Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Mechanical Design Project I - ENGI 7926 - Report #1

Prepared By: No Time for Crash Talk
(Lucas Groves, Neal Pearcey Osvaldo Cuello, Doug Pratt, Greg Doucet, Himanshu
Ragtah)
Date: June 3, 2016

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Prepared for:
Dr. Luc Rolland
&
Memorial University of Newfoundland Engineering
Prepared by:
Lucas G., Neal P., Osvaldo C., Doug P., Greg D., Himanshu R.
201214350, 201232345, 201134079, 200931582, 201104353, 201205887
June 3, 2016

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Summary
The team No Time for Crash Talk chose the payload objective as their design mission. The
mission flight route, project management and budget were discussed. Preliminary design
constraints such as weight and size were calculated based on the maximum motor output.
Design concepts were generated for the planes wings, fuselage, empennage and
undercarriage. Each component was evaluated based primarily on their ease of
manufacturing, followed by lift generation, cost and drag. The team decided on a rectangular
planform and flat camber airfoil design for the wings. The empennage will be a twin vertical
tail. The undercarriage will be a fixed landing gear with a tail dragger design. High density
foam will be the primary material since it is easy to manufacture and low density. In future
reports, the exact component designs mentioned above will be calculated using simulation
software and the fuselage will be designed iteratively to accommodate these parts.

i|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................... i
1

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Design Objectives and Constraints ................................................................ 1

2.1
2.2

Project Mission ....................................................................................... 1

Constraints ............................................................................................. 1

2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4

Motor Power .......................................................................................................... 2

Size and Weight .................................................................................................... 2
Flight Route ........................................................................................................... 2
Budget ................................................................................................................... 3

Project Management Plan ................................................................................ 3

3.1
3.2

Design Concept Generation ............................................................................ 3

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

Tools and Resources .............................................................................. 3

Team Responsibilities & Project Schedule .............................................. 3
Wings...................................................................................................... 3
Fuselage ................................................................................................. 4
Empennage ............................................................................................ 5
Undercarriage ......................................................................................... 7
Materials ................................................................................................. 8

Design Concept Evaluation ............................................................................. 8

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

Wings...................................................................................................... 8
Fuselage ................................................................................................. 9
Empennage ............................................................................................ 9
Undercarriage ....................................................................................... 11

5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4

Arrangement ....................................................................................................... 11
Landing Gear Type ............................................................................................. 11
Retractable Versus Fixed .................................................................................... 11
Suspension ......................................................................................................... 11

5.5

Materials ............................................................................................... 12

5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3

Metals .................................................................................................................. 12
Polymers ............................................................................................................. 12
Composites ......................................................................................................... 12

Design Concept Selection ............................................................................. 12

6.1

Wings.................................................................................................... 12

6.1.1
6.1.2

Airfoil ................................................................................................................... 12
Planform .............................................................................................................. 13

6.2
6.3

Fuselage ............................................................................................... 13
Empennage .......................................................................................... 13

ii | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

6.4
6.5

Undercarriage ....................................................................................... 13
Materials ............................................................................................... 14

Next Stage and Future Research .................................................................. 14

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 14

List of References .......................................................................................... 16

Appendix A Wing Calculations .................................................................................. 17

Appendix B Airfoil Figures ......................................................................................... 20
Appendix C Material Properties ................................................................................. 25
Appendix D Concept Selection Matrices................................................................... 28
Appendix E Gantt Chart & Description of Deliverables ........................................... 33

iii | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figures
Figure 1 Generic Flight Route [7] ................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Various Wing Planforms[3] .............................................................................. 4
Figure 3 Typical Aircraft Landing Gear Arrangements [8] .............................................. 7
Figure 4 Example Airfoil for Concepts 2 and 4.............................................................. 9
Figure 5 Example Airfoil for Concepts 1 and 3.............................................................. 9
Figure 6 Effect of Airfoil Thickness on Lift Coefficient[12] ............................................. 21
Figure 7 Effect of Airfoil Thickness on Drag Coefficient[12] .......................................... 21
Figure 8 Effect of Airfoil Camber on Lift Coefficient[12]................................................. 22
Figure 9 Effect of Airfoil Camber on Drag Coefficient[12] .............................................. 22
Figure 10 Effect of Aspect Ratio on Lift Coefficient[12] ................................................. 23
Figure 11 Different Theoretical Airfoil Geometries ...................................................... 24
Figure 12 Densities for Different Materials[1] ............................................................... 26
Figure 13 Stiffness Values for Different Materials[1] .................................................... 26
Figure 14 Strength Values for Different Materials[1] .................................................... 27
Figure 15 Resistance to Fracture for Different Materials[1] .......................................... 27
Figure 16 Material Design Selection Matrix ................................................................ 29
Figure 17 Undercarriage Layout Design Selection Matrix ........................................... 30
Figure 18 Empennage Design Selection Matrix .......................................................... 31
Figure 19 Wing Selection Matrices ............................................................................. 32
Tables
Table 1 Calculations for Size and Weight ..................................................................... 2
Table 2 Discussion of Empennage Types[9[4] ................................................................ 6
Table 3 Different Wing Concepts .................................................................................. 8
Table 4 Comparison of Different Empennage Types[4] ................................................ 10

iv | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Introduction
The report that follows outlines the general procedures and information used by team
No Time for Crash Talk for the design of a small airplane. When taking on such a project,
it is vital that all design constraints and initial design options are considered before actually
designing and building components.
The Design Objectives and Constraints section outlines the project mission, and any
constraints that need to be considered in the design. This includes details such as the facility
size, the motor output, and budget.
Next, the Project Management Plan section outlines details about the project team
make up, and the plans in-place to see the success of this design unfold.
Then, the report is divided up into three different sections, which constitute the
generation, evaluation, and selection of various concepts. Wings, fuselages, empennage,
undercarriage, and materials are all examined in detail to determine their merits and
detriments, comparing various concepts against each other for the purpose of determining
the best concept. Ultimately, the concepts outline in this report are just conceptual
evaluations. Further in-depth evaluation and detailed design will follow in future reports. As
such, the section Next Stage and Future Research examines some aspects which will need
to be discussed in future iterations of this report.
2

Design Objectives and Constraints

2.1

Project Mission
The objective of this project is to design, build and test a functional radio controlled
aircraft. A basic aircraft kit including a motor, battery pack, speed controller, radio controller,
battery charger and servos will be provided. All other components of the aircraft must be
designed and built by the group including the fuselage, empennage, undercarriage and
wings. The team must decide on an overall strategy, design and build all subsystems and
then integrate them into a final aircraft to achieve the flight mission.
The flight mission chosen for this design is for maximum payload percentage (carrier).
The remote-controlled aircraft must be able to safely takeoff, fly, and land whilst carrying a
payload through a predefined flight route through the space. Specific constraints are
discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2. The carriers performance will be evaluated using
the following payload fraction calculation; where is the payload weight and is
the weight of the empty model.

+
The design, building and testing of the aircraft must follow a predefined timeline. The
aircraft must be completed before July 27th, the day of the final competition. Deliverables for
the project include 3 reports and 3 presentations which are due on June 3rd, July 8th, and
August 1st respectively. The first report and presentation must outline the research and
concept selection process, the second must give an outline of detailed design work taking
place and the third must give an overview of the project as a whole. Additionally, a drawing
package must accompany the final report.
2.2

Constraints
The design team will be supplied with a kit of parts to be used for the prototype. Part
specifications such as component weight and motor power output will imply constraints on

1|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

the design. Constraints faced in this design will heavily influence the final prototype and will
be a major basis for the design.
2.2.1

Motor Power
The motor in the supplied parts kit will have a total power output defining the
prototypes maximum weight. The motor for this project has a voltage (V) of 15 Volts, with a
maximum current (I) of 18 Amperes. Estimating the mechanical efficiency ( ) as 0.85 and

the power factor (1000) as 0.7, the total power output (P) was calculated as outlined below.

700
=
= 0.85 15 18
1000
1000
= 0.1606 0.2153
2.2.2

Size and Weight

The theoretical power output from the supplied motor will need to be sufficient for
achieving the flight mission. Physical attributes of the components and systems for the
prototype will be designed to achieve optimal aerodynamics and optimum payload fraction.
Achieving these conditions will ensure mission success.
Power loading (PL) is the ratio of weight (W), in pounds, to motor power (P), in
horsepower. For the carrier flight mission, a power loading ratio between 10 and 15 is
optimal. The following calculations outline the theoretical weight limits based on this
criterion.
Table 1 Calculations for Size and Weight
Lower Limit (PL = 10)
= = 10 0.2153
= 2.153 0.98

Upper Limit (PL = 15)

= = 15 0.2153
= 3.2295 1.46

2.2.3

Flight Route
Major consideration must be given to the Techniplexs dimensions to ensure the
aircraft can safely takeoff, complete the mission, and land within the spaces confining limits.
The spaces dimensions are approximately 200 x 300, with a ceiling height of approximately
30. Figure 1 shows a generic flight route around the space, accounting for safe distance
from the walls.

Figure 1 Generic Flight Route [7]

2|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

2.2.4 Budget
The total cost of the final aircraft prototype will be limited to a maximum of $250. All
acquired parts, materials, and items will be identified to ensure an accurate budget
summary. Borrowed/donated items will also be identified and be assigned a normal market
value for this purpose. A complete cost estimate will be included in the final report.
3

Project Management Plan

3.1

Tools and Resources

Microsoft Project 2016 was used to generate a Gantt chart to provide an overview of
tasks to be completed for this report and the person responsible for each. It also outlines the
estimated completion times for each task and the duration of each. The chart also shows
the estimated completion times for future presentations and reports. A separate Gantt chart
will be generated for the actual construction of the aircraft when after the design has been
finalized.
A private online forum was also set up as a way to ensure all group members are up
to date on the project. The group leader posts to this page once per week to outline current
progress, individual responsibilities and deadlines, and the overall focus for the upcoming
week. An up to date meeting schedule along with meeting minutes from previous meetings
are also posted to this forum. For quick messaging between team members, a private chat
was set up in an instant messaging application. The group held meetings each Tuesday
morning to assign roles and deadlines, review progress and discuss various aspects of the
project including any issues encountered.
3.2

Team Responsibilities & Project Schedule

Lucas Groves was designated the team leader. Effort was made to ensure all tasks
relating to the first report were divided up amongst the group evenly. The Gantt chart created
for the project can be seen in Appendix E. The Gantt chart outlines the overall project
schedule, includes a list of tasks/subtasks and the person responsible for each, as well as
the target completion date for each milestone. A more detailed description of each
deliverable can also be found in Appendix E.
4

Design Concept Generation

4.1

Wings
The aerodynamic forces developed on an aircraft are affected heavily by the airfoils
design, and as such it is important to ensure that the wing design used on this aircraft is
effective at achieving its purpose. The design team looked at different existing wing designs
which are commonly used. Rather than design a brand-new wing, the project team decided
that the best option would be to modify an existing accepted design to suit the projects goal.
The first type of wing planforms are swept wings which are typical among high-speed
airplanes. Due to their swept design, they require high speeds during take-off and landing.
They are also unstable at low flight speeds. For the purpose of this design project, swept
wings will likely be unsuitable due to their requirements for high-speed in take-off, landing
and flight.
Another type of airfoil planform is the delta wing. These wings are designed for high
speed aircraft and typically those which reach supersonic speeds. Similar to the swept
wings, they require high speeds for take-off and landing.

