Group 4

AEM 1905
Chris Regan
13 May 2016
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Aircrafts Name: Need For Stall Speed
Abstract:
The goal of our aircraft build was to successfully achieve a lower stall speed, while
limiting a severe decrease in aircraft handling and performance. By implementing a large
wing area and modifying our control surfaces into a V tail, we were able to achieve this.
In the end, we reached a stall speed of 6m/s, or 20 ft/s, breaking our goal of 15%
reduction. Overall, this paper will include more in depth design, obstacles we
encountered, and an in depth analysis of our flight data.

Introduction:
Our design goal for our aircraft was to take the design of the prototype aircraft and decrease its
stall speed by 20%. This design goal is important because essentially what we have to do is
design an aircraft that generates more lift which means the aircraft will need less thrust and
generally be more efficient. A slower stall speed also means that this aircraft can land on a
shorter runway than an aircraft with a higher stall speed. In this paper we will go over the design,
performance estimation, construction, test flight and analysis of our aircraft.

Aircraft Description:
Aircrafts name: Need for Stall Speed
Description: Despite just being a model aircraft, Need for Stall Speed is a feast of engineering.
Far away, it is especially noticeable by its wide wing and an artistic V-tail. The aircraft has no
landing gear and equipped with a propeller engine.
Ownership: Group 4, AEM 1905
Material: ~ 40% styrofoam, ~40% wood, ~10% carbon fiber, and ~10% electronics devices
materials.
Origin: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Last performance test date: April 12, 2016

Design:
In order to meet our goal we needed to design an aircraft that produces a lot of lift. So we turned
to real world examples. Lucky for us theres a class of aircraft that are designed with the goal in
mind as us, and that is the STOL (Short Take Off & Landing).We ended up with an airfoil
featuring a 63 inch span, and a 12 inch chord. For control on this airfoil we looked to the STOL
CH 701 for ratios (Pictured below the sketch of our aircraft), we had ailerons that were 21 inches
long, and featured a chord of 3 inches. In regards to our V tail, it ended up featuring a length of 8
inches, 6 inch cord, and a chord of 2 inches for each ruddervator. The angle of our V tail was 45
degrees from the vertical, so that means that the airfoils that made the tail were 90 degrees apart.

Illustration 1: Sketch of our aircraft design

Performance Estimation:

Graph 1, 2, 3: Velocity vs. Lift-to-Drag ratio, Velocity vs. Drag,

Velocity vs. Load graphs in respective order

With our performance estimation, you can see some of the graphs above. This data helped us
find an optimal wing size, control surface size, and essentially grasp how our aircraft might
perform in flight. This can be further compared to our results found below.

Construction:
Construction began with cutting the wing sections to length. We then got the tail boom cut to
length and then glued it to the fuselage with two part epoxy. We then cut out the flaperons
(ailerons & flaps) and ruddervators (rudder & elevator). After that we then attached the separated

control surfaces to their respective airfoils with hinges made of dots of hot glue. After the control
surfaces were attached we attached the tail pieces to the tail boom and began to dig out a space
for the servos for the flaperons in the wing, and glued on the rear servos for the ruddervator. We
then began putting the electronics in the fuselage. The pixhawk was positioned in the middle of
the fuselage, the gps module was placed just in front of the pixhawk and the radio modem was
placed in front of the gps module, right behind the firewall in the nose. To the rear of the
fuselage, right where the tail boom is inserted, we put the RC receiver. We then installed the
pitot tube into the wing. The main construction is complete and we put the wing on the fuselage
and secured it with rubber bands and popsicle sticks.

Flight-Test:
When we got to the flight testing area we reattached our wing to the fuselage (we removed it in
order to make transportation easier. Afterwards we recalibrated all sensors. We handed our 7
flight cards to the pilot and began our two flights. It was a sunny day with an average amount of
clouds in the sky. There was also a moderate wind blowing in from the north east. In our first
flight we tested the min stall speed, climb rate, stall at 45 degree bank turn. We also tried to
measure our max speed; however we were unable to fully test the max speed in the first run due
to the rubber bands curling the inboard part of the wing and causing the aircraft to roll when
going an excess of 15 m/s. That being said we were able to fix the problem before our second
flight. In our second flight we tested time it takes to get to max speed from 10 m/s. We also
tested time it took to go from 10 m/s to stall. We then tested performance of aircraft when
stalling at a 60 degree bank turn.

