Aerodynamics of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Submitted by
Cheah Ai Lin

Department of
Mechanical Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Degree of Bachelor of Engineering
National University of Singapore

Session 2011/2012

SUMMARY

This thesis consists of the design and analysis of the aerodynamics of an

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
The aim of this UAV is for infantry men to deploy the UAV in an urban
operations environment where there is space constraint. The design of the UAV
has to be relatively small and portable so that infantry men are able to carry it
during their operations. The wings of the aircraft are designed to be foldable so
that it can be kept for storage and released when deployed. Thus, the restriction of
the size of the aircraft would mean that the wingspan of the aircraft has to be
relatively short. In addition, a launcher will be used to launch the UAV.
There are a few main factors which determine the span of the aircraft; namely the
estimated weight of the aircraft, the aerofoil shape, aspect ratio and the lift
required by the aircraft. There is a wide range of aerofoils to choose from and
based on the aerofoil data, calculations were done to ensure that the minimum lift
provided by the aerofoil was sufficient to lift the aircraft. The choices were then
narrowed down before a 3-D computational fluid dynamics using Solidworks
Flow Simulation was performed on the Solidworks model.
Aerofoil selection was done using the 2-dimensional (2D) analysis of aerofoil
shapes to determine the lift characteristics. The X-foil which is a well-established
aerofoil computational program is capable of generating the characteristics of
each aerofoil.

Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was then carried out on the 3-D model using
Solidworks Flow Simulation. The main aim of using CFD was to ensure that the
aircraft modelled in Solidworks is subjected to a real-life situation and that the lift
provided by the aerofoil selection previously is capable of generating sufficient
lift for the given speed. Based on the analysis and selection process of different
aerofoils, NACA8414 was chosen as the wing aerofoil and SD 8020 was chosen
as the tail aerofoil. Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis was also used to plot
the Moment vs Angle of Attack (AOA) graph so as to ensure that the aircraft is
longitudinally stable in trim conditions. In addition, the lift generated for each
individual surface, namely the wing and the tail, can be determined from the
Solidworks flow simulation. The individual lift surfaces for the wing and the tail
are used to determine the position of the wing and tail and also to calculate the
centre of gravity.
The fabrication and manufacturing of the components such as the wings, tails and
fuselage were done in-house using the CNC Hot Wire Cutter machine.
Flight instruments and equipments were mounted on the UAV and flight data
were collected. A powerless glide test was conducted to determine the Lift/Drag
ratio. This is to validate the theoretical and practical data collected during the
flight tests. The difference in theoretical and practical data were discussed and
accounted for.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to the supervisor,
Associate Professor Gerard Leng for his patience and guidance throughout this
project. His role as a mentor was invaluable. Associate Professor Gerard Leng
guided the team throughout the course of the project. Without his guidance, the
team would not be able to meet the requirements and deadlines. Gratitude is also
extended to the Staff and Technicians of the Dynamics Lab for their
administrative, technical support and assistance throughout the project. Special
thanks also go to Leong Jun Yi and Andrew Ong who provided advice to the
manufacture and flying of the UAV. Last but not least, the author would also like
to thank her teammates (Alphonsus, Long Qiang, Trixie and Shiao Loong) who
had put in their best efforts for this project. It had been an enjoyable experience
working with them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS .....................................................................................................x
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
2. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................2
3. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................5
3.1 Aerofoils ...............................................................................................................5
3.2 Planforms..............................................................................................................7
3.3 Centre of Gravity and Aerodynamic Centre .........................................................8
3.4 Dihedral ..............................................................................................................10
3.5 Drag ....................................................................................................................11
4. DESIGN ...................................................................................................................11
4.1 Selection of Aerofoil ..........................................................................................11
4.2 Design of UAV ...................................................................................................15
4.3 Wing Aerofoil and Wing Size ............................................................................15
4.4 Tail Aerofoil and Tail Size .................................................................................19

4.5 Downwash Angle ...............................................................................................22

5. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS ............................................................23
6. DRAG ......................................................................................................................26
7. STABILITY ............................................................................................................28
7.1 Longitudinal Stability .........................................................................................28
7.2 Lateral Stability ..................................................................................................29
9. RESULTS AND EVALUATION ............................................................................30
9.1 Verifying Lift .....................................................................................................30
9.2 Lift-to-Drag Ratio ...............................................................................................30
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ................................................33
11. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................34
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................35
Appendices ...................................................................................................................36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Flow Chart ..........................................................................................3

