Wichita State University

Design Report AIAA/Cessna/Raytheon Design Build Fly Competition April 2012

Team Lead - Tawny Blumenshine

Aerodynamics Mitchell Nord

Flight Mechanics Alfredo Gimenez

Propulsion Wesley Lambert

Structures James Winkel

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

AC AOA AR AVL CAD CAM CBA Cd0 CG CL Clo CNC DBF DC e ESC FEM FOM fps FS ft G GPS in Kv L lbs m M1 M2 M3 MAC mAh

Aerodynamic Center Angle of Attack in Degrees (also ) Aspect Ratio Athena Vortex Lattice Computer Aided Drawing Competition Altimeter for Models Computerized Battery Analyzer Coefficient of Drag at Zero Lift Center of Gravity Coefficient of Lift Airfoil Coefficient of Lift at Zero AOA Computer Numerical Controller Design Build Fly Direct Current Oswald Efficiency Electronic Speed Controller Finite Element Analysis Figures of Merit Feet per Second Factor of Safety Feet Acceleration due to Gravity Global Positioning System Inches RPM per Volt Liters Pounds Meters Mission 1 Score Mission 2 Score Mission 3 Score Mean Aerodynamic Chord Milli-Amp Hours

min MLG

Minutes Main Landing Gear

MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight NICAD Nickel-Metal Cadmium NIMH OIA oz PDIP Prop psi R/C RAC rad/s Re RPM s SM t/c T/O T/W Tavg TTeam W/S WSU WTT 1 a e e1 % Nickel-Metal Hydride Other Important Aspects Ounces Preliminary Design Iteration Process Propeller Pounds per Square Inch Radio Controlled Rated Aircraft Cost Radians per Second Reynolds Number Revolutions per Minute Seconds Static Margin Airfoil Thickness to Chord Ratio Takeoff Thrust to Weight Ratio Average Overall Time to Climb to 100m Team Time to Climb to 100m Trademarked Wing Loading Wichita State University Wind Tunnel Test Steady State Angle of Attack Sideslip Angle Aileron Deflection Elevon Deflection Steady State Elevon Deflection Percent Degrees

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.0 Management Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Team Organization........................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Design Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 9 3.0 Conceptual Design ................................................................................................................................. 9 1 3.1 Mission Requirements .................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Competition Scoring Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Competitive Design Requirements ................................................................................................ 12 3.4 Conceptual Design Selection Process ........................................................................................... 12 3.5 Configuration Selection .................................................................................................................. 13 3.5.1 Propeller Location Selection................................................................................................. 14 3.5.2 Landing Gear Selection ........................................................................................................ 15 3.6 Selected Conceptual Design .......................................................................................................... 16 4.0 Preliminary Design................................................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Critical Design Parameters ............................................................................................................ 16 4.1.1 Aerodynamic Critical Parameters ......................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Flight Mechanics Critical Parameters................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Propulsion Critical Parameters ............................................................................................. 17 4.1.4 Structural Critical Parameters .............................................................................................. 18 4.2 Mission Model ................................................................................................................................ 19 4.3 Optimization Tools and Methodology............................................................................................. 19 4.4 Initial Sizing .................................................................................................................................... 20 4.4.1 W/S vs T/W .......................................................................................................................... 20 4.4.2 Preliminary Design Iteration Process (PDIP) ....................................................................... 20 4.4.3 Initial Weight Build Up .......................................................................................................... 21 4.5 Aerodynamics ................................................................................................................................ 22 4.5.1 Airfoil Selection ..................................................................................................................... 22 4.5.2 Aerodynamic Performance Predictions: Lift and Drag ......................................................... 23 4.6 Flight Mechanics ............................................................................................................................ 25 4.6.1 Control Surface Sizing, Placement and Authority ................................................................ 25 4.6.2 Longitudinal Stability ............................................................................................................ 26 4.6.3 Trim Drag.............................................................................................................................. 27 4.6.4 Lateral-Directional Stability................................................................................................... 27 4.6.5 Dynamic Stability .................................................................................................................. 28 4.6.6 Sustained Turn Dynamics .................................................................................................... 29 4.6.7 Servo Selection .................................................................................................................... 29 4.6.8 Stability Derivatives .............................................................................................................. 29 4.7 Propulsion ...................................................................................................................................... 29 4.7.1 Battery Selection .................................................................................................................. 29 4.7.2 Motor Selection .................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.3 ESC Selection ...................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.4 Wire Selection ...................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.5 Propeller Selection ............................................................................................................... 31 4.8 Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 32 4.8.1 Critical Loads ........................................................................................................................ 32 4.8.2 Materials ............................................................................................................................... 33 4.8.3 Spar Trade Study ................................................................................................................. 33 4.8.4 Spar Carry Through Structure .............................................................................................. 34 4.8.5 Motor Mount Optimization .................................................................................................... 34 4.9 Landing Gear ................................................................................................................................. 34 4.9.1 Dimensions ........................................................................................................................... 35 4.9.2 Attachment ........................................................................................................................... 35 4.9.3 Material ................................................................................................................................. 35 4.10 Preliminary Mission Performance Predictions .............................................................................. 35 3

5.0 Detail Design ........................................................................................................................................ 36 5.1 Wing Iteration ................................................................................................................................. 36 5.2 Hoerner Tips .................................................................................................................................. 36 5.3 Fuselage Aerodynamics................................................................................................................. 37 5.3.1 Fuselage Nosecone ............................................................................................................. 37 5.3.2 Tail Fairing Assembly ........................................................................................................... 37 5.3.3 Wing Fillets ........................................................................................................................... 38 5.4 Water Tight Fuselage ..................................................................................................................... 38 5.5 Water Release Mechanism ............................................................................................................ 38 5.6 Flight Performance Summary ........................................................................................................ 39 5.7 Drawing Package ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.8 Aircraft Component Weight and CG Buildup ................................................................................. 44 6.0 Manufacturing Plan and Processes ...................................................................................................... 44 6.1 Manufacturing Methods.................................................................................................................. 44 6.2 Prototypes ...................................................................................................................................... 45 6.3 Mission Ready Model ..................................................................................................................... 45 6.3.1 Tooling .................................................................................................................................. 46 7.0 Testing Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 47 7.1 Half-Scale Wind Tunnel Testing .................................................................................................... 47 7.2 Propulsion System Testing ............................................................................................................ 48 7.2.1 Battery Testing ..................................................................................................................... 48 7.2.2 Total System Testing............................................................................................................ 49 7.2.3 Results.................................................................................................................................. 50 7.3 Structural Testing ........................................................................................................................... 51 7.3.1 Final Spar Validation ............................................................................................................ 51 7.3.2 Wing Tip Test ....................................................................................................................... 52 7.3.3 Final Wing Structural Validation ........................................................................................... 52 7.4 Full Scale Wind Tunnel Test .......................................................................................................... 53 7.5 Ground Testing .............................................................................................................................. 54 7.6 Flight Testing .................................................................................................................................. 55 8.0 Performance Results ............................................................................................................................ 56 9.0 References ........................................................................................................................................... 58

