Team 2-Final Report

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
AAE451
THIOKOL FINAL DESIGN REPORT
10/31/06
Team 2
Chris Selby
Jesse Jones
Xing Huang
Tara Trafton
Matt Negilski
Neelam Datta
Ashley Brawner
Michael Palumbo
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction..........................................................................
2
Chapter 2: Aerodynamics .....................................................................
3
3
2.1 Drag Model.................................................................................
4
2.2 Lift Model....................................................................................
4
2.3 Design Parameters Selection.....................................................
4
2.3.1 Taper Ratio.........................................................................
4
2.3.2 Main Wing Airfoil Selection.................................................
5
2.3.3 Tail Airfoil Selection............................................................
6
2.3.4 Dual Boom Design Affect....................................................
2.3.5 Wing Planform....................................................................
7
7
2.3.6 Aspect Ratio........................................................................
Chapter 3: Propulsion............................................................................
9
Chapter 4: Dynamics and Controls........................................................ 14
4.1 Tail Sizing................................................................................... 14
4.2 Control Surface Sizing................................................................ 16
4.3 Static Stability............................................................................. 16
4.4 Trim Analysis.............................................................................. 17
4.5 Feedback Control System........................................................... 18
Chapter 5: Structures and Weights........................................................ 20
5.1 Introduction................................................................................. 20
5.2 Load Factor................................................................................. 20
5.3 Wing Analysis and Design.......................................................... 21
5.3.1 Bending Analysis................................................................ 21
5.3.2 Twisting Analysis................................................................ 22
5.3.3 Final Wing Design and Construction Method...................... 22
5.4 Fuselage and Tail Design........................................................... 23
5.5 Catia Model................................................................................. 23
Chapter 6: Conclusion 24
Chapter 7: Lessons Learned and Vehicle Summary............................. 25
7.1 Flight Test................................................................................... 25
7.2 Propulsion System.. 26
7.3 Structures. 27
7.4 Design Suggestions 28
ii
7.5 Lessons Learned 28

Appendix A............................................................................................. 29
Appendix of Code............................................................................. 30
Appendix B............................................................................................. 34
List of Symbols.................................................................................. 35
Appendix of Equations...................................................................... 36
Appendix of Figures.......................................................................... 38
Lifting Line Derivation....................................................................... 42
Appendix of Code............................................................................. 43
Appendix C............................................................................................ 50
Appendix of Tables........................................................................... 51
List of Symbols.................................................................................. 56
Appendix of Code............................................................................. 58
Appendix D............................................................................................ 65
List of Symbols.................................................................................. 66
Tail Sizing......................................................................................... 68
Static Stability Derivatives................................................................. 72
Trim Diagram Equations and MATLAB Code................................. 72
Feedback Control System................................................................. 77
Appendix of Code............................................................................. 79
Appendix E............................................................................................. 83
V-n Diagram Walk-through............................................................... 91
Comparison of Exact Airfoil Structural Properties with Elliptic
Approximation................................................................................... 92
Center of Gravity............................................................................... 93
Appendix of Tables........................................................................... 94
Internal Layout of TFM-2.. 95
Appendix of Code............................................................................. 96
Appendix F... 112
Basic_Constants.m [updated]. 113
iii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Abstract
This mission called for the design of a high-speed aerial vehicle in the form of a remotecontrolled aircraft. There were two missions that the aircraft was required to perform. The first was
considered the design mission. This mission required the aircraft to takeoff, climb to an altitude of
20 feet, dash at high-speed for 500 feet, loiter for five minutes and return home at an economical
speed. The second mission was to demonstrate an aircraft endurance of seven minutes. Several
constraints were placed on the design. The first constraint was that the flight was outdoors,
typically the senior design aircrafts are flown indoors at Mollenkopf (a Purdue athletic facility).
Secondly, an area for payload must be incorporated and allow for a volume of 30 in3 with a weight
of one pound. The aircraft was required to use an electric motor (battery powered) within a budget
of $185. The aircraft was also constrained to have a Dutch roll mode damping ratio of at least 0.8.
This constraint also required that if a feedback controller was needed, that the feedback control
system used implement two feedback gains (off and nominal) which were selectable by the pilot.
The aircraft was also required to have four distinct performance properties. They were a take-off
distance of less than 120 feet, take-off with minimum climb angle of 35 degrees, descent angle of
5.5 degrees, and stall velocity of at least 30 ft/sec. In addition to meeting these constraints, the
aircraft must also be robust to crashes. The final constraint was implemented through the budget
of $250. This amount did not include radio-control gear, speed controller, and rate gyro.
The mission specifications for this aircraft were required to be completed in 14 weeks. The
design process was set to have an 11 week period and the build and test process set to 3 weeks.
Design Summary
Figure 1: 3-View of TFM-2
Design Specifications
Total length (in)
53.24
Wing span (ft)
60
Wing root chord (in)
16.47
Wing tip chord (in)
7.42
Tail span (in)
18
Tail height (in)
6
Weight (lbf)
5.5
Stall speed (ft/sec)
30
Top speed (ft/sec)
107
For initial sizing purposes a constraint diagram was constructed. The constraint diagram
shown as figure 1.1, shows the optimism of the group early in the design process. For this diagram
the cruise speed was estimated at 150 ft/sec. The constraint diagram provided an estimation of
the power loading and wing loading. The design point was found to have a wing loading of 1.26
lbf/ft2 and power loading of 3.0 lbf/hp. This corresponded to a desired horsepower of 1.8. Also the
wing area was estimated at 4.3 ft2. In addition to building a constraint diagram, the weight of the
aircraft was also estimated. The initial weight was estimated at 5.42 pounds using the MATLAB
code in Appendix A. Initial sizing was found to be a useful starting point for the design process.
Figure 1.1: Initial Sizing Constraint Diagram
Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS
2.1 Drag Model
The mathematical models used to model the lift and drag forces are nondimensionalized
by the lift and drag coefficients. These coefficients are presented below for clarity.
L
D
CL
CD
1
1
V2 S
V2 S
2
2
Lift Coefficient
Drag Coefficient
The method chosen for estimating the drag polar of the entire aircraft comes from L.
Nicolai, references 1 and 2. This method was chosen because it outlined both a viscous drag
model and a laminar drag model in more detail than the usual parabolic drag model. Nicolai
approximates the drag using equation 2.11. This takes into account that having a cambered airfoil
will generate its minimum drag as some non-zero value of CL.
The different K and K values are the inviscid and viscous drag factors respectively. K is
the familiar term defined in equation 2.12. The K term is not as simply defined as K. The viscous
drag factor is defined from the 2D airfoil section data because in 2D, drag-due-to-lift can be
neglected. The assumptions made are that CL,min Cl,min where CL,min and Cl,min are the lift
coefficient and section lift coefficient at minimum drag respectively. To find K, the value of (ClCl,min)2 is plotted against Cd. The relationship is almost linear as shown in figure 2.11. The slope of
a linear fit to the lower range of (Cl-Cl,min)2 was taken as K because the aircraft will be operating at
these lower sectional lift coefficients for high speed flight.
A drag build-up method was used to compute the minimum/parasite drag. This method is
outlined in the book by D. Raymer, reference 3 Chapter 12, and in the white paper by Nicolai,
reference 1. This method estimates the subsonic parasite drag of each aircraft component by
modeling each component as a flat-plate. The flat-plate has a know skin-friction drag coefficient
and a component form factor is added to the flat-plate estimation. The form factor estimates the
pressure drag due to viscous separation. An interference effect is used on components such as
the fuselage for the fuselage/wing interface. Equation 2.13 below is taken from Raymer, equation
12.24 and shows the calculation for the estimation of CD,min. The flat-plate skin friction coefficients
are a function of the local Reynolds number. The turbulent and laminar skin friction coefficients are
modeled in the Nicolai white paper, figure 3 reference 1. The figure is reproduced in figure 2.12.
Using the characteristic length of each component, a local Reynolds number can be found
and the component skin friction coefficient can be computed. Then, the component form factor is
applied along with any interference effects. Other terms not shown in equation 2.13 are the
various fudge factors described in Raymer, Chapter 12 reference 3. For example, Raymer
suggests a form factor about 10% higher than the one described in his text for a tail surface with a
hinged rudder. So, the tail surface would have and extra 1.10 factor multiplying the other drag
component terms such as Cf,c, FFc, Qc, and Swet,c. Once the individual drag components are
computed, they are added together and divided by the reference area which is taken to be the wing
planform area.
2.2 Lift Model

The lift coefficient model is taken from Roskam, reference 4, who expresses the lift
coefficient as equation 2.21. A Matlab code call FlatEarth.m solves for the coefficients in
equation 2.21 using Roskams definitions defined in equations 2.22-25.
The stall speed requirement determines the CL,max needed for steady level flight. At stead
level flight lift is equal to the weight of the aircraft. CL,max can be determined by setting the lift
equal the weight and substituting Vstall as V into the definition of CL. A similar procedure can be
done to find CL,min for steady level flight but instead substituting Vmax as V. These two lift
coefficients are thus set by the mission requirements and the design speed and are shown in
equations 2.26 and 2.27.
The conversion between 2D and 3D CL,max was taken from Raymer reference 3 and is
shown in equation 2.28. The structures and the aerodynamics team decided that a quarter chord
sweep of 0 degrees was best. This decision produced simplifications in the computations for both
teams. The conversion between 2D and 3D CL,min was found through lifting line theory. The
simplifying assumption made was that the lift distribution was elliptical. This is desired because the
induced drag is minimized with an elliptic lift distribution as proven by Prandtl. Also, this greatly
simplifies the derivation for the lifting line theory results. In the end, the results of lifting lift theory
predicts equation 2.29. The derivation of the lifting line theory is presented in Appendix B: Lifting
Line Derivation. Equation 2.29 was used to find the 2D Cl,min. This value was then used as a
parameter for airfoil selection.
The method used to determine the CL,max due to the flaps comes from Nicolai reference 2.
The mathematical model used to represent CL,max is shown in equation 2.210. The CL,max in
equation 2.210 is the change in CL,max due to flaps and is determined by equation 2.211 where K
is an empirical sweep correction found from equation 2.212.
An example on how to use these equations is presented for clarity. Assuming that the
weight of the aircraft is 5.5 lbf, the planform is 4.75 ft2, the design speed is 92 ft/sec, and an aspect
ratio of 5, CL,max needs to be at least 1.04 from equation 2.26. A clean wing with a NACA 1408
airfoil will produce a CL,max of 0.847. Thus, at this speed a CL,max of 0.193 is needed for steady
level flight. With the chord of the flaps configured at 20% MAC and a flap deflection of 30, Cl,max
is about 1. Solving equation 2.211 for SWF sizes the span of the flaps. SWF will have to be a
minimum of about 1 ft2. This means that each of the two flapperons on the wing must affect about
0.5 ft2. This also means that the span of each flap must be a little over 0.5 ft since the mean chord
is approximately 1 ft.
2.3 Design Parameters Selection
2.3.1 Taper Ratio
A taper ratio of 0.45 was recommended by Raymer, reference 3 Chapter 4. This taper
ratio is shown through the use of lifting line theory to most accurately produce an elliptical lift
distribution along the wing with a drag-due-to-lift less than 1% higher than the ideal. Prandtl
proved in the early 20th century that elliptical lift distribution produces the least amount of induced
drag. Reducing the drag on the aircraft by using a 0.45 taper ratio will decrease the thrust required
for all speeds, allowing a greater maximum speed.
2.3.2 Main Wing Airfoil Selection
After some preliminary mission analysis, it became evident that the high speed dash
design point would be the most constraining aspect for the airfoil selection. Stated differently, a
high speed wing which has low lift and low drag can use flaps to achieve higher lift coefficients for
the stall constraint. However, a high lift airfoil cant easily be modified to achieve minimal drag at
small lift coefficients. Additionally, the loiter and economic cruise requirements will likely be
irrelevant, as a power plant sized for the high speed mission should have more than enough
energy to meet the endurance requirements of the loiter and economic cruise on a separate run.
Having set the high speed cruise condition as the primary design point, the task was to find
an airfoil with minimal drag in the range of Cl,min calculated using equation 2.27. There are,
seemingly, an endless number of airfoils to choose from; and there isnt time to analyze them all.
In the end, several NACA 4-series airfoils were analyzed as they are a staple of aerodynamics and
plenty of experimental data is available for them. Also, a NACA 6-series airfoil was examined for
similar reasons to the above but also due to its design for high speed / low drag. The Martin
Hepperle series of airfoils were examined as likely candidates because many of them are designed
for model pylon racer airplanes, which share the low Reynolds number high speed mission of this
design. Finally, the team also made an effort to create an R.T. Jones type airfoil that would meet
the design needs. The R.T. Jones airfoil design was conducted utilizing a code created by Dr. J.
Sullivan, Professor, Purdue University. To ascertain the performance behavior of these various
airfoils, an airfoil design tool called XFOIL (created by Mark Drela) was utilized. The viscous
subroutine of XFOIL was utilized for these calculations with the following parameters.
Table 2.31: XFOIL viscous parameter identification
Reynolds Numer
500,000
Mach Number
0.15
9
e
Transition Criterion
The XFOIL results for some of the more likely candidates are seen in figure 2.31 in Appendix B.
As can be seen in this figure, there were several airfoils that met the design requirements. After
discussion of the XFOIL results and prospective airfoils, it was decided that the NACA 1408 would
be the chosen airfoil for the main wing. This decision was based on the NACA 1408s drag bucket
aligning most closely with the aircrafts high speed lift coefficient range, as well as the abundance
of experimental data available for the airfoil. The experimental data was expected to be crucial in
determining a dependable Cl,max value.
2.3.3 Tail Airfoil Selection
Keeping with the theme of designing for high speed cruise, the primary consideration for
tail airfoil selection was to minimize drag. Some aircraft designs utilize a lifting horizontal tail
section to more efficiently counter thrust and loading moments or to supplement the lift of the main
wing. However for the sake of simplicity, as a result of the infant condition of the loading and thrust
designs, and under the presumption that the loading and propulsion design would attempt to
minimize the moments at the high speed cruise condition, the horizontal tail section was
predetermined to be symmetric. As is usually the case, the vertical tail was also predetermined to
be symmetric. One other significant constraint on the tail airfoil selection is that they had to be
thick enough for structural and manufacturability purposes. The aerodynamics of drag would
dictate an extremely thin airfoil at zero angle of attack, but this would lead to a wing that was
impossible to manufacture and/or structurally inadequate.
Using rough geometric scaling, a preliminary chord estimate of six inches was agreed
upon for the tail sections; and after consulting with the structures design group, a minimum
thickness of 6% was established implying a thickness of less than half an inch. From this point, the
strategy was to analyze the drag performance of various symmetric airfoils.
The obvious candidates for symmetric airfoils around 6% thicknesses were the NACA
0006, 0007, and 0008. The team also made an effort to create an R.T. Jones type airfoil that
would meet the design needs. The R.T. Jones airfoil design was conducted utilizing a code
created by Dr. J. Sullivan, Professor, Purdue University. Drag behavior of the various candidate
airfoils were again calculated using XFOIL. The viscous subroutine of XFOIL was utilized for these
calculations with the parameters listed in table 2.31. The calculations from XFOIL are plotted in
Appendix B as figure 2.31 and figure 2.32. Figure 2.32 is simply a close-up of the smaller angles of
attack.
A first attempt was to make the vertical tail and horizontal tails flat plates. Upon analyzing
this configuration in XFOIL, the flat plate was discovered to have enormous drag penalties
compared to the other airfoils being tested as seen in Appendix B, figure 2.33. The next
consideration was discerning the likely angle of attack range for the tail sections at the high speed
cruise condition. It was determined that the vertical tail should be relatively easy to attach to the
aircraft at a fairly accurate zero angle of attack. Also, there should be no significant steady state
forces or moments that would drive the vertical tail from zero degrees angle of attack. In fact, zero
degrees angle of attack should represent a stable equilibrium for the vertical tail. This implies that
the best airfoil for the vertical tail is the one with the least drag at very small angles of attack which
is arbitrarily chosen to be less than 2. Figure 2.32 shows that the NACA 0006 airfoil and the
Jones (6.8%) best met this criteria. The NACA 0006 airfoil was chosen because again, there is a
plethora of NACA airfoil data available.
The horizontal tail required some alternative considerations. The first consideration is that
from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult to mount the horizontal tail precisely at zero
degrees angle of attack due to the lack of a well defined longitudinal axis. Also, due to the
likelihood of unbalanced wing and loading moments at the high speed cruise condition, the
horizontal tail would probably have an incidence at some small angle of attack other than zero and
at most 5 degrees. For this reason it was desired that the horizontal tail section have a low drag
coefficient over a range of angles of attack. Again, looking at the XFOIL results in Appendix B,
figure 2.32, it is apparent that the Jones (8%) was the best choice for the horizontal tail. The R.T.
Jones / Joukowski parameters that define this airfoil are presented below in table 2.32.
Table 2.32: Jones (8%) Airfoil Definition Parameters
Parameter
Value
xc
-0.0617
yc
0
xt
1
yt
0
2.3.4 Dual Boom Design Affect

The horizontal tail span was set due to a rather unconventional requirement. The aircraft
configuration utilizes a dual boom tail with the booms connecting to the main wing. Thus, the span
of the tail affects the main wings flapped area. Specifically, having flaperons inboard and outboard
of the boom mounting locations would be mechanically more complex and likely cause more
interference drag than added lift. The picture at the end of this sub-section illustrates this
unconventional layout and dual boom affect on flapped area.
Since the main wing section has minimal camber, a large CL,max will be required of the
flaps. Having a large tail span will limit the span of the flaps due to the boom mounting. On the
other end, having a tail span that is relatively small will decrease the control authority of the
horizontal tail and also cause interference drag between the booms and the fuselage as illustrated
in figure 2.34. After consulting with the dynamics and controls group and performing some
preliminary calculations on tail sizing, the horizontal tail span was set at 18 inches. The
dimensions of the vertical tail as well as the area of the horizontal tail were determined via
dynamics and control considerations discussed later in the Dynamics and Control Chapter of this
report.
Limited flap span
Interference drag
Figure 2.34: Dual boom tail configuration affect
2.3.5 Wing Planform

The wing planform was first determined from initial sizing. From the initial sizing of the
aircraft, a wing loading was determined. An overall weight of the aircraft was then guessed and
from the wing loading, a planform area of the wing was found. The final sizing of the planform was
calculated from equation 2.31. The final planform was found based on updated weight estimates,
the value of CL,max that the wing and flap system could obtain, and the stall speed mission
requirement.
2.3.6 Aspect Ratio
In surveying several sources of relevant literature, two values are found to be directly
related to AR. The simplest of these is the relationship between AR and induced drag. Induced
drag is often modeled according to equation 2.32. As seen from equation 2.32, the induced
component of drag increases with aspect ratio for a given lift coefficient. The next relationship is
with parasite drag which is defined as CD,min in equation 2.13. At first glance, equation 2.13 does
not appear to provide a relation with AR. However, the flat plate skin friction coefficient model is
purely a function of Reynolds number seen in figure 2.12 of Appendix B; and Reynolds number is
a function of the characteristic length. For the case of a wing, this characteristic length is the
chord. This means that for a given planform area, changing aspect ratio directly affects the friction
coefficient of the wing. Since the wing is the largest single component in terms of wetted area of
the aircraft, this effect is significant. Using the above description of CD,min, equation 2.13 can be
rewritten as equation 2.33. In this equation, c is inversely proportional to AR and friction coefficient
is inversely proportional to Reynolds number and the rest of the terms are directly proportional.
This leaves CD,min to be positively correlated with aspect ratio.
At this step, the equations show that induced drag decreases with AR and increases with
lift coefficient, while parasite drag decreases with AR. Since total drag is the sum of these two
drag types, there is no clear answer to what the best AR is for an aircraft. Using drag as a
measure of merit for an aspect ratio trade study, the primary variables of interest are AR and lift
coefficient. This means that an expression is needed for CD in terms of CL and AR. In equation
2.32, Oswalds efficiency factor presents itself as an undesirable independent variable. However,
Raymer provides an empirical expression for e as a function of AR and LE sweep, equation 2.34.
Holding the sweep constant gives the desired result shown in equation 2.34.
The expression for parasite drag in equation 2.33 is seemingly, very complex, but by
holding all other geometry (besides AR) fixed, the equation reduces to purely a function of AR.
This leaves equation 2.36 as the expression for drag which meets the initial variable/measure of
merit statement. The drag coefficient is now in a form that can be analyzed using a Matlab script
and the results are graphically displayed in a more comprehendible manner in Appendix B, figure
2.35.
The trends of figure 2.35 in Appendix B are consistent with intuition. The induced drag
becomes more prominent at higher lift coefficients and so larger AR values lead to reduced drag at
high CL values. The design of issue, however, is primarily about speed. The aircraft will cruise
with a lift coefficient of about 0.1. At this low end of the lift coefficient spectrum, the parasite drag
dominates. The chart clearly depicts the answer to the important design question of what AR to
use: for the cruise design point, there is no optimal AR, the smaller the better. This trend is shown
explicitly in Appendix B, figure 2.36.
And so, the results of the study demonstrate that to minimize the lift of the plane in the
effort to maximize speed the airplane must be constructed with the smallest feasible aspect ratio.
This statement contains some vagueness. Obviously, AR cant be zero. So what is small enough?
The answer must account for the increased complexity of wing analysis below an AR of about 3. In
the end, the aspect ratio is set by the span of flaps necessary to achieve the customers stall speed
requirement as well as the limitations due to transportability concerns. Thus the span of the wing
will be small enough to fit in the vehicle used to transport the aircraft to its flight facility. The aspect
ratio was chosen to be 5.
References
1. L. M. Nicolai. (2002). Estimating R/C Model Aerodynamics and Performance. [Electronic
version]. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Co..
2. L. M. Nicolai. (1975). Fundamentals of Aircraft Design. Dayton, Ohio: University of Dayton
3. D. Raymer. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. (4th Ed.). Reston, Virginia: AIAA.
4. J. Roskam. (2001). Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls. (3rd Ed.).
Lawrence, KS: DARcorporation.
5. Sankaran, Venke, 2005 Fall: AAE 334 Lecture Notes, Purdue, 2005.
Chapter 3: PROPULSION
The design of the propulsion system began with a conceptual design meeting. Two main
propulsion systems were considered; a conventional propeller system and a ducted fan system.
By creating a list of pros and cons for each system, the group came to a unanimous decision. The
electric ducted fan (EDF), while unconventional, was the most intriguing. The EDF system is
relatively new to the remote control hobby aircraft world. While it can be found in use today, it is no
where near as popular as the conventional propeller system.
The ducted fan maybe new to the hobby world, but it has been around in the aviation
world for many decades. A ducted fan is essentially a propeller inside of a circular shroud or duct.
The purpose of the shroud is to eliminate the negative effects that occur on the tips of a propeller
and increase efficiency. When comparing a propeller and fan that create the same amount of
thrust, the fan will be smaller, have more blades, and operate at higher revolutions per minute
(RPM).
The main benefits of a ducted fan for this design include landing technique, direct drive,
and appeal. Thanks to the high static thrust that is typical of an EDF, a hand launch is feasible. A
hand launch removes the necessity of landing gear, landing gear retracts, and runway steering.
This greatly reduces the drag and the amount of time and effort spent in designing for takeoff and
landing. A hand launch was chosen as the method of launching for the design. The landing will
have to be a belly landing; which will require added structural reinforcements on the bottom of the
aircraft but should be simpler than designing for the point loads applied by landing gear. Due to
the comparatively smaller diameter of a fan, a motor is capable of spinning the fan at a higher RPM
than a propeller. Because the desired RPMs are high, there is no need for a gearbox. An EDF
costs a great deal more than a propeller, but the cost of landing gear and a gear box, which is now
unnecessary, balances this cost. While a ducted fan is unconventional and presents an added
challenge, the appeal and performance promise to exceed the negatives.
As mentioned before, EDFs are still uncommon in most hobby marketplaces. In fact, very
few are capable of handling the power required to travel at this designs high speeds. The average
ducted fan is very cheaply made and can only handle a fourth of the horsepower required for this
mission. Upon researching available fans, only four were deemed acceptable. Those fans are
listed in table 3.1. Upon further research into the world of EDFs, only the Wennmacher Modell
Technik (WeMoTec) brand of ducted fans had any information of performance. According to
popular opinion of RC aircraft hobbyists, they are the best model aviation ducted fans available for
their prices. Kontronik, a German manufacturer of brushless electric motors, has performance data
of the WeMoTec fans and their motors posted on their website (reference 1). The WeMoTec brand
of fans is also readily available for purchase from many distributors, something the other brands of
fans cannot claim.
Manufacturer
Model
10
Diameter
Weight
Max RPM
Cost
[ in ]
[ lbs ]
[ RPM ]
[$]
Wemotec
Midi Fan
3.5
0.231
35,000
$74.95
Wemotec
Mini Fan 480
2.72
0.132
45,000
$53.90
Great Planes
Hyperflow
2.23
0.081
49,000
$30.00
VASA
VasaFan 65
45,000
$60.00
2.6
0.077
Table 3.1: Ducted Fan Canidates
This reduces the fans for consideration to only the WeMoTec models. The first is the Mini
480 model and the second is the Midi model. The fans are nearly identical but differ in diameter
and blade count. The Midi fan has a larger diameter hub as well. The larger hub allows for a
larger, typically more powerful, diameter motor. By using the data from Kontronik, a relationship
between RPM and exhaust velocity was established; see Appendix C figure 3.1. A relationship
between thrust and exhaust velocity squared was also established, which can be found in
Appendix C figure 3.2. By using equation 3.1, and the relations established above it was possible
to calculate thrust available throughout a range of speeds. Thrust required to maintain steady level
flight is equal to drag; see equation 3.2. The speed at which thrust available no longer exceeds
thrust required (or drag) is the maximum theoretical speed. For the Midi and Mini 480 models,
those plots can be found in Appendix C figures 3.3 and 3.4. Both of the mentioned plots assume
the fans are spun at their maximum RPM.
While the research was underway on fan performance, a battery solution was stumbled
upon. Thanks to the advice from a local hobby store specialist, an affordable solution was found.
Currently, Lithium Polymer (LiPo) battery packs are the most desirable solution on the market;
however they are the most expensive. A breakdown of typical hobby application batteries can be
found in Appendix C table 3.2. With the budget constraint, even the cheapest batteries in table 3.2
are unreasonable. Thanks to an employee at Hobby Town USA (reference 2), who redirected the
design team to a company named A123 Systems (reference 3), a high performance battery
capable of the performance required and within the budget was found.
The batteries the Hobby Town USA employee redirected the teams attention to are of
Lithium Ion chemistry. Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) cells perform similar to LiPo cells, but are far less
dangerous. LiPo batteries are known to explode or combust when not taken care of properly. LiIon cells are nearly as expensive as LiPo cells. The breakthrough came when it was discovered
that DeWalt, a popular power tool manufacturer (reference 4), uses A123 Systems Li-Ion batteries
in their cordless drill batteries (reference 5). These cordless drill batteries can be found on the
market for $169.99 Retail. Upon researching into the availability of these drill batteries, an
available battery was located for a discounted price of $115.00. These cordless drill batteries
contain ten A123 Systems Li-Ion cells. Compare the price of $11.50 per cell for the A123 Li-Ion
cells to LiPo cells, which cost an average of $25.00 per cell. To further reduce the price of these
batteries, the cost of the DeWalt battery was split with another design team. Each team received 5
Li-Ion cells for a total cost of $57.50. An extensive guide for converting the DeWalt battery into a
RC hobby battery can be found at the website cited as reference 6. The specifications of the A123
Systems Li-Ion cells can be found in table 3.3.
11
A123 Systems' Lithium Ion Cells

