REPORT-4

Group 14

March 31, 2018

Contents
1 FIRST WEIGHT ESTIMATION 3
1.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 MISSION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 DATA COLLECTION ON SIMILAR TYPE OF AIRCRAFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 WEIGHT ESTIMATION PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 MISSION PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO AND WING LOADING 8

2.1 INRTODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 WING LOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Wing Loading For Stall Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Wing Loading for Cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3 W/S Estimation For Loiter Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.4 Wing Loading for Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio For Take-Off Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2 Estimation of Thrust to Weight Ratio In Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 AIRFOIL SELECTION AND WING DESIGN 17

3.1 SECOND WEIGHT ESTIMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.1 Mission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.2 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 AIRFOIL SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.1 Historical data on UAV’s and importance of Reynold Number in design of
Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.2 Choosing airfoils for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.3 Airfoil parameters to be considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3.4 XFLR5 analysis of airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.5 Airfoil Chosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Wing Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1
 3.4.2 Sweep, Twist, Dihedral and Taper Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.3 Historical Data and Chord Length estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.4 Importance of Aspect Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4.5 Formulae for Geometric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4.6 Analysis of Wing Using XFLR5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4 FUSELAGE AND TAIL SIZING 37

4.1 INITIAL SIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.2 Fuselage Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 HORIZONTAL TAIL DATA COLLECTION AND AIRFOIL SELECTION . . . . . 39
4.2.1 Horizontal tail volume coefficient: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.2 Airfoil selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 VERTICAL TAIL DATA COLLECTION AND AIRFOIL SELECTION . . . . . . . 43
4.4.1 Historical Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4.2 Airfoil Selection for Vertical Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.5 VERTICAL TAIL SIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5.1 Introduction to directional stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5.2 Vertical tail volume ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5.3 Vertical tail moment arm, `v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A
4.5.4 Vertical tail area, Sv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.5 Vertical tail aspect ratio, v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.6 Effect of propeller on vertical tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.7 Sizing based on above considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2
1 FIRST WEIGHT ESTIMATION

Contributions

Roll No: Name Work

AE17M034 Ajay Singh Rana Data collection and analysis
AE17M031 Akash B Data collection and Introduction writing
AE17M005 Prabhjeet Singh Data Collection and analysis
AE17M030 R Alok Menon Weight estimation and report writing
AE17M025 Sonia Malik Data collection and analysis
AE17M027 Upasana R Weight estimation and literature review

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The aircraft design process is first and foremost an engineering design process i.e. a methodical
series of steps that engineers use in creating functional products and processes. In the particular
case of an aircraft design process, the product of interest is an aircraft or an air vehicle. The engi-
neering design process is highly iterative -parts of the process often need to be repeated many times
before another can be entered. The aircraft design process is no exception. It depends on many
factors such as customer and manufacturer demand, safety protocols, physical and environmental
factors etc. The task of aircraft design in the practical sense is to supply the geometric descrip-
tion of a new flight vehicle. This involves describing the aircraft by a three dimensional drawing,
fuselage cross section, a list of aircraft parameters etc. The task of aircraft design in an abstract
sense is to determine the design parameters so as to ensure that the requirements and constraints
are met and furthermore that the design objectives are optimally met.

The design process of an aircraft involves the following four phases:

1. Technical Specifications Phase: Customers requirements are translated into technical
language so that design objectives can be identified. This sets the design process in motion.
2. Conceptual Design Phase: This is the stage in which the basic questions regarding the
aircraft are resolved and the possibility of building an aircraft that satisfies all the constraints
is determined. After each iteration, major changes occur in the design during this phase until
the basic parameters are more or less fixed.
3. Preliminary Design Phase: In this phase the configuration is fixed except for minor
changes. Subsystem design is carried out. Prototype tests are performed in preparation for
full scale development.
4. Detailed Design Phase: Design for production of each individual component is carried
out. Each subsystem and the aircraft as a whole are tested.

3
1.2 MISSION STATEMENT

The mission is to design a drone to collect aquatic data from multiple locations inside a water
body.
To achieve this, our aim is angled towards making the drone capable of travelling on and below
the surface of water. It should be capable of hovering and of taking off and landing vertically on
both land and water to ensure accessibility to unapproachable locations. Being able to land on
water requires for the drone to be light weight. The drone has to have a long range and good
endurance to reach remote locations. This will be taken care of by creating a VTOL fixed wing
hybrid, using tilt rotor technology, which utilizes the VTOL capability of the rotary wing aircraft
along with the increased endurance of the fixed wing.
Due to possibility of being deployed at locations with sensitive wildlife, the acoustic signature of
the drone should be minimum. To realize this, we have planned to use shrouded propellers, which
help in reducing the sound.
The design will be energy efficient, since a portion of the lift is shared by the fixed wings.
Economic efficiency comes from the fact that the same propellers are used for pushing the craft
both in air and in the water.

1.3 DATA COLLECTION ON SIMILAR TYPE OF AIRCRAFT

For the purpose of getting an initial weight estimate of the aircraft, historical data of a few
similar aircraft were used. The data used is for the same class of aircraft we are planning to design.
This will enable us to get a feel of the range of weights for similar kinds of aircraft. The take off
and landing weight of the aircraft will remain the same, since there is no fuel loss or deployment
of payload. Fuel weight here is taken as the weight of the battery used.

Sl No: Aircraft Total Weight (gm) Payload Weight (gm) Structural + Fuel Weight (gm)
1. LP500 1300 400 900
2. Guardian 1300 400 900
3. Indago 1800 200 1600
4. Solo 1800 400 1400
5. Typhoon H 1950 300 1650
6. Zala Aero 2500 300 2200
7. Irkut 3 3000 500 2500
8. MASS mini 3500 500 3000
9. AR4 5000 1000 4000
10. KarpetAir 6500 1000 5500

Table 1.1: Historical Data[6]

4
1.4 WEIGHT ESTIMATION PROCEDURE

To get a trendline (using power law) of the plot between the total weight and the ratio of sum
of structural weight and fuel weight, obtained from the historical data collected for similar aircraft,
the following graph was constructed:

Figure 1.1: W0 v/s Ws Graph

From graph, the initial weight is estimated to be:

W0 = 2500 gm

Structural plus powerplant weight:

Ws = 2009 gm (f rom graph)

Assumed payload is
Wp = 500 gm

The total weight is given by:

W 0 = Wp + Ws
This can be written as:
Wp
W0 = Ws
......[1] (1)
1− W0

But, from the graph plotted, Ws /W0 is given by:

Ws = 0.407 × W01.087

5
This can be written as:
Ws /W0 = 0.407 × W00.087
Thus, substituting in (1):
500
W0 =
1 − 0.407W00.087
Or,
Wp
W0new =
1 − 0.407W00.087

This equation is iterated, using the aforementioned W0 value, and the following convergence plot
is obtained:

Sl No: W0 (gm) W0new (gm)

