative configurations were formulated for the aircraft type, empennage, payload systems,
landing gear, and propulsion system. Configuration possibilities and FOMs were analyzed for
each section.
3.2.1 Aircraft Type
When comparing multiple alternatives several assumptions were made: the aircraft could operate
with one motor, each alternative would have similar wing lifting efficiency and fuselage length, the
maximum allowable payload could be carried, and each alternative would perform at the same
design wind speed. More detailed analysis would be necessary if one configuration would not
have appeared superior based on the FOMs.
Conventional Monoplane
A conventional configuration was used as a baseline for comparing the configurations. The
performance characteristics would be easily predicted with ample historical data available. The
design was adopted due to the simplicity and the handling of the aircraft to accomplish the
mission.
Flying Wing
A pure tailless flying wing offered lower cost due to its lack of a tail and a small fuselage. In
addition, a flying wing would offer limited structural weight and drag. However, it had poor
handling qualities and would require sophisticated augmentation to perform the optimum mission
profile.
Blended-Wing-Body
The blended-wing-body would have the same handling qualities as a conventional configuration,
but less drag due to blended intersections and a more streamlined shape. It could also have a
higher RAC due to more fuselage volume.
Canard
A canard design would allow for the horizontal control surface to not detract from the overall lift of
the aircraft. This configuration would have good stall characteristics, but be limited during takeoff.
Flexible motor setups would easily be implemented.
Bi-plane
A bi-plane configuration would be able to produce a large amount of lift with smaller wings;
however, cost is very high for multiple wings. A bi-plane would be very similar to a conventional
design with respect to flight characteristics.
The FOMs used to screen the different configurations are listed below and then used in Table 3.1
to rank each configuration.


12




Figure of
Merit
Weighting
Factor
Conventional Flying
Wing
Blended
Wing
Canard Bi-Plane
RAC
0.33 2 3 1 2 1
Takeoff
Distance
0.27 2 2 2 1 3
Handling
Qualities
0.25 3 1 3 2 2
Drag
Efficiencies
0.15 2 3 3 2 1
Total
1 2.25 2.23 2.07 1.73 1.79
Table 3.1: Overall Configuration Weighted Decision Matrix

3.2.2 Final Configuration Selection
We have the following weather/field considerations while designing different parts of the aircraft.
Factor Assumed Value
Altitude 0 ft
Pressure 14.7 psi
Temperature 15C
Air Speed 3.5 m/s
Mach Number. 1.672*(10
-2
)
Air Density 1.225 kg/m
Air Viscosity 1.785*(10
-3
) kg/m.sec

13

3.2.3 Geometry and Performance Charts
Fuselage:

Length 45.9 in
Width 6 in
Height 5 in
Cockpit Shape Rounded
Re Number 2.857*(10
5
)
Drag 2.42*(10
2
) N
C
D
6.218*(10
3
)

Wings:
Wing area is crucial for take-off with a short runway. Data found during conceptual design
showed the conceptual configuration lifting off at 150 feet with the smallest possible wing area.
This trend increases the scoring potential but causes major concerns during take-off. High wing
loading allows for faster cruise velocities but longer take-off distances. Wingspan also has a
major effect on wing efficiency.

Span 62 in
Root Chord 12 in
Tip Chord 10.5 in
CL 1.236
Re Number 71685.5
Profile Wing drag 5.712*(10^-2) N
CD 7.799*(10^-3)
Wing Induced Drag 0.1268 N
CD 9.619*(10^-3)

14

Horizontal Tail:
Tail Span 10 in
Tail Root chord 6 in
Tail tip chord 4 in
Re Number 32237.3
Tail Profile drag 1.793*(10^-2)N
Tail Profile Cd 9.489*(10
-3
)
Vertical Tail:
Height 8 inch
Bottom Chord 7 Inch
Top chord 5 inch
Vertical tail Re Number 38529.2
Vertical Tail drag 1.65*(10
-2
)N
Cd 9.081*(10
-3
)

Wheels:
Wheel diameter 3 inch
Wheel thickness 0.75 inch
Number. of wheel 3
Wheel Re Number 10769.2
Total wheel drag 1.433*(10^-2)
Wheel Cd 0.4040