Voltage per Cell
3.6 V
Max Continous Current
70 Amps
Max Surge Current
120 Amps
Capacity
2300 mAh
Weight per Cell
0.16 lbf
Cost per Cell

$11.50
Table 3.3: A123 Systems Lithium Ion Batteries
With the batteries already chosen and only two fans to analyze, the selection of a motor was a
simple one. The code TestDesignAircraft.m, which was received from Professor Andrisani, was
edited to calculate various system values for a ducted fan system. The code was originally
designed for a propeller to maximum endurance. The code was altered to design for the high
speed mission. The code may be found in the code Appendix C under code 3.1. This code is
written in MATLAB.
By iterating the design process, it was possible to find a Kv and highest speed at which
only 5 Li-Ion cells were required by each fan. A generic motor with a varying Kv was used by the
altered code TestDesignAircraft.m to find a Kv that would bring the number of Li-Ion cells required
to 5 for both fans; the results from this optimization process can be found in Appendix C table 3.4.
A cost-effective motor capable of the desired performance from the WeMoTec Mini 480
ducted fan is difficult to find; only one motor was found to match these specifications. The HET-RC
Typhoon 2W-20 EDF brushless motor is the only candidate; the motors specification can be found
in Appendix C table 3.5 (reference 7). When compared with the WeMoTec Mini 480 data from
Appendix C table 3.4, it is apparent the motor meets the requirements. Any of the required values
that exceed the motors specifications are considered acceptable because they will only be used
sparingly; the high speed dash will be for only a few seconds. This motor appeared to be the only
motor on the market capable of the performance and within a reasonable cost range. Upon
contacting the only distributor of this motor located in the USA, the team was informed the motor
was unavailable and would be so for a long time.
With the Typhoon motor out of the picture, it was obvious the WeMoTec Midi Fan was the
only remaining path to follow. The performance specifications found in Appendix C table 3.5 for
the Midi Fan are not easy to achieve. No motors on the market were found to be capable of
handling the current necessary to produce the required torque to achieve maximum RPM. By
stepping the RPM down about 15%, the current necessary became an achievable number. A
motor manufactured by Electrifly (reference 8) was found to match the requirements; the motor is
called the Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300. The motors specifications can be found in table 3.6.
Motor
Ammo 36-50-2300
Kv
2300
Max Voltage
18
60 Amps
Max Surge Current
100 Amps
Weight
0.35 lbf
Cost
$79.99
Table 3.6: Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300 Brushless Motor
12
With the WeMoTec Midi Fan running at 85% of its maximum RPM it still achieved a similar
top speed as the Mini 480 Fan at 100% RPM. While the Midi Fan setup costs a little more, the
desirable Mini 480 Fan system is not available. The Midi fan is far less efficient than the Mini 480
fan. The team settled to run at a low efficiency to achieve a high performance under budget
system. The final propulsion system thrust curve can be found in figure 3.5. The rest of the final
systems high speed specifications can be found in table 3.7. Table 3.8 contains the maximum
endurance mission operating conditions. Designing for maximum speed has provided the system
with plenty of juice to achieve the desired endurance time of 7 minutes.
Figure 3.5: Final Propulsion System Thrust Curve

Propulsion System at Max Endurance Operation Conditions
Fan
Battery
Motor
WeMoTec Midi Fan
Ammo 36-50-2300
Operating RPM
16,000 RPM
Aircraft Velocity
47 ft/s
Endurance
10.1 min
Voltage Required
Current Required
7.4 V
19.9 A
Table 3.7: Final Propulsion High Speed Specs

Propulsion System at High Speed Operation Conditions
Fan
Battery
WeMoTec Midi Fan
Operating RPM
Aircraft Velocity
30,000 RPM
Endurance
Motor
2.1 min
107 ft/s
Table 3.8: Final Propulsion Max Endurance Specs
Ammo 36-50-2300
Current Required
Voltage Required
73.5 A
16 V
13
References
1. Kontronik Drives. "Kontronik Downloads." Fan Measurements. 22 April 2003. Kontronik Drives.
22 September 2006 <http://www.kontronik.com/index2e.htm>.
2. http://www.hobbytown.com/
3. http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html
4. http://www.dewalt.com/us/core/
5. Webster, Mel. "A123Systems Unveils Lithium-Ion Battery Technology that Delivers
Unprecedented Levels of Power, Safety and Life." A123 Systems News 2 November 2005.
5 October 2006 <http://www.a123systems.com/html/news/articles/051102_pr.html>.
6. Kauffman Ph.D. , Sid. DeWalt 36V Technology (A123 Systems). 22 August 2006. 14 October
2006 <http://slkelectronics.com/DeWalt/index.htm>.
7. WarBirds Rc. HET-RC - Typhoon EDF 2W-20 (700 Watt). . 14 October 2006
<http://www.warbirds-rc.com/Store/hett-edf2w20.html>.
8. Electrifly. Electrifly - Ammo In-Runner Brushless Motors. . 14 October 2006
<http://www.electrifly.com/motors/gpmg5105.html>.
Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS
14
Chapter 4: DYNAMICS AND CONTROLS

Analysis of the dynamics and controls for the TFM-2 was completed in several steps. The
first task was to determine the dimensions of the tail geometries for the aircraft. Team 2s design
called for an unusual configuration featuring twin vertical stabilizers and one horizontal tail attached
to the fuselage via booms extending from the wings. Next, the control surfaces were sized. Then,
a check of all static stability control derivatives was performed. Following this, a trim diagram was
constructed. With the aircraft sized, a feedback control system was designed to meet the mission
specifications for the Dutch roll mode.
An important tool for analysis used throughout the Dynamics and Controls Chapter was
the use of Prof. Andrisanis Flat Earth Code. This course-provided MATLAB code involves a
great deal of computation based on the size of the aircraft. The code is executed by running seven
steps in order upon completing the file BasicConstants.m (this file defines all vehicle constants that
are needed to compute stability and control derivatives). The first step calculates the aircrafts
aerodynamic and mass properties. The second step trims the aircraft for the desired speed and
altitude. The third step runs a Simulink model to simulate a 6 degree of freedom aircraft with
nonlinear equations of motion. The fourth step plots the results of the nonlinear simulation and
was not used during analysis. The fifth step linearizes the aircraft system found previously during
nonlinear analysis. The sixth step sets up linear models for the longitudinal control system design.
The seventh step sets up linear models for the lateral control system design.
4.1 Tail Sizing
For tail sizing, a preliminary sizing method was used from Raymer reference 1 using the
Tail Volume Coefficient method (Class I sizing). This is a historical approach in that the volume
coefficients are based on aircrafts that are similar to the teams design. Class I sizing would allow
for a preliminary estimation of the vertical and horizontal tail areas needed. This method led to a
horizontal tail area of 0.8159 ft2 and a vertical tail area of 0.3300 ft2.
The next step was to size the tail using the Class II Method by producing X-plots as
proposed by Roskam (reference 2). In order to do this, longitudinal and directional X-plots were
produced based on functions of the tail areas. An important decision was made at this point to
place the center of gravity in the longitudinal direction at the wings quarter-chord. In addition to
this, it was also noted that if this could not be accomplished, it is desired that the center of gravity
be in front of the quarter-chord. This ensures that there is sufficient horizontal tail area for the
aircraft. Another complexity for the tail sizing was the twin-tail configuration and the need for
sufficient total vertical tail area. Table 4.1 summarizes the results of using this method. Figures
4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the X-plot method.
Area (in2)
Span (in)
Chord (in)
Aspect Ratio
Horizontal Tail
90
18
5
3.6
Table 4.1: Tail Sizing Results
Vertical Tail
60
6
5
1.2
15
Horizontal Tail Sizing - Longitudinal Stability

0.8
0.7
0.6
Xac
X per Cw
0.5
0.4
Static Margin = 18.1%

0.3
Xcg
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
SH (ft )
Figure 4.1: Longitudinal X-plot Horizontal Tail Sizing

Vertical Tail Sizing - Directional Stability
0.2
0.15
0.1
-1
-1
Cnbeta (rad )
Cnbeta=0.102 rad
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
SV (ft )
Figure 4.2: Directional X-plot Vertical Tail Sizing
0.25
0.3
16
4.2 Control Surface Sizing

For the sizing of control surfaces, a historical approach was used for the elevator and
rudder. The aerodynamics portion of the team had previously sized the flaperons due to the stall
speed constraint. In order to gain perspective on how to historically size the elevator and rudder,
the Raymer book was consulted (reference 1). Raymer suggests that both the elevator and rudder
extend 25-50% of the tail chord and a span that extends from tip to tip of 90% of the span. It was
then at this point that varying the size of both the elevator and rudder were evaluated to observe
the effectiveness of both. To easily compute the elevator effectiveness (Cme) and the rudder
effectiveness (Cnr), the Flat Earth Code was consulted.
The elevator was sized first at 25% of the horizontal tail chord. The span of the elevator
was set to 2/3 of the horizontal tail span. An elevator sized with a chord of 1.25 inches and a span
of 12 inches has an elevator effectiveness of -1.2805 rad-1. The suggested range from the Flat
Earth Code (reference 5) is -1 to -2 rad-1.
Rudder sizing was sized such that the chord was 90% of the vertical tail chord. This was
due to the desire to only implement one rudder on the twin-tail configuration. Also, the span was
set to roughly 92% of the span to avoid rudder interference with the horizontal tail. The rudder was
sized with a chord of 4.5 inches and span of 5.5 inches and has a rudder effectiveness (Cnr) of 0.035 rad-1. This value is close to the desired range as suggested by the Flat Earth Code of -0.06
to -0.3 rad-1. This rudder effectiveness calculation was based on a conventional tail configuration
and for the purposes of this design showed a reasonable approximation of the yawing moment
coefficient due to rudder deflection.
4.3 Static Stability
In order to ensure that the TFM-2 would be stable in flight, calculations of the aircrafts
static stability was calculated. The longitudinal static stability was first addressed to ensure that the
aircraft has a sufficient amount of horizontal tail. Then the lateral-directional static stability was
addressed by checking the weathercock stability to check that the aircraft has enough vertical tail
volume. Also the effect of dihedral was computed as another measure of the lateral-directional
static stability. In addition to the longitudinal and lateral static stability check, a check of control
surface sizing was to compute the control derivatives of each surfaces effectiveness.
In order to ensure that each stability derivative was sufficient for flight, the TFM-2 was
compared to the MPX-5. The MPX-5 was a small remote controlled model aircraft that was
designed by Mark Peters for his masters thesis. All values of the TFM-2 static stability derivatives
were found to be sufficient for the high-speed flight. Table 4.2 summarizes parameters necessary
for static stability.
Cm
Cn
Cl
Cla
Cme
Cnr
TFM-2
-0.602
0.102
0.007
0.242
-1.280
-0.035
Table 4.2: Static Stability Derivatives in rad-1
MPX-5
-1.049
0.057
-0.055
0.114
-2.318
-0.070
17
4.4 Trim Analysis

A trim diagram was produced to ensure that the aircraft would be trimmable at all
anticipated flight conditions with elevator deflection. The diagrams were produced using the
method outlined by Roskam (reference 2). For the TFM-2 the incidence of both the wing and
horizontal tail was set to zero degrees.
Cm = 0
Xcg forward
1.2
Cm = 0
Xcg nominal
Cm = 0
Xcg aft
CLmax
1
0.8
= 7o
0.6
CL
0.4
= 3o
0.2
-0.2
0.3
= -1o
0.2
0.1
0
Cm0.25c
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 4.3: Trim Diagram for TFM-2
Figure 4.3 shows the trim triangle. The triangle is seen below the red line which indicates
the maximum lift coefficient and between the two center of gravity (CG) lines (forward and aft).
The multi-colored diagonal lines represent the effects of different elevator deflections. Typical trim
diagrams account for a shift in the CG due to mass loss. However with an electrically powered
aircraft there will be minimal mass losses during flight, so the analysis was made for two flights;
one with payload and one without. From this diagram the range of elevator deflection is -2 to 12
degrees for trimming was determined. The typical range is typically between -20 and 20 degrees.
This suggests that the elevator is somewhat oversized; however it does not interfere with the TFM2s desired flight operations.
18
4.5 Feedback Control System

Using the Flat Earth Code through Step 7, the yaw rate transfer function was obtained. It
is from this transfer function that the Dutch roll damping ratio was obtained. The open-loop transfer
function was found to be as follows:
R ( s ) 12.0563( s + 7.144)( s + 0.759)( s 0.4551)

=
r ( s)
( s + 6.75)( s 0.169)( s 2 + 1.535s + 16.83)
From this equation the Dutch roll mode damping ratio was found to be 0.187. This value was not
sufficient in that it did not meet the mission specifications of Dutch roll damping ratio of at least 0.8.
At this point, a feedback controller must be integrated into the aircraft. In order to do this, the servo
controlling the rudder, rate gyro, and a control law transfer function must be incorporated with the
yaw rate transfer function. The servo transfer function used for this feedback controller was given
in reference 6 for a Futaba S-148 Servo. The rate gyro was assumed to be 1. And the control law
transfer function was determined to be a simple negative gain through the use of MATLABs
SISOTool. In order to obtain a damping ratio for the Dutch roll mode of at least 0.8, a control law
gain of -0.4 was chosen. This gain corresponds to a Dutch roll mode damping ratio of 0.823, which
meets mission specifications. Figure 4.4 depicts the final control system to be used to control the
yaw rate feedback controller. For the integration of the determined control low gain, the rate gyro
will be properly set to desired gain of -0.4. Through the use of SISOTool the root locus of the
feedback control system was found. Stability of the system was confirmed through evaluation of
the closed-loop pole locations (all appear in the left hand plane of the root locus). A plot of the root
locus and the corresponding closed-loop poles can be found in Appendix D figure 4.4.
Futaba Servo
950
s + 40 s + 950
2
-0.4
Aircraft Transfer Function

r [rad]
12.0563( s + 7.144)( s + 0.759)( s 0.4551)

( s + 6.75)( s 0.169)( s 2 + 1.535s + 16.83)
Control Law and Rate Gyro Gains

Figure 4.4: Feedback Control System for Aircraft
Yaw
rate
[r/sec]
19
References
1. D. Raymer. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. (4th Ed.). Reston, Virginia: AIAA.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Co..
2. J. Roskam. (1985). Airplane Design: Parts I-VIII. Ottawa, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corporation.
3. J. Roskam. (1977). Methods for Estimating Stability and Control Derivatives of Conventional
Subsonic Airplanes. Lawrence: Third Printing.
4. Brandt, S.A., Stiles, R. J., Bertin, J. J., and Whitford, R. (2004). Introduction to
Aerospace: A Design Perspective. (2nd Ed.). AIAA.
5. MATLAB Flat Earth Code
6. AAE 451 D&C Sourcebook given by Professor Andrisani
7. -- Peters, Mark E. Development of a Light Unmanned Aircraft for the Determination of Flying
Qualities. Masters Thesis, 1996, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN.
Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS
20

5.1 Introduction
The dual boom design necessitated by the ducted fan propulsion system introduced structural
complications not present in a more traditional configured aircraft. Throughout the design process,
decisions were continually influenced by manufacturability and cost of production concerns. An
initial survey showed that a fiberglass and epoxy covered foam construction was capable of
meeting the structural demands while maintaining a light weight aircraft. Classical structural
analysis techniques and laminated plate theory were used in the design of the aircrafts structure.
A model created in CATIA was used extensively for weight analysis which included component
placement and locating the center of gravity. CATIA was also vary valuable in calculating
moments and products of inertia and producing accurate drawings for production.
5.2 Load Factor
The load factor, n, is a critical design parameter for aircraft structural analysis because the
entire structure scales with load factor. The lower the load factor is, the lighter the aircraft structure
can be made. With the current mission of high-speed flight, light weight became an even more
critical goal than in the case of a more general purpose aircraft.
The load factors for flight at maximum lift conditions, in level-flight turn, and in climb as a
function of vertical turn were examined to determine the appropriate design load factor. Equations
yielding the instantaneous load factors as a function of the given flight conditions are in Appendix
E: V-n Diagram Walk-through. Graphical representations of these results are presented in
Appendix E figures 5.2.1 5.2.4.
Based on realistic aircraft handling characteristics, input parameters were limited for each flight
regime. The load factors were then extracted from figures 5.2.1 5.2.4. At maximum lift, velocity
was said not exceed 50 ft/sec. This led to a maximum load factor of 3.3. In level turning flight,
bank angle was not to exceed 75 degrees. This resulted in a maximum load factor of 4. In
climbing flight, a vertical turn radius of 25 feet was considered to be reasonable. With
maneuvering speed limited to 60 ft/sec, this resulted in a load factor of 5.
The permissible diving speed limits the V-n diagram, and this is typically specified at 20%-50%
higher than the maximum level flight airspeed (Peery and Azaar Reference 1). For this design it
was set at 125 ft/sec based on a dash speed of about 100 ft/sec.
The combination of the above analyses for total flight regime loading is shown below in figure
5.2.1.
21
Figure 5.2.1: V-n Diagram
Below 60 ft/sec, it is not possible to exceed the limit load factor in positive load maneuvering, and
similarly for 45 ft/sec in negative load maneuvering, because the wing will stall prior to reaching
these conditions. Above these speeds, it is necessary for the pilot to exercise discretion as it is not
practical to design an aircraft structure for enduring excessively violent maneuvers.
Historically, a safety factor of 1.5, which was based on the ratio of ultimate tensile load to
yield load of 24 ST Aluminum alloy, has been used. Using this safety factor, the final load factor
used in all analyses was determined to be 7.5.
5.3 Wing Analysis and Design
For both the bending and twist analyses, the wing was discretized into ten sections, as
shown in figure 5.3.1 of Appendix E. Bending and polar moments of inertia of the wing cross
section at each station were found using XFOIL. The fiberglass and epoxy composite skin was
assumed to bear all of the wing loading such that the bending and polar moments of inertia were
functions only of skin thickness. A first attempt was made to approximate the airfoil section as an
ellipse of approximately the same thickness ratio as the actual airfoil. This was determined to be a
poor approximation and is discussed in Appendix E: Comparison of Exact Airfoil Structural
Properties wit Elliptic Approximation.
5.3.1 Bending Analysis
The lift was modeled as an elliptic distribution, congruent with the 0.45 taper ratio. This is
shown with the discretized lift in figure 5.3.2 of Appendix E. Bending moment as a function of span
(figure 5.3.3) was then found from this lift distribution. Using equation 5.3.1 and the yield stress of
E-glass/epoxy composite, the maximum stress was used to find the necessary thickness of the
22
wing skin through the bending moment of inertia, which is a function of skin thickness. Deflection
was found using equation 5.3.2. The MATLAB code containing this bending analysis is shown in
the Appendix E.
5.3.2 Twisting Analysis
First, the maximum torque about the quarter chord due to the lift distribution was found
using equation 5.3.3. The torque in the equivalent force system about the shear center of the
cross section was lower than the result of equation 5.3.3 as the pitch down torque due to Cm was
opposed by the pitch up torque of the lift. However, this result was used as the extreme for a
conservative analysis. The torque distribution due to aerodynamic loading is shown in figure 5.3.4
in Appendix E.
The dual-boom tail design presents structural analysis issues not inherent in conventional
aircraft design. The tail loads must be transferred via the booms and born by the wing as opposed
to the fuselage. These loads are significant when considering control surface deflection at high
speeds. In order to analyze this contribution to twist, a torque due to the force on the horizontal
stabilizer was included at the boom station. With the maximum aerodynamic loading conditions on
the tail, this torque, with its large moment arm, was dominant in the twisting analysis. The total
resultant force can be seen in figure 5.3.5.
Twist deflection was then found using equation 5.3.4. J, the polar moment of inertia, is a
function of thickness. As total twist was constrained to be less than 1 degree in the design
requirements, thickness could then be solved for from equation 5.3.4 via expressing the polar
moment of inertia as a function of thickness.
5.3.3 Final Wing Design and Construction Method
A number of different weighted E-glass cloths were examined as possible skin materials.
Thicknesses were not available for the lighter weight cloths, so data was extrapolated from the
known thickness to weight relations. These results are summarized in figure 5.3.6. The lighter
weight cloths are easier to work with and soak up less resin than the heavier weight cloths.
In all cases, the maximum allowable twist was the governing design constraint. Therefore,
it was desirable to have the greatest shear modulus possible. A +45o/-45o type of laminate is often
used to provide greater shear rigidities in composite structures, so this type of lay-up was
investigated. Classical laminated plate theory was used to find the equivalent moduli of the
laminates.
Between the booms, where maximum stiffness is desired, the skin analysis resulted in the
requirement of three plies of 2 oz E-glass cloth in a [45/0/45] lay-up. Two plies of 2 oz E-glass
cloth were used in [0/45] configuration outboard of the booms. The resin system used was the 30
minute EZ-Lam system. This configuration had a maximum tip twist of -1.04 degrees and a tip
deflection of 0.0032 inches.
The wing employed a NACA 1408 airfoil, with a span of 4.97 ft, and a taper ratio of 0.45
with root chord at 1.353 ft and tip chord at 0.6125 ft. The cross-section quarter chords were all
aligned so that the quarter chord sweep is zero degrees. Flapperons began outboard of the booms
and extend to the wing tips. The wing geometry was hot-wire cut from foam in two pieces, and
then joined together with the boom structure. Balsa blocks shaped to the local airfoil and
embedded in the foam were used for the boom integration and as hard point mounts for the
fuselage and motor/duct assembly. Flapperon pushrod sleeves were placed in the foam and flush
with the surface before glassing the entire wing.
23
5.4 Fuselage and Tail Design

