AE 481 Aircraft Design - Fall 2006: Alex Murray, Manager Mark Rundle, Deputy Manager

AE 481 Aircraft Design – Fall 2006
UAVarsity (UAV Team 2)

Alex Murray, Manager
Mark Rundle, Deputy Manager
Aerodynamic Analysis Kian Leong Kwek

Yeon Baik
Nansi Xue
Structural Design Nathan Blinkilde

Marvin Kong
Daniel Campbell
Propulsion Matthew Egan

Zhiwei Song
Matthew McKeown
CG and Weight Estimates Ingrid Chiles

Mark Rundle
Controls Alex Murray

Shareil Elia
Jacob Temme
Final Report
December 19, 2006

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i
Aircraft Specifications Page........................................................................................................ iv
List of Symbols .............................................................................................................................. v
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Mission Description and Analysis .............................................................................................. 2
3. Payload Analysis......................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Synthetic Aperture Radar...................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Electro-Optic-Infrared Sensor .............................................................................................. 5
3.3 Data Link .............................................................................................................................. 5
3.4 Payload Package ................................................................................................................... 5
4. Current Design Summary ........................................................................................................... 5
5. Weight Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 9
5.1 Fuselage.............................................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Wing .................................................................................................................................... 10
5.3 Tail Surfaces ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.4 Landing Gear ...................................................................................................................... 11
5.5 Power Plant ........................................................................................................................ 12
5.6 Control System .................................................................................................................... 12
5.7 Fuel ..................................................................................................................................... 12
5.8 Payload ............................................................................................................................... 12
6. Center of Gravity ...................................................................................................................... 12
7. Airfoil Selection........................................................................................................................ 13
7.1 Airfoil Selection Criteria..................................................................................................... 13
7.1.1 Maximum Lift Coefficient ............................................................................................ 13
7.1.2 Aerodynamic Efficiency ............................................................................................... 14
7.1.3 Off-design Aerodynamic Characteristics..................................................................... 14
7.2 Analysis of Airfoils.............................................................................................................. 14
8. Wing Design ............................................................................................................................. 18
8.1 Wing Geometry ................................................................................................................... 18
8.2 High Lift Devices ................................................................................................................ 19
8.2.1 Trailing Edge Flaps ..................................................................................................... 19
8.2.2 Flap Type ..................................................................................................................... 19
8.2.3 Flap Location and Dimensioning ................................................................................ 20
8.2.4 Flap Performance Analysis.......................................................................................... 21
9. Aerodynamic Performance at Design Points ............................................................................ 21
9.1 Design Trade-offs................................................................................................................ 21
9.1.1 Taper Ratio .................................................................................................................. 22
9.1.2 Wing Span .................................................................................................................... 22
9.1.3 Root chord.................................................................................................................... 22
9.1.4 Current Design............................................................................................................. 23
9.2 Lift (No Flaps)..................................................................................................................... 23
9.3 Lift (Flaps Deployed).......................................................................................................... 25
9.4 Drag .................................................................................................................................... 27
10. Power Requirement................................................................................................................. 29
i
10.1 Power Requirement Calculations ..................................................................................... 29
10.2 Power Requirement at Cruise Altitude ............................................................................. 30
10.3 Power Requirement for Dash and Loiter.......................................................................... 31
10.5 Flight Envelope................................................................................................................. 32
11. Engine Selection ..................................................................................................................... 34
12. Propeller Selection .................................................................................................................. 34
13. Fuel Requirements .................................................................................................................. 36
14. Takeoff and Landing Analysis................................................................................................ 37
14.1 Takeoff Analysis ................................................................................................................ 38
14.2 Landing Analysis............................................................................................................... 39
15. Tail Selection .......................................................................................................................... 40
15.1 Vertical Tail ...................................................................................................................... 41
15.1.1 Vertical Tail Maneuverability Requirements............................................................. 42
15.2 Horizontal Tail.................................................................................................................. 43
15.3 Neutral Point..................................................................................................................... 45
16. Landing Gear and Tire Design................................................................................................ 45
17. Air Inlet Sizing........................................................................................................................ 46
18. Trim Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 47
18.1 Required Aerodynamic Information ................................................................................. 48
18.2 Trim Curves ...................................................................................................................... 48
19. Maneuver and Gust Envelope................................................................................................. 52
19.1 Maneuver Loading ............................................................................................................ 52
19.2 Gust Loading..................................................................................................................... 53
19.3 Effect Due to Flaps ........................................................................................................... 53
19.4 V-n Diagrams.................................................................................................................... 53
20. Wing Loading ......................................................................................................................... 55
20.1 Wing Discretization .......................................................................................................... 55
20.2 Aerodynamic Loads .......................................................................................................... 55
20.3 Inertial Loads.................................................................................................................... 56
21. Wing Structure ........................................................................................................................ 60
21.1 Wing Cross Section ........................................................................................................... 60
21.2 Loads................................................................................................................................. 61
21.3 Wing Bending.................................................................................................................... 61
20.3.1 Effective Skin Width ................................................................................................... 61
21.3.2 Allowables.................................................................................................................. 62
21.3.3 Margin of Safety......................................................................................................... 64
21.4 Wing Torsion..................................................................................................................... 65
21.4.1 Shear Flow ................................................................................................................. 65
21.4.2 Shear Stresses ............................................................................................................ 66
21.5 Tresca Yield Criterion....................................................................................................... 66
21.5.1 Principle Stresses....................................................................................................... 66
21.5.2 Tresca Stresses and Margin of Safety........................................................................ 67
Appendix A: Aircraft Design Comparisons................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Aircraft Configuration History.............................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: MATLAB Codes Used in Calculations................................................................. C-1
Appendix D: Aerodynamic Performance Calculations............................................................... D-1
ii
Appendix E: Takeoff and Landing Calculations .........................................................................E-1
Appendix F: Tail Sizing Calculations and History ......................................................................F-1
Appendix G: Structures Calculations.......................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H: Detailed Fuel Requirement Calculations ............................................................. H-1
Appendix I: V-n Diagram Calculations ........................................................................................I-1
Appendix J: References ............................................................................................................... J-1
iii
Aircraft Specifications Page
Basic Specifications
Maximum gross takeoff weight at end of iteration WTO = 644.8 lbs.
Wing Area SW = 74.25 ft2
Horizontal Tail Area SHT = 7.28 ft2
Vertical Tail Area SVT = 7.0 ft2
Frontal Area AF = 27.4 ft2
Wetted Area AW = 183.6 ft2
Wingspan b = 27.0 ft
Aircraft Length lAC = 16.1 ft
Maximum Wing Lift Coefficient (With Flaps) CLmaxW = 2.25
Maximum Payload Weight WPL = 150 lbs.
Powerplant UAV Engines AR801-Carb.

Maximum Power 51 hp (@8000 rpm)
Weight (with oil, coolant, and propeller) 64.7 lbs.
Performance Specifications
Maximum Speed 142.8 kts (140 kts required)
Cruise Speed 80 kts (80 kts required)
Stall Speed (sea level) 35 kts (35 kts required)
Maximum Rate of Climb 31.5 ft/s (16.67 ft/s required)
Endurance 21 hr. (with 10 VTI maneuvers)
Maximum Range 2080 mi. (with 10 VTI maneuvers)
Flight Ceiling 40,100 ft (27,000 ft. required)
iv
List of Symbols
Symbol Definition
A Fuselage Cross Sectional Area
AF Frontal Area
AW Wetted Area
AR Aspect Ratio
AoA Angle of Attack
α Angle of Attack
b Wingspan
C Wing Chord
CD Drag Coefficient
CD0 Parasitic Drag coefficient
CDi Induced Drag Coefficient
CDL&P Air Leakage and Protuberance Drag
CDmis Drag from Components with Large Form Drag
CDtrim Trim Drag Coefficient
Cfc Friction Coefficient
CL Lift Coefficient
CLac Aircraft Lift Coefficient
CLmax Maximum Lift Coefficient
CLt Lift Coefficient of the Tail
Cl Sectional Lift Coefficient
CMacflaps Flaps Pitching Moment
CMacw Wing Pitching Moment
CMfus Fuselage Pitching Moment
Cmac-t Aircraft Pitching Moment without Tail
CG Center of Gravity
c Airfoil Chord Length
cm Lift Curve Slope
D Drag
e Oswald Efficiency Factor
FF Form Factor
γ Flight Path Angle
K Induced Drag Constant
Kf Empirical Pitching Moment Factor
Λm Sweep Angle
L Lift
L/D Lift to Drag Ratio
L/Dmax Maximum Lift to Drag Ratio
μ Coefficient of Viscosity
ηi Engine Efficiency
η Viscous Correction Factor
θ Upsweep Angle
Prequired Required Power
Qc Interference Factor
v
q Dynamic Pressure
ρ Air Density
ρsl Air Density at Sea Level
S Wing Planform Area
SB Braking Distance
SC Climb Distance
SF Flare Distance
SFR Free Roll Distance
SG Ground Roll Distance
SHT Horizontal Tail Area
SR Rotation Distance
STR Transition to Climb Distance
SVT Vertical Tail Area
Sa Approach Distance
Swetc Wetted Area
t Maximum Airfoil Thickness
τ Flap Effectiveness
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
V Airspeed
Vclimbmax Maximum Climb Velocity
Vstall Stall Velocity
VTI Visual Target Identification
WTO Gross Takeoff Weight
vi
1. Introduction
On August 3rd, 2006, President G.W. Bush introduced the launch of “Operation Jump Start:
Acting Now to Secure the Border,” which includes a series of immigration reforms and the
tightening of security along the US-Mexico border. As part of the next phase of Operation Jump
Start, our team has been awarded a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to
design a high-endurance aerial surveillance vehicle to provide real-time border reconnaissance as
well as search-and-rescue information in the case of national emergencies. The designation and
name for the design is The Big Brother XL4000 (BBXL).
Furthermore, the design, as specified by the contract, must meet the following criteria:
Mission Capabilities
Patrol Area: 2500 sq. mi
Patrol Duration: 12 hours of loiter plus 10 visual target identification maneuvers
Payload Capability: 1x Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), 1x Electro-Optical-Infrared
(EO/I) Sensor, 1x Line-of-Sight Data Link
Weight Class: 500 – 1000 lbs
Launch Type: Conventional Runway (maximum 3000 ft.)
Performance Capabilities
Operational Ceiling: 27,000 ft
Cruise Speed: 80 kts
Top Speed: 140 kts
Stall Speed: 35 kts
Max Payload Weight: 150 lbs
Rate of Climb: 1000 ft/min
The primary factors that will be emphasized throughout the design of The Big Brother XL4000
are its effectiveness (ability to satisfy mission requirements), minimization of gross takeoff
weight, and its acquisition cost when compared to existing systems.
A preliminary design was completed in September 2006, based on comparisons to existing UAV
designs, which are available in Appendix A. In the second iteration, the aerodynamic design of
Big Brother XL4000 (BBXL) was done in more detail. The airfoil and wing planform geometry
were chosen, as well as a preliminary design of flaps. The aerodynamic design of the BBXL was
conducted using a MATLAB code to consider many different configurations. The third iteration
finalized these aerodynamic parameters and used them to begin aircraft performance estimates.
The required power was calculated, and an engine and propeller were chosen. Also, takeoff and
landing distances were computed. A summary of the aircraft specifications through each of
these iterations is shown in Appendix B. The fourth iteration calculated the trim stability of the
aircraft and produced a V-n diagram that determines the range of loads that the aircraft will
experience in all flight conditions. The fifth iteration determined the aerodynamic and inertial
loads acting on the wing and the resulting wing structure needed to carry these loads.
1
This document represents the final iteration of the design of the Big Brother XL4000. All of the
calculations have been completed, and a final configuration has been chosen. The purpose of
this document is to present an overview of the design of the Big Brother XL4000.
2. Mission Description and Analysis
To properly design the Big Brother XL4000 for its mission, analysis must be conducted to gain
insight on the flight maneuvers required for the UAV. This section will outline a mission and
calculate the duration, flight speed, and distance covered over the various maneuvers.
The flight can be broken up into four separate maneuvers:

1. Takeoff, dash to surveillance area, climb to cruise altitude
2. Loiter for a total time of 12 hours
3. Perform a Visual Target Identification (VTI) maneuver when a target is acquired (up
to 10 VTI maneuvers total)
4. Cruise back to base, descend, and land
The UAV will initially take off and then dash at a speed of 140 knots to the center of its 50- by
50-mile surveillance area. A diagram of the mission space is shown in Figure 2.1. When the
UAV has reached the loiter area, it will begin to use its synthetic aperture radar to scan the
surveillance area while climbing to its cruising altitude of 20,000 ft. at climb rate of 18.3 ft/s.
Surveillance Area
Loiter Pattern
6 miles
50 miles
Airbase
27 miles
50 miles
Figure 2.1: Outline of mission space.
Once in the surveillance area, the UAV will follow the pattern outlined in Figure 2.1. The UAV
will fly in a 6 mile diameter circle and alternate between the two elliptical flight patterns. This
loiter pattern will enable the UAV to observe the entire area, while remaining close to the center
2
of the surveillance area. The smallest radius of the loiter pattern is 3 miles, which translates into
a 2 degree bank angle. At such small bank angles, negligible additional power is required for
maneuvering. The UAV is essentially flying a pattern with alternates between a 6 mile diameter
circle and a 27 mile diameter circle. Since the range of the synthetic aperture radar is over 21
miles, a target can be found anywhere within the surveillance area. If a target is found, the UAV
will perform a VTI maneuver.
A VTI maneuver consists of flying at top speed towards the target, which can be anywhere
within the 50- by 50-mile area. If the target is on the edge of the surveillance area, it would be at
best 25 miles from the UAV and at worst 35 miles from the UAV. Taking the average of each
case, we assumed that for each VTI maneuver, the target is 30 miles from the UAV. Once the
UAV has dashed towards the target and descended to 500 ft. altitude, it will loiter in that area for
20 minutes. While loitering, the UAV will collect and transmit optical and infrared imagery
using the onboard video cameras. After the UAV has collected sufficient information, it will
dash back to the center of the surveillance area, climb to 20,000 ft., and resume loitering. Figure
2.2 describes a VTI maneuver.
VTI Maneuver
2. Descend to target
1. Loiter at center
of surveillance
area
500 ft. 4. Return to center of 20,000 ft.
3. Loiter on target
surveillance area
Figure 2.2: Description of a VTI maneuver.
For one mission, the UAV will loiter for a total time of 12 hours and will be able to perform 10
VTI maneuvers. After the mission is completed, the UAV will cruise back to the base while
descending. For this analysis, it is assumed that the base is within 35 miles of the center of the
surveillance area. After calculating each component of the mission, we estimate that a total
mission will take approximately 21 hours and will cover a ground track of 2080 miles. These
values were used to calculate the amount of fuel needed to complete a mission.
The total distance covered and duration of a mission were calculated by breaking up each part of
the mission and calculating the speed, duration, and distance covered. Table 2.1 summarizes the
total mission and Table 2.2 summarizes the VTI maneuver.
3
Altitude Speed Duration Ground Distance
Event Ft. M Knots m/s Minutes Miles Km
Takeoff 0 0 42 21.6 <1 0.5 0.9
Dash to Surveillance 20,000 6096 140 72.0 18* 35 56.6
Area-While Climbing
Loiter (total time) 20,000 6096 80 41.2 720 1,104.7 1,777.8
VTI Maneuver (one) varies varies 140-80 72-41.2 49 90.2 145.2
VTI Maneuver (ten) varies varies 140-80 72-41.2 490 902 1452
Cruise Home, Descend varies varies 80 41.2 25 38 61.15
and Land
TOTAL varies varies varies varies 1254 2080.4 3397.95
(20.9 hrs.)
Table 2.1: Description of typical surveillance mission.
*Assumes average climb rate of 18.3 ft./s
Altitude Speed Duration Ground Distance

Event Ft. M Knots m/s Minutes Miles Km
Dash to Target / 20,000 6096 140 72.0 11 30 48.3
Descend to 500 ft.
Loiter 500 152.4 80 41.2 20* 30 48.3
Climb and Dash Back 20,000 6096 140 72.0 18 30 48.3
to Surveillance Area
Total varies varies varies varies 49 90 145.2
Table 2.2: Detailed description of a Visual Target Identification (VTI) Maneuver.
*Assumes an average climb rate of 18.3 ft./s
3. Payload Analysis
The requirements state that Big Brother XL 4000 must be able to carry 150 pounds of payload,
which will consist of a synthetic aperture radar, an electro optic infrared sensor and a line of
sight data link. To evaluate these three pieces of equipment, weight and range were the primary
criteria. The ideal payload would be lightweight and yet possess a long range.
3.1 Synthetic Aperture Radar
The synthetic aperture radar is used for our long range target identification; therefore, a range of
at least 21.5 miles is required to survey a 50 mile by 50 mile area with our loiter pattern. We
chose the Sandia National labs MiniSAR synthetic Aperture Radar because it is a quarter the
weight of other synthetic aperture radars (the MiniSAR weighs 30 pounds) and has a range of
35km (21.75 miles). Other synthetic Aperture Radars were considered, such as the Lynx and
TESAR. These were eliminated because of weight concerns; each weighs over 120 pounds [1].
4
3.2 Electro-Optic-Infrared Sensor
The electro-optic-infrared (EOI) sensor is used for close range target identification; therefore, a
range of only 2 miles is required when loitering at 500 ft. A modest range is desired because the
UAV may want to observe the targets while not being noticed. The EOI package also must be
able to collect imagery in day and night, so a camera and an inferred sensor is required. We
chose the Advanced EO/IR sensor from APM UAV Payloads, based in New Jersey. The
advanced EO/IR sensor has a 4km range (about 2.5 miles) and has both electro-optical and
infrared capabilities [2]. The EO/IR sensor weighs only 50 pounds, so it also meets our weight
requirement.
3.3 Data Link
A line of sight data link is required to transmit the data collected by the EOI sensor and synthetic
aperture radar. The data link is also needed for communicating with the UAV to update any new
mission objectives. The data link chosen for our UAV is the UAV Data Link by L-3. This data
link is ideal because it has been used previously on other UAVs, has line of sight capabilities and
weighs only 0.5 pounds [3].
3.4 Payload Package
The sensor suite of the synthetic aperture radar, the EOI sensor, and line of sight data link can
meet all of the mission requirements. These three pieces of equipment in total weigh 80.5
pounds. This leaves 69.5 pounds for auxiliary batteries. The engine chosen comes with an
integrated 2kw generator, which will be the primary power supply for the electronics [4]. In
event of engine failure, the auxiliary batteries will be able to sustain the UAV until it can reach
the base.
4. Current Design Summary
This section summarizes the operating parameters of our current UAV design. The following
performance parameters are evaluated against mission requirements:
• Flight envelope
• Maximum rate of climb
• Maximum speed
• Maximum range
• Maximum endurance
• Minimum stall speed
• Ceiling
• Take off and Landing performance
• Payload performance
By comparing these calculated parameters to the specified requirements, we can show that our
design is able to meet or exceed all requirements. Range and endurance calculated for average
5
case. See section 2 for more information. Table 4.1 compares the performance parameters of
Big Brother XL4000 to the design requirements.
Performance As Specified in Actual UAV Meets

Characteristic Requirements Performance Requirements?
Max Flight Speed ≥ 140 Knots 142.8 Knots YES
(@ 500 ft.)
Max Rate of Climb ≥ 16.67 ft/s 31.5 ft/s YES
Max Operating ≥ 27,000 ft. 40,100 ft YES
Altitude (ceiling)
Airstrip Distance ≤ 3,000 ft 847 ft YES
to Land
Airstrip Distance ≤ 1,500 ft 605 ft YES
to Takeoff
Maximum Payload 150 lbs. 150 lbs. YES
Weight
Stall speed ≤ 35 Knots 35 Knots YES
(@ Sea level)
Max Endurance Able to loiter for 12 2080 miles ( for an YES, for most mission
hrs. and 10 VTI’s average mission) applications*
Max Range Able to loiter for 12 21 hours (for an YES, for most mission
hrs. and 10 VTI’s average mission) applications*
*Range and endurance calculated for average case. See section 2 for more information.
Table 4.1: Analysis of the UAV in meeting mission requirements.
The main features of our aircraft were designed to meet the above requirements. In the section
below, these features are listed, followed by a description of the key constraints that dictated
their size.
Feature Description and Constraints

Wing Area: 74.25 ft.2; Minimum wing area for sufficient lift at cruise. The minimum
wing area will produce the minimum amount of drag.
Tail Area: 7.28 ft.2 (horizontal); 7.0 ft.2 (vertical); Minimum tail area for trimmed
flight at cruise. The minimum tail area will produce the minimum amount
of drag.
Flap Area: 8.92 ft.2 (both flaps); Minimum flap area to meet 35 knots stall speed.
Flap Deflection: 20 degrees; Minimum flap deflection to meet 35 knots stall speed.
Prop Diameter: 60 in; Maximum propeller diameter to maximize propeller efficiency.
Engine Power: 51 horsepower (sea level); 50 sea level horsepower required
6
Drawings of our current design as of December 19th, 2006, are shown below in Figure 4.1
through Figure 4.6. Dimensions of importance are:
• Total length of aircraft = 16.1 ft

• Wingspan = 27.0 ft
• Total height of aircraft = 5.8 ft
• Fuselage length = 10.0 ft
• Distance from nose to center of gravity (full fuel) = 6.24 ft
• Distance from nose to center of gravity (no fuel) = 6.21 ft
• Propeller Diameter = 5.0 ft
• Maximum pitch angle on takeoff: 25°
1:64 Scale
Figure 4.1: Big Brother XL4000 with landing gear deployed.
Figure 4.2: Big Brother XL4000 with landing gear retracted.
7
27.0’
7.5’ 2.8’
2.5’
6.0’
Figure 4.3: Front view of Big Brother XL4000.
6.24’
5.0’
5.8’
25°
8.2’
Figure 4.4: Left-side view of Big Brother XL4000.
8
10.0’
16.1’
Figure 4.5: Top view of Big Brother XL4000.
14.0
10.0
8.3
8.0
6.3
6.24
4.2
2.38
Propeller:
1.1 7.0 lb.
z
EO/I: Power Plant:

50.0 Control Tail:
Fuel: 183.4 lb. 57.7 lb.
lb System: 15.0 lb.
Wing: 65.6 lb.
40.0 lb.
SAR: Data
30.0 lb. Rear Gear:
Link: 34.6 lb.
0.5 lb. Front Gear: Additional
17.3 lb. Payload:
69.5 lb.
Figure 4.6: Internal component layout of Big Brother XL4000.
5. Weight Estimates
The weight estimates were calculated based on a gross takeoff weight of 657.1 lbs. at the
beginning of the iteration. At the end of the iteration, the new gross takeoff weight is
9
approximately 644.8 lbs. The weight estimates were based on the Cessna aircraft weight estimate
procedure and the scaled weights of the Predator. The majority of the weight comes from the
wing and fuel, which comprise approximately half of the gross takeoff weight. Table 5.1 shows
the weight estimates using both of these methods as well as our initial weight estimates.
Weight (lbs.)
Component Cessna Method Predator Scaling Method Our Estimate
Fuselage 77.0 75 75.0
Wing 65.6 66.7 65.6
Tail 15.0 13.3 14.2
Landing Gear 52.0 50 52.0
Power Plant 60.0 90 64.7
Control System 40.0 - 40.0
Fuel 135.1 305 183.4
Payload 150.0 150 150
Total 594.7 750 644.8
Table 5.1: The two methods of weight estimates.
5.1 Fuselage
We chose a weight of 75 lbs. based on the Predator scaling method. The Cessna method states
that the mass of the fuselage is typically 11% of the gross takeoff weight. This may be a
conservative estimate considering the current design for our fuselage is much smaller than a
typical Cessna fuselage. Furthermore, the Cessna method is for manned aircraft as opposed to
the unmanned aircraft used in our design.
5.2 Wing
Our estimate of the weight of the wing was 68.8 lbs. based on the Cessna method. The
parameters that go into the Cessna weight estimate of the wing are the design gross takeoff
weight, the design load factor, the wing area, the aspect ratio, and the percent thickness of the
wing at the chord center-line. The values of these parameters are shown in Table 5.2.
Parameter Value
Design GTOW (lb) 700
Design Load Factor 3.5
Wing Area (ft2) 74.25
Aspect Ratio 9.82
Thickness of root chord (%) 17.0
Table 5.2: Parameters for wing weight estimates.
The values of the parameters were picked so that the aircraft could have a reasonable CLmax at
stall. The minimum value of CLmax at the stall speed of 35 kts was calculated to be 1.75 from
Equation 5.1 and will be attainable based on our MATLAB code analysis.
10
1
WTO = L = ρ sea SCLmax vStall 2 (Eqn. 5.1)
2
Given the sea-level density of 1.225 kg/m3, the wing area (S) and stall speed, we calculated the
minimum CLmax needed to generate sufficient lift at the stall speed that is equivalent to the WTO.
Our calculations indicate that we can achieve a CLmax greater than 1.75, which is sufficient for the
stall requirement.
5.3 Tail Surfaces
The Cessna method predicts our tail weight to be 15.0 lbs. This estimate is a function only of the
horizontal and vertical tail areas, which are 7.28 ft2 and 7.0 ft2, respectively. The Predator
method determined a smaller tail weight of 13.3 lbs. Since our aircraft does not carry
passengers, the design requirements for the tail do not have to meet as strict requirements as
needed for transport aircraft. Thus, we chose to use the average of the two estimates for our tail
weight. The resulting tail weight is 14.2 lbs.
5.4 Landing Gear
The landing gear weight estimate was based on a modified Cessna method. The Cessna landing
gear estimate is a function of only the gross takeoff weight. The landing gear used for the
estimate is a retractable tri-gear configuration. The Cessna landing gear estimate is based on the
Equation 5.2.
Gear Weight = 0.019 ⋅ WTO + 38 (Eqn. 5.2)
The constant term in the equation seemed too big for our aircraft since the Cessna model is for
aircraft up to 5000 lbs. We scaled the constant by multiplying it by the ratio of the UAV WTO
/5000 lbs. Thus the modified equation is show below.
Gear Weight = 0.019 ⋅ WTO + 5.7 (Eqn. 5.3)
Using this formula, we were able to get more reasonable numbers, which were closer to the
estimate using the Predator scaling method.
We chose a retractable landing gear configuration because we concluded that it is more efficient
than a static landing gear. Similar UAVs, such as the General Atomics Predator and GNAT-750,
use a retractable landing gear. The weight estimate of 52.0 lbs. for the landing gear is very
similar to a scaled-down weight estimate of the Predator with retractable landing gear.
Also, using analytical calculations we determined that the weight penalty is not as large as the
drag penalty. The increase in weight for retractable landing gear compared to a fixed landing
gear is about 34 lbs. However, the increase in the parasitic drag coefficient for fixed landing gear
is approximately 20%. This requires approximately a 20% increase in power for cruise which
results in a significant weight penalty in extra fuel burned.
11
5.5 Power Plant
We chose a weight estimate for a power plant that is less than the calculations by both the Cessna
and Predator methods. We made this decision based on information for brand new, ultra high
efficiency engines that are currently available on the market. The model that we are
implementing is the AR801, manufactured by UAV Engines Ltd. in Lichfield, U.K. This engine
produces a maximum power of 51 hp at 8000 RPM, which is sufficient for all required flight
conditions. The estimated weight of 64.7 lbs. includes a dry weight of 43 lbs. plus an additional
14.7 lbs. for oil, coolant, and installation hardware [5]. Also, propeller weight of 7.0 lbs. was
included in the weight estimate.
5.6 Control System
The control system consists of flight and engine controls. According to Cessna weight estimates,
40 lbs. is used for light single fixed propeller engine aircraft. Since our UAV has a single
pushback propeller as the initial design, 40 lbs. seems reasonable. No information was available
on the weight of the control system on the Predator.
5.7 Fuel
The fuel weight was calculated to be 183.4 lbs. based on our mission requirements. These
requirements include takeoff, cruise for 12 hours, 10 VTI maneuvers, cruise back to the landing
strip, and landing. The detailed fuel calculations are carried out in Section 13.
5.8 Payload
The maximum payload of the UAV is set at 150 lbs. This value includes the three payload
components: a Synthetic Aperture Radar sensor, an Electro-Optic-Infrared sensor, and a line of
sight data link. It also includes the mounting hardware, batteries, and other electrical equipment
necessary to integrate these components into the UAV. A payload weight of 150 lbs. must be
accounted for, even if lighter payload components can be found.
6. Center of Gravity
Using the mass calculations from the previous section and layouts, we determined the location of
the center of gravity of the UAV to be 6.24 ft behind the nose of the aircraft when the fuel tanks
are full. The CG moves forward to 6.21 ft behind the nose when the fuel tanks are empty. The
center of gravity is slightly forward of the aerodynamic center of the wing (located at 6.3 ft.) to
ensure aircraft stability. The center of gravity of the aircraft was determined based on the
spreadsheet shown in Table 6.1.
12
Components Weight Distance from Nose Moment
Wing 65.6 6.30 413.1
Tail 14.2 14.00 198.3
Propeller 7.0 10.00 70.0
Powerplant 57.7 8.30 478.9
Front Gear 17.3 2.38 41.2
Rear Gear 34.6 10.00 346.4
SAR 30.0 1.80 54.0
EO/I 50.0 1.10 55.0
Data Link 0.5 2.50 1.3
Additional Payload 69.5 8.00 556.0
Fuel 183.4 6.30 1155.4
Fuselage 53.6 5.00 267.9
Twin Boom 21.4 10.15 217.5
Control System 40.0 4.20 168.0
GTOW 644.8 4023.0
Dry Weight 461.4
CG (Full Fuel) 6.24

CG (Empty Fuel) 6.21
Table 6.1: Spreadsheet created for CG calculations.
The CG calculations assume that the components have point mass at their respective locations. In
addition, it assumes that fuel is concentrated at the wing aerodynamic center.
7. Airfoil Selection
The selected airfoil must be able to meet all the aerodynamics requirements as given on the
aircraft specification sheet. Furthermore, we would like to select an airfoil with excellent
aerodynamic performance throughout its mission. To this end, we have developed three criteria
with which we would able to judge each airfoil.
7.1 Airfoil Selection Criteria
The three criteria used for selecting an airfoil are maximum lift coefficient, aerodynamic
efficiency, and off-design aerodynamic performance. The next three sections outline the
importance of each of these criteria.
7.1.1 Maximum Lift Coefficient
One of the most desirable characteristics of our airfoil is its lift coefficient. The lift coefficient
dictates how well the aircraft will generate lift during lift-intensive maneuvers, such as takeoff
and landing. The aircraft must have a design sea-level stall speed of 35 knots. The minimum lift
coefficient required to maintain the flight condition at stall speed is given by:
13
1
WTO = L = ρ sea SCL vStall 2 (Eqn. 7.1)
2
Given that the airfoil generally has a lift coefficient higher than that of the entire wing, the airfoil
to be chosen has to have a maximum lift coefficient higher than the value calculated by Equation
7.1.
In addition to meeting the maximum lift coefficient requirement, we would like an airfoil which
has superior lift characteristics in order to minimize the wing area. Wings with a larger lift
coefficient tend to produce more induced drag as well. Therefore, through iterations between our
airfoil selection and wing design, we will choose the best airfoil and wing design which creates
the necessary lift while minimizing drag.
7.1.2 Aerodynamic Efficiency
The second most important criterion is the aerodynamic efficiency, given by the maximum lift-
to-drag ratio. To reduce drag and thereby conserve fuel, the aircraft will have to fly in such a
state as to achieve maximum aerodynamic efficiency. Since the aircraft spends the majority of
its flight time either cruising or loitering, the airfoil selected must have the highest aerodynamic
efficiency at cruising and loitering conditions.
7.1.3 Off-design Aerodynamic Characteristics
The final criterion we considered was off-design performance of the airfoil. Having a high
efficiency at a single angle of attack does not guarantee reasonable aerodynamic performance
throughout the entire flight envelope. Therefore, the airfoil should have a reasonable lift-to-drag
ratio over a broad range of angles of attack. The airfoil must also operate over a wide range of
conditions. Our airfoil must be able to generate negative lift and have reasonable aerodynamic
efficiencies over a broad range of angles of attack
7.2 Analysis of Airfoils
Our team analyzed a wide range of airfoils before choosing the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil,
illustrated in Figure 7.1, as the best choice for our UAV. We analyzed Mark Drela’s DAE low
drag airfoils as well as NACA 5-digit 63-series and 23-series. We compared these with the
NASA Langley general aviation airfoil series. Our analysis shows that the high lift coefficient
and excellent off-design characteristics make the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) the best airfoil for the
Big Brother XL4000.
14
Figure 7.1: NASA GA(W)-1 airfoil cross section.
Airfoils were analyzed at the Reynolds number for each flight condition and at various angles of
attack. We considered the following conditions in the flight profile: cruise, dash, loiter, takeoff
and landing. The XFOIL inputs for each of these conditions are given in Table 7.1.
Cruise Dash Loiter Takeoff/Landing

Reynolds Number 1.66E+06 2.90E+06 2.44E+06 1.38E+06
Mach Number 0.13 0.23 0.12 0.07
Altitude (m) 6096 6096 152.4 0
Table 7.1: Aerodynamic characteristics of different flight configurations.
The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil outperformed all other airfoils in maximum sectional lift
coefficient. Figure 7.2 below shows the drag polar diagram of the airfoils that we analyzed. The
NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) had the highest maximum sectional lift coefficient (CLmax = 1.94) of the
airfoils analyzed. The thicker NACA 23018 had the next highest CL of 1.71. While the NASA
GA(W)-1 (ls417) had the best maximum lift performance, it was important to analyze the drag
performance of the airfoil.
15
NACA 63-015A
NACA 63212
0.05
NACA 63-215
NACA 63-412 0.045
NACA 64-012A
NACA 64-212 0.04
CLmax ≈ 1.5
NACA 64-215
Sectional Drag Coefficient
0.035
0.03 Very low sectional

drag at low lift
Negative 0.025 coefficients
lift can be
generated 0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Sectional Lift Coefficient
0.05 NACA 23-series have

NACA 23015 significantly lower
NACA 23012 0.045 CLmax than NASA
NACA 23018 GA(W)-1 (ls417)
NASA GWA-1 (ls417) 0.04
NACA 23010
0.035
0.03
Negative
lift can be 0.025 NACA 23-series and
generated NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)
0.02
have similar sectional
drags
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
16
LS013 0.05
LS413 NASA GA(W)-1
0.045
LS413MOD (LS417Mod)
LS417MOD
0.04
CLmax = 1.94
0.035 Slightly higher

sectional drag
0.03
at low lift
Negative coefficients
0.025
lift can be
generated
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.03 NACA 2412

NACA 6712
DAE 11 Good
0.025 DAE 21 aerodynamic
DAE 31 efficiencies
0.02
No Negative
lift can be
generated
0.015
But very poor
off-design
performance
0.01
0.005
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 7.2: Drag polar plots of analyzed airfoils.
17
The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has slightly higher drag coefficients than most of the airfoils
analyzed. Because most of the UAV mission requires loitering and dashing at high speed, we
compared the sectional drag coefficients at sectional lift coefficients around CL=0.5, which is
near the cruise lift coefficient. The DAE 31, NASA LS413 and NACA 63-series airfoils had CD
values of approximately 0.005 near CL = 0.5. The NACA 23-series airfoils had CD values of 0.7-
0.8, depending on sectional thickness. The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has a CD value of
approximately 0.8 at CL = 0.5. While the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil had a slightly higher
sectional drag coefficient, it was still comparable to its competitors. While the sectional drag
coefficient can give a good indicator of performance, the overall wing performance is the
deciding factor for airfoil selection.
The NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil has excellent off-design characteristics. The airfoil can
generate CL ≈ -0.5 at -8 degrees angle of attack for dive conditions. It also has a wide range of
sectional lift coefficients that generate low sectional drag. While the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)
airfoil meets all of the airfoil criteria, it is also important to analyze the overall wing performance
to pick the best airfoil. The performance characteristics of the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil
are shown below in Table 7.2.
Parameter NASA GA(W)-1

Lift curve slope m 0.112 degrees-1
Zero-Lift Angle of Attack αL0 -4.0 degrees
Maximum Sectional Lift Coefficient Clmax 1.94
Sectional Pitching Moment CmAC -0.1
Table 7.2: Performance characteristics of the selected NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil.
The next section will discuss the current wing design. As a result of calculating wing iterations
with the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417), NASA ls413 and NACA 23015 airfoils, we found the NASA
GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil to be the best. The high maximum lift coefficient allows us to minimize
the required wing area. The wing area reduction with the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417) airfoil
outweighs the greater sectional drag of the airfoil. As a result the NASA GA(W)-1 (ls417)
airfoil allows us to minimize the engine power required, fuel consumption and thus our gross
takeoff weight.
8. Wing Design
The wing planform shape and high lift devices were selected so that the desirable stall speed and
maximum range requirements were met. We chose a design that met these two parameters for
cost reasons. The wing design is currently a tapered, un-swept, un-twisted wing with simple flaps
for low speed flight. This section outlines the design of the wing and high lift devices in more
detail.
8.1 Wing Geometry
To find the optimal wing planform area, the MATLAB program Liftline.m was used to calculate
the induced drag and the lift distribution. Following our aerodynamic design iterations, we have
18
decided on a wing with a root chord of 3.1 ft. and a tip cord of 2.4 ft. (Figure 8.1). We chose this
current baseline design to reduce the induced drag of our UAV. The reduced drag lessens the
amount of fuel required, the power required, and overall weight of the aircraft.
TipTip
Chord=
Chord=
2.4 2.5
ft. ft. Root Chord= 3.1 ft.
Wing Span = 27 ft.
Figure 8.1: Finalized wing geometry.
8.2 High Lift Devices
High lift devices such as trailing edge flaps and leading edge flaps are often employed in aircraft
to generate additional lift during takeoff, create drag during landing, and decrease take-off
distance. In order to meet our mission requirements, our team analyzed the advantages and its
associated trade-offs of incorporating such devices in our design.
8.2.1 Trailing Edge Flaps
To achieve a successful takeoff, the amount of lift generated must balance the weight of the
aircraft. Since the amount of lift generated is directly related to the lift coefficient and the speed
of the aircraft, a takeoff scenario would require a high lift coefficient to counter the low speed. If
the wing of the airplane is unable to provide the required lift coefficient, then trailing edge flaps
may be used to increase the camber of the wing and improve the wing lift coefficient. While this
is beneficial during the take-off process, the deployment of flaps also results in a substantial
increase in the drag coefficient of the wing. Thus, the flaps may also be deployed during the
landing phase to create additional drag and aid in the deceleration of the aircraft.
8.2.2 Flap Type
To maintain simplicity and optimize weight, two particular flaps may be considered: the split
flap and the plain flap. As shown by Figure 8.2, the plain flap rotates about a simple hinge while
the split flap uses an upper and lower surface, of which the lower rotates about a simple hinge
while the upper remains immobile. The plain flap is the simplest to implement while the split
flap is more complex but offers better structural strength. In our case of a low speed lightweight
vehicle, the performance of the plain flap is more advantageous than the structural benefits of the
split flap.
19
Figure 8.2: Diagram showing the plain flap and split flap design. [6]
In addition to structural advantages, plain flap is more efficient than split flaps. As shown by
Figure 8.3, plain flap performs 20% better than split flap with 20 degree flap deflection angle.
Figure 8.3: Plain flap performs better than split flaps at 20 degree flap deflection angle.
8.2.3 Flap Location and Dimensioning
The positioning of the flap with respect to the wing centerline is important in optimizing the
structural and flow behavior in that region. The flap must be positioned where it is as close as
possible to the fuselage (for stress optimization) but far enough to minimize the boundary layer
effects due to the proximity of the fuselage. Thus, we chose to position the inner side of the flap
a distance roughly equivalent to 2 fuselage diameters (4 feet) from the wing centerline (Figure
8.4). In choosing the dimensions of the flap, our team decided to implement 20% flap chord to
wing chord ratio. The maximum flap chord to wing chord ratio was limited to 30% due to wing
structural consideration. From the MATLAB code, we have iterated the flap dimension process
and we came up with the flap span of 7.0 ft, which was approximately 45% of the half-span of
the wing.
20
13.5 ft
3.1 ft 7.0 ft
2.4 ft
4 ft
cf/c = 0.2
Figure 8.4 Diagram showing flap positioning and dimensioning.
8.2.4 Flap Performance Analysis
To determine the performance impact of the flaps on the aircraft during takeoff and landing, we
inputted the flap geometry and flight conditions into our main MATLAB solver to determine the
lift and drag coefficients at the two flight conditions. For simplicity, a maximum flap deflection
angle of 20 degrees was assumed throughout the analysis.
From our analysis, it was determined that the utilization of flaps increases the maximum lift
coefficient by 26.2%. A summary of the sectional airfoil performance with the flaps is shown
below in Table 8.1.
Parameter Value
Lift curve slope m 0.112 degrees-1
Zero-Lift Angle of Attack αL0 -7.3 degrees
Maximum Sectional Lift Coefficient Clmax 2.612
Sectional Pitching Moment CmAC -0.252
Table 8.1: Sectional airfoil performance with flaps deployed at 20°.
9. Aerodynamic Performance at Design Points
The aerodynamic performance characteristics of the aircraft were computed at the various design
points of takeoff, cruise, dash, and landing. A MATLAB code was used to perform these
calculations, and it is included in Appendix C.
9.1 Design Trade-offs
To come up with the optimal parameters for the aerodynamic design, our team considered
different geometric parameters of the aircraft. We also took design restraint parameters into
consideration such that our initial aerodynamic design parameters do not clash with other design
considerations. The only major design restraint was at dash condition. Our engines will not meet
the dash requirements if the wing area and CD0 values were too high.
21
9.1.1 Taper Ratio
Taper ratio is defined as the ratio between the tip chord length and root chord length. Various
taper ratios were considered while restricting other parameters. Table 9.1 tabulates the
aerodynamic parameter changes according to the taper ratio.
b = 27
cr (ft) ct (ft) taper Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash
3.5 3.5 1.000 y 7.71 94.5 15.35 16.17 0.0185 0.0162
3.5 3 0.857 y 8.31 87.75 16.06 16.96 0.0191 0.0168
3.5 2.5 0.714 y 9 81 16.8 17.78 0.0199 0.0175
Table 9.1: Table showing aerodynamic parameters as a function of taper ratio.
First condition to look for was whether the aircraft was able to takeoff with decreased taper ratio.
As the taper ratio is decreased, the wing area decreases, which reduces the lift generated by the
wing. A decrease in the taper ratio also increases the aspect ratio, which in return reduces the
induced drag. This is observed in the L/D values as taper is decreased. Most importantly, CD0
increases as taper increases. Therefore, iteration was necessary to find best taper ratio which
maximizes aircraft’s L/D while not increasing CD0 at dash condition.
9.1.2 Wing Span
Wing span was also considered in the sizing of the wing. Table 9.2 shows aerodynamic
parameter changes as a function of wing span.
Wing Span (ft) Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash
26 y 9.45 71.5 16.91 17.95 0.0212 0.0186
28 y 10.18 77 17.75 18.83 0.0205 0.018
30 y 10.91 82.5 18.56 19.67 0.02 0.0175
Table 9.2: Increase in wing span decreases CD0 values.
As the wing span is increased it reduced the CD0 values. This is a result of increased wing area
and weight of the wing. Due to our design constraint, it was not recommended to increase the
wing area too much. The optimal wing span was calculated to be 27 ft. from the iteration.
9.1.3 Root chord
Lastly, the root chord was changed to see how it affects other aerodynamic parameters. Table 9.3
shows the results.
cr (ft) taper Able to Takeoff? AR Sw (ft^2) L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash
3 1 y 10 90 17.61 18.61 0.0191 0.0168
3.5 1 y 8.57 105 16.31 17.16 0.0178 0.0157
4 1 y 7.5 120 15.02 15.71 0.0167 0.0148
Table 9.3: Increasing root chord harms the L/D ratio.
From the table, it is clear that increasing the root chord decreases the CD0 value. However, the
cost of increasing has a large negative effect. The aspect ratio decreases and as a result, a large
22
induced drag is experienced by the aircraft. This drag increase harms the L/D ratio and this
would correlate to the amount of fuel it requires to complete the mission.
9.1.4 Current Design
Current design has a root chord of 3.1 with taper ratio of 0.774. Table 9.4 tabulates the current
design.
b cr ct Able to Takeoff? AR Wing Area L/D @ cruise L/D @ Dash Cdo @ cruise Cdo @ dash
27 3.1 2.4 y 9.82 74.25 17.2 18.2 0.021 0.018
Table 9.4: Optimal design configuration.
Current long endurance UAVs have L/D values ranging between 15 and 20. Our calculated UAV
L/D values are comparable to similar aircrafts. With the current configuration, our UAV is able
to meet the dash condition.
9.2 Lift (No Flaps)
When the flaps are retracted, we are interested in the maximum angle of attack of the aircraft
when the sectional lift coefficient reaches 1.94. Table 9.1 is the plot illustrating this point.
Figure 9.1: Wing sectional lift coefficient profile at takeoff conditions without flaps [7].
The maximum angle of attack without flaps was calculated to be 16 degrees. Table 9.5
summarizes the aircraft aerodynamic coefficients at various angles of attack. The lift coefficient
of the aircraft was based on the sectional life coefficient values output by Liftline.m. The drag
coefficient calculation will be discussed on section 8.4. The coefficient of moment without the
tail calculation can be found in Appedix D.
23
AoA CL(wing) CL(ac) Cmac-t CD(ac)
0 0.36166 0.32323 -0.10000 0.02647
1 0.45208 0.41601 -0.09118 0.02886
2 0.54250 0.50879 -0.08237 0.03181
3 0.63291 0.60158 -0.07355 0.03533
4 0.72333 0.69436 -0.06474 0.03941
5 0.81374 0.78714 -0.05592 0.04406
6 0.90416 0.87992 -0.04711 0.04927
7 0.99458 0.97271 -0.03829 0.05505
8 1.08499 1.06549 -0.02948 0.06139
9 1.17541 1.15827 -0.02066 0.06830
10 1.26582 1.25106 -0.01185 0.07577
11 1.35624 1.34384 -0.00303 0.08381
12 1.44666 1.43662 0.00579 0.09241
13 1.53707 1.52940 0.01460 0.10158
14 1.62749 1.62219 0.02342 0.11131
15 1.71790 1.71497 0.03223 0.12160
16 1.80832 1.80775 0.04105 0.13246
Table 9.5: Aerodynamic parameters at takeoff conditions without flaps.
The pitching moment increases as the aircraft pitches. The main contribution comes from the
fuselage pitching moment. Given these coefficient of drag and lift at various angles of attack, we
were able to investigate whether the UAV was able to takeoff without flaps. The lift generated
by the aircraft is limited by the wing stall angle of attack. A lift greater than 644.8 lbf. is needed
to take off.
Figure 9.2: UAV will not be able to takeoff without the flaps.
24
As observed in Figure 9.2, the wing without flaps deployed at stall angle of attack of
approximately 16 degrees gives lift of 555 lbf., which is incapable of generating sufficient lift for
takeoff with a given stall speed of 35 kts at sea-level.
To calculate the stall speed at cruise condition, Equation 8.1 was used.
2 ⋅W
V = (Eqn. 9.1)
ρ ⋅ S ⋅ (CL ) max
Using Equation 9.1 and using the CLmax of the wing at 16 degree angle of attack, we calculated
the stall speed at cruise conditions to be 50.9 kts. Hence, the UAV will be able to cruise at 80 kts.
Mission requirements specify that the aircraft must perform dash maneuvers with an air speed of
140 kts and at an altitude of 500 ft. Based on our calculations, our UAV will be able to sustain
steady level flight at these conditions. Using the same approach as cruise condition calculation,
we calculated the stall speed at dash to be 38.3 kts. Therefore, the UAV will be able to dash at
140 kts.
9.3 Lift (Flaps Deployed)
When the flaps are deployed, we are interested in the maximum angle of attack of the aircraft as
well as the maximum lift coefficient generated by the flaps. Figure 9.3 illustrates this point.
Figure 9.3: Wing sectional lift coefficient profile with flaps deployed.
The corresponding angle of attack at this condition was approximately 17 degrees. Therefore our
stall angle of attack with flaps deployed is 17 degrees. Table 9.6 summarizes the aircraft
aerodynamic coefficients in the flap deployed configuration.
25
AoA CL(wing) CL(ac) Cmac-t CD(ac)
0 0.71635 0.62129 -0.25153 0.05170
1 0.80677 0.71407 -0.24271 0.05598
2 0.89719 0.80685 -0.23390 0.06082
3 0.98760 0.89964 -0.22508 0.06623
4 1.07802 0.99242 -0.21627 0.07221
5 1.16843 1.08520 -0.20745 0.07875
6 1.25885 1.17799 -0.19864 0.08585
7 1.34927 1.27077 -0.18982 0.09352
8 1.43968 1.36355 -0.18100 0.10175
9 1.53010 1.45633 -0.17219 0.11055
10 1.62051 1.54912 -0.16337 0.11991
11 1.71093 1.64190 -0.15456 0.12984
12 1.80135 1.73468 -0.14574 0.14034
13 1.89176 1.82747 -0.13693 0.15139
14 1.98218 1.92025 -0.12811 0.16302
15 2.07259 2.01303 -0.11930 0.17520
16 2.16301 2.10581 -0.11048 0.18796
17 2.25343 2.19860 -0.10167 0.20127
Table 9.6: Aerodynamic parameters at take-off conditions (flaps deployed).
The necessary lift coefficient needed to takeoff was calculated to be approximately 2.14, which
occurs between 16 and 17 degrees angle of attack. The pitching moment is significantly more
negative with flaps because flaps increase the lift generated by the wing and as a result, they will
produce more negative pitching moment. Also notice the increase in CD as the flaps contribute
more induced drag. The drag contribution due to the flaps can be found in section 8.4.
Without the flaps, we have shown that the aircraft is unable to generate sufficient lift for takeoff
and cruise at sea-level without the flaps. With the flaps deployed we came to conclusion that the
aircraft will generate sufficient lift for takeoff with a flap deflection angle of 20 degrees.
Figure 9.4: Aircraft will generate sufficient lift for takeoff with flaps deployed.
26
From Figure 9.4, we can clearly see that at stall angle of attack of approximately 17 degrees, the
aircraft will be able to takeoff with 675.1 lbf lift force. This is slightly higher than our gross
takeoff weight of 644.8 lbf. Our goal was meet the gross takeoff weight at stall speed since the
UAV will be flying at 1.15 times greater than the stall speed during normal takeoff session. At
1.15Vstall, the UAV will generate approximately 894.5 lbf of lift force and it will have 6 degree
of error margin between stall angle of attack and minimum lift angle of attack.
Deploying the flaps will result in changes to aerodynamic properties of the wing. The sectional
lift coefficient of the wing as well as the aerodynamic pitching moment will be affected due to
the flaps. The equations used to calculate these changes are shown in Appendix D.
9.4 Drag
The total drag coefficient can be calculated by adding the parasite drag coefficient, induced drag
coefficient, trim drag coefficient, and the added induced drag due to the flaps. Equation 9.2
illustrates this point.
CD = CD 0 + ( ΔCD ) flaps + CDi + CDtrim (Eqn. 9.2)
Each component contributing to the total drag was calculated individually. These calculations
can be found in Appendix D.
The total drag coefficient of the aircraft at takeoff, cruise and dash conditions were plotted and a
2nd degree polynomial fit operation was done to calculate the K value for CD = KCL2 + CD0.
Table 9.7 shows the table of CD0 and K values for all 4 configurations.
CD0 K(ac)
Takeoff (No Flaps) 0.0222 0.0336
Takeoff (With Flaps) 0.0375 0.0339
Cruise 0.0205 0.0336
Dash 0.0181 0.0336
Table 9.7: CD0 and K values at different configurations.
To illustrate this relationship, a drag polar plot for takeoff condition was constructed. This is
shown in Figure 9.5.
27
Drag Polar at Takeoff Condition (-17 deg. to 17 deg.)
Without Flaps With Flaps
0.25
0.2
CD(ac) 0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
CL(ac)
Figure 9.5: Drag polar at Takeoff Condition
As you can see from the plot, the y-intercept (CD0) increased with the flaps deployed. This is
expected due to increase in induced drag as well as the trim drag. The K value did not change
much going from retracted to deployed configuration. The slope of drag polar curve remains the
same for both configurations due to this constant K.
The parasite drag coefficient is the major contribution of the drag when the aircraft is at steady
level flight. Table 9.8 shows the breakdown of each component contributing to the parasite drag
at dash condition.
Component CD0
Wing 0.0100
Fuselage 0.0025
Booms 0.0020
Tail 0.0021
Deployed Landing Gear 0.0034
Table 9.8. CD0 contribution by different components at dash condition.
As seen from the table, the major contribution of the parasite drag is the wing. By examining the
equations, the wing surface area was the major parameter related to the wing parasite drag.
Therefore, our team focused on optimizing the wing surface area as much as possible in order to
minimize the wing parasite drag. Another component to observe is the landing gear. When the
landing gear was not retracted, the resultant parasite drag coefficient contribution was
approximately 33% of the wing parasite drag. This was the main motivation behind retractable
landing gear configuration. Additionally, the fuselage and boom wetted areas were directly
calculated from CAD software since this was the most accurate way to calculate it.
28
9.5 Cruise and Dash Performance
During dash, the aircraft is traveling approximately twice as fast at near sea level altitude
compared to cruise conditions.
From the lift section, we have calculated that our stall velocity at cruise is below 80 kts.
Additionally, at dash condition, the stall speed was below 140 kts at maximum angle of attack.
This implies that our aircraft should be able to carry out its mission with targeted airspeed for
both conditions.
For cruise and dash conditions, it is important to consider L/D ratio since this will directly affect
the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. Table 9.9 tabulates the maximum L/D ratio for both conditions
as well as the CLmax and equivalent stall speeds.
L/Dmax AoA (Degree) CLmax(ac) Vstall (kts)