From the above calculation we got the following set of results,
Required Thrust 0.1405N
Required Power 0.5122 Watt
Total drag 0.1301N
Cd total 0.4462
15


Fig. 3.1 Relative Importance of Various Factors in the RAC


Fig. 3.2 Final Concept Design
16

4 Preliminary Design
The chosen configuration from the conceptual design phase was separated into three groups:
aerodynamic, structural, and propulsion groups. Critical design parameters were selected and
studied within each group. FOMs were used to find appropriate sizes for many of the design
parameters. The mission model program from the conceptual design phase was modeled more
accurately and a propulsion performance program was created. These programs optimized the
most important design parameters, while the remainder of the design parameters where
subsequently analyzed and sized.
4.1 Design Parameters
Critical design parameters were selected within each design group. The aerodynamic group
investigated wing area, airfoil, wingspan, and fuselage and empennage size, while the structures
group investigated payload amount and boom length. The propulsion group investigated motor
selection, battery selection and number of cells, propeller pitch and size, and takeoff and cruise
power.

Wing Area: Wing area is crucial for take-off with a short runway. High wing loading
allows for faster cruise velocities but longer take-off distances.
Wingspan: Wingspan has a major effect on wing efficiency and RAC. RAC is minimized
for given wing areas as the aspect ratio is lowered, but high aspect ratio wings become
more efficient. Also, RAC is minimized with a rectangular wing making elliptical and
tapered wings highly penalized. Therefore a RAC/efficiency tradeoff must be made.
Construction, fit-in-box, and the ability to pass the wing tip loading test were other
considerations.
Airfoil: Airfoil selection is important because of its direct affect on take-off and cruise.
Three low speed airfoils were chosen based on historical data for further analysis: a high
lift airfoil, a low drag airfoil, and a more balanced airfoil. The high lift airfoil will be best
during takeoff due to its high lift coefficient, but its drag possibilities during cruise will be a
great concern. While the low drag airfoil will perform well during cruise due to its low drag
coefficients, but its low lift coefficients will be a concern during takeoff. The balanced
airfoil performed well in both cruise and takeoff situations.
Fuselage length & Empennage Size: It was desired for the entire plane length to be
less than 4 feet long so that it could fit in the box. A one-piece fuselage and empennage
would benefit the structural integrity and weight of the plane. The empennage size must
be sufficient to stabilize the aircraft. As overall aircraft length increases the RAC
17

increases. Drag decreases as the fuselage length increases and empennage size
decreases. A compromise must be made to minimize both RAC and drag.
Battery Selection and Number of Cells: Battery weight has the most effect on RAC.
The capacity of the batteries had to be sufficient to perform the mission profile while
minimizing the amount of unspent energy. A lower capacity battery would require more
cells, thus increasing voltage and RPM. A high capacity battery would complete the
mission using fewer cells, thus decreasing voltage and RPM. Minimizing the number of
batteries would lower the weight of the system, thus decreasing the RAC.
Propeller Pitch and Size: Propeller pitch and size impacts the amount of thrust
produced. A propeller with a high pitch to diameter ratio would be more efficient at higher
airspeeds than a low pitch to diameter ratio propeller. The propeller selection had to be
based on a trade-off between takeoff and flight performance.
Takeoff & Cruise Power: Takeoff and cruise power must be optimized to increase the
scoring potential of the aircraft. The power generated at takeoff would account for the
majority of the available energy from the propulsion system. The remaining amount of
energy would be consumed during cruise. The thrust at take-off must not create a current
over 40 amps or use too much energy from the batteries causing an insufficient amount
of power for cruise. Gear ratios and propeller sizes may be changes to better suit take-off
situations or cruise situations.
4.2 Mission Profile Optimization Analysis
To optimize the airplane, the first step was to select the variables that would be used to describe
a given design. The goal was to minimize the number of design variables necessary to describe
the airplane and to determine its propulsion, aerodynamic, weight, performance and cost
characteristics. The selected configuration, contest rules and intuition guided the selection of the
design variables.