Figure 2: Geometric Parameters of Aerofoil [7] ............................................................5
Figure 3: Aerodynamic Centre [9] .................................................................................9
Figure 4: Balancing moments about the CG [3] ............................................................9
Figure 5: Front view of Aircraft having dihedral of .................................................10
Figure 6 : Aircraft rolls to the right due to a right sideslip ..........................................10
Figure 7: Lift characteristics of selected aerofoils .......................................................14
Figure 8: Cl vs Cd comparisons for the selected three aerofoils using Xfoil ..............16
Figure 9: Flow analysis across the Solidworks model .................................................17
Figure 10: Tail Configuration [4].................................................................................20
Figure 11: Horizontal Tail effective angle of attack [11] ............................................23
Figure 12: Basic Mesh of Computational Domain and Refinement of Mesh ..............24
Figure 13: Lift vs AOA ................................................................................................25
Figure 14: Moments vs AOA graph from Solidworks Flow Simulation .....................28
Figure 15: Rolling stability due to dihedral [1] ............................................................29
Figure 16: Powerless Glide Test ..................................................................................31
Figure 17: 2D NACA 8414 Aerofoil Characteristics generated using Xfoil ...............36
Figure 18: Downwash angle for no sweepback ...........................................................37
Figure 19: Typical values for horizontal and vertical tail volume coefficients ...........38
Figure 20: Coefficient of Drag for 4-digit aerofoils at low Reynolds number ............39
Figure 21: Coefficient of Drag of fuselage vs Fineness ratio ......................................39
Figure 22: Example of Drag Breakdown for Piper Cherokee 180 ...............................40

Figure 23: Refinement of cells and curvature ..............................................................41

Figure 24: Altitude vs Line Number from ArdumegaPilot Mission Planner ...............42
Figure 25: Latitude, Longitude and Altitude of the UAV during Glide Test ..............42
Figure 26: Latitude and Longitude conversion to distance (m) ...................................42

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Shape of Aerofoils ...........................................................................................6
Table 2: Comparison of the characteristics of various planforms [5] ............................7
Table 3: Wing Aerofoil characteristics ........................................................................16
Table 4: Main Wing Specifications .............................................................................18
Table 5: Dimensions for parameters stated in Figure 10 .............................................21
Table 6: Wing and Tail specifications .........................................................................25
Table 7: Drag components ...........................................................................................26
Table 8: Sample results obtained from Solidworks Flow Simulation .........................41
Table 9: Wing Parameters ............................................................................................43
Table 10: Horizontal Tail Parameters ..........................................................................43
Table 11: Vertical Tail Parameters ..............................................................................44

LIST OF SYMBOLS
AR

Aspect ratio

Span

Chord

CL

3D Lift Coefficient

Cl

2D Lift Coefficient

Cl

Slope of sectional lift curve, deg1

Cm

Slope of pitching moment coefficient, deg1

Drag, N

Oswalds efficiency factor

Vertical distance, m

Angle of incidence, deg

Length of fuselage, m

Lift, N

Moment per unit length Nm m1

Density, kg/m3

Wing Surface Area, m2

Swet

Wetted Surface Area, m2

Free stream velocity, ms1

VH

Horizontal Tail Volume Ratio

Weight, N

Horizontal distance, m

Angle of attack, deg

Diameter of fuselage, m

1. INTRODUCTION

The research on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been ongoing as UAV
proved to be essential and useful in helping infantry men in carrying out their
missions. In todays modern battlefield, more and more UAVs are being
developed to further aid people in carrying out their operations. One of the most
basic functions of the UAV is for surveillance purposes. With a camera mounted
on the UAV, infantry men are able to survey the grounds without endangering
their lives. In addition, an autopilot system will also be mounted on the UAV to
stabilise it; thus it does not require infantry men to control the plane at all times.
Currently, the L3 cutlass tube-launched Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and
the Switchblade serve the purpose of launching the UAS into the sky and has a
camera to monitor its flight and surroundings.
This project aims to develop a portable UAV which is capable of launching
vertically into the air in an urban operations environment and deployment of the
wings as the UAV is launched into the sky. A camera system is placed on board to
provide a live feed back to the infantry men. This thesis will cover the
aerodynamics of the UAV: from the design and selection process of the aerofoils
for the wings and tails, the lift and flow analysis of the aircraft as well as the drag
of the aircraft.
In the process of designing the UAV, there are some constraints which need to be
addressed so as to ensure that the final UAV model meets the mission
requirements.