Cruise 17.2 5 1.81 50.9
Dash 18.2 5 1.81 38.3
Table 9.9: Maximum L/D ratio occurs near 5 degree angle of attack.
Our UAV will have approximately L/D ratio of 17 for both conditions near 5 degree angle of
attack. This is similar to the L/D ratio of similar aircrafts we have considered at the beginning of
our project.
10. Power Requirement
In order for our aircraft to meet the various speed and altitude requirements, the UAV must have
a sufficiently powerful engine and propeller configuration. To select an appropriate engine, our
team calculated the power requirements based on the current aerodynamic and weight estimates
of the aircraft. The power required was computed at the various design points of cruise, dash
and loiter. Our calculations indicate that with the chosen propeller, a 51 hp engine will be
required to meet all performance specifications.
10.1 Power Requirement Calculations
In steady level flight, the aircraft is flying at a constant altitude and velocity. At this flight
condition, the required thrust is equal to the drag acting on the aircraft. For a propeller aircraft,
the measured output is in horse power and must be converted to thrust. A MATLAB code was
written to perform these calculations and is included in Appendix C.
To maintain steady, level flight, the engine must generate an available power that is greater than
or equal to the power required. The power available, at a specific altitude, in an engine that has a
rated sea level horse power Pshp is given by:
29
ρ altitude
PAval = 0.85ηi (P ) (Eqn. 10.1)
ρ sealevel shp sealevel
It is clear from this equation that power available drops as the altitude increases. Also the term ηi
is a measure of the propeller efficiency and is a function of flight speed and propeller diameter.
The maximum airspeed attainable at a certain altitude occurs when the available power output is
equal to the power required.
10.2 Power Requirement at Cruise Altitude
The power requirement at the cruise altitude of 20,000 ft was calculated and is given in Figure
10.1. These power requirements are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of 644.8
lbs. The power required to cruise at 80 kts is 8.1 hp. With a 51 hp engine, the output gives us a
maximum air speed of 138.9 kts and is also able to meet the power required at the stall speed of
42 kts.
Figure 10.1: Power available and power needed at cruise altitude.
Based on our mission analysis, a large part of our mission profile consists of cruising at 80 kts at
an altitude of 20,000 ft. Therefore, it is important that the cruise speed be close to the airspeed
that requires the minimum amount of power. Given our aerodynamic configuration, the least
power required for steady level flight is 7.6 hp and occurs at a flight speed of 62 kts. Although
we will be cruising with 0.5 hp greater than the optimum, the trade off is necessary in order to
meet our other aerodynamic specifications.
30
10.3 Power Requirement for Dash and Loiter
At the dash and loiter altitude of 500 ft, the power requirement was calculated and is given in
Figure 10.2. These power requirements are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of
644.8 lbs. The power required for dash at 140 kts is 39.7 hp. The power required for loiter is 9.4
hp. The engine also delivers enough power to fly at the stall speed of 40.9 kts and attain a
maximum speed of 142.8 kts. From this analysis, we conclude that the 51 hp engine meets our
requirements.
Figure 10.2: Power required and power available at dash/loiter altitude with 51 hp engine.
10.4 Maximum Climb Rate
Our UAV is required to have a rate of climb of 16.67 ft/s at sea level. The maximum rate of
climb, Vmax climb rate can be determined by first calculating the horizontal velocity at which
maximum climb rate is attained, Vmax rate . Vmax rate and subsequently Vmax climb rate for a certain
altitude is given by:
2 ⎛W ⎞ K
Vmax rate = (Eqn. 9.2)
ρ ⎜⎝ S ⎟⎠ 3Cd0
ρ (P ) 1 C S
Vmax climb rate = η p shp SL − ρ (Vmax rate )3 D (Eqn. 9.3)
ρ SL W 2 W
31
Figure 10.3 depicts how the maximum climb rate of our UAV varies with altitude. The weight
of the aircraft was assumed to be the GTOW of 644.8 lbs. It shows that our aircraft easily meets
the required sea level climb rate even at maximum weight. Figure 10.3 also shows that our flight
ceiling is 40,100 ft. The flight ceiling is given by the altitude at which the maximum climb rate
is zero. Our aircraft has a maximum climb rate of 31.5 ft/s at sea level.
Figure 10.3: Maximum climb rate for our UAV at maximum weight and flaps retracted.
10.5 Flight Envelope
The flight envelope depicts the range of speeds that our aircraft can fly at a specific altitude in
steady level flight. The stall boundary line is the locus of our UAV’s Vstall at each respective
altitude, and is determined purely from the aerodynamic properties of our aircraft. The power
boundary line represents the maximum and minimum speeds at which the engine is able to
power the aircraft in steady level flight. The maximum and minimum speed occurs when the
maximum power available from the engine matches the power required for steady level flight.
Since the stall boundary is ahead of the lower power boundary for most of the altitudes, the
minimum airspeeds that our UAV will be able to maintain is usually stall limited. These flight
envelopes are calculated assuming our aircraft is at our GTOW of 644.8 lbs.
Figure 10.4 demonstrates that our UAV, with flaps retracted is able to fly at all the required
flight points with the exception of the sea level stall requirement. However, it can be seen in
Figure 10.5 that with flaps deployed, our UAV is able to satisfy stall requirements.
32
Figure 10.4: Flight envelope of the UAV with flaps retracted.
Figure 10.5: Flight envelope of the UAV with flaps deployed.
33
11. Engine Selection
We chose to implement the AR801 engine, manufactured by UAV Engines of Lichfield, United
Kingdom, as the power plant of our aircraft. The engine is a very important part of the aircraft
design. The engine must be able to perform to the demands of the different flight conditions that
our UAV will encounter. The engine must be able to provide adequate power during dash and
take-off, yet be fuel efficient enough to minimize the fuel weight required. To these ends, we
have selected several different engines that meet the maximum power requirement and are
relatively fuel efficient. Table 11.1 shows some different characteristics of the chosen engines.
AR801 [5] Rotax 582 UL [8] HKS 700E [9]

Type of Engine Rotary 2 Stroke 4 Stroke
Manufacturer UAV Engines BRP-Rotax HKS
Location United Kingdom Austria Japan
Horsepower (bhp) 51 65 60
Weight (lbs) 53.7 110.2 121
Average Fuel Consumption (lb/hr) 15 24 14.3
Dimensions (in) 12.8 X 9.8 X 12 20 X 16.4 X 29.5 25.3 X 17.1 X 18.4
Evaluation Best Option Fuel Inefficient Too Big
Table 11.1: Engine comparison chart.
Our ideal engine will be light, fuel efficient, small, and easy to use. As can be seen from Table
11.1, the AR801, which is made by UAV Engines Ltd., is both light, small, and fuel efficient.
The Rotax 582 UL is heavier and the least fuel efficient of the group. It also is a 2 stroke engine
which requires the extra step of adding oil to the fuel. The HKS 700 E is the most fuel efficient,
but its size is relatively large in comparison to the AR801 due to its horizontally opposed
cylinders. After considering these differences, we chose the AR801 engine to power our UAV.
Its compact rotary engine is perfect for our narrow fuselage. In addition, its low weight and
good fuel consumption will make the fuel weight and therefore overall weight of our UAV
minimal, which is desirable. Appendix H details the fuel consumption of the AR801.
12. Propeller Selection
We chose to use a composite-wood two-bladed propeller that is 5 ft in diameter for our initial
design. Two blades and a composite-wood construction were selected because of weight
considerations. A composite two bladed propeller typically weighs less than 7 lbs. [10]. A two
bladed propeller is also the least destabilizing propeller configuration during powered flight.
Proper propeller selection is important because the propeller’s geometry plays an important role
in the propulsion systems overall efficiency and aircraft stability. The initial propeller selection
was conducted by looking at the diameters of propellers for engines of similar power (about 50
hp). A propeller diameter of 52-72 inches was a typical size used on engines ranging in power of
50-70 horsepower [11]. Therefore, no matter what engine is chosen in the 50 horsepower range,
the maximum prop size is 72 inches. To find the optimum propeller size, different propeller
geometries were evaluated based on the following criteria (in order of importance):
34
1. Ability of propeller to fit in current configuration
2. Efficiency of the propeller
3. Weight
4. Ease of installation/operation
5. Contribution to destabilizing downwash on aircraft stability
The efficiency of the propeller is directly related to its size. Therefore, we chose the largest
propeller reasonably possible to get the largest efficiency possible. The design parameters that
limit the size of the propeller are the ground clearance when rotating for takeoff and the
maximum distance between the twin booms (6.28 ft.)
Some propellers can vary their pitch to increase the efficiency. However, the efficiency increase
is only realized at low speeds, and a variable pitch propeller is more complicated and heavier
than a fixed pitch propeller. For these reasons, we chose a fixed-pitch propeller.
From Figure 12.1 below, it is evident that the propeller efficiency is lower at lower speeds. This
is fine for our configuration because the UAV is not power-limited at low speeds; we are power
limited at high speeds. At high speeds, the propeller efficiency is at its maximum (0.98 for our
case) and is adequate to meet our dash requirement.
Figure 12.1: Propeller efficiency as function of flight speed.
Using the knowledge of actuator disk theory and research conducted on propellers we were able
to construct a trade-study matrix. We used the trade study matrix in Table 12.1 to evaluate the
best possible configuration and size of the propeller. The design tradeoffs are summarized in the
trade study matrix below.
35
Compatibility Efficiency Ease of Contribution to
CriteriaÆ Weight Conclusion
with configuration of Propeller Installation stability
Design
Considered
Configuration Considerations
2 Blade-Fixed Design
Excellent Adequate Excellent Excellent Excellent
Pitch Chosen
2 Blade- Too heavy
Variable Pitch Excellent Excellent Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Excellent and
complicated
>2 Blade- Too heavy,
Fixed Pitch complicated
Excellent Adequate Poor Excellent Unsatisfactory
and stability
problems
> 2 Blade- Too heavy,
Variable Pitch complicated
Excellent Excellent Poor Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory
and stability
problems
Size Considerations
Propeller;
Not efficient
<5feet Excellent Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent
enough
diameter
Propeller; 5 Design
Excellent Adequate Excellent Excellent Excellent
feet diameter Chosen
Propeller; >5 Poor; cannot fit a Poor; tip Will not fit
feet diameter prop with exceeds Unsatisfactory Excellent Unsatisfactory in current
diameter > 5 ft Mach 1 design
Table 12.1: Propeller Design Trade study.
From the trade study matrix, it is clear that a 5 ft. diameter propeller in the 2 blade, fixed pitch
configuration is the best design choice for our design. The propeller will be attached to a 2.3:1
reduction drive that is part of the AR801 engine. The belt drive’s reduction ratio was chosen so
that the propeller blade tips will not exceed Mach 1.
13. Fuel Requirements
Big Brother XL4000 will need 183.4 lbs of fuel to complete the flight profile detailed in the
Mission Description section. In order to meet the requirements, the aircraft must carry enough
fuel to perform all of its required objectives: take off, perform 10 VTI maneuvers, cruise for 12
hours, and land. Figure 13.1 shows the estimated fuel requirements for each phase of the
mission.
36
Fuel Used During Fuel Used During
Return to Base Takeoff + Climb +
1.89 lbs Dash to
Surveillance Area
5.93 lbs
Fuel Used During

12 hr Cruise
59.45 lbs
Fuel Used During

10 VTI Maneuvers
116.10 lbs
Total Fuel Required: 183.4 lbs
Figure 13.1 Breakdown of the amount of fuel required for each segment of the mission profile.
From a fuel consumption perspective, the entire mission profile comprises of 3 types of
maneuvers: climb, steady level flight and a powered descent. In order to perform the more
complex calculations for climb and steady level flight, MATLAB codes (fuel_climb.m,
fuel_levelflight.m) were written and are included in Appendix C.
The MATLAB codes calculate the power required for each maneuver at the specified altitude.
Using the engine manufacture’s data for fuel consumption, we are able to calculate the fuel flow
rate required for each power setting required during the flight. The MATLAB code iterates every
1 second during flight. After every iteration the weight is recalculated based on fuel burned off
(and hence weight lost by the UAV) during each second. The code updates the weight
throughout the flight like a Breguet’s equation simulation, however our simulation accounts for a
variable throttle setting, which Breguet’s equation does not. We believe that our simulation is a
better model of the actual fuel required than Breguet’s equation because our simulation is
tailored for our mission profile and considers more variables. The detailed calculations we used
for calculating the fuel requirements of our aircraft is detailed in Appendix H.
14. Takeoff and Landing Analysis
The Big Brother XL4000 will be able to both take off and land well within the distance specified
by our requirements. Our design requirements state that the aircraft must be able to take off and
land on a 3000-foot runway and clear a 50-foot tall obstacle at the end of the field. Our UAV
37
sufficiently meets these requirements. The UAV with flaps deployed and running at full throttle
will take off and reach 50 ft elevation within 605 ft of where it started. For landing, the UAV is
able to clear the obstacle, descend at a -5 degree climb angle and come to a complete stop in 847
ft. Our analysis shows that the UAV design can take off and land on very short runways. This
allows our design to operate on a much larger range of airfields. The detailed calculations used
in this analysis are available in Appendix E.
14.1 Takeoff Analysis
The takeoff procedure is illustrated below in Figure 14.1.
Figure 14.1: Diagram of takeoff distance for UAV. [6]
The total takeoff distance is the sum of the ground roll, SG, the rotation distance, SR, the
transition to climb, STR, and the climb distance, SC.
STOT = SG + S R + STR + SC (Eqn. 14.1)
The full equations for each of these terms are found in Appendix E, and the results of our
calculations are shown in Table 14.1. The velocities used for takeoff and landing are available in
Table 14.2. The UAV is able to takeoff well within the regulations at its max power of 51 hp on
normal fields of concrete or firm dirt. We also computed the minimum power required to takeoff
within the regulated distance and found it to be 16.5 hp. This minimum power yields a takeoff
distance of roughly 2220 ft with actual lift off from the ground occurring before the half-field
point of 1500 ft. At worst case conditions of a wet grass runway, our design can still takeoff in
654 ft. The most important factors in minimizing takeoff distance are weight and power. A
38
decrease in weight or an increase in power will shorten the takeoff distance. Therefore we
decided to take off at maximum power to allow for the minimum possible takeoff distance.
14.2 Landing Analysis
The landing procedure is illustrated below in Figure 14.2.
Figure 14.2: Landing procedure of UAV. [6]
The total landing distance is the sum of the approach distance, Sa, the flare distance, SF, the free
roll distance, SFR, and the braking distance, SB.
S L = Sa + S F + S FR + S B (Eqn. 14.2)
The equations for each of these terms are also found in Appendix E, and values for each are
listed in Table 14.1; the input parameters are also listed in Table 14.3. Our design lands well
within the 3000 ft limits at a distance of 847 ft on a concrete or firm dirt strip. On the worst case
field of wet grass, our aircraft can land in a distance of 1007 ft.
Takeoff Landing
SG = 264 ft Sa = 536 ft
SR = 65 ft SF = 71 ft
STR = 195 ft SFR = 68 ft
SC = 81 ft SB = 172 ft
STotal = 605 ft STotal = 847 ft
Table 14.1: Takeoff and landing distances.
39
Takeoff Landing
Takeoff Velocity 65 ft/s Approach Velocity 76.7 ft/s
Transition Velocity 67.9 ft/s Flare Veloctiy 72.57 ft/s
Climb Velocity 70.8 ft/s Touchdown Velocity 67.85 ft/s
Table 14.2: Aircraft velocities during takeoff and landing.
Propulsion
Power 51 hp
Propulsion Efficiency 0.748
Aerodynamic Performance for Takeoff
S 74.25 ft2
CL 0.1
Cdo 0.0375
K 0.0336
Aerodynamic Performance for Landing
S 74.25 ft2
CL 0
Cdo 0.0375
K 0.0336
Landing Weight 461.4 lbs
Gross Takeoff Weight 644.8 lbs
Descent Angle 5 degrees
Table 14.3: Input Parameters.
In our calculations for landing distance we chose a descent angle of -5° instead of the specified
angle of -3°. A steeper descent angle will yield a shorter the landing distance. We attempted to
keep the landing distance as short as possible so as to allow our UAV to make use of the shortest
possible field. A descent angle of -3° will produce a landing distance of 1216 ft., which still
meets our requirements but results in a much longer runway needed. To show that the aircraft is
capable of descending at -5°, we considered the following equation which relates the flight path
angle to the thrust, drag, and the weight of the aircraft.
T −D
sin(γ ) = (Eqn. 14.3)
W
For the minimum flight path angle, the thrust is set to zero. At a speed of 1.15 times the stall
speed and the stall angle of attack, the total drag on the aircraft is 86 lbs. For landing, the aircraft
with all its fuel used up will weigh 461.4 lbs. Solving for γ, we find the minimum flight path
angle to be -10.5°, which is more than we need. Thus, our aircraft is capable of descending at a
flight path angle of at least -5°.
15. Tail Selection
In choosing the optimum tail configuration for BBXL 4000, we considered numerous tail designs
used by existing UAVs. In particular, we studied three tail configurations: V-tail, twin-boom tail,
40
and tailless or flying wing (Appendix F). An H-shaped, twin-boom tail design was chosen as the
final configuration. It offers two distinct advantages over other designs. First, it allows the
extension of the moment arm of tail without the weight and drag penalties of a full fuselage.
Second, it also enables the placement of heavy engine machinery closer to the center of gravity
and hence maintaining the stability of aircraft by keeping the center of gravity close to the
aerodynamic center.
The horizontal and vertical tails are essential for the aircraft’s longitudinal and lateral stability.
The customer requires that the UAV be statically stable in yaw and pitch for all configurations.
In order for the aircraft to be stable, both the lateral stability derivative (Cnψ) and the longitudinal
stability derivative (Cm/CL) have to be negative. To meet these requirements, we chose a total
vertical tail area of 7.0 ft2 and a horizontal tail area of 7.28 ft2. The rudder size is 0.875 ft2 per
tail while the elevator size is 2.9 ft2. An illustration of the tail configuration is shown in Figure
15.1.
1.16
1.08
0.4
0.46
1.68 1.87
6.28
0.64
0.5
1.43
1.92
Figure 15.1 Vertical and horizontal tail dimensions. Diagram not to scale
15.1 Vertical Tail
To calculate the vertical tail size, the yawing effects of the wing, fuselage, propeller, and wing-
body interference were considered. A detailed description of our calculation of this value is
outlined in Appendix F. A desired stability derivative for the aircraft (Cnψ) was calculated based
on our aircraft configuration, and then the vertical tail area was adjusted to meet this
specification. The result of our calculation was a vertical tail area of 4.34 ft2. This value of
vertical tail generates a Cnψ of -1.6x10-4. This indicates that the aircraft is laterally stable.
However, while the vertical tail size of 4.34 ft2 is sufficient to provide directional stability to the
aircraft, it does not guarantee that the aircraft has enough maneuverability. The relation between
the vertical tail size and the maneuverability is explained in the following section.
41
15.1.1 Vertical Tail Maneuverability Requirements
The mission of the BBXL 4000 is to provide patrol and reconnaissance. Given that the intended
targets may do everything in their power to avoid detection and tracking, we require BBXL 4000
to be able to perform high-mobility maneuvers while loitering. This is to prevent targets from
eluding the tracking of BBXL 4000. Therefore, it is important to have adequate tail control
surfaces to provide the required lateral mobility to the aircraft. In our context maneuverability is
defined as the yaw rate of the aircraft. We would like the aircraft to have enough yaw
acceleration to complete a 180° level rotation in less than 15 seconds and to complete a 360°
level rotation in less than 20 seconds.
To determine the yaw rate of the aircraft and thus the required vertical tail size, we fix the rudder
area to be 25% of the vertical tail area and the maximum deflection angle of the rudder to be 30°.
The parameters are fixed based on study of similar aircraft. We also assume that the UAV has to
perform high maneuverability moves when it is loitering at 500 ft. The yawing rate is related to
the vertical tail size area by:
1 dCnv
I zzψ = ρV 2 LVT (δ r )SVT (Eqn. 15.1)
2 dδ r
Where Izz = the polar moment of inertia about z-axis, calculated to be 666.3 slug/ft2;
LVT = the distance between vertical tail aerodynamic center and the wing aerodynamic
center;
ρ = air density at the loiter altitude of 500 ft: 0.0024slug/ft3;
V = loiter velocity: 135 ft/sec;
dC nv
= rudder power, given by the equation:
dδ r
dCnv S L
= −avτ VT VT η v = 3.83 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. 15.2)
dδ r SW b
δr = deflection angle of rudder, given in degrees;