3|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Yet another type of airfoil planform is the straight wing. The straight wing is typically
used for aircraft which travel at low speeds, being unstable at high-speeds. They are typically
found on smaller aircraft and provide significant lift at low speeds. Examples of different wing
planforms can be found in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Various Wing Planforms[3]

For this design project, the best airfoil would be one which provides high lift at low
speeds. As such, the geometry was analyzed to get a better idea of where to start when
designing an airfoil suitable for this aircrafts purpose. In reviewing different geometries, it
would appear that a deep camber and thick wing section would be the most appropriate.
Different theoretical airfoil geometries can be found at the end of Appendix B, which will be
used in the evaluation and selection portion of this report.
4.2

Fuselage
The fuselage is responsible for a large percentage of the drag experienced by aircraft.
On most aircraft, the drag contribution resulting from the fuselage is between 25-50 percent.
[9]
In order to manage drag, it is important to consider the following equations. [11]

= (

Where FF=Form Factor, Cf=Skin Friction, Swet=Wetted area of the fuselage, Sre=Wing area
= 1 +

60
+ 0.0025
()3

Where FR=Fuselage Fitness Ratio=Fuselage Length/Diameter

In designing a fuselage, there are a number of different components which need to be
examined. Firstly, it is important to consider the internal structure of the fuselage for weight

4|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

and aircraft integrity. There are several flight critical components on the fuselage, and it is
imperative that the fuselage structure is able to support and protect those components.
Furthermore, the structure should survive vibration caused by the motor and survive internal
component failure. As per the project mission, the plane should be able to survive 3 flight
attempts, and as such it is important that the fuselage does not fail after one impact. One
way to achieve structural rigidity would be through adding bulkheads that can support the
internal loads on the aircraft.
It is also important that the load on the fuselage be evenly distributed such that the
centre of gravity is near the centre of the plane. A central centre of gravity is integral in
ensuring a stable flight and in preventing the aircraft from stalling.
4.3

Empennage
There are many possible designs for the empennage, or tail of an aircraft. The most
commonly used type is the conventional tail. It is the simplest configuration for performing
all of the functions required of a tail such as trim, stability, and control. [9] The tail can be
placed in many different locations on the aircraft, however, the most common location is on
the aft of the fuselage. Examples of different tail configurations can be found Table 2

5|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Table 2 Discussion of Empennage Types[9[4]

Tail Type

Conventional

T-Tail

Cruciform

H-Tail

V-Tail

Y-Tail

Twin Vertical
Tail

Description
The most common type of empennage design. It
consists of one vertical stabilizer which is located on
the tapered tail section of the fuselage in the
centerline of top of fuselage. It also has two horizontal
stabilizers which are also placed on the fuselage on
either side and are both perpendicular to the vertical
stabilizer.
Has a centred vertical stabilizer as is also found in the
conventional empennage. The two horizontal fins are
no longer attached to the fuselage but rather to the
top of the vertical stabilizer. It is the positioning of
these horizontal fins that give the name to the design.
This model along with the cruciform type tail are the
closest in design to the conventional tail.
Consists of a centred vertical stabilizer with two
horizontal fins attached to it. The horizontal fins are no
longer attached to the top of the vertical fin but rather
to the middle of the vertical stabilizer. It is the
positioning of these horizontal fins which give the
name to the design. These horizontal fins are usually
positioned above the vertical rudder.
Design allows for not just two horizontal fins, but also
two vertical fins. The two vertical stabilizers are placed
on either end of its respective horizontal fin. To ensure
that the two vertical fins are spaced out properly, the
back of the plane is wider than in the conventional
design.
This design is different than most conventional
empennage designs as it only has two fins in total
which are angled slightly upwards, creating an angle
<180 above the horizontal axis. This type of tail
design is very uncommon to see in use.
The Y-Tail design is very similar to the V-tail in the fact
that it has two long angled fins that come out at an
acute angle with their respective horizontal axes.
There is also a small vertical stabilizing fin that is
found on the bottom of the airplane rather than
centered on the top like is found on the conventional
fin.
The twin tail is similar to the H-tail design in the fact
that it also has two vertical tails but they are positioned
on the fuselage as opposed to on the edge of the
horizontal tail fins which both protrude out the sides.
Similar to the H-tail, the added vertical fin and the

Image

6|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Boom
Mounted

resulting spacing between the two require for a wider

tail section. However, the fuselage must be wide at
the very end of the tail to fit the vertical fins, limiting its
minimum size.
The boom mounted tail, or U-tail, is named as such
because it has two long boom-like arms that both
connect to the same horizontal stabilizer well behind
the fuselage. This horizontal fin also has two small
vertical fins positioned directly above the boomhorizontal fin connection projecting orthogonally from
its surface.

