I MPERIAL C OLLEGE L ONDON

AE3-418 L3 Application Report

Airframe design of a jump-glider

Department: Aeronautics
Course: AE3-418 L3 Application
Academic Supervisors: Dr. Mirko Kovac

Group: 15
Website: http://l3glider.weebly.com/
Students: Marc Ewenz 00834234
Zhi Han Gary Chew 00840486
Thilo Braun 00812244
Antoine Lubrano 00820239
Clemence Rubiella 00865125
Cyrus Hessabi 00834165
Gabriel Taconet 00866568
Guillaume Fontan 00851703
Date: 24 / 02 / 2017
Academic Year: 2016 - 2017
L3 Application
1 Introduction
This report aims at explaining the conception, de-
sign, building and testing process of Group 15s long
distance jump-gliding robot while respecting the im-
posed constraints detailed in [1]. Gliders perfor-
mance is then analysed and compared to our math-
ematical initial prediction.
2 Design Process
One of the key aspects of any glider aircraft is its
lift generating surface the wing. Our design pro-
cess was driven by the tradeoff between weight, aero-
dynamic performance, and manufacturing complex-
ity. On the one hand, to reduce the required lift, the
weight needs to be minimized in order to reduce the
amount of lift required. At the same time, the amount
of lift generated should be maximized while ensuring
maximum stability and minimum drag. Lastly, the
complexity of manufacture needs to be evaluated to
ensure that the design is both feasible for the given
time frame, and minimizes potential for manufactur-
ing issues.
Another important aspect is structural integrity and
some lessons were learnt from the past: most robots
are unable to obtain optimal performance because of
ill-placement in the centre of gravity and structure
breaks apart upon impact, wasting precious time in
fixing it and adding extra cost. Our philosophy was
the following: (1) vehicle must accelerate off the
ramp with the highest possible velocity, generating
the most lift and acquire the most inertia to travel the
furthest possible, (2) vehicle chassis should be of high
structural efficiency - Maintain structural integrity
of the robot after repeated crashes with a minimum
weight design, (3) structural components are easily
manufacturable and line-replaceable - Each structural
part used in the chassis can be swapped out easily
with minimal effort or tools, (4) built-in design with
the ability to alter the axial component of the robots
centre of gravity as required. This provides us with
a margin of safety to account for design and manu-
facturing uncertainties without impacting the perfor-
mance of the robot and (5) overall robot is mass
balanced/symmetric along the roll axis (i.e. stabil-
ity along the roll axis to travel straight on and off the
ramp)
Throughout the design process, we consulted some
of the most efficient glider designs ever built: those
1
Group 15
evolved by nature over millions if not billions of
years. Inspiration was taken from nature such as fly-
ing squirrel or even seeds but in short, Simple is
beautiful.
3 Performance Modelling
While evaluating the wing planform, various plan-
forms including rectangular, elliptical, delta, and
Zimmerman configurations were considered. A con-
sultation of various experiments [2] revealed that for
comparable low Reynolds number flight, an Inverse
Zimmerman configuration yields the highest L/D ra-
tio, while having favourable stall performance and a
high lifting area given the dimensional restrictions for
the glider. Additionally, biplane and tail configura-
tions were considered. However, given the low flight
velocity, the additional lift of a second wing would
be marginal while the drag and weight are increased
significantly. Similarly, given the short flight distance
and large wing area, the additional stability from hav-
ing a tail would be minimal while the weight increase
is significant. Lastly, other modifications for addi-
tional lateral stability and higher lift such as dihe-
dral and camber were considered. However, the addi-
tional manufacturing difficulties and potential break-
ing points on crash landing outweigh their respective
advantages. Subsequently, a flat plate tailless design
was chosen for the initial configuration.
For testing, two different planform areas were de-
signed: one with a maximum chord of 50 cm and
an aspect ratio of 0.95, and another with a maximum
span of 50 cm and an aspect ratio of 2.1. While the
first of these designs maximizes the available area,
our predictions showed that the larger span design
would allow for more stability and a longer glide.
Since the cost and workload involved in the individual
wing manufacture is quite low, we decided to manu-
facture both, allowing for an experimental compari-
son.
Interestingly, the 50 cm chord variant showed better
aerodynamic performance and longer glide. Contrary
to our expectations, it was also laterally stable. Lon-
gitudinal stability was achieved by moving the un-
dercarriage into the right position, such that the CG
and AC were at the same point. Four polymer pins
were glued on the wing near the predicted position
of the AC. Figure C.1d shows the mechanism which
allowed to attach and detach the wing from the rest
of the structure and hence find its optimum position.
Special care was taken to mount the motor and the
L3 Application
rest of the circuit centrally for a laterally symmetric
load distribution. Hence no lateral nor longitudinal
moments were induced, which allowed a steady flight
