EP-UAV Project 2006

The Kingfisher
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(NUAA), and the Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology University (RMIT)
This project was completed under an international study exchange program of both
NUAA and RMIT universities.

KingFisher Team Members:

Guo Kezhi
Xie Yuefeng
Zhang Zhongzhen
Trevor Mills
Michael Azoury
Parviz Deamer
Jason Cromarty

Under the guidance of:

Dr Yu Xiongqing
Deng Haiqing
Wang Yu
1.0 Table of Contents

2. Executive Summary 3

3. Design Requirements and Objectives 4

4. Conceptual Design 4

5. Aerodynamic Design Detail 4

6. Propulsion System Design Detail 15

7. Weight estimate detail 18

8. Stability and Control 19

9. Aircraft Performance 23

10. Structural Detailed Design 29

11. Manufacture Detail 44

12. Flight Test Analysis and Report 49

13. Appendix 52
2.0 Executive Summary

The Kingfisher is a blended wing twin boom single engine EPUAV (Electric Powered
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). The basis for this design was to build an aircraft which was
both an original design and could fulfill the payload requirements set out initially. There
were a number of different configurations trialed all of which were original or pioneering
designs.
This particular configuration was chosen as it was the most feasible for the given time
frame, which still fulfilled the requirements. Originally it was going to be a twin engine
pusher but due to aerodynamic complications and time restrictions this idea was scrapped
and the single puller engine was adopted. Also the design was initially meant to have no
fuselage and all components be kept inside the main wing. Ultimately, having a flying
wing concept with a twin boom empennage attached. This was also scrapped and instead
a fuselage was included in the design. This was due to the high drag that would have
been associated with a wing big enough to house all the components as well as the
thickness to chord ratio being too big. The wingspan had a limit of about 2 metres so this
limited the thickness that could be used.
The originality of the design mainly comes from the swept wings, which are of little
benefit aerodynamically, but aesthetically it can be seen from historical opinions and the
opinions of the design team that any sweep on the wing makes the aircraft look faster and
more streamlined. This can be associated with the comparison of a sedan and a sports car.
Another feature of the EPUAV is its twin boom with joint ruddervator. This
configuration was chosen because it is non-conventional and produces lower drag than a
conventional surface, but also because it makes the controlling of the aeroplane simpler.
There is a joint control surface that does the job of the elevator and the rudder.
The aerofoil DAE31mu aerofoil was chosen because it gave the best lift drag
characteristics for the desired flight envelope, it had a reasonable stall angle of attack and
the lift at 0 degrees angle of attack corresponded to the cruise speed to minimize the drag.
An aspect ratio initially of 7.1 was chosen as the initial attempted payload was going to
be 7kg. This was drastically reduced part way through the design and an Aspect ratio of
about 6.5 was settled on or the wingspan would be too long.
The empennage uses a symmetrical flat plate for the aerodynamic and control surfaces.
This is due mainly to the time constraints and ease of construction, and also this surface
fulfilled the necessary requirements. A tricycle undercarriage was chosen for the
EPUAV as it was historically the most suited to this aircraft and also it was decided to
have a controllable nose wheel as the rear control surfaces would not be enough to steer
during taxi at those speeds.
The Kingfisher is a very robust aircraft as seen by its second landing during the test
flights. It had only a minor nose wheel problem during the initial taxi which was quickly
rectified and it flew a very clean and stable first flight. The final aircraft is very
aesthetically pleasing and now has a proven flight record. Overall the swept wing, twin
boom and the ruddervator make this aircraft in a league of its own and a very appealing
UAV.
3.0 Design Requirements and Objectives

It was identified that the design groups main ambitions were to create a flyable and
controllable aircraft that flies successfully in the restricted time available. Hence,
simplicity was a major design ambition when making design and manufacture decisions.
This being said, aesthetics and the use of a new type of design were also seen as
important ambitions.

4.0 Conceptual Design

The conceptual design phase was limited due to the time restrictions present. There were
several initial configuration options considered by the design team. Of these included bi-
plane flying wing, a forward sweep conventional configuration, and different variations
of a blended fuselage design. The blended fuselage proved popular, due to its relatively
different approach and simplicity of design and manufacture when compared to some of
the other considerations. The idea of a twin motor push-pull configuration was
considered but after discussion was agreed to be too complex. Hence, the configuration
agreed upon, was a blended wing, single pull type motor that would be housed along with
the payload and batteries inside the wing component, removing the need to create a
fuselage structure.

This however changed after CG analysis, resulting in the battery and motor being
extended forward in a blended fuselage.

5.0 Aerodynamic Design Detail

5.1 Main Wing Basic Design Concept.

The first step in the design process after a configuration was settled on for the Kingfisher
was the basic wing design. The wing design had to be based on the Design Objectives of
creating a flying wing aircraft, which was unique and aesthetically pleasing, capable of
carrying a large payload. Within these requirements was also the need for that aircraft to
have a specific minimum velocity and the secondary goal of trying to maximize the final
cruise velocity. The wing also needed to be light in weight and contribute the smallest
amount of drag as possible.

The following design requirements that played a factor in the basic wing design:

Min Velocity 9m/s

Max Velocity 20m/s
Max Wingspan 2m
Flight Time 15min
A/C Weight 2.5kg
Carrying Weight 2 kg
Max TO Weight 4-5 kg
As the configuration was a flying wing, this demanded a swept wing to allow the centre
of gravity (CG) of be located around the centre of the vehicle. While this need was
reduced somewhat by the addition of an empennage for stability and control of the
aircraft, it was still required to give the aircraft an adequate CG. This requirement set out
a rather complex task, as this need for sweep demanded a higher lifting wing, as the
sweep would reduce the total lift of the wing. This larger wing would bring with it
penalties in drag, weight and complexity in design. Also this meant that the larger wing
area would lift a reduced amount of payload compared to a straight wing design.

Thus the wing size would require a wing that was large enough to lift the required
payload, but small enough to give the aircraft a reduced weight and lower drag penalties.
The airfoil chosen would have to have a large CL at cruise, with the lowest possible drag
penalties.

To improve the overall lift to drag ratio of the wing design, a larger aspect ratio wing
would have to be incorporated into the design, as such a wing would reduce the induced
drag. However this in turn would provide penalties in the weight of the wing and hence
lead to extra structural requirements in the fuselage to incorporate this addition stress.
The taper ratio would be a design variable to could offer a solution to this problem,
however at the cost of a more complex design.

Hence the variables that had to be considered in the design of the wing became the sweep
factor, the airfoil choice, the aspect ratio and the taper ratio. While more complex, it was
decided to use the taper ratio as the wing design was already made complex by the swept
requirement, and hence, at addition of taper wouldnt effect the overall complexity of the
design, yet it would still give good advantages in the overall weight of the wing and
hence the structural requirements of the fuselage.

Within these variables there had to be taken into consideration the fact that the maximum
wingspan of the Kingfisher had to be approximately 2m.

5.2 Wing Parameter Design

In order to design the wing of the aircraft it was decided to use historical data as a starting
point for which to derive the wing area of the aircraft. Using this wing area as a guide for
a wing platform that would allow performances within the design objectives, the
remaining variables could be altered until a desired wing platform was reached. From
these variables an approximate CLmax at different velocities for a particular wing
configuration could be found. These could then be compared and a wing configuration
that required the lowest CL, yet meeting all the lifting requirements could be used.
With the Max TO weight known, this could be used to define the Wing Area of the
aircraft as a function of the sweep, taper and CL values.
A simple MATLAB program was written where by different wing geometries could be
evaluated to see the required CL that they would need to lift the aircraft weight at the
expected aircraft flight velocities. Once this CL values were achieved, they were adapted
by a sweep factor (Taken from Roskam, J) which was tied into the geometry aspect of the
design. A taper factor was also taken into consideration (Roskam, J) and this was also
tied into the geometry aspect of the program.
The program allows the wing to be evaluated for drag, with figures for different airfoils
inputted from AVL, and FRICTIONF.
It also allowed the weights of the different wing geometries of be evaluated, and these
could be compared.
Within the program a 5% CL error factor was taken into consideration to allow for the
difference between the 2D and the 3D wing.

Evaluation of different types of wing geometries, saw that a reduction in the sweep led to
a lower required airfoil CL and hence a lower drag, while an increase in the taper ratio
lead to a lighter wing, however with the draw back of reducing the wing area.
In an effort to reduce the required lift needed on the airfoil, rear sweep was removed
completely from the wing, and the front sweep was minimized. The wingspan was
extended to the maximum available and the taper ratio was reduced up to the point where
the wing area was similar to those seen in empirical data on such an aircraft. However it
must be noted that there was still the requirement for the CG of the wing to be towards
the rear of the wing such that the fact that there was no fuselage could be compensated
for by the wing in terms of the over all aircraft CG.

From the above MATLAB file it was found that an airfoil needing a CLmax of 1.51 was
needed, with a aero angle CL of 0.5. The evaluation was done between velocities of 8.5
m/s and 15 m/s as these were the expected flight regimes in which the aircraft as expected
to fly. This corresponded to Reynolds numbers over the wing of approximately 190,000
at landing, and 335,000 at cruise.

This was for a wing that contained the following features:

Wing Area m^2 0.65

Span (not including fuselage) m 2
Span (including fuselage) m 2.07
Root Chord m 0.43
Tip Chord m 0.22
Aspect Ratio 6.5
Taper Ratio 0.5166
C MAC 0.187
Leading Edge Sweep degrees 12
1/4 Chord Sweep degrees 8.8
The CL required Vs velocity graph is below:

Figure 1: Required CL needed for chosen Wing configuration.

