School of Innovation, Design and Engineering

BACHELOR THESIS IN
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
15 CREDITS, BASIC LEVEL 300

Project Solaris Construction of Solar

Powered UAV Prototype

Author: Magnus Johansson

Report code: MDH.IDT.FLYG.0240.2011.GN300.15HP.FT

Abstract
To control an un-swept flying wing is problematic in some ways. One of the problems is that
when the wing experiences a disturbance in yaw, it does not, since it has no tail, generate any
torque in the opposite direction as a plane with a vertical stabilizer does. This thesis is
foremost aimed at exploring one particular solution to this problem.
One approach to this problem is to place the motors out on the wing and differentiate the
thrust, to achieve the same torque as splitted elevons or a vertical stabilizer does. This is what
NASA used on the flying unmanned wing HELIOS. Reducing the thrust on the right set of
engines, and increasing the thrust on the left side can mean that the combined thrust is
unchanged. And thus more fuel efficient, and increases endurance.
This projects main goal has been to construct a half scale model of the school project flying
wing Solaris, and to configure a control system for the differentiated thrust as used on Helios.
Thereafter conduct flight testing and evaluate the controllability of the wing in a number of
flight conditions, this to get a sense of the wings characteristics and which parameters one
should adjust to get the best controllability as possible.
After numerous adjustments and test flights it was concluded that it is possible to construct
and fly a wing in this configuration, with relatively simple means, with satisfactory results.
That the torsional rigidity has great influence on the controllability were evident after the test
flights. After redistribution of the components on the wing the conclusion could be made that
the dihedral could be held within the structural limit of the wing.
The results of this thesis will contribute to the project Solaris at Mlardalens University in
Vsters, Sweden. The project was carried out at Mlardalens University. The test flights
were conducted at the former Air Force base F-15 Flygstaden and Mohed in Sderhamn,
Hlsingland.

Sammanfattning
Att styra en flygande vinge som inte har ngon pilform medfr vissa problem i form av att en
sdan konfiguration ej ger ngot terbrdande moment vid en strning i gir-led. Det finns
flera stt att lsa detta. Denna rapport r framfrallt inriktad p att tillmpa en lsning p detta
problem.
En lsning finns p Aerovironment's /NASA:s flygande vinge Helios, dr dragkraften kan
differentieras p hger och vnster sida. Detta gr att dragkraftsvektorn, i teorin, kan vara
konstant och samtidigt ge ett terbrdande moment vid en strning i gir-led.
Detta projekt har gtt ut p att konstruera ett halvskala av projektet och flygande vingen
Solaris, samt konstruera ett styrsystem som fungerar p ett liknande stt som Helios. Drefter
provflyga och utvrdera systemet i olika flygfrhllanden. Detta fr att f en uppfattning om
hur systemet fungerar i luften och vilka parametrar som kan justeras fr att f systemet att
fungera s optimalt som mjligt.
Efter ett flertal justeringar och provflygningar kunde slutsatsen dras att det r mjligt att f en
flygande vinge i denna konfiguration, med relativt enkla medel, att fungera tillfredstllande.
Att vingens vridstyvhet har stor inverkan p kontrollerbarheten kunde konstateras.
Efter komponentplaceringen p vingen justerats kunde ven slutsatsen dras att uppbjningen
av vingen kunde hllas inom ramarna fr vingens strukturella styrka.
Projektet har utfrts vid Mlardalens Hgskola, och resultatet av detta arbete kommer ing i
projekt Solaris p Mlardalens Hgskola. Testflygningarna utfrdes vid F-15 Flygstaden och
Mohed i Sderhamn.