1. 2500 2550.04
2. 2550.04 2568.21
3. 2568.21 2574.79
4. 2574.79 2577.17
5. 2577.17 2578.03
6. 2578.03 2578.50
7. 2578.50 2578.50
8. 2578.50 2578.50

Table 1.2: Error Convergence

Figure 1.2: Convergence Plot

Thus, from the above iterations, we obtain the value of W0 as:

W0 = 2578.50 gm ≈ 2580 gm

The payload weight is:

Wp = 500 gm

6
The structural weight (which includes the battery weight) is:

Ws = 2080 gm

1.5 MISSION PROFILE

Figure 1.3: Mission Profile

1.6 CONCLUSION

From the above preliminary estimation techniques, and from the historical data of similar
aircraft, the following specifications have been decided upon tentatively:

Specification Chosen Value Comments

Wing Type High Wing Better lateral stability and clearance
Cruise Altitude 100 ft from ground level Above tree line
Payload 500 gm -
Max Velocity Not decided
Endurance 20- 30 mins Access to remote locations
Cruise Velocity 10 m/s -
Total Weight 2580 gm -
Remote Control Range Not decided -

Table 1.3: Tentative Specifications

7
2 THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO AND WING LOADING

Contributions

Roll No: Name Work

AE17M034 Ajay Singh Rana W/S estimation for landing
AE17M031 Akash B W/S estimation for cruise
AE17M005 Prabhjeet Singh W/S estimation for stall condition
AE17M030 R Alok Menon W/S estimation for loiter
AE17M025 Sonia Malik T/W estimation for takeoff
AE17M027 Upasana R T/W estimation for climb

2.1 INRTODUCTION

The thrust to weight ratio (T/W) and the wing loading (W/S) are the two most important
parameters affecting the aircraft performance. Optimization of these parameters forms a major
part of the analytical design activities conducted after an initial design layout.

2.2 WING LOADING

Wing loading is defined as the ratio of the weight loaded on the aircraft to the area of the wing.
It is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Larger wings (i.e.
lower wing loading) generate more lift. An aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take
off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off and land with a greater load). It will also
be able to turn faster. Higher the speed of the aircraft, more is the lift generated per unit area of
the wing. Thus, a smaller wing loading is preferred. The major constraints on W/S will be due to
VST ALL and landing. Thus, a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight for a higher
wing loading. So, the landing and take-off speeds will also be higher. Maneuverability which is not
essential for a subsonic UAV is also reduced in this case.

2.2.1 Wing Loading For Stall Condition

The stall speed of an aircraft is directly determined by the wing loading and maximum lift
coefficient. We can calculate the wing loading for stall considering lift equals to weight (L=W).
Thus we get,

2
W = L = (ρVST ALL SCLmax )/2

2
W/S = (ρVST ALL CLmax )/2

8
Now for a finite wing aircraft with fairly high aspect ratio (over about 5), we have,

CLmax = 0.9 × Clmax

Taking Clmax = 1.5 ,for the airfoil,

CLmax = 0.9 × 1.5 = 1.35

Taking the design VST ALL for our UAV = 7m/s, and ρ = 1.225kg/m3 We get,

(W/S)ST ALL = 0.5 × 1.225 × 72 × 1.35 = 40.516875N/m2

(W/S)ST ALL = 40.516875/9.81 = 4.13Kg/m2

2.2.2 Wing Loading for Cruise

To maximize range during cruise, the wing loading should be selected to provide a high LID at
the cruise conditions.
A propeller aircraft, which loses thrust efficiency as speed goes up, gets the maximum range when
flying at the speed for best LID, while a jet aircraft maximizes range at a somewhat higher speed
where the LID is slightly reduced. The speed for best LID can be shown to result in parasite
drag equaling the induced drag. Therefore, to maximize range a propeller aircraft should fly such
that:
C 2
qSCD0 = qS L
πAe

During cruise, the lift equals the weight, so the lift coefficient equals the wing loading divided by
the dynamic pressure.Thus,the wing loading for maximum range for a propeller aircraft is given
by:
W q
= q πAeSCD0
S

Zero lift drag coefficient CD0 = 0.02 for a clean propeller aircraft
Ostwald efficiency factor e = 0.9
Aspect ratio A = 5
m
Cruise velocity = 10 s
kg
Air density ρ = 1.225 m 3

This gives
W kg
 
= 3.3197
S cruise m2

9
2.2.3 W/S Estimation For Loiter Condition

A is taken as
A=5
Assumed area ratio

For a straight winged aircraft, the Oswald’s efficiency factor e is given by:

e = 1.78(1 − 0.045 A 0.68

) − 0.64

Therefore,
e = 1.78(1 − 0.045 × 50.68 ) − 0.64 = 0.9
The value of CD0 is taken as 0.02, which is a typical value of clean propeller aircrafts.
Furthermore, we are assuming our aircraft to fly at not more than 100 feet above sea level at a
velocity of 10 m/s. Hence, the value of density o air is taken as 1.225 Kg/m3 .
Thus, the value of q becomes:
q = 0.5 × ρv 2
q = 0.5 × 1.225 × 102 = 61.25N/m2
For a propeller powered aircraft, the value of W/S at loiter is given by:

(W/S)loiter = q 3π
p
AeC D0

Substituting the aforementioned values,

√
(W/S)loiter = 61.25 × 3 × π × 5 × 0.9 × 0.02

Therefore,
(W/S)loiter = 56.41 N/m2 = 5.75 kg/m2

2.2.4 Wing Loading for Landing

During the final approach phase, the airplane performs a steady descent. The flight velocity
in this phase is called approach speed and denoted by Va . During the flare,the pilot makes the
flight path almost horizontal. in the float phase the pilot gently touches the main wheels to the
ground. This is done gradually so that the vertical velocity of the airplane is not more than about
4m/s.The flight speed at the point of touch down is denoted by VT . It is about 90% of Va . After
the touch down, the airplane rolls for a period of about 3 seconds during which the nose wheel is
gently lowered to touch the ground.Brakes are not applied in this phase as their application would
produce a large decelerating force which would cause a large nose down moment and the nose wheel
may hit the ground with a bang. After the three wheels have touched the ground, the brakes are
applied as well as other devices like reverse thrust or reversed pitch of propeller are deployed. The
ground run is said to be over when the airplane comes to halt or attains a low speed when it can
turn off the runway and go to the parking place.
An approximation for the landing distance is provided by Raymer as follows:
W 1
  
Slanding = 80 + Sa
S σCLmax

10
 Royal Aeronautical Society Data sheets (presently called Engineering Science Data Unit or ESDU)
have given a simple method which amounts to assuming a constant deceleration and calculating
the distance to decelerate from VA and to come to a halt.
Va2
Slanding =
2a
where, a = -1.22 m/s2 for simple braking system
= -1.52 m/s2 for average braking system.
= - 1.83 m/s2 for modern braking system and
= - 2.13 to 3 m/s2 for airplane with modern braking system and reverse thrust or reverse pitch
propellers.
Va = 1.3 × Vstall
Here we choose simple braking system. Also we have Vstall = 7 m/s. Thus we get

Slanding = 33.93 m

Approach distance Sa can be calculated as follows:

Vf2
R=
g (n − 1)

where R is the radius of turn.