The fuselage was modeled by using two airfoil shapes. Vertically, a nonsymmetrical,
modified NACA 1308 was used, and horizontally, a symmetrical, modified NACA 0006 was used.
As suggested by the aerodynamics team, a smooth fuselage decreased drag dramatically and
allowed for better flow into the duct. This general limitation allowed for the modifications of the
airfoils used in order to fit the majority of the components within the front of the fuselage for center
of gravity considerations. The construction was similar to the main wing, but due to the complex
geometry, a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine was used to cut two foam halves. A
balsa sheet was used to join the foam halves and later for hard point mounts for servos, batteries,
and payload when the foam was partially hollowed out. Also, 3 oz satin weave E-glass and epoxy
was used for the skin due to its ability to match complex curves.
The tail was sized by the dynamics and controls team. The two vertical tails each had a
span of 6 inches, a chord of 4 inches, area of 24 square-inches, and an aspect ratio of 1.5. The
horizontal tail has a span of 18 inches, a chord of 5 inches, an area of 88.56 square-inches, and an
aspect ratio of 3.66. The horizontal tail was sized with the intention of placing the center of gravity
at the wing quarter chord. Also, the horizontal tail was placed at the top of vertical tails in order to
minimize any flow interference with the ducted fan. The construction was similar to the main wing,
with a hot-wire cut foam core covered in 2 oz E-glass and epoxy and embedded balsa for hardpoint attachments.
The dynamics and controls team set the distance requirement from the root chord trailing
edge to the leading edge of the tails at 18 inches. With the front ends of the booms located at 20%
of the local chord from the leading edge, the booms had to be 36 inches in length. They are
located 9 inches from the center of the aircraft along the span. Carbon composite arrow shafts
were readily available and met the light weight and stiffness requirements; therefore, they were
used for this application.
5.5 CATIA Model
The CATIA model offered many contributions to the analysis and design of the aircraft. It
allowed for visualization of the completed aircraft and for the opportunity to exercise intuition of
proportionality and aesthetic appeal. Accurate wetted areas were able to be found for drag
analysis. Component weights were assigned and a total aircraft weight was found. The center of
gravity was able to be calculated and components placed accordingly. It was located 2.78 inches
behind the root leading edge and 1.101 above it. The moments and products of inertia were also
output from the model. They are summarized in the table 5.5.1 below. Production drawings and
data for the CNC machine were also obtained from the CATIA model (Appendix E figure 5.5.1).
Table 5.5.2 in Appendix E: Center of Gravity presents the component weights and postions.
Ixx [slug.ft^2]
Iyy [slug.ft^2]
Izz [slug.ft^2]
0.111078
0.132622
0.240218
Ixy [slug.ft^2]
Ixz [slug.ft^2]
Iyz [slug.ft^2]
0.000127154
0.00188893
0.00E+00
Table 5.5.1: Moments and Products of Inertia
References
1. D. J. Peery and J. J. Azaar. (1982). Aircraft Structures. (2nd Ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill Co.
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION
24
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION
With this aircraft, Team 2 set out to design a high speed aircraft that would be
easy to fly and meet the customers mission specifications. A total of 2205 man hours
was estimated to have been put into the design and fabrication of this vehicle. The
engineering costs including overhead would cost approximately $220,500. The total
fabrication cost of the airplane is $507 which includes the price of the speed controller
and other items which are free and/or outside the teams budget. The actual budget of
$250 has been exceeded by approximately $50 to a total of $300, but compared to the
man hour cost and actual worth of the plane, is insignificant. The end result of all the
work is an airplane that is expected to have a top speed of 107 ft/sec and fly at least seven
minutes for the endurance mission. The performance of this aircraft will be demonstrated
at McAllister airfield in Lafayette, IN on the 21st of November.
ISO view of TFM-2
Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND VEHICLE SUMMARY
25
Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND

VEHICLE SUMMARY
Table of Constants
Span Horizontal tail [in]
Span Vertical Tail [in]
2
Surface Aera Vertical Tail [in ]
Span Elevator [in]
Chord Elevator [in]
Span Rudder [in]
Chord Rudder [in]
Location of H-tail [in]
Desgin
18
6
60
12
1.25
6
4.5
6
Actual
17.5
9
90
15
2.25
7
3.25
9
7.1 Flight Testing

The aircraft passed all flight readiness review considerations with the exception of some
concerns regarding the tail and control surfaces. First, though Sean (the pilot) believed the control
surface sizing to be adequate, professor Andrisani urged the team to increase the size of the
elevator. Professor Andrisani stressed that on take-off, the slow airspeed combined with the
forward pitching thrust moment would demand a large compensation by the elevator. If the
elevator was in fact too small, the plane would crash, nose first, immediately after launch. The
team accepted the recommendation, to error on the side of safety, and increased the elevator
chord by about 40%. The next issue was regarding the gap between the main wing surfaces and
the attached control surfaces. Due to the gap it was recommended that the team cover the hinge
line with packaging tape to minimize the effect of the gap (this is a common RC model airplane
technique). There was also some concern regarding slop in the flapperon connections. This issue
was addressed by more rigidly fixing the sheathes of the flexible control cables. The final issue
was excessive flex of the tail. After the review, the team decided to make the tail more rigid by
using small pieces of balsa wood as angle braces where the vertical stabilizers met the horizontal
tail.
The team attempted its first flight test on Monday morning. Unfortunately it became
quickly apparent that the plane was under-powered and never successfully climbed out from
launch. Launch #1 was smooth but quickly settled to the ground in a graceful belly landing. It was
suggested that perhaps the hand launcher wasnt running fast enough and/or let go too soon of the
aircraft. The second launch was faster, although slightly less stable. The pilot had adequate
control to recover the airplane from the unstable launch. The plane settled close to the ground but
continued to fly in ground effect. Shortly after launch (about 3 seconds) the pilot decided to
terminate the flight as the plane was not quickly climbing out of ground effect and there were low
obstacles in its flight path. The throttle was reduced and the plane made another graceful belly
landing. Launch #3 was in a different direction, to provide the plane the longest amount of room to
climb out of ground effect. The launch was smoother, but slower this time (similar to the first
launch) and quickly settled to the ground. The pilot tried to continue the take off from the ground,
26
but the aircraft simply scooted along the ground. The fourth launch was very unstable. The
aircraft was released at a very high pitch attitude. The pilot was able to correct the pitch, but the
aircraft still stalled. The plane crashed to the ground nose first from a height of about 6 feet. After
the nose hit, the tail of the plane dropped to the ground. At this time the vertical tails separated
from the tail booms. After launch #4, it was obvious that repairs would have to be made before
further flights could be attempted. In the post flight evaluation, the propulsion design group came
to the consensus that the propulsion system didnt seem to be performing to design. As such, the
team split into two groups upon returning to the lab. One group concentrated on the repairs that
had to be made to the tail while the other worked on testing the propulsion system. After setting up
the ducted fan in the wind tunnel and conducting a quick test, it became apparent that the system
was not performing as designed which well be discussed in the section 6.2.
A second flight test took place Monday evening and the launch was not particularly fast,
but was smooth. The plane leapt into the air with little effort. The aircraft was climbing out stably
for about 5 seconds before the motor cut out. The aircraft made a smooth decent and graceful
belly landing. It was determined in the post flight evaluation, that it was a setting in the speed
controller combined with the high current draw of the system that had led to the engine cutting out.
The propulsion group experimented further with the system and had what they believed to be a
successful system going into Tuesdays flight.
The third and final flight test took place Tuesday morning. The launch was fairly slow and
smooth as before and again leapt into the air. The plane climbed out quickly. The pilot leveled off
and flew two turns in a pattern around the field. The airplane appeared stable, maneuverable and
quick. However, after 20 seconds of flight the engine cut out. The pilot glided the plane for a lap
around the field before approaching to land. The approach was going smoothly until about 4ft off
the ground, when the plane suddenly pitched forward and landed nose first. Upon approaching the
aircraft the team realized that the fuselage had failed and was unrepairable.
The aircraft proved itself numerous times in this mission. Though the plane had two
serious crashes, neither could have been prevented by having landing gear, as the crashes were in
a severe nose first/down attitude. The aircraft proved itself to be stable and have adequate
command/control authority. The underpowered hand-launch attempts made the success of the
control system very apparent. The planes aerodynamic design appeared to be successful. The
plane was quick and maneuverable under power. It also demonstrated a smooth, controlled, and
quite prolonged glide capability. The foam/fiberglass wing construction proved adequate and very
durable. Ultimately however, it must be pointed out that the fuselage and tail sections should have
been more durable. The ducted fan proved itself as a very effective, clean looking, and cool
propulsion system type. The team remains convinced, from the design results and flight testing,
that provided a more appropriate battery/motor combination, the ducted fan design would have
allowed the TFM-2 to dominate the competition.
7.2 Propulsion System
The propulsion system proved to be the most disappointing and difficult area of the build
process. While the team was aware of the difficulties and possible shortcomings, the system
performed below even the worst case scenarios the team had prepared for. The integration of the
propulsion system was an unknown going into the build phase, but proved to be rather simple.
The ducted fan itself was a beautiful system for the teams design. The ducted fan unit
outperformed our original design estimations. Originally, this system was estimated to produce 4.4
lbf at full throttle at static conditions. The system was placed in a wind tunnel for testing, and when
compared with the design results the system was outperforming. The system exceeded
27
expectations, but it never achieved its maximum expected thrust value. The fan surpassed
expectations at low RPM, but never reached its maximum RPM.
A major breakthrough occurred when a Whatt-Meter was purchased. A normal multimeter is rated for 10 Amperes of continuous current, since the design called for upwards of 80
Amps, a multi-meter was useless. The Whatt-Meter was capable of 70 Amps of continuous
current which gave a very close to maximum throttle reading. The Whatt-Meter was capable of
reading Voltage, Current, Power, and Milli-Amp-Hours simultaneously. This was extremely
beneficial in analyzing the performance of the power system. As it turns out, when drawing high
amperages, Lithium-Ion batteries voltage drops extensively. The original design code handed out
to the class to analyze battery performance never included a section for high amp drawing
systems. While the code indicated 5 cells, each at 3.7 volts/cell and 80 amps being drawn from
them would be sufficient, it was found that at 80 amps, each cell was only producing about 1.5
volts. The 1.5 volts/cell decreased quickly until it reached 1 volt/cell, at which time the speed
controller shut off the batteries to prevent damaging them. When the plane was launched for the
first time, with 5 cells of Li-Ion batteries, it was operating at about 8 volts total; the original design
called for 18 volts (this explains the weak take-off).
Luckily, another team who split a pack of ten Li-Ion cells with our team abandoned their
batteries all together. Those scorned cells were salvaged and incorporated into an 8 cell pack
which was ultimately used on the final days flight. With more cells, the amps were not as high,
likely around 70 amps, and the voltage was around 14 volts. This is still a far cry from the 18 volts
the original design called for. The worst case scenario that was planned for by the propulsion
division of the team was 15 volts. The plane could still fly at 14 volts; however it was dangerously
close to the cut-off limit of the speed controller. About 1 minute into the flight while the speed
controller was limiting the voltage to maintain the cut-off limit of the cells, it turned off the power
altogether. This is a feature the speed controller uses to save batteries. Had the speed controller
just maintained the batteries at the cut-off limit, the system would have been fine. Due to the fact
the speed controller is programmed to hold at the cut-off limit for only a little while and then turn off
the power, the system gave out a little over a minute into the flight.
In conclusion, the ducted fan system selected could have competed against the propeller
systems. The system was ultimately doomed due to the high amperages required to spin the fan
so fast. The speed controller arrived very late in the build phase, and with more time to learn about
the features of the speed controller, it would have been possible to program it accurately and have
a successful flight. The ducted fan is a competitive choice, but due to the propulsion budget, it is
not feasible. The system requires many batteries and a motor with a low motor constant (Kv). The
system was compromised and fewer batteries and high Kv motor was selected to appease the
budget. This proved to be the issue that doomed the propulsion system.
7.3 Structures
The construction technique used was that of foam core with fiberglass skin. Pink
expanded polystyrene construction foam was used for the cores of the wing and horizontal and
vertical tails, which were cut using a hot wire made at the beginning of the build phase. Plywood
templates were made for the root and tip airfoils, which were wrapped around their circumferences
with aluminum tape and held to the foam using nails and double sided tape. Much practice was
required to produce satisfactory results with the highly tapered wing sections. The fuselage and
duct cores were made using the CNC machine and closed cell foam. The density was only eight
percent more than the pink foam, and it produced highly superior results in both time required for
machining and surface finish.
28
The fiberglass used for the wing and horizontal and vertical tails was 2 oz plain weave,
using a 30 minute EZ-LAM laminating epoxy (http://www.acp-composites.com/). The multiple
layers on the wing were given time to cure overnight before applying the next layer. The fuselage
was covered with 3 oz satin weave as it is more adept at shaping to complex geometry than the
plain weave. Surface finish was obtained through fine grit sanding. The fiberglass skin technique
worked well; however, it is recommended that the fiberglass method be practiced and that a weight
estimate be liberal since the actual weight didnt match the predicted weight.
7.4 Design Suggestions
With respect to the design phase of this project, there are a few things that this team has
suggested that needs more attention. First, when designing a model aircraft, one should be very
liberal with amount and weight estimates of glue, epoxy, resin, and other materials included in
construction that are more than likely not included in the initial model. These things add a
considerable amount of weight, and changes had to be made near the end of the construction
process in order to reduce total aircraft weight as a result.
Another suggestion involves the computer-aided design of the aircraft. Although it is
difficult to build an assembly of the model with more than one person, the individual components
can be built by different people working together. This would take less time and allow for a more
detailed design. In the case of this team, if more people had worked on the model, it could have
allowed for enough time to include hard points into the design and to run more structural and
aerodynamic analyses. It is very difficult to do this if much of the model is created by one person
alone before someone else joins him/her. There are many ways to create and constrain models,
and the order in which these are done affects the ability of any outside party (other team member)
to make any necessary changes to the model.
7.5 Lessons Learned
Plan to get trained on the CNC machine early and set up the session without outside
assistance. It is much more efficient to have someone familiar with it explain everything than to
waste valuable time trying to figure it out.
Foresight must be given to all aspects of the aircraft before building. All attachment hard
points, pushrod paths, and servo orientations and mounting techniques should be decided before
building. While on-the-fly solutions can be made to work, preliminary planning will save time and
frustration. Weight should have been monitored more carefully throughout the build process to
prevent an overweight declaration at the end, when weight-saving alterations were much more
difficult.
It is the consensus of the team that time could have been used more beneficially over the
course of the semester. It is fairly apparent from the results of the project that the structures team
could have used more help. At the beginning of the semester, there were subgroups of the team
that did not have a heavy workload and perhaps they could have been assisting with the internal
layout of the plane and designing interfaces. Problems that came up during the construction phase
could have been brought to the teams attention earlier had a more accurate CATIA model been in
place. Some of these issues were the placement of internal components and servos. Had the
model also contained the hard point map, perhaps the predicted weight would have more closely
resembled the final weight. The team also feels that the reports of lessons learned by previous
semesters are an invaluable tool. This team tried to read as many such reports as possible.
Appendix A
Appendix A
29
Appendix A
30
Appendix of Code
MATLAB Code to Produce Constraint Diagram
close all
clear all
clc
% Provided by Prof. Andrisani
% FILE: Constraint3.m
% Script to generate constraint diagram:
%
%
disp(' '); disp('*** Start here ***'); disp(' ')
% DataSection
WperSmin=.2
% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/ft^2)
WperSmax=2
% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/ft^2)
WperPmin= 0
% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/hp)
WperPmax=5
% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/hp)
Vs=30 % Stall speed (ft/sec)
CLmax=[1.2,1.5,1.8] % Possible values of maximum lift coefficient
(nondimensional), use 3 of them
rho=0.002377 % air density (slugs/ft^3)
Vcr=150
% cruise speed (ft/sec)
EtaP=.8 % propeller efficiency (nondimensional)
CD0=[.025,.027,.030] % Possible values of CD0, use 3 of them
LoverDmax=[12,14] % estimated maximum lift to drag ratio
gamma=45/57.3 % Take-off flight path angle
% Stall speed constraint

WperS1=.5*rho*Vs^2*CLmax; % wing loading constraints
numCLmax=length(CLmax);
ifig=0;
ifig=ifig+1; figure(ifig)
clf
WperSdat=[WperS1(1),WperS1(1)];
WperPdat=[WperPmin,WperPmax];
plot(WperSdat,WperPdat)
axis([WperSmin,WperSmax,WperPmin,WperPmax])
hold on
title('Constraint Diagram')
hash_right(WperSdat,WperPdat)
%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat,30)
%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat)
%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat,-30)
% string1=['Stall Constraint: CLmax=[', num2str(CLmax),'], Vs= ',
num2str(Vs), ' ft/sec'];
% text2(.2,.2,string1)
Appendix A
% Cruise speed constraint

slopes=((.75)*(550)/(.5*rho*1.1))*EtaP./(Vcr^3*CD0);
inc=(WperSmax-WperSmin)/10;
WperSdat=WperSmin:inc:WperSmax;
plot(WperSdat,slopes(1)*WperSdat)
hash_left(WperSdat,slopes(1)*WperSdat,0)
% string2=['Cruise Constraint: CD0=[', num2str(CD0),'], Vcruise= ',
num2str(Vcr), ' ft/sec'];
% text2(.3,.03,'DESIGN SPACE')
% Climb constraint
WperPclimb=550*EtaP./(Vcr./(.866*LoverDmax)+Vcr*sin(gamma))
plot([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(1) WperPclimb(1)])
plot([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(2) WperPclimb(2)])
hash_left([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(1) WperPclimb(1)])
hash_left([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(2) WperPclimb(2)])
% string3=['Climb constraint, gamma= ',num2str(gamma*57.3),' deg,
Vclimb= ',num2str(Vcr),' ft/sec. Lower L/D gives lower line.']
% string4=['L/D max= ',num2str(LoverDmax)]
xlabel('Wing loading lbf/ft^2')
ylabel('Power loding (lbf/hp)')
%disp('Click twice on the desired design point')
% [X,Y] = GINPUT(N)
%[WperSin,WperHPin]=ginput(1)
%plot(WperSin,WperHPin,'rx')
%weight=2.5
%S=weight/WperSin
%Bhp=weight/WperHPin
hold off
Weight Estimation
close all
clear all
clc
% Provided by Prof. Andrisani
% FILE: Weight_3.m
% Preliminary weight estimator for electric powereed aircraft
% Revised 9/5/06
disp(' '); disp('>>>>>>>>>Start here <<<<<<<<<'); disp(' ')
LoverDmax=14
% for fixed gear GA aircraft (Skyhawk) (See
Raymer p. 22)
LoverD=.866*LoverDmax % for loiter (See Raymer p. 22)
31
Appendix A
32
Vloiter=50
% ft/sec, Estimated loiter speed
ETAmotor=0.8
ETAprop= 0.75
%RHOb=72900
% battery energy density for NiCad joule per pound
%RHOb=9.25E+04 % battery energy density for NiMH joule per pound
RHOb=2.39E+05 % battery energy density for Lithium polymer joule per
pound
disp('Battery energy density for NiCad batteries, joules per pound')
EnduranceMIN=8
Wpayload=1 % payload weight pounds
EnduranceSEC=EnduranceMIN*60
TimeLoiterStraight=EnduranceSEC/2
% Loiter time in straight flight
(sec)
TimeLoiterTurn=EnduranceSEC/2
% Loiter time in turning flight
(sec)
g=32.17 % acceleration of gravity ft/sec^2
% For loiter in straight flight

WlsperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeLoiterStraight/(ETAmotor*ETAprop*RHOb*LoverD)
% For loiter in turning flight
R=50 % Turn radius at loiter from mission spec.
phi=atan(Vloiter*Vloiter/(R*g)) % bank angle in the turn (rad)
WltperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeLoiterTurn/(ETAmotor*ETAprop*RHOb*LoverD*cos(
phi))
% For climbing flight
gamma=45/57.3 % climb angle (rad)
TimeClimb=12/(Vloiter*sin(gamma)) % time to climb to 12 feet
WclimbperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeClimb*(cos(gamma)/LoverD+sin(gamma))/(ETAm
otor*ETAprop*RHOb)
% For Takeoff
disp('From integration of eoms at takeoff, assume that the battery')
disp(' weight fraction is .002.')
WtoperW=.002
% For warm-up assume takeoff times aree about 3 sec and
% warm-up times are about 30 seconds.
disp('Assume that the warmup weight fraction is 10 times the ')
disp(' takeoff weight fraction.')
WwarmperW=10*WtoperW
% Assemble the complete battery weight fraction.