Flight Test Instrumentation and Techniques:

For our flight test instruments we relied on the instruments on board which were the gps, pitot
tube, and the modules within the pixhawk. Along with onboard instrumentation we also used
QGround Control to observe all flight data. In order to get our general data points when we hit
certain points in our tests the instructor would call the group member that is monitoring
QGround Control over the walkie talkie saying what test is being done and to call out airspeeds.

Analysis Methods:
For an aircraft performance test flight, each maneuver has its unique characteristics in the
aircrafts airspeed, altitude, throttle, and pitch angle. Therefore, in order to determine if
improvement were made on the modeled aircraft, the flights physical characteristics were
analyzed, and final conclusion was drawn based on such analysis.

In Excel, the flights airspeed, altitude, and pitch angle throughout the entire flight were plotted
against time (t). The graphs helped the team visualize the maneuver that was made. After
successfully pinpoint a maneuver, a close up of the graph provided the details of the aircrafts
behavior at that exact moment. For our aircraft, we want to improve the stall speed; thus in our
analysis, we mainly looked for decreasing airspeed, constant altitude, and the pitch angle goes
from increasing to a peak then decreasing.

Results:

*Note: Altitude has been scaled down 40x, and pitch has been scaled up 6x.

By looking at the graph of the aircrafts airspeed, altitude, and pitch angle, the aircrafts stall
speed were determined based on mathematical analysis. On Graph 1, right where it was marked
stall speed, the aircraft was rapidly losing its airspeed while at the same the pitch angle spiked

and the altitude stayed constant throughout. These characteristics of the flight indicates that the
aircraft was stalling. Graph 2 is a closer look at the behavior of the aircraft while it was stalling.
As indicated in the graph, the stall speed of the aircraft was around 4.5 m/s or about 15 ft/s.

Additionally we can look too at the top speed performance of our aircraft. Although this result is
quite dependant on weather conditions, we can see we received a top speed of roughly 20 m/s,
which equates to roughly 65 ft/s. This value is quite dependant on the accuracy of the pitot tube,
as we were expecting our max velocity to be more around 50 ft/s. Nonetheless, it was good to see
our expected top speed, although not the goal of our build, to exceed our expectations.

Next we can look at how our aircraft performed in banking maneuvers. Here is the graph
displaying our results from the 45 degree bank turn, showing turns in both rotations. We can see
the control surfaces were similarly effective in both rotations, but overall the aircraft was
fighting the wind and other forces, and could not maintain a solid bank very effectively. This
same result was seen to the extreme in our 60 degree bank, and showed some strange
characteristics. The plane essentially couldn't maintain such a bank, and would spin out with
little control. Overall the plane performed well enough in banking and turning maneuvers to
complete our test, but we felt overall that the control surfaces, especially the V tail, could have
provided greater input.

Conclusion:
In regards to our aircraft, we were very satisfied with the results, and the overall performance we
achieved from our plane, although it could always go for improvements in the v tail and wing
mount. With our group goal being decreased stall speed, and our achieved speed being
approximately 20 ft/s, we were very happy with that particular result, as we were well over our
goal of decreasing the speed by 15%. Though we experienced some problems along the way,
dealing with areas such as the construction of the wing, and the software in the pixhawk, in the
end we were able to work through them. Overall, as a group we came away with a greater
understanding of aircraft design, the mathematical aspect behind flight, and the process of testing
and collecting data.

References:
"STOL CH 701 Performance and Specifications: Real Short Take Off and Landing
Performance." STOL CH 701 Performance and Specifications: Real Short Take Off and
Landing Performance. Zenith Aircraft Company, n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-perf.html>.