4.4

Undercarriage
The undercarriage of an aircraft consists of the components on which the aircraft will
rest while on land, and is also referred to as the aircrafts landing gear. Landing gear should
absorb the shock of landing impact, allow the aircraft to move and maintain an appropriate
angle for takeoff while on the ground. The most common types of landing gear for use on
hard surfaces utilize wheels or skids. Landing gear may include a shock absorber or may
rely on elastic deformation of the landing gearand other parts of the aircraftto absorb
the shock upon landing. Landing gear may be fixed in place or may include a mechanism to
retract during flight.
The most common landing gear arrangements are single main, bicycle, quadricycle,
tricycle, tail dragger and multi-bogey. These arrangements are shown in the figure below.
Skids could possibly be used in place of wheels in each of these arrangements.

Figure 3 Typical Aircraft Landing Gear Arrangements [8]

Alternatively skid type landing gear could consist of two long parallel skids with two
legs attaching each skid to the aircraft. The angle of takeoff could be adjusted by changing
the length of the aft struts on the skids.

7|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

4.5

Materials
The selection of the different material types for the construction of the wings, fuselage,
empennage and undercarriage will be critical to the success of the design. Different
materials have different characteristics that can affect the performance of the aircraft. Key
characteristics to be considered include the weight (density) of the material, the
manufacturability and strength (modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, fracture toughness,
bending stiffness) of the material, the availability of the material, and the cost of the material.
[1]

Ideally, the design group will utilize materials with low densities to optimize the overall
weight. The material will ideally be easy to manufacture into desired configurations and
shapes. Additionally, optimal materials will be strong enough to be able to withstand
numerous takeoffs, flights, landings, and collisions. Finally, the ideal materials will be readily
available at low costs to meet design constraints.
The most common materials available to the design team include metals such as
aluminum, polymers such as plastics and foams, and composites such as wood. Figures in
Appendix C illustrate densities, stiffness values, strength values, and resistance to fracture
values respectively for different classes of materials. Major aircraft components such as the
wings, fuselage and empennage will be constructed using these types of common materials
due to their manufacturability. Other components such as the landing gear, rudder and flaps
will be further investigated later in the design process to determine suitable material types.
5

Design Concept Evaluation

5.1

Wings
For the purpose of evaluating wing characteristics, the design team examined several
different concepts. Working within a wing loading limit of 10 to 12 oz/ft 2, four different
concepts were generated. Detailed calculations for this analysis can be found in Appendix
A.
Figures courtesy of the Warsaw University Institute of Aeronautics and Applied
Mechanics have been included in Appendix B to help in evaluating different airfoils. These
will be used in the concept selection process to ensure that an optimal wing design is chosen.
A details of some different wing concepts the project team is looking at can be found in Table
3.
Table 3 Different Wing Concepts
Parameter
Surface Area (ft2)
Chord Length (ft)
Span (ft)
Aspect Ratio
Thickness
Percentage (%)

Concept 1
3.456
0.85
4.1
4.767

Concept 2
5.15
1.15
4.5
3.9

Concept 3
2.88
0.83
3.48
4.19

Concept 4
4.29
0.985
4.35
4.42

12.5

12.5

Both concepts 2 and 4 would have a deep camber, which would allow for high lifts
at low speeds. They would also be relatively light, if a heavier material were to be used.
However, they would have high drag. Both concepts 1 and 3 would have a deep camber

8|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

and would be thicker. They would provide less lift than the airfoil used in concepts 2 and 4,
however, they would also have less drag.

Figure 4 Example Airfoil for Concepts

2 and 4

Figure 5 Example Airfoil for Concepts

1 and 3

(http://www.oocities.org/zuuba_2000/TOFb
.html)

(http://www.oocities.org/zuuba_2000/TOFb
.html)

5.2

Fuselage
The best fuselage for this design project would be one which evenly distributes load,
is reasonably light, is strong, and has minimum drag. There are a number of different ways
in which these objectives could be achieved.
Firstly, in order to reduce the overall drag, it is important for the area of the fuselage
to be decreased. Furthermore, the fuselage fitness ratio must be reduced, and by extension,
the fuselage length must be maximized and diameter decreased. In order to manage friction
drag, the fuselage shape must be optimized for laminar flow, and the length and perimeter
should be decreased. Similarly, profile drag can be decreased by streamlining the nose
shape of the fuselage to make it more aerodynamic. Another form of drag, induced drag,
could be decreased by separating the profile of the wings and fuselage. Compressibility drag
was determined to not have a significant affect on this projects design, due to its relevancy
only at very high subsonic Mach numbers. [9]
In order to improve the strength to weight ratio of the fuselage, supports could be
designed in the detailed design phase. Reinforcement could be added through truss-work
sides or inserting gussets at critical joints. In order to support the payload, the project team
could reinforce the inside of the fuselage with vertical supports. In order to counter the heavy
weight of the motor in front, the internal components, such as the battery, could be located
closer to the rear of the plane. Analysis should be conducted to determine an optimal
placement of internal components.
5.3