as seen during testing. Since the slightly larger area of
the 50 cm chord variant additionally increased aero-
dynamic performance, it was chosen for testing.
4 Mechanical Implementation
Trajectory: Firstly, considering the ramp phase, we
have tried to ascertain the configuration that gives
the maximum velocity at the end of the ramp. For
this mathematical model , we have considered drag,
weight and calculated reaction forces. Design param-
eters have been approximated via educated compar-
isons such as the Cd which has been assumed equal
to that of a modern saloon car. The motor parame-
ters considered were those of HP Pololu motors with
scaled performances and the wheels, offered on the
Technobot website. Solving the determined differen-
tial equations of motion for displacement and veloc-
ity. The optimal wheel radius and maximum velocity
were then found. To further approximate the speed
of our vehicle more precisely and to determine the
range, the given mathematical model was used. The
code has been modified accordingly to coincide with
our tailess design, with the weight distribution and
lateral stability having been carefully considered by
implementing a movable wing position to adapt the
CG correctly for an optimum pitch with no stall. Tak-
ing into account aerodynamic forces and moments,
a complete set of differential equations was deter-
mined. Solving these, we determined the range of our
vehicle configuration, and then varying further the de-
sign parameters in the code we found the optimal con-
figuration. The optimal trajectory for our last iteration
can be seen in Figure A.1, for a found optimal angle
of attack of 4 degrees.
Structure: Investigation into the mathematical model
(ramp portion) tells us, we need to use the smallest
possible wheels and the most powerful motor to ac-
quire the greatest off ramp velocity. Power from mo-
tors must be transmitted to the wheels in the most ef-
ficient manner, minimising losses. Off the ramp, the
vehicle will acquire a nose-up attitude or positive an-
gle of attack, eventually landing on the rear wheels.
This is the region with the highest impact stresses
hence the need to structurally reinforce this region.
Use of mild interference fits between the base plates
and the side frames to keep the structure together
Use of mild interference push-together fits implies the
2
Group 15
ability to take the structural components apart and put
them together without special tools. Ability to al-
ter the centre of gravity as desired is made possible
through the attachment lugs of the wing and holes on
the side frame, connected by carbon rods. Concept
was further refined by using smaller and thinner lugs
when we realised the bond between the foam wing
and acetyl lugs was stronger than expected. Overall
structural mass is also reduced in the process. At-
tempted to drive the rear wheels with gears placed
perpendicularly which turned out to problematic in
terms of the gear coupling. The gear are easily sepa-
rated. Trade-off is made to use straight spur gear that
couple easily and giving up mass symmetry along roll
axis.
5 Robot Evaluation
The robot performed as expected, with excellent lon-
gitudinal stability, which was reflected in a stable
pitch. The flight path was generally straight, while
veering off course slightly towards the end of the
glide. It was observed that the direction of the veer-
ing was always to the left, indicating a slight asym-
metry of the robot. This could have arisen from
the slightly offset CG of the very asymmetric circuit
board. Another error source could have been the sty-
rofoam wing, which may have deformed during a pre-
vious test flight and induced a slight rolling moment.
The longest glide length was 3.2965 m.
The robot left the ramp slightly slower than desired.
While investigating this issue we realised that the rear
bar was not fixed as firmly as it should have been.
Its movement moved the gear attached to the motor
apart from the gear attached to the rear shaft and lead
to imperfect power transmission. In future iterations
this could be prevented by gluing the rear bar to the
side bars, hence fixing the position of both gears with
respect to each other.
6 Conclusion and Improvements
In conclusion, a simple design was efficient enough
to respect all the imposed tasks for this application.
Practical results bears resemblance to the theoretical
model and thus validates our design process.
To improve the characteristics of the glider, a stiffer
wing frame may be used in order to reduce deforma-
tion.
L3 Application Group 15

References C Glider Manufacturing

[1] Dr. Kovac, L3 Introduction Presentation, Impe-

rial College London, October 2016.
[2] Mueller, Thomas J., and Gabriel E. Torres,
Aerodynamics of low aspect ratio wings at low
Reynolds numbers with applications to micro air
vehicle design and optimization, No. Undas-Fr-
2015, Notre Dame Univ in Office of Research,
2001.

A Glide Trajectory
(a) Robot glider final assembly side view

(b) Bottom view

Figure A.1: Trajectory comparison

between predicted model and testing

B Initial CAD Modelling and Modifications

(c) Back view of motor transmission to the bach-

wheels

Figure B.1: Initial assembly

(a) Front base support (b) Lug (d) Side view of wings attachement mechanism

Figure B.2: Modified elements after Figure C.1: Glider robot once
first assembly assembled