5.3 Main Wing Airfoil Selection:

Given an requirement of over the aircrafts flight regime, a airfoil had to be chosen that
would allows the aircraft the meet the required CLs but as the same time have the lowest
penalty on the overall drag as possible. ProfiliV2, a user-friendly version of Xfoil, was
used to test different types of 2D airfoil sections to find the ones that matched the
requirements. Note that these were done at a Reynolds number of 215000, which was to
be expected to be part way though, the flight envelope. 11 different airfoils were finally
chosen based on their CLmax and CL AoA = 0 values to be evaluated further. There are listed
below:
 The basis of choosing these airfoils was based mainly on the high CL max requirements of
the aircraft. Also however form a structural point of view, from historical references, wit
was seen that airfoils with a t/c ratio below 0.10 were prone to difficulty. Hence airfoils
were searched for based on their CL max values being within 5% of the required CL or
higher and t/c ratios higher than 10% As can be seen above, the values ranged from 1.499
to 1.67. The airfoils that stood out the most at this point, as being close to the required
CL values and having the required lift at zero AoA were both the DAE 31mu and DAE

Airfoil CL max AOA max CL 0 CD 0 CL/CD CD AOAmax t/c

DAE 31 mu 1.67 13 0.84 0.0105 79.3 0.052 11.07
DAE 31 1.64 12.5 0.73 0.0133 55 0.0407 11.06
NACA 6411 1.58 10 0.67 0.0103 65 0.0283 11.03
SG 6043 1.59 13 0.73 0.0093 78.8 0.0541 10
MH 115 1.59 12 0.716 0.009 79.6 0.0444 11.07
GOE 591 1.499 11.5 0.59 0.0085 69.7 0.0325 11.2
GOE 388 1.568 11 0.59 0.0117 50.2 0.0317 10.2
DA100B20 1.517 10 0.75 0.0101 74.5 0.0281 10.5
DAB80B20 1.51 10.5 0.75 0.0088 85.4 0.0302 10.5
DA1002 1.525 10.5 0.75 0.0104 72.4 0.0298
MEG 59 1.55 11.5 0.68 0.0091 75.7 0.0472 10.95
Figure 2: List of Considered Airfoil Sections

31, along with the SG 6043, MH115, GOE388, both the DA100B20 and the DAB80B20,
DA1002 and the MEG 59.
In order to refine the choice, the stalling characteristics were looked at. As the aircraft
was small in size and just very prone to making large pitch changes, as well as the fact
that it would need to operate close to its stalling envelope in both take off and landing, it
was decided to find remove those airfoils that had bad stalling characteristics.
Hence from this the DA100B20 and the SG 6043 were removed from the running.
At this point it was decided to look that the CD/CL values of the airfoils to further reduce
the airfoils in contention. The top four were picked, being the DAE31mu, DAB80B20,
MH115, and the MEG59.
To finalize the selection at trade study was done using the existing aircraft design as a
basis. Using FRICTIONF the total friction co-efficient of the whole aircraft with each of
the different airfoils was tested. These were plotted with the CL of the airfoil compared.
This was taken at an zero angle of attack, as it was noted that area in which the minimum
drag was required was at cruise, and hence the airfoil that gave better performances in
this are would provide a higher velocity cruise, and longer A/C range. Note that due to
problems with the airfoil data points with the MEG59, evaluation of the wing surface
area with this airfoil wasnt able to continue; hence it was discontinued from the running.
The following results were seen.
 Airfoil wing types Configuration 3, VLM, liftmax and
Cdi
0.7
0.6

0.5
0.4 CL
0.3 CD*5
0.2

0.1
0
MH115 DAB80B20 DAE31mu

Figure 3: Comparison of Drag and Lift of final airfoils

CL Cdi CDF CDFORM CD Diff CD*5 Wing S/Area

MH115 0.5759 0.01672 0.01409 0.00397 0.0348 0.402 0.1739 1.314
DAB80B20 0.5917 0.0088 0.0141 0.00376 0.0267 0.4584 0.1333 1.316
DAE31mu 0.6869 0.02379 0.01413 0.00398 0.0419 0.4774 0.2095 1.32

Figure 4: Drag and Lift Factors used to evaluate final airfoils

All three airfoils performed similarly, however it was seen that the DAE31mu gave the
best lifting values while maintaining a very low drag co-efficient. The DAB80B20 also
have a very good performance, almost the same as that of the DAE31mu. Its CD was in
fact lower, than that of the DAE31mu. However, although the lift at AoA = 0 was much
higher that required DAE31mu, due to the fact that the aircraft was required to lift large
payloads, with was decided that the DAE31mu airfoil would be used to hopefully allow
for competitive payload capacity.
Hence the final choice was the DAE31mu.

5.4 Airfoil Characteristics

The flight Reynolds number of the Kingfisher were to be 190,000 for landing and stall,
and 335,000, and these were run through ProfiliV2 to generate the polars for this airfoil.
Figure 5: CL(CD) for DAE31mu
 Figure 6: Aerodynamic Data on DAE31mu, over AoA

Figure 7: Aerodynamic Data on DAE31mu, CL/CD and Cm

As we can see from the data given on the above airfoil, that the drag characteristics are
very good at higher Reynolds numbers, and that the stalling properties are very good,
with a slow shallow stall. The maximum angle of attack was seen to be approximately 13
degrees at approximately all Reynolds numbers. However due to a limit in the software,
this could needed to be confirmed.

5.5 Wing Stall Lift Distribution and stall.

To get a better understanding of the 3D stalling characteristics of the aircraft, the Lift
distribution over the wing at the plotted at the stalling angles.

Figure 8: Lift Distribution over the Airfoil and Empennage

As can be seen the inner mid wing of the aircraft will begin that stall that will travel to
through to the center of the wing before finally the outer wing will stall. Stall was
certified to begin at approximately 13.5 degrees, although lift was still being generated
after that angle.
The Cm of the whole wing section was required to be negative to allows the aircraft to
automatically want to nose down, and hence not go into a self induced stall. The CM over
the center of the airfoil was established at -0.2832. This was well within the required
limits for the design.

5.6 Additional Wing Design

As the design of the aircraft progressed, concerns were raised by stability team about the
lack of dihedral on the aircraft. It was felt that the stability of the aircraft was not
adequate. Hence a 3degree dihedral was added to the wing, beginning 356mm from the
wing root, at the joint between the inboard and out board wing. As this decision was
made at such a late stage, and in consultation with a number of experienced advisors, no
analysis was made on the aerodynamic effects of such change in the wing. The change
was expected to be minimal.

5.7 Final Wing Characteristics

Wing

Wing Area m^2 0.65

Span (not including fuselage) m 2
Span (including fuselage) m 2.07
Root Chord m 0.43
Tip Chord m 0.22
Aspect Ratio 6.5
Taper Ratio 0.5166
C MAC 0.187
Leading Edge Sweep degrees 12
1/4 Chord Sweep degrees 8.8
Dihedral degrees 3 degrees (.356m from root)
Twist degrees 0
Design Reynolds number 190000 335000
Airfoil section DAE 31mu
t/c percent of c 11.07
f/c percent of c 6.5
xt/c percent of c 29
xf/c percent of c 47.2
Incidence Angle 0
Cd Wing 0.0358 @ zero degrees
CL max - wing 1.83 @ 13.5 degrees
CL cruise - wing 0.69 @ zero degrees
CG (from leading edge) - wing m 0.2195
Weight - wing kg 0.36
Frontal Area - wing m^2 0.072
6.0 Propulsion System Design Detail

6.1 Requirements and Objectives

The propulsion system for the EP-UAV was determined predominantly by availability of
systems and the size of the craft. Historically, the EP-UAV had been powered by a
Cobalt 2008 motor, with two battery supplies. Hence, the motors were pre-selected based
on proven performance for this sized aircraft.

Some initial minimum design objectives however were;

- Cruise speed of around 15m/s
- Takeoff distance no longer than 20 meters

6.2 Aircraft Data

The propulsion performance was analysed using the Matlab propulsion analysis software
which was created by an NUAA postgraduate student. For this software to be used an
analysis matrix of the propeller that is be used was required. This was created using the
propeller analysis software BETPAT . The propeller recommended and supplied with the
Cobalt motor was geometrically analysed using a propeller pitch machine at intervals of
5-10 mm, and the dimensions entered into BETPAT. BETPAT then gives an output of
coefficient of thrust (ct), efficiency and pressure, at varying advance ratio (J).

Shown below are the BETPAT outputs;

Figure 9. BETPAT propeller geometry input

 Figure. 10 BETPAT output

The results from the BETPAT program allowed for the creation of a matrix which
described the propellers performance at varying advance ratios, which could then be
input into the MATLAB propulsion program.

The MATLAB propulsion program takes into account both the propeller performance,
battery performance and losses including electrical resistance and gear losses, to be able
to compare the thrust, efficiency and power performance at varying relative airspeeds.
The thrust result is shown below;

Thrust Available
30

25

20
T(N)

15

10

5
5 10 15 20
V(m/s)

Figure 11. Drag curve from MATLAB program

The thrust curve is noticeably higher than expected, particularly at the lower relative
velocity. Hence, it was decided to complete an experimental analysis of the system using
a wind tunnel and the same motors.