Figures Figure 1 - Team Organizational Chart .......................................................................................................... 8 4 Figure 2 - Design Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 - Total Score Contour Plot ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4 - Percent Change Method ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5 - Concept FOM Analysis ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6 - Propeller Location FOM Analysis ............................................................................................... 15 Figure 7 - Landing Gear Configuration FOM Analysis ................................................................................ 16 Figure 8 - Conceptual Design Aircraft ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 9 - Wing Loading Chart .................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10 - PDIP Flow Chart ....................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11 - Power Required - Power Available ........................................................................................... 21 18 Figure 12 - Liebeck la2573a Reflexed Airfoil Performance Data ............................................................. 23 Figure 13 Methods Used for 3-D Performance Predictions ..................................................................... 24 Figure 14 Component Parasite Drag Buildup .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 15 Total Aircraft Drag Prediction at Re = 250,000 ........................................................................ 25 Figure 16 - Athena Vortex Lattice Model .................................................................................................... 25 Figure 17 M1 Moment Balance Illustration ............................................................................................... 26 Figure 18 - Longitudinal Trim Plots for M3 .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 19 - Trim Drag Optimization ............................................................................................................. 27 Figure 20 - Control Surface Crosswind Trim Authority for M3 T/O ............................................................. 28 19 Figure 21 - Root Locus for M1 Cruise ...................................................................................................... 28 Figure 22 - Wire Weight per Power Drop .................................................................................................... 31 Figure 23 - Propulsion Flow Chart .............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 24 - Power Required ........................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 25 - Load Path Diagram ................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 26 - Aircraft Component Weight Breakdown ................................................................................... 33 Figure 27 - Motor Mount FEM Fringe Plot .................................................................................................. 34 Figure 28 - Landing Gear Breakaway Plate Design ................................................................................... 35 Figure 29 - Nose Cone Side View ............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 30 - Water Visibility Test Drop System ............................................................................................ 39 Figure 31 - Ground Test Photo of Water Release Mechanism ................................................................... 39 Figure 32 - The Piranha Bending the MLG ................................................................................................. 46 Figure 33 - Main Landing Gear Construction .............................................................................................. 46 Figure 34 - Half-Scale Model Mounted in WSUs 3ftx4ft Wind Tunnel ....................................................... 47 Figure 35 - Computerized Battery Analyzer System ................................................................................... 48 Figure 36 - Cold Soak Test Results ............................................................................................................ 48 Figure 37 - Propulsion Test Apparatus ....................................................................................................... 49 Figure 38 - Actual Recorded Static Power .................................................................................................. 50 Figure 39 - Actual Recorded Thrust Compared to Predictions ................................................................... 50 Figure 40 - Actual Recorded Cruise Power ................................................................................................ 51 Figure 41 - Spar Whiffletree Setup ............................................................................................................. 51 Figure 42 - Wing Tip Test............................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 43 - Final Wing Whiffletree Test ...................................................................................................... 53 Figure 44 - Two Point Mounting System with Fairing for Dynamic Tare (Left) ........................................... 53 Figure 45 - Tufts Showing Separation Near Stall........................................................................................ 54 Figure 46 - First Ferry Flight January 13, 2012........................................................................................... 56 Figure 47 - Lift and Drag Comparison for Half-Scale and Full-Scale WTTs ............................................... 56 Figure 48 - Recorded GPS Speed (Wind 12 mph) ..................................................................................... 57

Tables Table 1 - Total Score Sensitivity Study Results .......................................................................................... 11 Table 2 - Structural Weight Build Up ........................................................................................................... 22 Table 3 - Propulsion System Weight Build Up ............................................................................................ 22 Table 4 - Airfoil Screening Requirements ................................................................................................... 22 Table 5 - Final Five Airfoils.......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 6 - Demonstrated Elevon Trim Authority ........................................................................................... 26 Table 7 - Mission Specific Static Margins ................................................................................................... 26 Table 8 - Sustained-Turn Dynamics Characteristics .................................................................................. 29 Table 9 - Stability Derivatives for M3 T/O with a 21-knot Crosswind .......................................................... 29 Table 10 Motor Comparison .................................................................................................................... 30 Table 11 ESC Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 30 Table 12 - Spar Shape Trade Study ........................................................................................................... 34 Table 13 Preliminary Mission Performance ............................................................................................. 36 Table 14 - Final Aircraft Dimensional Parameters ...................................................................................... 36 Table 15 - Flight Performance Parameters ................................................................................................. 39 Table 16 Component CG and Weight Buildup ......................................................................................... 44 Table 17 Mission Specific CG and Weight Estimates .............................................................................. 44 Table 18 - Half-Scale Wind Tunnel Test Matrix .......................................................................................... 47 Table 19 - Setup Information....................................................................................................................... 49 Table 20 - Propulsion Test Plan Matrix ....................................................................................................... 49 Table 21 - Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Test Matrix ........................................................................................... 54 Table 22 - Pre-Flight Checklist .................................................................................................................... 55 Table 23 - First Flight Test Matrix ............................................................................................................... 55 Table 24 - Flight Information ....................................................................................................................... 57

1.0 Executive Summary This document examines the design, testing, and manufacturing of Wichita State Universitys (WSU) Team Black to prepare for the 2011-2012 AIAA/Cessna/RMS Design/Build/Fly (DBF) competition. Team Blacks primary objective is to design and build a winning aircraft by maximizing the total score, which is a function of the report score and the flight score. The flight score is determined by the performance in three missions: Ferry Flight, Passenger Flight, and Rate of Climb Flight. The Ferry Flight focuses on the speed of the aircraft where the scoring equation is a function of the number of laps completed. The Passenger Flight focuses on the payload to weight fraction of the aircraft where the scoring equation is a function of the flight weight. Finally, the Rate of Climb Flight focuses on the time it takes to climb to 100 meters (m), where the scoring equation is a function of the teams time to climb and the competitive average time to climb . A sensitivity analysis on the Flight Score shows that the Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC) is the most critical design parameter. Vehicle concepts are created to meet mission requirements and obtain a maximum total score. A screening analysis minimizes the number of concepts to six viable options: low wing conventional aircraft, high wing conventional aircraft, the bumblebee (a low wing conventional aircraft where the chord length is the same length as the fuselage with and without a horizontal tail), and a blended wing body (with and without a tail). Figure of Merit (FOM) analyses are applied to select an aircraft configuration and layout, which yields a blended wing body configuration with no tail. This concept includes a single tractor propeller with a reverse tricycle landing gear configuration. Both of these components reduce the empty weight while still fulfilling the mission requirements. Multi-disciplinary optimization architecture is developed using each core engineering discipline which performs an analysis on critical design parameters. A Liebeck la2573a airfoil is utilized due to the thickness to chord ratio (t/c) and the amount of lift at zero angle of attack (Clo), allowing the aircraft to cruise at a low angle of attack (AOA). The wing is sized at 739.2 in , based on the lowest wing loading (W/S) the aircraft experiences. A root chord of 16.5 in. is chosen based on the center section dimension for the passenger payload and a 12 maximum fuselage deviation in order to reduce flow separation . A wing sweep of 15 is chosen due to previous wind tunnel tests conducted at WSU which shows that the maximum coefficient of lift (CL), for a swept wing, is obtained at 15 leading edge sweep . Propulsion analysis yields a Rimfire .10 motor with a propeller of 10 inches in diameter. The predicted RAC weight is 1.6 pounds (lbs). The predicted performance capabilities of Missions 1/2/3 are as follows: Mission 1 (M1): With a cruise speed of 70 feet per second (fps), the aircraft is capable of flying six laps in the required four minutes of flight. Mission 2 (M2): The aircraft propulsion system and aerodynamic characteristics are chosen to ensure successful takeoff (T/O), fly three laps, and land successfully. Mission 3 (M3): With a rate of climb speed of 10 fps, the aircraft will climb to 100 m in 100 seconds (s) and successfully land. 7
3 2 2 1