ii

Date: June-August 2011

Carried out at: Mlardalen University
Supervisor and Examiner at MDH: Gustaf Enebog
Lecturer and Program Coordinator of the
Bachelor Program in Aeronautical Engineering
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Mlardalen University
Email: gustaf.enebog@mdh.se

iii

Nomenclature and Abbreviations

CHs - Cooper Harper Scale
EPA - End Point Adjustment
ESC - Electronic Speed Control
PIO - Pilot Induced Oscillation
LIPO - Lithium-Polymer
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
MAh - Millie Ampere Hours
EMF Electromotive Force

iv

Preface
The Bachelors Program in Aeronautics, at Mlardalen University, last task for the student is
to write a thesis about a subject that the student has chosen.
To build a half-scale of the wing Solaris and conduct flight testing is what I chose and this
thesis is about this.
Testing of a half-scale model was necessary before the full model was to be built.

Table of contents
Contents .............................................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose .....................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Problem formulation .................................................................................................................3
1.4 Scope of work ...........................................................................................................................4
2 Method ............................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Design and selection of components .............................................................................................5
2.1.1 Cost estimate .........................................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Design/construction ...............................................................................................................7
2.1.3 Control System .....................................................................................................................10
3 Flight Testing Procedure.................................................................................................................13
3.1 Cooper-Harper Scale ...............................................................................................................13
3.2 Center of gravity......................................................................................................................14
3.3 Flight Testing Schedule ............................................................................................................14
3.4 Results/Discussion...................................................................................................................15
Flight test stage 1 of schedule ...................................................................................................15
Flight test stage 2 of schedule ...................................................................................................16
Flight test stage 3 of schedule ...................................................................................................17
Flight test stage 4-6 of schedule ................................................................................................19
Conclusions/ Recommendations for future work ..............................................................................21
References ........................................................................................................................................22
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................23
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................24

vi

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
It is possible to control a flying wing in the z-axis in a number of ways. The Northrop B2 on
figure 1 uses splitted elevons, where the elevons can act as air brakes separately out on the
wings. This generates torque to turn the aircraft. A downside of this configuration is that the
splitted elevons cause extra drag. This means that the engines must throttle up to compensate
for the increased drag, and hence burn more fuel. In short, it is not optimized in an endurance
viewpoint.

Figure 1, B2 Bomber with elevons splitted.

If it was made possible to fine-tune the thrust on each of the engines, it would enable control
of the wing in the z-axis with just differentiating the thrust. This also translates to the need of
having a fast throttle response, otherwise the control of the wing in the z-axis would become
sluggish and the wing could become uncontrollable if the wind gusts would change to fast.
If the workload on the pilot should be kept reasonably low, control must be automated to
some degree to eliminate the need for the pilot to apply corrections, when flying in a straight
line.
Flying wings without empennage have been used before with differentiated thrust as means of
controlling the wing in yaw. Aerovironment/NASA Helios on figure 2 was a flying wing with
this configuration.

Figure 2, Aerovironment/NASA Helios.

1

1.2 Purpose
The main purpose of this project was to investigate and test if it was possible to fly and
control a span loading flying wing with zero wing sweep, with only differentiated thrust as
means of control about the z-axis (yaw), with a limited budget. Other interesting parameters
that were to be investigated were how controllable the wing would be in pitch.
The objective was not to gain exact flight data, but to discover its flight characteristics and
how these characteristics are a function of different parameters.
The results from this project are aimed at gaining knowledge of how the wing will perform to
have a safer starting point for the full-scale version of Solaris, as well as to get an
understanding of how responsive the control system is and how well it will work.

1.3 Problem formulation

The challenging aspects of stability and control in pitch that inherently follows with an unswept flying wing as well as the inherent issues of a semi span loader with its high moment of
inertia due to its heavy wingtips (the evenly distributed mass along the span rather than
concentration towards the center) both demands special attention. Besides these features we
also want to try out a rather novel approach for control in yaw by differential motor power
between left and right set of motors. All this calls for extra attention in testing before applying
such feature on the solar-powered equipped version of Solaris. For this reason this student
projects objective is to build and fly a half scale version of Solaris purely powered by
batteries.