Aspect Ratio 5.5
Wing span 62 inch
Wing area 700 in2
Wing tip chord 10.5 inch
Wing root chord 12 inch
Motor +Battery Weight 15 N
Propeller 13 x 8
Fuselage length 45.9 inch
Width 6 inch
Height 5 inch
Cockpit shape Rounded
Horizontal tail span 10 inch
Horizontal tail root chord 6 inch
Horizontal tail tip chord 4 inch
18

Vertical tail height 8 inch
Vertical tail bottom chord 7 inch
Vertical tail top chord 5 inch
Wheel diameter 3 inch
Wheel thickness 0.75 inch
No. of wheels 3


4.3 Performance Parameters
Lift 25 N
CL 1.23
CL max 2.24
CD 0.4462
Maximum L/D 8.2

4.4 Performance Code
The performance of the aircraft is judged by different software named; Design Foil II, Drag
Estimator version 1.5.
4.5 Aerodynamic Model
The role of the aerodynamic model was to generate a drag polar to be used in the performance
code. The drag coefficient for the airplane was calculated as a function of Reynolds number and
lift coefficient by using a method that included a build up of wing profile drag, wing induced drag,
fuselage drag and wheels drag etc. The total drag was calculated using the software, named as
Drag Estimator version 1.5.
The performance parameters along with their values are given in the above table.
4.6 Aerofoil Selection
Aerofoil plays an important role in the functioning of the aircraft. Several different airfoils types
where considered: high lift airfoil, low drag airfoil and a balanced airfoil. High lift airfoils where
eliminated due to high drag possibilities, while low drag airfoils where eliminated due to takeoff
concerns. An airfoil that was a compromise between low drag and high lift was chosen. So
NACA-6412 aerofoil was chosen. This aerofoil has the following configuration along with the data
points, generated by the FoilSim II.
19

Upper Surface

X Y P V
-0.508 0.055 101.264 39
-0.495 0.074 101.233 47
-0.469 0.092 101.226 48
-0.432 0.109 101.226 48
0.385 - 0.122 101.228 48
-0.329 0.132 101.232 47
-0.265 0.136 101.236 46
-0.194 0.136 101.241 45
-0.119 0.131 101.247 44
-0.041 0.12 101.254 42
0.037 0.104 101.261 40
0.117 0.085 101.268 38
0.194 0.063 101.275 36
0.266 0.039 101.282 34
0.333 0.016 101.288 32
0.392 -0.0050 101.294 30
0.44 -0.023 101.299 28
0.475 -0.035 101.304 27
0.494 -0.042 101.308 25

Lower Surface

X Y P V
-0.508 0.055 101.264 39
-0.509 0.037 101.326 16
-0.497 0.021 101.336 7
-0.472 0.0070 101.322 19
-0.433 -0.0020 101.313 23
-0.381 -0.0090 101.309 25
-0.317 -0.012 101.308 25
-0.242 -0.011 101.309 25
-0.156 -0.0080 101.31 24
-0.063 -0.0050 101.312 23
0.034 -0.0020 101.313 23
0.132 -0.0020 101.315 22
0.227 -0.0050 101.315 22
0.313 -0.011 101.316 22
0.386 -0.02 101.315 22
0.442 -0.03 101.314 22
0.479 -0.038 101.313 23
0.496 -0.043 101.311 24
0.494 -0.042 101.308 25


20



4.7 Preliminary Design Results Tables
Aspect ratio 5.5
Wing span 62 inch
Wing area 700 in2
Wing tip chord 10.5 inch
Wing root chord 12 inch
Motor +Battery Weight 15 N
Propeller 13 x 8
Fuselage length 45.9 inch
Width 6 inch
Height 5 inch
Cockpit shape Rounded
Horizontal Tail Span 10 inch
Horizontal tail root chord 6 inch
Horizontal tail tip chord 4 inch
Vertical tail height 8 inch
Vertical tail bottom chord 7 inch
Vertical tail top chord 5 inch
Wheel diameter 3 inch
Wheel thickness 0.75 inch
No. of wheels 3

21


4.8 Performance
Lift 25 N
CL 1.63
CL max 2.24
Cd 0.4462
Maximum L/D 8.15
4.9 Conclusions
The results predicted from the preliminary design program showed some differences from optimal
velocities and aircraft sizes predicted during the conceptual design phase. This was due to the
introduction of improved estimates for power plant efficiencies, current limits, and more accurate
algorithms for predicting drag and thrust. Some trends found in conceptual design were verified,
such as the increase in score with aspect ratio and load factor. Unlike results predicted during
conceptual design, the preliminary design program predicted that adding cells to the battery pack
would increase the total score, up to battery weights beyond the 5-lb limit.
22