SVT = vertical tail area
With the original vertical tail size of 4.34ft2, we can obtain a maximum yaw rate of:
1 rad
ψ = 0.0024 ⋅ 135 2 ⋅ 7.7 ⋅ 3.83 × 10 − 4 ⋅ 4.34 = 0.0126 2 (Eqn. 15.3)
2 ⋅ 666.3 s
With a yaw rate of 0.0126 rad/s2, the aircraft does not have enough maneuverability to meet our
turning requirement. Working backwards from the required yaw acceleration, we found that 7 ft2
will allow the aircraft to meet our maneuverability requirement. The comparison of the yawing
moment and the rotating time of the aircraft are presented in Table 15.1.
42
Tail Area (ft2) Yaw rate (rad/s2) 90° turn time (s) 180° turn time (s) 360° turn time (s)
4.52 0.0126 15.8 22.3 31.6
7.0 0.0315 10.0 14.1 20.0
Table 15.1: Comparison of time requirement for prescribed turn angles of the iterated vertical
tail area sizing calculation of 4.34 ft2 and increased area 7 ft2.
The rotation time shows that vertical tail size of 7.0 ft2 is the minimum area needed to meet our
maneuverability requirement. The lateral stability derivate at this tail area is -1.2x10-4 and this
shows that the aircraft still has adequate lateral stability despite enlarging the vertical tail by
60%. As such, the vertical tail area of the UAV will be 7.0 ft2, or 3.5 ft2 for each tail.
15.2 Horizontal Tail
The horizontal tail size is determined by the elevator power to maintain the aircraft at
equilibrium at maximum lift condition. Elevator size is fixed at 40% of the horizontal tail and
maximum elevator deflection is fixed at 20°. The values of the fixed parameters are based on
study of similar aircrafts. Even though ground effect is not required for the horizontal tail sizing,
we felt that it would be advisable to leave a margin of safety to account for the ground effect at
landing. Therefore, we used a most forward C.G. location of 6 ft instead of 6.21 ft from the nose,
which was calculated from the weight component analysis.
In addition to satisfying equilibrium condition at maximum lift, the horizontal tail has to be able
to provide longitudinal stability as well. For the horizontal tail, a more complicated iteration was
required to account for the pitching moment effects of the fuselage, wing, CG location, and
elevator deflections. The first iteration of this calculation is outlined in Appendix F.
Convergence was determined when the output value of the tail area was within 1% of the input
value. By starting with an initial horizontal tail of 18.56 ft2, we obtain a final horizontal tail size
of 7.28 ft2 after 27 iterations. The tail area obtained after every iteration and its convergence are
presented in Figure 15.2 and Figure 15.3.
43
Figure 15.2: Horizontal tail size against number of iterations.
Figure 15.3: Horizontal tail size converged to within 1% of original tail size.
The convergence of less than 1% is achieved after 27 iterations, with the final horizontal tail size
of 7.28 ft2. We also attempted to initialize the iteration with an initial tail area of more than 18.7
ft2. Results show that the final value at convergence is approximately 7.3 ft2 as well. The tail area
yields a longitudinal directional derivate (Cm/CL) value of -0.15, which is stabilizing. Therefore,
the aircraft is able to maintain longitudinal stability with the given tail area.
44
15.3 Neutral Point
One of the parameters calculated for the horizontal tail sizing is the neutral point, which
determines the farthest allowed aft location of the center of gravity for the aircraft to be stable.
Following the calculations in Appendix F, the stable most rear location of the center of gravity is
6.66 ft behind the nose of the aircraft. The actual farthest aft location of the aircraft’s CG is 6.24
ft, which is forward of the aft limit of the center of gravity. Thus, our aircraft meets the stability
requirements of the neutral point and the actual C.G. locations are within the usable C.G. range.
16. Landing Gear and Tire Design
The landing gear and tire sizing were calculated using a statistical approach. A statistical tire
sizing table was provided by Raymer [6]. This method assumed 90% of the aircraft weight to be
carried by the rear tires while the remaining 10% was carried by the front tires. Equation 16.1
was used to calculate the diameter and width of rear and front tires in inches.
Diameter orWidth (in) = AWw B (Eqn. 16.1)
A and B in Equation 16.1 is a constant term given by Raymer. Ww is the weight carried by each
tire. Given our gross takeoff weight of 644.8 lbs, the weight carried by the front and rear tires
were 580.3 lbs and 64.5 lbs respectively. Since we are planning to install 2 rear landing gears,
the weight will be evenly distributed among the two, making the Ww for each landing gear
290.15 lbs. Table 16.1 shows the values of A and B as well as the final diameter and width sizing
of front and rear tires.
A B Front (in) Rear (in)

Diameter (in.) 1.51 0.349 6.48 11.00
Width (in.) 0.715 0.312 2.63 4.22
Table 16.1: Summary of diameter and width calculation.
Our UAV will implement a retractable landing gear system, and the approximate tire dimensions
can be obtained from Table 16.1. To maintain stability of the aircraft, the rear landing gears are
to be stored within the twin booms. Storing the landing gear in the booms also increases the
space inside the fuselage while making use of twin boom inner capacity. Figure 16.1 and Figure
16.2 illustrates how the landing gears will be retracted into the twin booms.
45
Figure 16.1: Front landing gear retraction.
Figure 16.2: Rear landing gear retraction.
As seen from the figures above, the front landing gear retracts backwards, and the rear landing
gears retract forward. The rear landing gears in their down position were located slightly rear of
the CG such that the rotation during takeoff can be maneuvered without a large pitching moment.
A simple hinge mechanism and electric motor were incorporated to retract the landing gears.
17. Air Inlet Sizing
Our engine requires an air inlet of 80 in2. Our UAV needs an air inlet because the engine is
mounted inside its fuselage. In addition to providing a necessary component for combustion, air
is needed to dissipate heat from the radiator of our liquid cooled rotary engine.
46
We determined the required inlet area required by taking into consideration the following: engine
displacement of 294 cm3, engine revolution limit of 8000 rpm and stall speed of our aircraft at
about 35 knots. Using this information and simple volume flow rate calculations, we conclude
that a maximum area of about 40 in2 is necessary for our engine’s intake.
In addition, it has been found that typical radiators for this size of engine have approximately 60
to 70 in2 of surface area [12]. However, because our radiator will not be placed directly over the
air inlet, but will be set back several inches, air will have time to disperse and diffuse to a larger
area than what our inlet allows. Based on this we have found that an area of about 40 in2 will be
sufficient for our radiator cooling.
With the combined area required for the engine’s intake and the radiator, we determined that the
air inlet area will need to be 80 in2, 40 for the engine’s intake and 40 for cooling the radiator.
This inlet will be placed on the top side of the fuselage to prevent debris from being sucked in
during takeoff and landing, thus helping to prevent damage or clogging of engine components
(see Figure 17.1).
Engine air inlet

(80 in2)
Figure 17.1: Engine air inlet located on top of fuselage.
18. Trim Analysis
In order to sustain steady flight, trim analysis must be performed to determine if the aircraft is
able to balance its aerodynamic forces in equilibrium. Also, for a particular symmetric maneuver
or gust as specified by the V-n diagram, we will need to evaluate the aerodynamic loads acting
on the UAV in a trimmed condition. Trim curves generated at the critical design points are also
47
needed for determining the structural stability of the aircraft when subjected to the velocity-load
factor combinations for symmetric maneuvers (zero pitching acceleration).
18.1 Required Aerodynamic Information
Aerodynamic information such as of CL, CD and CM is needed to obtain trim curves. This
information is needed for the power-off and tail-off configurations within the range of operating
angles of attack, -17° < α < 16°. The three aerodynamic quantities are obtained from Section 9,
which details the aerodynamic performance at design points.
18.2 Trim Curves
The following ten graphs show the trim curves for five different configurations and conditions.
The first set of four graphs (Figure 18.1) shows the trim curves for major flight conditions at full
fuel. The next set three graphs (Figure 18.2) shows the trim curves for major flight conditions at
empty fuel. Since takeoff with no fuel is not a feasible maneuver, we have not included the trim
curve for this configuration. Also, because the fuel is located in the wing at the aircraft’s center
of gravity, the change in center of gravity between full-fuel and empty-fuel conditions is
negligible. As a result, the trim curves in Figure 18.1 and Figure 18.2 are essentially the same.
48
49
Figure 18.1: Trim curves for major flight maneuvers with full fuel.
50
Figure 18.2: Trim curves for major flight maneuvers with no fuel.
Each trim curve demonstrates the variation of four sets of non-dimensionalized force coefficients
as functions of angle of attack. The vertical force coefficient for the entire aircraft, CZA, shows
the resultant force in the vertical direction from aerodynamic forces over the entire aircraft and is
given by Equation 18.1.
51
⎛S ⎞
CZA = CZ + CZT ⎜⎜ T ⎟⎟ (Eqn. 18.1)
⎝ SW ⎠
The vertical force coefficient of the wing, CZ, gives the resultant vertical aerodynamic force on
the wing of the aircraft (Eqn. 18.2).
CZ = CL cos(α ) + CD sin(α ) (Eqn. 18.2)
Both of these values increase as the angle of attack increases. Since we assume that the wing
and tail are the only surfaces contributing significantly to the overall vertical aerodynamics force,
the difference between the CZA and CZ shows the necessary vertical force from the tail required
to achieve trimmed longitudinal flight. This will eventually determine the amount of elevator
deflection needed.
Furthermore, the horizontal force coefficient for the entire aircraft, CX, shows the variation of the
resultant force in the horizontal direction from aerodynamic forces as a function of angle of
attack (Eqn. 18.3)
C X = −CL sin(α ) + CD cos(α ) (Eqn. 18.1)
We assumed that CXA and CX are approximately equal, since the force contribution from the tail
in the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is negligible. As shown in Figure 18.1, CX decreases as
angle of attack increases. Lastly, the moment coefficient of the aircraft neglecting the effects of
the tail, CMACT, shows the necessary moment generated by the tail needed to sustain trimmed-
flight at varying angles of attack.
19. Maneuver and Gust Envelope
To further demonstrate the aircraft’s capabilities and performance, V-n diagrams were created to
show the variation in load factor with increasing airspeed for in-flight maneuvers and wind gusts.
19.1 Maneuver Loading
Flight load factors represent the ratio of aerodynamic force normal to the aircraft’s longitudinal
axis to the aircraft’s weight. The diagram illustrates the general maneuvering flight envelope and
the limit loads (or the maximum aerodynamic loads the airframe must be able to sustain without
permanent deformation) during various flight design points. Since current regulations and
specifications do not specifically define the allowable load factors for an unmanned
reconnaissance aircraft, the limit load factors were instead predetermined partially by the
customer and by FAR Part 23.
From Customer Specifications:

Maximum Positive Design Load Factor: +3.50
Minimum Negative Design Load Factor: -1.90
52
From FAR Part 23:
VC (Cruise Velocity): 80 knots
VD (Dive Velocity): 115 knots
Load Factor at Point E: -1.00
19.2 Gust Loading
During regular flight, atmospheric conditions such as a sudden or sharp gust will affect the
aerodynamic forces acting on an aircraft and thus its load factor. Due to the absence of reliable
gust loading specifications for UAV type aircraft, the customer has suggested using the
parameters as defined in FAR Part 23. FAR regulations specify the vertical gust velocities at
various design points that must be considered. These gust velocities at the design points are
shown below.
Design Point Positive & Negative Gust Velocity (ft/s)

VC (80 kt) 50
VD (115 kt) 25
Table 19.1: Sharp in flight vertical gust velocities, as specified by FAR Part 23.
19.3 Effect Due to Flaps
The V-n diagram must also show the structural loading due to flap deployment. Although the
amount of time spent in flight with the flaps deployed is much less than the amount of time
without, it introduces higher structural loading than un-deployed at the same speed.
Consequently, this region is shown in green in the diagrams following. As defined by FAR Part
23 [13], the limiting load factors for flaps deployed are listed below.
Maximum Positive Design (with Flaps) Load Factor: +2.00

Minimum Negative Design (with Flaps) Load Factor: 0.00
19.4 V-n Diagrams
By including the effects of the sharp gusts at the specified design velocities in the V-n diagram,
we are able to display both the maneuvering flight envelope as well as the associated gust
envelope. The complete V-n diagrams for both cases of retracted and deployed flaps in empty
and full fuel configurations are displayed in Figure 19.1 and Figure 19.2. The velocities
corresponding to each design point are listed on each diagram. For a full description of the
analysis process, please refer to Appendix I.
53
Figure 19.1: V-n diagram for the Big Brother XL4000 at dry weight.
Figure 19.2: V-n diagram for the Big Brother XL4000 with full fuel.
The four critical loading conditions (design points) are shown in the diagrams above (A,D,E,and
G). The respective velocities and load factors at these points were compiled and shown in the
table below.
54
Design Velocity (Full Fuel) Velocity (Empty Fuel) Load Factor Load Factor
Point (kt) (kt) (full fuel) (empty fuel)
A 63.60 53.99 3.50 3.50
D 115.00 115.00 3.50 3.50
E 115.00 115.00 -1.00 -1.00
G 61.23 51.97 -1.90 -1.90
Table 19.2: Maneuver velocity and load factors at critical load conditions.
20. Wing Loading
Before designing and analyzing the structure of the wing, we have to determine the wing loads at
the critical points in the V-n diagram. The loading conditions for both empty- fuel and full-fuel
conditions will have to be considered. The loads acting on the wing consist of aerodynamic loads
such as lift, drag, pitching moment as well as inertial loads such as wing structural weight, fuel
weight and twin boom weight. In calculating the distribution of loads across the span of the
wing, all of the forces and moments have to be accounted for.
The reference axes of the wing have to be chosen before we can determine the wing loading. The
x-axis is the aircraft reference axis, pointing aft. The y-axis is the quarter-chord line of the wing
in span-wise direction, with the origin at the root of the wing and pointing towards the right wing
tip. The z-axis completes the orthonormal axes, pointing in the direction of the lift forces.
20.1 Wing Discretization
The overall load distribution is calculated by dividing each wing into 100 strips along the y-axis,
with the first strip at the wing tip and the 100th strip closest to the fuselage. The widths of the
strips are smaller nearer the wing tip to better capture the variation of the load distribution near
the tip. The forces acting on the wing are then given as force per length in the span-wise
direction.
20.2 Aerodynamic Loads
The aerodynamic forces acting on the wing are namely the lift, drag and the pitching moments.
The lift acts in the z-direction, the drag acts in the x-direction and the pitching moment acts in
the y-direction. To calculate the distribution of the aerodynamic loads along the span, we will
first need to calculate the aircraft’s total lift coefficient, Cza, which is obtained using the Eqn
20.1, where nz is the load factor and Veq is the equivalent velocity corresponding to the critical
design points in the V-n diagram.
n zW
Cza = (Eqn. 20.1)
1
ρVeq S w
2
2
Subsequently from the trim curve, we can obtain the wing angle of attack corresponding to Cza.
Using the wing angle of attack from the trim curve, we will be able to obtain the sectional lift,
drag and moment coefficient at each span-wise station from the MATLAB code LiftLine.m. The
forces and moments acting at each station can then be calculated by multiplying the coefficients
55
by the respective chord length and dynamic pressure. Finally the loads acting on each strip are
calculated as the averages of the loads acting on the two stations spanning the strip.
20.3 Inertial Loads
The wings are estimated to have a structural weight of 68.8 lb or 34.4 lb per wing. To simplify
our calculation, we assume that the structural weight is uniform across the span, with the center
of gravity of the structure located at ⅓ of the chord behind the leading edge. In addition, the twin
booms are attached to the wing at 2⅓ ft to 3⅔ ft away from the root. Therefore, the span-wise
stations that fall within this distance will have to carry the additional weight of the booms.
The total fuel required is 183.4 lb, or 91.7 lb of fuel per wing. We designed our fuel tank to carry
101 lb of fuel per wing or 15 lb of extra fuel than what is required for the entire mission. The fuel
container is assumed to be a container that has the following rectangular cross section at each
span-wise station:
0.5c
Figure 20.1: Fuel tank position in airfoil.
The length of the fuel tank at each station is ½ of the chord length and the height is 45% of the
maximum airfoil thickness. Since the structural wing box covers 50% of the chord, the design of
the fuel tank ensures that the fuel container is contained within the wing box.
After determining all the forces acting on the wing, the resultant loads on the wing can be
determined. The forces are decomposed along the reference axes and then added together to give
the resultant loads along the reference axes, namely VX, VZ, MT, MX and MZ.
20.4 Maximum Wing Loading
The wing loading distribution will be performed at the four critical design points as indicated in
the V-n diagram, for both empty-fuel and full-fuel configurations. The following five graphs
show the various load distributions that the wing is subjected to.
56
Figure 20.2: Comparision of vertical shear loading Vz at various design points.
From the above Vz graph, the maximum shear force in the z-direction will occur at Design Point
D for the full-fuel configuration. Design Point D corresponds to low positive angle of attack. A
kink in the Vz graph can be noticed at ⅓ ft to 3⅔ ft from the root, which is caused by the offset
from the fuel and twin boom inertial loads.
Figure 20.3: Comparison of horizontal shear loading Vx at various design points.
57
From the above Vx graph, the wing experiences the most x-direction shear force at Design Point
A, which corresponds to high positive angle of attack at full-fuel configuration.
Figure 20.4: Comparison of torsional moment distribution MT at various design points.
The above graph shows the torsional moment distribution about the y-axis. The maximum
torsion will occur at Design Point E for the empty-fuel configuration.
Figure 20.5: Comparison of bending momnet distribution about the x-axis Mx at various design points.
58
The Mx graph shows that the maximum bending moment about the x-axis occurs at Design Point
D, which corresponds to low positive angle of attack, for the full-fuel configuration.
Figure 20.6: Comparing of bending moment about the z-axis Mz at various design points.
The Mz graph shows the bending moment distribution along the span of the wing about the z-
axis. The maximum bending moment will occur at Design Point A, which corresponds to high-
positive angle of attack, for the full-fuel configuration.
The following table presents the maximum shear stress and moments that the wing will
experience at 0% span (wing root), 27% span, 60% span and 75% span. Wing structural analysis
will be performed at these four cross-sections at the design points where the wing experiences
maximum shear stresses and moments.
0% span 27% span 60% span 75% span Design Point

Vz (lbf) 871.1 670 332.5 179.6 D (Fuelled)
Vx (lbf) -223.4 -148.3 -61.5 -28.6 A (Fuelled)
MT (lbf-ft) 441.7 314.2 156.8 93.7 E (Empty)
Mx (lbf-ft) 5655 2990 760 250.3 D (Fuelled)
Mz (lbf-ft) 46.9 29.7 10.1 3.81 A (Fuelled)
59
21. Wing Structure
During flight, the aerodynamic loads from drag and lift will place the wing structure in bending
as well as torsion. For the stability and safety of the aircraft, it is crucial that any loading up to
the limit loads of the aircraft not cause permanent deformation of the wing. The wing cross
section will be examined and defined in four locations: at 75% of the span (a required location),
at 60% of the span (the fuel tank is present from 0% of the span up to 60%), at 27% of the span
(note that the cross section at 25% of the span is required to be examined, however 27%
represents the edge of boom, and clearly it makes more sense to define the structural cross
section at this point rather than at 25%), and lastly at 0% of the span. For this analysis, the cross
section will be assumed constant between analyzed locations. Thus, the cross section at 75%
will be the constant cross section between 75% and 100%, the cross section at 60% will be the
constant cross section between 60% and 75%, and so on. Note that this is conservative since the
stress the cross section needs to carry increases from the tip chord to the root chord. The right
hand coordinate system being used in this analysis is defined as follows: +y outboard of the left
side of the aircraft, +x forward to the nose of the aircraft, and +z is vertical (up).
21.1 Wing Cross Section
The overall layout of a cross section of the wing at an arbitrary wing station is shown Figure
21.1. There are two spars (numbered 5 and 6) and four flanges acting as spar supports
(numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4). Note that angle spars are being used since they are relatively easy to
machine to variable area cross sections that retain their overall shape compared to ‘hat’ and ‘zee’
stringers. Since the Big Brother 4000XL is a relatively small aircraft, 0.032” thick 2024-T3 clad
aluminum will be used for the skin in the analysis of the aircraft. This thickness of skin is
assumed due to manufacturing and assembly concerns.
Figure 21.1: Cross section of the wing at an arbitrary wing station. Note the stringers and flanges are not
drawn to scale with the airfoil shape.
60
21.2 Loads
The critical loads for each spanwise station under consideration are shown in Table 21.1. Note
that the bending loads and shear loads (Mx, Mz, Vz, and Vz) correspond to Design Point D on the
V-n Diagram of the aircraft at maximum weight. The twisting moment (MT,) corresponds to
Design Point E on the V-n Diagram of the aircraft at maximum weight.
Station Vz (lbf) Vx (lbf) Mt (ft-lbf) Mx (ft-lbf) Mz (ft-lbf)

75% 164.4 11.70 91.45 213.9 -1.54
60% 325.7 18.37 154.0 732.0 -3.01
27% 670.0 31.59 304.2 2,989.5 -6.35
0% 871.1 42.76 417.9 5,654.8 -8.99
Table 21.1: Critical loading at the spanwise stations being analyzed.
21.3 Wing Bending
Bending forces on the wing are created by the lift and drag forces across the span of the wing.
The majority of these stresses will be carried by the flanges that are reinforcing the wing and
supporting the spars. These items are shown in Figure 21.1. Also note that the skin in the
vicinity of the rivet rows attaching the stringers and flanges to the skin of the aircraft will carry
some of this bending stress within an effective width. The analysis in this section follows what
is outlined by E.F. Bruhn in Chapter 19 of Reference 14. Note that because of the low wing
loading, the inclusion of stringers in the design of the aircrafts wing is not necessary.
20.3.1 Effective Skin Width
While the bending stresses of the wing in flight are primarily carried by the stringers and flanges
of the wing, the full width of skin in tension can be considered to carry some of this load, and an
effective width of skin in compression will also carry some of the bending load. The effective
width is defined since the thin sheets that comprise skin tend to buckle at low loads, and the
stress in the skin varies in between the stringers, as is shown in Figure 21.2.
Figure 21.2 The stress distribution of stiffeners and sheet. Note that the stress on the sheet is variable. [14]
61
Instead of trying to account for this variable stress in the sheet, the effective width is defined for
ease of calculation by determining the width of skin around a stiffener over which the stress is
constant. Graphically, this is shown in Figure 21.3. Note that the width is defined per row of
rivets attaching the stiffener to the skin. The equation used for the effective width (w) in this
report is dependent upon the skin thickness (t), the modulus of elasticity of the skin (E), as well
as the stress in the stringer (σst). This formula is shown in Eqn. 21.1.
E
2 * w = 1.90 * t * (Eqn. 21.1)
σ st
Figure 21.3: The effective skin width. Note that the stress over the width is constant. [14]
Note, however, that when the skin is in tension, there is no effective width, and the entire width
of the skin is assumed to carry load.
21.3.2 Allowables
As stated before, the material making up the skin of the aircraft is 2024-T3 clad aluminum sheet.
From Mil-Handbook 5-J, Reference 23, the material allowables are shown below in Figure 21.4.
Note that the compression yield value for 0.032” thick sheet, 36 ksi, is the critical value for
design considerations in bending. For the shear flow calculations, the ultimate shear allowable is
37 ksi.
62
Figure 21.4: Mechanical properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum. [15]
The material comprising the stiffeners is 2024-T351 clad aluminum extrusions. Once again from
Mil-Handbook 5-J, the material allowables are shown below in Figure 21.5. As with the sheet,
the critical allowable is the compression yield stress, in this case 34 ksi.
63
Figure 21.5: Mechanical properties of 2024-T3 Aluminum. [15]
21.3.3 Margin of Safety
While passenger aircraft are required by FAR Part 23 and 25 to maintain design margins of
safety of 1.50, military aircraft are not so strictly regulated, and there is leeway in determining
the appropriate margin of safety levels for the aircraft. As this is an unmanned drone, we believe
that a margin of 1.50 would be over designing the flight vehicle, and that a margin of safety of
1.35 is adequate. Additionally note that if the margin of safety is in excess of +3.00, it will be
noted as +HIGH.
A sample calculation of the steps to calculating the margin of safety for the wing elements in
bending is shown below inTable 21.2. For a more complete explanation of the calculations that
went into this table, refer to Appendix G. The margin of safety equation is shown in Eqn. 21.2,
and is dependent on the applied stress as well as the allowable stress. Note that the minimum
margin of safety in the wing section at 27% of the span is +HIGH, which surpasses the 35%
established in the above paragraph.
AllowableStress
M .S . = −1 (Eqn. 21.2)
AppliedStress
64
Wing Station: 27% Chord: 34.932 inches
Flange No Strng A Rivet Rows Total Area Z' AZ' AZ'2 X' AX'
1 0.008 1 0.12787249 3.2027404 0.40954 1.311658 6.88 0.879825
2 0.008 1 0.153584285 2.7005231 0.41476 1.120063 24.3 3.731872
3 0.1756736 1 0.1756736 -1.189365 -0.20894 0.248506 24.3 4.268609
4 0.1756736 1 0.1756736 -2.081353 -0.36564 0.761024 6.88 1.20872
Totals 0.632803974 0.24972 3.441251 10.08903

Flange No AX'2 AX'Z' Z=Z'-Zbar X=X'-Xbar Sigmab P=sigb*A M.S. Pass?
1 6.053623041 2.81785076 2.80811352 -9.06288 -2766.03 -353.7 11.3 Yes
2 90.67897138 10.078005 2.305896156 8.3551584 -1875.29 -288.014 17.1 Yes
3 103.7209074 -5.07693335 -1.583991636 8.3551584 1641.56 288.379 21.5 Yes
4 8.316579711 -2.51577296 -2.475980256 -9.06288 2011.32 353.335 17.4 Yes
Totals 208.7700815 5.30314949 -5.7E-14

Table 21.2: A sample margin of safety results made at 27% of the span. For a more thorough explanation,
refer to Appendix G.
In Table 21.3 the minimum margin of safety present at each spanwise station is noted. Clearly
the margins are well above what is required, however the stringer areas have not been further
reduced so as to not make machining impractical. Note that all stringer areas are 0.032 square
inches from 0% of the span to 27% of the span, and 0.008 square inches starting at 27% of the
span and extending to the tip of the wing. All of the individual stringer areas as well as their
corresponding margins of safety are presented in Appendix G.
75% Span 60% Span 27% Span 0% Span

Minimum M.S. +HIGH +HIGH +HIGH +HIGH
Table 21.3: Minimum margins of safety at each span of the wing. Note that these margins vastly exceed what
is required, however stringer areas have not been reduced out of manufacturing concerns [16].
21.4 Wing Torsion
Aerodynamic forces on the wing create a torsional moment on the wing, denoted Mt in the loads
section above. This twisting action causes a shear flow in the skin covering the wing, as well as
in the forward and aft spars. Only the skin is assumed to carry this shear flow.
21.4.1 Shear Flow
The shear center is the point in a cross section of a structure about which applied forces cause the
structure to only bend, and not twist. When the twisting moment MT is applied about this point,
it creates pure shearing stresses in the skin of the wing. Externally applied forces Vx and Vz
create additional shear stresses if these forces are not applied at the shear center of the cross
section of our wing. We calculated the shear flow in each section of the wing making use of the
Matlab code provided, written by Nagaraj Banavara. As input, this code takes the location and
cross sectional areas of the stringers and sparcaps, as well as the location and thicknesses of the
spars and the aircraft skin. The input forces of MT, Vz, and Vx are used to compute the shear
stress present in each section of the skin, as well as the stress present in the spars of the aircraft.
65
It is important to note that the trailing edge section of the wing is assumed to provide no
structural support in the calculation of the stresses in the rest of the wing.
21.4.2 Shear Stresses
As in the wing bending section, the shear flow in the wing is evaluated at four spanwise stations
of the wing at 0%, 27%, 60%, and 75%. The resulting shear flows, spar thicknesses, and
margins of safety for the wing stations at 75%, 60%, and 0% are shown in Appendix G. A
sample table of results is presented in Table 21.4 for the wing station at 27%. Note that the
stringers and spars for the wing were designed around the critical Tresca stresses, as is shown by
the low margins of safety for the Tresca stresses given in the next section.
Section Thickness Shear Flow Applied Allowable M.S.