2.0 Management Summary 2.1 Team Organization A team hierarchy and project schedule is created to ensure an efficient design timeline. The WSU Team Black consists of five senior Aerospace Engineering students with the help of underclassmen, graduate students, and faculty. This structure organizes the five senior engineering students, the advisors, and the underclassmen into essential disciplines as shown in Figure 1.
Tawny Blumenshine Project Manager Performance Lead Structures Staff

Dr. L S Miller Department Chair Chief Advisor

Troy Lake DBF Manager

Advisors Kevin Kelly Dr. James Steck

Advisors Jonathan Mowrey Josh Nelson

Advisors Jonathan Krenzel Phil Meikel

Dr. Suresh Keshavanarayana

Advisors

Iwan Broodrk

Alfredo Gimenez Flight Mechanics Lead Aerodynamics Staff

Wesley Lambert Propulsion Lead Flight Mechanics Staff

Mitchell Nord Aerodynamics Lead Performance Staff

James Winkel Structures Lead Propulsion Staff

Adriana Barragan Adam Maurath Michael Staab

Michael Lamb Cameron Schwanke James Tennant

Troy Lake Aaron Maurer Cristina Wilson

Arnold Durel Deffo Nde

Joseph Graybill Miguel Correa

Figure 1 - Team Organizational Chart Each discipline is accountable for important aircraft parameters and developing analysis tools to aid in the overall design effort. Cross-functional roles are also given to each section lead in order to help promote team communication and collaborative design processes. Each discipline and the corresponding responsibilities are as follows: Project Manager: Takes into account other important aspects (OIA) of design that do not directly correlate within the core disciplines. In charge of organizing design optimization. Requests weekly updates from section leads on design progress. Mediates design discussion while maintaining a level of healthy conflict to promote new ideas. Flight Mechanics: Evaluates aircraft logitudinal, lateral and directional, and dynamic stability in conjunction with determining the longitudinal, lateral, and directional stability derivatives. Control surface sizing, placement and procurement of needed hardware for the optimal design. Propulsion: Evaluates propulsion system performance by developing techniques to analyze the necessary requirements for selecting the ideal motor, propeller, and batteries. Oversees the acquiring of the transmitter, receiver, and any other needed electronic hardware to operate the aircraft efficiently and safely. 8

Aerodynamics: Responsible for the selection and designing of the wing, airfoil, and geometry. Works in conjunction with the Flight Mechanics and Propulsion staff in order to optimize the aircraft through means of lowering the drag and increasing the lift. Compromises with the structures staff on an aircraft that can perform efficiently without exceeding the realm of what can be structurally possible.

Structures: Responsible for designing primary and secondary structure that efficiently handles all loads. Seeks out new, light weight materials that can improve the final score. Calculates stresses and deformations from loads that are received by the supporting staff. Relays back to team with improvements that can increase performance.

2.2 Design Schedule A fast paced schedule with set deadlines is developed in order to keep the team on pace to stay competitive. Historical trends are examined regarding the areas where WSU DBF traditionally exceeds the predicted time. Extra time is placed in these areas to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated. Figure 2 is the project Gantt chart that tracks design, manufacturing, testing, and report progress.

Design Schedule 2011 - 2012

Design
Team Dynamics Read and Outline Raymer Design Textbook Mission Requirements Review Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detailed Design Design Optimization

Predicted Actual

Report
Entry Form Report Draft Report Editing Report Due

9/2

2/28

Testing
Battery/Fuse Testing Propulsion System Testing Materials Testing Prototype WTT Prototype Flight Test Full-Scale Structural Test Full-Scale WTT Flight Tests Inter-University Fly Off

9/28

4/1

DBF Competition May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12

Figure 2 - Design Schedule

3.0 Conceptual Design The 2011-2012 DBF Contest rules outline three flight missions. These mission constraints define competitive design requirements. FOM analyses determine the optimum vehicle configuration. 9
1

3.1 Mission Requirements

Contest specified mission and vehicle requirements are as follows: Maximum T/O distance of 100 feet (ft) Maximum battery weight of 1.5 lbs Each mission must be flown in order Allowed four flight attempts to complete three missions Eight 1x1x5 inch (in) aluminum bars, weighing a total of at least 3.75 lbs, simulate passengers with the 5 in dimension being vertical to the aircraft during flight Two liters (L) of water must be carried to an altitude of 100 m then released by a servo operated dump valve All payloads must be carried within the mold lines of the aircraft All payloads and aircraft assembly must be completed in under 5 minutes (min)

Mission 1: Ferry Flight The aircraft is flown with no payload. Flight time begins when the throttle advances and runs for four min. The aircraft will fly as many laps as possible in the flight time and must land on the runway to receive a score. = + .

Mission 2: Passenger Flight

The aircraft takes off and flies three laps while configured with 8-1x1x5 in aluminum bars. The aircraft must then land on the runway to receive a score. = . +

Mission 3: Time to Climb Flight

The aircraft will be loaded with a payload of 2 L of water. Flight time begins when the throttle advances. The aircraft takes off and climbs to 100 m. Once the altitude is reached, a rule specified altimeter will de-activate a servo that will open a dump valve, dropping the water out of the aircraft. The judges will stop the flight time once the water is visible. The aircraft must then successfully land on the runway to receive a score. = +

3.2 Competition Scoring Analysis

The total competition score is equal to the product of the report score and the sum of the flight scores divided by the square root of the RAC. RAC is defined as the maximum empty weight of all three missions. Before each mission, the aircraft will be weighed and the maximum of the three weights will be considered as the RAC. =
(++)

10

Capitalizing on the report score is essential to increasing the total score and winning the competition. Initial tech inspection and flight queue order is based on the ranking earned on the report. Scoring highly on the report provides the opportunity to fly in calm weather. It is imperative to fly early in the morning or later in the evening in the state of Kansas. This statement is based on historical trends for the month of April. A survey of historical competition data and WSU DBF aircraft data determines nominal values for this years scoring parameters. Sensitivity studies, shown in Table 1, performed with the 2 Factorial Reduction Method, quantify each parameters effect on total score. Ultimately, scoring analysis results in the determination of realistic and competitive design requirements and constraints.
Parameter RAC Number of Laps Report Score Tteam Tavg Flight Weight Nominal Best Value Nominal Worst Value % Contribution 1 lb 7 lb 95.44% 8 1 2.58% 98 90 0.73% 23 s 60 s 0.67% 40 s 75 s 0.29% 4.75 lb 10.75 lb 0.27%
k 5

Table 1 - Total Score Sensitivity Study Results The 2 Factorial Reduction Method outputs a contour plot (Figure 3) which displays a range of parameters to design to, while still receiving the same total score .
6 k

Figure 3 - Total Score Contour Plot Percent change analysis is performed to ensure that the results in Table 1 are accurate and the trends are valid. The input parameters are both increased and decreased to understand how to achieve the highest total score (Figure 4). Each trend line validates the respective percent effects determined via the 2 Factorial Reduction Method. RAC and Number of Laps are the most influential factors in the total 11
k

score other than the report, which already has a high priority. The report score range is able to be bound smaller following historical WSU report score trends.
0%