Assume load factor, n = 1.2
acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81 sm2
Thus we get
R = 37.78 m

The flare height is given as

hf = R (1 − cos (θa ))
where θa is the approach angle.
Assuming θa = 3 deg
hf = 0.5177m

Now approach distance

hobstacle − hf
Sa =
tan θa

This gives
Sa = 18.09m

We have density ratio σ = 1 (assumed) and Clmax = 1.35

11
Now substituting Sa and Slanding in the above equation we get

W
 
= 4.046
S landing

The least wing loading is chosen from the above value as the design wing loading. Thus
W kg
 
= 3.3197
S m2

12
2.3 THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO

T/W directly affects the performance of the aircraft. An aircraft with a higher with a higher
T/W will accelerate more quickly , reach a higher maximum speed, climb more rapidly and sustain
higher turn rates. T/W is not constant. The weight of aircraft varies during flight as fuel is burned.
Here referred to T/W during sea level static, standard -day conditions at design takeoff weight ,
maximum throttle setting and combat conditions.

2.3.1 Thrust to Weight Ratio For Take-Off Condition

1. Considered Takeoff Distance :

Sto = Sg + Sa = 50m

Sg = Ground Roll Distance Sa = Airborne Distance

2. Considered Flap deflection 20degree:

W = L = 1/2 × V 2 stall × CLmax × S

C LMAX = 0.9 *Clmax Clmax =1.5 + 0.5 = 2.0 C LMAX = 0.9* 2.0 = 1.8
Wing loading for landing out of all phases is taken .
W/S = 4.045, density = 1.15kg/m3
Vstall = 1.976
3. The turn radius R is given :

R = ((6.96 ×v stall2 ))/g

R = 2.772
4. Including flight path angle :
We assume hobstacle = 1m as chosen for landing.
obstacle = ArcCos ( 1- hob /R ) =50.256 degree
Sa = R*sin( obstacle) = 2.1314
Now Sg = Sto - Sa = 50 - 2.1314
Sg = 47.868

Sg = (1.21 × W/S)/(g × × CLmax × (T /W ))

T/W) = 0.00503

13
2.3.2 Estimation of Thrust to Weight Ratio In Climb

The thrust to weight ratio required by the UAV in climb is calculated using the minimum wing
loading estimated from other flight phases.

Figure 2.1: Forces acting on an aircraft in climb

Figure 2.1 shows the forces acting on an aircraft in climb. The force equilibrium equations are:

L = W cosγ

and,
T = D + W sinγ
From the latter equation, we can write,
T −D
sinγ =
W
The climb gradient G is defined as the ratio between vertical and horizontal distance traveled. This
can be represented as ratio of vertical velocity (rate of climb) to the relative velocity. From the
figure,
ν
G= = tanγ
V
But for small angles of climb γ,
tanγ ≈ sinγ
From the two aforementioned equations,
T −D
G=
W

14
Hence, the thrust to weight ratio can be written as,
T D
=G+
W W
In the above equation, the drag term can be written as:
 
D = qSCD = qS CD0 + kCL2

Writing CL in terms of W and dividing the whole equation by W , we get:

A
D qCD0 (W/S)
= +
W (W/S) πe q

Hence we can write the expression for Thrust to Weight ratio for climb as:

A
T qCD0 (W/S)
=G+ +
W (W/S) πe q

The estimated values used for calculation are:

A = 5 (f rom U AV data)
e = 0.9 (f or a straight rectangular wing)
G = 2.4% (climb gradient requirement)
CD0 = 0.02 (drag estimate)
W kg W
 
= 3.3197 2 (M in of all mission phases)
S m S req

Substituting the values, we get:

T (0.5 ∗ 1.225 ∗ 102 ) ∗ 0.02 (3.3197 ∗ 9.81)

= 0.024 + +
W (3.3197 ∗ 9.81) 3.14 ∗ 0.9 ∗ 5 ∗ (0.5 ∗ 1.225 ∗ 102 )

Therefore,
T
 
= 0.0992
W climb

.
The maximum T /W is chosen as the design parameter of aircraft
Thus,
T
= 0.0992
W
kg
Thus in this report we estimated the wing loading of the aircraft to be 3.3197 m2

We have also calculated the thrust to weight ratio 0.0992

15
 W/S in kg/m2


STAGE T/W
Stall - 4.13
Cruise - 3.3197
Loiter - 5.75
Landing - 4.046
Takeoff 0.00503 -
Climb .0992 -

Table 2.1: Tabulation of results

16
3 AIRFOIL SELECTION AND WING DESIGN

Contributions

Roll No: Name Work

AE17M034 Ajay Singh Rana Airfoil collection, Wing historical data collection
AE17M031 Akash B Airfoil collection, Wing analysis
AE17M005 Prabhjeet Singh Introduction, Airfoil Requirements
AE17M030 R Alok Menon Airfoil collection, Wing design, Report writing
AE17M025 Sonia Malik Airfoil data collection
AE17M027 Upasana R Airfoil collection and selection, Wing analysis, Report compiling

3.1 SECOND WEIGHT ESTIMATION

On further research and reflection, we have concluded that our payload, which would comprise of
instruments used for testing the Ph, turbidity etc of the water, would only come to a maximum of
350 gms. Hence, we are changing the payload weight to 350 gm. With this, the weight estimation
iteration was once again with the following results:

Wp = 350 gm

W0 = 2000 gm
Wp
W0 =
1 − 0.407W00.087
The initial iteration is:
350
W0 =
1 − 0.407 × 20000.087

17
 Table 3.1: Iterations

Further iterations are as follows:

The convergence plot for the above iterations are given below:

18
Thus, the flying weight W0 after the second weight estimation is concluded to be

W0 = 1530 gm

3.2 INTRODUCTION

This report focuses on the detailed design of the wing. The wing may be considered as the most
important component of an aircraft, since a fixed-wing aircraft is not able to fly without it. Since
the wing geometry and its features are influencing all other aircraft components, we begin the detail
design process by wing design. The primary function of the wing is to generate sufficient lift force
or simply lift (L). However, the wing has two other productions, namely drag force or drag (D) and
nose-down pitching moment (M). The wing design is looking to maximize the lift, the other two
(drag and pitching moment) must be minimized. In fact, a wing is considered as a lifting surface,
such that lift is produced due to the pressure difference between lower and upper surfaces.

3.2.1 Mission Requirements

Selection of an airfoil for a wing begins with the clear statement of the mission requirements. The
mission requirements concerned with the airfoil selection are tabulated in detail report 1. As we are
planning to design a RC aircraft here, it should operate at low speed and low altitude, primarily
because of the limited experience of the handler, easy to control etc. Hence the airfoil chosen for
this requirement should have a lower value of stalling speed.To achieve this requirement of low
stalling speed the airfoil with higher value of maximum lift coefficient, and also lesser value of drag
coefficient is preferred. Other requirements such as airworthiness, structural, manufacturability,
and cost requirements etc are also considered.