An experiment was conducted to verify the thrust prediction created by the BETPAT and
MATLAB propulsion application software.

The propulsion test was conducted using the NUAA Aerospace Engineering department
of Aerodynamics wind tunnel facilities, under the supervision of Dr Gu. The testing
procedure involved the insertion of the chosen EP motor and constituent batteries and
receiver systems into a test rig, that had a sliding supporting structure so that any forced
created could be measured with little error. This test rig was then placed at the opening of
a blower type wind tunnel and full power applied. Thrust was measured using a force
balance attached to the sliding supporting structure. The wind tunnel velocity was altered
incrementally and thrust measurements taken, so that an accurate prediction of thrust
performance could be calculated. There were a number of errors that were inherently
incurred in this test, with the major source of error being the drag forced created by the
supporting test structure. This drag force was attempted to be minimized by adding a
cardboard fairing, and also calibrating the thrust measurements by quantitatively
measuring this drag force. The thrust result is shown below;

EP-UAV Thrust analysis

y = -0.2806x + 8.9089
10
9
8
7
Thrust (N)

6
5
Total Thrust
4 (N)

3
2 Linear (Total
Thrust (N))
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
v(m/s)
Figure 12. Thrust curve from experimental analysis

The results of the thrust test show an almost linear decline in thrust as relative velocity
increases. The results of the experimental tests show that the theoretical thrust values are
in error by a substantial margin, leading to serious questions as to its validity. It is
believed that the experimental thrust curve is much closer to the actual thrust
performance than the theoretical values, and it was hence used in the performance
calculations.
6.3 Engine Control and Battery Control

Speed and rate of climb are controlled via the remote control and speed controller system.
During the take-off roll full power (11.4 Volts) is to be applied and sustained until
required altitude and airspeed is reached. The speed controller unit is situated
immediately behind the front firewall and is held in place by tape as the unit is already
fastened quite securely by the geometric constraints of the fuselage.

6.4 Battery Specifications

Battery selection was based both on volumetric considerations and also current
requirements. The Cobalt 2008 motor draws 50 Amperes, which for a single battery is
too high (temperature increase could lead to a potential explosive reaction). Hence, two
batteries were used to both increase the endurance, and also decrease the current flow
from each battery reducing the increase in heat. The batteries dimensions were:
140x43x22mm and weighed 250 grams each.

6.5 Instillation of propulsion and power systems

Both the motors and batteries were selected to be housed inside the central fuselage
compartment, with the dimensions of the batteries being the critical factor determining
the sizing of the fuselage. The motor is secured to the fuselage structure allowing ease of
access and removal/instillation and also sufficient airflow for cooling. It is secured in the
engine bay by four nut/bolt connections and the engine bay motor supporting structure is
reinforced with additional polonia 4mm square sections in the corners to prevent de-
lamination of the epoxy resin glue used due to the high vibratory loads applied to the
structure whilst the motor is in operation.

The two batteries position in the aircraft was predominantly determined by centre of
gravity considerations, and the eventual position was chosen to be in the aft compartment
behind the forward firewall. This position sees the batteries inserted partially into the
main wing component. They are secured by elastic bands and polonia guides on the
fuselage payload bay floor. Access to the battery compartment is very easy, with there
being one top facing balsa wood compartment hatch that is attached using adhesive tape.
This compartment allows access to the components including the batteries, the speed
controller, and the rudder servo.

7.0 Weight estimate detail

The following figure presents the approximations for the weights used, and their overall
positions on the aircraft.
 Figure 13. Main loading positions

Number Part Weight (g)

1 Wing section 398
2 Empennage 168
3 Motor 170
4 Battery packs 217
5 Landing gear 147
Total mass: 1100

According to the CATIA document, the final CG position was located, 180mm from the
leading edge, just ahead of that of the main wing.

However, after construction during testing, it was found that the CG was located closer to
the leading edge of the main wing. It was also found that the aircraft weighed in twice as
heavy as was predicted, which didnt include the payload.

8.0 Stability and Control

AVL Stability analysis

AVL is a program which is intended for rapid aircraft configuration analysis. AVL
utilises the vortex lattice method to examine the lift, drag, and stability of an aircraft
design.

8.1 Input Files

AVL works with three input files, all in plain text format. Ideally these all have a
common arbitrary prefix "xxx", and the following extensions:

xxx.avl required main input file defining the configuration geometry

xxx.mass optional file giving masses and inertias, and dimensional units
xxx.run optional file defining the parameter for some number of run cases

Stability analysis requires only geometry input file (xxx.avl), which is utilised for
the construction of aerodynamic configuration. File format is as follows:
1header data

Abc | case title

# | comment line begins with "#" or "!"
0.0 | Mach
1 0 0 | iYsym iZsym Zsym
4.0 0.4 0.1 | Sref Cref Bref
0.1 0.0 0.0 | Xref Yref Zref
0.020 | CDp (optional)

Mach = default freestream Mach number for Prandtl-Glauert correction

iYsym = 1 case is symmetric about Y=0 , (X-Z plane is a solid wall)
= -1 case is antisymmetric about Y=0, (X-Z plane is at const. Cp)
= 0 no Y-symmetry is assumed
iZsym = 1 case is symmetric about Z=Zsym , (X-Y plane is a solid wall)
= -1 case is antisymmetric about Z=Zsym, (X-Y plane is at const. Cp)
= 0 no Z-symmetry is assumed (Zsym ignored)
Sref = reference area used to define all coefficients (CL, CD, Cm, etc)
Cref = reference chord used to define pitching moment (Cm)
Bref = reference span used to define roll,yaw moments (Cl,Cn)
X,Y,Zref = default location about which moments and rotation rates are defined (if doing trim
calculations, XYZref must be the CG location, which can be imposed with the MSET
command described later)
CDp = default profile drag coefficient added to geometry, applied at XYZref
(assumed zero if this line is absent, for previous-version compatibility)

2Surface

SURFACE | (keyword)
Main Wing | surface name string
12 1.0 20 -1.5 | Nchord Cspace [ Nspan Sspace ]

YDUPLICATE | (keyword)
0.0 | Ydupl

SCALE | (keyword)
1.0 1.0 0.8 | Xscale Yscale Zscale

TRANSLATE | (keyword)
10.0 0.0 0.5 | dX dY dZ
ANGLE | (keyword)
2.0 | dAinc

SECTION | (keyword)
0.0 5.0 0.2 0.50 1.50 5 -2.0 | Xle Yle Zle Chord Ainc [ Nspan Sspace ]

NACA | (keyword)
4300 | section NACA camberline

AIRFOIL X1 X2 |(keyword) [ optional x/c range ]

1.0 0.0 | x/c(1) y/c(1)
0.98 0.002 | x/c(2) y/c(2)
. . | . .
 1.0 -0.01 | x/c(N) y/c(N)

AFILE X1 X2 | (keyword) [ optional x/c range ]

filename | filename string

Nchord = number of chordwise horseshoe vortices placed on the surface

Cspace = chordwise vortex spacing parameter (described later)
Nspan = number of spanwise horseshoe vortices placed on the surface
[optional]
Sspace = spanwise vortex spacing parameter (described later)
[optional]
Ydupl = Y position of X-Z plane about which the current surface is
reflected to make the duplicate geometric-image surface.
Xscale,Yscale,Zscale = scaling factors applied to all x,y,z
coordinates (chords are also scaled by Xscale)
dX,dY,dZ = offset added on to all X,Y,Z values in this surface.
dAinc = offset added on to the Ainc values for all the defining
sections in this surface
Xle,Yle,Zle = airfoil's leading edge location
Chord = the airfoil's chord (trailing edge is at
Xle+Chord,Yle,Zle)
Ainc = incidence angle, taken as a rotation (+ by RH rule) about
the surface's spanwise axis projected onto the Y-Z
plane.
Nspan = number of spanwise vortices until the next section
[ optional ]
Sspace = controls the spanwise spacing of the vortices
[ optional ]

8.2 Stability Estimation

In the process of stability analysis, each of the different configurations is tested within
AVL until a suitable configuration is decided upon. For EPUAV, the key parameter
being tested is the pitching moment. The pitching moment must be negative for a stable
aircraft. This requirement indicates that the neutral point should be behind the centre of
gravity.

After the files are read and processed, the user is put into the main AVL menu:

Quit Exit program

.OPER Compute operating-point run cases

.MODE Eigenvalue analysis of run cases
 LOAD f Read configuration input file
MASS f Read mass distribution file
CASE f Read run case file

CINI Clear and initialize run cases

MSET i Apply mass file data to stored run case(s)

.PLOP Plotting options

NAME s Specify new configuration name

AVL c>

Before a first flow solution is attempted, the geometry should be examined in the
geometry plot sub-menu, entered with the G command:

The OPER command will then bring up the main operating menu. Select ST to get the
stability derivatives and the location of neutral point. The results in red colour are just
what we need.