1. The UAV has to be portable such that an infantry man can easily bring it along
during his operations. The estimated size of the UAV is about the size of the
fieldpack. This constraint limits the wingspan and total length of the UAV.
2. The wings have to be folded for ease of storage and for portability. This
restricts the dimensions of the wingspan and its chord.
3. Telemetry and equipment weight about 1kg and the wings must be capable of
sustaining at least 10N of lift.

2. OBJECTIVES

This project consists of mainly three phases: Selection of aerofoils, Computational

Flow Dynamics (CFD) of the selected aerofoils and Flight Test Analysis. Each
phase contributes to the final objectives and thus completing the individual phases
on time means that the other group members can move on with their parts using
the data collected.

Figure 1: Project Flow Chart

The main objective for each phase is to:

1. Selection of Aerofoil
Select an aerofoil for the main wing and the tail respectively. The dimensions of
the wing and tail namely the span, aspect ratio and chord length are determined by
the optimisation program. Theoretical calculations would be performed to ensure
that the aerofoils selected are able to provide enough lift and ensure longitudinal
stability of the aircraft during trim condition.
2. Verified by Solidworks Flow Simulation
The final model which is modelled using Solidworks will be analysed using the
Solidworks Flow Analysis. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) would be
performed on the model and the respective lift values can be obtained from the

wing and tail surfaces. Pitching moment of the UAV can be obtained from the
Solidworks flow simulation.
3. Flight Test
Performing numerous flight tests on the final model further validates the
theoretical calculations and simulation results. Data can be collected during flight
using the telemetry on board and the glide test ratio can be determined.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Aerofoils

Aerofoils refer to the cross-sectional shape of the wings of an aircraft. An aerofoil

consists of leading edge, trailing edge, maximum thickness, maximum camber,
camber line and chord. The general aerodynamic characteristics of the wing such
as lift, drag and stall characteristics are affected by aerofoil geometric parameters.
The geometric parameters are summarized below:

Figure 2: Geometric Parameters of Aerofoil [7]

The maximum thickness and thickness distribution contributes to the amount of
lift generated by the aerofoil. With a thicker aerofoil, the lift generated is higher
but form drag also increases due to flow separation. The aerofoil generates lift due
to the difference in pressure on the upper and lower surfaces. According to
Bernoullis equation, as flow passes the upper surface which has a larger
curvature compared to the lower surface, the velocity of flow speeds up and this
result in a lower pressure. On the lower surface, the velocity of flow is not as high
as compared to the upper surface, thus the pressure at the lower surface is higher

than the pressure on the upper surface. The difference in pressure between the
upper and lower surfaces generates a net upward force known as lift.
Cambered aerofoils provide greater lift due to greater curvature and they have a
nose down or negative pitching moments. This negative pitching moment must be
offset by the down ward force from the horizontal tail.
Table 1: Shape of Aerofoils
Types of Aerofoil

Properties

Heavily cambered

1. High lift
2. Low Cm

Moderately cambered Flat bottom

1. Moderate lift
2. Moderate Cm

Symmetrical no cambered

1. Zero lift at zero

AOA
2. Virtually no
pitching moment

Moderately cambered aerofoil is highly recommended for the main wings so that
it can provide a higher suction force and hence higher lift force generated at low
speeds. As for the tail, symmetrical aerofoil would be chosen as the main purpose
of having the tail is to balance the upward force generated by the wing. Thus,

when given a negative angle of incidence of the tail, the tail generates a downward
force. For symmetrical aerofoil, the lift generated is zero when angle of attack is
zero.
3.2 Planforms

Different types of planforms changes the lift distribution of the wings. Some of
the more common planforms are summarised below.
Table 2: Comparison of the characteristics of various planforms [5]
Profile

Advantages

Disadvantages

Elliptical

1. Generates highest lift

1. Difficult to fabricate

coefficients

2. Gives little warning

2. Lowest induced drag

prior to complete stall,

pilot has little time to
react due to poor aileron
effectiveness

Rectangular

1. Easy to fabricate

1. Higher induced drag

2. Provides adequate

2. Trailing vortices at

stall warning and

wing tips increases drag

aileron effectiveness
and thus increase
stability

Tapered

1. Lower induced drag

1. Tip stall will lead to a

than rectangular wings

loss of aileron control

(more effective only at

high speeds)

The figure above summarizes the three common planforms. Although the
elliptical planform is most capable of generating high lift and reducing drag, the
shape of the planform is too complex and thus makes it difficult to fabricate.
Tapered wings also proves to be more efficient in reduce drag, however it is only
effective at high speeds. Eventually, rectangular wings are chosen as they are
simple to manufacture and drag can be reduced by ensuring a smoother surface on
the wings and also the aerodynamic shape of the fuselage.
3.3 Centre of Gravity and Aerodynamic Centre

The position of centre of gravity (CG) of the UAV has an impact on the
longitudinal stability and selection of horizontal tails angle of incidence. The
general rule of thumb for the CG is to be placed slightly in front of the
aerodynamic centre (AC) of the wings i.e. 25% of the chord.