The following are the parameters considered mainly in the selection of airfoil:-
1. The airfoil with the highest maximum lift coefficient (Clmax ).
2. The airfoil with the maximum cruise lift coefficient (Cl ).
3. The airfoil with the lowest minimum drag coefficient (Cd ).
4. The airfoil with the highest lift-to-drag ratio ((Cl /Cd )max ).
5. The airfoil with the highest lift curve slope (Cαmax ).
6. The airfoil with lowest (close to Zero; negative or positive) pitching moment coefficient (Cm ).
7. The proper stall quality in the stall region (the variation must be gentile, not sharp).
8. The airfoil must be structurally reinforceable.
9. The airfoil should not be too thin that spars cannot be placed inside.

19
3.2.2 Airfoil Selection

The airfoil section is responsible for the generation of the optimum pressure distribution on the top
and bottom surfaces of the wing such that the required lift is created with the lowest aerodynamic
cost (i.e. drag and pitching moment). This will be generated by a special wing cross section called
airfoil. Wing is a tree dimensional component, while the airfoil is two dimensional section. This
means any section of the wing cut by a plane parallel to the aircraft xz plane is called an airfoil.
It usually looks like a positive cambered section that the thicker part is in front of the airfoil. An
airfoil-shaped body moved through the air will vary the static pressure on the top surface and on
the bottom surface of the airfoil. If the mean camber line is a straight line, the airfoil is referred
as a symmetric airfoil, otherwise it is called cambered airfoil. The camber of the airfoil is usually
positive. In a positive cambered airfoil, the upper surface static pressure is higher than ambient
pressure. This is due to higher air speed at upper surface and lower air speed at lower surface of
the airfoil. As the airfoil angle of attack increases, the pressure difference between the upper and
the lower surfaces will be higher.

In the process of wing airfoil selection, we do not look at the airfoil geometry only or its pressure
distribution. Instead we examine the airfoil operational outputs that are more informative to satisfy
design requirements. These are mainly the variations of non-dimensionalized lift, drag and pitching
moment relative with the angle of attack. So the performance and the characteristics of the airfoil
should be finalized on the basis of several critical features such as:-

1. The variations of lift coefficient versus angle of attack

2. The variations of pithing moment coefficient about quarter chord versus angle of attack
3. The variations of pithing moment coefficient about aerodynamic centre versus lift coefficient
4. The variation of drag coefficient versus lift coefficient
5. The variation of lift-to-drag ratio versus angle of attack

20
3.3 AIRFOIL SELECTION

3.3.1 Historical data on UAV’s and importance of Reynold Number in design of

Airfoil

Airfoil characteristics are strongly affected by the”Reynold Number” at which they are operating
. Reynold Number,the ratio between the inertia and the viscous forces in a fluid.
Reynold Number(ρ) =
Inertiaf orce
V iscousf orce

ρvl
ρ=
µ

where ρ is Fluid Density,

v is velocity of Fluid,
l is length the Fluid has traveled down the surface,
µ is Fluid Viscosity Coefficient

Reynold Number influences whether the flow will be laminar or turbulent, and whether flow sepa-
ration will occur.if flow separation is occurs then there is lost in lift coefficient.laminar flow can be
maintain by providing a negative pressure gradient,i.e.,by having the pressure continuously drop
from the leading edge to a position close to the trailing edge.this tends to ”suck” the flow rear-
ward,promoting laminar flow.
The given table shown types of UAV’s and their design parameters.

UAV weight Range Velocity Wing Span length

Type in kg in Km in m/s in mm in mm
The AeroVironment 1.9 10 8.33 1372 915
RQ-11 Raven
DGA envision 1.5 1 400
AeroVironment Switch- 2.5 22.22
blade
Lehamnn Aviation 1.25 5 12.5 920
Drones
Lockheed Martin 3.2 1320 8640
Desert Hawk
NRL Dragon Eye Swal- 2.25 1140
low And Finder

Table 3.2: Historical data for UAVs

Viscosity of air at 275 k = 1.725x10−5 pas

Density of air (ρ) = 1.225 kg/m3

21
The table shown UAV’s Name with different chord length of airfoil and respective their Reynold
Numbers.

UAV Name chord Length Reynold Number

in mm
The AeroVi- 100 58226.81
ronment RQ-11
Raven
150 87340.22
200 116453.63
250 145567.04
300 174680.45
AeroVironment 100 155540
Switchblade
150 233310
200 3111080

Table 3.3: Chord lengths for different UAVs

3.3.2 Choosing airfoils for analysis

Based on the airfoil requirements defined in the previous section, the existing data on low speed
airfoils were studied thoroughly from [3], and airfoils matching our mission requirements were cho-
sen to be analysed.

The following table gives the airfoils chosen and the respective reasons:

22
 Table 3.4: Airfoils chosen and their characteristics

These airfoils were analysed using XFLR5 and the values of parameters like C` at (L/D)max , Cd
at (L/D)max and general ease to manufacture using available materials, was used as a basis of
choosing the final airfoil.

3.3.3 Airfoil parameters to be considered

The parameters used and a brief explanation of their importance follows:

Maximum thickness and its location : High thickness is essential as a lower thickness air-
foil is more difficult to manufacture with the available materials. Moreover, an airfoil with a higher
thickness leads to lessened weight of the wing. This is because, the larger I - Sections required for
a thicker airfoil leads to being able to make the flange and web thickness lower for resisting the
same amount of load, which in turn results in a lighter load bearing structure. As the location of
the thickest section of the airfoil moves aft, the separation of boundary layer is delayed along the
airfoil and the stall becomes more gradual

C` at α = 0 : At zero angle of attack, a high value of Cl is preferred since this ensures a high
enough lift at a lower angle of incidence, which is preferred due to design and drag considerations.

Cm at α = 0 : For the aircraft to be at equilibrium during level flight, the pitching moment about
the aircraft centre of gravity must be zero. To achieve this, another component such as the tail or
canard is used to negate the pitching moment produced due to the wing. A higher pitching moment
due to the wing will require a higher tail area to bring the pitching moment to zero. Hence, the
pitching moment generated by the wing, and thus the airfoil, should be as low as possible.

23
C`,max : It defines the maximum lift capacity of the airfoil. Also, the lift coefficient is inversely
proportional to the flight velocity, and the maximum lift coefficient usually occurs at the stall con-
dition. Hence, the velocity at stall condition gives the minimum velocity of flight. For a safe flight,
it is desired that this stall velocity be as low as possible, which necessitates a high C`, max.

αstall : This is the angle of attack at which the airfoil stalls, i.e., the lift coefficient starts to
decrease with increase in angle of attack. This is an undesirable flight condition. Hence, a higher
stall angle leads to a safer flight regime.