Empennage
For the design of horizontal tail sections, the same theory should be applied as is used
in the design and comparison of airfoils. A similar airfoil design should be used for the
horizontal tail section as is determined for the wings. Some important parameters to consider
include the taper ratio, sweep angle, dihedral angle, and airfoil section. [10]
The vertical tail sections primary purpose is directional stability and also trim. [10] In
order to design the vertical tail, it is important to determine a number of different parameters.
Some parameters which are significant in the evaluation and selection of a vertical tail
section include location, planform area, tail arm, airfoil section, aspect ratio, taper ratio, tip
chord, root chord, mean aerodynamic chord, span, sweep angle, dihedral angel, and
incidence. [10]
When comparing and analyzing different tail sections, there are some specific
guidelines which are typically followed. Typically, the tail surfaces should be thinner than the
wing and/or have a higher sweep in order to prevent shocks on the tail. Some typical values
for the thickness percentage range from 8% to 10%. Additionally, the tail that is chosen
should have an aspect ratio within the range of 4 to 5 in order to avoid wake effects from the

9|Page

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

engine/pylon. [5] A conceptual comparison of the advantages and disadvantages for different
tail types can be found in Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of Different Empennage Types[4]
Tail Type
Conventional

T-Tail

Cruciform

H-Tail

V-Tail

Y-Tail

Twin Vertical
Tail

Boom
Mounted

Advantages
Simple design
Easy to manufacture

Disadvantages
Horizontal fin tends to flutter at
high speeds
Raising fins introduces new
Horizontal fins avoid prop wash
torsional
loads
on
vertical
and wing wake
stabilizer
Size can be reduced to make High angle of attack may immerse
design lighter
horizontal fins in wing wake during
landing
Horizontal fins avoid prop wash
Higher torsional loads
and wing wake
Strong/larger vertical fin
Undisturbed airflow seen by
Horizontal fins may be immersed
rudder useful for recovering
in wing wake during landing
from spins
Separates vertical stabilizers
Susceptible to flutter due to
positioning
of
the
vertical
Vertical fins can be placed into
stabilizer, risk of catastrophic
wing wash of a plane with wingoscillation
mounted propellers

Vertical stabilizer on the end of the

Improves
aerodynamics
horizontal find creates maximum
efficiency
of
horizontal
moment
on
the
horizontal
stabilizers and allows them to be
stabilizers
smaller/lighter
Achieves same degree of stability
Removal of third fin eliminates
as conventional with decreased
drag from that fin
efficiency
Reduces weight by removing
Requires
more
complicated
third fin
controls to operate aircraft
Improves directional stability of Bottom fin limits angle of attack
V-tail design with vertical
during lift-off as well as during
element
landing flare
Allows for shorter angular fins Vertical fin length may be limited
than V-tail
for this design
Reduces cantilever stresses at
the root of the tail
Requires a wider tail section,
Vertical fins avoid fuselage
making fuselage heavier
wake
Increased drag by addition of
More stable than one vertical fin
another fin
Redundancy in vertical fins
allows them to be smaller
Difficult to manufacture
Horizontal fin directly in prop
Smaller fuselage means less
wash gives it an advantage
surface area to place payload,

10 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

during
take-off
and
in
responsiveness during flight
Shortens the fuselage, reducing
the amount of material needed
5.4

adding payload would have

increased effect on centre of
gravity

Undercarriage

5.4.1

Arrangement
A tail dragging aircraft landing gear arrangement would provide necessary stability
on the ground while also allowing for easy adjustment of the takeoff angle of the wings by
lengthening or shortening the strut of the wheel/skid on the tail of the aircraft. Tail dragging
landing gear provides ample propeller clearance and allows for more lift during takeoff while
being relatively light and causing a small amount of drag. A disadvantage of this type of
landing gear is that is decreases maneuverability while on the ground. [8]
The single main landing gear is very similar to tail dragging landing gear except it
uses only one main wheel with two additional smaller wheels/skids on the sides for stability.
Because there is only one main strut and wheel/skid to absorb landing impact, a greater
force will be transmitted to the fuselage for a comparable level of shock absorption for each
main strut and wheel/skid.
Tricycle landing gear does not provide the lift advantages for taking off on rough
surfaces however it usually provides improved vision of the ground out of the cockpit of the
aircraft during takeoff. However, this is of little consequence for a remote controlled aircraft.
Landing gear with more wheels are usually used for enhanced stability and weight
distribution for heavy aircraft. [8] For a small remote controlled aircraft this is not necessary
and the extra wheels/skids would increase overall weight.
5.4.2

Landing Gear Type

The two main types of landing gear to be considered are those that use wheels and
those that use skids. Wheels would allow for smoother movement on the ground. Skids
would cause a greater amount of friction compared to wheels and would necessitate a
greater force from the propeller to overcome the friction and achieve a speed sufficient for
takeoff. However, a small reduction in weight could be achieved through the use of small,
lightweight skids instead of wheels. If wheels are used, it is recommended to use a diameter
of approximately 2.25 to 3 [6] for the main wheels with the tail wheel having a diameter
25%-33% that diameter. [8]
5.4.3

Retractable Versus Fixed

The majority of small aircraft utilize fixed landing gear. The lack of a retracting
mechanism decreases the overall weight of the aircraft however it also increases total drag
as the landing gear is exposed during flight. For smaller aircraft the benefit of the weight
reduction usually offsets the increase in total drag [2].
5.4.4

Suspension
A spring and damper system could be used to provide enhanced shock absorption
however this will increase the aircraft weight. To decrease weight, solid, continuous legs
could be used as an alternative. These legs must be strong enough to not break upon
landing of the aircraft, must have sufficient elasticity to absorb the majority of the landing
impact energy all while being as light as possible. [6]