(inches) (lbf/in) Shear (psi) Shear (psi)
Leading Edge 0.032 -600.54 18,766 37,000 +0.97
Front Spar 0.032 -299.36 9,355 37,000 +2.95
Rear Spar 0.050 1,303.68 26,073 37,000 +0.41
Wing Skin 0.032 -818.62 25,581 37,000 +0.44
(greatest)
Table 21.4: Shear flow information for the wing at the 27% station.
To stay within the required margins of safety, the rear spar thickness is 0.050” from 0% of the
span to 60% of the span, and 0.032” until the tip of the wing. The forward spar thickness is
0.032” along the entire span.
21.5 Tresca Yield Criterion
While the various sections of the wing have passed the set margin of safety of 1.35 without
experiencing yielding in both bending and shear flow, the structure needs to be checked to ensure
that the combination principle stresses do not exceed the yield stress of the material. This can be
checked through use of the Tresca Yield Criterion.
21.5.1 Principle Stresses
The principles stresses can be easily found by using Mohr’s Circle after using the plane stress
assumption. A plane stress representation of Mohr’s Circle is shown in Figure 21.6, and the
relationships that can be derived from it follow.
66
Figure 21.6: Mohr’s Circle is a graphical representation for finding the principal stresses given the normal
stresses acting on a body. Note that the diagram shown assumes a plane stress situation, and has been
adapted from [14].
2
⎛σ z ⎞
τ max = ⎜ ⎟ + τ zx
2
(Eqn. 21.3)
⎝ 2 ⎠
σz
σ n max = τ max + (Eqn. 21.4)
2
σz
σ n min = − τ max (Eqn. 21.5)
2
These three equations give what the principal stresses on the body are given the applied stresses.
Note that τmax (the Tresca stress) is equal to half the difference between the maximum stress and
the minimum stress.
21.5.2 Tresca Stresses and Margin of Safety
From the bending and shear analysis sections, the maximum stresses in each spanwise section
are given in Table 21.5. Note that both the maximum tension stresses as well as the maximum
compressive stresses are shown. Whichever value has the greater magnitude will be used to
calculate the normal stresses and the Tresca stress. The margin of safety for the Tresca stress is
then calculated with the 2024 T3 aluminum shear allowable of 37 ksi, as is shown in Figure 21.4.
Recall that by using the margin of safety equation given in (Eqn. 21.2), this value in Table 21.5
must be greater than 0.35.
67
Spanwise Station 0% 27% 60% 75%
Max Shear (psi) 9,471 26,073 21,836 27,159
Max Tension (psi) 3,002 2,011 588 29
Max Compressive (psi) -5,352 -2,766 -221 -29
Sigma_n max (psi) 11,343 24,727 21,727 27,144
Sigma_n min (psi) -8,341 -27,493 -21,948 -27,174
Tresca Stress (psi) 9,842 26,110 21,838 27,159
Minimum Margin of Safety +2.76 +0.42 +0.69 +0.36
Table 21.5: Calculation of principal stresses and Tresca stress
The above margins of safety clearly indicate that the Tresca stress does not exceed the allowable
stress at any spanwise station, however the Tresca stresses did prove to be the primary design
driver as is evidenced by the low margins of safety in the table above.
68
Appendix A: Aircraft Design Comparisons
Unmanned aerial vehicles are being widely used for a variety of missions; from reconnaissance
and surveillance since 1950s to their recent more advanced combat and artillery co-ordination
roles. The UAV we are designing is primarily for long-duration border patrol and surveillance
and is further constrained by the requirements stated on page iii. Based on the information
provided, four existing UAVs that are similar to our design requirements are briefly described in
this section to provide a preliminary idea of our UAV design.
A.1 General Atomics RQ-1 Predator
The Predator UAV, illustrated in Figure A.1, is a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned

aerial vehicle that operates on a 914 Rotax pusher propeller engine that provides up to 100 hp. Its
WTO is 2300 lbs, which exceeds our maximum WTO of 1000 lbs. Capable of carrying 450 lbs of
payload and holding up to 650 lbs of fuel, it has a range of 454 miles, an endurance of up to 40
hrs and a ceiling height of 27,000 ft [17], which satisfy our mission requirements. It has a stall
speed of 54 kts, cruise speed of 70-90 kts, and dash speed of 120 kts [18], of which only the
cruise speed meets our requirement.
The design is characterized by its ability to minimize drag, as the wing is tapered, unswept, and
has a high aspect ratio. In addition, the configuration of each Predator UAV aircraft is such that
it can be disassembled into six main components and loaded into a container, making it very
mobile and operationally-ready for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and
Reconnaissance (ISTAR) missions.
Figure A.1: The Predator UAV in flight.
A.2 General Atomics GNAT-750
The GNAT-750, having served as the first long endurance unmanned reconnaissance aerial
vehicle and as the predecessor of the modern Predator and Prowler II, makes for an excellent
example of UAV design. This aircraft is illustrated in Figure A.2. With a maximum takeoff
weight of 1131 lbs, the GNAT is slightly outside of our required weight class. However, since
the GNAT was designed for a loiter endurance of over 30 hours (requiring 426 lbs of fuel) [19],
simply reducing the fuel load to meet our 21 hour endurance requirement easily brings the
maximum gross take-off weight down to 875 lbs and to within our weight class.
A-1
Figure A.2: General Atomics GNAT-750 during flight.
From a design aspect, the GNAT appears almost identical to its offspring, the Predator. The
primary element emphasized in the design appears to be the minimization of drag, as the wing is
tapered, unswept, and has a high aspect ratio. In addition, the fuselage is straight and
streamlined. In addition, with its inverted V-tail rather than a vertical fin and horizontal tail, drag
as well as weight is reduced. Its primary propulsion system is a single Rotax 582 pusher
propeller located at the aft-end of the aircraft. However, having a stall speed of 59 kts and a max
speed of 115 kts, it is slightly shy of completely fulfilling our required specifications.
A.3 Galileo Avionica Falco
The Falco, illustrated in Figure A.3, is a medium altitude and endurance UAV system designed
to fulfill electronic and optical surveillance roles. Weighing in at 926 lbs maximum at takeoff
with a maximum payload weight of 154 lbs, the Falco meets both of the weight requirements for
our aircraft design. It also meets our endurance requirements, with a maximum endurance of 14
hrs. The aircraft is powered by a 65 hp engine, giving it a maximum speed of 115 kts and an
altitude ceiling of 19,700 ft [20]. Increasing the power of the engine would be necessary for this
airframe to achieve our speed and ceiling requirements.
Figure A.3: Galileo Avionica Falco in flight.
The most distinct design features of the Falco are its slightly bent gull wings and its twin tail
booms. The wings are mounted high on the fuselage, allowing optional external payloads of up
to 55 lbs each to be attached to the external hard point located under each wing. The twin boom
design accommodates the pusher prop configuration, which benefits wing efficiency by
removing prop wash over the wing which would have been introduced in a tractor configuration.
The twin boom configuration also allows the relatively heavy engine to be located near the
center of gravity of the aircraft.
A-2
A.4 IAI-MALAT Searcher Mk II
Searcher Mk II, pictured in Figure A.4, is a multi-role UAV system used in the Israeli Air Force.
Its missions include surveillance, reconnaissance, target-acquisition & artillery adjustment. It has
some variants being exported to the Indian Air Force and Singapore Air Force.
Searcher Mk II has a gross takeoff weight of 820 lbs, with maximum payload capability of 139
lbs. Its weight category is consistent with our design specifications. Its payload consists of Multi-
Mission Optronic Stabilized Payload (MOSP), combined TV and forward looking infrared
(FLIR) for both day- and night-time observation, and synthetic aperture radar. It is also equipped
with a GPS system for real-time manual mission control. With a fuel capacity of 220 pounds, it
can stay in air for up to 14 hours.
Searcher Mk II is designed with a slightly swept-back wing and a twin-boom tail configuration.
It is powered by a rear-mounted 35hp Sachs piston engine, capable of flying a maximum speed
of 110 kts and cruise at 55 kts. It has a design ceiling of 18,500 ft [21]. By switching to a more
powerful engine, it is capable of faster speed and higher flight ceiling.
Figure A.4: IAI-MALAT Searcher Mk II in flight.
A-3
Appendix B: Aircraft Configuration History
Third Iteration Aircraft Design Drawings

Aircraft Design as of 11/17—End of Engine Selection and Tail Sizing
1:67 Scale
1:125 Scale
15 ft
2.5 ft
2. ft
32 ft
CG = 6.09 ft from nose
B-1
Second Iteration Aircraft Design Drawings
Aircraft Design as of 10/3—End of Initial Aerodynamic Design Iteration
1:67 Scale
1:125 Scale
15 ft
3 ft
37.7 ft
CG = 5.87 ft from nose
B-2
Appendix C: MATLAB Codes Used in Calculations
In order to calculate the performance parameters of our UAV, a MATLAB code was
implemented. This code was used to assist in calculations of the aircraft center of gravity, lift,
drag, pitching moment, and flap effects. The code is presented as follows.
Mainm.m
% Mainm.m Last changes made 10/02/2006 UAV Team 2 (UAVarsity)
% This is the main file which executes other functions This file assumes
% that the user created the necessary input parameters.
% Load Everythingv1.4m to load all necessary parameters needed.
% Angle of Attack range

n = 1;
inc = 1;
a(n,1) = alfamin;
% CG.m calculates the CG location as well as xw (Distance between CG and

% AC)
[mo,y,aa,c,Sw,cwBar,taper,AR,St] = InputParameters(moairfoil,b,cr,ct,a0,agt,vstall,btail,ctail);
[WING_W] = wingweight(AR,Sw,mthickwing);
[Moment Mass cg_tot AC
xw]=CG(WING_W,WING_X,TAIL_W,TAIL_X,POWER_W,POWER_X,FGEAR_W,FGEAR_X,RGEAR_W,RGEAR_X,FUEL_W,FUEL_X,
FUS_W,FUS_X,CONTROL_W,CONTROL_X,TWIN_W,TWIN_X,SAR_X,SAR_W,EOI_X,EOI_W,ADDPAY_W,ADDPAY_X,PROP_W,PR
OP_X,DATA_W,DATA_X);
W_TO = Mass;
x = TAIL_X - WING_X;
qflaps = input('1.Flaps Deployed \n2.Flaps Retracted \n3.Cruise \n4.Dash \n(Select number) :

','s');
if qflaps == '1'
Df = input('Flap Deflection Angle (deg) : ');
end
% Create range of alfas from -10 to 20 degrees for CLmaxac calculation

awr=linspace(-10,20,500);
% The code is designed such that it will calculate takeoff condition with
% stall velocity and sea level density if the flap deflection angle (Df) is
% greater than 0. Else, the code will calculate the cruise/dash conditions.
if qflaps == '1'
[deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap SF] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw, cr,
taper, b,InboardFlapLoc);
OutboardFlapLoc = InboardFlapLoc + bflap/2;
for i = 1:1:101
if abs(y(i))< OutboardFlapLoc & abs(y(i))> InboardFlapLoc
aa(i) = aa(i) - deltaAlphaLo;
end
end
[CLFlapt CDiFlapt clflap] = LiftLineP(awr,y,aa,mo,c);
dcl=1; J=0;
while dcl>0
J=J+1;
dcl=min(clMaxF-clflap(:,J));
end
awStallFlap = awr(1,J);
CLwmaxFlap = CLFlapt(J);
runpermission = input('Do you want to generate max. cl plot?(y/n) ','s');
C-1
if runpermission == 'y'
figure
plot(y,clflap(:,J),'k-',y,clMaxF,'k:'); xlabel('y (ft)');
ylabel('C_L');title('(C_L_m_a_x)_w Profile');
end
CLmaxac=CLwmaxFlap.*(x./(x-xw)) + cmac.*(cwBar./(x-xw));
else
[CLr, CDir, clr, cdir, AR1r, mr, AZLr, clbr, clar] = LiftLineP(awr,y, aa, mo, c);
clmaxp=clmax*ones(101,1);
dcl=2; J=0;
while dcl>0
J=J+1;
dcl=min(clmaxp-clr(:,J));
end
awStall=awr(1,J);
CLwmax=CLr(J);
runpermission = input('Do you want to generate max. cl plot?(y/n) ','s');

if runpermission == 'y'
figure
plot(y,clr(:,J),'k-',y,clmax,'k:'); xlabel('y (ft)'); ylabel('C_L');title('(C_L_m_a_x)_w
Profile');
end
CLmaxac=CLwmax.*(x./(x-xw)) + cmac.*(cwBar./(x-xw));
end
% This is the main for-loop which calculates the CL, CD, Lift, Drag at
% various angles of attack. Again, when Df is greater than 0, the code will
% calculate the cruise condition. Otherwise, it will calculate the takeoff
% condition.
% Not the best design of code. Code will be revised in the future to omit
% unnecessary calculations that are made inside the for-loop.
for alfa = alfamin:inc:alfamax
aoa = alfa;
if n > 1
a(n,1) = a(n-1,1) + inc;
end
Cmact(n,1) = Cmac_t(cmac,FusLength,FusDiameter,Sw,cwBar,aoa);
if qflaps == '1'
v = vstall;
rho = rhosl;
[deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw, cr,
taper, b,InboardFlapLoc);
Cmact(n,1) = Cmact(n,1) + cmacF;
[CLFlap CDi] = LiftLineP(aoa,y,aa,mo,c);
CLFlapv(n,1) = CLFlap;
CLac = CLFlap.*(x./(x-xw)) + Cmact(n,1).*(cwBar./(x-xw));
[Cdtrim CLt] = trimmed_drag_coefficient

(CLFlap,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact(n,1),btail,ctail);
CLtail(n,1) = CLt;
[Cdo a1 a2 a3 a4] =
parasite_drag_coefficient(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLengt
h,FusDiameter,BoomLength,BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,Pro
pDiameter,AirbrakeFrontalArea);
[Cdtotal] = total_drag_coefficient (Cdo,deltaCDflap,CDi,Cdtrim);
C-2
CLoutput(n,1) = CLac;
CDoutput(n,1) = Cdtotal;
Lift(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CLoutput(n,1)*Sw;
Drag(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CDoutput(n,1)*Sw;
else
[CL,CDi,cl,cdi,AR,m,AZL,clb,cla]=LiftLineP(aoa,y,aa,mo,c);
deltaCDflap = 0;
if qflaps == '2'
rho = rhosl;
v = vstall;
end
if qflaps == '3'
rho = rhocr;
v = vcruise;
end
if qflaps == '4'
rho = rhodash;
v = vdash;
end
[Cdtrim CLt] = trimmed_drag_coefficient

(CL,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact(n,1),btail,ctail);
CLtail(n,1) = CLt;
CLv(n,1) = CL;
CLac = CL.*(x./(x-xw)) + Cmact(n,1).*(cwBar./(x-xw));
[Cdo a1 a2 a3 a4] = parasite_drag_coefficient

(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLength,FusDiameter,BoomLength,
BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,PropDiameter,AirbrakeFrontal
Area);
[Cdtotal] = total_drag_coefficient (Cdo,deltaCDflap,CDi,Cdtrim);
CLoutput(n,1) = CLac;
CDoutput(n,1) = Cdtotal;
Lift(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CLoutput(n,1)*Sw;
Drag(n,1) = 0.5*rho*v^2*CDoutput(n,1)*Sw;
end
n = n + 1;
end
% Calculate K
A = ones(size(CLoutput),2);
A(:,2) = CLoutput.^2;
X = inv(A'*A)*A'*CDoutput;
K = X(2,1);
% Landing Gear Sizing

FrontWheelW = 0.1*W_TO;
RearWheelW = 0.9*W_TO/2;
ADia = 1.51;
BDia = 0.349;
AWid = 0.715;
BWid = 0.312;
FrontWheelDia = ADia*(FrontWheelW^BDia);
FrontWheelWid = AWid*(FrontWheelW^BWid);
RearWheelDia = ADia*(RearWheelW^BDia);
RearWheelWid = AWid*(RearWheelW^BWid);
% Plots
if qflaps == '1'
figure
plot(a,Lift)
C-3
hold on
plot(awStallFlap,Lift)
hold on
plot(a,Mass)
xlabel('Angle of Attack (Deg)'); ylabel('Lift (lbf)');title('Lift against Angle of Attack
(Takeoff, With Flaps)')
end
if qflaps == '2'
figure
plot(a,Lift)
hold on
plot(awStall,Lift)
hold on
plot(a,Mass)
xlabel('Angle of Attack (Deg)'); ylabel('Lift (lbf)');title('Lift against Angle of Attack
(Takeoff, With Flaps)')
end
InputParameters.m
% This function calls the input paramters from the global space.
% It assumes that the parameters loaded from Everythingv1.x.m
function [mo,y,aa,c,Sw,cwBar,taper,AR,St] =
InputParameters(moairfoil,b,cr,ct,a0,agt,vstall,btail,ctail)
M = 100;
theta = [0:pi/M:pi]';
taper = ct/cr;
Sw = b*cr*(1+taper)/2;
AR = b^2/Sw;
y = -b*cos(theta)/2;
c = 2*b*(1-(1-taper)*2*abs(y)/b)/AR/(1+taper);
aat = -a0;
aa = agt*2*abs(y)/b + aat;
cwBar = (cr+ct)/2;
mo = moairfoil*ones(101,1);
St = btail*ctail;
wingweight.m
function [WING_W] = wingweight(AR,Sw,mthickwing)
B = (750*3.5*Sw*(1.9*AR-4))/(1+0.11*100*mthickwing);
WING_W = 69*(B*10^-6)^0.69;
CG.m
% This function calls the input paramters from the global space.
% It assumes that the paramters are generated using InputCG.m
function [Moment Mass cg_tot AC

xw]=CG(WING_W,WING_X,TAIL_W,TAIL_X,POWER_W,POWER_X,FGEAR_W,FGEAR_X,RGEAR_W,RGEAR_X,FUEL_W,FUEL_X,
FUS_W,FUS_X,CONTROL_W,CONTROL_X,TWIN_W,TWIN_X,SAR_X,SAR_W,EOI_X,EOI_W,ADDPAY_W,ADDPAY_X,PROP_W,PR
OP_X,DATA_W,DATA_X)
Moment=WING_W*WING_X+TAIL_W*TAIL_X+POWER_W*POWER_X+FGEAR_W*FGEAR_X+RGEAR_W*RGEAR_X+FUEL_W*FUEL_X+
FUS_W*FUS_X+CONTROL_W*CONTROL_X+TWIN_W*TWIN_X+SAR_X*SAR_W+EOI_X*EOI_W+ADDPAY_W*ADDPAY_X+PROP_W*PR
OP_X+DATA_X*DATA_W;
C-4
Mass=WING_W+TAIL_W+POWER_W+FGEAR_W+RGEAR_W+FUEL_W+FUS_W+CONTROL_W+TWIN_W+SAR_W+EOI_W+ADDPAY_W+PRO
P_W+DATA_W;
cg_tot=Moment/Mass;
AC=WING_X;
xw = cg_tot-AC;
InputCG.m
% When launched, it will prompt users to input the necessary parameters to run Main.m
% Save the input parameters as filename.mat file such that it is easy to
% load the parameters in the future.
prompt={'WING_W','WING_X','TAIL_W','TAIL_X','POWER_W','POWER_X','FGEAR_W','FGEAR_X','RGEAR_W','RG
EAR_X','FUEL_W','FUEL_X','FUS_W','FUS_X','CONTROL_W','CONTROL_X','TWIN_W','TWIN_X','SAR_W','SAR_X
','EO/I_W','EO/I_X','Additional Payload','Additional Payload_X'};
title='Aircraft Properties';
answer=inputdlg(prompt,title);
WING_W=sscanf(char(answer(1)),'%f');
WING_X=sscanf(char(answer(2)),'%f');
TAIL_W=sscanf(char(answer(3)),'%f');
TAIL_X=sscanf(char(answer(4)),'%f');
POWER_W=sscanf(char(answer(5)),'%f');
POWER_X=sscanf(char(answer(6)),'%f');
FGEAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(7)),'%f');
FGEAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(8)),'%f');
RGEAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(9)),'%f');
RGEAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(10)),'%f');
FUEL_W=sscanf(char(answer(11)),'%f');
FUEL_X=sscanf(char(answer(12)),'%f');
FUS_W=sscanf(char(answer(13)),'%f');
FUS_X=sscanf(char(answer(14)),'%f');
CONTROL_W=sscanf(char(answer(15)),'%f');
CONTROL_X=sscanf(char(answer(16)),'%f');
TWIN_W=sscanf(char(answer(17)),'%f');
TWIN_X=sscanf(char(answer(18)),'%f');
SAR_W=sscanf(char(answer(19)),'%f');
SAR_X=sscanf(char(answer(20)),'%f');
EOI_W=sscanf(char(answer(21)),'%f');
EOI_X=sscanf(char(answer(22)),'%f');
ADDPAY_W=sscanf(char(answer(23)),'%f');
ADDPAY_X=sscanf(char(answer(24)),'%f');
prompt={'filename desired for .mat file'};

title='File name';
filename=char(inputdlg(prompt,title));
save(filename,'WING_W','WING_X','TAIL_W','TAIL_X','POWER_W','POWER_X','FGEAR_W','FGEAR_X','RGEAR_
W','RGEAR_X','FUEL_W','FUEL_X','FUS_W','FUS_X','CONTROL_W','CONTROL_X','TWIN_W','TWIN_X','SAR_W',
'SAR_X','EOI_W','EOI_X','ADDPAY_W','ADDPAY_X');
flapFX.m
% This function calculates the changes in wing properties when flaps are
% deployed. Input parameters consists of airfoil properties as well as flap
% chord, span and wing surface area.
function [deltaAlphaLo clMaxF cmacF deltaCDflap SF] = flapFX(cfc, mo, Df, clmax, bflap, cmac, Sw,
cr, taper, b,InboardFlapLoc)
%This function calculates the change in sectional properties of a wing with

%a flap, given the input parameters of flap geometry and sectional
%characteristics. A plain flap is assumed, but equations for split and
%slotted flaps are included if the type of flap is to be modified.
C-5
deltac = 0; % No slotted flaps
moF = max(mo);
c0 = cfc*cr*(1+2*InboardFlapLoc*(taper-1)/b);
cn = cfc*cr*(1+2*(InboardFlapLoc + bflap/2)*(taper-1)/b);
SF = bflap*(c0+cn)/2;
%Zero-Lift Angle of Attack

%(Plain assumed)
tau = 4.375E+00*cfc^3 - 6.500E+00*cfc^2 + 3.775E+00*cfc + 9.059E-14;
eta = 7.292E-09*Df^5 - 1.581E-06*Df^4 + 1.277E-04*Df^3 - 4.560E-03*Df^2 + 5.759E-02*Df + 5.679E-
01; %Plain
%eta = 2.7778E-07*Df^3 - 1.4881E-05*Df^2 - 3.6409E-03*Df + 5.7714E-01; %Split
%eta = 1.4583E-07*Df^4 - 1.8472E-05*Df^3 + 6.3958E-04*Df^2 - 1.1897E-02*Df + 8.8071E-01;
%Slotted
deltaAlphaLo = -tau*eta*Df;
%Section Maximum Lift Coefficient

%(Plain or Split assumed)
deltacl = moF*tau*eta*Df;
deltaClMaxOdeltaCl = 5.5611*cfc^5-17.817*cfc^4+20.665*cfc^3-9.8256*cfc^2+.4242*cfc+.9924; %Plain
or Split
%deltaClMaxOdeltaCl = 137.12*cfc^5 - 128.31*cfc^4 + 26.886*cfc^3 - 1.113*cfc^2 - .2078*cfc +
1.003; %Slotted
clMaxF = clmax + deltaClMaxOdeltaCl*deltacl;
%Section Pitching Moment Coefficient