(L/D)max : The (L/D)max of an airfoil is an important parameter as it is a direct measure of

the aerodynamic efficiency of the airfoil. At this point, the airfoil generates the highest amount
of lift for the least amount of drag. For a propeller aircraft, it gives the condition for maximum
range.

24
3.3.4 XFLR5 analysis of airfoils

The airfoils chosen were analysed using XFLR5, and the data obtained is shown below:

Figure 3.1: Polars of airfoils analysed using xflr5

Observations from airfoil plots:

C` vs α :
• S1223 has a high C`,max and C`,0
• S1223 and SD7032 have smooth curves which indicates smooth stall characteristics.
• E61 and MA409 show jagged curves, which is less desirable.
C` vs Cd :
• MA409 and SD7032 have a lower Cd,min .
• In some airfoils, it is seen that, Cd,min extends over a range of lift coefficients. This region
in the graph is called a drag bucket. A broader drag bucket is favorable as the aircraft can
operate at minimum Cd for a larger range of operation C` .
Here, all airfoils except E61 are seen to have a broader drag bucket.
Cd vs α :
• E61 and MA409 have a sharp rise in Cd at higher angles of attack which is undesirable.
• S1223 and SD7032 have a relatively lower Cd extending over a larger range of angle of attack.

25
(C` /Cd ) vs α :
• E61 and MA409 have a sharp spike at (C` /Cd )max at higher angles of attack which is very
undesirable, despite the value of (C` /Cd )max being very high.
• SD7032 and S1223 have a smoother approach to (C` /Cd )max (SD7032 more so), which is more
favorable.
• S1223 achieves its (C` /Cd )max at a lower angle of attack which is favorable from a design
point of view as it would enable a lower wing incidence.
• SD7032 has a higher (C` /Cd )max than S1223.

Cm vs α :
• S1223 has a very high negative value of Cm,0 which would lead to the wing having a higher
destabilizing contribution to the aircraft longitudinal stability.
• SD7032 has a much lower Cm,0 value, which is more desirable.

Table 3.5: Tabulated data of important parameters

26
 Table 3.6: Pros and cons of each airfoil inferred from the above data

3.3.5 Airfoil Chosen

Two of the more important parameters of the lot considered here are C`m ax and αstall . The former
is important since the plane is being designed for the low speed regime. High C`m ax ensures that
the minimum velocity the airplane can fly at is low. This in turn ensures that the plane does not
stall easily. Having a high αstall also contributes to increasing the stall safety. Giving these factors a
greater weightage, as they are more important to our mission requirements, SD7032 was found to be
the most appealing. Furthermore, SD7032 was also found to have a good L/D, (which is important
for aerodynamic efficiency of the plane), and a camber that it is easy to manufacture.
Considering the above listed reasons, the airfoil deemed best suited for our aircraft is SD7032.

3.4 Wing Geometry

3.4.1 Introduction


A
We selected SD7032 as the airfoil for our wing. Based on CLαv dependence on , three aspect
ratios were chosen for optimum performance viz. 6,7 and 8. These three then needed to be compared
to determine the optimum choice. The chord length was selected as 20 cm based on historical data.

27
The velocity was previously fixed as 11 m/s. Minimum power under cruise condition dictates that
the parameter CL3/2 /CD must be maximum. Thus we find the angle of attack at which this
A A
A
condition is satisfied for each . However at this the wing must generate the required value
of Cl to support the weight of our aircraft. XFLR analysis was used to check if each met these
conditions.

3.4.2 Sweep, Twist, Dihedral and Taper Ratio

Sweep : The sweep of a wing is used for reducing the drag divergence, which is usually an issue in
transonic and supersonic aircrafts. Since our aircraft is designed in the low speed regime, a sweep
of the wings is not required. Furthermore, a sweep brings structural constraints and increases the
aircraft weight due to the greater number of reinforcements that will be required.

Twist : A twist is given to the wing so that the root of the wing is at a higher angle of at-
tack as compared to the tip. This ensures that if the aircraft flies at a high angle of attack, the
root stalls before the tip. This is important since the control surfaces are mostly present on the
tip of the wings and it is imperative that they do not stall. The aircraft being designed has a
very high stall angle, and thus, is designed without a twist in the wing. Furthermore, considering
the material constraints, it is inadvisable to twist the wind as the structural design would become
extremely complex and cumbersome.

Dihedral : The dihedral of the wing is the angle of the wing made with the Y-axis along the
Y-Z plane. A dihedral wing ensures higher stability to the aircraft. The aircraft being designed
does not require a very high stability as it does not carry people or any fragile equipments. Also,
dihedral wings are too structurally complicated to design with the material constraints being faced.
Thus, no dihedral is provided.

Taper Ratio : It is the ratio of tip chord length to root chord length. An aircraft is found
to have the least lift induced drag when the shape of the wing is elliptical. However, since the
fabrication of an elliptical wing is not feasible, designers usually settle for tapering the chord to-
wards the tip so that the shape becomes close to that of an elliptical wing. In our design, the
airfoil is already chosen such that the induced drag is minimal. Providing a taper also forces us
to increase the span of the wing which clashes with our aspect ratio considerations. Additionally,
complications in structural design and fabrication also arise. Hence, a rectangular wing is selected.

3.4.3 Historical Data and Chord Length estimation

For obtaining an initial estimate on the chord length, historical data of aircraft of the same weight

A
class were used. Since most aircrafts chosen were not of a rectangular wing type, the actual mean

A
aerodynamic chord length data were not available. Thus, graphs of span v/s weight and v/s
weight of the aircrafts were plotted and an estimate of the span and of an aircraft of 1.6 kg
(approximartely the estimated weight of the aircraft being designed) were obtained. Assuming the
designed aircraft to have a rectangular wing, the chord of the aircraft was estimated as:

28
 Chord = span/ A

Table 3.7: The obtained data and the estimates are given in the table below

29
The plot of span vs Weight is:

Figure 3.2: The plot of span vs Weight

The plot of Aspect ratio vs Weight is:

Figure 3.3: The plot of Aspect ratio vs Weight

30
From the above graphs, the span and A for a weight of 1.6 kg was obtained as 1.3 m and 6.17
respectively. For a rectangular wing, the chord length (C) is obtained as:

C = b/ A
C = 1.3/6.17 = 0.21m

Hence, we are choosing an initial estimate of the chord length as 0.20 m (for making it more
conservative).

3.4.4 Importance of Aspect Ratio

Despite finding the best airfoil which gives the required Cl value without compromising in drag,
the values obtained in the airfoil analysis is not the final ones to be used in the design of the
actual wing. While giving a comparative study of the different airfoils chosen, it cannot be used
for the wing due to the 3D nature of the wing causing vortices as opposed to the 2D nature of
the airfoil. The vortices caused by the wings create a downwash, which reduces the effective lift
of the wing, and adds to the drag in terms of induced drag. The effect of these vortices can be
quantized in terms of the aspect ratio of the wing. Hence, the selection of aspect ratio is important.