Derivatives...
alpha beta
---------------- ----------------
z force | CLa = 5.112064 CLb = 0.000000
y force | CYa = 0.000000 CYb = -0.319987
roll x mom.| Cla = 0.000000 Clb = -0.063983
pitch y mom.| Cma = -0.626142 Cmb = 0.000000
yaw z mom.| Cna = 0.000000 Cnb = 0.099050

roll rate p pitch rate q yaw rate

r
---------------- ---------------- --------------
--
z force | CLp = 0.000000 CLq = 7.750521 CLr =
0.000000
y force | CYp = 0.087532 CYq = 0.000000 CYr =
0.246950
roll x mom.| Clp = -0.530152 Clq = 0.000000 Clr =
0.185339
pitch y mom.| Cmp = 0.000000 Cmq = -7.994495 Cmr =
0.000000
yaw z mom.| Cnp = -0.066718 Cnq = 0.000000 Cnr = -
0.110471

Neutral point Xnp = 219.807007

Clb Cnr / Clr Cnb = 0.385026 ( > 1 if spirally stable )

8.3 Results

This aircraft went through several different configurations. The first configuration didnt
have a fuselage, and had the motor located at the rear of the aircraft. When tested, it was
found that the neutral point was located before the centre of gravity, and a large positive
pitching moment was developed.

This necessitated a complete change of design. It was decided to incorporate a blended

fuselage in order to transfer the batteries far enough forward to move the centre of gravity
to create a negative pitching moment. The motor was also transferred from the rear of the
aircraft to the front.

Dihedral was incorporated in order to increase the rolling stability of the aircraft. Once
again, a negative rolling moment was incorporated. Two configurations were tested
within AVL, 2o dihedral, and 3o of dihedral. The results of this software analysis
indicated that 3o of dihedral would increase the rolling stability the most.

9.0 Aircraft Performance

9.1 Drag break down of the Kingfisher

The Kingfisher was designed around the concept of reducing as much of the wetted area
as possible, hence the minimization of the fuselage size, and the blending of the fuselage
into the wing. As such once the final configuration was set, there was nothing else done
to attempt to the reduce the drag of the aircraft as it was assumed that it would already be
lower than that found on most aircraft of conventional configurations.

For the Drag break down, the program FRICTIONF was used to obtain the Form and
Friction drag, while AVL was used to obtain the induced drag. Combing the two methods
we were able to obtain the overall drag on the aircraft. The FRICTIONF method used the
break down of form and friction drag over every component of the aircraft. It required the
wetted areas, the length and thickness ratios for each major component from this is was
able to calculate the Cf for each component. Inputting flight Reynolds numbers and
altitude allowed the program to compute the final Cform and Cfriction .

The final out put for CDF+CDFORM = 0.01203

Added to this value must be the values of the CDi of the whole aircraft, which was
0.02379. This Value was obtained from AVL for the whole aircraft.

Hence the total drag for the aircraft was taken to be 0.03582.
This number is similar to those obtained in empirical data and it must be noted that it was
taken at AoA = 0. It appears the lower drag of the blended wing -body and the smaller
fuselage were offset by the lower AR of the aircraft wing.

The total aircraft drag can be plotted for a variety of CL values using the following
formula:

Cd = CdAoA = 0 + e* CL2 / pi*AR

This give the following graph for the aircrafts Drag vs CL values.
 Total Aircraft Cd Vs Cl

Drag (Cd0) Vs velocity

9.2 Distance of Take off ( L T .O )

 It is a very important parameter for an airplane, the formula for it is:
0 . 908 P 0
L T .O =
C l . max T .o ( Pa f )

P0 :Wing Load, 6.15kg/m*m;

Pa : The average value of thrust/gravity, 0.225;

Cl .max T.O : The maximum coefficient of lift when taking off, 1.4;
f : Coefficient of fiction, assuming ground is made by concrete, 0.035;
So:
0 . 908 6 . 15
L T .O = = 21 . 0 ( m )
1 . 4 ( 0 . 225 0 . 035 )

9.3 Landing Velocity ( V Ld )

The formula for it is:

P Ld
V Ld = 14 . 55
C l . max

PLd : Wing load when landing, 6.15 kg/m*m;

Cl .max : The maximum coefficient of lift, 1.5;

So:

6 . 15
V Ld = 14 . 55 = 29 . 46 ( km / h ) = 8 . 18 ( m / s )
1 .5

9.4 The maximum level Velocity ( V max )

Referenced formulas:
Af At Ap Alg A
CD. parasite = 1.1 (CD.w + CD. f + CD.t + CD. p + CD.lg + CD.wh wh )
Aw Aw Aw Aw Aw

2WT .O g Cl
2
Cl = , CD = CD. parasite +
v2 Aw ARw
Cl
K=
CD
, Tr = WT .O g K , Pr = TrV , Pa = TaV

C D . parasite : The coefficient of the total parasite drags of the plane;

 C D . w =0.042: The coefficient of the drag of the wing;

C D . f =0.29: The coefficient of the drag of the fuselage;

C D .t =0.021: The coefficient of the drag of the tail;

C D . p =0.70: The coefficient of the drag of the propeller;

C D . lg =1.40: The coefficient of the drag of the landing gear;

CD.wh =0.46: The coefficient of the drag of the wheels;

Aw =0.65 m 2 A f =1.85e-3 m 2 At =0.0672 m 2 : The area of the wing

fuselagetail;

Ap =0.0094 m 2 A lg =0.0024 m 2 Awh =0.0036 m 2 : The area of the propeller

landing gearwheels seen in front;

Tr Ta : Required and avail thrust, the value of avail thrust supplied in former;

Pr Pa : Required and avail power.

With these formulas, we wrote a litter program with MATLAB (the program given in
addenda), then we got the curves (next page):
Figure: Polar drag
 Figure: Required and avail thrust

Figure: Required and avail power

From the figure the maximum level flying velocitysurplus thrust and power were
gotten:

Vmax = 15.76 m / s ;
Ts. max = 6.045 N ;

Ps. max = Ts. max V = 6.045 9 = 54.405(W )

9.5 The minimum level flying velocity ( Vmin )
The formula and result:

2G 2 4 9.8
Vmin = = = 8.08(m / s )
Cl . max Aw 1.5 1.23 0.65

9.6 The maximum ratio of climb (ROC)

Ps. max 54.405
ROC = = = 1.39(m / s )
G 4 9 .8
9.7 Time and Range
Cb 3300 2(mmA h)
t= = = 0.22h = 792s ;
Ia 30( A) 1000
 Range = vt 9 792 = 7128m

10.0 Structural Detailed Design

10.1 Structural Design of Wing

The structural design of the wing was based entirely on empirical data, and was later
analyzed on PATRAN to see if it was adequate. The wing itself was designed in two
separate parts, and Inboard and an Outboard wing. This was to facilitate dismantling of
the aircraft into three components that could be easily transported to flight areas. The
overall wing structural design used pine, paulownia and balsa for the construction, and it
was decided the PVA wood glue along with small amounts of AB Epoxy as high stress
areas, would be used.

Hence the wing was designed using two main spars, and 15 main ribs, along with 3 LE
mini ribs, and a Mid mini Rib. Webbing was used on both spars, for structural integrity,
and capping was placed on all components to allow for easy placement of the outer skin.
A leading edge webbing was placed so that the leading edge boom could be placed on it,
and a TE plug was added at the rear as the ribs became much to thin at that area, and
hence broke rather easily during construction. For the Inboard wing, a payload bay was
added between Ribs 5 and Rib 6, and also at this area the empennage boom would join to
the main spar, through the webbing. For the Outboard wing, the aileron had to be
incorporated into the wing, this was done by the addition of a smaller spar and webbing
and the joint. The aileron its self was made up of 8 Aileron Ribs, a Webbing at a 45
degree angle at the joint (to allows for freedom of movement of the aileron) and a TE
boom was added as was the case in the main wing, to allow for ease of construction. At
the connections between all the ribs and the TE boom, there are small braces used to
support the connection to the ribs.
The final configurations are shown below;
Figure 9: CATIA Drawing of Outboard wing
 Figure 10: CATIA Drawing of Inboard Wing

10.2 Empennage design

The preliminary configuration of the aircraft has been envisaged to utilise a flying wing
with push-pull type motors. This configuration has several ramifications for the design of
the empennage. The flying wing necessitates the use of large rear control surface to
minimise the inherent instabilitities of the design. The twin motors in push-pull
configuration necessitates the use of twin booms to attach the empennage to the fuselage.
There are a number of further considerations for the preliminary empennage concept:

1. The horizontal and vertical stabilisers must be of a great enough size so as to

minimise the required movable surface deflection, yet small enough to minimise
weight and drag
2. Booms must be located far enough apart so as to prevent propeller strike, but close
enough to minimise the moment on the wing root due to the horizontal control surface
3. The booms must be of a length so as to provide a large enough moment arm for the
elevator, but small enough so as to provide great enough clearance to prevent boom
strike on takeoff
Keeping the above considerations in mind, the first step was to evaluate previous wing
designs and calculate an approximate area required for the horizontal and vertical
stabilisers. The third consideration of boom length is also tied up with this, and plays a
great size in the required stabiliser area. A preliminary idea was gained by utilising the
volume method. The volume method relies on the use of historical data collected from
similar aircraft, and involves calculating a vertical and horizontal volume coefficient
from the collected data. The equations below are the vertical and horizontal volume
coefficients respectively.

The average volume coefficients which were obtained from the previous EPUAV designs
were: Vh = 0.4034 and Vv = 0.0303. The volume coefficients were then applied to
equations 3 and 4

Previous EPUAV designs had allowed for a take-off rotation angle of 20o, assuming the
landing gear to be located inline with the rear propeller, this allowed for a maximum
boom length of 800mm from the rear of the aircraft.