WbperW=WlsperW+WltperW+WclimbperW+WtoperW+WwarmperW
Weight=0:1:10; %weight in pounds

echo on
Appendix A
33
WminusWe=.2103*Weight+.1243; % formula for historical data (pounds)

echo off
disp('Your weight estimate will only be as good at that historical data
represented in the equation above')
Wbattery=WbperW*Weight;
WbplusWpay=Wbattery+Wpayload;
plot(Weight,WminusWe,Weight,WbplusWpay)
xlabel('Weight~lbf')
ylabel('W-We and Wb+Wp~lbf')
% Determination of aircraft weight
delta=WminusWe-WbplusWpay;
% YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI)
Waircraft=interp1(delta,Weight,0)
y=.2103*Waircraft+.1243;
string1=['Estimated aircraft weight is ',num2str(Waircraft),' pounds.']
text2(.25,.2,['
',string1])
title('Weight estimation using historical weight data')
legend('Historical data','Estimated weight')
hold on; plot(Waircraft,y,'o'); hold off
Wb=WbperW*Waircraft
% string2=['Estimated battery weight is ',num2str(Wb),' pounds.']
% text2(.25,.15,['
',string2])
% string2=['Payload weight is ',num2str(Wpayload),' pounds.']
% text2(.25,.1,['
',string2])
Figure 1: Preliminary Weight Estimation
Appendix B
Appendix B
34
Appendix B
List of Symbols
Symbols
AR
b
c
Cd
CD
CD,i
CD,min
Cf
Cl
CL
Cl, min
CL,ih
CL,max
CL,e
CLo
CLo,h
CLo,wf
CL
CL,h
CL,wf
croot
ctip
D
d/d
e
FF
ih
K
K
K
L
Q
Re
S or Sref
Sh
Swet
Swet,c
SWF
V
0L
stall
CL,max
e
o
h
0.25c
LE
e
Description
Aspect ratio
Span of the wing
Mean geometric chord
Section drag coefficient (profile drag)
Drag coefficient (airplane)
Induced drag (drag due to lift)
Parasite drag
Skin friction coefficient
Section lift coefficient
Lift coefficient (airplane)
Section lift coefficient at minimum Cd
Lift curve slope (horizontal tail incidence)
Maximum lift coefficient
Lift curve slope (elevator deflection)
AoA = 0 Lift coefficient
AoA=0 lift coefficient of horizontal tail
AoA = 0, lift coefficient of wing and fuselage
Lift curve slope (wing)
Lift curve slope of horizontal tail
Lift curve slope of wing and fuselage
Wing root chord
Wing tip chord
Drag force
Downwash curve slope
Oswalds efficiency factor
Form factor (drag estimation)
Horizontal tail incidence angle
Inviscid drag factor due to lift (iduced drag)
Viscous drag factor due to lift
Empirical Sweep Coefficient
Lift force
Interference drag correction factor
Reynolds number
Wing planform
Planform area of horizontal tail
Total wetted area
Component wetted area
Flapped region of planform
Velocity
Angle of attack
Zero lift angle of attack
Stall angle of attack
Circulation
Change in maximum lift coefficient due to flaps
Elevator deflection
Downwash angle (on horizontal tail)
Dynamic pressure ratio of horizontal tail
Quarter chord sweep
Leading edge sweep
Elevator effectiveness coefficient
35
Appendix B
Appendix of Equations
CD = CD , min + ( K '+ K ' ' )(CL CL , min ) 2
Equation *.11: Aircraft drag polar
K'=
1
A Re
Equation *.12: Inviscid drag factor
C Dmin =
(C
f ,c
FFc Qc S wet ,c )
S ref
Equation *.13: Drag component buildup method
C L = C L0 + C L + C Lih ih + C L e e
Equation *.21: Aircraft lift coefficient
CL0 = CL0 CL h
wf
Sh
S
0 + CL0h h h CL0wf
S
S
Equation *.22: CL at =ih=e=0
CL = CL + CL h
wf
Sh d
1
S d
Equation *.23: Change in CL due to change in
CLi = CL h
h
Sh
S
Equation *.24: Change in CL due to change in ih for =e=0
CL = CL h
e
Sh
e
S
Equation *.25: Change in CL due to change in e for =ih=0
C Lmax =
W
1
2
Vstall
S
2
Equation *.26: CL,max
C Lmin
W
1
2
Vmax
S
2
Equation *.27: CL,min
C Lmax = 0.9C lmax cos 0.25c

Equation *.28: CL,max 3D-2D conversion
36
Appendix B
CL =
Cl
Equation *.29: Elliptic lift coefficient
S=
W
1
2
Vstall
C L ,max
2
Equation *.31: Wing planform solved from equation *.26
CL ,max = ( CL ,max )clean + CL ,max

Equation *.210: CL,max with flaps
CL ,max = Cl ,max
SWF
K
SW
Equation *.211: Change in CL,max due to flaps
4
K = 1 0.08cos 2 0.25 c cos3/0.25
c
Equation *.212: Empirical sweep correction
C D ,i
C L2
eAR
Equation *.32: Induced Drag
C D ,o
(C
c
fc
(Re(c( AR))) FFc Qc S wet ,c )

S
Equation *.31: Parasite Drag Build-up with AR
e 4.61(1 0.045 A 0.68 )(cos( LE ) )
0.15
3.1
Equation *.32: Oswald's efficiency factor
C D ,i f ( AR, C L , e) C D ,i f ( AR, C L )
Equation *.33: CD,i as a function of AR and CL
C D C D ,i + C D , o
C D f ( AR, C L ) + f ( AR)
Equation *.34: CD as a function of AR and CL
37
Appendix B
38
Appendix of Figures
Viscous Drag Coefficient of NACA 1408
Re = 500,000
0.025
K'' = 0.0167
0.02
High Speed Region:

y = 0.0167x + 0.0051
2
R = 0.9952
Overall:
y = 0.0243x + 0.0045
2
R = 0.9915
Cd
0.015
0.01
Complete Range
High Speed Range
0.005
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Cl-Cl,min)
Figure *.11: Viscous drag-due-to-lift factor for NACA 1408 airfoil
Figure *.12: Flat-Plate Skin Friction Coefficient vs. Reynolds Number
0.6
0.7
Appendix B
39
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
NACA 1306
NACA 1406
NACA 1408
NACA 2206
NACA 64(1)-106
Jones airfoil
Cl
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Cd
Figure *.11: Drag Polar of Various Wing Airfoil Sections

Various Symmetric Airfoils Cd- curve
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
NACA 0006
NACA 0007
NACA 0008
Jones (6.8% t/c)
Jones (7.2% t/c)
Jones (8% t/c)
Cd
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
alpha [deg]
Figure *.31: XFOIL tail airfoil section data [0-5 range]
4.5
Appendix B
40

0.008
Cd
0.007
NACA 0006
NACA 0007
NACA 0008
Jones (6.8% t/c)
Jones (7.2% t/c)
Jones (8% t/c)
0.006
0.005
0.004
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
alpha [deg]
Figure *.32: XFOIL tail airfoil section data [0-3 range]

0.025
0.02
NACA 0006
NACA 0007
NACA 0008
Jones (6.8% t/c)
Jones (7.2% t/c)
Jones (8% t/c)
Flat Plate
Cd
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
alpha [deg]
Figure *.33: XFOIL tail airfoil section data (flat plate effect)
4.5
Appendix B
Figure*.35: CD as a function of AR and CL
Figure *.36: CD vs. AR @ CL = 0.1
41
Appendix B
42
Appendix B: Lifting Line Derivation

The fundamental lifting line equation is presented below (see reference 5).
b2
( y o )
(d dy ) dy
1
( yo ) =
+ L =0 ( yo ) +
V c( yo )
4 V b 2 ( yo y )
Fundamental Lifting Line Equation
Note that is the geometric angle of attack as a function of the location along the span, yo.
L =0 is the zero lift angle of attack as a function of yo. c is the chord length as a function of yo. y
is a variable of integration over the span. V is the free stream velocity; and finally, is the
circulation around a wing section as a function of yo. The end goal is to obtain a relation between
CL and Cl. To do this a relation between gamma and angle of attack must be obtained, which can
be used in the Kutta-Joukowski theorem lift equation given below (see reference. 5). Note that an
expression for the circulation in terms of the lift coefficient can be derived from the definition of 2D
lift coefficient.
L' = V 0
Kutta-Joukowski theorem
Note that an expression for the circulation in terms of the lift coefficient can be derived from the
definition of 2D lift coefficient.
C Vc
0 = l
2
Circulation
In general, the desired expression would be quite a complex expression. However, for
elliptical lift distributions, the circulation can be expressed quite simply as he equation (see
reference 5). Note that b in this equation represents the total span of the wing.
2y
( y ) = o 1
b
Elliptic Distribution of Circulation
By substituting the elliptical distribution of circulation expression into the fundamental lifting
line equation, it can be shown that the chord distribution for a wing with elliptical lift distribution is
elliptical (simply, elliptic planform gives elliptic loading). So, for a wing with elliptical chord
distribution the lift coefficient can be calculated using the following.
L = V o
b2
b 2
b
2y
1 dy = V o
4
b
2
Kutta-Joukowski Theorem with Elliptic Lift Distribution
V o b4
b
L
CL = 1
= 1
=
0
2
2
2V S
2 V S
2 V S
Lift Coefficient with Elliptic Lift Distribution
Solving for 0 and substituting into the Circulation equation

b Cl V c
CL =
= Cl
2V S 2
4
Elliptic Lift Coefficient
Appendix B
Appendix of Code
Aero Main Code
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%
% Aero Code
%
% Written by Chris Selby & Jesse Jones
% AAE451 Fall 2006
% Purdue University
% Aircraft Senior Design
%
% Last Updated: 10/29/06
% by: Chris Selby & Jesse Jones
%
% User defined functions:
%
Rel - Reynolds number
%
Cf_t - Turbulent skin friction model
%
Cf_l - Laminar skin friction model
%
ff_f - Fuselage form factor
%
ff_w - Wing/tail form factor
%
eta - Oswald's efficiency factor
%
CDi - Elliptical induced drag factor
%
CLa_wf - Wing fuselage lift curve slope
%
% What this code does:
%
Step 1) Compute major geometric parameters of the wing
%
Step 2) Estimate aircraft wetted area
%
Step 3) Estimate Drag Polar based on the drag build-up method,
%
Nicolai, and Raymer text
%
Step 4) Finds CLwf, the 3-D lift coefficient of wing-fuselage
%
Step 5) Finds CLh, the 3-D lift coefficient of the horizontal tail
%
Step 6) User inputs aerodynamic center distances of the aircraft
%
Step 7) User inputs additional basic constants
%
Step 8) If given an array of AR, plots the AR trade study
%
Step 9) Tabulates important values to the screen if given one AR
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
clear all
close all
clc
%-------%
% Input %
%-------%
pct_cyl_f = 0.4; %fraction of fuselage modeled as cylinder
d = 5/12; %Nose diameter = Fuselage diameter [ft]
l_f = 3; %Fuselage length [ft]
AR_w = linspace(5,5,1); %Wing AR
lambda = 0.45; %Wing taper ratio
S_w = 4.95; %Wing area [ft^2]
b_h = 18/12; %Horizontal tail span [ft]
c_h = 5/12; %Horizontal tail chord [ft]
43
Appendix B
h_vtail = 6/12; %Vertical tail height [ft]
c_v = 4/12; %Vertical tail chord [ft]
l_b = 1.5; %Boom length [ft]
d_b = 1/12; %Boom diameter [ft]
l_d = 10/12; %Length of the duct [ft]
W = 5.5; %Aircraft weight [lb]
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%
Step 1) & 2) Wetted Area/Wing Geomety Approximation
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%--------%
% Output %
%--------%
%-% Geometry
b_w = sqrt(AR_w.*S_w); %wing span [ft]
c_root = 2.*S_w./(b_w.*(1+lambda)); %wing root chord [ft]
c_tip = lambda.*c_root; %wing tip chord [ft]
Lambda = rad2deg(atan((c_root-c_tip)./(2*b_w))); %leading edge angle [deg] (assuming c/4 angle = 0)
lam_te = -rad2deg(atan(3*(c_root-c_tip)./(2*b_w))); %trailing edge angle [deg](assuming c/4 angle = 0)
Lambda_c2 = -Lambda; %half chord angle [deg] (assuming c/4 angle = 0)
AR_h = b_h./c_h; %Aspect ratio of horizontal tail
AR_v = h_vtail/c_v; %Vertical tail aspect ratio
l_n = l_f.*(1-pct_cyl_f)./2; %Length of nose [ft] (front and back cone)
%-% Wetted Area
swet_n = pi.*d./2.*sqrt(d.^2./4+l_n.^2); %Area of cones modeling front and aft of fuselage [ft^2]
swet_f = pi.*d.*l_f.*pct_cyl_f+2.*swet_n; %Area of entire fuselage (including cones) [ft^2]
swet_w = 2.*S_w-c_root.*d; %Omits unwetted area of wing
swet_ht = 2.*b_h.*c_h;
swet_vt = 2.*(2.*h_vtail.*c_v); %Accounts for two tails
swet_b = 2.*(pi.*d_b.*l_b); %Accounts for two booms
Swet = swet_f+swet_w+swet_ht+swet_vt+swet_b; %total wetted area [ft^2]
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%
Step 3) Aircraft Drag Polar
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% Functions called:
%
Rel - Reynolds number
%
Cf_t - Turbulent skin friction model
%
Cf_l - Laminar skin friction model
%
ff_f - Fuselage form factor
%
ff_w - Wing/tail form factor
%
eta - Oswald's efficiency factor
%
CDi - Elliptical induced drag factor
%
% =====Component Buildup Method=====
% CD0 calculation method found in Dr. Leland Nicolai paper and in Raymer
% textbook on pages 328-337. Utilized local Reynolds numbers for each
% components and models the skin friction to that of a flate plate at the
% same Reynolds number. Sums up the total contributions
% and then divides by the wing planform reference area. (Sref = S_w)
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%-------%
% Input %
%-------%
44
Appendix B
rho = .00237; %Air density (rho) [slugs/ft^3]
Vinf = 103; %Flight speed (Vinf) [ft/sec]
a = 1116.43; %Speed of sound [ft/sec]
mu = 3.62e-7; %Coefficient of viscosity (mu) [slugs/ft-sec]
tc_w = 0.08; %Maximum wing thickness in percent chord
tc_h = 0.08; %Maximum horizontal tail thickness in percent chord
tc_vtail = 0.06; %Maximum vertical tail thickness in percent chord
xc_m_w = 0.4; %x/c location of maximum thickness for wing
xc_m_htail = 0.3; %x/c location of maximum thickness for horizontal tail
xc_m_vtail = 0.4; %x/c location of maximum thickness for vertical tail
lamda_m_w = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for wing
lamda_m_htail = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for horizontal tail
lamda_m_vtail = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for vertical tail
FFfudge_f = 1.20; % The fuselage is not perfectly round ?
FFfudge_w = 1.05; % Accounts for gap in front of flaperons over half the span
FFfudge_vtail = 1.05; % Accounts for gap in front of rudder on one tail
FFfudge_htail = 1.10; % Accounts for gap in front of elevator
FFfudge_b = 1.00; % None as the boom is a perfect cylinder
Q_htail
= 1.08; % Interference drag coefficient (from vertical tails)
Q_vtail
= 1.08; % Interference from horizontal tail
Q_w
= 1.10; % Interference from fuselage
Q_b
= 1.00; % No interference on booms
Q_d
= 1.20; % Interference with fuselage
%--------%
% Output %
%--------%
%-% Fuselage
Re_f = Rel(rho,Vinf,l_f,mu); %local reynolds number
Cf_f = Cf_t(Re_f); %loal skin fricition coefficient
FF = FFfudge_f.*ff_f(l_f,d); %Form factor
CDmin_f = FF.*Cf_f.*(swet_f)./S_w; %component parisite drag
%-% Wing
Re_w = Rel(rho,Vinf,S_w./b_w,mu); %local reynolds number
Cf_w = Cf_t(Re_w); %loal skin fricition coefficient
M = Vinf./a; %Mach number
FF = FFfudge_w.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_w,tc_w,xc_m_w); %Form factor
CDmin_w = FF.*Q_w.*Cf_w.*swet_w./S_w; %component parisite drag
%-% Horizontal Tail
Re_htail = Rel(rho,Vinf,c_h,mu); %local reynolds number
Cf_htail = Cf_t(Re_htail); %loal skin fricition coefficient
FF = FFfudge_htail.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_htail,tc_h,xc_m_htail); %Form factor
CDmin_htail = FF.*Q_htail.*Cf_htail.*swet_ht./S_w; %component parisite drag
%-% Vertical Tail
Re_vtail = Rel(rho,Vinf,c_v,mu); %local reynolds number
Cf_vtail = Cf_t(Re_vtail); %loal skin fricition coefficient
FF = FFfudge_vtail.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_vtail,tc_vtail,xc_m_vtail); %Form factor
CDmin_vtail = FF.*Q_vtail.*Cf_vtail.*swet_vt./S_w; %component parisite drag
%-% Tail Boom
Re_b = Rel(rho,Vinf,l_b+c_root,mu); %local reynolds number
45
Appendix B
Cf_b = Cf_t(Re_b); %loal skin fricition coefficient
FF = FFfudge_b.*ff_f(l_b,d_b); %Form factor
CDmin_b = FF.*Q_b.*Cf_b.*swet_b./S_w; %component parisite drag
%-% CD0 total
C_bar_D_o = CDmin_f+CDmin_w+CDmin_htail+CDmin_vtail+CDmin_b; %Total parisite drag
Cf_tot = C_bar_D_o .* S_w ./ Swet; %Total skin friction coefficient
e = eta(AR_w); %Oswalds span efficiency factor
k = 1./(pi*AR_w.*e) + 0.0167; %Induced drag coefficient from Nicolai white paper
Clmin = 0.1428; %wing section lift coefficient at minimum section drag coefficient
CLmin = Clmin; %Assume 2D is approximately equal to 3D minimum section lift coefficient.
Cd_0 = C_bar_D_o+k*CLmin^2; %CD at CL=0 ==> CD = CD0 + k(CL-CLmin)^2
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Step 4) Wing body lift Coefficient (Roskam Eq 3.17)
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Functions called:
%
CLa_wf - Wing fuselage lift curve slope (Raymer Eq. 12.6)
%
% =====Roskam wing-fuselage lift coefficient=====
% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.16 to break the the total CL into different
% components. Eq 3.17 is the wing-fuselage lift coefficient component.
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Cl_alpha_w = 5.543; %2-D wing lift curve slope [1/rad]
Beta2 = 1-(Vinf./a).^2; %Prandtl Glauret correction factor squared
F = 1.07.*(1+d./b_w).^2; %Fuselage lift factor (Raymer Eq 12.9)
CLawf = CLa_wf(AR_w,Cl_alpha_w,Beta2,swet_w,S_w,F); %Wing fuselage lift curve slope
Cl0w = .1439; %2-D wing lift coefficient at zero a.o.a.
CL0wf = 0.9*Cl0w; %3-D wing lift coefficient at zero a.o.a. (90% rule)
alfa = 0; %Aircraft a.o.a [deg]
i_w = 0; %Wing incidence angle [deg]
alfaw = alfa + i_w; %Wing angle of attack
CL_wb = CL0wf + CLawf.*deg2rad(alfaw); %Wing/body lift coefficient at alfa
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Step 5) Horizontal tail and body lift Coefficient (Roskam Eq 3.19) %
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% =====Roskam Horizontal tail and body lift coefficient=====
% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.16 to break the the total CL into different
% components. Eq 3.19 is the wing-fuselage lift coefficient component.
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Cl_alpha_h = 5.451; %2-D horizontal tail lift curve slope [1/rad]
CLah = Cl_alpha_h; %3-D horizontal tail lift curve slope [1/rad] (assume infinite wing)
deda = 0.4667; %Downwash gradient
eta_h = 0.9; %Dynamic pressure ratio for horizontal tail
eta0 = 0.00001; %###### ASSUME VERY SMALL NUMBER FOR NOW #####
toue = 0.5; %Elevator angle of attack effectiveness (Roskam Fig 2.23)
dele = 0; %Elevator deflection angle, positive trailing edge down [deg]
i_h = 0; %Elevator incidence angle [deg]
alfah = alfa+i_h-(eta0+deda.*alfa); %Horizontal tail angle of attack [deg]
CL_hb = CLah.*deg2rad(alfah)+CLah.*toue.*deg2rad(dele); %horizontal tail lift coefficient at alfa
CL_hb = round(CL_hb);
46
Appendix B
47
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Step 6) Gather aerodynamic center distances of aircraft (Roskam 3.38) %