From Prandtl’s lifting line theory, the 3-D lift curve slope(a) is given in terms of 2-D lift lift
curve slope(a0 ) by,
a0
a=
1 + π×e× a0
A
Plot of change in Clα with increase in aspect ratio:

Figure 3.4: Clα vs Aspect Ratio

31
From the graph above, it can be seen that increase in Clα with increase in aspect ratio is incon-
sequential after the aspect ratio window from 6 - 8. Thus, analysis is being done here for aspect
ratios of 6,7 and 8. A lower aspect ratio would give a drastically lower Clα and a higher one would
not give a significantly higher Clα .

3.4.5 Formulae for Geometric Parameters

A×c
Span,
b=

Area,
S =b×c
The required CL value for each geometric configuration was obtained from the equation:

L = W = 0.5ρv 2 SCL

T hus, CL = 2W/ρv 2 S
Where, v is 11 m/s, ρ is 1.225 kg/m2 W is 1.6 kg and S is b × c.

32
3.4.6 Analysis of Wing Using XFLR5

For obtaining the wing parameters, wings of chord length 0.20 m and aspect ratios 6, 7, and 8 were
analysed using XFLR5. The wing polars are shown below:

Figure 3.5: A=6

Figure 3.6: A=6

33
 Figure 3.7: A=8

Table 3.8: xflr5 Data summarised as a table

Here, the CL values are considered at the angle where CL 1.5 /CD is maximum, to obtain the values
for a power minimum condition (The design being for a propeller aircraft).It is seen that for an

A A
aspect ratio of seven, the CL obtained from XFLR5 is slightly below the required CL value. For
an of 8, however, the CL obtained is much higher than the required value. An of 8 increases
the size of our aircraft, which in turn increases material cost. To avoid this, we have increased the
chord length slightly to 0.205 m and done the analysis again for an aspect ratio of 7. This gave a
CL value that is higher than required, while preserving the compact nature of the aircraft (span
only changes by 0.035 m). The analysis of the latest wing design is shown below:

34
Figure 3.8: A = 7 and C = 0.205 m

35
 Table 3.9: SD7032, Aspect Ratio 7 Chord Length 20.5 Polar data tabulated

3.4.7 Conclusion

An unswept, untwisted, rectangular wing with no dihedral angle is chosen, with the following geo-
metrical parameters:

Table 3.10: Finally chosen parameters for the wing

36
4 FUSELAGE AND TAIL SIZING

Contributions

Roll No: Name Work

AE17M034 Ajay Singh Rana Horizontal tail data collection, airfoil selection
AE17M031 Akash B Vertical tail data collection, airfoil selection
AE17M005 Prabhjeet Singh Fuselage sizing
AE17M030 R Alok Menon Horizontal tail sizing, Report writing
AE17M025 Sonia Malik Fuselage data collection
AE17M027 Upasana R Vertical tail sizing, Report compiling

4.1 INITIAL SIZING

4.1.1 Introduction

This report focuses on the initial sizing of our RC aircraft. Once the Take off weight (W0 ) has been
estimated, the fuselage size, horizontal tail size and the vertical tail size can be estimated.

4.1.2 Fuselage Sizing

The fuselage size can be estimated from the historical trends. The fuselage length can be estimated
by gathering historical data of similar RC aircrafts.

37
 RC Aircraft Name Take Off Weight (in Kg) Fuselage Length (m)
Irkut 3 0.9
Revolution 3D Trainer 0.43 0.965
Foamtana 0.45 0.978
Electrifly Yak 55M 1.7 1.194
Electrifly Extra 330SC 0.234 0.889
Hobbico Superstar EP 1.23 0.917
Extra 330L 0.62 0.889
Edge 540 25 45” RC EP 1.65 1.029
Carbon Z Yak 54 1.73 1.232
Hawker Hurricane 25 e 2.1 1.067
Funster V2 2.35 1.346
Nemesis Racer EP 2.1 1.2
Rascal EP-49 ARF 3 0.8
2 Rascal 72 EG ARF 2.49 1.3
4 4- Star 54 EG ARF 2.49 1.2
5 4- Star 64 EG ARF 3.1 1.4
6 T-CLIPS EP ART 2.3 1.1
ZLIN-42 GLOW/BALSA 1650MM 3.1 1.36
3 CHANNEL RC EP 25.2 1.225 0.8
RIOT 2000MM (ARF) 1.45 1.18
HOBBYKING YAK 54 1.2 0.675
4CH RC EP 35.04 2.32 0.75
XEN BD5E EPO FPV GLIDER 1.2 0.97
PRO MARK II GLIDER 1.2 0.78
MX2 BLUE 3D 1400MM EPO 1.942 1.29
MIG-15 EDF JET 1.69 1.118

Table 4.1: Historical Data

Now we plot a graph between Fuselage Length v/s Take Off Weight (W0 )

38
 Figure 4.1: Plot of Fuselage Length v/s Take Off Weight

From this plot we can calculate the length of our RC aircraft as follows:-

(a) Take off Weight (W0 ) of our aircraft = 1.6 Kg

(b) Equation of trend line from the plot predicts,
F uselageLength = 0.113 × W0 + 0.849
F uselageLength = 0.113 × 1.6 + 0.849 = 1.0298m ≈ 1.03m
The fineness ratio is defined as the ratio of length of a streamlined body (such as fuselage) to its
maximum diameter. Theoretically for a fixed internal volume, the subsonic drag is minimized by
fineness ratio of about 3 and supersonic drag is minimized by a fineness ratio of about 14. Most
aircraft fall between these values. Choosing fineness ratio of 8, the max diameter works out as
follows :-
F uselageLength
F inenessRatio = M aximumDiameter
1.03
M aximumDiameter = 8 = 0.12875m ≈ 0.13m

4.2 HORIZONTAL TAIL DATA COLLECTION AND AIRFOIL SELECTION

4.2.1 Horizontal tail volume coefficient:

The primary purpose of a tail is to counter the moments produced by the wing. Thus, it would be
expected that the tail size would be in some way related to the wing size. The force due to tail lift
is proportional to the tail area. Thus, the tail effectiveness is proportional to the tail area times the
tail moment arm. This product has units of volume, which leads to the ”tail volume coefficient”
method for initial estimation of tail size.