-5%

% Change in Total Score

-10%

-15%

-20%
RAC = 1 Number of Laps = 8

-25%

Tavg = 60 Tteam = 23 Flight Weight = 4.75 Report Score = 98

-30%

-35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

% Change in Scoring Parameter

Figure 4 - Percent Change Method 3.3 Competitive Design Requirements Competitive scoring analysis results determine a combination of requirements for a winning design: RAC less than 1.3 lbs Number of Laps greater than six Report Score greater than 93 Tteam less than 180 s Flight Weight less than 5.05 lbs

3.4 Conceptual Design Selection Process Screening and Scoring of a variety of different concepts helps ensure that only the best concept is chosen to further develop in preliminary design. If this process is not carried out in a well thought out manner, the concept chosen can fall apart later during preliminary design, thus severely hindering the chances of being competitive. The design schedule (Figure 2) allows for extra time to determine the most viable concept. Well thought out criteria for selecting concepts are compromised upon by all team leads to ensure that each has the capability to achieve the set goals. Evaluation of the competitive scoring analysis (Figure 3 and Figure 4) results in the following FOM with the respective weightings: Multi-purpose Structure (40%): This years rules call for an aircraft structure that can complete a wide range of missions without the addition of extra weight. Emphasis is put into designing a structure for multiple uses. Multi-Purpose Structure is treated as a primary screening parameter of different concepts. 12

Payload Configuration (30%): The ability to hold the needed payload without adding large volume while tying into the already designed structure is crucial. One of the design requirements is to assemble and load the aircraft in under five min. Therefore, the payload must be simple to load. Another design requirement is that the payload must be kept within the mold lines of the aircraft. Therefore, the geometry of the payload cannot hinder the aircrafts performance. During M3, the payload is dropped. The ability to have the payload at the aircrafts center of gravity (CG) to eliminate CG shifting during flight is considered.

Manufacturing and Assembly (10%): The capability to manufacture the design without major variation enables calculations to match the actual aircraft performance. The aircraft will be easy to load due to the five min time limit during pre-flight.

Risks (10%): The number of uncertainties on the aircraft can cause unforeseen problems further into the design. The conceptual design phase is the start of aircraft design. A determination that a concept is not viable during preliminary design will set the design schedule back.

Wind Effectiveness (10%): Kansas historically has high winds during the competition month . The aircraft must be able to handle high crosswinds during each mission as well as handle any blanketing of control surfaces.

3.5 Configuration Selection Initial screening considers 11 team developed concepts. Each concept is screened with a rating for each FOM outlined above. Subsequent down-selections and concept combinations result in six viable configuration concepts. Scoring analysis is then performed on the remaining six, thus concluding on one main concept to develop in preliminary design. The conventional monoplane with a low wing is chosen as the baseline configuration. The FOM analysis considers a five-point scale, where 1 = poor, 2 = below baseline, 3 = baseline, 4 = above baseline, 5 = superior. Assigning point values to the concepts FOMs determines the best of the following configurations: Conventional Low Wing (baseline): A monoplane with a fuselage to hold the payload and a boom to attach the tail. The wing is mounted under the fuselage so that the landing gear can be attached to the spar. The tail is composed of a low-mounted horizontal stabilizer and a single vertical stabilizer. This concept follows a traditional aircraft configuration making it simple to manufacture and low on risk. Conventional High Wing: A monoplane with a fuselage to hold the payload and a boom to attach the tail. The wing is mounted above the fuselage allowing for more stability. The tail is composed of a low-mounted horizontal stabilizer and a single vertical stabilizer. This concept is relatively simple to manufacture and assemble. Blended Wing Body without End Plates: A tail-less configuration with a fuselage blended into the wing. Elevons are used for lateral and longitudinal control. This concept is typically the lightest configuration for a given payload requirement . 13
3

Blended Wing Body with End Plates: A tail-less configuration with end plates on the wing tips. End plates will help with adverse yaw during flight. However, it causes an addition of weight. Bumble Bee without a Horizontal Tail: A monoplane where the fuselage is the length of the wing chord. The tail is composed of a single vertical stabilizer. This reduces the weight of having a boom lead out to a conventional tail.

Bumble Bee with a T-tail: A monoplane where the fuselage is the length of the wing chord. The tail is composed of a high mounted horizontal stabilizer with a single vertical stabilizer. The horizontal tail is used for longitudinal control.

Figure 5 presents the scoring analysis results for the six concepts listed above.

Figure 5 - Concept FOM Analysis The blended wing body without end plates wins the initial FOM analysis due to its weight advantages. However, end plates are still considered up to the preliminary design phase. If analysis shows that end plates are a necessity, they will then be added into the concept and analyzed properly. 3.5.1 Propeller Location Selection Once the blended wing body configuration is chosen, the propeller, number of motors and placements are considered. An FOM analysis is performed to compare three configurations. A single motor combined with a tractor propeller is chosen as the baseline configuration for the analysis. Point values are assigned to each configurations FOMs to determine the most viable: Single Tractor: This is a traditional single motor/propeller configuration found on most aircraft today. This system benefits from being lightweight and is less prone to propeller strikes. The low risk factor is the main advantage. It is safe and can be depended on. Tractor and Pusher: A combination of a tractor and a pusher propeller mounted along the centerline. Smaller propellers result in shorter, lighter landing gear. Having dual motors will offset the benefits gained from having the extra thrust. This system can become very complex and will add new issues if one motor fails during flight.

14

Single Pusher: This is a setup found on many blended wings. A single motor/propeller configuration with an aft placement. The motor will have to be pod mounted which incurs extra structure. Propeller ground clearance presents an issue during takeoff as well.

Figure 6 presents the scoring analysis results for the three concepts listed above.

Figure 6 - Propeller Location FOM Analysis The single tractor configuration wins the FOM analysis. This configuration will work well with the chosen concept. The concept itself is currently deemed risky thus, adding more risk without much added gain is disadvantageous. 3.5.2 Landing Gear Selection The aircraft must be able to take off in under 100 feet. Landing smoothly, without bouncing or veering off the runway, is required to receive a flight score. Four concepts are selected as viable solutions. Taildragger (baseline): Taildragger gear is lightweight and has a small frontal area due to its small tail wheel . If set up incorrectly, this design can have severe ground handling issues. Extra precaution must be made to ensure that added risk does not exceed the benefits of the weight savings. Tricycle: This landing gear concept allows for significant improvement of ground handling before takeoff. However, tricycle gear has a prevalent nose gear compared to the small tail gear of a taildragger concept. The nose gear protrusion increases the aircrafts weight and drag . Bicycle: Two centerline landing gear are accompanied by smaller outer gear to balance the aircraft during taxiing. Weight and drag are similar to tricycle gear; however, unstable ground handling becomes as issue just like the taildragger . Figure 7 presents the scoring analysis for the three concepts listed above.
2 2 2

15

Figure 7 - Landing Gear Configuration FOM Analysis Despite having a disadvantage in ground handling, the taildragger gear wins the FOM analysis. This design is selected for conceptual design due to the weight improvement and the elimination of extra bulkheads that would be needed to attach the landing gear to the fuselage. 3.6 Selected Conceptual Design The selected conceptual design (Figure 8) is a blended wing body with taildragger landing gear and a single tractor propeller.