%(Plain, Split, Slotted assumed)
deltaCmOdeltaCl = -0.1246*cfc^2+0.3849*cfc-0.2576; %Plain, Split, or Slotted
cmacF = deltaCmOdeltaCl*deltacl;
%Drag due to Flaps

%(Plain or Split assumed)
deltaCDflap = 1.7*cfc^1.38*(SF/Sw)*(sin(Df*pi/180))^2; %Plain or Split
%deltaCD = 0.9*cfc^1.38*(SF/Sw)*(sin(Df))^2; %Slotted
LiftLineP.m
function [CL,CDi,cl,cdi,AR,m,AZL,clb,cla]=LiftLineP(aw,y,aa,mo,c)
%LiftLine determines the performance of a wing using Glauert's solution
% method of the lifting-line-theory wing equation.
%Version: 2.0
%Code: Luis P Bernal
%Date: 9/18/05
if nargin~=5 % Check number of input arguments

error(['LiftLine input error: Incorrect number',...
' of input arguments'])
end;
[NMO,MMO]=size(mo);[NC,MC]=size(c);
[ny,MY]=size(y);[NAA,MAA]=size(aa);
if MY~=1|1~=MMO|1~=MC|1~=MAA|ny~=NMO|ny~=NC|ny~=NAA
error(['LiftLine input error: Section input arrays ',...
'must be column vectors of the same length'])
end;
[MAW,M]=size(aw);
if MAW~=1
error(['LeftLine input error: aw must be a row vector']);
end;
% Require a minimum of 5 sections including the

% wing tip sections and the midspan section.
if ny<5|mod(ny,2)~=1
error(['LiftLine input error: Section input arrays ',...
'must contain at least 5 elements and the length',...
C-6
' must be an odd numebr'])
end;
% Verify that the wing planform is symmetric and
% includes the symmetry plane
ns=fix(ny/2)+1;
if y(1:ns)~=-y(ny:-1:ns)|abs(y(ns))>0.00001
error(['LiftLine input error: The y locations must ',...
'be symmetric about the center plane and',...
' include the symmetry plane'])
end;
if c(1:ns)~=c(ny:-1:ns)
error(['LiftLine input error: The c values must ',...
'be symmetric about the center plane'])
end;
% If chord at wing tips zero make it finite

if c(1) < 0.0001*c(ns)
c(1)=0.0001*c(ns);c(ny)=c(1);
end;
if aa(1:ns)~=aa(ny:-1:ns)
error(['LiftLine input error: The at values must ',...
'be symmetric about the center plane'])
end;
%Evaluate constants including the wing Aspect Ratio.

aw=aw*pi/180;aa=aa*pi/180;mo=mo*180/pi;
mc=mo.*c;b2=abs(y(1));mcs=mc(ns);b=2*b2;P=mcs/4/b;
S=abs(trapz(y,c));AR=b^2/S;
% Initialize arrays
theta=zeros(ny,1);st=theta;snt=zeros(ny,ny);B=snt;BI=snt;
clb=theta;cla=theta;Ao=theta;A2=theta;AA=theta;
aat=zeros(ny,M);A=aat;
CL=zeros(1,M);CDi=CL;cl=zeros(ny,M);cdi=cl;
% Evaluate the coefficient matrix, B

theta=acos(y/b2);st=sin(theta);
for j = 1:ny
for n = 1:ny
snt(j,n)=sin(theta(j)*n);
if theta(j)==0
B(j,n) = n^2*P;
elseif theta(j)==pi
B(j,n) = n^2*P*(-1)^(n-1);
else;
B(j,n) = snt(j,n)*(mcs/mc(j)+P*n/st(j));
end;
end;
end;
% Compute the lift and induced drag coefficients
% for different wing angles of attack
aat=repmat(aw,ny,1)+repmat(aa,1,M); % Construct the absolute angle of attack

% array including all cases
A=B\aat; %Compute the An coefficients
% Find wing lift and induced drag coefficient

CL=P*pi*AR*A(1,:); % Find CL
CDi=(P^2*pi*AR)*(diag((repmat([1:ny]',1,M).*A)'*A))'; %Find CDi
% Find section lift coefficient and induced drag

% coefficient distributions
cl=mcs*(snt*A)./repmat(c,1,M);cdi=cl.*(aat-cl./repmat(mo,1,M));
% Find the An coefficients for the

% 'Basic' and 'Additional' lift coefficient distributions
if M==1
Ao=A;aa1=aa+0.1;A2=B\aa1;daa=0.1;
else
C-7
Ao=A(:,1);A2=A(:,2);daa=aw(2)-aw(1);
end;
AA=(A2-Ao)/daa;
% Find m, AZL and circulation distributions

m=P*pi*AR*AA(1);AZL=aw(1)-Ao(1)/AA(1);Ab=Ao+(AZL-aw(1))*AA;
cla=(snt*AA)*mcs/m./c;clb=(snt*Ab)*mcs./c;
AZL=AZL*180/pi;m=m*pi/180; % convert to degrees
Cmact_t.m
% This function calculates the Cmact

% Cmac of the wing is Cmac of the airfoil section as our wing is unswept
% and has no taper.
% Cmac of fuselage is calculated using the formula described above.
% Cmac change due to the flaps are implemented in the flap section.
function [Cmact] = Cmac_t(cmac,FusLength,FusDiameter,Sw,cwBar,aoa)
KF = 0.045;
cmfus = KF*FusDiameter^2*(FusLength)*aoa/(cwBar*Sw);
Cmact = cmac + cmfus;
trimmed_drag_coefficient.m
% This function calculates the trimmed drag coefficient.
function [Cdtrim CLt] = trimmed_drag_coefficient

(CL,St,TAIL_X,WING_X,cwBar,Sw,clmax,xw,Cmact,btail,ctail)
x = TAIL_X - WING_X;
ARt = btail^2/(St);
%Tail volume coefficient, should have value around .9 for turboprops

vht=(x*St)/(cwBar*Sw);
%Lift coefficient of the tail

CLt =(CL*xw/cwBar+Cmact)*x/(x-xw)*1/vht;
%Oswald efficiency factor for the tail

et=1.78*(1-.045*ARt^.68)-.64;
%OUTPUT, trimmed drag coefficient

Cdtrim=CLt.^2./(pi*et*ARt)*(St/Sw);
parasite_drag_coefficient.m
% This function calculates the parasite drag coefficient

% Wing, Tail, Fuselage, Boom properties as well as density and velocity
% values are necessary to calculate this coefficient.
function [Cdo a1 a2 a3 a4] = parasite_drag_coefficient

(qflaps,rho,v,cwBar,ctail,btail,Sw,xcmwing,mthickwing,sweepwing,FusLength,FusDiameter,BoomLength,
BoomDiameter,xcmtail,mthicktail,sweeptail,upsweepangle,propbladearea,PropDiameter,AirbrakeFrontal
Area)
mju = 3.62e-7;
a = 1116.437;
%Wing (the wing is represented as 1)

WingRe = Re(rho,v,cwBar,mju);
C-8
if WingRe < 500000
Cfwing = 1.328/sqrt(WingRe);
else
Cfwing = 0.455/((log10(WingRe)).^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a).^2).^0.65);
end
FF1=(1+.6/(xcmwing)*(mthickwing)+100*(mthickwing)^4)*(1.34*(v/a)^.18*cos(sweepwing*pi/180)^.28);
Q1 = 1;
%Fuselage (the fuselage is represented as 2)

FusRe = Re(rho,v,FusLength,mju);
if FusRe < 500000

Cffus = 1.328/sqrt(FusRe);
else
Cffus = 0.455/((log10(FusRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);
end
f2=FusLength/FusDiameter;
FF2=(1+60/f2^3+f2/400);
Q2=1;
%Booms (the booms are represented as 3)

BoomRe = Re(rho,v,BoomLength,mju);
if BoomRe < 500000

Cfboom = 1.328/sqrt(BoomRe);
else
Cfboom = 0.455/((log10(BoomRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);
end
f3=BoomLength/BoomDiameter;
FF3=(1+60/f3^3+f3/400);
Q3=1;
%Tail (the tail is represented as 4)

TailRe = Re(rho,v,ctail,mju);
if TailRe < 500000

Cftail = 1.328/sqrt(TailRe);
else
Cftail = 0.455/((log10(TailRe))^2.58*(1+0.144*(v/a)^2)^0.65);
end
FF4=(1+.6/(xcmtail)*(mthicktail)+100*(mthicktail)^4)*(1.34*(v/a)^.18*cos(sweeptail*pi/180)^.28);
Q4=1.08;
% Calculating Cdmis, drag contribution of components with large form drag (fuselage
% upsweep, propellar and speed brakes)
% Fuselage Upsweep (the fuselage upsweep is represented as 5)

Dq5=3.83*upsweepangle*(pi/180)*pi*FusDiameter^2/4;
% Propellar, feathered (the propellar is represented as 6)

% Dq6=0.1*propbladearea*pi*PropDiameter^2/4
% Propellar is assumed to be running at all times
Dq6 = 0;
%Speed Brakes (the speed brakes are represented as 7)

Mlanding = (1.15*v)/a;
Dq7=(.139+.419*(Mlanding-.161)^2)*AirbrakeFrontalArea;
if qflaps == '1' | qflaps == '2'| qflaps == 1 | qflaps == 2

Cdmis=(1/Sw)*(Dq5+Dq6+Dq7+0.25);
else
Cdmis=(1/Sw)*(Dq5+Dq6+Dq7);
end
%Calculating Cdo
C-9
Cdo1=1/Sw*((Cfwing*FF1*Q1*Sw*2)+(Cffus*FF2*Q2*44.7)+(Cfboom*FF3*Q3*22*2)+(Cftail*FF4*Q4*ctail*bta
il*2))+Cdmis;
a1 = (Cfwing*FF1*Q1*Sw*2)/Sw;
a2 = (Cffus*FF2*Q2*44.7)/Sw;
a3 = (Cfboom*FF3*Q3*22*2)/Sw;
a4 = (Cftail*FF4*Q4*ctail*btail*2)/Sw;
%Leakage Drag
Cdlp=.08*Cdo1;
Cdo = Cdo1 + Cdlp;
Re.m
% Reynolds Number function.

% Inputs are rho(density), v(velocity), l(characteristic length),
% mju(coefficient of viscosity)
function a = Re(rho,v,l,mju)
a = rho*v*l/mju;
total_drag_coefficient.m
% Input parameters :
% Cdo : Parasite Drag Coefficient
% deltaCDflap : Drag increased due to the flap
% CDi : Induced Drag
% Cdtrim : Trimmed Drag
function [Cdtotal] = total_drag_coefficient(Cdo,deltaCDflap,CDi,Cdtrim)
Cdtotal = Cdo + deltaCDflap + CDi + Cdtrim;
Density.m
%This function takes calculates the air density for a given altitude in
%English units.
function [rho] = density(h)
%Code taken from McClamroch's notes Chp 2 Pg 15 and verified with standard
%atmosphere tables in Appendix A and also with online sources.
%Variables
%h: altitude (ft)
%rho: air density (slugs/ft^3)
%Prepared by Zhiwei Song
%=======predefined constants===========
a0 = -6.5e-3;
g = 9.80665;
mol = 28.9644;
R0 = 8.31432;
R = R0/mol*1e3;
T0 = 288.15;
p0 = 1.01325e5;
rho0 = 1.225;
%=======================================
C-10
h = h*0.3048/1000; %Converting altitude in ft to km
T = T0 + a0*h*1e3; %Calculating temperature at altitude h

p = p0.*(T./T0).^(-g/a0/R); %Calculating pressure at altitude h
rho = rho0.*(T./T0).^(-g/a0/R-1); %Calculating density at altitude h in kg/m^3
rho = rho*0.00194032; %Converting density to slugs/ft^3
return
thrust_levelflight.m
function [T, V_minthrust, S_minthrust, CL_minthrust] = thrust_levelflight(V, rho, S, CD_o, W, K)
%This function calculates thrust required for steady level flight given
%true air speed, air density, wing area, parasitic drag coefficient,
%weight, and K.
%
%Formulas taken from notes Aircraft Performance pg 6
%Input parameters can be row vectors if needed.
%Variables:
%Inputs:
%V: True air Speed (ft/s)

%rho: Air Density (slugs/ft^3)
%S: Wing Area (ft^2)
%CD_o: Parasitic Drag Coefficient
%W: Aircraft Weight (lbf)
%K: Aerodynamic parameter
%Outputs:
%T: Thrust (lbf)
%V_minthrust: Speed for minimum thrust (ft/s)
%S_minthrust: Wing area for minimum thrust (ft^2)
%CL_minthrust: Lift coefficient at minimum thrust
%Written by Zhiwei Song
T = (0.5.*rho.*(V.^2).*S.*CD_o) + ((K.*(W.^2))./(0.5.*rho.*(V.^2).*S));
V_minthrust = ( (2./rho).*(W./S).*((K./CD_o).^0.5)).^0.5;
S_minthrust = (2*W./(rho.*(V.^2))).*((K./CD_o)^0.5);
CL_minthrust = (CD_o./K).^0.5;
return
Power_levelflight.m
%This function calculates power required for steady level flight given
%a range of true air speeds, altitude, wing area, parasitic drag coefficient,
%weight, and K. It also plots the actual available power of the engine
%given the power of the engine(ideal) at sea level.
function [V_max, P_needed] = power_levelflight(V_initial, V_final, h, P_engine, D_prop, S, CD_o,

W, K, plotvariable)
%
%Formulas taken from notes Propulsion System Design pg 14
%Variables:
C-11
%Inputs:
%V_initial & V_final: Provides the bounds of which to iterate V
% across (kts)
%h: Altitude (ft)
%P_engine: Power of the uninstalled engine at sea
% level (hp)
%D_prop: Diameter of propeller (ft)
%W: Aicraft Weight (lbf)
%plotvariable: Boolean Variable that determines whether
% function plots the power curves
%Outputs:
%P_needed: Power required for steady level flight
% (hp)
%V_max: Maximum airspeed (kts)
%Transients:
%V: A row vector containing airspeeds
%rho: Air density (slugs/ft^3)
%A_prop: Area of propeller (ft^2)
%T: Thrust (lbf)
%CT: Coefficient of thrust
%eta_i: Propeller efficiency coefficient
%P_engine_i: Ideal power output of the engine in flight at altitude
% (hp)
V = [V_initial:0.1:V_final]*1.68780986; %Creating a row vector of test airspeeds

%in ft/s
rho = density(h);
A_prop = pi*(D_prop/2);
%Calculating the various parameters at each test airspeed

for i = 1:size(V,2)
T(i) = thrust_levelflight(V(i), rho, S, CD_o, W, K);
CT(i) = T(i)/(0.5*rho*(V(i)^2)*A_prop);
eta_i(i) = 2/(1+sqrt(1+CT(i)));
P_needed(i) = T(i)*V(i)/eta_i(i)*0.001818182;
P_engine_i(i) = P_engine*0.85*eta_i(i)*rho/density(0);
end
%Calculating maximum attainable air speed

if P_engine_i(size(V,2)) < P_needed(size(V,2)) %Check that power needed exceeds
%power available
for j = 1:size(V,2)
error(j) = abs(P_needed(j) - P_engine_i(j));
end
counter = find(error == min(error)); %Entry where minimum error occurs
V_max = V(counter);
else
display('V_max does not fall within specified air speed range. Please redefine range of V');
V_max = 'not found';
end
V = V.*0.592483801;
V_max = V_max.*0.592483801;
if plotvariable == 1
plot(V,P_needed,V,P_engine_i)
xlabel('True Air Speed, V (kts)');
ylabel('Power (hp)');
title('Plot of Airspeed versus Power Needed and Power Output');
legend('Power Needed for Level Flight','Power Provided By Engine');
end
C-12
return
flight_envelope.m
%This function plots the flight envelope of the aircraft.
function [V_max,V_min,V_stall] = flight_envelope(h, P_engine, D_prop, S, CD_o, W, K,CL_max)
%Variables:
%Inputs:
%h: A row vector of altitudes at which to determine
% V_max (ft)
%P_engine: Power of the uninstalled engine at sea
% level (hp)
%D_prop: Diameter of propeller (ft)
%W: Aicraft Weight (lbf)
%Outputs:
%V_max: Maximum airspeed possible with available power
% (kts)
%V_min: Minimum airspeed possible with available
% power from engine (kts). Note that this is
% not the same as the stall speed that is
% determined by aerodynamic properties of the
% aircraft.
%V_stall: Stall airspeed calculated from aerodynamic
% parameters of the aircraft (kts)
V_initial = 10; %Setting a range of V (kts) to iterate across

V_final = 150;
if size(CD_o,2) == 1 %Creating a row vector of CD_o if only one value is given

CD_o = CD_o*ones(size(h));
end
if size(K,2) == 1 %Creating a row vector of K if only one value is given

K = K*ones(size(h));
end
if size(h,2)~=size(CD_o,2) %Ensuring that sizes of the vectors match up

error('Dimensions of altitude vector and CD_o vector do not match')
end
if size(h,2)~=size(K,2) %Ensuring that sizes of the vectors match up

error('Dimensions of altitude vector and K vector do not match')
end
%Finding the maximum and minimum airspeed attainable at each altitude test case
for i=1:size(h,2)
[V_max(i),V_min(i)] = power_levelflight(V_initial, V_final, h(i), P_engine, D_prop, S,
CD_o(i), W, K(i),0);
h(i)
end
%Calculating stall boundary

[V_stall] = stall_boundary(h,W,S,CL_max);
%Plotting flight envelope

ceiling = 27000;
plot(V_max, h,'-k', V_min,h,'-k',V_stall,h,0:1:160,ceiling,'--')
xlabel('True Airspeed V (knots)')
ylabel('Altitude h (ft)')
title('Flight Envelope')
C-13
Stall_boundary.m
%This function calculates the stall boundary of the aircraft over a range
%of altitudes. This data is required for the stall boundary of the flight
%envelope.
function [V_stall] = stall_boundary(h,W,S,CL_max)
%This function uses the equations for stall boundary from Aircraft
%Performance notes pg 13.
%Variables
%Inputs
%h: A row vertor of test altitudes (ft)
%W: Weight of aircraft (lbf)
%CL_max: CL_max of the wing
%Output
%V_stall: Stall velocity (kts)
%Prepared by Zhiwei Song
for i = 1:size(h,2)
rho(i) = density(h(i)); %calculating density at the respective altitudes
V_stall(i) = ((2.*W./(rho(i).*CL_max.*S)).^0.5)*0.592483801;
End
fuelflowrate.m
function [fuel_rate] = fuelflowrate(P_sealevel)
%This function determines the fuel flow rate for the AR 801 engine for a
given
%throttle setting. The equation was obtained from engine data obtained
%from the engine manufacturer.
%Variables
%Input
%P_sealevel: Output of engine at sea level
%Output
%fuel_rate: Fuel mass flow rate (lbs/s)
fuel_rate = (0.0036*(P_sealevel^2) + 0.2406*P_sealevel + 2.9915)/3600;
Fuel_levelflight.m
%This function calculates the total fuel expended during a steady level
%flight at a defined altitude and velocity for a defined duration. The
%function updates the current weight of the aircraft for every predefined
%step in time to account for the fuel burnt during the steady level flight
%phase. It outputs both the total fuel consumed and the final weight of
%aircraft at the end of the phase.
function [total_fuel_consumed,W_final] = fuel_levelflight(h, V, duration, P_engine, D_prop, S,

CD_o, W_initial, K)
C-14
%Variables
%Inputs
%h: Altitude of flight (ft)
%V: Speed of flight (knots)
%duration: Duration of phase (seconds)
%P_engine: Power generated by the engine at sea level (hp)
%D_prop: Diameter of the propeller (ft)
%W_inital: Starting weight of the aircraft (lbs)
%Outputs
%total_fuel_consumed: Total fuel consumed during the phase (lbs)
%W_final: Final weight of the aircraft (lbs)
%Transients
%W_current: Weight of the aircraft during the current
% iteration (lbs)
%P_needed: Power required for flight (hp)
%P_generated: Sea level power that engine needs to
% generate to produced required power for
% flight (hp)
step = 10; %size of iteration step

W_current = W_initial;
if mod(duration,step) ~= 0 %if duration entered is not divisible by step

duration = duration + (step - mod(duration,step)); %round up
end
for time = 0:step:duration

[P_needed,eta_i] = power_levelflight2(V, h, P_engine, D_prop, S, CD_o, W_current, K);
P_generated = P_needed/0.85/eta_i;
fuel_consumed = step*fuelflowrate(P_generated);
W_current = W_current - fuel_consumed; %subtracting expended fuel
%weight from aircraft weight
%at the end of each iteration
end
W_final = W_current;
total_fuel_consumed = W_initial - W_final;
Fuel_climb.m
%This function calculates the fuel expended during a climb phase. It

%assumes that the engine is operated at full throttle during the entire
%climb maneuver. It also assumes that the aircraft is flying with maximum
%climb speed permissible by the engine. The function is iterative and
%recalculates the maximum climb speed and aircraft weight at a predefined
%altitude interval.
function [total_fuel_consumed,W_final,hor_dist_covered,total_time_taken] = fuel_climb(h_initial,

h_final, P_engine, S, CD_o, W_initial, K, eta_i)
%Variables
%Input
%h_initial: Starting altitude (ft)
%h_final: Final altitude (ft)
%P_engine: Power generated by the engine at sea level (hp)
%D_prop: Diameter of the propeller (ft)
%S: Wing area (ft^2)
%CD_o: Parasitic drag coefficient
%W_inital: Starting weight of the aircraft (lbs)
C-15
%Output
%total_fuel_consumed: Total fuel consumed during the phase (lbs)
%W_final: Final weight of the aircraft (lbs)
%hor_dist_covered: Horizontal distance covered during climb
% (ft)
%total_time_taken: Total time taken to complete the climb
% phase (s)
step = 100; %setting the altitude iteration step size

W_current = W_initial;
fuelflow = fuelflowrate(P_engine); %calculating fuel consumption at max throttle
total_time_taken = 0;
hor_dist_covered = 0;
for h = h_initial:step:h_final
rho = density(h); %calculating density at current altitude
P_avail = 550*P_engine*0.85*eta_i*rho/density(0);
vclimb_max = P_avail/W_current -
(4/3)*sqrt((2*W_current/(rho*S))*sqrt(3*(K^3)*CD_o));%calculating maximum climb speed
v_horizontal = sqrt( 2*W_current/(density(h)*S)*sqrt(K/CD_o));%corresponding horizontal speed
time_taken = step/vclimb_max;%time taken to complete each iteration
fuel_consumed = time_taken*fuelflowrate(P_engine*rho/density(0));
W_current = W_current - fuel_consumed;
total_time_taken = total_time_taken+time_taken;
hor_dist_covered = v_horizontal*time_taken + hor_dist_covered;
end
W_final = W_current;
total_fuel_consumed = W_initial - W_final;
LoadMain.m
%This program calculates and compares the load distribution along the span of the wing.
choice = 1;
i=1;
while choice < 8
[wingloads1 y fuel_weight]=LoadFunc(choice);
[wingloads2 y fuel_weight2]=LoadFunc(choice+1);
VzFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,1);
VxFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,2);
MTFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,3);
MxFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,4);
MzFuel(:,i)=wingloads1(:,5);
VzEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,1);
VxEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,2);
MTEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,3);
MxEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,4);
MzEmpty(:,i)=wingloads2(:,5);
i=i+1;
choice=choice+2;
end
figure(1)
plot(y,VzFuel,y,VzEmpty,':')
legend('A Fuelled','D Fuelled','E Fuelled','G Fuelled','A Empty','D Empty','E Empty','G Empty');
xlabel('y (ft)')
ylabel('Vz (lbf)')
title('Vz')
figure(2)
plot(y,VxFuel,y,VxEmpty,':')
xlabel('y (ft)')
ylabel('Vx (lbf)')
C-16
title('Vx')
figure(3)
plot(y,MTFuel,y,MTEmpty,':')
xlabel('y (ft)')
ylabel('MT (lbf)')
title('MT')
figure(4)
plot(y,MxFuel,y,MxEmpty,':')
xlabel('y (ft)')
ylabel('Mx (lbf)')
title('Mx')
figure(5)
plot(y,MzFuel,y,MzEmpty,':')
xlabel('y (ft)')
ylabel('Mz (lbf)')
title('Mz')
LoadFunc.m
%This programme calculates the load on the wing

function [wingloads,yp, fuel_weight] = LoadFunc(choice)
%-----------------Aircraft weight---------------------
W_full=644.8; %lbf
W_empty=461.4; %lbf
%-----------------------------------------------------
if choice == 1;
V=107.3;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint A, Fully fuelled
W=W_full;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 2;
V=91;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint A, Empty fuel
W=W_empty;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 3;
V=194;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint D, Fully fuelled
W=W_full;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 4;
V=194;nz=3.5; %DesignPoint D, Empty Fuel
W=W_empty;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 5;
V=194;nz=-1; %DesignPoint E, Fully fuelled
W=W_full;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 6;
V=194;nz=-1; %DesignPoint E, Empty Fuel
W=W_empty;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 7;
V=103.3;nz=-1.9; %DesignPoint G, Fully fuelled
W=W_full;
TrimMain2;
elseif choice == 8;
V=87.7;nz=-1.9; %DesignPoint G, Empty fuel
W=W_empty;
TrimMain2;
else
display('You have entered an invalid choice');
end
C-17
load aircraftCza.mat
%---------------------
%User Input Parameters
%---------------------
cdo=0.0077; %Profile drag coefficient
M=100; %Number of spanwise stations
rho_f = 44.988; %fuel density, lbs/ft^3
Sw=74.25; %wing area
b = 27; %wing span
w_w=68.8/b; %weight of wing/ft

a0=-4; %zero lift AoA
cr = 3.1; %root chord
ct = 2.4; %tip chord
Cmo=-0.1008*ones(M+1,1);%sectional moment coefficient
rho=0.00237; %sea level
%rho=0.001266; %cruise
%rho=0.0023423; %dash
%---------------------
%=================================================================
%This part of the code needs updating when the stall angles change
%=================================================================
Czabar=nz.*W./(0.5.*rho.*V.^2.*Sw); %Total normal force coefficient
aw=16+33*(Czabar-Cza(end))./(Cza(end)-Cza(1)) %Finding aw from Trim Curve
alfa=aw+a0;
q=0.5*rho*V.^2; %Freestream dynamic pressure
%=================================================================
%Generate sectional cl and cd of wing