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Functions called:
%
Xac_A - Aerodynamic Center of aircraft (Roskam 3.38)
%
% =====Roskam wing-fuselage lift coefficient=====
% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.38 to find the aerodynamic center of the aircraft.
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
c_w= (c_root+c_tip)/2;
Xach = c_root+l_b+c_h/4-(c_root-c_w)/4; %Distance from LE of MAC to ac of horizontal tail [ft]
Xacwb = c_w/4; %Distance from LE of MAC to ac of wing and body [ft] (assume: body generatis no lift)
Xacw = c_w/4;
%Distance from LE of MAC to ac of wing ALONE [ft]
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Step 7) ADDITIONAL BASIC CONSTANTS
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Basic Constants defined in tabulated output below
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------alpha_0 = deg2rad(-1.05);
CL = W/(.5*rho*Vinf^2);
Cl_alpha_v = 2*pi;
dihedral_h = 0;
epsilon_t = 0;
epsilon_0_h = eta0;
Lambda_c4 = 0;
Lambda_c2_h = 0;
Lambda_c4_h = 0;
lambda_h = 1;
l_f = l_f+l_b;
S_h = swet_ht/2;
S_v = swet_vt/2;
theta = 0;
theta_h = 0;
if length(AR_w)>1
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Step 8) Aspect ratio trade study
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------CL = linspace(0,1.4,100);
AR_ws = length(AR_w);
CLs = length(CL);
for i = 1:AR_ws
CL_matrix(i,:) = CL;
end
for i = 1:CLs
AR_w_matrix(:,i) = AR_w;
end
for i = 1:CLs
C_bar_D_o_matrix(:,i) = C_bar_D_o;
end
AR_w = AR_w_matrix;
CL = CL_matrix;
C_bar_D_o = C_bar_D_o_matrix;
e = eta(AR_w);
CD_ind = CDi(CL,e,AR_w);
Appendix B
48
CD = CD_ind + C_bar_D_o;
lines = [.0255 .026 .0265 .027 .0275 .028 .029 .030 .035 .04 .05 .06 .08 .10 .12];
[c,h] = contour(AR_w,CL,CD,lines);
title('Lines of constant C_D (An AR trade study)')
xlabel('AR')
ylabel('C_L')
clabel(c,h,'manual')
grid off
else
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
Step 9) Tabulated Output
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------form = '%-9s %.2f %7.0f %.5f %.4f\n';
fprintf('\n\n')
fprintf('Component Area
Re
Cf
CD0\n')
fprintf('
(ft^2)
(local)\n')
fprintf('========= ======== ========= ========= ========\n')
fprintf(form,'Wing',swet_w,Re_w,Cf_w,CDmin_w)
fprintf(form,'Fuse/Duct',swet_f,Re_f,Cf_f,CDmin_f)
fprintf(form,'V_tails',swet_vt,Re_vtail,Cf_vtail,2*CDmin_vtail)
fprintf(form,'H_tail',swet_ht,Re_htail,Cf_htail,CDmin_htail)
fprintf(form,'Booms',swet_b,Re_b,Cf_b,CDmin_b)
fprintf('--------- -------- --------- --------- --------\n')
fprintf('%-12s %-22.2f %-8.5f %-.4f\n', 'Totals:', Swet, Cf_tot, C_bar_D_o)
fprintf('
(Normalized Results)')
fprintf('\n\n')
fprintf('--------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n')
fprintf(' Basic Constants
Definition
\n')
fprintf('===================== ================================================\n')
form = '%-12s %.3f %s\n';
fprintf(form,'alpha_0',alpha_0,'Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]')
fprintf(form,'AR_h',AR_h,'Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail')
fprintf(form,'AR_w',AR_w,'Aspect ratio of the wing')
fprintf(form,'b_h',b_h,'Span of the horizontal tail [ft]')
fprintf(form,'b_w',b_w,'Span of the wing [ft]')
fprintf(form,'C_bar_D_o',C_bar_D_o,'Parasite drag')
fprintf(form,'Cd_0',Cd_0,'Drag coefficient at zero lift(parasite drag)')
fprintf(form,'c_h',c_h,'MAC of the horizontal tail [ft]')
fprintf(form,'CL',CL,'Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2) (U=max flight speed)')
fprintf(form,'CL_hb',CL_hb,'Lift coefficient of the horizontal tail/body')
fprintf(form,'CL_wb',CL_wb,'Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0')
fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_h',Cl_alpha_h,'2-D lift curve slope of horizontal tail [1/rad]')
fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_v',Cl_alpha_v,'2-D lift curve slope of vertical tail [1/rad]')
fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_w',Cl_alpha_w,'2-D lift curve slope of wing [1/rad]')
fprintf(form,'c_w',c_w,'MAC of the wing [ft]')
fprintf(form,'c_v',c_v,'MAC of the vertical tail [ft]')
fprintf(form,'d',d,'Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]')
fprintf(form,'dihedral_h',dihedral_h,'Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]')
fprintf(form,'epsilon_t',epsilon_t,'Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]')
fprintf(form,'epsilon_0_h',epsilon_0_h,'Downwash angle at the horizontal tail [rad] (see Note in Ref(3) under section
8.1.5.2)')
fprintf(form,'eta_h',eta_h,'Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream')
fprintf(form,'i_h',i_h,'Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad]')
fprintf(form,'i_w',i_w,'Incidence angle of the wing [rad]')
fprintf(form,'k',k,'k of drag polar, generally=1/(pi*AR*e)')
fprintf(form,'Lambda',deg2rad(Lambda),'Sweep angle of wing [rad] (l.e.)')
fprintf(form,'Lambda_c2',deg2rad(Lambda_c2),'Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]')
Appendix B
fprintf(form,'Lambda_c4',Lambda_c4,'Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]')
fprintf(form,'Lambda_c2_h',Lambda_c2_h,'Sweep angle at the c/2 of the horizontal tail [rad]')
fprintf(form,'Lambda_c4_h',Lambda_c4_h,'Sweep angle at the c/4 of the horizontal tail [rad]')
fprintf(form,'lambda',lambda,'Taper ratio of wing')
fprintf(form,'lambda_h',lambda_h,'Taper ratio of horizontal tail')
fprintf(form,'l_f',l_f,'Horizontal length of fuselage and boom [ft]')
fprintf(form,'S_h',S_h,'Aera of horizontal tail [ft^2]')
fprintf(form,'S_w',S_w,'Surface area of wing [ft^2]')
fprintf(form,'S_v',S_v,'Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]')
fprintf(form,'tc_w',tc_w,'Thickness to chord ratio of wing')
fprintf(form,'tc_h',tc_h,'Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail')
fprintf(form,'theta',theta,'Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]')
fprintf(form,'theta_h',theta_h,'Horizontal tail twist [rad] (-) for washout')
fprintf(form,'Xach',Xach,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of the Horizontal tail [ft]')
fprintf(form,'Xacwb',Xacwb,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of wing/body [ft] (assume: body has no lift)')
fprintf(form,'Xacw',Xacw,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of wing ALONE [ft]')
fprintf('--------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n')
end
49
Appendix C
Appendix C
50
51
Appendix C
Appendix of Tables
Manufacturer
Diameter
Weight
Max RPM
Cost
[ in ]
[ lbs ]
[ RPM ]
[$]
Model
Wemotec
Midi Fan
3.5
0.231
35,000
$74.95
Wemotec
Mini Fan 480
2.72
0.132
45,000
$53.90
Great Planes
Hyperflow
2.23
0.081
49,000
$30.00
VASA
VasaFan 65
45,000
$60.00
2.6
0.077
Table 3.1: Ducted Fan Candidates
Voltage
Avg. Weight
Avg. Cost
Type
Abbreviation
[V]
[ lbf ]
[$]
Nickel Metal Hydride
NiMH
1.20 per Cell
0.09 per Cell
$3.00 per Cell
Nickel Cadium
NiCd
1.20 per Cell
0.13 per Cell
$2.70 per Cell
Lithium Polymer
LiPo
3.70 per Cell
0.13 per Cell
Table 3.2: Available Hobby Batteries
$25.00 per Cell

Voltage per Cell
3.6 V
70 Amps
Max Surge Current
120 Amps
Capacity
2300 mAh
Weight per Cell
0.16 lbf
Cost per Cell

$11.50
Table 3.3: A123 Systems Lithium Ion Batteries
RPM
Kv
Voltage Req.
Current Req.
Efficiency
Fan
[RPM]
[ RPM / Volt ]
[ Volts ]
[ Amps ]
[ % 0f 100]
WeMoTec Midi
35,000
2800
17.5
120
70%
WeMotTec Mini 480

45,000
2500
17.8
42
Table 3.4: Results from Iterative Process to Find Fan Systems with 5 Li-Ion Cells
Motor
HET Typhoon 2W-20 EDF
Kv
2980
Max Voltage
17 V
70 Amps
Max Surge Current
100 Amps
Weight
0.2 lbf
Cost
$64.00
Table 3.5: HET Typhoon 2W-20 EDF Brushless Motor
86%
52
Appendix C
Motor
Ammo 36-50-2300
Kv
2300
Max Voltage
18
60 Amps
Max Surge Current
100 Amps
Weight
0.35 lbf
Cost
$79.99
Table 3.6: Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300 Brushless Motor
Propulsion System at High Speed Operation Conditions
Fan
Battery
Motor
WeMoTec Midi Fan
Ammo 36-50-2300
Operating RPM
30,000 RPM
Aircraft Velocity
107 ft/s
Current Required
73.5 A
Voltage Required
16 V
Weight
0.23 lbf
0.78 lbf
0.35 lbf
Price
$47.00
$58.00
$79.99
Endurance
2.1 min
70 A
60 A
Max Surge Current **
120 A
100 A
Max Voltage
18 V
Max Voltage
18.5 V
Totals
Weight
1.36 lbf
Price
$184.99 ** - Surge is 10 seconds
Table 3.7: Final Propulsion High Speed Specs
Propulsion System at Max Enduranc Operation Conditions
Fan
Battery
Motor
WeMoTec Midi Fan
Ammo 36-50-2300
Operating RPM
15,000 RPM
Aircraft Velocity
47 ft/s
Current Required
19 A
Voltage Required
7.4 V
Weight
0.23 lbf
0.78 lbf
0.35 lbf
Price
$47.00
$58.00
$79.99
Endurance
10.2 min
70 A
60 A
120 A
100 A
Max Voltage
18 V
Max Voltage
18.5 V
Totals
Weight
1.36 lbf
Price
$184.99 ** - Surge is 10 seconds
Table 3.8: Final Propulsion Max Endurance Specs
53
Appendix C
Appendix of Figures
Exhaust Velocity vs. Rev/sec
250
Exhaust Velocity [ ft/s ]
200
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Rev/Sec
y = 0.3314x
y = 0.2591x
WeMoTec Midi
R2 = 0.9969
WeMoTec Mini 480 Fan
R = 0.9928
Figure 3.1: Relationship between Exhaust Velocity and Revolutions
Thrust vs. Exhaust Velocity

5.00
Thrust [ lbf ]
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
2
25000
2
30000
35000
Efflux [ ft /s ]
y = 1.426E-04x
y = 7.24205E-05x
R2 = 1.000E+00
R2 = 1.00000E+00
WeMoTec Midi Fan
WeMoTec Mini 480 Fan
Figure 3.2: Relationship between Thrust and Exhaust Velocity Squared
40000
Appendix C
Figure 3.3: WeMoTec Midi Fan Thrust Curve
Figure 3.4: WeMoTec Mini 480 Fan Thrust Curve
54
Appendix C
Figure 3.5: Final Propulsion System Thrust Curve
55
Appendix C
List of Symbols
Symbols
Ta
m
Ve
V
S
Cd
TR
Description
Thrust available
Mass flow
Exhaust velocity
Freestream velocity
Density of free stream
Wetted area
Drag coefficient
Thrust required
56
Appendix C
Ta = m (Ve V )
Equation 3.1: Thrust Available (Momentum)
TR =
1
V2 SC d2
2
Equation 3.2: Thrust Required
57
Appendix C
Appendix of Code
Code 1:TestDesignAircraft.m
% Script to design an end-to-end propulsion system for an
% electric-powered propeller-driven aircraft.
% Given:
% drag polar,
% aircraft weight, air density,
% pitch to diameter ratio of the prop and prop data,
% motor constants for a particular motor.
%
% Find:
% speed for maximum endurance,
% propeller diameter,
% gear ratio,
% voltage at which to operate the motor,
% battery sizes to achieve the desired battery voltage,
% endurance for single strand and dual strand batteries,
% for an aircraft flying straight and level.
Clear
close all
clc
fprintf('>>>>---- Start ----<<<<')
%--------------------------- Design Requirements -------------------------%
V_stall_REQ = 30; % Stall Speed [ft/sec]
Dash_distance_REQ = 1320;
Endurance_REQ = 7; % min
%----------------------- PHASE 1: AIRCRAFT SUBSYSTEM ---------------------%
% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variables <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<%
CD0=0.02; % drag coefficient when CL=0.
CL0=0.09; % Zero Angle of Attack lift.
A=5; % aspect ratio span squared divided by reference area

e=0.89; % Oswalds efficiency factor
V=[10:.01:170]; % velocity in ft/sec
rho=0.002377; % air density in slugs/ft^3
S= 4.95; % wing area [ft^2]
R = 100; % Turning Radius [ft]
W = 6; % lbf, Weight of Aircraft
%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<%
%Generate Power Required Curve
[Pr,Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V,CL0);
%----------------------- PHASE 2: Propulsion System ----------------------%
%%% FAN SPECS %%%
% fan_name = ['WeMoTec Mini 480 Fan'];
% Dia_fan = 2.72; % [in]
% Dia_hub = 1.3; % [in]
% RPMmax=45000;
% Ct=0.8293; %
58
Appendix C
59
% Cp=0.8;
% Tve=7.242e-5; %relation between thrust and eflux squared
% Venrel=0.2696; %relation between Efflux and Rev/sec of fan
fan_name = ['WeMoTec Midi Fan'];
Dia_fan = 3.5; % [in]
Dia_hub = 1.7; % [in]
RPMmax=30000; %Design RPM Value
Ct=0.9112; %coefficient of Thrust for Prop
Cp=1.1;
%relation between power and rpm, coefficient of power for Prop
Tve=1.426e-4; %relation between thrust and eflux squared
Venrel=0.3314; %relation between Efflux and Rev/sec of fan
FSA = pi*((Dia_fan/24)^2-(Dia_hub/24)^2); % [ft^2] Fan Swept Area
D=Dia_fan/12; % Fan Diameter in inches
nmax=RPMmax/60; % Revolutions per second
Vemax=nmax*Venrel % Max Exhaust Velocity
Tstamax=Tve*Vemax^2 %Max Static Thrust
Pre=rho*nmax^3*D^5*Cp; %Power Input Required in ft-lbf/sec
Prewatts=Pre*1.356 %Convert Power Input Required to Watts
RPMprop=RPMmax; %Adapter to Existing Code
Tavail=(Tstamax/Vemax)*(Vemax-V); %Thrust Available Curve
T_req=Pr./V;
%Thrust Required Curve
delta=Tavail-T_req; %Difference between thrust available and required
Vmax=interp1(delta,V,0) %Find Max Speed
Tneed=interp1(V,T_req,Vmax) %Find Thrust Required for Max speed
%Plot Thrust Curves
figure(4)
hold on
grid on
H(1) = plot(V,Tavail,'LineWidth',3)
H(3) = plot(linspace(V_stall_REQ,V_stall_REQ,5),[0:4],'k--','LineWidth',3);
H(2) = plot(V,T_req,'k','LineWidth',3);
title(['Thrust vs Velocity (' fan_name '@' num2str(RPMmax) 'RPM)'])
xlabel('Velocity [ft/s]')
ylabel('Thrust [lbf]')
H(4) = plot(Vmax,Tneed,'rp','LineWidth',3)
legend(H,[{'Thrust Available'} {'Thrust Required'} {['Stall Speed = ' num2str(V_stall_REQ) 'ft/s']} {['Max Velocity = '
num2str(Vmax) ' ft/s']}])
axis([0 170 0 3])
Pout=rho*nmax^2*D^4*Ct*Vmax; %Power out of Fan
EtaProp=Pout/Pre %Efficiency of Fan
% %----------------------- Motor Analysis -------------------------%
% Motor Info in format
% Motor Model/Name
% Motor Constants
% Ammo 28-45-2700
Appendix C
60
% Kv=2700; % RPM/volt
% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere
% R= .37; % Ohms
% Io=1.5; % amperes
% Mega AC 22/20/2
% R= .012; % Ohms
% Io=3.37; % amperes
% Mega AC 16/25/2
% R= .012; % Ohms
% Io=2.3; % amperes
% HET RC Typhoon EDF 2W-20
% R= .02; % Ohms
% Io=3; % amperes
% HET RC Typhoon EDF 2W-18
% R= .02; % Ohms
% Io=3; % amperes
% Electrifly Ammo 36/50/2300
Kv = 2300;
Kt = 1355/Kv;
R = 0.041;
Io = 2;
% Electrifly Ammo 36/50/1800
% Kv = 1800;
% Kt = 1355/Kv;
% R = 0.041;
% Io = 1.9;
% Fun 600-13
% Kv=1300;
% Kt=1355/Kv;
% R=0.0339;
% Io=0.89;
% MEGA 16/25/1
% Kv = 4800;
% Kt=1355/Kv;
% R = 0.012;
% Io = 7;
[Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Prewatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,4); % Find Max
Efficiency Point of Motor
disp(' '); disp('PRELIMINARY MOTOR ANALYSIS');
Appendix C
61
string21=[' For maximum motor efficiency this motor must be provided with ',num2str(Vinstar),' input volts.'];
string22=[' Under these conditions, the input current will be ',num2str(Iinstar),' amperes'];
string23=[' and the input power will be ',num2str(Pinwattsstar),' watts.'];
string24=[' The motor shaft will be spinning at ',num2str(RPMstar),' RPM.'];
string25=[' The motor efficiency will be ',num2str(EtaMotorMax),'.'];
disp(string21); disp(string22); disp(string23); disp(string24); disp(string25);
disp(' ');
RPMactual= RPMprop; % Compute for specified gear ratio
string20b=['At this point the motor RPM and output power of the motor are specified, so motor inputs can be found.'];
string20c=[' Motor RPM= ',num2str(RPMactual),' RPM and motor output power= ',num2str(Prewatts),' watts'];
disp(string20b); disp(string20c);
% compute motor input properties
disp(' ');
[Vinactual,Iinactual,Pinwattsactual,PoutHP,EtaMotoractual,ifig]=MotorInputs(Prewatts,RPMactual,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig);
%Find Operating point of motor
string30a=['MOTOR DESIGN SUMMARY'];
string30= [' The output power of this motor is ',num2str(Prewatts),' watts or ',num2str(PoutHP),' Hp.'];
string31= [' The motor input voltage is
',num2str(Vinactual),' volts.'];
string32= [' The motor input current is
',num2str(Iinactual),' amperes.'];
string33= [' and the motor input power is ',num2str(Pinwattsactual),' watts.'];
string34= [' The electric motor shaft is spinning at ',num2str(RPMactual),' RPM.'];
string36= [' The motor efficiency is
',num2str(EtaMotoractual),'.'];
disp(string30a); disp(string30); disp(string31); disp(string32); disp(string33); disp(string34);
disp(string36);
% BATTERY SUBSYSTEM
%
disp(' '); disp('BATTERY SUBSYSTEM'); disp(' The battery pack will be made up of individual cells with the following
properties:')
VoltsPerCell=3.3;
% volts per cell
mAmpsHoursPerCell=2300; % milliamps hours per cell
gramspercell=70; %grams per cell
slugspercell=(gramspercell/1000)/14.5939;
lbfpercell=32.17*slugspercell;
string54=[' ',num2str(VoltsPerCell),' volts per cell, and ',num2str(mAmpsHoursPerCell),' milliamp hours per cell, and
',num2str(gramspercell),' grams per cell.'];
disp(string54);
disp(' '); disp(' A single string battery pack designed for the above conditions will have the following properties.')
nCells1=ceil(Vinactual/VoltsPerCell);
nVolts=nCells1*VoltsPerCell;
weight1=nCells1*lbfpercell;
BatteryEnergy1Joule=(mAmpsHoursPerCell*3600/1000)*nVolts; % Joules=watt*sec=ampere*volt*sec
ActualEnduranceMin1=(1/60)*(BatteryEnergy1Joule/Pinwattsactual); % predicted endurance for single strand battery,
minutes
string50=[' ',num2str(nCells1),' total cells, arranged in a 1x',num2str(nCells1),' array.'];
string51=[' producing ',num2str(nVolts),' volts, and giving a predicted endurance of ',num2str(ActualEnduranceMin1),'
minutes,'];
string54=[' and weighing ',num2str(weight1),' lbf.'];
disp(string50); disp(string51); disp(string54);
figure(4)
Appendix C
Code 2: Power_Required.m
function [Pr,Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V,CL0)
% function [Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V)
% OUPUTS
% Pop is operating power of the aircraft (ft-lbf/sec)
% Vop is the operating velocity of the aircraft (ft/sec)
% Pre is the minimum power required (ft-lbf/sec)
% Ve is the velocity of the aircraft for minimum power required (ft/sec)
%
% INPUTS
% CD0= drag coefficient when CL=0.
% A= aspect ratio span squared divided by reference area
% e= Oswalds efficiency factor
% V= velocity vector in ft/sec
% rho= air density in slugs/ft^3
% W= aircraft weight in pounds (lbf)
% S= wing area
% ifig is the figure number of the plot
%--------------------------- Drag Calculations ---------------------------%
k=1/(pi*A*e); % k from the drag polar CD=CD0+k*CL^2
kvisc=0.0167;
kvisclow=0.0243;
marker=interp1(V,[1:length(V)],45);
CL=2*W./(rho*S*V.*V); % Lift cofficient as a function of velocity
CD(1:marker)=CD0+(k+kvisclow)*(CL(1:marker)-CL0).^2; %Cd for low speed (<45ft/s)
CD((marker+1):length(V))=CD0+(k+kvisc)*(CL((marker+1):length(V))-CL0).^2; %Cd for high speed (>45ft/s)
% CD=CD0+k*CL.*CL % Drag coefficient as a function of velocity
Pr=.5*rho*S*V.^3.*CD; % Power required ft/lbf/sec
CLe=sqrt(3*CD0/k); % Lift coefficient for maximum endurance (minimum power required)
CDe=4*CD0; % Drag coefficient for maximum endurance (minimum power required)
Ve= sqrt(2*W/(rho*S*CLe)); % Speed for maximum endurance (minimum power required)
Pre=interp1(V,Pr,Ve); % YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI) % minimum power required
%---------------------------- Output Settings ----------------------------%
figure(1)
hold on
grid on
plot(V,Pr/550,'LineWidth',2)
xlabel('Velocity [ft/sec]')
ylabel('Power required [hp]')
title('Aircraft Power Required vs Speed')
% plot(Ve,min(Pre)/550,'rp')
fprintf('\nMinimum power of %.2f [ft-lbf/sec] is achieved at a speed of %.2f [ft/sec]',Pre,Ve);
62
Appendix C
63
Code 3: MotorMaxEff.m
function [Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Poutwatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)
% function [Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Poutwatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)
% Computes Vinstar(volts), Iinstar(amps) from Poutwatts(watts) assuming that the
% motor is running at the conditions for maximum efficiency.
% Iin=sqrt(Io*Vin/R)
%
% Requires motor constants Kv,Kt,R,Io.
% Kv= RPM/volt
% Kt= inch-ounce per ampere
% R= Ohms
% Io= amperes
%
% Additional outputs include
% Pinwattsstar =input power (watts)
% RPMstar =RPM for motor running at most efficient conditions.
% PoutHP =output power in HP
% EtaMotorMax =maximum motor efficiency (non-dimensional)
%
% ifig in the current figure number and is updated if a figure is plotted.
Vinmat=1:.1:20;
% lets vary voltage over this range (volt)
Iinmat=sqrt(Io*Vinmat/R); % current for max efficiency at Vinmat (amp)
Poutmat=(Iinmat-Io).*(Vinmat-Iinmat*R); % power at max efficiency conditions (watts)
% ifig=ifig+1; figure(ifig)
% plot(Poutmat,Vinmat)
% hold on; plot(Poutmat2,Vinmat,':'); hold off
% xlabel('Power output (watts)')
% ylabel('Input voltage (volts)')
% title('Motor performance for maxmum efficiency')
% YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI,'spline')
Vinstar=interp1(Poutmat,Vinmat,Poutwatts,'spline'); % finds voltage for appropriate amount of power (volts)
% The above solution technique solves for Vinstar using a graphical
% technique (table lookup).
Poutwatts2=interp1(Vinmat,Poutmat,Vinstar,'spline'); % double check (watts)
% hold on
% plot([Poutwatts,Poutwatts],[0,Vinstar],'r:',[0,Poutwatts],[Vinstar,Vinstar],':')
% hold off
Iinstar=sqrt(Io*Vinstar/R); % Input current in amperes
Pinwattsstar=Iinstar*Vinstar; % Input power in watts
Poutwatts3=(Iinstar-Io)*(Vinstar-Iinstar*R); % triple check (watts)
PoutHP=Poutwatts/745.7; % hp
EtaMotorMax=((Iinstar-Io)/Iinstar)^2; % non-dimensional
RPMstar=Kv*(Vinstar-Iinstar*R); % RPM
Appendix C
Code 4: MotorInputs.m
function [Vin,Iin,PinWatts,PoutHP,EtaMotor,ifig]=MotorInputs(PoutWatts,RPM,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)
%function [Vin,Iin,PinWatts,PoutHP,EtaMotor,ifig]=MotorInputs(PoutWatts,RPM,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)
% Computes Vin(volts), Iin(amperes) from PoutWatts(watts), RPM(rpm).
% Requires motor constants Kv,Kt,R,Io.
% Kv= RPM/volt
% Kt= inch-ounce per ampere
% R= Ohms
% Io= amperes
%
% ifig in the current figure number and is not used in this function.
Kt=KvKt/Kv; % Doing this improves accuracy
KvKt=12*16*60/(2*pi*1.355818); % This is by definition
Kt=KvKt/Kv; % Doing this improves accuracy
Poutftlbfsec=PoutWatts/1.355818; % ft-lbf/sec
Omegarps=RPM*2*pi/60;
% radians per sec
Torqueftlbf=Poutftlbfsec/Omegarps; % ft-lbf
Torqueozin=Torqueftlbf*12*16; % oz-in
Iin=Torqueozin/Kt+Io; % amps
Vin=RPM/Kv+Iin*R; % volts
PinWatts=Iin*Vin; % watts
PoutHP=PoutWatts/745.7; % Convert output power from watts to hp
EtaMotor=PoutWatts/PinWatts; % non-dimensional
end
64
Appendix D
Appendix D
65
Appendix D
List of Symbols
(In order of Appearance)
Symbol
Description
SHT or Sh
cHT
CW or cavg
SW or S
LHT or lh
SVT or Sv
cVT
bW or b
LVT or lv
X acA
Horizontal Tail Area

Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient
Wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC)
Wing Area
Length Wing MAC to Horizontal Tail MAC
Vertical Tail Area
Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient
Wing Span
Length Wing MAC to Vertical Tail MAC
Aircraft Aerodynamic Center
X acwf
Wing-Fuselage Aerodynamic Center
CLH
Lift Coefficient per Angle of Attack of Horizontal Tail

Downwash Effect
d h
X ach
Horizontal Tail Aerodynamic Center
CLwf
AR
zh
ch
Lift Coefficient per Angle of Attack of Wing-Fuselage

Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Distance Wing Centerline to Horizontal Tail Centerline
Horizontal Tail Chord
Weathercock Stability (Yawing Moment Coefficient with Sideslip Angle)
C n
C nw
Yawing Moment Coefficient with Sideslip Angle of Wing
C nf
Yawing Moment Coefficient with Sideslip Angle of Fuselage
C nV
Yawing Moment Coefficient with Sideslip Angle of Vertical Tail
KN
KRl
SBs
lB
Empirical Factor for Body and Body+Wing Effects

Reynolds Number Factor for Fuselage
Side Body Area
Fuselage Length
Side Force Coefficient with Sideslip Angle of Vertical Tail
C yV
CL
CL0
CL
CLih
ih
CLe
e
C m0
dC m
dC L
Angle of Attack
Lift Coefficient
Zero-Lift Coefficient
Lift-Coefficient with Angle of Attack
Lift Coefficient with Horizontal Tail Incidence
Incidence Angle of Horizontal Tail
Lift Coefficient with Elevator Deflection
Elevator Deflection
Pitching Moment Coefficient for Zero Lift
Static Margin
C mih
Pitching Moment Coefficient with Horizontal Tail Incidence Angle
C me
Pitching Moment Coefficient with Elevator Deflection
66
Appendix D
xcg
Center of Gravity Location as Fraction of MAC
tail stall
Stall Angle of Attack of Horizontal Tail
M
F
d
L
Cl
V
A
Moment Generated
Force
Distance
Lift
2-D Lift Coefficient
Density
Velocity
Area
Aircraft Yaw Rate Transfer Function
R( s)
r ( s)
67
Appendix D
68
D&C 4.1 Tail Sizing

Class I: Tail Sizing Volume Coefficient Method
Two equations were used to find the preliminary tail areas, they are as follows:
c C S
S HT = HT W W
Equation 4.1
LHT
c b S
SVT = VT W W
Equation 4.2
LVT
The lengths found in the denominator of each equation is an estimation of the length from
the quarter-chord of the wing to the quarter-chord of the vertical and horizontal tails was made.
This length was estimated at 3 feet and was based on the preliminary length of the aircraft to be
approximately 4.5 feet long. The aerodynamics team members provided the remaining values for
the variables in the two equations (wing span, wing mean chord, and wing area).
cHT
cVT
bW
SW
LHT
LVT
CW
SHT
SVT
0.50
0.04
4.97
4.95
3
3
1.041
0.3300
0.8159
ft
ft2
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft2
horizontal tail volume coefficient

vertical tail volume coefficient
wing span
wing area
length c/4 wing to c/4 horizontal tail
length c/4 wing to c/4 vertical tails
wing mean chord
horizontal tail area
vertical tail area
Table 4.1: Table of Values for Estimating Tail Areas
Class II: Tail Sizing X-plot Method

The first X-plot made was for the static longitudinal stability, which sizes the horizontal tail
area. This X-plot is based on the aircrafts aerodynamic center and the non-dimensional location of
the center of gravity. Roskam suggests that the center of gravity leg of the plot be represented as
a function of the horizontal tail area. However, the center of gravity was decided to be placed at
the quarter-chord of the aircraft wing for simplicity. The next step was to find the aerodynamic
center of the aircraft as a function of the horizontal tail area. The equation for a tail-aft airplane for
the aerodynamic center of the aircraft is as follows:
X acA
Where,
1 d h
S h X
C
L
ach
H
d S
= X acwf +
C Lwf
Equation 4.3
Appendix D
d
S h C
F = 1 + C Lh 1 h
d S Lwf
69
Equation 4.4
For each instance in the equations, the horizontal tail area (Sh) the area was varied over a
range. This range varied from 0 to 1 ft2. The values for the coefficients and the aerodynamic
center of the wing-fuselage in these two equations were also provided by the aerodynamics group.
The computations made while producing the longitudinal X-plot were critical to the design of the
aircraft. This is because several values for the dimensions of the aircraft had to be defined. A very
important parameter was the length of the dual booms being used to support the twin vertical tail
configuration. This length was set at 1.5 feet. Also the placement of the horizontal tail between
with the two vertical tails was decided. This was placed at the top of the two vertical tails. This is
because of the propulsion system placement. If the horizontal tail was placed mid-span, the
engine exhaust would directly hit the horizontal tail. The high horizontal tail would reduce the
amount of exhaust hitting the surface. The effect of horizontal tail placement was considered while
computing the downwash ratio at the horizontal tail ( d h d ). For the computation of this
variable, Ref. 4 was utilized.
d h
21C L c avg 10 3 z h
Equation 4.5
=
1
d
b
AR 0.725 l h 7
The downwash effect also took into account the changing horizontal tail area because the
length from the aerodynamic center of the wing to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail was
changing as the chord of the tail varied. The chord of the tail was based on the fixed horizontal
span of 1.5 feet and then computed as the tail area varied. This change in chord was crucial for
the horizontal aerodynamic center location computation. The aerodynamic center of the horizontal
tail was assumed to be at the quarter-chord of the tail.
Taking all of these parameters and the effect of varying the horizontal tail area led to the Xplot. The design point chosen was based on the desire to have a static margin greater than 15%.
Research proved that a static margin greater than 15% would give a longitudinal stable aircraft.
The design point was chosen as a horizontal tail area with an area of 0.625 ft2. This resulted in a
corresponding chord length of 0.41667 feet (5 inches). This gives the horizontal tail aspect ratio as
3.6. The static margin was computed as 18.1% by taking difference between the aerodynamic
center and the center of gravity.
bH
Xacwf
CLh
CLwf
AR
zh
1.5
0.249
5.451
5.545
5
0.45
0.5
feet
feet
rad-1
rad-1
feet
horizontal tail span

aerodynamic center of wing-fuselage from leading edge
lift coefficient per angle of attack for horizontal tail
lift coefficient per angle of attack for wing-fuselage
aspect ratio
wing taper ratio
distance from wing centerline to horizontal tail centerline
Table 4.2: Fixed Parameters for Longitudinal X-plot
Appendix D
SH
cH
d h
0.625
0.4167
0.127
ft2
ft
rad-1
70
horizontal tail area

chord of horizontal tail
Downwash effect
X ach
2.115
Distance leading edge to aerodynamic center of horizontal tail
X acA
0.4314
Distance leading edge to aircraft aerodynamic center

Table 4.3: Design Point Parameters of Horizontal Tail
In addition to the horizontal tail sizing, the longitudinal static stability (Cm) can be
computed. This value is -0.79132 rad-1 (as computed by Flat Earth Code Ref. 5). This is another
check of the static margin which was computed previously by the longitudinal X-plot to be 18.1%.
The next step was to design the vertical tail area. This was done by following the method Roskam
recommends to make a directional X-plot based on the equation for the variation of yawing
moment coefficient with sideslip angle (weathercock stability). The tail area is found to be sufficient
by ensuring that the weathercock stability is met. The stability criterion is found by relating the
yawing moment coefficient with sideslip for the wing, fuselage, and the vertical tail seen in the
following equation (rad-1):
C n = C nw + C nf + C nV
rad-1 Equation 4.6
For this equation the wing contribution (Cnw) is neglected as recommended by Roskam (Ref. 3).
For the fuselage the contribution is based on the following equation (rad-1):
S l
C nf = 57.3K N K Rl Bs B rad-1 Equation 4.7
S b
This value was computed to be -0.1334 rad-1 based on the parameters that were used (shown in
Table 4). It was at this point that the vertical tail span was chosen as 0.5 feet (6 inches). This was
based on observing similar aircraft that have boom mounted tail. In each instance it was seen that
the vertical tail span was only slightly larger than the maximum height of the fuselage. The span of
0.5 feet was chosen because it is only slightly larger than the fuselage.
KN
KRl
SBs
S
lB
b
0.002
1.2
0.914
4.97
2.52
0.5
ft2
ft2
ft2
ft
empirical factor for body and body + wing effects

Reynolds Number factor for fuselage
side body area
wing area
fuselage length
vertical tail span
Table 4.4: Parameters for Computation of Cnf
The next step in the calculation of the yawing moment coefficient with sideslip angle was to
observe the effects of the vertical tail. In order to do this Roskam Ref. 3 was again used.
l cos + zV sin
C nV = C yV V
rad-1 Equation 4.8
b
For this equation the second term in the numerator can be neglected because the angle of attack
() is assumed to be zero. The distance from the center of gravity to the aerodynamic center of the
vertical tail (lV) is also varied with the vertical tail area. The complication of this equation occurs
with the variation of side force coefficient with sideslip angle (CyV). This is because it is at this
instant that the vertical tail contributions can be accounted for. In order to compute this value
Appendix D
71
Equation 9 is needed. With the use of figures provided in Ref. 3 values are obtained in order to
complete the calculation. It is at this stage that the variation in the vertical tail area is considered.
C yV (WBF )
SV
C yV = 2
C yVeff
S
C yVeff
b
4.97
ft
1
C yV (WBF )
C yVeff
CyVeff
S
2.8
4.95
ft2
rad-1
Equation 4.9
Wing span
Found through use of Figure 7.10 (Ref. 3)
Found through use of Figure 7.9 (Ref. 3)
wing area
Table 4.5: Parameters for Compuation of CnV
At this point the directional X-plot can be found. Roskam recommends that the value of
the weathercock stability be at least 0.06 rad-1. The Flat Earth Code (Ref. 5) used throughout this
course advises that the range of Cn be from 0.06 to 0.12 rad-1. The chosen area for each vertical
tail was 0.203 ft2 (30 in2). This tail area allowed for weathercock stability of 0.102 rad-1, which is
within the values suggested by the Flat Earth Code. This was chosen because with this area the
corresponding vertical tail chord was 5 inches. This is the same length of the horizontal tail chord
and was thought that this would help to ease construction. The aspect ratio of each vertical tail is
1.2.
Appendix D
72
D&C 4.3 Static Stability Derivatives

In order to compute the static stability derivatives found in 4.3, Flat Earth Code provided by
Prof. Andrisani was used. Flat Earth Code references Roskams Methods for Estimating Stability
and Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes, unless otherwise noted in the script.
It should be noted that the weathercock stability Cn was found previously for the twin-tail
configuration during tail sizing (4.1).
D&C 4.4 Trim Diagram Equations and MATLAB Code

C L = C L 0 + C L + C Lihih + C Lee
0 = C m0 +
SM =
dCm
C L + C mihih + C mee
dC L
) (
dCm
C
= m = x cg x ac = x ac x cg
dC L
C L
tail stall = 7.2 deg

%Tara Trafton
%AAE 451 - Trim diagram
%Equations below from 4.2.2 - 'The Airplane Trim Diagram' of Raymer % Stability and Control During Steady State Flight
clear all
close all
clc
color = ('bcgymkr');
%changes color with for loop iterations
%------------Contants-------------%From Basic/Make Constants and Aero team

CM0 = 0.029;
%zero lift pitching moment
CL0 = .074581;
%CL at alpha = 0
CLih = 0;
%1/rad
CMih = -5.5;
%1/rad
CLa = 5.543;
%1/rad
CMa = .60178;
%1/rad
CLde = .2022;
%1/rad
CMde = -1.28;
%1/rad
ahstall = deg2rad(7.2);
%stall angle horiz. tail (rad)
dedalfa = deg2rad(40);
%downwash angle (rad)
eps0 = 0;
%initial downwash
CLmax = 1.042;
%CL for stall condition
%------User Defined Variables------alfa = [0:deg2rad(.5):deg2rad(10)];
%angle of attack (rad)
ih = 0;
%h-tail stab. incidence (rad)
gam = 0;
%flight path angle (rad)
de = deg2rad([8 5 2 -1]); %elevator deflection (rad)
deA = deg2rad([-8:.1:16]);
%array of de to plot alfa max
j = length(de);
%constant used for counter
aoa = deg2rad([-1:4:7]);
%AoA to plot alfa max
Equations 4.10-4.13
Appendix D
CLt = [0:.01:CLmax];
CMCLm = [.29:-.001:-.29];
%Trim CL for plotting

%x range to show CLmax
%------From CATIA Model-------------------c = 1.352;

%wing chord [ft]
LE = 13/12;
%distance of LE from nose
xCGa = 20/12;
%aft center of gravity [ft]
xCGf = 16.902/12;
%forward center of gravity [ft]
xCG = 18.06/12;
%quarter chord of wing [ft]
xCGap = (xCGa - LE)/c;
%aft CG percent chord
xCGfp = (xCGf - LE)/c;
%forward CG percent chord
xCGp = (xCG - LE)/c;
%nominal CG percent chord
CG = [xCGfp xCGp xCGap];
%CG vector to get V of trim CG locations
%-----------Trim Diagram----------figure()
%---CL vs. ALPHA PLOT---subplot(121)
%subplot gives conventional layout of trim diagram
%Loop iterates for all values of deflection
for i = [1:1:j]
CL = (CL0 + CLa.*alfa +CLih*ih + CLde*de(i));
%Raymer 4.61a
plot(rad2deg(alfa),CL, color(i),'LineWidth',2)
hold on
i = i+1;
end
xlabel('\alpha [deg]')
ylabel('C_L')
grid on
legend('\delta_e = 8ô', '\delta_e = 5ô','\delta_e = 2ô','\delta_e = -1ô')
title('Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack')
%----TRIM TRIANGLE-----subplot(122)
grid off
%plotting CLmax on trim diagram... horizontal line at top
plot(CMCLm,CLmax, 'r.', 'LineWidth',1)
% xlabel('C_{m_{0.25c}}')
% ylabel('C_L')
hold all
%plotting aoa
for c = 1:length(deA)
for d = 1:length(aoa)
CMA(d,c) = CM0 + CMa*aoa(d) + CMih*ih + CMde*deA(c);
CLA(d,c) = CL0 + CLa*aoa(d) +CLih*ih + CLde*deA(c);
CMt(d,c) = CMA(d,c) - CLA(d,c)*(.25 - xCGfp);
end
plot(CMt(:,c),CLA(:,c), 'm.','LineWidth',2)
hold on
end
73
Appendix D
%plotting deflection angles on trim diagram

for k = [1:1:j]
CM = -(CM0 + CMa.*alfa +CMih*ih + CMde*de(k)); %Raymer 4.61b
plot(CM,CL, color(k),'LineWidth',3)
hold on;
set(gca,'xdir','reverse')
k = k+1;
end
%plotting CG positions on trim diagram... getting the 'V'
for a = [1:1:length(CG)]
SM = -1*(CG(a) - xCGp);
%Raymer 4.61b
CMt = 1*SM.*CLt;
%Raymer
plot(CMt,CLt, 'k','LineWidth',3)
hold on
a = a+1;
end
title('Trim Diagram C_L vs C_M_c_g for varying \delta_e')
xlabel('C_M_c_g')
ylabel('C_L')
hold off
Figure 4.1: Trim Diagram Analysis for TFM-2
74
Appendix D
75
Analysis of Pitching Moment generated from Thrust

This was performed as a check of TFM-2. The TFM-2 has a greater nose down pitching
moment than traditionally experience due to the elevated line of action of the propulsion system
with respect to the center of gravity of the aircraft. Analysis of moment generated and how to
balance it using the elevator was conducted using the following equations.
M = F d
V 2
A
L = C l
2
Equations 4.14 - 4.15
Variable
M
F
d
L
Cl
V
A
e
Definition
Moment Generated
Force
distance
Lift
2D Lift Coefficient
Density
Velocity
Area
Elevator deflection
Units
lb-ft
lbf
ft
lbf
lb/ft3
ft/s
ft2
degree
Table 4.6: Definitions of Terms Used
The equations above are general expressions for calculating moments (M) and lift (L),
Table A.4.6 contains the definition of each term. After creating a MatLab code that found the value
of the moments generated by the elevator and the propulsion system, it was found that an elevator
deflection angle of -10.26o was needed to trim the aircraft. It can be seen in Figure A.4.2, as the
location at which the moments are equal. From there, logic shows that the sign of the angle should
be negative using the traditional notation. However, this did not take into consideration the
enhanced elevator efficiency which results from the location of the elevator. Once that was
considered along with the more traditional trim diagram and low deflection values it was apparent
that the aircraft is trimmable at a velocity of 107 ft/s.
Appendix D
76
4
Elevator
Thrust
3.5
Moment [lb-ft]
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-15
-10
-5
e [deg]
Figure 4.2: Moment versus Elevator Deflection
Appendix D
77
D&C 4.5 Feedback Control System

Without Feedback Control System
% Ashley Brawner
% Finding the damping of the open-loop yaw rate transfer function
% A&AE 451
damp(RperDr)
Eigenvalue
0.00e+000
1.69e-001
-7.68e-001 + 4.03e+000i
-7.68e-001 - 4.03e+000i
-6.75e+000
Damping
-1.00e+000
-1.00e+000
1.87e-001
1.87e-001
1.00e+000
Freq. (rad/s)
0.00e+000
1.69e-001
4.10e+000
4.10e+000
6.75e+000
Figure 4.3: Root Locus of Open-Loop Yaw Rate Transfer Function
Appendix D
78
Feedback Control System Root Locus:
Figure 4.4: Root Locus of Feedback Control System
Closed Loop Poles of Control System (Yaw Rate Feedback)

% Ashley Brawner
% Finding the damping of the Feedback Control System
% A&AE 451
sys=feedback(Servo*RperDr,-0.4); damp(sys)
Eigenvalue
0.00e+000
2.33e-001
-5.38e+000
-4.66e+000 + 3.21e+000i
-4.66e+000 - 3.21e+000i
-1.68e+001 + 2.13e+001i
-1.68e+001 - 2.13e+001i
Damping
-1.00e+000
-1.00e+000
1.00e+000
8.23e-001
8.23e-001
6.21e-001
6.21e-001
Freq. (rad/s)
0.00e+000
2.33e-001
5.38e+000
5.66e+000
5.66e+000
2.71e+001
2.71e+001
Appendix D
79
Appendix of Code
BasicConstants.m
Basic Constants.m is a MATLAB file which was used for running Prof. Andrisanis Flat Earth code.
This code was used to determine many constants which were needed for analysis, in addition it
also evaluated the longitudinal and lateral stability of the TFM-2 aircraft after the equations of
motion were linearized.
% *********************************************
% BasicConstants_TFM2 Version 2.0 10/30/06
% This version requires Xcg and low_wing to be defined here.
%
% OBJECTIVE: Collect into one location all the vehicle specific constants (a.k.a. basic constants).
%
From these basic constants all the stability and control derivatives
%
can be determined.
% INPUTS: None
% OUTPUTS: Many basic constants defined in the Matlab workspace.
%
% This version is the first for team Balsa to the Wall
% Arbitrary reference point is the quarter chord of the wing
% Moment reference point is the quarter chord of the wing
% Trim velocity assumed to be 107 ft/s
%
% *********************************************
% BasicConstants - Identifies, describes, and assigns all of the
%
the most basic variables for analyzing the control
%
and stability of a generic aircraft.
% *********************************************
%
% A&AE 451 Fall 2006 - Purdue University
%
% Note: This code is provided for a first order approximation of the dynamic
%
analysis of an airplane and is not intended for final designs.
%
% Equations/Figures can be found in :
%
% (Ref.1) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight
%
Controls"
%
Published by DARcorporation
%
120 E. Ninth St., Suite 2
%
Lawrence, KS 66044
%
Third Printing, 2001.
%
% (Ref.2) Roskam, Jan. "Methods for Estimating Stability and
%
Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes"
%
Published by the Author
%
519 Boulder
%
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
%
%
% (Ref.3) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Design: Part IV: Preliminary Calculation
%
of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power Characteristics"
%
Published by Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation
Appendix D
%
%
%
80
Rt4, Box 274

Ottawa, Kansas 66067
Second Printing, 1990.
disp(' '); disp('Starting BasicConstants'); disp(' ')

aircraft='TFM2';
adelf = 0;
% Two dimensional lift effectiveness parameter Ref.(2),Equ(8.7)
alpha = 0*pi/180; % Trim Angle of attack [rad]. This should be zero since our
%
equations of motion are body axis system rather then the stability axis system.
alpha_0 = -0.018;
% Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]
altitude= 620;
% Trim altitude [ft] [We fly at 20 feet plus West Lafayettes sea level altitude]
disp(['Trim altitude= ',num2str(altitude),' ft'])
AR_h = 3.6585;
% Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail
AR_w = 5;
% Aspect ratio of the wing
b_f =3.47;
% Span of the flap [ft] (Alieron total span)****
b_h = 1.5;
% Span of the horizontal tail [ft]
b_h_oe =6/12;
% Elevator outboard position [ft]
b_h_ie = 0;
% Elevator inboard position [ft]
b_w = 4.97;
% Span of the wing [ft]
b_v = 6/12;
% Vertical tail span measured from fuselage centerline[ft]
b_v_or = 5.5/12;
% Outboard position of rudder [ft]
b_v_ir = 0;
% Inboard position of rudder [ft]
c_a = 0.1825;
% Chord of aileron [ft]
C_bar_D_o = 0.018;
% Parasite drag
Cd_0 = 0.019;
% Drag coefficient at zero lift (parasite drag)
c_e = 1.25/12;
% Elevator chord [ft]
cf = 0.1825;
% Chord of the wing flap [ft]
c_h = 5/12;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail [ft]
CL = 0.598;
% Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2)
CL_hb = 0;
% Lift coefficient of the horzontal tail/body
CL_wb= 0.130;
% Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0
Cl_alpha_h = 5.451;
% 2-D Lift curve slope of horizontal tail
Cl_alpha_v = 6.283;
% 2-D Lift curve slope of vertical tail
Cl_alpha = 6.032;
% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of whole aircraft
Cl_alpha_w = 5.543;
% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of wing
Cm_0_r = -0.029;
% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing root
Cm_o_t = -0.029;
% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing tip **Cm_0_r = Cm_o_t because wing
has
% No twist
c_r = 4.5/12;
% MEAN Chord of the rudder [ft]
c_w = 1.041;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the wing [ft]
c_v = 5/12;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical tail [ft]
D_p = 10/12;
% Diameter of propeller [ft]
d = 0.417;
% Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]
delf = 0;
% Streamwise flap deflection [rad] NO FLAPS
delta_e = 0;
% Elevator deflection [rad]
delta_r = 0;
% Rudder deflection [rad]
dihedral = 0*pi/180; % Geometric dihedral angle of the wing [rad], positive for
%
dihedral (wing tips up), negative for
%
anhedral(tips down) [rad] ***EST
dihedral_h = 0*pi/180;
% Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]
e = 0.9;
% Oswald's efficiency factor
epsilon_t = 0;
% Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]
epsilon_0_h = 0*pi/180;
% Downwash angle at the horizontal tail (see Note in
%
Ref.(3) under section 8.1.5.2) [rad] ***EST
eta_h = 1;
% Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream ***EST
Appendix D
eta_ia = 0.3;
% Percent semi-span position of inboard edge of aileron
eta_oa = 1;
% Percent semi-span position of outboard edge of aileron
eta_p = 0.8;
% Propeller Efficiency ***EST
eta_v = 1.0;
% Ratio of the dynamic pressure at the vertical tail
%
to that of the freestream
h1_fuse =4/12;
% Height of the fuselage at 1/4 of the its length
h2_fuse = 3/12;
h_h = 6/12;
% Height from chord plane of wing to chord plane of
%
horizontal tail [ft] - Fig 3.7, Ref. 2
hmax_fuse = 4.2/12;
% Maximum height of the fuselage [ft]
Ixx = .444312;
% Airplane moment of inertia about x-axis [slug-ft^2] *** With 4 lb load
Iyy = .530488;
% Airplane moment of inertia about y-axis [slug-ft^2]
Izz = .960872;
% Airplane moment of inertia about z-axis [slug-ft^2]
Ixz = .007557;
% Airplane product of inertia [slug-ft^2]
i_h = 0*pi/180; % Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad] This has applications from Trim Diagrams.
i_w = 0*pi/180;
% Incidence angle of wing [rad]
k = 0.087;
% k of the drag polar, generally= 1/(pi*AR*e)
Lambda = .076;
% Sweep angle of wing [rad]
Lambda_c2 =-0.076; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]
Lambda_c4 = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]
Lambda_c2_v = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the vertical tail [rad]
Lambda_c2_h = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the horizontal tail [rad]
lambda = .45; % Taper ratio of wing
lambda_h = 1;
% Taper ratio of horizontal tail
lambda_v = 1.0;
% Taper ratio of vertical tail
l_f = 45/12;
% Horizontal length of fuselage [ft]
l_v = 31.43/12;
% Horizontal distance from aircraft arbitrary reference point to vertical tail AC [ft]
%Ref fig 2.1 in thesis for l_v, ref pt is c/4
low_wing=1;
% low_wing=-1 if the wing is high
% low_wing=1 if the wing is low
% low_wing=0 if the wing is mid
% Trim Airspeed
u = 107; % ft/sec
M = u/1221;
% Mach number
S_b_s = 131.035/144;
% Body side area [ft^2]
S_h = .625;
% Area of horizontal tail [ft^2]
S_h_slip = 100/144;
% Area of horizontal tail that is covered in
%
prop-wash [ft^2] - See Fig.(8.64) - Ref.(3) ***EST
%
[Estimation]
S_o = 15/144;
% Fuselage x-sectional area at Xo [ft^2] %
See Fig.(7.2) - Ref.(2)
%
Xo is determined by plugging X1/l_b into:
%
0.378 + 0.527 * (X1/l_b) = (Xo/l_b) [Estimation at this point]
S_w = 4.95;
% Surface area of wing [ft^2]
S_v = 60/144;
% Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]
tc_w = .08;
% Thickness to chord ratio of wing
tc_h = .08;
% Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail
theta = 0*pi/180; % Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]
theta_h = 0*pi/180; % Horizontal tail twist between the root and tip
%
stations,negative for washout [rad]
two_r_one = 0/12;
% Fuselage depth in region of vertical tail [ft] Ref.(2),Figure 7.5
U = u/1.7; % knots
% Free Stream Velocity (Trim velocity) [KNOTS true]
disp(['Trim airspeed= ',num2str(U),' knots'])
81
Appendix D
82
W = 5.45242;
% Weight of Airplane [lbf]
wingloc = 0;
% If the aircraft is a highwing: (wingloc=1), low-wing:(wingloc=0)
wmax_fuse =3.6/12; % Maximum fuselage width [ft]
X1 = (14+3)/12;
% Distance from the front of the fuselage where the
%
x-sectional area decrease (dS_x/dx)
%
is greatest (most negative) [ft] - Ref.(2),Fig. 7.2
x_m = 15.875/12;
% Distance from nose of aircraft to arbitrary reference point [ft]
%
measured positive aftward. Reference point will be MAC.
x_over_c_v = .25
% PARAMETER ACCOUNTING FOR THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL TAILS
%
defined as the fore-and-aft distance from leading edge of vertical fin to the
%
aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail divided by the chord of the vertical tail
%
[nondimensional] - See Fig 7.6 of Ref. 2
Xach = 2.882;
% Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail (positive aftward) [ft]
Xacwb = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the aerodynamic center of the wing and body.
%
Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]
Xacw = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the aerodynamic center of the wing ALONE.
%
Xref = 2.92/12; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the arbitrary moment reference point. The equivalent force system
%
for the aerodynamic force system is given about this point.
%
Xcg = 0.15*c_w;
%
to the center of gravity.
%
%
% Xcg is ignored until Step 2. It an be changed later in Step 2.
%
Z_h = -6/12;
%
%
%
%
%
%
Z_v = 3/12;
%
Z_w = -1.5/12;
%
%
Z_w1 = -1.5/12;
%
%
% Negative of the VERTICAL distance from the fuselage

centerline to the horizontal tail aero center
(Z_h is a negative number FOR TAILS ABOVE THE CENTERLINE)
- Ref.(2), Fig.7.6
***This produces a bunch of interpolation errors because
Roskam doesn't have data for horizontal tails below the
centerline of the fuselage
% Vertical distance from the aircraft arbirary reference point to the vertical
tail aero center (positive up) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.18
% This is the vertical distance from the wing root c/4 [ft]
to the fuselage centerline,
positive downward - Ref.(2), Equ(7.5)
% Distance from body centerline to c/4 of wing root
chord,positive for c/4 point
below body centerline (ft) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.1
Appendix E
Appendix E
83
Appendix E
bending =
My
I
Equation 5.3.1: Bending stress
FL3
3EI
Equation 5.3.2: Elastic deflection
T=
1
V 2 SC m c
2
Equation 5.3.3: Torque due to aerodynamic loading
TL
GJ
Equation 5.3.4: Twist angle due to torsion
84
Appendix E
85
Appendix of Figures
Load Factor vs. Velocity
14
12
10
nmax
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Velocity [ft/sec]
70
80
90
100
Figure 5.2.1: Load factor at maximum lift vs. velocity

Load Factor vs. Bank Angle
12
10
nturn
10
20
30
40
50
Bank Angle [deg]
60
70
80
Figure 5.2.2: Load factor in level turn vs. bank angle
90
Appendix E
86
Load Factor vs. Velocity and Vertical Turn Radius
10
npull up
8
6
4
2
0
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
Vertical Turn Radius [ft]
Velocity [ft/sec]
Figure 5.2.3: Load factor in climb vs. vertical turn radius and velocity
Load Factor vs. Turn Radius for Different Velocities
35
30
30 [ f t / s]
35 [ f t / s]
25
40 [ f t / s]
45 [ f t / s]
50 [ f t / s]
55 [ f t / s]
20
60 [ f t / s]
65 [ f t / s]
70 [ f t / s]
15
75 [ f t / s]
80 [ f t / s]
85 [ f t / s]
90 [ f t / s]
10
95 [ f t / s]
100 [ f t / s]
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ve r t i c a l T u r n R a di us [ f t ]
Figure 5.2.4: Load factor in climb vs. vertical turn radius for range of velocities
Appendix E
87
Exact Wing Geometry
0.8
0.6
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
1
0
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
0
2
2.5
-0.5
Chord [ft]
Span [ft]
Figure 5.3.1: Discretization of the Wing Structure
Elliptic Lift Distribution and Discretized Approximation

12
10
8
Lift [lbf]
Thickness [ft]
0.4
6
4
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
Distance from Root [ft]
Figure 5.3.2: Elliptic Lift Distribution
2.5
Appendix E
88
Bending Moment vs. Span
Bending Moment [ft-lb]
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2.5
Figure 5.3.3: Bending Moment vs. Span
Torque vs. Distance from Root

0
Torque [ft-lbf]
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
0.5
1
1.5
Figure 5.3.4: Torque vs. Span
2.5
Appendix E
89
Torque vs. Distance from Root

0
-5
-15
-20
-25
-30
0.5
1
1.5
2.5
Figure 5.3.5: Total Resultant Torque including Boom Load
Fiberglass Thickness vs. Cloth Weight

0.012
Fiberglass Cloth Thickness [in]
Torque [ft-lbf]
-10
y = 0.0015x
R2 = 0.9851
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
Fiberglass Cloth Weight [oz]
Figure 5.3.6: Total Fiberglass Thickness vs. Cloth Weight
Appendix E
90
NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Centroid Location

0.4
0.3
0.2
y/c
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
x/c
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 5.3.7: Normalized Airfoil and Centroid Location

NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation
0.3
0.2
y/c
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
x/c
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 5.3.7: Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation
0.9
Appendix E
91
Appendix E: V-n Diagram Walk-through

The design variables which were used in V-n diagram analysis are summarized in Table
5.2.1 below.
Design Variables
Velocity
V
Bank Angle
Vertical Turn Radius

r
Table 5.2.1: Load factor parameters.
Velocity and bank angle will be relatively easy to control. The vertical turn radius is more arbitrary,
but can still be physically attained within reason.
The entire structure scales with load factor; therefore, the lower the load factor is, the
lighter the aircraft structure can be made. As the intended mission is high speed, light weight
becomes even more critical than in the case of more general purpose aircraft.
Three separate flight conditions were examined to determine the appropriate load factor.
The first condition was level-flight at maximum lift, where CLmax was given by the aerodynamics
team as 1.06. The second condition was a level-flight turn. The third condition was the climb.
C L S
n = max V 2
2W
Load factor at CL,max
n=
1
cos
Load factor in level-flight turn
n=
V2
+1
gr
Load factor in climb as a function of vertical turn radius
These equations yield the instantaneous load factors for the given flight conditions and
required input parameters. Graphical representations of the above equations are presented in
figures 5.2.1 through 5.2.4.
Appendix E
92
Appendix E: Comparison of Exact Airfoil Structural Properties with

Elliptic Approximation
For simplification of analysis, the bending moments of inertia and polar moments of inertia
were initially approximated using an ellipse with thickness and chord corresponding to that of the
local station airfoil. This was later compared with the exact airfoil structural properties obtained
using XFOIL. The trade study evaluating this approximation was conducted with a uniform wing
skin of 4 oz E-glass/epoxy having a thickness of 0.0059 in.
The bending moments of inertia and polar moments of inertia were calculated for the area
and for the skin at each of the ten discretized stations. The errors presented in table 5.3.1 are the
errors averaged over the ten stations. The comparison of tip vertical deflection and tip twist is
shown in table 5.3.2 below. While providing an approximate initial first guess for structural design,
the elliptic approximation proved to be a poor analysis approximation when precise results were
desired.
I_xx_area_avg_error
22.70%
I_xx_skin_avg_error
6.79%
J_area_avg_error
23.81%
J_skin_avg_error
27.30%
Table 5.3.1: Average errors in structural properties in elliptic approximation
Airfoil Tip Vertical Deflection

Ellipse Tip Vertical Deflection
Airfoil Tip Twist
Ellipse Tip Twist
1.386e-4 [ft]
1.298e-4 [ft]
-1.045 [deg]
-0.8199 [deg]
Table 5.3.2: Comparison of exact airfoil calculations with elliptic approximation
Appendix E
93
Appendix E: Center of Gravity

The tail construction was designed with respect to a center of gravity located at the front
quarter chord of the wing. In order to ensure this location of the center of gravity, the majority of
the components needed to be placed in the front section of the fuselage. The internal components
placed near the front of the fuselage included the payload, battery, rate gyro, receiver, and four
servos. The dynamics & controls team stated that the rate gyro and receiver needed to be placed
close to each other due to wire length constraints between them. The four servos have been
placed closest to the wing in order to reduce the complexity of any extra linkages between the
servos and the push-rods. The battery and payload have been placed as close to the front of the
fuselage as possible based on their individual weights being the two largest of all the components
individual weights. The motor has been placed inside the ducted fan which is located directly
behind the fuselage. The speed controller needed to be placed in the back of the fuselage due to
the short wire which must connect it to the motor. All of these components were modeled in these
specific locations using CATIA. Based on given dimensions of each component, CATIA assigned
each component a volume. The given mass of each component was determined by manually
assigning a volumetric density. The specific locations and weights of all components are listed in a
table, below.
Component
Booms
Fuselage
Tail
Motor
Batteries
Speed Controller
Receiver
Wing
Flapperon Servos
Vert. Tail Servos
Horiz. Tail Servo
Rate Gyro
Payload
Weight [lbf]
0.250
0.651
0.150
0.375
1.250
0.100
0.040
0.849
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.010
1.000
Position [ft]
2.431
1.681
4.125
1.738
1.613
0.083
0.417
1.306
0.322
0.322
0.322
0.083
0.250
Table 5.5.2: Tabular Listing of Parts, Location, and Weight
Appendix E
94
Appendix of Tables
[0/90] Woven Cloth
E_1 [Msi]
3.5
E_2 [Msi]
3.5
G_12 [Msi] 0.68
Table 5.3.3: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties
2 Ply Laminate
E_x [Msi]
E_y [Msi]
G_xy [Msi]
[0/45]
2.87
2.87
1.13
Table 5.3.4: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties, 2-ply equivalent moduli
3 Ply Laminate [-45/0/45]

E_x [Msi]
2.62
E_y [Msi]
2.62
G_xy [Msi]
1.28
Table 5.3.5: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties, 3-ply equivalent moduli
Appendix E
Internal Layout of TFM-2
Figure 5.5.1: Internal Layout of TFM-2
95
Appendix E
Appendix of Code
Wing Bending Analysis
% Wing Bending Analysis
close all
clear all
clc;
% Updated 12 October 2006
% Assumes Elliptic Lift Distribution
W = 5.5; % weight
Span = 5;
n = 5;
SF = 1.5;
g = 32.174;
L = n*SF*W;
a = Span/2;
A = L/2;
b = 4*A/(pi*a);
n = 11;
x = linspace(0,a,n);
y = sqrt(b^2*(1-x.^2/a^2)); % Lift
for i = 1:length(x)-1
x_avg(i) = (x(i)+x(i+1))/2;
y_avg(i) = (y(i)+y(i+1))/2;
end
dx = x(2);
dl = x(2)/2;
n_dl = [1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19];
for j = 1:length(x_avg)
L_local(j) = dx*y_avg(j);
end
for k = 1:length(L_local)
M_local = L_local(k:length(L_local)).*(dl*n_dl(1:length(L_local)+1-k));
M_station(k) = sum(M_local);
end
96
Appendix E
M = L/2*4*a/(3*pi)
M_approx = M_station(1)
Half_Lift = A
Half_Lift_approx = sum(dx*y_avg)
plot(x,y,'o-')
hold on
bar(x_avg,y_avg)
title('Elliptic Lift Distribution and Discretized Approximation')
xlabel('Distance from Root [ft]')
ylabel('Lift [lbf]')
figure
plot(x(1:n-1),M_station,'o-')
grid on
title('Bending Moment vs. Span')
ylabel('Bending Moment [ft-lb]')
97
Appendix E
98
NACA 1408 Wing Analysis

% NACA 1408 Wing Analysis
close all
clear all
clc;
% Updated 25 October 2006
% Station Properties
%
[ A,
Xc,
Yc,
Iyy,
Iyy/t, Ixx,
Ixx/t,
J,
J/t ]
fprintf('[ A
Xc
Yc
Iyy
Iyy/t Ixx Ixx/t J
J/t ]')
Properties = [0.1003652, 0.5689842, 1.0439277e-2, 1.0145793e-2, 0.4540932, 6.8701578e-5, 4.4289734e-3,
2.7061885e-4, 1.4723400e-2;
0.089689165, 0.5378717, 9.8684337e-3, 8.1021124e-3, 0.3836002, 5.4863063e-5, 3.7414338e-3,
2.1610824e-4, 1.2437802e-2;
0.079600058, 0.5067170, 9.2968261e-3, 6.3818241e-3, 0.3207298, 4.3214237e-5, 3.1282266e-3,
1.7022298e-4, 1.03992991e-2;
0.070112742, 0.4755621, 8.7252399e-3, 4.9512368e-3, 0.2651335, 3.3526972e-5, 2.5859731e-3,
1.3206442e-4, 8.5966438e-3;
0.061227284, 0.4444072, 8.1536258e-3, 3.7758080e-3, 0.2163654, 2.5567635e-5, 2.1103078e-3,
1.0071212e-4, 7.0153750e-3;
0.052943632, 0.4132523, 7.5820335e-3, 2.8232406e-3, 0.1739763, 1.9117340e-5, 1.6968708e-3,
7.5304190e-5, 5.6409743e-3;
0.045261785, 0.3820978, 7.0104208e-3, 2.0634034e-3, 0.1375204, 1.3972162e-5, 1.3412997e-3,
5.5037035e-5, 4.4589327e-3;
0.038181752, 0.3509431, 6.4388211e-3, 1.4683584e-3, 0.1065501, 9.9428771e-6, 1.0392308e-3,
3.9165472e-5, 3.4547555e-3;
0.031711873, 0.3198301, 5.8679874e-3, 1.0128941e-3, 0.0806497, 6.8587369e-6, 7.8661321e-4,
2.7016893e-5, 2.6149678e-3;
0.025834661, 0.2886758, 5.2963835e-3, 6.7223917e-4, 0.0593026, 4.5520369e-6, 5.7840504e-4,
1.7930692e-5, 1.9228162e-3;
0.020559255, 0.2575209, 4.7247875e-3, 4.2572958e-4, 0.0420998, 2.8828013e-6, 4.1061913e-4,
1.1355497e-5, 1.3650381e-3]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Wing Geometry Parameters
Span = 5;
c_root = 16.24/12;
c_tip = 7.35/12;
% NACA 1408 Airfoil Parameters
t = 0.08;
p = 0.4;
m = 0.01;
% Stations and chord
a = Span/2;
Appendix E
99
n = 11;
Station_loc = linspace(0,a,n);
chord = (c_tip-c_root)/a.*Station_loc + c_root;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Defines x-coordinates for discretized airfoil coordinates
x_1 = [0,0.00025,0.001,0.002,0.003,0.006,0.01,0.015,0.025,0.04];
x_2 = linspace(0.06,0.15,4);
x_3 = [0.2,0.25];
x_4 = [0.3:0.1:1];
x_disc = [x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Finds discretized normalized airfoil coordinates for output to Catia model
for i = 1:length(x_disc)
X = x_disc(i);
y_t = t/0.2*(0.2969*sqrt(X) - 0.1260*X - 0.3516*X^2 + 0.2843*X^3 - 0.1015*X^4);
if X < p
y_c = m/p^2*(2*p*X - X^2);
else
y_c = m/(1-p)^2*((1-2*p) + 2*p*X - X^2);
end
x_pos(i) = X;
y_upper(i) = (y_t + y_c);
y_lower(i) = (-y_t + y_c);
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Fixing Numerical Error at TE in discretized airfoil
q = length(x_pos);
y_upper(q) = 0;
y_lower(q) = 0;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Finds exact and elliptic approximation normalized airfoil geometry
dx = 0.0001;
x = [0:dx:1];
for i = 1:length(x)
X = x(i);
Appendix E
100
y_t = t/0.2*(0.2969*sqrt(X) - 0.1260*X - 0.3516*X^2 + 0.2843*X^3 - 0.1015*X^4);