Figure 3: Aerodynamic Centre [9]

The AC is the point where all the lift acts and where the pitching moment
coefficient is not affected by the change in angle of attack. By placing the CG
slightly in front of the AC, the anticlockwise moment produced by the wings due
to the distance between the AC and CG have to be balanced by a clockwise
moment produced by the horizontal tail. Thus, the horizontal tail has to exert a
downward force to counteract the moment produced by the wings. And this
amount of downward force required will determine the angle of incidence of the
tail.

Figure 4: Balancing moments about the CG [3]

3.4 Dihedral

Dihedral helps to bring about lateral stability, also known as roll stability.
Dihedral angle is the angle between the plane perpendicular to the root chord and
the plane which passes through the upper and lower surfaces of the wing. In the
case of dihedral, the wing tip is higher than the wing roots. Having a dihedral
angle will improve the lateral stability of the plane.

Figure 5: Front view of Aircraft having dihedral of

Figure 6 : Aircraft rolls to the right due to a right sideslip

As the aircraft sideslips to the right as depicted in Figure 6, the right wing
experience a higher angle of attack and this increases the lift experienced by the
right wing. The left wing, on the other hand, experiences a much lower angle of
attack and thus the lift decreases. This cause a restoring moment to the left which
brings the aircraft back to equilibrium [3].

10

3.5 Drag

Drag is often divided into two main parts; the induced drag and the zero-lift drag.
The induced drag is associated with the generation of lift and it is dependent on
the AOA of the UAV. The result of induced drag comes from the downwash
effect, where the trailing vortices generated at the wing tips induces a small
downward velocity component in the downwards direction of the wing. The zerolift drag is contributed by the various parts of the UAV which is not dependant on
production of lift such as the horizontal tail, fuselage, wings, and vertical tail and
so on.

4. DESIGN
4.1 Selection of Aerofoil

The aerofoil shape of the wings has to be selected based on the criteria that the
main wings must be capable of providing enough lift to support the weight of the
entire UAV. A conventional wing and tail configuration will be adopted. The

11

aerofoil shape of the tail has to be selected such that it provides a downward force
which balances the lift force produced by the main wings.
The selection of the wing aerofoil was done using a 2D computational program
known as the Xfoil. The Xfoil consists of a wide database for NACA aerofoils
and the Cl, Cd and Cm of the aerofoil can be easily determined. The credibility and
accuracy of Xfoil has been verified and was deemed to be accurate. Thus, the use
of Xfoil sped up the process of selecting and narrowing down the suitable
aerofoils for the UAV. Given a large database to choose from, 5 aerofoils were
selected, namely the SPICA, NACA 4415. NACA 8414, NACA 0012 and SD
8020 [10]. The information of the respectively aerofoils selected were plotted
using Xfoil and the graphs are as shown below.

SPICA
Cl

1.5
1

0.5
0
-10

0
-0.5

12

AOA 10

20

Cl

NACA 4415

-10

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4

10
AOA

20

NACA 8414
2.5
2

Cl

1.5
1
0.5
0
-10

10
AOA

13

20

SD 8020
1.2
1
0.8
Cl

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

10

15

20

AOA

NACA 0012
1.4
1.2
1

Cl

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0

10

15

AOA

Figure 7: Lift characteristics of selected aerofoils

The Cl obtained from the graph plotted above has to be adjusted for aspect ratio
and converted to the estimated 3D CL using the Lifting Line theory:

14

20

The Cl can be obtained by finding the gradient of the graph plotted in Figure 7. A
high aspect ratio is preferred for the wings as it provides better 3D lift
characteristics. It produces less drag at lower speeds.
4.2 Design of UAV

A conventional design will be adopted for the UAV; main wings and tail. The
main wings serve to provide lift for the entire UAV and the tail will be used to
balance the aircraft.
To calculate the lift of the UAV provided by the wings, the equation shown below
can be used.