5 Detailed Design
The goals of the detail design process were to select and size all of the internal components and
to integrate all aspects of the design. This included selection of all the avionics equipment, a
detailed weight breakdown, design of the payload system, structural sizing, and 3D solid
modeling of the airplane.
5.1 Structural Stability
The fuselage of the aircraft was decided to be build of BALSA wood. The reason for this is its
high strength to weight ratio. Along with this, we have our wings; made of Thermo pole material
and they are strengthened by the coating of Fiber Glass on them. Also, the spars present in the
wings to control the ailerons may provide strength to the wings.
5.2 Wheels
The wheels are to be placed under the fuselage, near to the propeller end to support the load of
the body and to reduce the frictional effect of the ground during the take-off and landing
phenomenon.
5.3 External payload Release System
Since the loading of the payloads onto the wing hard-points is timed during the Senor Reposition
Mission, the payload reloading mechanism had to be quick. Mounting the payloads on the bottom
of the wings made the most sense since the payloads would need to be dropped at specific
locations on the runway. The part of the payload mount attachment housed in the wing needed to
be light to keep the airplane weight down. The part of the payload mount attachment fixed on the
payload could be as heavy as need be as long as the total payload weight did not exceed three
pounds. The entire mechanism needed to be reliable enough to be used many times without
failing, and strong enough that the payloads would not break off the airplane or drop during flight
or ground handling. The clamps for the payloads are located within 4 inches distance from the
wings root chord. These are basically designed, following the concept of gates. A separate
channel is dedicated for the operation of releasing the payloads.
23

5.4 Avionics System
The avionics system for the aircraft needed to be as reliable as possible while having little
negative effect on the performance of the aircraft. This meant that the components needed to be
light and be small so that they could fit inside aircraft and not produce any unnecessary drag.
5.4.1 Servo Selection and Placement
The lightest servos that provided the required torque were chosen for each respective
component. Futaba 3015 motor was selected for the propulsion system. This motor has light
weight and can produce required thrust. It has 1000 revolution per minute per volt. CS-12 MG
servo were selected for ailerons, rudder, and nose wheel steering mechanism, a Futaba S3102
servo for the brake actuator, and Futaba S3102 servos for the payload release mechanisms. The
servos for the ailerons and rudder were placed with the wings and tails respectively, and used a
Rotary Drive System (RDS) to actuate the control surface. Since the RDS is built into the wing or
tail during the construction process, the entire structure is stronger and provides for more reliable
control surface actuation. The servos to actuate the ailerons and rudder were placed at the span-
wise center of the control surfaces directly behind the spar.
5.4.2 Electronic Speed Control and Radios
The electronic speed control (ESC) and radio receiver needed to be as light as possible while
providing the required performance. Since the aircraft is powered by a brushless motor that draws
approximately 40 amps out of 4 cells, the ESC needed to handle a steady 40 amp draw and
bursts of up to 50 amps at the supplied voltage. The lightest ESC that fit these requirements was
the Tower Pro 40.
The receiver radio chosen was made by Futaba with a 7-inch long micro receiver antenna. It is a
4-channel FM receiver that has a programmable failsafe mode, as required by the contest. During
testing it showed no loss of range till 2km. It was chosen because one made by W-Fly show
noticeable loss of range over 500m. In addition, the 7-inch long antenna fits completely inside the
fuselage and does not produce drag like a traditional receiver antenna by trailing behind aircraft.
5.4.3 Landing Gear Systems
As mentioned in the conceptual design section of the report, a tricycle landing gear configuration
with brakes was selected for its good ground handling characteristics. Most of the available
commercial brake systems would have been able to provide enough performance, but were too
heavy since they were made for scale jets. The three lightest systems were a magnetic system
made by Kavan, a pneumatic system made by BVM, and a hydraulic system made by Bob
Fiorenze. A differential braking system would have required two master cylinders, two high torque
24