Figure 8 - Conceptual Design Aircraft 4.0 Preliminary Design Initial aircraft sizing begins at the preliminary design phase. This aids in the initial development of aerodynamic, flight mechanic, propulsive, and structural characteristics of the aircraft. Trade studies are performed in order to evaluate competitive design alternatives and find the optimal design point. Finally, optimization in each core discipline is carried out based on trade study results. Final validation of the analysis predictions are done with a wind tunnel test (WTT). 4.1 Critical Design Parameters Competitive design requirements (Section 3.3) drive the analyses of the selected design. Constant desire to decrease the overall aircraft weight imposes tight constraints on the allowable performance characteristics. Each discipline lead then assesses the conceptual design to determine the design parameters. 4.1.1 Aerodynamic Critical Parameters Wing Area: T/O distance is a major influence in the required wing sizing. The T/O distance dictates that the aircraft will need a large wing area combined with a small propulsion system or vice versa. A large wing area helps reduce the wing loading and will shorten the T/O distance for

16

the aircraft. However, a large wing area requires more structure thus increasing the aircraft weight and drag. Wing Taper: A tapered wing allows for the majority of the wing mass to be located towards the center of the aircraft. Mass at the wing root provides advantages in terms of flight characteristics/stability. In regards to wing stability, a tapered wing is favored due to the natural dihedral that is produced by the smaller t/c ratio in the span-wise direction. Taper sets the standard for the absolute thickness at the wing root. Increasing the wing taper maximizes the usable spar height at the wing root. This is beneficial due to the largest bending moments occurring at the wing root. Taper reduces the size of the spar at the wing tip, thus decreasing the aircraft weight. Low torsion characteristics are also a benefit where the torsion, generated by the wing, is centered at the wing root allowing for more torsion to be absorbed at the wing root . Wing Sweep: The aircraft aerodynamic center (AC) is aft of the CG. Wing sweep moves the location of the AC in the aft direction. However, as the wing is swept in the aft direction the CG moves aft as well. Depending on the CG location, the batteries may need to be placed further forward to shift the CG forward, thus allowing for a larger static margin (SM). A proper amount of sweep is needed to balance the location of the CG and AC. Wing Span: The wing span directly affects aerodynamic parameters such as aspect ratio (AR) or the location of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). However, a larger wing span requires more structure, thus increasing the structural weight. Once the wing area is derived, chord and span combinations will be analyzed to ensure maximum performance. 4.1.2 Flight Mechanics Critical Parameters Static Margin: Greater than 5% SM is needed to minimize control surface deflections, avoid dynamic instability, and be neutrally stable during the worst case scenario. Deflections: Necessary control surface deflections are set at 20 based on the linearized methods of Roskam in order for the flow to remain attached. Number of Control Surfaces: The number of necessary control surfaces is to be minimized in order to avoid weight penalties. Stability: Longitudinal and lateral stability are to be achieved for flight performance as well as better flight handling qualities. Cross Wind: The aircraft must have enough control authority to take off in a 21 knot cross-wind
5 9 8 7

4.1.3 Propulsion Critical Parameters Batteries: Proper battery understanding is required to achieve the absolute lightest propulsion weight. Rules regulate that only batteries with the nickel-metal hydride (NIMH) and nickel-metal cadmium (NICAD) chemistries are allowed . NIMH batteries have better energy density, allowing for a greater endurance time, while NICAD batteries allow for a higher amperage draw. Both types have a nominal cell voltage of 1.2 volts; however, a voltage of one is used during conceptual analysis to account for any loss of voltage due to amperage draw. NIMH batteries 17
1

are favored over NICAD due to a lighter weight and lack of memory effects as compared to the equivalent NICAD setup . Initial sizing of the propulsion system uses M1 for the maximum endurance required, and M3 is used for maximum power required. Motor: Consideration starts by determining the power required curve, matching a tier of motors for that power, then establishing the lightest weight motor for that tier. The regulations require all motors to be direct current (DC) brushed or brushless . They may be direct drive or geared by means of belt or gear reduction. Brushless motors are preferred due to less resistance and internal friction in a lighter system. They can be further broken down into two separate categories, inrunners and outrunners. Outrunners have higher torque and lower revolution per minute (RPM) which leads to a direct matching of prop to motor shaft. When using an inrunner, RPMs are too high to match directly with a prop, thus a gear reduction takes place in the form of a gearbox. In a pure form, inrunners offer slightly better efficiency and component weight; however the addition of a gearbox increases system complexity as well as the weight. WSU history has shown that gearbox failure is a frequent occurrence. Due to the increased complexity of inrunners, only outrunners are used for calculations during conceptual design. Propeller: Propeller diameter is calculated using an equation from Raymer which derives a diameter of 14 in. However, the equation over predicts the diameter due to the simplicity of the variables. 4.1.4 Structural Critical Parameters Loads Sizing: Finding a minimum load case that every aircraft in the competition will withstand this year is crucial to sizing a competitive, lightweight structure. The wing-tip test ensures that every aircraft has to support its maximum gross T/O weight using only simple supports located at the wing tips . This test loads up the aircraft structure to high stresses at the wing root which represents what will occur during flight. Flight loads may not exceed the wing root stresses caused during the wing-tip test of the aircraft. Spar Design: A two spar design is needed to resolve all the primary loads in the aircraft. The front spar follows the lifting line of the wing to stop any major torsion from developing in the wing. The two spar design carries all the lifting loads and provides an attachment point for all structural elements to join into. A continuous rear spar will serve as an attachment point for the control surfaces while providing less glue joints. Fuselage Configuration: The regulations require all payloads to be carried within the mold lines of the aircraft . However, the payloads are large, thus making a fuselage that can tie into already existing structure a desirable option in order to keep the aircraft weight down. The fuselage needs to be designed as a non-structural element to reduce weight where the loads are resolved into the wing spar structure. Material Selection: Selecting the materials that carry significant loads without adding significant amounts of weight is essential to reducing weight. The use of a composite main wing 18
1 1 2 1 10

structure comprised of foam and balsa is a viable option due to the lightweight properties of the foam. However, incorporating additional materials, such as fishing line and Micro-Lite coating, can be designed into the structure. Fishing line and Micro-Lite coating have lighter weight properties than either foam or balsa. 4.2 Mission Model Each flight mission is modeled in four phases: T/O, climb, cruise, and turns (180 and 360). Takeoff In order to incorporate a margin of safety, the T/O distance is set to 90 ft. Inability to takeoff within the regulation 100 ft distance will result in an incomplete score. Wing sizing and propulsion requirements are set to meet the T/O requirements. A study between wing loading (W/S) and thrust to weight ratio (T/W) is conducted to determine the wing area and thrust needed for T/O.
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Design Area