In order to find the lift of the wings, the chord length, wing span, aspect ratio are
estimated and after which the dimensions of the wings are determined by the
optimisation program. The known values are then factored into the lift equation to
obtain the total lift generated by the wings.
The main wings of the UAV will be placed on the same level as that of the tail.
This would induce a downwash effect which will decrease the effective angle of
attack of the tail.
4.3 Wing Aerofoil and Wing Size

The selected wing aerofoils are namely SPICA, NACA 4415 and NACA 8414.
The characteristics of each aerofoil are summarised below:

15

Cl/Cd vs AOA

120
100

Cl /Cd

80
NACA
8414
NACA
4415
SPICA

60
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

AOA

Figure 8: Cl vs Cd comparisons for the selected three aerofoils using Xfoil

Table 3: Wing Aerofoil characteristics

Aerofoil

Max Cl

Stall Angle

Stall
Pattern

Cl at
= 6o

Max
Cl/Cd at
6o

Shape of
aerofoil

SPICA

1.29

13o

Gradual

1.07

64.8

Flat Bottom

NACA 4415

1.54

15o

Relatively
Sharp

1.11

103.6

Flat Bottom

NACA 8414

1.95

13o

Gradual

1.49

109.2

Moderately
Cambered

Initially, SPICA and NACA 4415 were chosen as the wing aerofoils due to the
shape of the aerofoil and the ease of fabrication. However, having done the
Solidworks Flow Simulation on these two aerofoils, it did not provide sufficient
lift for the UAV.

16

Figure 9: Flow analysis across the Solidworks model

NACA 8414 was eventually chosen as the main wings aerofoil. This can be seen
from Table 3, the aerofoil characteristics of NACA 8414 best fits the criteria for
the UAV.
The wingspan and wing chord of the UAV are limited by size. A high aspect ratio
is preferred as it reduces induced drag and increases the 3D CL value. In order to
support a weight of 1kg (10N), the wing span was set at its maximum, 100cm
wingspan, wing chord to be 13cm and the AOA of the wing will be place at 6o so
as to maximise the L/D ratio.
Theoretical calculations were performed on the chosen wing aerofoil, NACA
8414. The lift obtained would be verified using Solidworks Flow Simulation,
which will be explained in later parts of the thesis.

17

Sample calculation of lift provided by the main wings:

Table 4: Main Wing Specifications
Parameters

Dimensions

Wing Chord, c

13 cm

Wing Span, b

100cm

Wing Area, S

0.13m2

Aspect Ratio

7.69

Coefficient of lift curve slope,

0.0945 /o = 5.414 /rad

Angle of incidence,

6o = 0.1047 rad

Density,

1.225kg/m3

Velocity, V

20m/s

Substituting the above into the 3D CL equation,

Thus, based on the above sample calculation for NACA 8414 3D wing, the
calculated lift value provides 40% more lift, providing a safety factor of 1.4. With
that, the NACA 8414 was implemented as the main wings aerofoil and the
finalised Solidworks model of the UAV will be simulated under the Solidworks
Flow Simulation.

18

It must be noted that the calculated value of lift comes entirely from the main
wings and that the downward force exerted by the tail is not considered. Thus, the
total lift of the aircraft is in fact:

4.4 Tail Aerofoil and Tail Size

The selected tail aerofoils are namely SD8020 and NACA 0012. Both aerofoils
chosen are symmetrical in shape and its zero lift angle of attack occurs at 0o and
thus, it is suitable to act as a tail aerofoil so that when the elevator is deflected
downwards, the UAV will have a pitching up moment and vice versa. In addition,
a slight negative AOA of the tail aerofoil will be able to provide a balance
condition for the aircraft. SD8020 was eventually chosen for the tail aerofoil as it
has a lower drag coefficient and the thickness is smaller than NACA 0012.
In order to ensure that UAV is statically stable, the tail configuration has to be
such that it balances the lift force provided by the main wings.

19

Figure 10: Tail Configuration [4]

The position of CG was determined by placing the CG slightly in front of the 25%
wing chord. The distance lt was set at at initial value of 35cm (this was limited by
the length of the rod which we used to support the entire UAV). The value of l t
can be adjusted based on the anticlockwise moment required by the tail to balance
the UAV. The distance lt can be placed further away from the CG to obtain a
larger moment arm exerted by the tail downward force.
By taking moments about the CG, the downwards lift generated by the tail can be
obtained.

20

Sample Calculations:
Table 5: Dimensions for parameters stated in Figure 10
Parameters

Dimensions

Lift, Lw

14.3N

Distance from wing AC to CG, lw

1.5cm

Tail coefficient of lift curve slope

(SD8020) ,
Distance from tail AC to CG, lt

35cm

Having decided that SD8020 as the tail aerofoil, the downward force required by
the tail can be found using the above equation. With that, the CL value can be
obtained using the lift equation. By substituting the known values into the
equation, the CL can then be used to find the angle of incidence of the tail using
the 3D CL equation.
The horizontal tail area can be estimated by the following:

Horizontal Tail Volume Ratio,

21

For glider, VH is estimated to be 0.6 (refer to Figure 19).