The values xh and xv are taken from the centre of gravity of the craft, and therefore
approximately 200mm of effective boom length was added, giving a maximum xh of
1000mm. As all of the above values were quite approximate (no firm data can be
established during this phase of design), an estimate of effective boom length at 900mm
was used to calculate the approximate stabiliser sizes. The average tail areas obtained
from the volume coefficients were: Sh = 0.1597m2 and Sv = 0.0506m2.

The final consideration is that of boom spacing. This governs, to a large extent, the final
configuration of the empennage. To minimise the moment at the wing root due to the
horizontal stabiliser, the booms should be located as close to the propeller as possible
without striking occurring.
The following list of configurations was chosen for evaluation, and a basic analysis of
advantages and disadvantages performed.

U-Tail Twin booms extending back from fuselage/wing, connected by a wing located in
the same plane as the boom, between two vertical control surfaces
Advantages
Doubling up of vertical surfaces, therefore an increase in rudder size
Increase in structural stiffness between booms
Easy connection for the vertical fins to the tail boom and horizontal wing
Disadvantages
Requires coordination of rudder controls
Horizontal surface on the same plane as wing

V-Tail Twin booms extending back from fuselage/wing, connected by a V-shaped set of
control surface. Horizontal and vertical tail surfaces combined into a pair of inclined
surfaces. Combines separate roles of elevator and rudder
Advantages
Allows for a large surface area of control surfaces
Both horizontal and vertical control surfaces placed in propeller wash to aid in
taxiing and rotation on takeoff
Disadvantages
Couples horizontal and vertical stabilisers increasing complexity of control

T-Tail Twin booms extending from fuselage/wing. A vertical stabiliser is connected

above the boom. The top of the vertical stabiliser is connected by a horizontal wing.
Advantages
Duplication of vertical control surfaces
Disadvantages
No direct structural brace between tail booms
Requires coordination of rudder controls

The final configuration which was chosen was the inverted V-tail. This was chosen for
several reasons. The primary reason was the ease of construction and manufacture. There
was also another EPUAV, which utilised this method of tail construction, which had
worked effectively for it. The final dimensions are summarised below.

Part Description Dimension Value

Wing Length mm 421
Width mm 160
Area cm^2 673.6
Boom Length mm 900
Diameter mm 16

Once the sizing and configuration was decided upon, a more detailed design was
performed. The first investigation was into the use of an aerofoil on the wing surfaces.
NACA0009. This was chosen in order to (1) maintain simplicity of design and
manufacture, (2) the thin symmetrical aerofoil was recommended by the design textbook.
After further analysis, the use of the symmetrical aerofoil was removed. The NACA0009
resulted in a maximum thickness of 14.4mm. It was felt that this was too thin for the
cutting machine and would be uneconomical to manufacture. The NACA0009 aerofoil
was replaced with a thin flat plate of thickness 6mm.

The elevator/rudder control surface dimensions were decided arbitrarily. Based on

historical data, the area of the control surface was approximately 30% of the tail surface
area. The only other consideration was interference between control surfaces at full
deflection. An altered geometry near the apex of the V was created in order to prevent
this from occurring.

Other decisions which needed to be made included

Construction material
The frame is to be made from 4x4mm balsa rod epoxied together. Both sides of the
two frames is to be covered with a 1mm thick balsa sheet
The boom is to be made D16mm carbon fibre rod. As the longest rod available is
700mm, a D15mm rod is to be used to join two D16mm rods together
Servo
Location
The servo was located in the center so as to minimise the moment on the
moveable control surface
Strengthening around servo
Due to the large torque generated, it was decided to strengthen the bars
surrounding the servo by using Paulonia rods, instead of the balsa
Interface between control surface and boom
The connection between the control surface and boom is to take the form of a series
rings with a groove cut through the top to house the base of the wing section
Three of these per wing are to manufactured and will be made from 2mm thick
plywood, epoxied to the wing and boom
Interface between wings at apex
The interface is to be made from two parts. The first part is a balsawood block, carved
to maintain the required angle between the wing section. This is to be reinforced with
a ply plate over the front and rear of the apex.

10.3 Fuselage Design

The fuselage was constructed to house the payload bay, batteries, motor, nosewheel
steering servo, speed controller, and radio receiver, and also the attachment point for the
nose-wheel landing gear. Hence, these were the limiting geometric considerations when
during the design process of the fuselage.

The shape of the fuselage was designed to blend the fuselage into the wing, with least
amount of disturbance to the air. This resulted in a design that incorporated a fuselage
that was the same shape as the airfoil until max thickness was reached, and then a
constant thickness section that was 54.8mm thick. This thickness was determined by the
need to incorporate two batteries into the fuselage on their sides.
It was decided to use a 5mm plywood main fuselage rib to ensure that sufficient
structural rigidity was created, to stop any lateral flexing. The main fuselage rib would be
the load bearing and transmitting structure for all the major components of the wings and
the propulsion system.

The engine was designed to be housed in the engine bay, and supported by an engine
brace. The engine brace is 5 mm thick, and is attached to the front firewall and also the
side-walls of the fuselage main rib. The main concern about the motor bracing support
structure is that the vibratory forces applied by the motor may de-laminate the
glue/fuselage bond. Hence, to increase the surface contact area between the two surfaces,
polonia 4mm square pieces were used to fill the corners.

Both the payload bay floor and also the battery/systems compartment floor, were
plywood and balsa respectively glued into place at the floor of the fuselage. The floors
were both aligned so that at zero degrees angle of attack, the floors would be horizontal.
The covering of the fuselage was decided to be 1mm thick balsa sheet. This is easy to cut
to size and attach, but is also quite durable when considering that in sections it will be
removed and re-attached many times. The skin does not support any mass and is only to
ensure there is a smooth airflow over the fuselage section. Monokote plastic coverings
were added to increase aesthetic appeal.

The nose-wheel landing gear was attached to the fuselage via the front firewall and also a
mounting bracket made from a thermoplastic. The mounting bracket was connected to the
forward fuselage by four bolts. The nose-wheel was required to be steerable, hence a
nose-wheel control servo was required, which is housed immediately behind the front
firewall. This ensures that the connector push/pull rod arm length is kept to a minimum.
The nose-wheel supporting strut has a level arm connected to act as a connecting point
for the servo push/pull rod.

Another of the main features of the fuselage design is the wing/fuselage interface. The
wings are held together and to the fuselage by epoxy resin adhesion to the wing interface
components. A 6mm plywood wing insert was designed to insert from inner wing section
(between the two main spars and also the rear two spars) and 35mm into the fuselage
section where there are two balsa/ply sandwich construction clamps that hold the wing
inserts into place. The wing insert clamps were designed to have maximum contact
surface area to the main fuselage rib wall, to increase the effectiveness of the epoxy-resin
glue. A sandwich construction was selected to increase the overall strength and rigidity of
the clamp structure.

Epoxy two part resin was used as the adhesive for the individual components, but for the
creation of multi-layered structures PVA wood glue was used. The epoxy-resin proved
the best strength and hardness finish, but this was not always required.
Final layout of components contained within the fuselage

Final fuselage assembly design.

10.4 Landing gear design

It was decided that the KingFisher would have a tricycle undercarriage design, ie. a nose-
wheel, and two main landing gear supports. The nose-wheel as previously mentioned is
supported by the front firewall via a plastic brace. The nose-wheel required steering
capability to enable ground directional control. Hence, incorporated into the nose-wheel
design is a capability of free rotational motion about the gears longitudinal axis. This was
done by fixing two thrust bearings, which clamped the gear into place around the plastic
brace. This was then connected to a servo arm.

The main gears however are attached using a quite different method. Using the synergism
design process, the main landing gear is connected to a supporting block constructed
from a sandwich structure of ply and balsa wood and is then epoxy resin connected to the
reinforced inboard wing section outer-most plywood rib. The main landing gear strut is
inserted through a hole drilled at the position to ensure 80% of weight will be carried by
the main gear under a normal loading condition, then epoxy glued into place. This design
incorporates a displaced slot in which a 90 degree hook of the gear strut can be placed
into and epoxy resin added to, in an attempt to increase the structural rigidity of the gear
strut. The supporting brace in epoxy glued to the 3mm thick number 5 rib and also the
front and rear polonia spar webbing. This position allows for sufficient lateral stability on
the ground to prevent rollover.

Placing of the main gear is very important to the rotation capability of the KingFisher on
takeoff. Assuming that the main gear should support 80% of the aircrafts weight on
takeoff, and by summing the moments about the nose-wheel, this should place the main
gear in between the forward and aft spars. The placement of the main gear must be
behind the centre of gravity. The gear length is determined by the length of the
empennage supporting booms and the required rotation angle on takeoff. The angle of
attack for takeoff should be achieved before the empennage strikes the ground surface.

Larger foam type wheels were chosen for the main gear, and a smaller foam wheel
chosen for the steerable nose-wheel this was due to both aesthetic and drag
considerations.

A fairing for the landing gear was considered and analysed using a MATLAB code. But
due to time restrictions manufacture of this was not possible.

10.5.0 Structural Analysis

At this stage of the preliminary design, it is essential to give specific thought to the
arrangement of the primary structure. The structure must be designed strong enough,
especially for the wing.