The tail volume coefficient is an indication of handling quality in longitudinal stability and lon-
gitudinal control. As VH increases, the aircraft tends to be more longitudinally stable, and less

39
longitudinally controllable.
The Table given shows the different Aircraft with their Horizontal tail volume coefficient ratio by
Different Authors

Aircraft Raymer Roskam Howe Torenbeek Schaufele Jenkinson Nicolai

type 1992 1985 1982 2007 1999 1975
Sailplane 0.500 0.500
GA-Single 0.700 0.667 0.650
Engine
GA-Twin 0.800 0.786 0.850
Engine
Business 0.721 0.700 0.691 0.51-0.99
Jet
Jet Trans- 1.00 1.010 1.200 0.904 0.54-1.48 0.875
port Super-
sonic
Jet Fighter 0.400 0.362 0.20-0.75 0.307
Military 1.000 0.891 0.650 0.850
Transport
Flying Boat 0.700 0.641

Table 4.2: Historical data for horizontal tail volume coefficients

4.2.2 Airfoil selection

Horizontal tailplane is a lifting surface (similar to the wing) and requires a special airfoil sec-
tion.Tailplane requires an airfoil section that is able to generate the required lift with minimum
drag and minimum pitching moment. Basically, the tailplane airfoil lift curve slopeCLαt must be as
large as possible along with a considerably wide usable angles of attack. Since the aircraft center
of gravity moves during the cruising flight, the airfoil section must be able to create sometimes a
positive (+LH ) and sometimes a negative lift (-LH ). This requirement necessitates the tailplane
to behave similar in both positive and negative angles of attack. For this reason, a symmetric
airfoil section is a suitable candidate for horizontal tail.Moreover, it is desired that the horizontal
tail never stalls, and the wing must stall before the tail. Hence, the stall feature of the tail airfoil
section (sharp or docile) is not significant. In addition, another tail requirement is that horizon-
tal tail must be clean of compressibility effect. In order the tail to be out of the compressibility
effect, the tail lift coefficient is determined to be less than the wing lift coefficient. To insure this
requirement, the flow Mach number at the tail must be less than the flow Mach number at the
wing. This objective will be realized by selecting a horizontal tail airfoil section to be thinner than
the wing airfoil section. According our design configuration and parameter we choose NACA0009
airfoil as Horizontal tail.as we know that NACA0009 is symmetric so it can produce both positive
and negative lift.

40
Figure 4.2: Coefficient of lift (CL ) Vs angle of attack (α) of NACA0006 , NACA0008 and NACA0009

As Result shows NACA0009 has hight coefficient of lift with different angle of attack and different
Reynold Number.Its also gives high slope(CLαt ) as compare to other Airfoil .hence its gives more
stability to aircraft.

4.3 HORIZONTAL TAIL SIZING

The horizontal tail of an aircraft is primarily used for ensuring longitudinal stability to the aircraft.
A lone aircraft wing always has a moment due to the circulation caused by the airflow around
the wing. This tends to pitch the wing downwards. The horizontal tail produces a lift, which,
when coupled with the long tail arm, produces a counter moment that negates the wing produced
pitch down moment. Thus, the area of the horizontal tail, which decides its lift, would be in direct
relation to the area of the wing. To relate these two, a parameter called the tail volume ratio, or
the horizontal tail volume ratio, VH is defined. VH is given by:

St × lt
VHH =
S×C
Where St is the horizontal tail area, lt is the tail arm, S is the wing reference area and C is the
wing mean aerodynamic chord.
The tail arm, lt is usually taken as 0.6 times the length of the fuselage (0.4 to 0.6 is the general
trend. A higher value ensures a higher stability due to better moent negation). From historical
data, VHH is usually between 0.35 to 0.5 for smaller aircrafts. A way to determine the value of
VHH is by considering a minimization of the skin friction drag caused by the aft half of the aircraft.
The total wetted area of the aft of the aircraft is a sum of the wetted area of the aft half of the
fuselage, and the wetted area of the tail. This is given by:

41
 Saf t = Sf usaf t + SHtail ......[1]
Or,
Saf t = 0.5πDf laf tf us /Kc 2 + 2CSVH /lt
Here, Df is the diameter of the aft half of the fuselage, laf tf us is the fuselage length,which is equated
to tail arm length lt ,Kc is a factor which falls between 1 to 1.4 depending of the cross sectional
shape of the aft half of the fuselage (1 for conical, 1.4 for cylindrical).Thus, the equation can be
written as:
Saf t = 0.5πDf lt /KC 2 + 2CSVH /lt
To minimise Saf t we differentiate this equation with respect to lt and equate it to zero. i.e.,

0.5πDf /KC 2 − 2CSVH /lt 2 = 0

Rewriting, we get,
lt 2 πDf
VH =
4KC 2 CS
Taking a KC value of 1.3 (since the fuselage aft will be more like a cylinder than a cone), Df as
0.1 m, lt as 0.6 times the fuselage length, i.e,

lt = 0.6 × 1.03 = 0.618 m

And the estimated values of C and S as 0.205 m and 0.294175 m2 respectively,

0.1682 × π × 0.1
VH = = 0.48 ≈ 0.5
4 × 1.32 × 0.205 × 0.294175
This is seen to fall under the estimates given by the historical data.
Now, we know that,
St × lt
VHH =
S×C
Therefore,
VH × S × C
St =
lt
Substituting the values,
0.5 × 0.294175 × 0.205
St = = 0.048 m2 ≈ 0.05m2
0.618
As a thumb rule, the chord length is taken as 65% of the chord length of the wing. i.e,

CT H = 0.65 × 0.205 = 0.133 m

This implies, horizontal tail span is,

bT H = St /CT H = 0.05/0.133 = 0.376 m ≈ 0.38 m

In conclusion, the geometric parameters of the horizontal tail are as follows:

42
 Table 4.3: Final parameters of horizontal tail

4.4 VERTICAL TAIL DATA COLLECTION AND AIRFOIL SELECTION

4.4.1 Historical Data Analysis

To enable calculation of vertical tail parameters, a vertical tail volume ratio must first be selected.
Since aircraft designers rely on experience to select this parameter and not on any rigourous pro-
cedure , a historical data analysis is used in our case to get an approximation.

Sl No: Aircraft mT O VV
1. Cessna 177 1100 0.06
2. Cessna L-19/O-1 Bird Dog 1105 0.045
3. Cessna 120 658 0.028
4. Piper J-3 Cub 550 0.022
5. Varga 2150 Kachina 824 0.024
6. Jodel D.9 Bb 272 0.025
7. Luscombe 8 635 0.026
8. Piper PA-28 Cherokee 975 0.029
9. Mustang Aeronautics Midget Mustang MM-1 408 0.042

Table 4.4: Historical Data (all weights in kg)

An exponential curve is fitted to the above data. From the equation of this curve, the vertical tail
volume ratio for our aircraft which has a take off mass of 1.53 kg is 0.02.