11 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

5.5

Materials

5.5.1

Metals
Metals are usually denser compared to polymers and composites. Mechanically,
metals tend to be stiff and strong, yet ductile enough to resist fracture. [1] Common metal
materials available for low costs include aluminum and iron/steel. These properties make
metals ideal for applications requiring resistant, strong materials without strict weight
restrictions.
5.5.2

Polymers
Polymers usually have low densities. Mechanically, polymers are not usually as stiff
or strong as metals or composites. However, on a per-mass basis, polymers mechanical
characteristics are comparable to metals and composites due to its lower densities.
Additionally, polymers are very ductile and are easily modified into complex shapes. [1]
Common polymers available for lower costs include foams (foam boards, foam sheets, foam
blocks) and plastics (corrugated plastic sheets). These properties make polymers ideal for
applications requiring light-weight, durable materials that can be easily modified into desired
shapes and sizes.
5.5.3 Composites
Composites are materials that compose of two or more materials (metals, ceramics,
polymers). Composites seek to incorporate the best properties of different materials to
achieve desired characteristics in a material. Because of this, composites are capable of
displaying all desired characteristics for any given application. Synthetic composites such
as fiberglass and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers are stiff, strong and flexible. However,
synthetic composites tend to be more expensive and some may have brittle characteristics.
Naturally occurring composites such as wood offer a cheaper variety of composites but are
not as strong or tough. [1]
6

Design Concept Selection

6.1

Wings
The wing design is one of the most important design selections in this project. The
wings generate the planes lift by generating more pressure on the bottom face of the wing
than the top side, causing an upwards force on the wing. According to Sadraey, the most
important feature of a wing is its total surface area, followed by its airfoil or cross-sectional
profile, and its planform which is its shape as seen from directly above. [3] These choices will
have significant effects on the planes overall lift, drag and maneuverability. For the cargo
design objective, the most significant factors will be the lift generated and the ease of
manufacturing. Other factors will include its drag and stability.
6.1.1

Airfoil
In the previous section, four airfoil design concepts were chosen based on the
motors maximum wing loading. The three major design considerations: surface area,
camber and airfoil thickness are weighted against generated lift, manufacturability and drag.
Manufacturability was decided as the largest consideration (60% weight) due to the limit of
the groups available tools and because a very complex design might be easily damaged
during practice flights. Since this projects objective is to lift a payload, lift generation is the

12 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

next largest consideration (30% weight), followed by drag (10%). Each design choice was
given a value between -2 (worst) and +2 (best). These values were determined using the
graphs in Appendix B. [12] These weighted values were added together for each design
concept and a total score was given for each concept as shown in Appendix D. Concept 1
was found to be the most favorable design due to its ease of manufacturing and least
sacrifices to generated lift.
6.1.2

Planform
The two major design choices to choose for the planform are its taper ratio and
sweep angle. The taper ratio defines the reduction in chord length along the wings span
and sweep angle measures the wings angle relative to the fuselage. Like the airfoil
selection, the most heavily weighted choice will be the ease of manufacturing, followed by
lift and drag.
At this time, the rectangular straight wing (taper ratio of 1one, no sweep angle) is the
best option for groups plane rather than a tapered wing. While there is more drag than in a
rectangular shaped wing, it still generates relatively the same amount of lift at low-speeds,
and it greatly increases the ease of manufacturability because it the wings can be made as
one solid piece, and it will eliminate manufacturing challenges such as obtaining perfect
symmetry for two angled wings. [3]
6.2

Fuselage
The exact fuselage design will be dependent on all the other selected components.
As explained in previous sections, the fuselage will need to be designed to produce the least
drag and most stability when combined with the wings, empennage and undercarriage.
6.3

Empennage
Even though there are some tails that are much more common than others, the
empennage is one component that also changes greatly between different types of planes.
The project team decided to select between eight different types of empennages all of
different sizes and shapes. Ultimately, the team chose the twin vertical tail as our
empennage design.
This empennage was chosen mainly because of its greatly added stability that it
gives to the plane. The small fins along with their positioning allow the plane to achieve
maximum stability and control especially when maneuvering as well as reduce the drag force
experienced by the tail section. It is also worth noting that the smaller wings as well as the
bigger fuselage end (less machining) lead to easier manufacturing.
When considering the fact that the design is to be a payload type plane, having a
wider fuselage is also a bonus as it will provide a more stable center of gravity and a larger
loading area.
6.4

Undercarriage
There are several different parts that need to be considered when designing the
undercarriage of the plane. First, it must be decided whether the landing gear is to be
retractable or not. The next step is to decide upon the landing gear type (positioning of
wheels) and lastly a suspension system must be designed.
A fixed type landing gear is best to use for our purposes as it provides more rigidity,
is lighter and is easy to manufacture/setup than the retractable type. Figure 21 in the
appendix shows the concept selection matrix that was used to decide upon how the

13 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

undercarriage is to be laid out. Although there were several standout types of landing gear,
the tail dragger type undercarriage was shown to be the most desirable.
The tail dragger type is preferable because of its stable two front wheels that are
larger than the back one and cause the airplane to be pitched slightly upwards at rest. This
pitch not only helps the airplane takeoff at lower speed due to the extra lift, but it also helps
the airplane during its landing flare maneuver. The design is not very bulky and during
takeoff, most of the weight will be focused on the smaller back wheel; reducing the area of
contact with the ground.
To provide a suspension system to for the landing gear, multiple zip-ties can be rolled
up in such a way to act as a spring. Although this will mean more ground contact area during
take-off and therefore more friction, the weight that is dropped from using zip-ties instead of
wheels makes it more desirable.
6.5