1.4 Scope of work

The project was divided into six stages, these stages are listed below.
1. Design a half-scale version of Solaris, including choosing suitable components
including propulsion and control system.
2. Make a cost estimate and buy material and parts.
3. Build the model.
4. Suggest a schedule for flight testing.
5. Conduct flight testing.
6. Write a thesis about the project.
7. Make recommendations for future work.
8. Perform a presentation at Mlardalen University at Vsters.

2 Method
2.1 Design and selection of components
2.1.1 Cost estimate
To be able to make a cost estimate, I needed to know what electric components that was
suitable for the wing. As the wing was to be flown in a five section wing configuration with
motors placed on a pylon in the junctions between the wing sections, four motors was needed.
The motors was to be brushless due to its better efficiency, hence four brushless speed
controllers were needed as well. A brushless speed controller uses back EMF signals from the
motor to know the position of the rotor on the motor, this is why it was necessary to use one
speed controller per motor, otherwise the speed controller would not know from which motor
the signals are coming from. At this stage the wing was projected to have one battery pack on
each wing pylon. To go further in selecting a suitable motor package, I a rough total weight
estimate of the wing, with taking this information in consideration, MotoCalc was used to get
an indicator what kind of motor/propeller and battery that would suit the prototype.
I knew that I was going to use five 9 gram HXT900 servos, four 2-3 cell lipo packs, four
motors, four speed controllers, at least one gyro, 2.4 GHz Assan receiver, 5-7 meters of
servo/ESC wire, and the build material for the wing main frame.
The foam to be used was cut and weighed, the pylons made of 2mm thick light plywood. The
wood of which the plywood was composed of was not specified from Hobbytr. But generally
light plywood is composed of the woods Poppel, Okoum or Ceiba.
The motor MotoCalc calculated to suit the wing was the PP-28-26-1200 (Figure 3), this motor
is effective with a 8x4 propeller and a 3-cell lipo battery. The calculated input wattage per
motor was about 110 Watts at cruise. MotoCalc also calculated the amperage to peak at 16.

Figure 3, MotoCalc results

The data from the PP-28-26-1200 was used to find a cheap alternative. The final choice was
the HXM2730-1300 motor, and HKESC10A ESC: s. These ESC: s was chosen due to low
weight, suitable max amp and an integrated BEC. 3s 500 MAh 20C lipos from the same store
was used. Four of each was ordered.
The gyro used was the Blue Arrow Nano BA-G2J1 which only weighs 2.3 grams, this gyro
has an update rate of 50Hz. The gain is adjustable by a potentiometer. This means that it is
adjustable how much the gyro shall adjust the PWM signal per change in angle sensed.
The cost of each component and the total cost are summed up in table 1.

Item
HXM2730-1300
BA-G2J1
BV01
TGY8x38SF
HXT900
T500.3S.20
AM1002A
007-00301x10
OR006-01002
OR006-00806
Twill-18g
Carbon tubes
Shipping EMS

Price per item

No (USD)
4
1
2
8
6
5
1
1
1
1
4
4
1

8,07
28
4,03
1,2
2,69
5,79
1,98
0,99
1,64
2,3
15
12
47,17

Total
(USD)
32,28
28
8,06
9,6
16,14
28,95
1,98
0,99
1,64
2,3
60
48
47,17

Description
Motors
Gyro
V-Tail Mix
Propellers
Servos
Lipos
Gold Connector
Pin Horn
Wheels, small
Main Wheels
Glassfiber
4mm tubes
Shipping

Grand total
(USD)
285,11

Table 1, Financial cost estimate.