Stall Climb Turn Cruise Takeoff

T/W

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

W/S

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Figure 9 - Wing Loading Chart Climb A full throttle climb to 328 ft (100 m) is assumed. Time to climb is calculated based on the M3 T/O weight and determining the excess power for climb angle. Excess power is derived from the greatest difference between the available power and the power required inside the flight envelope. Cruise M1 velocity is optimized for a high scoring flight with minimal weight addition. Cruising at 75 fps meets a competitive score of six laps. Turning 180 and 360 turn rates are calculated using a 2.5G load factor as well as the throttle settings used in cruise. 4.3 Optimization Tools and Methodology Separate leads have designed codes to automatically update when design changes occur. These codes enable a more efficient optimization process. During each optimization, the wing loading chart is 19

updated, providing a new score. The new score is then compared with the most recent score to ensure that improvement is made. 4.4 Initial Sizing 4.4.1 W/S vs. T/W Raymers method of T/W vs. W/S is utilized to find the minimum W/S needed for all flight regimes . Utilizing the wing loading chart (Figure 9), a minimum W/S of 1.1 is determined with a T/W of 0.2. The W/S established a wing area of 758.88 in in order to complete all flights listed in the figure above. 4.4.2 Preliminary Design Iteration Process (PDIP) From a scoring standpoint, it is clear that a light weight aircraft that has the ability to fly all three missions will be competitive in this years competition. The lightest possible aircraft that is able to carry the 4.4 lbs of payload is the determining factor for this years competition. Team Black set up an iterative process that takes into consideration all of the structural, propulsion, aerodynamic, and stability critical parameters. PDIP is outlined below (Figure 10). An initial guess of one pound is considered based on a preliminary scoring analysis. After several iterations, converging on this point is not considered possible due to the design constraints. A second guess of 1.5 lbs is considered and then iterated to an empty weight of 1.3 lbs. Team Black intends to start at this weight and continue to reduce through the course of preliminary design.
Initial Weight Guess Minimum Propulsion System Required Minimum T/W needed to fly all 3 missions No, Add Battery New Guess Determine Total Structural Weight Needed Weight Guess = New Weight
2 2

Preliminary Design Iteration Processor (PDIP)

Determine Minimum Wing Loading Needed Calculate wing dimensions needed Reconfigure dimensions Cg < A.C Static Margin > 6%

YES

YES

Calculate Minimum structure needed for maximum load case

Done

Figure 10 - PDIP Flow Chart In determining the initial size of the aircraft, iterations from the propulsion standpoint begin at a maximum amount of battery. This amount is decreased to a minimum weight while still ensuring that the thrust required is met for all three missions. This is done with outputs from the aerodynamic and structural disciplines, which are then put into the next propulsion iteration until an absolute minimum is achieved. To iterate in this fashion, assumptions are made for the propulsion system. First, a propeller efficiency of 75%, a cell voltage of 1.0 volt, and a motor efficiency of 90% are all factored into the theoretical maximum power achievable. Batteries are assumed to not hold the manufacturers advertised energy density. Therefore, an efficiency of 85% is factored into the amp draw, except for the Kan 700 20

and Elite 1500 batteries, in which actual experimental data is used . The second step requires plotting the power available curve against an approximate power required curve derived from Anderson . At the velocity where the power available crosses the power required, a thrust can be estimated (Figure 11). Assumptions made in the power required equation are, Cd0 of 0.04, Oswald efficiency factor (e) of .7, AR of 5, and a wing area of 5 ft . Thrust values computed with this curve match past historical data more closely than by using a frontal area drag curve. Determining the final aircraft weight involves grouping the propulsion systems from lightest to heaviest. For each group, an assembly of motors, batteries, Electronic Speed Controller (ESC), receiver, fuse, and three micro servo weights are added together to obtain a total electronic weight.
200 180 160 140
Power (Watts)

11

12

Power Required

Power Available

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Velocity (ft/s) 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 11 - Power Required - Power Available The structural portion of PDIP requires inputs of the wing area and all wing dimensions. An assumption is made that lift is continuous across the span. The wing tip test is the key aspect in the amount of material volume that is needed to resolve the maximum bending moment and the shear loads . The bending and shear volumes are then added together to obtain a total spar volume. The rib weight is the minimum number of ribs needed, multiplied by the volume of a rib at the MAC location. The lightest weight covering material, Micro-Lite, is factored into the weight for covering the total wing area. Finally, the landing gear weight is input as seven ounces in order to ensure conservatism is built into the model. The landing gear weight will decrease. However, the weight of the bulkheads and other items not considered in this phase of the design will be encompassed by the conservatism. 4.4.3 Initial Weight Build Up After PDIP is completed, a structural and propulsion weight build up are tabulated (Table 2 and Table 3). PDIP converges at an aircraft empty weight of 1.3 lbs with an uncertainty of 0.26 lbs. The uncertainty is determined by analyzing a previous WSU DBF plane
14 13

through PDIP. This shows that PDIP can possibly

under-predict the model by approximately 20%. Team Black determines that this tool provides a reasonable estimate of where the aircraft weight should be.

21

Half Span (in) Empty Weight (lb) Payload Weight (lb) Root t/c (in) Wing Area (in2)

32.21 1.30 4.50 1.00

MTOW (lb) Max. Shear (lbs) Max. Moment (in-lb)

5.80 2.90 93.41 0.24 0.11

Spar Weight (oz) Rib Weight (oz) Micro-Lite Weight (oz) Landing Gear Weight (oz) Structural Weight (oz)

0.99 0.44 0.70 7.00 9.13

Ashear Needed (in2) 2 758.88 Abending Needed (in )

Table 2 - Structural Weight Build Up

Heavy Weight
ESC 18 amp 20 amp fuse Receiver Receiver Battery Motor Wires Battery Elite 1500 Prop 10x4 Servos 3 Hitech HS-65-mg Total Electronic weight (oz) lbs Avg Thrust (lb)** Thrust per Prop Weight

(oz)
0.60 0.20 0.25 0.60 1.45 1.00 6.64 0.70 1.30 12.74 0.80 1.60 2.01

Light Weight
ESC 12 Amp 20 amp fuse Receiver Receiver Battery Motor Wires Kan 700 Prop 8X4 Servos 3 Hitech HS-65-mg Total Electronic weight (oz) lbs Avg Thrust (lb)** Thrust per Prop Weight

(oz)
0.50 0.20 0.25 0.60 0.70 1.00 7.07 0.40 1.30 12.02 0.75 1.00 1.33

Table 3 - Propulsion System Weight Build Up 4.5 Aerodynamics 4.5.1 Airfoil Selection A unique trait of a flying wing concept is the ability to fly without the need of a tail. To accomplish this task, there are several different approaches that can be taken. One approach involves using a cambered airfoil with a large amount of wing sweep. Wing twist can also be applied to this approach thus enabling the wing to stall at the root before the tip . This will enable the pilot to reach stall while still having control over the aircraft. A second approach involves using a reflexed cambered airfoil with a small amount of sweep or taper . After the initial wing sizing parameters are identified and a value for each is obtained, airfoils are chosen and screened to determine which will give the aircraft the best aerodynamic performance qualities for the intended missions. Airfoil screening parameters are shown in Table 4.
Parameter Cl-max Clo Cmo t/c ratio Cdo Reasoning Must be above the indicated value to carry the maximum payload weight during > 1.2 the mission A cruise of 70 ft/s dictates that the lift coefficient be above the indicated value > 0.149 to cruise at 0 Angle of Attack -A CG and an AC location are derived giving the aircraft a range for a pitching -0.12 < Cm < 0.12 moment. Reduced stabilization required in longitudinal trim -Due to a large root chord, a smaller t/c ratio is desired. < 15% -Smaller t/c ratio contains less drag. ~ 0.0 Smaller drag coefficients enable better aerodynamic performance Value
7 7

Table 4 - Airfoil Screening Requirements

22

After an initial screening of 100 airfoils, 16 airfoils are chosen for further analysis. The airfoils that are screened are either cambered, symmetric, or reflexed and designed by Selig , Gottingen , or NACA . These 16 airfoils are then narrowed down to the five airfoils shown in Table 5, of which two have a large t/c ratio. The final airfoil is the Liebeck la2573a reflexed airfoil .
Name Clark-Y(B) Falcon 56 Mk II SA7036 (B) SD7037 E Cl-max Cl-cruise at < 2 Cd at Stall Angle 1.3 1.25 1.3 1.28 0.4 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.2 0.0225 0.03 0.0435 0.04 0.02 Cdo 0.023 0.0175 0.017 0.016 0.02 Cm at < 2 -0.08 -0.03 -0.095 -0.07 0.09 t/c 11.70% 13.68% 9.20% 9.20% 13.90%
18 17 15 16