43
 Figure 4.3: Trendline for Vv vs mT O

4.4.2 Airfoil Selection for Vertical Tail

The vertical tail airfoil section is responsible for the generation of the vertical tail lift coefficient
(CLV ). The airfoil must generate the required lift coefficient with a minimum drag coefficient. A
nonsymmetrical airfoil section creates an aerodynamic pitching moment. One of the basic aircraft
design requirement is the symmetricity about the x-z plane. Therefore, to insure the symmetricity of
the aircraft about x-z plane, the vertical airfoil section must be symmetric. Moreover, if the engines,
wing, horizontal tail and fuselage are designed to be symmetric about x-z plane, the vertical tail is
not required to produce any lift to maintain directional trim in a normal flight condition.
In addition, another tail requirement is that the vertical tail must be clean of compressibility effect.
To satisfy this requirement, the flow Mach number at the vertical tail must be less than the flow
Mach number at the wing. This objective will be realized by selecting a vertical tail airfoil section
to be thinner (say about 2 percent of MAC) than the wing airfoil section.
The third desired feature for the vertical tail airfoil section
 is the
 high value for the lift curve slope



CLαv , since the static directional stability derivative Cnβv is directly a function of CLαv .
Thus, as a general rule, a symmetric airfoil section with a high lift curve slope is desirable for the
vertical tail.
Based on the thickness requirement we zero in on 3 symmetric airfoils, namely NACA 0006,0008
and 0009. All three have maximum thickness less than the maximum thickness of our selected wing
airfoil(SD7032 max (t/C) = 10% ). Now high lift slope curve remains the deciding factor. XFLR
is is used to compare the three airfoils.

44


Figure 4.4: Comparison of CLαv for NACA 0006,0008 and 0009

Clearly NACA0009 has higher value of CLαv over all ranges of alpha considered. Hence we choose
NACA0009 as the airfoil for the vertical tail of our aircraft.

4.5 VERTICAL TAIL SIZING

4.5.1 Introduction to directional stability

vertical tail of an aircraft serves two important functions: directional stability, and directional
control. Directional stability refers to the ability of the aircraft to return to its equilibrium position
on experiencing a disturbance in yaw. For example, a positive sideslip(β) would require a positive
restoring moment and vice versa. This gives us the condition for directional stability as:

Cn,β > 0

For typical aircrafts this value is found to be between 0.06 to 0.15 radians. The restoring moment
produced by the vertical tail is given by,

Nvt = Yvt × `v

where, YV T is the side force generated by the vertical tail and can be written as,
1
YV T = ρv 2 Sv C`αv αv
2
From the above two equations it can be seen that the stability depends mainly on the tail area
(Sv ), the moment arm(`v ) and the lift coefficient of the tail (C`αv ). C`αv is already fixed from
the airfoil selection process in the previous section. Hence, in this section we are going to focus
on optimising the other two major contributing terms to yaw stability, vertical tail area (Sv ) and
moment arm(`v ).

45
4.5.2 Vertical tail volume ratio

To analyse these two important parameters (Sv and `v ), a new non-dimensionalised parameter
called the vertical tail volume ratio is defined as,
`v × Sv
Vv =
b×S

From historical data, for similar aircrafts obtained in the previous section, the vertical tail volume
ratio is approximated to be 0.02. This gives us a relation between the tail area and the moment
arm.

4.5.3 Vertical tail moment arm, `v

The vertical tail moment arm must be long enough to satisfy directional stability, control, and
trim requirements. In the early stage of the vertical tail design; where other aircraft components
have not been designed; the vertical tail moment arm is selected to be equal to the horizontal
tail moment arm. The assumption will be modified in the later design stage when other aircraft
components are designed and the aircraft directional and lateral stability, control and trim are
analyzed. Hence as an initial estimate the moment arm is taken to be same as the horizontal tail
moment arm. Therefore,
`v = 0.618 m

An important phenomenon that influences the vertical tail moment arm is spin. In a spin, both
the wings are stalled. One wing is in a deeper stall than the other one. This causes the aircraft to
rotate due to the unsymmetric lift and drag. When a spin occurs, the vertical tail must be able
to generate the required yawing moment to stop autorotation. Thus, the vertical tail plays a vital
role in spin recovery. To ensure that the vertical tail is effective in spin, it should be out of the
wing wake region when the wings are stalled.
The vertical tail also loses effectiveness when it is in the region of wake of the horizontal tail. The
following figure from [2] illustrates the effect of wing wake for different positions of the vertical
tail.

Figure 4.5: Illustration of horizontal tail wake effects on vertical tail

46
4.5.4 Vertical tail area, Sv

The vertical tail area must be large enough to satisfy the lateral-directional stability requirement.
An increase in tail area also gives for a higher rudder area, which increases the directional control
of the aircraft. But increasing the vertical tail area too much will increase the aircraft weight at the
aft, and increase manufacturing costs. The optimum value is hard to determine without performing
a complete analysis of the aircraft stability and control. Hence an initial estimate will be performed
here, using the vertical tail volume coefficient, and the moment arm using,
b × S × Vv
Sv =
`v
This area will be refined at a later stage by stability and control analysis for the entire aircraft. In
the manufacturing stage, this area can be adjusted by employing a dorsal or ventral fin.

4.5.5 Vertical tail aspect ratio, A v

The aspect ratio of the vertical tail usually lies in the range of 1-2. A high aspect ratio increases
the tail efficiency, by increasing the lift slope C`αv . Having a higher span (taller vertical tail) also
ensures that the vertical tail lies outside the wing wake region, and hence helps keep the rudder
effective in stall. On the downside, having a high aspect ratio increases the bending moment and
bending stresses at the root section. Also a high aspect ratio, moves the aerodynamic centre of the
vertical tail upwards, away from the fuselage reference line. This has a destabilizing contribution
to longitudinal stability as the drag on the vertical tail generates a pitching moment about the
aircraft centre of gravity. Taking these factors into consideration an aspect ratio of 1.5 was chosen
for the vertical tail section.

4.5.6 Effect of propeller on vertical tail

In a single propeller aircraft, the air behind the propeller rotates as it moves downstream (slipstream
of the propeller). This creates a sidewash angle on the vertical tail. This sidewash angle at the
vertical tail creates a sideforce, which causes the aircraft to sideslip. To negate this effect, the
vertical tail is sometimes places at an angle of incidence of 1 to 2 degrees.

4.5.7 Sizing based on above considerations

From the definition of vertical tail volume ratio we can write the tail area as,
b × S × Vv
Sv =
`v
Using the aforementioned values of moment arm and vertical tail volume ratio,
1.435 × 0.294 × 0.02
Sv =
0.618
Sv = 0.01365 m2

47
The aspect ratio is defined as,
A v =
bv 2
S

A
Therefore, p
bv = Sv × v
√
b = 0.01365 × 1.5
b = 0.143 m = 14.3 cm
For a rectangular planform,
Sv
cv =
bv
0.01365
cv =
0.143
cv = 0.095 m = 9.5 cm

4.5.8 Conclusion

Hence the initial estimate of the vertical tail size is as follows:

Table 4.5: Final parameters for vertical tail

References

[1] Daniel P. Raymer Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach

[2] Mohammad H. Sadraey Aircraft Design - A Systems Engineering Approach
[3] Michael S. Selig Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data
[4] http://drones.cnas.org/drones/
[5] http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Aero/AERO TN TailSizing 13-04-15.pdf

48
[6] http://hobbyking.com/
[7] John W. Dower Readings compiled for History 21.479. 1991.
[8] http://kapetair.com/
[9] http://diydrones.com/
[10] http://wikipedia.com/

49