2.1.2 Design/construction
When designing the half-scale model of Solaris, some focus was put on keeping the wing
design as simple as possible. The wing structure was not anyway the focus of the model and
we also wanted to reduce complexibility and keeping a low number of build technique
parameters that can result in a twisted wing. Also to shorten the build time, in case of a
serious crash it would be relatively easy to make a new wing panel to be able to continue
flight testing as fast as possible.
A balsa-plywood built-up wing was deemed too complex and work-intense. Thus, a foam-cut
wing would be a good option to be used, figure 4 show comparison. Still, the wing would then
need to be covered with something that would enhance its stiffness and to get a surface that
will not scratch and break too easy. The covering material also needed to be able to resist
compression on the top of the wing and resist tension on the bottom. Covering the wing with
thin fiberglass proved to satisfy these requirements.

Figure 4, Typical sheeted foam core wing (left) and built up wing (right)
The airfoil to be used has previously been decided to be one called Phoenix (figure 5) and is
the result of another students thesis (Reference [1]). Also, a hot-wire saw was built with
constant wire tension to be able to cut out the raw foam and get a good repeatable result so
that all five wing panels could be built identical.

Figure 5, Phoenix airfoil.

After the wing panels were cut the wing was covered with fiberglass. The fiberglass used was
Twill that weighs 18 grams per square meter. The weight gain, including matrix, was 20
grams per wing panel, the rigidity of the panel was increased with a factor of four. The
rigidity proved to be in the lower region of what is required to get a good performing wing, in
terms of controllability. More about this later, in the results part.
The trailing edge elevons were cut out at 21% of the wing chord. This is 31mm in chord
length for the elevons. This decision was taken by taking account of previous builds and by
interpolating the chord percentage used for the elevons on flying planks found on the internet,
which uses the Phoenix airfoil.

Cavities were cut out under the wing to accommodate the servos, HXT 900 servos were fitted
to the wing sections with hot melt adhesive, then each wing panel was put upside down and
the control rod and elevon control horn was glued in place to get a near perfectly centered
elevon when the servos are in neutral.
The motors were fitted on a 4 mm hollow carbon fiber tube. The tubes were fitted to the
pylons with zip ties at a angle of 2 degrees down measured from the wings mean chord line,
this to get the motors pointing straight forward when the wing was flying un accelerated (with
a 2 degree angle of attack). The tubes that the motors were fitted to had a length of 500 mm,
this to enable fitting an empennage during the initial test flights. The excess tube also made it
possible to adjust the cg. 500 mm long 4 mm diameter carbon tubes were also fitted to the top
of the pylons, these tubes were slid into holes in the wing sections and connect the pylons to
each of the wing sections. To prevent each pylon to rotate about this carbon tube, one
toothpick, as shown on figure 6, on each pylon was fitted close to the trailing side of the wing.
A toothpick was chosen because in case of a crash it would break, and therefore let the wing
section and pylon connected rotate. This will also absorb energy, and hopefully prevent
extensive damage. Figure 7 shows the dimensions of the Solaris prototype.

Figure 6, anti rotation toothpick and carbon tube.

Figure 7, 3-Plane View

2.1.3 Control System

To be able to differentiate the thrust, one could use an on board v-tail mixer or a mixer in the
transmitter. But this project was aiming to have a system that could differentiate the thrust
directly by itself based on the output from a gyro that could sense if the wing is yawing if it
was not supposed to, and also of course to be able to throttle the motors to adjust the total
amount of forward thrust.
One solution to this problem is to use dual v-tail mixers, coupled with an adjustable gain gyro.
And these mixers are connected with the receiver and the four ESC: s. the rudder channel is
connected to the v-tail mixer via the gyro. This means that when the pilot gives input via the
rudder channel the gyro senses how much input the pilot gives and forwards this input to the
mixer. When the pilot is not giving any input and the gyro senses that rotation is occurring,
the gyro adjusts the pwm signal to the mixers, and makes one set of motors drop their rpm and
the other set increase the rpm. The other channel on the mixers are connected directly by a ycable from the throttle channel, and thereby making the mixer mix in throttle input as well.
Figure 8 shows the layout of the motor control system.