Sample calculations for angle of incidence for the horizontal tail:

By substituting

into the lift equation,

From the optimisation program, tail AR = 3.11. Using the 3D CL to find the angle
of incidence of tail,

(downwards)

4.5 Downwash Angle

Downwash is generated due to the flow over the main wings, generating a small
velocity component in the downwards direction due to the wing trailing vortices.
The downwash generated by the main wings results in a decrease in the angle of
incidence of the tail. The effect of downwash causes a deflection of the flow over
the tail in the downwards direction.

22

Figure 11: Horizontal Tail effective angle of attack [11]

Where
Based on Figure 17,

5. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was performed using Solidworks flow

simulation. Flow simulation was used to determine the global goals and surface
goals, namely the total lift of the UAV, lift generated by the wing and tail surfaces,
drag of the UAV as well as the moment characteristics of the UAV. Refinement
of mesh was done on the aircraft to ensure that the curvature and partial cells are
properly meshed and laminar and turbulent flow were selected to ensure that the

23

flow simulation done in Solidworks was as close to the real life situation as
possible. An animation of flow over the UAV was also performed to analyse the
flow patterns as it passes the UAV. CFD model from flow simulation is based on
time dependent Navier-Stokes equations for reiterative calculations to generate the
required data. Due to time constraint and the level of refinement of the cells, CFD
was performed on the final Solidworks model of the UAV and used to determine
the lift data at different angles of attack.

Figure 12: Basic Mesh of Computational Domain and Refinement of Mesh

24

Lift
18
16
14

Lift (N)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

AOA (degrees)

Figure 13: Lift vs AOA

CFD results shown in Figure 13 indicate that at an AOA of 1o, the lift generated is
about 13N at 20m/s. The stalling angle of the UAV is about 5o. The design of the
UAV is capable of achieving sufficient lift at a speed of 20m/s, a 30% margin
before stalling occurs at 5o.
Table 6: Wing and Tail specifications
Wing

Angle of
Aerofoil Shape Wingspan (cm) Chord (cm) Aspect Ratio incidence

Main Wings

NACA 8414

100

13

7.69

6o

Horizontal Tail

SD 8020

28

9.0

3.11

1.22o

25

6. ESTIMATED DRAG

The estimated drag of the UAV can be calculated using the formula which
includes the induced drag and the zero lift drag coefficients:

The estimated drag of the UAV is made up of the main components such as the
fuselage, main wings, horizontal tail and rudder.
e = 0.85, Tail AR = 3.11, Wing AR = 7.69

= 0.0108

The CD0 values were obtained by calculating the fineness ratio for each major
component and referenced with the graphs shown in Appendix 4 and 5.
Table 7: Drag components
Components
Zero Lift Drag
Main Wings
(NACA 8414)
Horizontal Tail
(SD 8020)
Vertical Tail (SD
8020)
Fuselage
(
,l=
0.156m)

Reference Area, A
-

Fineness ratio
-

0.13

0.14

0.026

0.10

0.00975

0.10

0.005945

1.954

26

CD
0.0065 X 1.5 =
0.00975
0.0058 X 1.5 =
0.0087
0.0058 X 1.5 =
0.0087
0.030X 1.5=
0.045

With reference to values obtained in Table 7:

From the data logger, ground speed recorded was 17m/s. Assuming linear
aerodynamics, the CFD lift value which was obtained at 20m/s can be scaled
down to 17m/s using the formula below:

Thus,

27

7. STABILITY
7.1 Longitudinal Stability

Static longitudinal stability of an aircraft is crucial as it determines the ability of

the aircraft to return to its original position when displaced by a gust of wind or
there is a sudden change in the AOA. To ensure that the aircraft is longitudinally
stable,

Moments vs AOA
0.5

Moments (Nm)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

-0.2

AOA

Figure 14: Moments vs AOA graph from Solidworks Flow Simulation

Solidworks Flow Simulation is used to determine the CM of the entire UAV.

Based on the graph generated above, it can be seen that it is a negative downward
sloping graph which cuts the positive y-axis (Cm) and x-axis (AOA). The graph
depicts that as AOA increases, the negative pitching moment (nose down) will
bring the aircraft back to trim position and as AOA decreases, the positive

28

pitching moment (nose up) will pitch up the aircraft to trim position.