[cl,cd,c,y]=sectionalCLCDi(aw,cdo);
%Begin Iteration
for i=1:M+1
dLwdy(i)=q.*c(i).*cl(i); %lift/ft
dDwdy(i)=q.*c(i).*cd(i); %drag/ft
dNwdy(i)=dLwdy(i).*cosd(alfa); %normalForce/ft
dCwdy(i)=dDwdy(i).*cosd(alfa)-dLwdy(i).*sind(alfa); %chordwiseForce/ft
dMacdy(i)=-q.*(c(i)).^2.*Cmo(i); %pitching moment/ft
dFIGzdy(i)=-nz.*w_w;
w_f(i) = -0.5*c(i)*0.45*0.17*c(i)*rho_f; %fuel weight
end
%boom consideration
for j=1:M
Dy(j)=abs(y(j)-y(j+1)); %spanwise lengths of stations
DNw(j)=(dNwdy(j)+dNwdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;
DCw(j)=(dCwdy(j)+dCwdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;
DMac(j)=(dMacdy(j)+dMacdy(j+1)).*Dy(j)./2;
%======= account for twin booms =========

if y(j)<-2.33 & y(j)>-3.67
B(j) = -60.225; %boom weight per ft
else B(j) = 0;
end
%====== fuel weight =======
%fuel weight concentrated near to the wing root
if y(j) > -7
fuel(j) = (w_f(j) + w_f(j+1))/2;
fuel_tot(j) = fuel(j)*Dy(j);
else fuel_tot(j)=0;
end
if choice == 2 || choice == 4 || choice == 6 || choice == 8

fuel_tot(j) = 0;
end
DFIGZ(j)=(dFIGzdy(j)+dFIGzdy(j+1))*Dy(j)./2 + fuel_tot(j);
C-18
DFIGZ(j) = DFIGZ(j) + B(j)*Dy(j);
Dxcg(j)=(c(j)/12+c(j+1)/12)/2;
end
fuel_weight = sum(fuel_tot);
Vz(1)=0;
Vx(1)=0;
Mz(1)=0;
Mx(1)=0;
MT(1)=0;
for J=1:M-1
Vz(J+1)=Vz(J)+DNw(J)+DFIGZ(J);
Vx(J+1)=Vx(J)+DCw(J);
Mz(J+1)=Mz(1)-(Vx(J).*Dy(J))-(DCw(J).*Dy(J)./2);
Mx(J+1)=Mx(J) + (Vz(J).*Dy(J)) + (DNw(J).*Dy(J)./2) + (DFIGZ(J).*Dy(J)./2);
MT(J+1)=MT(J)+DMac(J)+(DFIGZ(J).*Dxcg(J));
end
wingloads=[Vz' Vx' MT' Mx' Mz'];
for H=1:M
yp(H)=(y(H)+y(H+1))/2; %y location of each spanwise station
end
end
TrimMain2.m
%TrimMain2.m Last changes made 11/29/06 UAV Team 2 (UAVarsity)
%This program calculates the trimmed forces acting on the wing.
if choice == 1
load UAVspecs.mat;
load Afull.mat;
CDoutput=CDCLCmact(:,1); CLoutput=CDCLCmact(:,2); Cmact=CDCLCmact(:,3);
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
trimanalysis(a0,alfamin,alfamax,AR,CLoutput,CDoutput,Cmact,xcg_t,xcg_w,Sw,St,cwBar,at0,ARt);
elseif choice == 2
load UAVspecsNoFuel.mat;
load Aempty.mat;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 3
load UAVspecs.mat;
load Dfull.mat;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 4
load Dempty.mat;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 5
load UAVspecs.mat;
load Efull;
C-19
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 6
load Eempty;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 7
load UAVspecs.mat;
load Gfull;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
elseif choice == 8
load Gempty;
[Cza,Cz,Cx,Czt] =
else
display('You have entered an invalid choice.')
break
end
C-20
Appendix D: Aerodynamic Performance Calculations
D.1 Aerodynamic parameter changes due to flaps
Δcl = (m0 ) flapped τηδ f (Eqn. D.1)
where τ - is the flap effectiveness

η - is the viscous correction factor
The aerodynamic pitching moment is changed as well, given by the following equation.
Δ cm
Δ cm = ⋅ Δcl (Eqn. D.2)
Δcl
where Δcm / Δcl – is given in Figure D.1.
Figure D.1: Δcm / Δcl vs. flap chord ratio.
D.2 Aircraft Pitching Moment Coefficient (without Tail)
The aircraft pitching moment coefficient without the tail is given by the following equation.
( CM )ac−t = ( CM AC
) + (C )
w
M fus (
+ ΔCM AC ) flaps
(Eqn. D.3)
The wing pitching moment ( CM AC ( ) w

) is equivalent to the pitching moment of the airfoil since
the wing has no sweep. The airfoil pitching moment is -0.13 for the NASA GA(W)1. The change
in pitching moment due to the flaps calculation can be found in the flap section. Lastly, the
pitching moment due to the fuselage is given by the following.
D-1
K f l fus D fus 2
( CM ) fus = α (Eqn. D.4)
cS
Kf is an empirical pitching moment factor, which can be obtained by looking up the tabulated Kf
value for different wing AC location on the fuselage. For our design, the wing is located
approximately at 42% of the fuselage and the corresponding Kf value is 0.018.
D.3 Parasite Drag Coefficient
The parasite drag coefficient (CD0) during takeoff, cruise and dash were calculated using Eqn.
D.5.
1
CD 0 =
S
∑ ( C fc FFcQc Swetc ) + CDmis + CDL&P (Eqn. D.5)
The subscript c denotes component c. A total of 4 components were considered for the
calculation: wing, fuselage, twin booms and tail. Cfc is the friction coefficient, FFc is the form
factor, Qc is the interference factor and Swetc is the wetted area. CDmis is drag contribution of
aircraft components with large form drag, such as non-retracted landing gear and fuselage
upsweep. CDL&P is the drag associated with air leakages and protuberance, which is usually 8% of
the CD0.
To calculate Cfc, Eqn D.6 was used.
0.455
Cf = (Eqn. D.6)
( log10 Re )
2.58
(1 + 0.144M )
2 0.65
This equation assumes that the Re is above 500,000. Given the dimensions of each component,
even at stall conditions, the Re was above 500,000. Fuselage length and boom length were used
as characteristic length while the mean aerodynamic chord was used for wing and tail.
Form factors for wing and tail used the formula shown in Eqn D.7.
⎡ 0.6 t ⎛ t ⎞ ⎤⎡
4
+ 100 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ 1.34 M 0.18 ( cos Λ m ) ⎤

0.28
FF = ⎢1 + (Eqn. D.7)
⎢⎣ ( x / c )m c ⎝ c ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎦
The variable (x/c)m represents the chordwise location of the airfoil maximum thickness while
(t/c) is the airfoil maximum thickness. The sweep angle ( Λ m ) was set to 0 since the swept wing
only benefits flight as transonic speeds. For fuselage and booms, slightly different equation was
used to calculate the form factor.
D-2
⎛ 60 f ⎞ l
FF = ⎜1 + 3 + ⎟, f = (Eqn. D.8)
⎝ f 400 ⎠ d
As shown from Eqn D.8, only length and diameter of fuselage and boom were required to
calculate the form factor.
The interference factor, Q, was set to 1 for all components except the tail, which was set at 1.08
due to the H-shape of the tail. The surface wet area for each component was simple to calculate
since the dimensions of geometry were specified from the beginning.
The miscellaneous drag mainly comes from the fuselage upsweep. In addition, the fuselage
upsweep, windmilling propellers, and speedbrakes add to the miscellaneous drag. However, we
assumed that the propeller does not stop and no speed brakes are applied. Eqn D.9 shows the
drag contribution due to the fuselage upsweep.
CDmis = 3.83θ A (Eqn. D.9)
θ is the upsweep angle in radians and A denotes the fuselage cross-sectional area. A MATLAB
code was created to calculate the CD0 of the aircraft (Appendix C)
D.4 Trim Drag Coefficient
The trim drag is the induced drag of the tail.
CLt 2 St
CDtrim = (Eqn. D.10)
π et ARt S
Eqn D.10 was used to calculate the trim drag. e is the Oswald efficiency factor while the
coefficient of lift of tail was calculated from obtaining CL of the wing and the aircraft pitching
moment without the tail.
D-3
Appendix E: Takeoff and Landing Calculations
E.1 Take off
The ground roll can be computed with the following equations, where μ is the friction coefficient
of the ground, Vi is zero, and Vf is 1.1 times stall speed.
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎪⎧ KT + K AV f ⎪⎫
2
SG = ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎨ 2⎬
(Eqn. E.1)
⎝ 2 gK A ⎠ ⎩⎪ KT + K AVi ⎭⎪
⎛T ⎞
KT = ⎜ ⎟ − μ (Eqn. E.2)
⎝W ⎠
ρ
KA =
2(W / S )
( μC L − CD0 − KCL2 ) (Eqn. E.3)
The rotation distance can be computed next, where VTO is 1.1 times the stall speed of 35 knots.
The rotate time, trotate, is 1 second.
S R = VTO ⋅ trotate (Eqn. E.4)
R is the radius of the arc about which the aircraft rotates during transition, as shown in Figure
14.1.
⎛T −D ⎞
STR = R ⎜ ⎟ (Eqn. E.5)
⎝ W ⎠VClimb
The vertical distance traveled as UAV transitions to steady climb is a function of R and the flight
path angle, γclimb.
hTR = R(1 − cos(γ climb )) (Eqn. E.6)
The horizontal distance traveled as UAV climbs to avoid the obstacle is computed last.
hobstacle − hTR
SC = (Eqn. E.7)
tan(γ climb )
E.2 Landing
The total horizontal distance traveled as the UAV clears obstacle and approaches the runway
depends on the obstacle height, the flare height, hF, and the flight path angle.
E-1
hobstacle − hF
Sa = (Eqn. E.8)
tan(γ a )
The horizontal distance traveled as the UAV flares up and prepares to land depends on the
radius, R, of the arc that the aircraft makes as it transitions to flare.
S F = R ( sin γ a ) (Eqn. E.9)
The vertical distance traveled during the flare maneuver depends on the flight path angle and the
radius.
hF = R (1 − cos γ a ) (Eqn. E.10)
The distance traveled on the runway after touchdown and before brakes are applied depends on
the touchdown velocity, VTD, and the time, td, before the brakes are applied. The touchdown
velocity is 1.15 times the stall speed, and td will be 1 second.
S FR = VTD ⋅ td (Eqn. E.11)

Finally, the distance traveled while the brakes are applied until the UAV comes to rest is
calculated by the following equations.
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎧ KT ⎫
SB = ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎨ 2 ⎬
(Eqn. E.12)
⎝ 2 gK A ⎠ ⎩ KT + K AVTD ⎭
⎛T ⎞
KT = ⎜ ⎟ − μ (Eqn. E.13)
⎝W ⎠
ρ
KA =
2(W / S )
( μC L − CD0 − KCL2 ) (Eqn. E.14)
E-2
Appendix F: Tail Sizing Calculations and History
F.1. Vertical Tail
The equations and intermediate values obtained in the vertical tail calculation are presented in
this section.
The initial estimate of the vertical tail volume coefficient, CVT, is based on existing aircraft
designs. The coefficient is selected s 0.04, which is typical for small single-engine aircraft.
The vertical tail area, SVT, is related to the vertical tail volume coefficient by:
C bS
SVT = VT W (Eqn F.1)
LVT
Where b is the wing span, SW is the wing planform area and LVT is the distance from the
aerodynamic center of the wing to the aerodynamic center of the tail.
Given that SW = 74.25 ft2, b = 27 ft and LVT = 7.7 ft; our initial estimate of vertical tail area is:
0.04 × 27 × 74.25
SVT = = 10.4 ft 2 (Eqn. F.2)
7.7
Next, an estimate of the directional stability of the aircraft, (Cnψ)ac, is obtained using the
following equation:
(C nψ )ac = (C nψ )W + (C nψ ) fus + (C nψ )prop + (C nψ )v + Δ1C nψ + Δ 2 C nψ (Eqn. F.3)
Where W, fus, prop and v denote the contributions to directional stability by the wing, the
fuselage, the propeller and the vertical tail respectively. The last two terms are correction factors
that compensate for the wing geometry and sidewash and interference due to wing-fuselage
combination.
The wing contribution to directional stability, (Cnψ)W, is obtained from equation (108) from the
aforementioned lecture notes, given by:
(C ) = −6 × 10 −5 (Λ0 )
0.5
nψ W (Eqn. F.4)
0
Where Λ is the sweep angle of the wing at quarter chord. Since our wing is un-swept, the wing
contribution to directional stability is 0.
The fuselage contribution to direction stability, (Cnψ)fus, is given by equation (109):

V
(C nψ ) fus = fus (K 2 − K1 ) (Eqn. F.5)
28.7 SW b
Where Vfus is the fuselage volume and (K2 – K1) is a function of the fineness (length to diameter)
ratio of the fuselage.
Given the nature of our aircraft design, the fuselage volume, Vfus, is taken as the combined
volume of the fuselage and the twin boom. For simplification, the fuselage is viewed as a 6-ft
cylinder with diameter 2 ft having a 2-ft tall cone attached to each end. The twin booms are
simplified as two cylinders with a diameter of 6 inches and length of 8.1 ft. Therefore, Vfus is
calculated to be:
F-1
⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞2 ⎛1 ⎛ 2.5 ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜
2
⎛ 0.5 ⎞ ⎞⎟⎤
2
V fus = Vcyl + 2Vcone + Vboom ⎜

= π ⎢6 × ⎜ ⎟ + 2 × 2 × ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ + 2⎜ 8.1× ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎥ = 26.2 ft (Eqn. F.6)
2
⎜
⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠⎦⎥
Our aircraft has a fineness ratio of 5. Reading off the Fig 10 of the lecture notes, the correlation
factor (K2 – K1) is 0.8. Therefore, the fuselage contribution to directional stability is:
(Cnψ ) fus = 26.2
× 0.8 = 3.65 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. F.7)
28.7 × 74.25 × 27
The propeller contribution on directional stability, (Cnψ)prop, is given the following equation:
⎡ ⎛ dCYp ⎞ ⎤
⎢ πD p l p ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ N p ⎥
2
dψ
(C nψ )prop = 1.5⎢⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
⎥
(Eqn. F.8)
4 SW b
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Where Dp is the diameter of the propeller, lp is the distance from the propeller to the center of
gravity of the aircraft, Np is the number of propellers, and dCYp/dψ is the rate of change of the
yawing moment coefficient due to the side force of the propeller with respect to ψ. For the
design of our UAV, we are using a single twin-bladed propeller of diameter 5 ft for the aircraft.
The propeller is located 3.76 ft behind the center of gravity of the aircraft. dCYp/dψ is estimated
to be 0.00165 based on the lecture notes. The contribution of propeller to directional stability is:
(C nψ )prop = 1.5⎡⎢π × 5 × (− 3.76) × 0.00165 × 1⎤⎥ = −9.11 × 10 −5

2
(Eqn. F.9)
⎣ 4 × 74.25 × 27 ⎦
The tail contribution, (Cnψ)v, is given by:

⎛ S ⎞⎛ L ⎞
(C )
nψ v= − a v ⎜⎜ VT ⎟⎟⎜ VT ⎟η v (Eqn. F.10)
S
⎝ W ⎠ ⎝ b ⎠
Where av is lift curve slope of the vertical tail, given in Fig 35 as a function of the aspect ratio of
the tail, and ηv is the vertical tail efficiency.
The initial tail has an effective aspect ratio of 2.5 and this gives us a lift curve slope of 0.05. The
vertical tail efficiency is assumed to be 1. Therefore, the tail contribution is:
(Cnψ )v = −0.05⎛⎜ 10.41 ⎞⎟⎛⎜ 7.7 ⎞⎟1 = −0.0019 (Eqn. F.11)
⎝ 74.25 ⎠⎝ 27 ⎠
The first correction factor, Δ1Cnψ, is determined by the wing geometry. The wing of our aircraft
is mounted on top of the fuselage, and the correction factor is:
Δ 1C nψ = −0.0002 (Eqn. F.12)
The second correction factor, Δ2Cnψ, is to account for the contribution to directional stability due
to sidewash and interference flow from the fuselage-wing combination. Given the high wing
geometry,
Δ 2 C nψ = 0.0006 (Eqn. F.13)
F-2
Now that we have all the terms that contribute to directional stability, the estimate for the aircraft
can be obtained:
(Cnψ )ac = (C nψ )W + (C nψ ) fus + (Cnψ )prop + (C nψ )v + Δ1Cnψ + Δ 2 C nψ
(Eqn. F.14)
(Cnψ )ac = 0 + 0.000238 − 9.11× 10 −5 + −0.0002 − 0.00002 + 0.0006 = −0.00125
An estimate for the desired directional stability is provided in equation (127) of the notes:
0.5
⎛ SW ⎞
(C nψ )desirable = −0.0005⎜ 2 ⎟ (Eqn. F.15)
⎝b ⎠
For our aircraft, the desired directional stability is:
0.5
⎛ 74.25 ⎞
(C ) nψ desirable
= −0.0005⎜ 2 ⎟
= −1.60 × 10 − 4 (Eqn. F.16)
⎝ 27 ⎠
The desired directional stability is only about 1/10 of the actual aircraft stability, and therefore
the initial estimate of the tail area is not good enough to provide a desired directional stability.
The vertical tail area has to be altered to match the desired directional stability. Therefore, the
new tail contribution should be:
[ ] [ ]
(Cnψ )v new = (Cnψ )desirable − (Cnψ )W + (Cnψ ) fus + (Cnψ )prop + +Δ1Cnψ + Δ 2Cnψ = −8.3 ×10−4 (Eqn. F.17)
Using the new Cnψ value and equation (123), the new vertical tail area is:
S VT =
[
− (C nψ )v S W b ]
η v a v LVT
(Eqn. F.18)
8.3 × 10 − 4 × 74.25 × 27
S VT = = 4.52 ft 2
1 × 0.05 × 7,7
The calculated vertical tail area is 4.52 ft2, or 6% of the wing area. While the vertical tail area of
4.34 ft2 may be able to provide directional stability to the aircraft, it does not guarantee that the
aircraft will have sufficient maneuverability.
F.2 Horizontal Tail
The first iteration of the horizontal tail sizing is presented in this section. Iterations will be
performed until the tail area at the end of iteration is within 1% of the tail area at the beginning
of the iteration.
The horizontal tail size of BBXL was begun with a simplified calculation using the following
equation where we assumed the volume coefficient of the horizontal tail to be the same as that
for a typical small single-engine aircraft.
c ⋅S
S HT = C HT w w (Eqn. F.19)
LHT
Where:
cw = 2.75 ft S w = 74.25 ft2 C HT = 0.7 LHT = 7.7 ft
F-3
2.75 ft ⋅ 74.25 ft
S HT = 0.7 = 18.56 ft 2 (Eqn. F.20)
7.7 ft
By assuming the horizontal tail volume coefficient to be 0.7 and using previously calculated
values for the wing mean chord, wing area, and the moment arm between the horizontal tail and
the aerodynamic center, we estimated the horizontal tail are to be 18.56 ft2. This value was a
good start to our horizontal tail sizing iterations which includes more aerodynamic parameters
for the desired horizontal tail performance. Note, we began our calculations with the value of 0.7
for the horizontal tail volume coefficient but it will change with each iteration using the below
equation.
S HT ,new ⋅ LHT
C HT ,new = (Eqn. F.21)
cw ⋅ S w
Before using iterations key parameters that affect the performance of the horizontal tail must first
be calculated. These parameters include the volume of the fuselage, twin booms, and the lift
curve slopes of the wing and horizontal tail. The total volume of the fuselage and the twin boom
is given by:
2 2 2
4 ⎛ Df ⎞ ⎛ Df ⎞ ⎛ Dtb ⎞
Vf = π⎜ ⎜ ⎟ + (L f − 4)π ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟ + 2π ⋅ Ltb ⎜ 2 ⎟ (Eqn. F.22)
3 ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
The lift curve slopes of the wing and the horizontal tail are obtained from the following
equations:
ao
aW = (Eqn. F.23)
57.3 ⋅ r ⋅ ao
1+
π AR
ao , HT
aT = (Eqn. F.24)
57.3 ⋅ r ⋅ ao , HT
1+
π ARHT
Where:
Df = 2 ft (fuselage diameter)
Lf = 10 ft (fuselage length)
Ltb= 8.1 ft (twin boom length)
ao= 0.11 (lift curve slope of 2D wing)
ao,HT = 0.12 (lift curve slope of 2D horizontal tail)
r=1 (correction factor of end plates)
Dtb= 0.5 ft (twin boom diameter)
( 27 ft )
2
b2
AR = = = 9.82 (Eqn. F.25)
S w 74.25 ft 2
( bHT ) ( 6.28 ft )
2 2
ARHT = = = 2.10 (Eqn. F.26)

S HT 18.7 ft 2
F-4
Using these values we find:
2 2 2
4 ft ⎛ 2 ft ⎞ ⎛ 2 ft ⎞ ⎛ 0.5 ft ⎞
Vf = π⎜ ⎟ + (10 ft − 4 ft ) π ⎜ ⎟ + 2π ⋅ 8.1 ft ⎜ ⎟ = 26.22 ft (Eqn. F.27)
3
3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
0.11
aW = = 0.0913 (Eqn. F.28)
57.3 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.11
1+
π ⋅ 9.82
0.12
aT = = 0.059 (Eqn. F.29)
57.3 ⋅1⋅ 0.12
1+
π ⋅ 2.10
After we found these values we can apply them to find the rate of change of moment coefficients
with respect to lift coefficient of the fuselage. Because the primary function of the horizontal tail
is to counter the moments created by the fuselage and wings this term is essential to the
calculation of the desired horizontal tail area. Using the values calculated above, we are able to
obtain:
⎛ Cm ⎞ V K
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = fus ⋅ (Eqn. F.30)
⎝ CL ⎠ fus 28.7 S w ⋅ c w ⋅ a w
⎛ Cm ⎞ 26.22 ft 3 0.8
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⋅ = 0.0392 (Eqn. F.31)
⎝ C L ⎠ fus 28.7 74.25 ft ⋅ 2.75 ft ⋅ 0.0913
2
Where K is an empirical factor based on experimental results and can be found by reading from
Figure 10 in the Static Stability for Aircraft and Trim Curves Lecture Notes. This value was
interpolated to be 0.8 for a fuselage fineness ratio of 5. The average angle of downwash at the
tail is given by ε. This downwash of a horizontal tail causes a reduction in the angle of attack and
therefore the lift. It is also important in our analysis to include the changes of the angle of attack
as it is related to the downwash angle. This is given below:
d ε 114.6
= ⋅ aw (Eqn. F.32)
dα π AR
dε 114.6
= ⋅ 0.0913 = 0.3393 (Eqn. F.33)
dα π ⋅ 9.82
After finding the values of these parameters, they are used to find the stability derivative of the
aircraft without the effects of the propellers using equation (52):
⎛ Cm ⎞ xcg − xac ⎛ Cm ⎞ at ⎛ dε ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = +⎜ ⎟ − ⋅ CHT ⋅ηt ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (Eqn. F.34)
⎝ CL ⎠ ac c ⎝ CL ⎠ fus aw ⎝ dα ⎠
⎛ Cm ⎞ 6.24 ft − 6.3 ft 0.059
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = + 0.0392 − ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 − 0.3393) = −0.281 (Eqn. F.35)
⎝ C L ⎠ ac 2.75 ft 0.0913
We then use these values to find the neutral point, the most aft location of the CG before the
aircraft becomes unstable by applying the following equation:
F-5
xac ⎛ Cm ⎞ at ⎛ dε ⎞
No = −⎜ ⎟ + ⋅ CHT ⋅ηt ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (Eqn. F.36)
c ⎝ CL ⎠ fus aw ⎝ dα ⎠
6.3 ft 0.059
No = − 0.0392 + ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 − 0.3393) = 2.55 (Eqn. F.37)
2.75 ft 0.0913
The stick fixed neutral point with wind milling propellers is calculated at the point where
dC m
is zero, and the aircraft is stable. This stick fixed neutral fixed point comes as a result
dC L
of the CG moving further aft.
N oWind = N o − N p
⎛ dCN
⎜
⎝ d α
⎞
⎟ (
⎠ pT =0
dβ
)
l S
dα p p a C η d β ⎛ dC ⎞
− t HT t N
(Eqn. F.38)
⎜ ⎟
S w c ⋅ aw aw 0.07 dα ⎝ dα ⎠ pT =0
Where:
Np= 1 (number of propellers)
⎛ dCN ⎞ = 0.00165 (attained from approximate empirical data)
⎜ dα ⎟⎠ pT =0
⎝
( d β dα ) =1.5·1.2 = 1.8 (
(approximately 1 + d ε
dα ) increased by 20% for maneuverability)
NOTE: ( d β dα ) values of 1.35 and 1.85 were used, and resulted in
minimal effects of less that 0.1ft2 in the final SHT. It was decided to
average these values to 1.5.
lp = -3.76 ft (length of the propeller relative to the CG)