The wing may be considered to be typical of the lifting surfaces and it is the most
complex part in the planes. To ensure the performance and the stability of the plane, the
wing should have to reduce the distortion and the weight to the minimum.
 10.5.1 Wing model:

Wing model in Patran (without aileron)

Property:

The following table shows the properties about the different parts in the wing:

Part Properties
rib Shell(2D)
webbing shell(2D)
skin shell(2D)
spar beam(1D)

Material:

The following table shows the materials information for parts in the wing.

Elastic Modulus Poisson Density Tensile Compressive

Materials
(GPa) Ratio (Kg/m3) Strength(Pa) Strength(Pa)
Balsa 0.6 0.3 160 1.90E+07 1.22E+07
Paulownia 43 0.3 283 3.36E+07 1.93E+07
Pine 8.0 0.3 430 9.81E+07 3.34E+07
Ply 7.5 0.3 570 8.50E+07 3.00E+07
10.5.2 Wing Loading

Aerodynamics, gravity and other loads are put on the plane. But aerodynamics is
considered to be the main load to the model. Therefore only aerodynamics load is put on
the model.

Model weight (without payload): 2kg

Payload: 2kg
Safety coefficient: 1.5
Overloading coefficient: 4

The total load which will be put on the wings for analysis is: 221.549.8=235.2N
The load for each wing is: 117.6N

The load which is put on the wing is a distributed load. It is trapeziform distributed from
the root to the tip and triangular distributed from the leading edge to the trailing edge.
The following figure shows the distributed load and the direction on a whole wing.

Distributed load and the direction on the wing

10.3 Boundary conditions

Wings are connected to the fuselage. For the model, fix the first rib in stead. The values
of displacement and rotation of the first rib are changed to 0.
The following figure shows the wing model with mesh, load, property, material and
boundary condition.
 Wing model

10.4 Results

Use nastran to compute the strength of the wing model. The following figures give the
analysis results.

Displacement of the wing

The maximal displacement is 22.5mm.

Stress of the wing

Stress of the ribs

Stress of the spars
 Stress of the webbings
Maximal and minimal stress values and materials for all parts are in the following table:
Part Materials Thickness(m) Area C-S(m2) Max(Pa) Min(Pa)
Front Skin Balsa 0.001 5.15E+06 8.55E+03
Rib 1 Balsa 0.002 2.96E+06 6.13E+03
Rib 2 Ply 0.002 4.62E+06 0
Spar Pine 0.0050.005 5.15E+06 8.55E+03
Webbing Paulownia 0.002 5.15E+06 8.55E+03
 According the results and considering the process of fabrication and assembly, the ribs
are divided into rib1 (balsa) and rib2 (ply).

The maximal and minimal stresses of the different parts are in the following table.

Elastic Density Tensile Compressive

Materials Poisson Ratio
Modulus (GPa) (Kg/m3) Strength(Pa) Strength(Pa)
Balsa 0.6 0.3 160 1.90E+07 1.22E+07
Paulownia 43 0.3 283 3.36E+07 1.93E+07
Pine 8.0 0.3 430 9.81E+07 3.34E+07
Ply 7.5 0.3 570 8.50E+07 3.00E+07

10.5 Conclusion

Comparing the result with the tensile strength and compressive strength of materials, all
the parts satisfy the design requirements.

11.0 Manufacture detail

11.1 Manufacture Requirements and Objectives

Following the design philosophy of margin for safety and simplicity, the KingFisher was
manufactured with a large margin for error.

11.2 Inner wing Manufacture

Inboard wing construction:

(i) A plan-form template was constructed first so when the wing itself was put
together all the ribs and other wing parts were level and lined up. This was
basically a skeleton for the wing to sit on which had the same shape on the top
as the wing ribs had on the bottom.
(ii) The main spar was then constructed with the ribs that went through the spar
included in the construction. As well as the fuselage and dihedral braces
being inserted and fixed by PVA glue.
(iii) Then all forward parts of all ribs were glued to the front of the main spar in
there respective place.
(iv) Once all forward ribs and the main spar were together the rear spar was
constructed also making sure the fuselage and dihedral braces were included.
(v) The rear of the mid ribs were glued to the front of the rear spar, and the front
of the mid ribs were glued to the rear of the main spar. Also the payload floor
was glued in place at this time.
(vi) The leading edge spar was then glued to the front of the ribs.
 (vii) The rear rib tips were then glued to the rear of the rear spar.
(viii) One long side of an 8mm by 8mm bit of balsa was then glued to one long side
of a 10mm by 10mm piece of balsa for the leading edge boom of the inboard
wing.
(ix) This boom was then glued to the front of the leading edge spar with the
8x8mm balsa being on the top side of the leading edge boom.
(x) Then the top skin was glued on in between the main spar and the leading edge
spar.
(xi) Holes were made for the wires to pass through and before the bottom skin was
attached lead wires were put through the appropriate holes so as to not need to
get into the forward part of the wing anymore.
(xii) Then the bottom skin was attached as per the top.
(xiii) Using the trailing edge template cutouts, 5mm thick balsa was joined to the
rear of the inboard wing and allowed to dry.
(xiv) The trailing edge boom (5mm thick balsa) was then shaped as per the template
to give the trailing edge shape.
(xv) The leading edge booms were then shaped the same way the trailing edge
booms were shaped with a template cutout.
(xvi) 1mm capping was then glued to all surfaces between the skin and the trailing
edge boom not including the top of the mid ribs either side of the payload bay.
The width of the capping was 6mm for ribs, 8mm for rear spar & 10mm for
the forward spar.
(xvii) Payload doors were then cut to cover the payload bays from rib 5 to rib 6 in
between the forward and rear spars to sit flush with the capping.
(xviii) Then empennage was then attached by drilling holes in the booms
corresponding to the position of the 3mm bolt hole in the trailing part of rib 5.
Making sure that the boom sat forward of the front spar by about 20mm.
(xix) The boom was then inserted into the appropriate holes and bolted in place.
(xx) Up until now only PVA glue had been used on the inboard wing. The booms
were fixed in place by epoxy resin.
(xxi) Both inboard wings were at this stage fitted to the fuselage with epoxy resin.
The fuselage braces were clamped into the fuselage (see fuselage
construction).
(xxii) The inboard wing was skinned while attached to the fuselage.

11.3 Outer wing Manufacture

This process was carried out similar to that of the Inboard Wing, the only differences
being in the requirement to build and add the aileron, and the fact that a payload bay
wasnt needed.
Inboard wing construction:

(xxiii) A plan-form template was constructed to hold the wing ribs and components
in place. This plan-form was more complex than that of the Inboard wing as
 alignment of the ribs werent aligned at the rear horizontally due to the cut out
of the aileron.
(xxiv) The main spar was then constructed with the ribs that went through the spar
included in the construction. Only the first two inner ribs werent connected
at this point. The spacing between the webbing, the spar and the Ribs needed
to be tested against the Inboard wings Braces.
(xxv) Then all the ribs were glued to the front of the main spar in their respective
place along with all the webbing up to the second rib
(xxvi) Once all the last 7 ribs and webbing sets were dried, the dihedral bracing was
tested, with the first two ribs and spar. A plug was inserted between the spars
and the two ribs, to simulate the Dihedral brace.
(xxvii) These were then all glued together. Note that AB Epoxy was used here at the
connection joint between the spars and the forwards and rear sections of the
two ribs for strength.
(xxviii)At this point, all the Spars, Ribs, and Webbing were now glued and connected
to each other. The Servo mount was made from ply and balsa. This on the
outboard of the 5th Rib, and the Mid mini Ribs was mounted on the other side.
These were both glued.
(xxix) One long side of an 8mm by 8mm bit of balsa was then glued to one long side
of a 10mm by 10mm piece of balsa for the leading edge boom of the inboard
wing.
(xxx) This boom was then glued to the front of the leading edge spar with the
8x8mm balsa being on the top side of the leading edge boom.
(xxxi) Then the top skin was glued on in between the main spar and the leading edge
spar.
(xxxii) Holes were made for the wires to pass through and before the bottom skin was
attached lead wires were put through the appropriate holes so as to not need to
get into the forward part of the wing anymore. At this point eh servos were
attached to the wing.
(xxxiii)Then the bottom skin was attached as per the top.
(xxxiv) The Aileron was constructed, using the 5mm Balsa Aileron TE boom as the
plan-form brace. This, and the ribs and webbing were all glued together at
once.
(xxxv) The Plug in the aileron was made up out of 5mm Balsa layer, of 20mm in
thickness. This was then inserted, glued and sanded down
(xxxvi) Using the TE templates, a 5mm thick balsa (to serve at the TE Boom) was
joined to the rear of the inboard wing and allowed to dry.
(xxxvii) The trailing edge boom (5mm thick balsa) was then shaped as per the
template to give the trailing edge shape, along with the Aileron boom
(xxxviii) The leading edge booms were then shaped the same way the trailing edge
booms were shaped with a template cutout.
(xxxix) 1mm capping was then glued to all surfaces between the skin and the trailing
edge boom The width of the capping was 6mm for ribs, 8mm for rear spar and
Pre aileron Spar & 10mm for the forward spar
(xl) All the wiring was finalized and the outboard wing was tested with the
inboard wing. Light sandpapering allowed for a smooth fit
(xli) The wing was skinned along with the aileron.
(xlii) The connection between the servos and the aileron plugs were made using
light wire.
(xliii) The ailerons were attached using thick clear tape to the upper surface of the
wing, and deflection angles were confirmed.
(xliv) The wing was ready for flight (when attached to the rest of the aircraft)

Wing leading edge assembly design

Outboard wing assembly

Inner wing/Fuselage fusing process

Inboard wing trailing edge

11.4 Empennage Manufacture

The steps of the empennage manufacture were;

1. The frame was assembled first, all pieces were fastened to each other using superglue
2. The frame was covered with the balsa sheets, and then skinned with the plastic
sheeting
3. The booms were fastened to the inboard wing section with epoxy
4. The connection pieces were cut out using the laser cutter, and attached to the boom
and the wing section using epoxy
5. The two wing sections were connected at the top using a balsa chock, and epoxied in
place
6. The control surfaces were cut out by hand and skinned. They were then attached to
the wing sections using clear tape to act as a hinge
7. The servos were mounted and attached

11.5 Fuselage Manufacture

The manufacture phase began like the other components, with the laser cutting of 2D
shaped components. These included the two main ply ribs and also the covering material,
flooring material and firewall materials. The design philosophy behind the fuselage was
to create a structure that had a large degree of structural redundancy built into it. Hence,
the fuselage walls were 5mm thick ply wood, with firewalls being constructed from
similar materials.