Trim

condition is when the summation of forces is zero (thrust equals drag) and the
summation of all moments is zero. Thus, the trim position is when the slope cuts
the x-axis (Cm = 0). By generating the Moments vs AOA graph, the position of the
Centre of Gravity of the UAV can be determined to ensure trim conditions.
7.2 Lateral Stability
Dihedral effect on the UAV was due to the wing position. The wings of the UAV
are positioned at the top of the fuselage, i.e. high wings. The high wings enable
greater stability as it guides the position of cross flow around the fuselage in a
sideslip, changing the angle of attacks at the wing root and wing tip, resulting in a
net lift component which brings the UAV back to stability.

Figure 15: Rolling stability due to dihedral [1]

29

9. RESULTS AND EVALUATION

9.1 Verifying Lift

As the UAV is capable of flying, it goes to show that sufficient lift is provided by
the main wings. Given that the weight of the UAV is approximately 1kg, the C L
value can be verified from the straight and level flight at ground speed of 17m/s.

The theoretical CL calculated was 0.45 and the slight reduction in CL could be due
to wind conditions, the accuracy of the shape of the aerofoil and also interference
from the aircraft body due to presence of fuselage, wing spars and so on.
9.2 Lift-to-Drag Ratio

One of the most important criteria when building the UAV is the lift-to-drag ratio.
Maximum lift occurs near the stall angle and minimum drag occurs at low angles
of attack for cambered aerofoil. Thus, to get the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, the
lower lift value has to be compensated to achieve a lower drag value. The UAVs
required lift is determined by the total weight of the UAV. In this case, a
minimum of 10N of lift is required from the main wings to support the UAV.
Lower drag is obtained by ensuring a smooth surface of the wings such that flow
separation is delayed. Lower drag leads to better climb performance and better
glide ratio. In addition, it also reduces the thrust of the motor needed to overcome
the drag.

30

Theoretical lift-to-drag ratio can be determined through CFD analysis, where the
UAV is assumed to be operating at maximum CL.

The theoretical value of L/D can be compared with that of the powerless glide
which was conducted during one of the flight tests. The latitude, longitude and
altitude of the UAV were recorded during the test, where the UAV was travelling
at 17m/s.

Figure 16: Powerless Glide Test

31

The difference between the actual and theoretical L/D could be due to the increase
in drag caused by the presence of the folding wing mechanism which was placed
on the top of the fuselage. The rough surfaces of the mechanism, protruding wires,
camera and drag from exposed wing spars at the joints could have increased the
total drag of the UAV significantly and these values of drag were not accounted
for in the estimated drag calculation due to its complexity in shape. Interference
drag, caused by the connection between the folding wing mechanism and the
wings were not taken into account during calculation.
In addition, as there is no angle of attack indicated mounted on the UAV, it is not
possible to determine the AOA the plane is flying at. The ground speed data
collected by the GPS is subjected to a 3m error and this contributes to the error in
calculating range and altitude (see Appendix 7).

32

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

With more time and resources, the Solidworks Flow Simulation can be further
enhanced by increasing the mesh and refinement number. This would provide a
more accurate data.
The lift of the UAV provided by the wings can be increased by having a canard
configuration. Given more time, the canard configuration can be explored and the
use of canard may be implemented in our design. With the addition of a canard, it
may allow for a shorter main wingspan and hence easier portability of the UAV.
In addition, in terms of the material used to manufacture the UAV, the foam can
be of smoother surface so as to reduce drag and lighter in order to reduce weight.
Drag can also be further reduced by streamlining the fuselage and ensure that the
exposed surfaces such as the wing joints and spars are covered with a smooth
layer.

33

11. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the aerodynamics aspects of the UAV were met. The entire process
from the selection of aerofoils to the implementation of the wings and tails on the
actual UAV were discussed in the thesis. Several prototypes were built to improve
on the design of the UAV. In addition, flight tests that were conducted proved the
airworthiness of the UAV and also ascertain the stability of the plane. With the
equipment placed on board, the wings and tails were capable of providing lift and
balance respectively during flying.