10

Figure 8, motor control system

To get correct weight distribution along the wing two different configurations were tested.
The ones that were tested first was the red and white boxes in figure 9, the final configuration
are only the red boxes in figure 9.

Figure 9, Component placement.

11

Since the wing was to be flown in a five section configuration, there would have to be a mixer
to make the control of the elevons symmetrical. Therefore a mixer was programmed in the
transmitter, the two outer sets of trailing edge flaps got elevon programming and the center
section was only used as elevator as seen on figure 10.

Figure 10, control organ configuration

12

3 Flight Testing Procedure

3.1 Cooper-Harper Scale
The initial flight testing was to be conducted with an empennage, the reason for this is to
make the flight testing as safe as possible since it was difficult to foresee its sensitivity in
pitch. The Cooper-Harper (Reference [2]) scale as seen on figure 11 was used to rate each
stage of the flight testing schedule.

Figure 11, Cooper-Harper scale.

13

3.2 Center of gravity

To find the correct CG for the model a wing section was used and test glided. More and more
weight was added to the front of the section, and then retested. After a number of iterations
the wing section flew with a good constant glide slope. This CG at 23.6% of the wing chord
from the leading edge was to be used during the test flights and adjusted if needed.

3.3 Flight Testing Schedule

The flight test schedule will enable testing of the characteristics of the wing and control
system in a number of stages. Each stage will be evaluated after it has been conducted. The
Cooper-Harper scale was used to answer each test stage. To be able to go to the next stage in
the schedule the previous stage must have passed with at least a 6 on the Cooper-Harper scale.
The stages marked with an (x) are to be conducted after the empennage has been removed as
well.
1. Taxi testing, ability to keep straight line at acceleration to rotation
2. (x) Take the wing up to rotation speed, check tendency to pitch change and observe
how much v-shape is generated at this moment. This will tell how well the equipment
is distributed along the wing.
3. (x) Take the wing up to rotation speed and perform a takeoff, fly at approximately 0.51 meters altitude for about 100 meters, reduce throttle and land straight forward.
Evaluate the wings tendency to fly straight in yaw (zero beta angle) and how sensitive
it is to pitch change.
4. (x) Take off and initiate a turn, observe the wings responsiveness to aileron input, if
there is any aerodynamic coupling occurring. That meaning if there is any pitch
change at initiation of input of aileron. After a 180 degree turn, level the wings and
again observe the parameters that were checked at initiation of the turn.
5. (x) Initiate a turn and observe the ships ability to correct itself in yaw, give moderate
rudder input during the turn and observe the ships response to this. Magnitude of the
response and time to get response.
6. Maneuver the ship into final approach. Observe the pitch stability during adjustment
of glide path.

14

3.4 Results/Discussion
Flight test stage 1 of schedule
A taxi runway at F-15 Sderhamn was used for this test.
The first test stage was to test the wing`s ability to keep a straight line when taxing.
Throttle was applied and the wing yawed a bit to the right, counter stick was applied and the
yaw stopped but was over compensated to the left instead. Yaw compensation to the right was
then applied and the wing yawed back to the right again. It was very hard to avoid PIO in
yaw. And the test run was aborted. At this stage yaw control was rated a 9-10 on the CHs.
The EPA was reduced to about 25% on yaw and the gyro gain was increased to 60% and the
test was conducted again
At this stage, there was a smaller need to compensate since the wing accelerated in a
straighter line. Even though some PIO was evident when yaw was being corrected, the gyro
control was more noticeable now and the wing was able to taxi on the taxiway. The CHs
rating at this stage was between 4 and 5.
The gyro gain was further increased to 65% and EPA on yaw reduced to 19% and the test was
once again done.
At these settings the wing responded well to yaw input and corrected itself adequate,
especially at higher speeds. The system response is not as good as a non-span loader with a
high tail volume, this is due to the artificial stability systems need to first sense the yaw, and
then utilize the differentiated thrust to compensate the yaw. The time this takes and the time
for the motors to rev up and down are greater than the immediate change in lift a vertical
stabilizer generates when the wing or plane experience yaw. But still controllable and the fact
that the wing was getting more stable at higher speeds allowed the testing to move on the next
stage of the flight schedule.
The final CHs rating was 3.
Relevant settings:
Initial gyro gain was set at 50% and later changed to 65%. Initial EPA on the yaw-channel
was initially set at 40% but later adjusted to 19%.