After each of the parts had been cut, they were glued and assembled. The front firewall
acts as a guiding and supporting structure for the main ribs.

The forward and aft spar brace structures were manufactured from balsa and plywood in
a sandwich type configuration. This ensured that there was maximum structural strength
and rigidity for connecting and supporting the main wing connection.

Incorporating mechanical and electrical components into the fuselage was a challenge
and there was little room for error. The electrics switch was mounted so that there was
minimal airflow disturbance using small screws, the nose-wheel steering servo was
mounted inside the fuselage structure also to reduce the disturbance to the airflow.

The mating of the fuselage component to the inner wing also proved a challenge relying
on minor alterations by sanding to allow the pieces to fit together.

12.0 Flight Test Analysis and Report

The first flight test was conducted on the later afternoon of the 15th of December. The
KingFisher was prepared for flight earlier in the day.
The first stage of flight testing was a taxi test conducted in the morning of the 15th. The
aircraft was taken to an area of paved roadway, and the throttle opening to approximately
20%, until sufficient speed was built up and then power was cut. The lateral stability of
the craft was very good, with no lifting of either of the two main landing gears even
whilst in quite a tight turn. It was discovered from this initial taxi test that there was
stability issues with the nose-wheel. There was more weight on the nose-wheel than was
originally designed for, due to a divergence of the centre of gravity further forward than
predicted by the initial software analysis. This resulted in an un-steady nose-wheel, with
bending occurring whilst in motion and during turning. This bending resulted in the
adverse twisting of the nose-wheel leading to difficulty in direction control. Although this
problem was identified in the morning, directional control was considered to be
satisfactory and no alterations were made. Also testing in the morning was a full throttle
static test. This was to ensure the structural integrity of the engine mounts and brace
structure. The aircraft performed as expected, with no alterations being required.

The flight test was conducted on the late afternoon on the 15th in an open area to the north
of Nanjing. Ambient conditions were not ideal 5-8 kts gusting 12 (approx) and low
light due to the decending sun, but due to time restrictions and also the pending poor
weather conditions for the 16th and 17th it was considered necessary and safe for flight.
The aircraft was loaded with approximately 400 grams of lead payload in the fuselage
payload bay. This was in an attempt to move the centre of gravity location rear-ward, but
still leave the aircraft in a state that it was believed that climb performance would be
sufficient.

Firstly more taxi tests were conducted, to ensure that sufficient ground directional control
would be achievable and also so that rotation could be achieved. The first test was marred
by the pilot facing control difficulty with the same problem identified in the morning taxi
tests. The combination of an un-steady nosewheel and also a feather-cocking yaw
reaction due to the gusty conditions resulted in a light collision with a curb on the edge of
the roadway. This slightly bent the nosewheel, which needed immediate attention. The
nosewheel was promptly straightened and two angles added in an attempt to remove the
moment turning moment created by the design. Another alteration that was made was the
bending forward of the two main landing gears, displacing the main gear forward around
5cm. This increased the rotation performance.

On the second taxi test, everything performed as expected and the craft was given the all
clear to attempt a takeoff.

Take-off performance was slightly degraded by the fact that the nosewheel was not
entirely aligned to the direction of motion resulting in additional ground friction. But
there was sufficient performance to reach rotation speed, and a positive and decisive
rotation and subsequent un-stick was achieved. Initial climb performance was poor, with
around 50 meters of ground track required to reach a height of 10 meters. The pilot was
having to adjust heading to compensate for the prevailing cross-wind. After the aircraft
had climbed above obstacles, the pilot turned into a circuit pattern. After trimming was
completed the pilot reported that the craft was quite stable and easily controllable.
Performance was sufficient for the cruise speed that allowed for controllable flight, this
being said approximately 80% power was required to achieve this performance much
higher than was anticipated by the theory. Elevator trim was an issue, most likely caused
by the adversely forward centre of gravity. Full nose-up trim was applied, and still a
small degree of nose-up control was required to be held by the pilot. The KingFisher was
flow for approximately 6 minutes in which time, the plane performed flawlessly. The
pilot then aligned the aircraft for a landing approach, and subsequently conducted a
smooth approach and touchdown with no damage identified.

It was agreed to attempt a second flight test immediately after the first test. It was
however identified that there was limited battery life remaining hence the second flight
would be much shorter than the first. The pilot once again struggled with initial climb
performance, but the craft reached cruise altitude without problems. The craft once again
displayed stable handling qualities, with a slight nose down pitching attitude needing the
be countered to ensure level flight. The aircraft was put through a series of maneuvers
including faster velocity flight and steep turns (up to 50 degrees angle of bank) and the
aircraft handed well throughout. After around 4 minutes of flight, the aircraft was bought
in to land. The pilot struggled with the landing approach due to prevailing cross winds,
and was forced to apply full power to go around on a missed approach, however, half
way through, battery power ceased and the motor was rendered useless. A gliding forced
landing into the adjacent open field was conducted and the aircraft landing in tall grass
with no damage incurred.

Flight test issues identified:

- Centre of gravity was the main concern. CG was further forward than initially
anticipated, resulting in increased loading on the nose-wheel gear causing ground
directional control instability. Another issue surrounding the forward CG was that
full elevator trim was required, resulting in additional drag, reducing cruise and
climb performance.
- Climb and takeoff performance was less than anticipated. It is though this was
caused by an over-weight aircraft structure. This resulted in higher power settings
required to maintain a certain flight configuration, causing a lower than initially
anticipated battery endurance.

In-flight image of KingFisher on landing approach

13.0 Appendix

13.1 Performance Analysis Program:

AR_w=7.11;
Wto=4.0;g=9.81;den=1.23;
S_w=0.65;S_fus=0.043*0.043;S_tl=0.0672;S_bld=0.0094;S_lg=0.0024;S_wh=0.0036;
Cd_w=0.042;Cd_fus=0.29;Cd_tl=0.021;Cd_bld=0.7;Cd_lg=1.40;Cd_wh=0.460;

%-
Cd_w_t=1.1*(Cd_w+Cd_fus*S_fus/S_w+Cd_tl*S_tl/S_w+Cd_bld*S_bld/S_w+Cd_lg*S
_lg/S_w+Cd_wh*S_wh/S_w) ;
V=5:0.01:20;
Cl=2*Wto*g./(den*V.^2*S_w);
Cd_t=Cd_w_t+Cl.^2/(pi*AR_w);
figure(1)
plot(Cd_t,Cl);
xlabel('Cd(without unit');
ylabel('Cl(without unit)');
title('Polar drag for the whole plane');
Kmax=max(Cl./Cd_t);
fprintf('The maximun Cl/Cd: %.3f \n',Kmax);

K=Cl./Cd_t;
Tpx=Wto*g./K;
f=polyfit(V,Tpx,2);
t1=polyval(f,V);
figure(2)
plot(V,Tpx);
xlabel('V(m/s)');
ylabel('T_r(N) T_a(N)');
title('Required and avail thrust for level flying');
hold on;
v=[ 5.0000 5.5172 6.0345 6.5517 7.0690 7.5862 8.1034 8.6207 9.1379
9.6552 10.1724 10.6897 11.2069 11.7241 12.2414 12.7586 13.2759 13.7931
14.3103 14.8276 15.3448 15.8621 16.3793 16.8966 17.4138 17.9310 18.4483
18.9655 19.4828 20.0000];
Tky=[26.9490 24.4887 22.4363 20.6838 19.1761 17.8532 16.6892 15.6557
14.7219 13.8800 13.1161 12.4113 11.7575 11.1615 10.6031 10.0774 9.5869
9.1274 8.6901 8.2779 7.8830 7.5088 7.1534 6.8101 6.4825 6.1646
5.8600 5.5632 5.2779 5.0031];
plot(v,Tky,'r-*');
g=polyfit(v,Tky,2);
t2=polyval(g,v);
V=5:0.01:20;
t1=polyval(f,V);
t2=polyval(g,V);
dpmax=max(t1-t2);
fprintf('The maximum surplus thrust: %.3f \n',dpmax);
fprintf('',V);