Materials
The ideal material for plane design would have a large strength to weight ratio as well
as being relatively cheap and easy to machine. Figure 15 in the appendix is the concept
selection matrix that was used to select the most desirable material for our purposes.
Out of all of the different types of metals, polymers, and composites that were
considered, high density foam was considered to be the best option. The most attractive
property of foam is that it is very lightweight while still being dense and strong enough to
withstand the forces associated with flight/landing. Apart from having low density, the foam
provides other benefits like being very machinable and cheap. Although the foam isnt as
strong as wood or other composites, the matrix shows that it is still the best material to build
with.
7

Next Stage and Future Research

Going forward in the design phase of the plane, all parts must be sized and exact
dimensions will be needed. On top of the obvious refinement of the all concepts, there are
areas that each part of the plane can be improved upon in a specific manner.
One aspect of the empennage that needs refinement is attachment of the fins to the
fuselage/each other as well as the rudder control. The method of attachment of the tail fins
is also applicable to the method of attachment of the wings. Although foam was chosen by
the concept selection matrix as the best material to use during design, it is also possible to
combine several different types of material depending on the structure/function of a
particular aircraft piece.
As for the landing gear, the portion of the design that needs to be further advanced is
the suspension system. It is possible to somehow add a damper to the system to further
improve upon the landing stability and soften the landing significantly.
More research will be done on the taper ratio and sweep angle. As Sadraey explains, a
rectangular wing planform is aerodynamically inefficient because even a small change to
these parameters from a rectangle can greatly reduce drag, increase stability and reduce
weight of the aircraft at the cost of more difficult manufacturing. [10] Once the first prototype
is designed, these values will be re-evaluated using simulations to see if the increased
performance of a tapered, swept wing will outweigh the manufacturing downsides.
8

Conclusions
After going through concept generation, evaluation, and selection for the RC plane, the
project team generated concept selection matrices. Based on these matrices, the team was

14 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

able to make final choices for each subsystem of the aircraft. In the case of the airfoil and
wing system, the project team found that concept one was the best option moving-forward.
That is, a wing concept which consisted of a deep camber airfoil and straight rectangular
planform. Next, for the planes materials, the project team determined that foam blocks are
the best option, based on weight, strength, machinability, and cost criteria. The project team
also looked at critical factors for the fuselage selection and found that the best choice was
to ensure that load is distributed evenly, minimize the surface area, and reinforce the internal
structure of the fuselage with supports. Next, the project team looked at different options for
the empennage for the aircraft and determined that the V-tail and twin vertical tail were the
best option, based on stability, drag, ease of manufacturing, bulkiness, and weight factors.
Lastly, the design team finalized the design of the undercarriage, determining that the best
design was a tail dragger type based on criteria of stability, ease of manufacturing, weight,
drag, and contact area.

15 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

9 List of References
[1] Callister, W. D., & Rethwisch, D. G. (2012). Fundamentals of Materials Science and
Engineering: An Integrated Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[2] Federal Aviation Administration (2012). Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook
Airframe:
Chapter
13.
Retrieved
May
24,
2016
from
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe
_handbook/media/amt_airframe_vol2.pdf
[3] James, D. (n.d.). Atmospheric Flight: NASA Quest Website. NASA. Retrieved May 18,
2016, from http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/atmospheric/aerodynamiclift.html.
[4] Gudmundsson, S. (2013). General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied methods and
procedures. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[5] Kroo, Ilan (n.d.). Tail Design and Sizing. Stanford University. Retrieved May 25, 2016,
from http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/stability/taildesign.html.
[6] Lennon, A. (1996). R/C Model Aircraft Design. Ridgefield, CT: Air Age Media Inc.
[7] Nakhla, S (n.d.). Additional Information for ENGI 7926 (2014-2015 Spring). Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland.
Retrieved
May
25,
2016,
from
https://online.mun.ca/d2l/le/content/218073/viewContent/1970920/View
[8] Raymer, D. (1992). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Washington, D.C.:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
[9] Roskam, J. (1985). Airplane Design: Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing
and Empennage. DARcorporation.
[10] Sadraey, M. (n.d.). Tail Design. Daniel Webster College. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Chapter%206.%20Tail%20Design.pdf.
[11] Vural, M. (n.d.) Estimating R/C Model Aerodynamics and Performance. Illinois Institute
of
Technology.
Retrieved
May
28,
2016
from
http://mypages.iit.edu/~vural/RC%20Airplane%20Design.pdf.
[12] Warsaw University: The Institute of Aeronautics and Applied Mechanics. (n.d.). Wing:
Airfoil
Selection.
Retrieved
May
24,
2016,
from
http://itlims.meil.pw.edu.pl/zsis/pomoce/BIPOL/BIPOL_1_handout_8A.pdf.