15

Flight test stage 2 of schedule

The second test stage was aimed at getting a sense of the weight distribution along the wing,
this to get correct dihedral when in-flight. This is very important since there is no stiff spar
along the wing, so the ability to withstand bending of the wing is somewhat limited. The
tendency for the wing to pitch up was also to be examined during this test.
The wing was accelerated to very high speed at the taxi way. As the speed increased more and
more the higher the wingtips went. It was evident due to the very large dihedral shown on
figure 12 that the wing needed to get its weight distribution adjusted. And when the speed was
up, the wing showed no tendency to want to rotate or lift.
The original component placement was as following: One battery, esc, servo and motor at
each pylon. Gyro, v-tail mixers and receiver was placed on the middle two pylons. When
adjusted the inner lipo batteries were removed and the power cables on each pair of esc:s was
parallel connected. The outer lipo batteries were then connected to these cables by gold plated
connectors.

Figure 12, wing with large dihedral

The test showed that the wing`s alpha angle was too small when sitting on the wheels, the tail
wheels prevented the wing from getting up on the main wheels and then let the elevators
increase the alpha. This meant that the pylons had to be modified as seen on figure 13 to get
the tail wheels higher. The vertical line on the picture below is the new mounting point for the
tail wheel. The original angle was 4.4 degrees and after the modification the angle was
increased to 8.2 degrees.

16

Figure 13, modification lines on pylon.

After the modifications were done, the test was conducted again. This time, as the speed
increased, the wingtips lifted about 3-4 cm and the wing got up on its main wheels. Moderate
up elevator was applied and the wing lifted about 40 cm off the ground, then throttle was
reduced and the wing landed. This meant that the weight distribution was correct and the wing
was responsive to elevator input. The wing was ready for the next stage of flight testing.

Flight test stage 3 of schedule

The third stage of flight testings purpose was to further examine the wing`s sensitivity to
pitch change in flight. The ability to fly in a straight line was also a parameter to be tested
here.
The wing was accelerated to take-off speed and rotation was initiated. Straight forward flight
was stable until a wing gust from the side made the wing roll to the left, right aileron was
applied but the wing was not responding. The wing flew off to the left and throttle was
reduced and the wing crashed to the ground, breaking two pylons and toothpicks that kept the
wing sections from rotating in-flight.
The wing was repaired and the flight video was examined, but it was hard to determine why
the wing had behaved as it had based on the video.
Since the wing was to be flown without any empennage, and the wing was responsive in pitch
already, the horizontal stabilizers were removed.