if X < p
y_c = m/p^2*(2*p*X - X^2);
else
y_c = m/(1-p)^2*((1-2*p) + 2*p*X - X^2);
end
x_pos_i(i) = X;
y_upper_i(i) = (y_t + y_c);
y_lower_i(i) = (-y_t + y_c);
y_ellipse_upper_i(i) = sqrt((1 - (X-0.5)^2/0.5^2)*(t/2)^2);
y_ellipse_lower_i(i) = -sqrt((1 - (X-0.5)^2/0.5^2)*(t/2)^2);
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Output coordinates for Catia model
Normalized_airfoil_coords_i = [x_pos_i'-0.25,y_upper_i',y_lower_i'];
Normalized_ellipse_coords_i = [x_pos_i'-0.25,y_ellipse_upper_i',y_ellipse_lower_i'];
% Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos',y_upper',y_lower']
Output_coords_i =
[[flipud(Normalized_airfoil_coords_i(:,1));Normalized_airfoil_coords_i(2:length(x_pos_i),1)],[flipud(y_upper_i');y_lower_i
(2:length(y_lower_i))']];
Output_ellipse_coords_i =
[[flipud(Normalized_ellipse_coords_i(:,1));Normalized_ellipse_coords_i(2:length(x_pos_i),1)],[flipud(y_ellipse_upper_i');
y_ellipse_lower_i(2:length(y_ellipse_lower_i))']];
dim_airfoil = size(Output_coords_i);
dim_ellipse = size(Output_ellipse_coords_i);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Creates station airfoil geometry and plots as wing
figure(1)
hold on
grid on
axis equal
title('Exact Wing Geometry')
for i = 1:n
position = Station_loc(i)*ones(dim_airfoil(1),1);
scale_factor = chord(i);
Station_airfoil_coords = Output_coords_i*scale_factor;
y = Station_airfoil_coords(:,1);
z = Station_airfoil_coords(:,2);
plot3(position,y,z)
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Input station moments from BendingAnalysis code
Appendix E
101
M_station = [21.3922 16.6243 12.5079 9.0330 6.1824 3.9314 2.2465 1.0835 0.3846 0.0715
0.0000001];
L_local = [2.6195 2.5929 2.5390 2.4560 2.3405 2.1875 1.9881 1.7255 1.3602 0.5723 0.0000001];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Elliptic airfoil approximation wing geometry and analysis
figure(2)
hold on
grid on
axis equal
title('Elliptic Approximation Wing Geometry')
skin_t = 0.0059/12;
for i = 1:n
position = Station_loc(i)*ones(dim_ellipse(1),1);
scale_factor = chord(i);
Station_ellipse_coords = Output_ellipse_coords_i*scale_factor;
y = Station_ellipse_coords(:,1);
z = Station_ellipse_coords(:,2);
plot3(position,y,z)
b(i) = t*chord(i)/2;
a(i) = chord(i)/2;
h(i) = (a(i)-b(i))^2/(a(i)+b(i))^2;
circumference(i) = pi*(a(i)+b(i))*[1 + 3*h(i)/(10+(4-3*h(i))^(1/2))];
skin_thick = 0.0059/12;
sigma(i) = M_station(i)*a(i)/(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));
L = Station_loc(2);
I_ellipse_area(i) = (pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3));
% I(i) = (pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));
I_ellipse(i) = pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3));
I(i) = Properties(i,7)*skin_t;
% d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3))));
d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(I(i)));
d_ellipse(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(I_ellipse(i)));
% while sigma(i) > 165e3*12^2 % E-glass/Epoxy longitudinal tensile strength
%
skin_thick = skin_thick + 0.00000001;
%
sigma(i) = M_station(i)*a(i)/(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));
% end
%
% skin_thickness(i) = skin_thick;
end
deflection = sum(d)
deflection_ellipse = sum(d_ellipse)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Numerical integration airfoil function
Appendix E
102
for i = 1:length(x_pos_i)
dA_upper(i) = y_upper_i(i)*dx;
dA_lower(i) = abs(y_lower_i(i))*dx;
x_num_upper(i) = x_pos_i(i)*dA_upper(i);
x_num_lower(i) = x_pos_i(i)*dA_lower(i);
y_num_upper(i) = y_upper_i(i)*dA_upper(i);
y_num_lower(i) = y_lower_i(i)*dA_lower(i);
end
A_upper = sum(dA_upper);
A_lower = sum(dA_lower);
x_bar_upper = sum(x_num_upper)/A_upper;
x_bar_lower = sum(x_num_lower)/A_lower;
y_bar_upper = sum(y_num_upper)/A_upper;
y_bar_lower = sum(y_num_lower)/A_lower;
A = A_upper + A_lower;
x_bar = (sum(x_num_upper) + sum(x_num_lower))/A;
y_bar = (sum(y_num_upper) + sum(y_num_lower))/A;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Plots Normalized Airfoil and Centroid
figure
plot(x_pos,y_upper,'r*-')
hold on
plot(x_pos,y_lower,'r*-')
plot(x_pos_i,y_upper_i)
plot(x_pos_i,y_lower_i)
% plot(x_bar_upper-0.25,y_bar_upper,'o')
% plot(x_bar_lower-0.25,y_bar_lower,'o')
plot(x_bar,y_bar,'*')
grid on
axis equal
title('NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Centroid Location')%,'FontSize',20)
xlabel('x/c')%,'FontSize',18)
ylabel('y/c')%,'FontSize',18)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Plots Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation
figure
plot(x_pos_i,y_upper_i)
hold on
plot(x_pos_i,y_lower_i)
plot(x_pos_i,y_ellipse_upper_i,'k')
Appendix E
103
plot(x_pos_i,y_ellipse_lower_i,'k')
grid on
axis equal
title('NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation')%,'FontSize',20)
xlabel('x/c')%,'FontSize',18)
ylabel('y/c')%,'FontSize',18)
% % Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos'-0.25,y_upper',y_lower']
Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos',y_upper',y_lower']
Output_coords =
[[flipud(Normalized_airfoil_coords(:,1));Normalized_airfoil_coords(2:length(x_pos),1)],[flipud(y_upper');y_lower(2:length
(y_lower))']]
% figure
% plot(Output_coords(:,1),Output_coords(:,2))
% axis equal
% x_bar
% y_bar
Num_stations = n;
Cm = -0.2; % Alpha = 0
g = 32.2;
% ft/s^2
rho = 0.00237; % slug/ft^3
V = 100;
% ft/s
% G = 0.62e6*12^2;
% lbf/ft^2
% HT with elevator x/c = 0.2 , del_e = 30 deg
Chord_ht = 5/12;
Span_ht = 1.5;
C_L_ht = 1.22;
S_ht = Chord_ht*Span_ht;
L_ht = C_L_ht*0.5*rho*V^2*S_ht
Station_chord = linspace(c_root,c_tip,Num_stations);
Station_A_bar = Properties(:,1);
l_boom = 1.5; % TE of wing to LE of HT
T_ht = -L_ht*(l_boom+Chord_ht/4+3/4*Station_chord(4));
for k = 1:length(Station_chord)-1
Station_S(k) = Span/2/(Num_stations-1)*(Station_chord(k)+Station_chord(k+1))/2;
T_local(k) = 0.5*rho*V^2*Station_S(k)*(Station_chord(k)+Station_chord(k+1))/2*Cm;%-L_local(k)*Station_chord(k)/4;
% if k == 4
%
T_local(k) = T_local(k) + T_ht;
% end
end
T_local(3) = T_local(3)+T_ht;
Thickness_opts = [0.00075, 0.00087, 0.001095, 0.0021, 0.003, 0.00345, 0.0046, 0.0059, 0.0093, 0.0107]/12;
% for m = 1:length(Thickness_opts)
skin_t_1 = 0.009/12;
Appendix E
104
G_1 = 1.277e6*12^2;
E_1 = 2.62e6*12^2;
% For Section 1
for k = 1:3
T_stat = sum(T_local(k:10));
% q(k) = T_station(k)/(2*(Station_A_bar(k)+Station_A_bar(k+1))/2);
% J_ellipse(k) = pi*((a(k)^3*b(k)^3/(a(k)^2+b(k)^2))-((a(k)-skin_t)^3*(b(k)-skin_t)^3/((a(k)-skin_t)^2+(b(k)-skin_t)^2)));
% J_area_ellipse(k) = pi*((a(k)^3*b(k)^3/(a(k)^2+b(k)^2)));
J(k) = Properties(k,9)*skin_t_1;
phi_station(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G_1*J(k))*180/pi;
% phi_station_ellipse(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G*J_ellipse(k))*180/pi;
% f(k) = 1;
% while abs(phi_station) > .1
%
f(k) = f(k) + 1
%%
if f(k) > 113
%%
break
%%
end
%
skin_t = skin_t + 0.00005/12
%
J = Properties(k,9)*skin_t;
%
phi_station = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G*J)*180/pi;
% end
% t_torsion(k) = abs(q(k)*circumference(k)*(1/Span/2*pi/180)/(2*Station_A_bar(k)*G));
T_station(k) = T_stat;
% end
% Torsion_thickness(k) = skin_t*12;
% Polar_Moment(k) = J;
% Station_Twist(m) = sum(phi_station);
I(k) = Properties(k,7)*skin_t_1;
% d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3))));
d(k) = L_local(k)*L^3/(3*E_1*(I(k)));
end
skin_t_2 = 0.006/12;
G_2 = 1.1283e6*12^2;
E_2 = 2.87e6*12^2;
for k = 4:10
T_stat = sum(T_local(k:10));
J(k) = Properties(k,9)*skin_t_2;
phi_station(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G_2*J(k))*180/pi;
T_station(k) = T_stat;
I(k) = Properties(k,7)*skin_t_2;
d(k) = L_local(k)*L^3/(3*E_2*(I(k)));
end
phi_deg = sum(phi_station)'
deflection = sum(d)
figure
plot(Station_loc(1:length(Station_loc)-1),T_station)
Appendix E
title('Torque vs. Distance from Root')
ylabel('Torque [ft-lbf]')
grid on
105
Appendix E
106
2-ply Composite Analysis

% Matt Negilski
% AAE 451
close all
clear all
clc
% Woven Glass/Epoxy (M10E/3783)
% 2-ply Analysis
% Given material properties
E_1 = 3.5e6; % psi
E_2 = 3.5e6;
G_12 = 0.68e6;
Nu_12 = 0.11;
Nu_21 = E_2*Nu_12/E_1;
X = 62.8e3;
X_pr = -54.6e3;
Y = 55.9e3;
Y_pr = -48.6e3;
S = 12.2e3;
t_k_1 = 0.003; % in
t_k_2 = 0.003;
h = t_k_1 + t_k_2;
z_bar_1 = -(t_k_1/2);
z_bar_2 = (t_k_1/2);
% Q matrix for given material
Q_11 = E_1/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_12 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_21 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_22 = E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_66 = G_12;
% +45 deg ply
theta = 45;
Q_bar_45 = zeros(3,3);
Q_bar_45(1,1) =
Q_11.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4;
Q_bar_45(1,2) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);
Q_bar_45(1,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);
Appendix E
107
Q_bar_45(2,2) =
Q_11.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4;
Q_bar_45(2,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);
Q_bar_45(3,3) = (Q_11+Q_22-2*Q_122*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_66.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);
T_sigma_45 =
[cos(theta*pi/180)^2,sin(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)^2,cos(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),cos(theta*pi/180)^2-sin(theta*pi/180)^2];
% 0 deg ply
theta = 0;
Q_bar_0(1,1) =
Q_bar_0(2,2) =
T_sigma_0 =
% Case a: [+-45]s
fprintf('For [45,0,45] Layup, \n')
A = t_k_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*Q_bar_0
B = t_k_1*z_bar_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*z_bar_2*Q_bar_0
D = (t_k_1*z_bar_1^2+t_k_1^3/12)*Q_bar_45 + (t_k_2*z_bar_2^2+t_k_2^3/12)*Q_bar_0
E_x = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(2,2))
E_y = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(1,1))
Nu_xy = A(1,2)/A(2,2)
Nu_yx = A(1,2)/A(1,1)
G_xy = A(3,3)/h
Appendix E
epsilon_o = inv(A)*[1;0;0];
sigma_x_45 = Q_bar_45*epsilon_o;
sigma_1_45 = T_sigma_45*sigma_x_45;
fprintf('FIRST PLY FAILURE: \n\n')
fprintf('For fiber breakage, \n')
N_x_45 = X/sigma_1_45(1)
N_x_0 = X/sigma_1_0(1)
108
Appendix E
109
3-ply Composite Analysis

% Matt Negilski
% AAE 451
close all
clear all
clc
% Woven Glass/Epoxy (M10E/3783)
% 3-ply Analysis
% Given material properties
E_1 = 3.5e6; % psi
E_2 = 3.5e6;
G_12 = 0.68e6;
Nu_12 = 0.11;
Nu_21 = E_2*Nu_12/E_1;
X = 62.8e3;
X_pr = -54.6e3;
Y = 55.9e3;
Y_pr = -48.6e3;
S = 12.2e3;
t_k_1 = 0.003; % in
t_k_2 = 0.003;
t_k_3 = 0.003;
h = 0.009;
z_bar_1 = -(t_k_3/2);
z_bar_2 = 0;
z_bar_3 = (t_k_1/2);
% Q matrix for given material
Q_11 = E_1/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_12 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_21 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_22 = E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);
Q_66 = G_12;
% +45 deg ply
theta = 45;
Q_bar_45(1,1) =
Appendix E
110
Q_bar_45(2,2) =
T_sigma_45 =
% 0 deg ply
theta = 0;
Q_bar_0(1,1) =
Q_bar_0(2,2) =
T_sigma_0 =
% Case a: [+-45]s
fprintf('For [45,0,45] Layup, \n')
A = t_k_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*Q_bar_0 + t_k_3*Q_bar_45
B = t_k_1*z_bar_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*z_bar_2*Q_bar_0 + t_k_3*z_bar_3*Q_bar_45
D = (t_k_1*z_bar_1^2+t_k_1^3/12)*Q_bar_45 + (t_k_2*z_bar_2^2+t_k_2^3/12)*Q_bar_0 +
(t_k_3*z_bar_3^2+t_k_3^3/12)*Q_bar_45
E_x = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(2,2))
E_y = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(1,1))
Nu_xy = A(1,2)/A(2,2)
Appendix E
Nu_yx = A(1,2)/A(1,1)
G_xy = A(3,3)/h
epsilon_o = inv(A)*[1;0;0];
fprintf('FIRST PLY FAILURE: \n\n')
fprintf('For fiber breakage, \n')
N_x_45 = X/sigma_1_45(1)
N_x_0 = X/sigma_1_0(1)
111
Appendix F
Appendix F
112
Appendix F
Basic Constants file [updated]

% *********************************************
% Compilation: Ashley Brawner
% BasicConstants_TFM2 Version 2.0 Final Modifications: 12/4/2006
% This version requires Xcg and low_wing to be defined here.
%
% OBJECTIVE: Collect into one location all the vehicle specific constants (a.k.a. basic constants).
%
From these basic constants all the stability and control derivatives
%
can be determined.
% INPUTS: None
% OUTPUTS: Many basic constants defined in the Matlab workspace.
%
% This version is the first for team Balsa to the Wall
% Arbitrary reference point is the quarter chord of the wing
% Moment reference point is the quarter chord of the wing
% Trim velocity assumed to be 107 ft/s
%
% *********************************************
% BasicConstants - Identifies, describes, and assigns all of the
%
the most basic variables for analyzing the control
%
and stability of a generic aircraft.
% *********************************************
%
% A&AE 451 Fall 2006 - Purdue University
%
% Note: This code is provided for a first order approximation of the dynamic
%
analysis of an airplane and is not intended for final designs.
%
% Equations/Figures can be found in :
%
% (Ref.1) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight
%
Controls"
%
Published by DARcorporation
%
120 E. Ninth St., Suite 2
%
Lawrence, KS 66044
%
%
% (Ref.2) Roskam, Jan. "Methods for Estimating Stability and
%
Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes"
%
Published by the Author
%
519 Boulder
%
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
%
%
% (Ref.3) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Design: Part IV: Preliminary Calculation
%
of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power Characteristics"
%
Published by Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation
%
Rt4, Box 274
%
Ottawa, Kansas 66067
%
Second Printing, 1990.
113
Appendix F
114
disp(' '); disp('Starting BasicConstants'); disp(' ')

aircraft='TFM2';
adelf = 0;
% Two dimensional lift effectiveness parameter Ref.(2),Equ(8.7)
alpha = 0*pi/180; % Trim Angle of attack [rad]. This should be zero since our
%
equations of motion are body axis system rather then the stability axis system.
alpha_0 = -0.018;
% Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]
altitude= 620;
% Trim altitude [ft] [We fly at 20 feet plus West Lafayettes sea level altitude]
disp(['Trim altitude= ',num2str(altitude),' ft'])
AR_h = 3.6585;
% Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail
AR_w = 5;
% Aspect ratio of the wing
b_f =3.47;
% Span of the flap [ft] (Alieron total span)****
b_h = 17.5/12;
% Span of the horizontal tail [ft]
b_h_oe =7.75/12;
% Elevator outboard position [ft]
b_h_ie = 0;
% Elevator inboard position [ft]
b_w = 4.97;
% Span of the wing [ft]
b_v = 9/12;
% Vertical tail span measured from fuselage centerline[ft]
b_v_or = 7/12;
% Outboard position of rudder [ft]
b_v_ir = 0;
% Inboard position of rudder [ft]
c_a = 0.1825;
% Chord of aileron [ft]
C_bar_D_o = 0.018;
% Parasite drag
Cd_0 = 0.019;
% Drag coefficient at zero lift (parasite drag)
c_e = 2.25/12;
% Elevator chord [ft]
cf = 0.1825;
% Chord of the wing flap [ft]
c_h = 6/12;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail [ft]
CL = 0.598;
% Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2)
CL_hb = 0;
% Lift coefficient of the horzontal tail/body
CL_wb= 0.130;
% Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0
Cl_alpha_h = 5.451;
% 2-D Lift curve slope of horizontal tail
Cl_alpha_v = 6.283;
% 2-D Lift curve slope of vertical tail
Cl_alpha = 6.032;
% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of whole aircraft
Cl_alpha_w = 5.543;
% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of wing
Cm_0_r = -0.029;
% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing root
Cm_o_t = -0.029;
% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing tip **Cm_0_r = Cm_o_t because wing
has
% No twist
c_r = 3.25/12;
% MEAN Chord of the rudder [ft]
c_w = 1.041;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the wing [ft]
c_v = 5/12;
% Mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical tail [ft]
D_p = 10/12;
% Diameter of propeller [ft] Approximation used because of integration of ducted fan motor
d = 0.417;
% Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]
delf = 0;
% Streamwise flap deflection [rad] NO FLAPS
delta_e = 0;
% Elevator deflection [rad]
delta_r = 0;
% Rudder deflection [rad]
dihedral = 0*pi/180; % Geometric dihedral angle of the wing [rad], positive for
%
dihedral (wing tips up), negative for
%
anhedral(tips down) [rad] ***EST
dihedral_h = 0*pi/180;
% Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]
e = 0.9;
% Oswald's efficiency factor
epsilon_t = 0;
% Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]
epsilon_0_h = 0*pi/180;
% Downwash angle at the horizontal tail (see Note in
%
Ref.(3) under section 8.1.5.2) [rad] ***EST
eta_h = 1;
% Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream ***EST
eta_ia = 0.3;
% Percent semi-span position of inboard edge of aileron
eta_oa = 1;
% Percent semi-span position of outboard edge of aileron
eta_p = 0.8;
% Propeller Efficiency ***EST
eta_v = 1.0;
% Ratio of the dynamic pressure at the vertical tail
Appendix F
%
to that of the freestream
h1_fuse =4.5/12;
h2_fuse = 4.5/12;
h_h = 9/12;
% Height from chord plane of wing to chord plane of
%
horizontal tail [ft] - Fig 3.7, Ref. 2
hmax_fuse = 6/12;
% Maximum height of the fuselage [ft]
Ixx = .444312;
% Airplane moment of inertia about x-axis [slug-ft^2] *** With 4 lb load
Iyy = .530488;
% Airplane moment of inertia about y-axis [slug-ft^2]
Izz = .960872;
% Airplane moment of inertia about z-axis [slug-ft^2]
Ixz = .007557;
% Airplane product of inertia [slug-ft^2]
i_h = 0*pi/180; % Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad] This has applications from Trim Diagrams.
i_w = 0*pi/180;
% Incidence angle of wing [rad]
k = 0.087;
% k of the drag polar, generally= 1/(pi*AR*e)
Lambda = .076;
% Sweep angle of wing [rad]
Lambda_c2 =-0.076; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]
Lambda_c4 = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]
lambda = .45; % Taper ratio of wing
lambda_h = 1;
% Taper ratio of horizontal tail
lambda_v = 1.0;
% Taper ratio of vertical tail
l_f =31/12;
% Horizontal length of fuselage [ft]
l_v = 32/12;
% Horizontal distance from aircraft arbitrary reference point to vertical tail AC [ft]
%Ref fig 2.1 in thesis for l_v, ref pt is c/4
low_wing=1;
% low_wing=-1 if the wing is high
% low_wing=1 if the wing is low
% low_wing=0 if the wing is mid
% Trim Airspeed
u = 60; % ft/sec
M = u/1221;
% Mach number
S_b_s = 131.035/144;
% Body side area [ft^2]
S_h = (17.5*6)/144;
% Area of horizontal tail [ft^2]
S_h_slip = 100/144;
% Area of horizontal tail that is covered in
%
prop-wash [ft^2] - See Fig.(8.64) - Ref.(3) ***EST
%
[Estimation]
S_o = 15/144;
% Fuselage x-sectional area at Xo [ft^2] %
See Fig.(7.2) - Ref.(2)
%
Xo is determined by plugging X1/l_b into:
%
0.378 + 0.527 * (X1/l_b) = (Xo/l_b) [Estimation at this point]
S_w = 4.95;
% Surface area of wing [ft^2]
S_v = 45/144;
% Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]
tc_w = .08;
% Thickness to chord ratio of wing
tc_h = .08;
% Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail
theta = 0*pi/180; % Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]
theta_h = 0*pi/180; % Horizontal tail twist between the root and tip
%
stations,negative for washout [rad]
two_r_one = 0/12;
% Fuselage depth in region of vertical tail [ft] Ref.(2),Figure 7.5
U = u/1.7; % knots
% Free Stream Velocity (Trim velocity) [KNOTS true]
disp(['Trim airspeed= ',num2str(U),' knots'])
W = 6.5;
% Weight of Airplane [lbf]
wingloc = 0;
% If the aircraft is a highwing: (wingloc=1), low-wing:(wingloc=0)
wmax_fuse = 6/12; % Maximum fuselage width [ft]
X1 = (14+3)/12;
% Distance from the front of the fuselage where the
115
Appendix F
116
%
x-sectional area decrease (dS_x/dx)
%
is greatest (most negative) [ft] - Ref.(2),Fig. 7.2
x_m = 15.875/12;
% Distance from nose of aircraft to arbitrary reference point [ft]
%
measured positive aftward. Reference point will be MAC.
x_over_c_v = .25
% PARAMETER ACCOUNTING FOR THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL TAILS
%
defined as the fore-and-aft distance from leading edge of vertical fin to the
%
aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail divided by the chord of the vertical tail
%
[nondimensional] - See Fig 7.6 of Ref. 2
Xach = 2.882;
%
to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail (positive aftward) [ft]
Xacwb = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the aerodynamic center of the wing and body.
%
Xacw = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the aerodynamic center of the wing ALONE.
%
Xref = 2.92/12; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord
%
to the arbitrary moment reference point. The equivalent force system
%
for the aerodynamic force system is given about this point.
%
Xcg = 0.15*c_w;
%
to the center of gravity.
%
%
% Xcg is ignored until Step 2. It an be changed later in Step 2.
%
Z_h = -6/12;
%
%
%
%
%
%
Z_v = 3/12;
%
Z_w = -1.5/12;
%
%
Z_w1 = -1.5/12;
%
%
% Negative of the VERTICAL distance from the fuselage

centerline to the horizontal tail aero center
(Z_h is a negative number FOR TAILS ABOVE THE CENTERLINE)
- Ref.(2), Fig.7.6
***This produces a bunch of interpolation errors because
Roskam doesn't have data for horizontal tails below the
centerline of the fuselage
% Vertical distance from the aircraft arbirary reference point to the vertical
tail aero center (positive up) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.18
% This is the vertical distance from the wing root c/4 [ft]
to the fuselage centerline,
positive downward - Ref.(2), Equ(7.5)
% Distance from body centerline to c/4 of wing root
chord,positive for c/4 point
below body centerline (ft) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.1

Team 2-Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team 2-Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

7.5 Lessons Learned 28

Figure 1: 3-View of TFM-2

Figure 1.1: Initial Sizing Constraint Diagram

2.2 Lift Model

2.3.4 Dual Boom Design Affect

Limited flap span

Figure 2.34: Dual boom tail configuration affect

2.3.5 Wing Planform

Mini Fan 480

A123 Systems' Lithium Ion Cells

Max Continous Current

Max Surge Current

Weight per Cell

Cost per Cell

Max Continous Current

Max Surge Current

Figure 3.5: Final Propulsion System Thrust Curve

WeMoTec Midi Fan

A123 Systems' Lithium Ion Cells

Table 3.7: Final Propulsion High Speed Specs

WeMoTec Midi Fan

A123 Systems' Lithium Ion Cells

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

Chapter 4: DYNAMICS AND CONTROLS

Table 4.1: Tail Sizing Results

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

Horizontal Tail Sizing - Longitudinal Stability

Static Margin = 18.1%

Figure 4.1: Longitudinal X-plot Horizontal Tail Sizing

Figure 4.2: Directional X-plot Vertical Tail Sizing

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

4.2 Control Surface Sizing

Table 4.2: Static Stability Derivatives in rad-1

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

4.4 Trim Analysis

Figure 4.3: Trim Diagram for TFM-2

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

4.5 Feedback Control System

R ( s ) 12.0563( s + 7.144)( s + 0.759)( s 0.4551)

Aircraft Transfer Function

12.0563( s + 7.144)( s + 0.759)( s 0.4551)

Control Law and Rate Gyro Gains

Chapter 4: DYNAMCIS AND CONTROLS

Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS

Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS

Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS

Figure 5.2.1: V-n Diagram

Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS

Chapter 5: STRUCTURES AND WEIGHTS

5.4 Fuselage and Tail Design

ISO view of TFM-2

Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND VEHICLE SUMMARY

Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND

7.1 Flight Testing

Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND VEHICLE SUMMARY

Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND VEHICLE SUMMARY

Chapter 7: LESSONS LEARNED AND VEHICLE SUMMARY

% Stall speed constraint

% Cruise speed constraint

% For loiter in straight flight

% Assemble the complete battery weight fraction.

Weight=0:1:10; %weight in pounds

WminusWe=.2103*Weight+.1243; % formula for historical data (pounds)

Equation .31: Wing planform solved from equation .26