Liebeck la2573a 1.325

Table 5 - Final Five Airfoils The Liebeck la2573a reflexed airfoil is designed to fly at a low Reynolds numbers (Re). This airfoil gives the best aerodynamic performance when utilized at Re of 650,000 and below. However, the disadvantage of this airfoil is that a laminar bubble is produced during flight. The laminar bubble creates excess drag . Airfoil data, presented in Figure 12, indicates a transition at a Cl of roughly 0.2. This transition could present some difficulty for designing the aircraft near the trim condition. However, upon multiple wind tunnel tests, it is determined that the Re transition is not crossed.
18

Figure 12 - Liebeck la2573a Reflexed Airfoil Performance Data 4.5.2 Aerodynamic Performance Predictions: Lift and Drag

18

The transition from 2-D data to 3-D data is obtained using two different methods: the 88% method from Raymer and the linear lift-curve slope method from Anderson . The method from Raymer takes each value of 2-D airfoil Cl data and multiplies the value by 88%. This method allows for the trends seen in the 2-D airfoil data to be reproduced in the 3-D wing data. The method from Anderson uses the liftcurve slope from the 2-D airfoil data, combined with e and AR, and incorporates it into the following equation: 23
2 12

 =
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -4 -2 -0.2 0 2 4

where ao is the lift-curve slope of the airfoil and a is the lift-curve slope of the wing .

57.3 1+

12

CL

2D 3D Raymer 3D Anderson

6 AoA (deg)

10

12

14

16

Figure 13 Methods Used for 3-D Performance Predictions Figure 13 represents the 2-D airfoil data compared to the two different methods of estimating 3-D wing data. There is a clear difference between the two 3-D estimation methods. The 3-D estimation method using Raymer follows the trends of the 2-D airfoil data better than the 3-D estimation method from Anderson . Figure 14 represent the drag build up of the aircraft. The majority of the drag is produced at the wing. Further optimization of the wing, fuselage, and landing gear are in the sections that follow. Figure 15 represents the 3-D drag estimates obtained from the Raymer and Anderson methods.
12 2

Landing Gear 5%

Component Wing Fuselage Landing Gear Total

CDo 0.0262 0.0121 0.0019 0.0402

% of total 65% 30% 5% 100%

Fuselage - 30% Wing - 65%

Figure 14 Component Parasite Drag Buildup

24

Figure 15 Total Aircraft Drag Prediction at Re = 250,000 4.6 Flight Mechanics The chosen reflexed airfoil performance characteristics, along with Team Blacks design efforts to keep the empty weight of the aircraft as low as possible, determines the sizing and placement of control surfaces. Dynamic stability is assessed using Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL)
19

(Figure 16). The aircraft is

controllable and compliant with stability requirements for all three missions.

Figure 16 - Athena Vortex Lattice Model 4.6.1 Control Surface Sizing, Placement and Authority Initially, two inboard elevons of 39% span and 25% chord are used to provide static longitudinal and lateral control through channel mixing. Optimization leads to a wing iteration and empty weight reevaluation thus producing newly sized elevons of 19% span and 25% chord. The elevons are modeled as flaps and analyzed using custom linearized tools by methods of Raymer , Roskam , and Etkin . These are confirmed using AVL and demonstrated through a full-scale 7ft x 10ft WTT. Though proving to be less effective than predicted, demonstrated control authority is shown to handle the critical longitudinal trim case, M3 T/O (heaviest payload), at -8.12 (Table 6) . All mission control surface deflections are within the 20 allowed for flow attachment purposes . The AOA required for trim flight for all three missions stay below a stall angle of 15. 25
9 2 9 20

Mission Case e () ` ()

1 Takeoff -1.28 2.19 Cruise 3.48 0.75 Takeoff -7.32 10.60

2 Cruise 1.21 4.35 Takeoff -8.12 11.80

3 Cruise -6.98 8.22

Table 6 - Demonstrated Elevon Trim Authority 4.6.2Longitudinal Stability A minimum required SM of 5% for longitudinal stability is calculated accounting for inherent tailheavy pitching moment of the airfoil, CG offsets (Figure 17) from the thrust line, propeller wash, and respective cruise and takeoff velocities for all three missions.
7

Figure 17 M1 Moment Balance Illustration Team Blacks design efforts ensure a final SM of 6.85% (Table 7) for the critical longitudinal trim case by arranging internal aircraft components.
Mission AC (in) CG, X-direction (in) CG, Z-direction (in) Static Margin (%) 1 6.05 4.89 0.26 9.46 2 6.05 4.79 -0.44 10.3 3 6.05 5.21 -0.36 6.85

Table 7 - Mission Specific Static Margins Trim plots are predicted using custom linearized tools, verified with AVL and demonstrated with W TT results (Figure 18).

26

0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

CM,CG

-0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 0 Predicted Crui se e = -5.28 Predicted Takeoff e= -7. 58 Demonstrated Takeoff e = -8.12 Demonstrated Cruise e = -6.98 2 4 6 AoA (deg) 8 10 12

Figure 18 - Longitudinal Trim Plots for M3 4.6.3Trim Drag A trim drag analysis using WTT results is performed to determine the increment in drag due to trailing edge down critical drag case, M1 ( = 0.75, e = 3.48). A total CD of 0.0019 (19 counts) is added to the total aircraft drag buildup (402 counts). With the order of magnitude being minute, this is neglected and thus, no further trim drag optimization is needed.

Figure 19 - Trim Drag Optimization 4.6.4 Lateral-Directional Stability Based on the methods of Raymer, a vertical stabilizer is sized to compliment the inherent yaw stability of the swept wing while yaw control is neglected . Lateral-directional stability is assessed with AVL for the critical lateral-directional trim case, M3 T/O. According to the methods of Roskam , an 85
5 9 th 2

percentile crosswind of 21 knots is introduced in the analysis to verify the aircrafts lateral trim ability with predominant Kansas crosswinds in the month of April . The aircrafts stability coefficients demonstrate the ability to yaw into and roll away from the sideslip. A 18.6 of aileron deflection Figure 20 is needed to 27

compensate for the lack of rudder, canceling the yawing and rolling moments, while keeping the flow attached . Flight tests using X-Plane 9
9 21

accounts for prop wash effects. The aircraft is ultimately deemed

laterally and directionally stable, as well as controllable.