servos, and extremely precise calibration in order for the airplane to be able to track straight while
braking. In addition, the high torque servos would weigh considerably more than the standard
servos used throughout the rest of the aircraft. The nose wheel gear selected was a dual strut
system made by Fults out of 5/32 music wire that weighed 2.3oz. Adding a wheel and a standard
servo for steering brought the total nose wheel steering system weight to 4.0 oz.
5.5 Disassembly Method
It is quite clear from the rules that the airplanes are not to fit in the box in the assembled form. So
for this, an appropriate mechanism was to be designed for the assembly of the entire system. We
have two separate wings for the aircraft, which are to be assembled with the fuselage. To handle
this situation, we have the screws system attached with the wings and the body of the airplane.
5.6 Drawing Package
Drawings of the airplane were made in the AutoCAD 2006 modeling program. The following
assembly drawing package does not include the full set of manufacturing prints that was used to
build the aircraft. The assembly drawings include:
Thunder Bolt Top View page 27
Thunder Bolt Side View page 28
Thunder Bolt Front View page 28
Structural Layout and Payload Accommodation Drawing page 29
Final Structural Arrangement Drawing page 29
25

5.6.1 Three View Drawing with Dimensions
Here is the top View of Aircraft with necessary Dimensions.

26

Side View of Thunder Bolt with dimension looks like:-



Thunder Bolt from front Side:-

27

5.6.2 System Layout and Payload Accommodation
Picture of system layout and payload accommodation of Thunder Bolt with its parts name is
given there.

5.6.3 Structural Arrangement
Final 3D structural arrangement drawing of the aircraft is:-

28


6 Manufacturing Plan and Processes
The selection of the materials and processes for the manufacturing of the airplane were important
throughout the design process. It was important that the airplane be built in a reasonable time
with materials and methods that the team could afford and were familiar with. It was also
important that the airplane be kept light and strong to increase its performance. A scheduling
approach was used to develop the manufacturing plan to accomplish these goals. With all these
considerations in the mind, we decided to use the Balsa wood, Thermo pole material and
fiberglass to build the aircraft. The details of the whole idea are described below for different
components of the aircraft.
6.1 Fuselage
Fuselage has been built of Balsa wood using the truss design considerations to support the whole
structure of the body and the load of the wings on the fuselage. This involves the coating of the
Monokote on the body. The conventional process of the woodcutting was used to develop the
truss structure.
6.2 Wings
Wings are decided to be made of the thermo pole material; which will be further strengthened by
the covering of fiberglass and the support of the Balsa wood strips at the lower ends of the wings.
The strength of the wings can also be increased by the insertion of aluminum spar/rod.
6.3 Wheels
Wheels were selected to be made of carbon fibers, as these are considered excellent to decrease
the friction and to carry the load of the whole body.
6.4 Rated Aircraft Cost
The cost of the rated Aircraft is shown below.
Radio Control (4-Channel) with Servos Rs. 13500/-
Motor Rs. 5000/-
Battery Pack Rs. 4500/-
Electronic Speed Control Rs. 6800/-
Balsa Wood Rs. 3000/-
Monokoat Rs. 2500/-
Propeller +Spinner Rs. 1000/-
Aluminum Rods Rs. 500/-

29

7 Testing Plan
To validate analytical data and calculations; testing becomes the most important aspect of
developing the aircrafts design. New designs can be instantaneously confirmed or invalidated.
Due to the importance of testing, we have used different software to test the aircraft.
30

References
Aerodynamics by Leslie R. Parkinson
(The Macmillan Company. New york)

Home-Built Aircraft by David B.Thurston
(The Macgraw Hill Book Company, Inc)

Aircraft layout and Detail design by Newton H.Anderson
(The Macgraw Hill Book Company, Inc)

Aerodynamics for Engineers (3rd Addition) by J ohn J .Bertin & Micahel L.Smith
(The Prentice Hall international, Inc)

Flight Dynamics Principles by M V Cook
(J ohn Wiley & Sons Inc., New York)

Airplane Performance, Stability and Control by Courtland D.Perkins & Robert E.Hage
(J ohn Wiley & Sons Inc., New York)

Airplane Flight Dynamics And Automatic Flight Controls by J an Roskam
(Design, Analysis and Research Corporation, USA)

Design of Aircraft (2
nd
Indian Reprint) by Thomas C. Corke
(Pearson Education, Inc. Singapore)

31