16 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Appendix A Wing Calculations

17 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Assumptions:
= 0.98 = 34.56
= 1.456 = 51.5
() 10 12 / 2 .
Concept 1
= 10

, 2

= 3.456 2
:
= 0.85
= 4.1
= 4.767
=

Concept 2
= 10

, 2

= 5.15 2
:
= 1.15
= 4.5
= 3.9
=

Concept 3
= 12

, 2

= 2.88 2
:
= 0.83
= 3.48
= 4.19
Concept 4

18 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

= 12

, 2

= 4.29 2
:
= 0.985
= 4.35
= 4.42

19 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Appendix B Airfoil Figures

20 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 6 Effect of Airfoil Thickness on Lift Coefficient[12]

Figure 7 Effect of Airfoil Thickness on Drag Coefficient[12]

21 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 8 Effect of Airfoil Camber on Lift Coefficient[12]

Figure 9 Effect of Airfoil Camber on Drag Coefficient[12]

22 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 10 Effect of Aspect Ratio on Lift Coefficient[12]

23 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 11 Different Theoretical Airfoil Geometries

24 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Appendix C Material Properties

25 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 12 Densities for Different Materials[1]

Figure 13 Stiffness Values for Different Materials[1]

26 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Figure 14 Strength Values for Different Materials[1]

Figure 15 Resistance to Fracture for Different Materials[1]

27 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Appendix D Concept Selection Matrices

28 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Scale is -2-2
2 being good
-2 being bad
Variable Weight
Material
Metals
Aluminum
Polymers
Foam Blocks
Plastic Sheet
Corrugated Plastic
Composites
Fiberglass
Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Wood

Properties
Weight

Strength

Machinability

Cost

X.70

X.60

X.40

X.50

-2

2
0
2

0
1
-2

-2
-2
1

2
2
1

Total Score

Weighted
Score

.6

2
1
-1

2
1
2

6
3
1

3.2
1.5
0.8

1
1
2

-1
-2
0

0
-1
1

-.3
-.8
2.1

Figure 16 Material Design Selection Matrix

29 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Scale from -2 to 2

Variables

2 being good
-2 being bad

Stability

Ease of
Manufacturing

Bulkiness/Weight

Drag

Ground
Contact Area

Variable Weight

X.75

X.5

X.4

X.4

X.3

Single Main

Bicycle

Tricycle

Quadricycle

Tail Dragger
Multi-Bogey

Total Score

Weighted
Score

2.4

2.1

-1

.55

-1

-1

-1

-1

.4

2.55

-1

-2

-2

-2

-5

-1.2

Undercarriage Type

Figure 17 Undercarriage Layout Design Selection Matrix

30 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Scale is From -2 to 2

Empennage Properties

2 being good
-2 being bad

Stability

Drag

Ease of Manufacturing

Bulkiness

Weight

Variable Weight

X.7

X.6

X.4

X.3

X.5

Conventional

T-Tail

-1

Cruciform

-1

H-Tail

V-Tail

Total Score

Weighted
Score

.4

-1

-1

-1

.7

-1

-1

.2

-1

1.3

Y-Tail

-2

Twin Vertical Tail

-1

1.3

Boom Mounted

-2

-2

-2

-0.2

Empennage Types

Figure 18 Empennage Design Selection Matrix

31 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

2 being good
-2 being bad
Variable Weight
Surface Area
"large"
"small"
Camber
"flat"
"deep"
Airfoil Thickness
8%
12.50%

Lift

Manufacturability

Drag

30%

60%

10%

1
0

0
0

-1
0

0
1

0
-2

0
1

0
0

Parameter
Surface Area
Camber
Airfoil
Thickness
Total Score

0
-1

0
0

0.2
0

0
-1

0
-0.9

0
0

0
0.2

Concept Concept Concept Concept

1
2
3
4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
-0.9
0
-0.9
0

0.2

0.2

0.2

-0.5

-0.7

Figure 19 Wing Selection Matrices

32 | P a g e

Total Weighted
Score
Score

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

Appendix E Gantt Chart & Description of

Deliverables

33 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

34 | P a g e

Remote Controlled Model Airplane Design

DELIVERABLE NAME
REPORT #1
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
DESIGN OBJECTIVE/CONSTRAINTS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

DESIGN CONCEPT GENERATION

DESIGN CONCEPT EVALUATION

DESIGN CONCEPT SELECTION

FUTURE RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

CONCLUSION
PRESENTATION #1

DESCRIPTION
Write a report outlining the initial stages of the design process for an RC
aircraft.
Summarize entire report in a concise paragraph. This section should give the
reader enough information to understand the main aspects of the report at a
high level.
Introduce the reader to the project and what will be discussed in the report.
Outline the objective of the project and what specifically must be achieved.
Describe the various constraints and limitations that must be taken into
consideration throughout the project.
Develop project management plan including Gantt chart (including the list of
subtasks/deliverables, those responsible for each and a milestone schedule)
and a meeting schedule.
Generate and describe various concepts for the different components of an
aircraft (ex. Wings, undercarriage, etc.). These concepts will then go through
the evaluation and selection stages to determine the final design of the aircraft
to be built for this project.
Evaluate the concepts generated in the previous section and provide any
advantages and disadvantages.
Utilizing information in the concept evaluation section, develop a model (using
a matrix) to determine the optimal design for each aircraft component. Include
categories in the matrix (ex. weight, cost) and assign a weight for each in
order to make the determination for each component of the aircraft.
Outline all required research that has not yet been completed. This will include
the detailed design of each component of the aircraft, based on the
components selected in the concept selection section.
Conclude the report and provide an overview of what has been completed
and the major decisions made.
Create a presentation including all major components of the report #1. Each
team member is responsible for creating slides for the sections of the report
they have written.

35 | P a g e