Airfoil Selection

To meet the aircrafts analysis requirements, the drone must be able to fly at low altitudes and
low speeds. Additionally, despite the gyroscope apparatus holding the sensors, for better
analysis it would be optimal for the aircraft to be able to cruise at a low angle of attack. Also,
due to the low requirements of this aircraft, the elevator and tail stabilizers will be assumed to be
flat plates, the wing will have a high wing orientation, and the fuselage will be approximated as a
cylinder of .16 m diameter and weight 4 kg in XFLR. According to Dr. Andersons F
undamentals
of Aerodynamics

textbook, the NASA LS(1)-0417 airfoil is optimal for low speed airfoils. We also
ran analysis on the NACA 2412 and 4424 airfoils. Those airfoils were chosen do their high
camber. The key goal for the wing is to be able to cruise at a reasonable angle of attack of two
degrees and be able to fly as close to 10 m/s as possible because that low speed is when the
best analysis of the phenotypes can be measured.

For structures and materials, we were constrained to have a maximum wingspan of 2 m and a
maximum chord length of .35 m. This gives our wing an aspect ratio of 5.7, which is about the
same aspect ratio as a piper cherokee. The wings were analyzed in XFLR5 using a fixed lift
analysis. Catia was used to model the aircraft and camera to get an accurate estimation of its
mass. The estimated mass was 1.65 kg with only the aircraft/camera system. This did not
include the battery, motor, servos, or sensors. To account for these weights,the estimated mass
of the aircraft as selected to be 2.5 kg. The data for the wing analysis of the three airfoils is
shown below

Our key objective in selecting an airfoil is the ability to cruise at a low speed, close to 10 m/s, at
a low angle of attack. So, the plot of velocity vs alpha is the most important graph for airfoil
selection purposes. Clearly the NASA LS(1)-0417 provides the lowest speeds consistently for all
angles of attack, and thus will be the airfoil we use for the drone. It is worth considering the
NACA 2412 airfoil due to its significantly lower drag profile as seen on the drag polar in the top
left plane, however when looking at the QFD house of quality, flying at low speeds is a high
importance requirement for the drone, so the sacrifices made on drag will be necessary to meet
the requirement set. Below is the plot for drag coefficient vs angle of attack.

For the NASA airfoil, at our designated cruise angle of attack of 2 degrees, the drag coefficient
of the wing was simulated to be 0.031. Through research and from Sadraey M., Aircraft
Performance Analysis, VDM Verlag Dr. Mller, 2009, the fuselage is estimated to be a elliptical
rod with laminar flow, and the drag coefficient for that shape is listed as 0.6 for a slightly higher
reynolds number than our actual Re at 10.75 m/s. For the sake of being conservative, we
estimated the total drag coefficient of the aircraft to be 0.7, which at 10.75 m/s freestream
velocity at sea level gives a drag force of 50 N. In able to ensure that we have enough thrust for
any potential maneuvers, we will pick a motor, prop, and battery capable of outputting 60 N of
thrust at a minimum.

For website:
Our aerodynamic analysis found that the NASA LS(1)-0417 airfoil was best for our needs due to
its ability to perform steady and level flight at low speeds, fulfilling one of our most important
requirements from the QFD analysis. The airfoil produces a high amount of lift at low speeds,
and while there is a cost in drag, it produces a much higher drag coefficient than the other
airfoils, the importance of high lift at low speeds outweighs the cost in drag.

Battery Selection
Battery selection is based on thrust required. The estimated required thrust is 60 N based on
above calculations. To select a battery, the thrust needs to be related to the motor power output
and motor efficiency. Thrust, power, and efficiency are related by the following equation.

TV
P shaft

= prop

Where T is thrust required, V is aircraft velocity, P is power output of the motor, and is
efficiency of the motor. Power output is based on the specifications of the selected battery.
Efficiency is based on the specifications of the motor.
If the required thrust is 60 N flying at a velocity of 10m/s, and a motor with an efficiency of 95%
is assumed, the the power output of the battery will need to be 632W. The battery that is
selected for the current drone is the Thunder Power 4s 14.7V Elite 55c lithium polymer battery.
This battery has a voltage of 14.8v and a current of 35.2A, yielding a power output of 521W.
Going from that battery, the next size up is a Thunder Power 5s 18.5V Elite 55c lithium polymer
battery. It has a current of 35.2A and a voltage of 18.5A, yielding a power output of 651W. This
is the battery is sufficient to supply the power required for the least amount of weight.
Motor Selection
The motor selection is based on the battery selection. The optimal motor will be the smallest
motor that can take the amount of power supplied by the battery. The motor that is on the
current drone is an E-Flight Power 32 brushless motor. This motor can handle up to 800W.
Since we have a power output of 651W, the desired motor for our model will be smaller than
this. The Axi 2826/6 motor has a max power of 665W, which is the desired size for the previous
calculations. However, this motor only has an efficiency of 84%. If the calculations are redone
with this efficiency, the desired power output is 714W. This is not sufficient for our battery, and
the battery and motor selection will need to be iterated.
Battery Selection Iteration
If the desired power output is now 714W, the appropriate battery is the next size up, which is the
Thunder Power 6s 22.2V Elite 55c lithium polymer battery, yielding a power output of 781W.
Motor Selection Iteration
The originally selected motor is not big enough for this battery. The smallest size up from this
that will fit the selected battery is the Axi 2826/13 brushless motor. This motor has a maximum
power of 840W and an efficiency of 88%.
Conclusion
Based on the calculations provided above, The Thunder Power 6s 22.2V Elite 55c battery
combined with the Axi 2826/13 brushless motor will provide the thrust required for the least
amount of weight. It will have a thrust output of 68.7N and a combined weight of 0.85g. For the

aerodynamic analysis, the total aircraft weight was estimated to be 2.5 kg. The weight
estimation given by the CAD model was 1.65 kg for the UAV and the camera/gyroscope. This
means that the original estimation for for our motor and battery was accurate, and no iteration is
necessary. This total weight does not take into account the weight of the sensors and servos.
However, the thrust delivered is more than the thrust required, and it is reasonable to assume
that the weight of the servos and sensors are negligible compared to the extra provided thrust.

Airfoil Selection:

Battery Selection:

Motor Selection: