Design and development of an open source

platform for unmanned vertical takeoff and

landing aircraft research
Jasper A. Covey
April 23th, 2017
Abstract:
Vertical takeoff and landing vehicles are unique in their flight capabilities and allow for a
productive hybrid of the best aspects of rotorcraft (helicopters) and fixed wing craft (airplanes).
Vertical takeoff and landing vehicles are significantly more complex than traditional aircraft
such as planes and helicopters, and so they require more research to become viable for
widespread use. This work details the design and development of a simplified viable test
platform for the research of autonomous Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft. First, the uses of
unmanned aerial vehicles were introduced. Then the general applications for an unmanned
vertical takeoff and landing craft were discussed. Relevant design premises that guided the
development of the craft were introduced such as thrust to weight ratio and lift. Then the design
of the craft was stated and its incorporation of the design premises. The wings and fuselage were
made of hobby foam board and the more intricate parts, such as the control horns and engine
mounts were 3D printed. The basic electronics included a pair of electronic speed controllers, a
pair of small control servo motors, a pair of electric motors, and a radio receiver. Finally, the
success of the craft in preliminary tests was shown, suggesting it is a maneuverable and stable
craft in flight, and then a proposed system for a future autopilot to capitalize on the unique flight
characteristics to vertical takeoff and landing craft was discussed.

Introduction:

In recent years, due to the decreased cost of powerful and user friendly mechanical and
electrical components, civil roboticsthat is the application of robotic crafts and vehicles to civil
taskshas emerged from the fields of electrical and mechanical engineering. The current
problems solved by civil robots are machine-unique capabilities. In everyday tasks, humans are
generally stronger and much more precise than unmanned vehicles, so most research is currently
concerned with creating products and research vehicles that allow data collection from areas
normally not accessible to humans. Examples of these machine-unique capabilities range from
toxic area surveying to search and rescue missions or aerial photography. Flight is particularly
useful as it is something humans cannot achieve unaided. This is especially prevalent inside
constricted areas where manned helicopters or airplanes cannot fit such as indoors or streets.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), such as quadcopters or model airplanes, can create flight
data with the same quality as manned craft but at a fraction of the cost. UAVs have the potential
to produce more accurate data since a smaller craft can get closer to the object of study than
manned crafts. An agricultural surveyor UAV would currently cost around fifteen hundred
dollars at most, whereas manned helicopters cost over ten thousand dollars to buy or upwards of
three hundred dollars to rent per hour (Private Helicopter Charters, 2016). Additionally, the
manned aspect of manned aircraft adds a running cost and a higher risk to human life. UAVs are
cheaper, quicker, and, sometimes, more accurate operation with less risk of human injury or
death.

2
 VTOL Airplane Helicopter

Can Hover

Does not require

large takeoff
space

Can Land using

rotors

Can Land Gliding

Is Fuel Efficient

Has a High Top

Speed

Table 1: Benefits of VTOL craft over traditional helicopters and airplanes.

VTOL craft are unique in their flight capabilities and allow for a productive hybrid of
both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in that they are able to accomplish more than either
categories separately. Their advantages are numerous when compared to fixed wing craft or
rotorcraft. They are able to take off vertically akin to helicopters and are more agile than
airplanes (Marchini, 2013). More importantly, VTOL craft can hoveran ability mostly
unavailable to full scale fixed wing craft. The major advantage of VTOL craft is a massively
reduced runway size. Because they can land with no horizontal speed, VTOL craft can land in
places not ideal for landing fixed wing craft such as rough terrain or very short or cramped
runways. In manned applications, this could dramatically decrease the size of airports and allow
for easier transit in more crowded areas (Kesling, 1968). In UAV scale applications, VTOL craft
can simply lower onto a desired area, when a fixed wing craft must calculate a safe trajectory for
its environment to land(Barber, 2007; Benavidez, 2014). VTOL craft are also faster and more
efficient than helicopters. A helicopter spends most of its fuel keeping itself in the air, which
limits its efficiency, and generally produce more drag, or air friction, than airplanes. A traditional
plane does not directly produces its lift by using its wings, which are more efficient and can go
faster, but must be constantly moving forward. As VTOL vehicles have wings, they are able to
harness the more efficient type of lift that fixed wing craft utilize while maintaining the
maneuverability of a helicopter.

3
 On top of a greater efficiency caused by wings, VTOL vehicles are faster than helicopters
because their propellers do not suffer from retreating blade stall, and VTOL vehicles produce
less drag in forward flight (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 2012). A helicopter can lose
control of its maneuvering if the retreating blade, or the blade rotating towards the tail is not
moving fast enough relative to the air. This slowly moving blade causes the helicopter to roll and
pitch backward harshly due to gyroscopic effects from the spinning blades (U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, 2012). VTOL aircraft do not suffer from this cap on forward velocity,
because their propeller blades move at the same speed relative to the surrounding air.. The
advantages of VTOL vehicles are numerous and significant, attracting large amounts of funding
in aviation research since the middle of the 20th century (Marchini, 2013).
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. military has been funding VTOL research,
culminating in the creation of the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor VTOL craft. Although the
Osprey is an incredible feat, it suffers due to its complexity and price. The total unit cost is 90
million dollars (CV-22 Osprey, 2016). The Osprey requires two engines with large propellers, a
complex tilt rotor mechanism, and a considerably skilled pilot and crew. The Osprey has proven
the VTOL concept but has not utilized the VTOL technology to its full potential as it still has
around the same maximum range (takeoff to forced landing distance) of a conventional
helicopter such as the HH-60G Pave Hawk (HH-60G Pave Hawk, 2004). To counteract these
problems, there has been extensive work put into making Bells next VTOL tilt-rotor aircraft
(The Bell V-280 Valor) better performing and cheaper, but further research is needed in order to
make VTOL vehicles more common (Seligman, 2016).
For tasks such as crop scanning or even photography, a simplified UAV VTOL design
with a less complex rotor system would be preferable to an Osprey or Valor. By removing the
crew, the craft becomes cheaper to run and more designs are possible. UAV VTOL craft can
simply pitch upwards to hover, which would be uncomfortable for a crewed craft. Additionally,
brushless electric motors and electronic speed controllers (ESCs) do not require a complex
mechanical system to change speeds. Instead, they can simply speed up and slow down the
propellers as needed by changing the frequency of their powering (Hoverfly, n.d.). Electric
motors are effective, simple, reliable, inexpensive, and replaceable. A small, autonomous VTOL
vehicle would be useful for civil robotics.
Prior exploration of UAV VTOL craft has been done by Marchini and How. Marchini
(2013) proposed a VTOL craft system, but it was not fully autonomous and must be controlled
by a remote operator. How et al. (2007) used an infrared tracking system and off-board
computation for control, which, while very accurate, limited the vehicle to indoor use.
Additionally, both studies used traditional model aircraft, and not a craft specifically designed
for the purpose of VTOL. As a result, these aircraft lacked the capabilities the proposed craft will
have, such as outdoor autonomous waypoint navigation and, tentatively, image landing zone
recognition.

4
 The proposed craft will be able to navigate without motion tracking or manual input, and
will serve as a simple, replicable, and reliable testing platform for further efficacy tests of VTOL
craft in civil robotics applications and as a model for manned craft.

Design Premises:
One must understand the aerodynamic principles that will govern flight and maneuvering
before designing any aerial craft. Hence, a discussion of the relevant processes is vital to the total
understanding. The first pertinent design premise to the proposed craft was the relationship
between the thrust and weight of a plane, demonstrate in Figure 1, where the arrows show the
forces of gravity in green and the thrust of the motors in red.

Figure 1: Thrust to weight ratio demonstration, if the red force arrow (thrust generated by
propellers) exceeds that of the green force of gravity, the plane will lift off.

By spinning the propellers, a craft generates a thrust in the direction of its propeller
blades due to their shape. In order to make a craft ascend vertically, the thrust generated by the
spinning propeller(s) had to be greater than the weight of the craft itself, otherwise the craft will
not leave the ground (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 2012). This is true of both a
traditional helicopter and VTOL craft in vertical flight. This is not, however, necessary for a
plane, where lift is not generated by the motors, but by the wings. The rotation of the propellers
led to the second premise, which was counter rotation, which is an undesirable effect of propellor
rotation shown in Figure 2.

5
 Figure 2: Demonstration of counter rotation, as the propellor blade spins, the plane starts
rotating the opposite way.

The rotation of any object causes a rotation on the rotator, simply due to Newton's 3rd
law of motion. The undesired rotation of any aerial craft against its propeller is referred to here
as counter rotation (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 2012).
The third premise was aerodynamic lift, a force caused by the displacement of air that is
the mechanism behind how propellers create thrust and how planes glide and fly.

Figure 3: Aerodynamics on a flat surface and on an airfoil. Lift is in red, weight in green, and
drag is orange. Note that the airfoil is heavier, but also produces more lift and less drag, whereas
the flat wing produces a large amount of drag comparatively.

Lift is caused when a surface or object displaces air disproportionately on its sides,
generating a high-pressure zone and a low-pressure zone around the surface, and the high
pressure side pushes the surface or object in an attempt to equalize the pressure (U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, 2012). All the control a plane has over its orientation comes from
increasing or decreasing the lift or drag asymmetrically, so as to produce a rotation (U.S. Federal

6
Aviation Administration, 2012). If the surface does not displace enough air to lift the craft, the
surface has stalled and has lost all control as control is dependent on creating different
amounts of lift on either side of a the craft (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 2012). The
speed a surface loses control in a stall is called the stall speed. These premises guided the design
and subsequent construction of the proposed craft in various ways.

Design Process and Methodology:

The initial requirements of the proposed design were that the craft could lift a two pound
payload (to roughly be able to accommodate on board computing or image processing), be
entirely modular (so that damage to one part of the craft will not require an entire re-make), and
be composed of inexpensive materials. To minimize the price of the craft, readily available
hobby supplies were used for the fuselage and wings of the craft. Where possible, common foam
board was used due to its low weight, low price, and relatively high durability. In places where a
more rigid structure was required, simple ABS 3-D printed plastic parts were used.
Each of the design premises were incorporated into the design of the craft. The problem
of counter rotation was solved in the final design by the use of two counter-rotating propellers on
either side of the craft to ensure no undesired rotation. The twin motor setup additionally allowed
for easier and cheaper achievement of a thrust to weight ratio of 1.25. Lastly, the wings were
added to create lift and were specifically calculated to achieve a reasonably low stall speed. To
make the craft as easy to take off as possible, the craft rested on its horizontal stabilizers that
extend off the back of the craft, allowing for simple vertical takeoff of the craft. (See Fig. 4)

7
Figure 4: Picture of the Mark 1 or the very first iteration of the proposed craft. Notice the lack of
central wing space and sharply receding wing sections, as well as a wing made up of three
separate sections

To begin the building process, the Mark 1 craft was created. Depicted in Figure 4, it
lacked a few important details and, upon construction, had major structural weaknesses (as the
wing was three separate panels) and had an unacceptably high calculated stall speed of just over
70 mph. This caused an immediate re-design of the craft, and the Mark 2 was designed to
remedy the above problems. However, the control surfaces of the Mark 2 require a re-design and
will be updated. As this is a continuous process, the Mark 2, which is the most recent version to
date, will be discussed in detail.

Figure 5: Image of the Mark 2 with motors and servos mounted.

The Mark 2s wings are flat sheets in order to remove any induced lift on the stationary
craft in vertical flight and to ease construction. The servo motors, the motors that rotate to a
specific angle dependent on the electrical square wave sent to them by the transmitter or
autopilot, that are on the craft that actuate the control surfaces are simple hobby 9g metal gear
servos mounted in cutout slots in the wings. It was important for the design that both servos
moved independently since the control surfaces act as elevons, a type of control surface that
controls both rotation of the x and local z axis, not just ailerons, which can only control the

8
crafts rotation over the local z axis. Additionally, on the Mark 2, wing spars are placed through
the horizontal stabilizers and attached to the wing surface in order to make the craft as rigid as
possible.
The Mark 2s electronic setup goes as follows: two ZTW Spider Series 60A OPTO
Multirotor Electronic speed controllers, two HK15178I High Speed Digital Metal Gear Servos,
two Turnigy D2826-6 2200kv Outrunner Brushless Electric Motors, one Turnigy 9X 9Ch
Transmitter with an 8 channel Turnigy Receiver, and one set of Black Hobbyking 8 inch
propellers (CW/CCW). All parts were purchased from Hobbyking with the exception of the
engine mounts, which were 3d printed, and the foamboard, which were purchased from a local
hobby store. Each part was selected in order to ensure the thrust to weight ratio of the total
weight of the plane and its payload was at least 1.25 and to ensure the later autopilot will have
reliable control over the craft.

Data Collection and Testing:

Although this project is still in progress, preliminary tests and calculations were done in
order to ensure its ultimate success. The aforementioned calculation of stall speed via the wing
loading and wing area was a part of this data, and simple, qualitative hop tests were conducted
to confirm the lifting power of the motors. In addition to this, a manual flight test of the craft in
horizontal flight was conducted that demonstrated the capabilities of the craft in simple
horizontal flight. Quantitative data collection has not been done, as any data would come from
the future autopilot system.

Discussion:
The development process so far has been promising as the current product has passed all
preliminary tests as being a reliable and stable VTOL platform. The move to the Mark Two
greatly increased durability, substantially reduced stall speed, and added an empty place for
electronics beneath the engine mounts, while also keeping the benefits of the delta wing and the
dual propellers. The flight test demonstrated that the Mark 2 was quite maneuverable in
horizontal flight and the hop tests showed that the craft is able to at least take off near ground.
One projected problem of the Mark 2 is that the control surfaces are too small and thus may need
adjustment as in vertical flight more control may be required.
The future steps of this craft are to make the autonomous flight system and test the
platform fully. In order to do this, the Control and Robotics Research Laboratory at NYU
Tandon School of Engineering has provided a programmable autonomous control board that
requires programming but will allow for a seamless and easy control of the craft in horizontal
and vertical flight. The first steps are to program the craft to perform sequential waypoint
navigation (or programmed to hover at certain waypoints and fly horizontally between them).
Stabilization will be accomplished by Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) stabilization,
described in Tomc, et al. (2012). The PID stabilization will be in control of differential motor

9
thrust and the control surfaces in both horizontal and vertical flight, and perhaps, in the future, a
system of simple landing place recognition could be accomplished. After the craft is fully
programmed and tested, the platform could be used in further studies of simple VTOL craft, their
applications, and their aerodynamic properties.

Acknowledgements:
This work would not be possible without help from Professor Farshad Khorrami at NYU
Tandon School of Engineering, the space of the NYU Tandon Control and Robotics Research
Laboratory, the support and direction of Ms. Erin Schmitz at the Packer Collegiate Institute, and
the Packer Collegiate Institute Independent Science Research Program.

References:

Barber, B., Griffiths, S., Mclain, T., & Beard, R. (2007, May). Autonomous Landing of
Miniature Aerial Vehicles. Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and
Communication, 4, 5th ser., 770-784. doi:10.2514/6.2005-6949

Benavidez, P., Lambert, J., Jaimes, A., & Jamshidi, M. (2014). Landing of a Quadcopter on a
Mobile Base using Fuzzy Logic. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 312, 429-437.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03674-8_41

CV-22 Osprey. (2016, January 20). Retrieved October 30, 2016, from
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104531/cv-22-osprey.a
spx

HH-60G Pave Hawk. (2004, February 4). Retrieved October 30, 2016, from
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104508/hh-60g-pave-h
awk.aspx

Hoverfly. (n.d.). ESC - Electronic Speed Controller. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from
https://hoverflytech.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201992993-ESC-Electronic-Speed-Co
ntroller

How, J. P. (2007, May). Multi-Vehicle Flight Experiments: Recent Results and Future
Directions. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from
http://vertol.mit.edu/papers/nato_paper_final2.pdf

10
Kesling, P., & Hyde, J. (1968, April). The VTOL transport in the commercial air travel market.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 56(4), 675-682. doi:10.1109/proc.1968.6353

Marchini, B. D. (2013, December). Adaptive Control Techniques for Transition-to-Hover Flight

of Fixed-Wing UAVs. doi:10.15368/theses.2013.191

Private Helicopter Charters. (n.d.). Retrieved November 02, 2016, from

http://www.aircharterserviceusa.com/private-charter/helicopter

Romero, L. E., Pozo, D. F., & Rosales, J. A. (2014). Quadcopter stabilization by using PID
controllers. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from
http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/21401/1/IEE_17_Romero et al.pdf

Seligman, L. (2016, July 12). Bell Unveils Next-Gen V-280 Tiltrotor. Retrieved October 30,
2016, from http://aviationweek.com/shownews/bell-unveils-next-gen-v-280-tiltrotor

Tomc, T., Schmid, K., Lutz, P., Dmel, A., Kassecker, M., Mair, E., . . . Burschka, D. (2012,
September). Towards a fully autonomous UAV. IEEE Robotics and Automation
Magazine. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from
https://cse.sc.edu/~jokane/teaching/374/uav.pdf

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. (2012). Helicopter Flying Handbook [PDF] Retreived
November 16th, from
.https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying
_handbook/media/hfh_ch02.pdf

11