Sp= 19.635 ft2 (area of our 5ft diameter propeller)
N oWind = 2.562 − 1 ⋅
(
0.00165(1.8)(− 3.76 ft ) 19.635 ft 2
−
)
0.059 0.7 ⋅ 1
⋅ (1.8)(0.00165) = 2.544
74.25 ft ⋅ 2.75 ft ⋅ 0.0913
2 2
0.0913 0.07
We then found the CG location due to ground effects from the wind milling propellers.
xcg ge = N oWind ⋅ c (Eqn. F.39)

xcg ge = 2.5546 ⋅ 2.75 ft = 7.02 ft (Eqn. F.40)
We then found the value that represents the shift in the stick-fixed neutral point from propeller
wind milling to critical power on flight configuration. This shift was taken from empirical data
determined for a single engine.
ΔN o = 0.00 (Eqn. F.41)

To find the neutral point with power on we sum the shift in the stick fixed neutral point with the
shift associated with the wind milling of the propellers.
N oPower = N oWind + ΔN o (Eqn. F.42)
F-6
N oPower = 2.544 + (0.00) = 2.544 (Eqn. F.43)
This result comes from the requirement that the aircraft must have a stick-fixed longitudinal
stability with power on. We then found the CG location when the power in the below expression.
xcg ge power = c ⋅ N oPower (Eqn. F.44)
xcg ge power = 2.75 ft ⋅ 2.544 = 7.00 ft (Eqn. F.45)
The deflection angle when the lift coefficient is equal to zero is found below.
Where:
Cmac = -0.1 (wing pitching moment coefficient at aerodynamic center)
αo= -4° (zero lift angle of attack)
τ = 0.59 (elevator effectiveness given the elevator area = 0.4 SHT)
−Cmac α
δ eo = − o (Eqn. F.46)
at ⋅ CHTηtτ τ
− (− 0.1) −4
δ eo = − = 10.87° (Eqn. F.47)
0.059 ⋅ 0.7 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.59 0.59
The most forward location of the CG is used to find the change in the moment coefficient as it
related to the change in the lift coefficient. The most forward location of CG is assumed to be 6
ft from the nose.
⎛ dCm ⎞ xcg fw
⎜ ⎟ = − N oWind (Eqn. F.48)
⎝ dCL ⎠ fwd c
⎛ dC m ⎞ 6 ft
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = − 2.544 = −0.362 (Eqn. F.49)
⎝ dC L ⎠ fwd 2.75 ft
Because the most aft location of the CG corresponds to CLmax, we then found the maximum
change of the elevator angle below.
⎛ dδ e ⎞ δ e,max − δ e 0
⎜ ⎟ = (Eqn. F.50)
⎝ dCL ⎠ max CL max
⎛ dδ e ⎞ − 20 − 10.87
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = = −15.91 (Eqn. F.51)
⎝ dC L ⎠ max 1.94
Using the above value, we then found the new horizontal tail volume coefficient in the below
expression.
⎛ dCm ⎞
⎜ dC ⎟
⎝ L ⎠ fwd
CHT ,new = (Eqn. F.52)
⎛ dδ e ⎞
atηtτ ⎜
⎝ dCL ⎟⎠ max
− 0.362
C HT ,new = = 0.653 (Eqn. F.53)
0.059 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0.59 ⋅ −15.91
We then use this new volume coefficient to calculate a new horizontal tail area.
F-7
CHT ,new S w c
S HT = (Eqn. F.54)
LHT
0.653 ⋅ 74.25 ft 2 ⋅ 2.75 ft
S HT ,new = = 17.32 ft 2 (Eqn. F.55)
7.7 ft
The first iterated horizontal tail area is 18.6 ft2, and this value is about 7% different from the tail
area at the beginning of the iteration. Therefore, further iteration is required until the tail area
convergence is less than 1%.
F.3 Tail Configuration History
The relaxed design requirements for the unmanned aircraft left us substantial freedom in its
design. After reviewing various proven designs, many different types of tail configurations were
considered before we came to our baseline design. Three tail configurations were considered; V-
tail, boom-tail, and tailless (flying wing). Below provides a detailed analysis of the pros and cons
of the three designs.
F.3.1 V-Tail Configuration
The inverted V-tailed configuration was considered because it is a characteristic feature of many
of the US-manufactured UAVs. Theoretically, the V-tail reduces wetted area and will benefit the
aircraft design by reducing the aircraft weight. Also, the interference drag and spiraling
tendencies are significantly reduced when using a V-tail design. However, extensive NACA
research suggests that the V surfaces need to be enlarged so that they have the equivalent wetted
area as a conventional design in order to provide good stability and control [6]. Also, because of
the inverted V arrangement, the aircraft’s landing gear will need to be significantly longer, and it
will require more stringent ground clearance for landing and take-off. For these reasons, we
decided not to include an inverted V tail design into our baseline design.
F.3.2 Twin Boom Tail Configuration
A twin boom configuration was considered because such a configuration can accommodate a
pusher prop layout while allowing the heavy engine to be located near the center of gravity of the
aircraft. The long slender booms also allow the tail of the aircraft to be positioned farther aft of
the wing, maximizing the moment arm of the tail surfaces without having to incur the full weight
penalty of building an equivalently long fuselage.
The twin boom tail configuration however could force the wing structure to be more robust than
a traditional design, because the booms are usually fixed to the wing. Also, the booms could
create additional wetted area, which could increase the drag on the aircraft. Figure illustrates the
twin boom tail configuration. Based on our aircraft specification, we decided that the twin boom
tail configuration is the best to suit our mission requirements.
F-8
Figure F.1: A typical UAV twin boom configuration [7].
F.3.3 Flying Wing Configuration
A flying wing design was considered because of its inherent efficiency. The flying wing
configuration eliminates the fuselage and all tail surfaces—reducing the wetted area and drag.
Eliminating these components would also improve the structural efficiency of the aircraft.
Reducing the drag and the structural mass of the aircraft would mean that it could have longer
endurance and require less fuel.
However, a problem with this design is that the wing must be designed very carefully so that the
wing can be stable with limited control moments. Because of this restriction, compromises
usually need to be made in the design that could counteract the structural and aerodynamic
advantages that the flying wing has. Even with these compromises, many flying wing designs
suffer from stability problems [8]. The flying wing would be a risky design to pursue because
many other flying wing designs have had stability problems [9]. Because of the complexity of
the flying wing design, we decided not to incorporate this design in our UAV.
F-9
Appendix G: Structures Calculations
This appendix outlines the procedure to calculate the bending margins of safety present on the
stiffeners of the wing, as was introduced in Section 20: Wing Structure. Also noted are the
stringer areas present at each spanwise section of the wing, as well as the margin of safety for
each stringer. For reference, the diagram below shows the location of each stringer at an
arbitrary spanwise station. Additionally, the stringer numbering scheme is also shown.
G.1 Stringer Areas and Margin of Safety
To reduce the weight of the wing skeletal structure, the cross sectional area of each stringer has
been tailored to the stresses at its particular location. The table below presents the stringer areas:
1 (in2) 2 (in2) 3 (in2) 4 (in2) 5 (in2) 6 (in2) 7 (in2) 8 (in2)

75% 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
60% 0.01 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
27% 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1
0% 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20
Associated with each stringer is a margin of safety for the bending loads present on the wing. As
is noted in the Wing Structure section, some of the margins present are vastly in excess of what
they need to be. However practical considerations dictate how small the stringer can reasonably
be machined. Also note that due to coupling between the load carrying stringers, it would be
almost impossible to ensure that all the stringers were at the design margin of safety of +0.35
without a highly detailed analysis, that would be impractical to conduct at this early stage of
development for the Big Brother 4000XL. The margin of safety for each stringer at each station
is:
1 (in2) 2 (in2) 3 (in2) 4 (in2) 5 (in2) 6 (in2) 7 (in2) 8 (in2)

75% +8.91 +6.66 +6.06 +7.13 +31.09 +12.74 +9.11 +8.70
60% +0.56 +0.36 +0.36 +0.61 +18.41 +4.01 +2.69 +2.87
27% +0.90 +0.50 +0.43 +0.75 +2.75 +1.11 +0.69 +0.69
0% +0.91 +0.47 +0.40 +0.75 +1.73 +0.66 +0.37 +0.36
G-1
G.2 Bending Calculations
As stated previously, the method for calculating the bending margins of safety on the wing are
outlined in Chapter 19 of Reference 22. The spreadsheet below summarizes what was
calculated. Note that a program was set up to iteratively calculate the effective width of skin
included with each stiffening member, and the resulting stress and margin of safety present in
that member. The full spreadsheet for the calculations at 27% of the span is shown below.
In this spreadsheet, the area of the stringer is entered into the first column. Note that if the skin
around the stiffener is in tension, this area includes the effective area of the skin. The number of
rivet rows attaching each stiffener to the sheet is needed to take into account the effective width
of the skin. There is only one rivet row for each stiffener since the stiffeners are all angle
extrusions more than one is not necessary. The total area of the stiffener is the sum of the
stringer area as well as the area of the effective skin. The z location Z’ (height above the chord
line) of the stringer is entered as well as the x location X’ (distance back from the leading edge
G-2
of the section). Also calculated is the area of the stiffener multiplied with Z’, and then with X’;
these values are used in computing the c.g. location of the section, which is noted as Zbar and
Xbar in the chart. The equation for Zbar is:
Zbar =
∑ A * Z' str
(Eqn. G.1)
∑A str
The equation for Xbar is similar. Next in the table are the products A*X’*Z’, A*Z’2, and
A*X’2, which are used in calculating the moments of inertia Ixx, Izz, and Ixz. Note that the
calculation of these values make use of the parallel axis theorem. The values of the area
moments of inertia are noted on the table. Their equations are shown below:
Ixx = (∑ A str )
* Z ' 2 − (∑ Astr )* Zbar 2 (Eqn. G.2)
Izz = (∑ A str )
* X ' 2 − (∑ Astr )* Xbar 2 (Eqn. G.3)
Ixz = (∑ Astr * Z '*X ') − (∑ Astr )* Zbar * Xbar (Eqn. G.4)
In the table, the values of Z and X with respect to the c.g. of the section are computed. To find
the stress present in the stiffener, the design moments Mx and Mz must be specified. The stress
due to the bending moments present at a location in the cross section is then given by the
equation:
σ b = −( K 3 * Mz − K 1 * Mx) * X − ( K 2 * Mx − K 1 * Mz ) * Z (Eqn. G.5)
Where the constants K1, K2, and K3 are defined as:
Ixz
K1 = (Eqn. G.6)
Ix * Iz − Ixz 2
Iz
K2 = (Eqn. G.7)
Ix * Iz − Ixz 2
Ix
K3 = (Eqn. G.8)
Ix * Iz − Ixz 2
The stress present in each stiffener is then noted in the table. The force P in the stiffener can
then be computed as the product of the stiffener area and the stiffener stress. The calculation of
this value acts as a check on the computation, since in order for the structure to be in static
equilibrium, the sum of P over all the stiffeners should be zero. We can see from the spreadsheet
that it is very close. The margin of safety in the stringer can then be found using the compressive
yield allowable Fcy and the tension yield allowable Fty. Finally, for a given margin of safety,
G-3
the spreadsheet indicates whether the margin in that particular stringer exceeds the desired
margin.
G.3 Shear Flow Calculation Results
Below are the critical results from the shear flow Matlab code that was provided. Recall that for
margins of safety higher than +3.00, +HIGH is shown.
75% of the span:

Leading Edge 0.032 -421.46 13,170 37,000 +1.80
Front Spar 0.032 -208.40 6,512 37,000 +HIGH
Rear Spar 0.032 896.45 27,159 37,000 +0.36
Wing Skin 0.032 -610.83 19,088 37,000 +0.93
(greatest)
60% of the span:

Leading Edge 0.032 -312.07 9,752 37,000 +2.79
Front Spar 0.032 -173.72 5,428 37,000 +HIGH
Rear Spar 0.032 698.76 21,836 37,000 +0.69
Wing Skin 0.032 -442.97 13,842 37,000 +1.67
(greatest)
0% of the span:
Leading Edge 0.032 -174.42 5,450 37,000 +HIGH
Front Spar 0.032 -136.85 4,276 37,000 +HIGH
Rear Spar 0.050 473.58 9,471 37,000 +2.90
Wing Skin 0.032 -212.09 6,627 37,000 +HIGH
(greatest)
G-4
Appendix H: Detailed Fuel Requirement Calculations
The fuel requirement calculations were made based on the mission profile outlined in Section 2:
Mission Description and Analysis.
H.1 Fuel Consumption Data
Table H.1: AR801 manufacture’s data.
Horsepower vs. Fuel Comsumption
30
2
y = 0.0036x + 0.2406x + 2.9915
25
Fuel Comsumption (lb/hr)
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horsepower
Figure H.2: Constructed fuel consumption curve.
H-1
H.2 Climb
During climb, the engine is assumed to be operated at full throttle and is assumed to be climbing
at the maximum climb rate. The fuel required for each climb maneuver can be calculated with
the following equations, which are calculated in steps of 100 ft to account for the changing
ambient air density and the reduction in weight of the aircraft due to fuel consumption. These
calculations are performed via a MATLAB code (fuel_climb.m).
Firstly, the power available is calculated via the following equation where the altitude is taken to
be the altitude at the beginning of each step:
ρaltitude
Pavailable = 0.85ηi (P ) (Eqn. H.1)
ρsea level shp sea level
Thus maximum climb rate and the corresponding horizontal velocity are given by:
Pavailable 4 2Wcurrent
Vclimbmax = − 3K 3CD0 (Eqn. H.2)
Wcurrent 3 ρS
2Wcurrent K
V= (Eqn. H.3)
ρS 3CD0
The time taken to complete each 100 ft step can thus be calculated by:
100
tstep =
Vclimbmax
(Eqn. H.4)
Therefore the fuel consumed and aircraft weight after each step is given by:
Pavailable
Wfuel = tstep c (Eqn. H.5)
0.85ηi
Wnew = Wcurrent − Wfuel (Eqn. H.6)
where c is the specific fuel consumption of the engine given in units of lbs-hp-s. Also, the
horizontal distance covered per step is given by:
distance = Vtstep (Eqn. H.7)

The above calculations are then repeated until the required climb altitude is attained, with the
fuel weight and horizontal distance of each climb step being summed up.
H-2
H.3 Steady Level Flight
During the steady level flight phases of our mission profile, namely cruise, dash and loiter.
During these phases, the phase duration and flight speed are defined. The fuel required for each
steady level flight phase is calculated via the following equations, which are performed in steps
of 1s to account for the changing weight due to fuel consumption during flight. These
calculations are performed via a MATLAB code (fuel_levelflight.m).
Firstly, the thrust and power required to fly at the defined speed is calculated by the following
equations:
2
1 KWcurrent
T = ρaltitudeV SCD0 +
2
(Eqn. H.8)
2 1
ρaltitudeV 2 S
2
T
CT = (Eqn. H.9)
1
ρaltitudeV 2 ADp
2
2
ηi = (Eqn. H.10)
1 + 1 + CT
Prequired = TV (Eqn. H.11)
Thus the fuel consumed per 1s time step and aircraft weight after each time step is given by:
Prequired
Wfuel = c (Eqn. H.12)
0.85ηi
Wnew = Wcurrent − Wfuel (Eqn. H.13)
where c is the specific fuel consumption of the engine given in units of lbs-hp-s. The above
calculations are then repeated until the required flight duration is attained, with the fuel weight
and horizontal distance of each time step being summed up.
H-3
Appendix I: V-n Diagram Calculations
This appendix outlines the steps and procedures taken to calculate the flight maneuver envelope
and gust-loading envelope and display the results in the form of V-n diagrams. This calculation
was performed using Professor Friedmann’s lecture notes on Flight Envelope and V-n Diagrams.
I.1 Maneuver Envelope
The non-dimensional load factor is the ratio of the projection of the aerodynamic and propulsive
loading in the aircraft z-axis and the weight of the aircraft. The equation for the load factor is
listed below in Equation G.1.
(Eqn. I.1)
Since our pusher-propeller engine is aligned parallel with the aircraft x-axis, we assume that the
propulsion system has no net loading in the z-axis direction.
(Eqn. I.2)
The aerodynamic loading of the aircraft in the z-direction can be represented by a coefficient
(Cza). This was previously determined by the trim curves and is represented by the equation
below.
(Eqn. I.3)
From convention, the maximum positive normal loading coefficient is multiplied by a factor 1.25
to determine the dynamic normal force coefficient, shown below.
(Eqn. I.4)
I.2 Loading From Flaps
When the flaps are deployed, it changes the net aerodynamic forces acting on the z-axis of the
aircraft. In most cases, the loading from flaps deployed will increase and will thus require
separate analysis.
(Eqn. I.5)
The load factor for the flaps deployed case is quite similar to Equation G.1 except the normal
aerodynamic force coefficient is determined with the set of aerodynamic data determined for the
flaps down case.
The maneuver envelope in the case of flaps deployed must extend up to a maximum design
velocity expected for operation with flaps deployed. This velocity is determined by the equation
below. The flaps design velocity must not be less than 1.4 times the stall speed with flaps
retracted or 1.8 times the stall speed with flaps deployed (whichever is greater).
(Eqn. I.6)
I-1
I.3 Gust Loading Envelope
The effect of a sharp gust may be very devastating to an aircraft, particularly if the load factor
due to the gust loading exceeds that of the limit loads specified by FAR and by the
specifications.
The gust load factor begins at a n=1 and extends linearly and equally in the positive and negative
direction as can be seen in Equation G.7.
(Eqn. I.7)
This can be rewritten as the equation shown below.

(Eqn. I.8)
The variable a is the partial derivative of the coefficient of normal force with respect to the angle
of attack and is shown in Equation G.9.
(Eqn. I.9)
The variable is the airplane mass ratio is represented by the following equation.
(Eqn. I.10)
The variable is the gust alleviation factor and is displayed below.
(Eqn. I.11)
I.4 Compilation of Load Factors and Plotting
From the steps, the load factors due to maneuver, flaps, and gust could be plotted as a function of
flight velocity. The design velocities from which to base the wing loading calculations were
predetermined by FAR Part 23 and are listed in Section 18 of the body. All the analysis and
plotting were performed using Microsoft Excel.
I-2
Appendix J: References
[1] “What is Synthetic Aperture Radar.” Sandia National Laboratories. Katelyn M.

Mileshosky. <http://www.sandia.gov/RADAR/whatis.html>
[2] “Advanced EO/IR/LD for TUAV.” APM UAV Payloads.

<https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/IEWS_Public/rus/eoir.htm>
[3] “Mini UAV Data Link.” L3 Communications. 15 Feb. 2005 <http://www.l-

3com.com/csw/Product/docs/31-Mini%20UAV%20Data%20Link%20-
MUDL%20gen2.pdf>
[4] “AR801R – 51 BHP – Rotary Engine for UAVs.” UAV Engines Ltd. 2004.
<http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=403>
[5] “AR801-50BHP Rotary Engine for Drones and UAVs” .UAV Engines. Lynn Lane
Shenstone. <http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/fileadmin/datapack/AR801.pdf>.
[6] Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Third Edition. Reston, VA:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. ,2006.
[7] Bernal, Luis P. LiftLine.m. Version 2.0. 18 Aug 05. MATLAB®
[8] “2 Stroke Rotax Aircraft Engines” Kodiak Research. 16 Sept 06

<http://www.kodiakbs.com/2intro.htm>.
[9] “HKS 700E” .HKS Aviation. 17 Sept 06. <http://www.hks-

power.co.jp/hks_aviation/english.htm>.
[10] “Powerfin Composite Propellers”. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Company .Airframe Parts
– Propellers. <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/powerfin.php>.
[11] “Prince Aircraft Company P-tip Props”. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Company .Airframe
Parts – Propellers. <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/princeprops.php>.
[12] “Aluminum Racing Products [Radiators]”.Aluminum Racing Products. Bohuslav

Pejznoch. <http://aluminiumracing.com/index_e.htm#Radiators>.
[13] “Part 23 - AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC,

AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES” .Federal Aviation Administration.
Regulatory and Guidance Library. 04 Nov 06
<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?
OpenFrameSet>.
J-1
[14] Military Handbook - MIL-HDBK-5H: Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace
Vehicle Structures (Knovel Interactive Edition). U.S. Department of Defense.
[15] Bruhn, E.F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures. Carmel, Indiana: Jacobs
Publishing, Inc., 1973.
[16] Banavara, Nagaraj. Shear Flow and Shear Stress Calculation. 01 Nov 06. MATLAB®
[17] “Predator – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UAV” Airforce-Technology. 17 Sept 06.

<http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator>.
[18] “RQ-1 Predator Medium Altitude Endurance (MAE) UAV” GlobalSecurity. 17 Sept 06.
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/predator-specs.htm>.
[19] “Vehicles | Production | Gnat 750” UAV Forum. 17 Sept 06.

<http://www.uavforum.com/vehicles/production/gnat750.htm>.
[20] “FALCO – Surveillance UAV System” SELEX. 17 Sept 2006. <http://www.selex-

sas.com/datasheets_ga/FALCO.pdf>.
[21] “UAV Operations in the Indian Air Force.” Indian Air Force. 17 Sept 06
<http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/main.php?g2_itemId=2885>.
J-2

AE 481 Aircraft Design - Fall 2006: Alex Murray, Manager Mark Rundle, Deputy Manager

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AE 481 Aircraft Design - Fall 2006: Alex Murray, Manager Mark Rundle, Deputy Manager

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AE 481 Aircraft Design – Fall 2006

UAVarsity (UAV Team 2)

Aerodynamic Analysis Kian Leong Kwek

Structural Design Nathan Blinkilde

Propulsion Matthew Egan

CG and Weight Estimates Ingrid Chiles

Controls Alex Murray

December 19, 2006

Maximum gross takeoff weight at end of iteration WTO = 644.8 lbs.

Wing Area SW = 74.25 ft2

Horizontal Tail Area SHT = 7.28 ft2

Vertical Tail Area SVT = 7.0 ft2

Frontal Area AF = 27.4 ft2

Wetted Area AW = 183.6 ft2

Aircraft Length lAC = 16.1 ft

Maximum Wing Lift Coefficient (With Flaps) CLmaxW = 2.25

Maximum Payload Weight WPL = 150 lbs.

Powerplant UAV Engines AR801-Carb.

Maximum Speed 142.8 kts (140 kts required)

Cruise Speed 80 kts (80 kts required)

Stall Speed (sea level) 35 kts (35 kts required)

Maximum Rate of Climb 31.5 ft/s (16.67 ft/s required)

Endurance 21 hr. (with 10 VTI maneuvers)

Maximum Range 2080 mi. (with 10 VTI maneuvers)

Flight Ceiling 40,100 ft (27,000 ft. required)

2. Mission Description and Analysis

The flight can be broken up into four separate maneuvers:

Figure 2.2: Description of a VTI maneuver.

Altitude Speed Duration Ground Distance

3.1 Synthetic Aperture Radar

3.3 Data Link

3.4 Payload Package

4. Current Design Summary

Performance As Specified in Actual UAV Meets

Table 4.1: Analysis of the UAV in meeting mission requirements.

Feature Description and Constraints

Prop Diameter: 60 in; Maximum propeller diameter to maximize propeller efficiency.

Engine Power: 51 horsepower (sea level); 50 sea level horsepower required

• Total length of aircraft = 16.1 ft

Figure 4.1: Big Brother XL4000 with landing gear deployed.

Figure 4.2: Big Brother XL4000 with landing gear retracted.

Figure 4.3: Front view of Big Brother XL4000.

Figure 4.4: Left-side view of Big Brother XL4000.

Figure 4.5: Top view of Big Brother XL4000.

EO/I: Power Plant:

Figure 4.6: Internal component layout of Big Brother XL4000.

Total 594.7 750 644.8

Table 5.1: The two methods of weight estimates.

Table 5.2: Parameters for wing weight estimates.

5.3 Tail Surfaces

5.4 Landing Gear

Gear Weight = 0.019 ⋅ WTO + 38 (Eqn. 5.2)

Gear Weight = 0.019 ⋅ WTO + 5.7 (Eqn. 5.3)

5.6 Control System

CG (Full Fuel) 6.24

Table 6.1: Spreadsheet created for CG calculations.

7.1 Airfoil Selection Criteria

7.1.1 Maximum Lift Coefficient

7.1.2 Aerodynamic Efficiency

7.1.3 Off-design Aerodynamic Characteristics

7.2 Analysis of Airfoils

Cruise Dash Loiter Takeoff/Landing

Table 7.1: Aerodynamic characteristics of different flight configurations.