17

I was suspecting that they had an impact on the wings control in roll since there were two
empennages that were not connected to each other.
A new test was conducted; as the wing lifted the pitch control was still good, but more
sensitive with the horizontal stabilizer removed. Some control in roll was observed for a while
but then it started to roll to the left again. Full left aileron was applied but only moderate
response was experienced. Right rudder was applied and the wing corrected itself for a brief
moment until it stalled and went for the ground. A large amount of elevator was applied just
before impact and the wing stalled close to the ground. The only thing that broke was a
toothpick which was easily replaced at the field.
At this point I rated the performance of the wing in roll-control at a 9-10 on the CooperHarper scale.
I increased the servo throw on aileron to 100% to 140% and reduced the elevator throw from
100% to 75%. Exponential was also added to the elevator channel, the amount exponential
added was -25%.
The test was conducted a third time, and this time the wing was more responsive than before
in aileron correction maneuvers, I also realized that the previous flights had been performed
with too much throttle applied. As I reduced the throttle to about 20-30% airspeed went down
considerably and the wing responded in a much better manner than before, which can indicate
that the sensitivity to over speed are related to a aeroelastical problem. This was later
confirmed when examining a picture taken during the test flight, see figure 14. The pitch
sensitiveness was also reduced and improved
At this stage I had gained the knowledge of some of the wings characteristics and in which
speed range it works best. When the wing was flying at this lower speed I rated this test stage
as a 2-3 on the Cooper-Harper scale.
Relevant settings:
The initial aileron and elevator EPA were set to 100%, and the elevator exponential was set to
0%. At the end of this test stage the aileron EPA was set to 140%, the elevator EPA set to
75% and the elevator exponential -25%

18

Figure 14, wing at over speed. The wing is noticeable twisted.

Flight test stage 4-6 of schedule
Flight test stage 4 to 6 were somewhat coupled since once the wing had taken off and made a
turn, it has to follow thru and land as well.
The wing was accelerated and lifted shortly after rotation was performed. Speed was kept
down and a left turn was initiated, the wing responded well to the aileron input and no pitch
change was observed. Wings were leveled out after the wing had turned approximately 180
degrees. Also this time, the wing responded well to the aileron and elevator input.
After flying in a straight line and downwind I had some difficulties judging the wings
airspeed, and as I initiated the right turn in to the wind aileron responsiveness were lowered.
This meant that the airspeed was too high and I reduced throttle and aileron effectiveness was
regained. As previously mentioned, the over speed problem originated from when the pilot
deflected the right side elevons up (when making a right turn) the high aeroelasticity of the
wing made the right half of the wing to pitch up. This makes the right wing generate more lift
due to the increase in alpha and is the opposite effect the pilot is expecting.
As I was flying towards me I made another right turn to get in to the final approach, this time
I applied some rudder in the turn and the wing responded well to this input as well, throttle
was reduced and I landed the wing on the asphalt with no problems.

19

At this point I felt confident to take away the vertical stabilizers as well and conduct a full
flight (test stage 4-6) with the wing in its final configuration.
The vertical stabilizers were removed, and the crosswind had picked up to 5 m/s.
The wing was accelerated and rotated when flight speed had been attained, this flight was
filmed from behind at take-off. The crosswind made the wing want to yaw left in to the wind,
but after 2-3 seconds the control system for the motors had fully corrected the yaw and kept
the wing flying in a straight line without pilot input. A 180 degree right turn was performed
with no control issues what so ever. Now the wing was flying in crosswind from the right but
this was not noticed much from a pilots perspective. Mild corrective input was given due to
some turbulence when fling in a straight line, I performed another right turn and flew the wing
back to the airstrip. Every turn needed little to no rudder input, I turned right again and lined
up the wing for landing. Throttle was reduced and the wing landed successfully.
I rated the wings overall controllability to a 2-3 on the Cooper-Harper scale, which must be
seen as a great success. Figure 15 shows the wing at runway 29 after the completed flight
testing. Some test flights will be available on YouTube from the user aerodynmag.

Figure 15, Solaris prototype.