Ppx=Tpx.*V;
f=polyfit(V,Ppx,2);
t=polyval(f,V);
figure(3)
plot(V,Ppx);
xlabel('V(m/s)');
ylabel('P_r(w) P_a(w)');
title('Required and avail power for level flying');
hold on;
v=[ 5.0000 5.5172 6.0345 6.5517 7.0690 7.5862 8.1034 8.6207 9.1379
9.6552 10.1724 10.6897 11.2069 11.7241 12.2414 12.7586 13.2759 13.7931
14.3103 14.8276 15.3448 15.8621 16.3793 16.8966 17.4138 17.9310 18.4483
18.9655 19.4828 20.0000];
pky=[134.7452 135.1100 135.3917 135.5144 135.5554 135.4379 135.2401 134.9628
134.5277 134.0139 133.4220 132.6724 131.7647 130.8595 129.7962 128.5741
127.2740 125.8959 124.3577 122.7409 120.9627 119.1050 117.1675 115.0665
112.8844 110.5370 108.1070 105.5097 102.8280 100.0612];
plot(v,pky,'r-+');

MATLAB PROGRAMING

function [ output_args ] = Practice( input_args )

% *********************************************
% * Program to calculate aircraft wing area **
% *********************************************
%
% The wing will be made of up of three seperate shapes, two triangles and one
% square. Wisht to vary the sweep factor in the triangle on the leading
% edge to give required Area

% totalA = area of wing

% A1 = Area of Leading edge triangle
% A2 = Area of Main rectanglular area
% A3 = Area of trailing egde triangle
% l = length of the wing
% phi1 = angle of front sweep
% phi2 = angle of rear sweep
% c3 = chord length of A3
% c2 = chord length of A2
% c1 = chord length of A1
% c = Chord length at fuselage

phi1 = [0.2094];
phidegrees = (phi1/pi)*180
l = 1.0;
c = 0.43;
c3 = sin((0/180)*pi)
A3 = l * (c3);
c1 = l * (sin(phi1))
c2 = c - c1
A2 = l * c2;
A1 = .5 * c1 * l;
A = 2 * (A1 + A2 + A3)

%plot(phi1,A),xlabel('Front sweep oin radians'),ylabel('Wing Area (m^2)');

%***************************************************
%* % Paz CL formula variable volcites and weight *
%***************************************************

% Assuming Aircraft of 4kg in weight.

% V = Velocity of Aircraft (m/s)

% CL = Lift Co-efficent
% rho = desntiy of air at sea level (kg/m^3)
% S = Surface Area of Wing (m^2)
% L = Lift generated (N)

% Given the range of velcites at which and aircarft can operate and the
% weight that it needs to carry we can calculate range of CL that the
% aircraft needs to operate at.

V = [8:.2:15];
rho = 1.225;
S = A;
L = (4*9.81);

CL = 2*L./(rho*V.^2*S)

%plot(V,CL),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('CL')

%******************************************************
%* Sweep Ratio and effect on CL *
%******************************************************

% The above values are assumed as those on a unswept wing. For a swept wing
% we need to calculate the increased Cl that will be required.

% theta25 = quarter chord sweep angle.

% CLunwept = Coefficient of lift of the unswept wing
% CLswept = Coefficient of loft of the swept wing
% cr25 = quater chord at wing root
% ct25 = Quater chord at wing tip
%
%

cr25 = c * .25;
ct25 = (c2 + c3)*.25;
thetac25 = atan(((c1+ct25)-cr25)/l);
thetac25degrees = (thetac25 / pi)*180
qcangle =(thetac25/pi)*180;
CLunswept = CL;

CLswept = CLunswept./cos(thetac25);

% plot(V,CLswept),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('CL for swept wing, 17degrees')

%******************************************************
%* Taper ratio and effect on CL *
%******************************************************

% c = chord length at root (m)

% c2 = wing tip chord (from A2 rectangle)(m)
% tratio = t/c ratio of airfoil (%)
% lambda = taper ratio
% CLuntapered = the untapered CL, but swept
% CLtapered = Tapered CL swept
% k = taper factor

tratio = 1;
CLuntapered = CLswept;
lambda = (c2*tratio)./(c*tratio)

% plot(tratio,lambda),xlabel('t/c ratio'),ylabel('taper ratio')

if lambda > 0.1

k = 0.95;
elseif lambda == 1
k = 0.88;
end

CLtapered = CLuntapered./k;

% plot(V,CLtapered),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('Required CL of Tapered and Swept wing.');

%******************************************************
% Required CL for wing with error addition **
%******************************************************

% CLfinal = Final CL required from wing sections

% x = Range factor for errors

x = 1.05;
CLfinal = CLtapered*x

%plot(V,CLfinal),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('Required CL of Tapered and Swept wing.');

%****************************************************************
%Calculating Drag on Chosen Wing Section (NACA 87018) Re 700000**
%****************************************************************

% Cd0 = Drag coeffeicent @ aplha 0

% AR = Aspect Ratio
% D = Drag (N)
% e = efficiency of wingsection
% CL0 = CL of wing at this alpha
% mu = Viscosity
% Sf = Frontal Are of Wing.
mu = 0.00001789;
Re = (rho*V*((c+(c2 + c3 ))/2))/ mu
CL0 = 0.6;
AR = ((2*l)+.07)^2 / A
e = 0.8;

%if Re <= 200000

% Cd0 = 0.01402
%elseif Re <= 400000
% Cd0 = 0.01402
%elseif Re <= 600000
% Cd0 = 0.01144
%elseif Re <= 800000
% Cd0 = 0.00953
%end

Sf = 0.1105;

Cd0 = .03204;
D = 1.93*(rho*V.^2*Sf*(Cd0));

plot(V,D),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('Drag(N)')

%****************************************************************
%CG Calculation for wing assuming constant desnity **
%****************************************************************

% MAC = mean area chord

% lambda = taper ratio
% c = root chord
% c2 = tip chord
% MAC25 = Mean area chord, quarter chord
% MAC25o = mean area chord, quarter chord measured from origin.
% MAC1 = mean area chord in A1
% MACt = Mean area chord, distance from tip
% MACr = " " " , " " root
% CGwing = wing CG from origin for wing (aircraft)

MAC = (2/3)*c * ((1+lambda + lambda^2)/(1+lambda));

MAC25 = MAC*.25;
MAC1 = MAC - c2;
MACt = (MAC1 / (tan(phi1)));
MAC25o = (c - MAC ) + MAC25 ;
CGwing = MAC25o

%****************************************************************
%weight calculatino for wing assuming constant (emperical) **
%****************************************************************

% Sft = Wing area in ft

% ARft = Aspect ratio in feet
% Wwing = weight of wing
%
%
%
%

Sft = A*10.7639104;
ARft = (2*((l+.035)*3.28))^2/Sft;
a = Sft^0.4852;
b = ARft^0.7082;
c = (100*.12)^-0.222;
Wwinglb = 0.14676 * a * b * c;

Wwingkg = Wwinglb / 2.2046

function [ output_args ] = FrontalArea( input_args )

%FRONTALAREA Summary of this function goes here
% Detailed explanation goes here
%********************************************************************
%* Frontal Area of EPUAV with MH115 airfoil *
%********************************************************************
%
% tw = thickness ratio of airfoil (wing)
% te = Thickness ratio of emapannage
% crw = chord of wing at root
% ctw = chrod of wing at tip
% ch = chord of H/S
% cv = Chord of V/S
% lw = length of wing
% lh = length of h/s
% lv = length of v/s
% wf = width of fuselage
% A1 = fuslage frontal area
% A2 = Wing frontal area
% A3 - H/s frontal area
% A4 = v/s frontal area
% TA = total area

tw = .1107;
te = .12;
crw = 0.43;
ctw = .22;
ch = 0.16;
cv = 0.14;
lw = 1;
lh = .65;
lv = .18;
wf = 0.07;

A1 = (tw*crw)*wf
A2 = .5*((crw*tw) - (ctw*tw)*lw) + (tw*ctw)*lw;
A3 = (te*ch) * lh;
A4 = (te*cv)*lv;
TA = (2*A2) A3 +(2*A4) + A1

% ******************************************************************
%* Total Drag for whole airfcraft
% ******************************************************************
% DAE31mu Airfoil, Configuration 3, AoI of 4 degrees
% cdi = induced drag from VLM
% D = drag
% rho = density
% V = velocity
% cdf = Frictional Drag
% cdform = Form drag
% err1 = percentage added to induced for errors
% err2 = percentage added to form drag for errors
err1 = 1.18
err2 = 1.05
cdi = 0.005011 * err1;
cdf = 0.05239;
cdform = 0.01749;
cd = cdi + (cdf + cdform)*err2
rho = 1.225;
V = [5:1:20];

D = 2*cd* rho*(V.^2)*TA

plot(V,D),xlabel('V(m/s)'),ylabel('Drag (N)')

%****************************************************************
% Drag Vs Cl
%****************************************************************
function [ output_args ] = Overalldrag2( input_args )
%OVERALLDRAG2 Summary of this function goes here
% Detailed explanation goes here
Cdo = 0.03582
Cl = (-.5:.1:1.8)
pi = 3.14
AR = 6.5
e = .7

Cd = Cdo + e*(Cl.^2) /(pi*AR)

plot(Cl,Cd),xlabel('Cl'),ylabel('Total Aircraft Cd');

%*************************************************************
% Reynolds Number Cacluations
%*************************************************************

function [ output_args ] = Reynoldsnumber( input_args )

%REYNOLDSNUMBER Summary of this function goes here
% Detailed explanation goes here

V = [9:1:20]
C = .53
rho = 1.225;
mu = .00001789;
Re = rho*V*C /(mu)