34

REFERENCES

1. Flight Emergency & Advanced Maneuvers Training. (2009).

Lateral/Directional Stability. Flightlab.
2. Johnson, P. K. (2006). Airfield Models. Retrieved 30 August , 2011, from
http://www.airfieldmodels.com/information_source/index.htm
3. Lancaster, R. (1983). Principles of Glider Flight. Alexander Schleicher
GmbH & Co.
4. Leng, G. (2012). Static Longitudinal Stability. National University of
Singapore.
5. Lennon, A. (1996). In A. Lennon, The Basics of R/C Model Aircraft
Design. Wilton: Air Age Inc.
6. Leong, J. Y. (2010/2011). Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Design and
Manufacture. Singapore: National University of Singapore.
7. Luo, S. C. (2012). Aerodynamics and Propulsion. National University of
Singapore.
8. McCormick, B. (1995). Aerodynamics, aeronautics and flight mechanics.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
9. Model Aircraft. (14 April, 2011). Retrieved 5 January, 2012, from
Aerodynamics, Beginners' Guide :
http://adamone.rchomepage.com/index.html
10. N.A. (25 February, 2012). Airfoil Investigation Database. Retrieved 12
August, 2011, from Airfoil Investigation Database:
http://worldofkrauss.com/
11. N.A. (n.d.). Principles of Helicopter Flight. Retrieved 4 January, 2012,
from http://www.cavalrypilot.com/fm1-514/Ch1.htm
12. NASA. (25 March, 2010). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Retrieved 28 February, 2012, from Lift to Drag Ratio:
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/ldrat.html
13. Sadraey, M. Tail Design. Daniel Webster College.
14. Sadraey, M. Drag and its Coefficient. Daniel Webster College.

35

Appendix 1

Figure 17: 2D NACA 8414 Aerofoil Characteristics generated using Xfoil

36

Appendix 2

Figure 18: Downwash angle for no sweepback

Based on Figure 18,
X-axis of graph =
Y-axis of graph =

= 0.58, where

= 0 and A = Aspect Ratio (for this case)

37

Appendix 3

Figure 19: Typical values for horizontal and vertical tail volume coefficients

38

Appendix 4

Figure 20: Coefficient of Drag for 4-digit aerofoils at low Reynolds number

Figure 21: Coefficient of Drag of fuselage vs Fineness ratio

39

Appendix 5

Figure 22: Example of Drag Breakdown for Piper Cherokee 180

40

Appendix 6

Figure 23: Refinement of cells and curvature

Table 8: Sample results obtained from Solidworks Flow Simulation

Averaged
Value

Minimum
Value

Maximum
Value

Goal Name
GG Y - Component
of Force 1
Wing

Unit

Value

[N]
[N]

Tail
GG Z - Component
of Force 1
GG X - Component
of Torque 1

[N]

12.00389877 12.39983408 11.80199262 13.04796569

11.63301289 12.02896476 11.44257484 12.65949167
0.004783419 0.018513693 0.030612274 0.003170438

[N]

3.498135079

3.54037895 3.494835852 3.590902445

[N*m] 2.240723617 2.313095297 2.205340953 2.427614326

41

Appendix 7

Figure 24: Altitude vs Line Number from ArdumegaPilot Mission Planner

Figure 25: Latitude, Longitude and Altitude of the UAV during Glide Test

Figure 26: Latitude and Longitude conversion to distance (m)

42

Appendix 8
Table 9: Wing Parameters
Wing Chord,

0.13 m

Wingspan,

1.00 m

Wing Area,

0.13 m2

Wing Aspect Ratio,

7.692

Wing Angle of Incidence,

0.105 rad

Wing Angle of Attack,

0.174 rad

2D Wing lift coefficient,

1.49

3D Wing lift coefficient,

0.45

3D Lift coefficient at 0 AoA,

0.425

2D Wing Lift curve slope,

5.414

2D Wing moment coefficient,

1.936

Distance from Wing leading edge to CG,

0.030 m

Distance of ac from Leading edge,

0.0325 m

Table 10: Horizontal Tail Parameters

Horizontal Tail Chord,

0.09 m

Horizontal Tail Span,

0.28 m

Horizontal Tail Area,

0.0252 m2

Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio,

3.11

Horizontal Tail Angle of Incidence,

0 rad

Distance of Tail ac from cg,

0.35 m

2D Tail lift coefficient,

0.7292

3D Tail lift coefficient,

0.09262

2D Tail lift curve slope,

6.607

Downwash angle,

0.037 rad

43

Rate of change of downwash angle,

0.448

Horizontal Tail Volume Ratio,

0.522

Table 11: Vertical Tail Parameters

Vertical Tail mean chord

0.075 m
m2

Vertical Tail Area,

Vertical Tail Span,

0.13 m

Distance of Tail ac from cg,

0.35 m

Vertical Tail Volume Ratio,

-END OF THESIS-

44