This concluded the flight testing

20

Conclusions/ Recommendations for future work

The goal of this project was to examine how a flying plank behaves and to gain knowledge
about the characteristics of the automated control system in yaw for the motors.
It was a time consuming task to perform the flight testing, since once a major modification
had to be done it could most often not be made out on the field. And once the modification
had been done, there could be up to two weeks before the weather conditions allowed more
testing.
The response time of the control system is a function of the thrust of each propulsion unit
which in turn depends on propeller size and how powerful the motors are, also gyro-response
time of course. But smaller propellers and too powerful motors mean that the propulsion will
get inefficient. Before the construction of a full-scale version of Solaris, or any other flying
plank with no empennage, further studies should be performed to find the best combination of
motor power/propeller size and overall efficiency of pure forward propulsion to get the best
endurance possible.
The components used for the control system were all of-the-shelf components that totaled
about 200$. This shows that it is possible to control a flying wing in this manner with
relatively cheap components.
A big advantage with a span loading wing is that the wing construction does not have to be
very resistant to bending forces, and this means that a wing with a high aspect ratio can be
constructed light. This is the case with this project, but another problem arises with a light
construction like this and that is that the torsional stiffness is also reduced. This means that the
wing will have a relatively narrow flight envelope due to being sensitive to over speed. The
wing in this project experienced over speed on several occasions and aileron input effect was
totally lost. Future constructions need to take this into consideration when constructing the
wing because this can lead to a catastrophic failure and destruction of expensive equipment.

21

References
[1] Mikis Tsagarakis, Project Solaris - Analysis of airfoil for solar powered flying wing UAV.
http://mdh.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:450812
[2] Cooper-Harper Scale, wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper-Harper_rating_scale

22

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Gustaf Enebog for proposing a very interesting project.
Thank you Aragorn AALL and Niklas Sjstrm for the support with camera equipment,
filming and photographing most of the test flights.
Thank you Tsagarakis for evaluating airfoil for Solaris and presented the winner to me so I
could build the Solaris half scale with the correct airfoil.

23

Appendices
Airfoil Phoenix coordinates.
Phoenix
1.00000
0.99000
0.98000
0.97000
0.95000
0.92500
0.90000
0.87500
0.85000
0.82500
0.80000
0.77500
0.75000
0.72500
0.70000
0.67500
0.65000
0.60000
0.55000
0.50000
0.45000
0.40000
0.35000
0.30000
0.27500
0.25000
0.22500
0.20000
0.17500
0.15000
0.12500
0.10000
0.07500
0.05000
0.02500
0.02000
0.01500
0.01250
0.01000
0.00750
0.00500
0.00250
0.00100
0.00000
0.00100
0.00250
0.00500
0.00750
0.01000
0.01250

0.00091
0.00146
0.00203
0.00261
0.00388
0.00571
0.00779
0.01005
0.01245
0.01498
0.01760
0.02029
0.02304
0.02586
0.02872
0.03163
0.03458
0.04051
0.04639
0.05205
0.05733
0.06200
0.06577
0.06814
0.06863
0.06855
0.06781
0.06631
0.06396
0.06068
0.05638
0.05093
0.04415
0.03557
0.02402
0.02109
0.01779
0.01595
0.01395
0.01174
0.00921
0.00611
0.00362
0.00010
-0.00259
-0.00373
-0.00471
-0.00532
-0.00576
-0.00610

24

0.01500
0.02000
0.02500
0.03500
0.05000
0.07500
0.10000
0.12500
0.15000
0.17500
0.20000
0.22500
0.25000
0.27500
0.30000
0.35000
0.40000
0.45000
0.50000
0.55000
0.60000
0.65000
0.67500
0.70000
0.72500
0.75000
0.77500
0.80000
0.82500
0.85000
0.87500
0.90000
0.92500
0.95000
0.97000
0.98000
0.99000
1.00000

-0.00639
-0.00685
-0.00721
-0.00777
-0.00835
-0.00907
-0.00971
-0.01032
-0.01089
-0.01143
-0.01195
-0.01243
-0.01288
-0.01331
-0.01371
-0.01443
-0.01506
-0.01561
-0.01607
-0.01641
-0.01654
-0.01638
-0.01617
-0.01585
-0.01542
-0.01487
-0.01420
-0.01340
-0.01247
-0.01139
-0.01017
-0.00880
-0.00726
-0.00554
-0.00402
-0.00323
-0.00242
-0.00161

(Airfoil coordinates from http://www.aerodesign.de)

25