20

Aileron Defelction ( )

15

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Crosswind (Knots) 14 16 18 20

Figure 20 - Control Surface Crosswind Trim Authority for M3 T/O 4.6.5 Dynamic Stability Mass and inertia properties are obtained using Catia , and longitudinal and lateral-directional dynamic mode approximations are made for the M1 cruise case (high speed, forward-most CG) based on the methods of Roskam , with AVL adding confirmation. It is concluded that the aircraft is dynamically stable with relatively low undamped natural frequencies for the phugoid, dutch roll, and highly damped roll modes, though a high undamped natural frequency of 5.49 rad/s for the short period mode is displayed (Figure 21). This is attributed to the aircrafts low moments of inertia. The vertical stabilizer aids in the spiral mode stability.
9 22

Figure 21 - Root Locus for M1 Cruise

19

28

4.6.6 Sustained Turn Dynamics Maximum allowable structural G-loads are provided by the structures lead. The turn radius, bank angles, and turn time are calculated accordingly. The bank angles are iterated until the maximum allowable and actual G-loads are approximately within 0.1 Gs of difference (Table 8) in order to make mission turns at the fastest times.
Mission G-Load Allowed G-Load Actual Bank Angle () Turn Radius (ft) 180 Turn Time (seconds) 360 Turn Time (seconds) 1 7.5 7.4 78 2.6 2 2.5 2.4 65 61 3 2.35 2.15 63 28.1

0.15 0.23

3.2 6.7

2.1 4.2

Table 8 - Sustained-Turn Dynamics Characteristics 4.6.7 Servo Selection Hinge moments are estimated using chase-around charts in Etkin . An arbitrary factor of safety (FS) of 2 is applied to the estimated hinge moments and subsequently, the lowest-weighing servo that provides approximately 22 oz-in is selected. This avoids significant weight penalties in the scoring equation and provides more than necessary torque. 4.6.8 Stability Derivatives Table 9 summarizes the stability derivatives for the aircraft:
CL CLe CLq 3.325 0.011 5.379 CM CMe CMq -0.326 -0.088 -2.029 Cy Cl Cn -0.042 -0.112 0.048 Cya Cla Cna 0 0.181 -0.002 Cyp Clp Cnp -0.035 -0.292 0.032 Cyr Clr Cnr 0.021 0.076 -0.015
20

Table 9 - Stability Derivatives for M3 T/O with a 21-knot Crosswind 4.7 Propulsion Preliminary design of the propulsion system consists of trade studies that are expanded on results from conceptual design. This contains a motor, battery, wire, ESC, and propeller selection. The selection process for all propulsion components is tailored around minimizing weight. 4.7.1 Battery Selection Meeting the required power with the lightest weight battery pack, while still being able to meet the M3 endurance, at full power, is the task for battery selection. During conceptual design it is concluded that the Elite 1500s and 2000s are exceptionally light for the amount of energy they contain . A trade study is conducted to see if the Elite 1500s are capable of drawing enough amperage while maintaining a high enough voltage to achieve the required power. This would allow for a replacement of the Elite 2000s, which will lower the battery weight by two ounces. However, during testing, the Elite 2000s drastically underperformed their predicted current draw. They did not achieve the predicted 24 amps while maintaining the required voltage thus rendering the trade study inconclusive. Both batteries types are selected for further testing. 29
23

4.7.2 Motor Selection It is apparent in conceptual design that motor selection will revolve around a motor that can handle constant amperage of 18-25 and a power of 200 watts. This is determined from the W/S, and is later refined during iterations of conceptual design. Once a required power for the motor is known, a list of motors, in that range, can then be compared. The first parameter compared is the weight due to the contribution it plays in the scoring. The lightest motor for the given maximum amperage is assigned high priority. Secondly, the motors RPM/volts (KV) are taken into consideration. Any KV rating greater than 1400 and fewer than 900 is undesirable due to unrealistic RPM performance for a 10 volt pack. After tabulating many motors it is apparent that the Rimfire motors are constructed remarkably lighter than other mainstream motors
24, 25

. A comparison of motors is shown in Table 10. The Rimfire .10 is chosen

due to its high max amperage per low weight and high reliability. Reliability is proven by its heavy use within the WSU small aircraft prototype lab.
Motor Rimfire 400 Rimfire 10 Turnigy 2217 AXI 2808/20 Weight (oz) 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.6 KV 950 1250 1050 1490 Max Current (amps) 20 35 18 22

Table 10 Motor Comparison 4.7.3 ESC Selection A list of ESCs that can handle 25 amps are compared and selected based on weight and programmability . The ability to program the cutoff voltage will ensure complete battery performance for M3. The Phoenix 25
26 24

is selected because it excelled in both areas. A comparison is shown in Table 11.

ESC Phoenix Flight Power Great Planes Weight (oz) Amps 0.6 0.78 0.95 25 25 25 Programmable Yes No No

Table 11 ESC Comparison 4.7.4 Wire Selection Wire weight from the battery pack is a contributor to the total system weight. Historically, a heavy gauge is required for the amps produced by the battery. A trade study is performed to determine the lightest wire that can be used without a substantial power drop. Data consisting of resistance, diameter, and weight of wire gages are tabulated ranging from 10 to 22 gauge wire . Using Ohms law and the equation of resistivity, power drop per wire weight can then be plotted (Figure 22). A gauge of 14 could be used without substantial power drop while allowing for a weight reduction of 0.16 ounces per 1ft of wire from the standard 12 gauge wire.
27

30

10 9 8

Power Drop (watts)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Wire Weight (oz) 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 22 - Wire Weight per Power Drop 4.7.5 Propeller Selection Propeller selection is determined by using a combined blade element and momentum program. A java application called Java Prop
28

is utilized to perform multi-analysis on a given propeller geometry and

RPM. Propeller geometry is determined by calculating the pitch and measuring the chord for every blade section. The analysis follows the process outlined in Figure 23.

Figure 23 - Propulsion Flow Chart The propeller pitch, diameter, and RPM are imported and analyzed through Java Prop . If the propeller stays within the motor-produced power of 185 watts, while keeping an RPM above 7000, then data is plotted for consideration. Motor-produced watts and minimum propeller RPM are derived from the KV of the Rimfire .10 motor. The battery pack selected is 10 Elite 2000 cells due to a previous analysis of required power. After analysis, selected propellers are plotted against each other for efficiency and the 31
28

power required (Figure 24). Verification for the power and torque data is shown by the use of equations provided by Zamora for the corresponding coefficients . Total propeller performance is verified by comparing the results with actual experimental data provided by Merchant and Miller . After verification the propellers selected are the APC Electric 10X7 and 11X5.5.
200 Power Required 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 Velocity (fps) 50 60 70 80 90 Battery Output 10X7 11X7 EF 10X6 EF 11X6 Experimental

29

11

Power (Watts)

Figure 24 - Power Required 4.8 Structures Preliminary structural layout is determined utilizing the least amount of structure. Team Black researched the structural members that were, historically, the heaviest parts of past DBF planes. The emphasis is placed on optimization of these structural members. Further discussions of these members are in the proceeding sections. Critical load paths are identified on the model and used for further analysis (Figure 25). The ultimate goal is to keep the structure simple to manufacture while maintaining a FS of approximately 1.2.

Figure 25 - Load Path Diagram 4.8.1 Critical Loads Structural analysis is performed on the wing using methods presented by Allen and Haisler . Limit loads are found using the wing-tip test and then translating these loads into equivalent flight loads. A modified version of Shrenks Approximation is combined with a constant rectangular distributed load to obtain the lift curve that is used to size the wing structure. Ultimate flight loads are then scaled up from the limit loads using a FS of 1.5, which is standard practice in the aerospace industry . The maximum
2 2 30

32

bending stress, found at the root of the wing, is 1,767 pounds per square inch (psi) and the maximum shear is 5.38 psi. 4.8.2 Materials Identifying the best materials that can be used is another key step to ensure this aircraft is as light as possible. Referring back to the scoring analysis, specific strength of a material, also known as strength per unit density, is the best way to ensure that the weight of the aircraft is as low as possible. Ease of manufacturing a specific material is another aspect that is considered for the selection. The aircraft will be built to match the drawings and, therefore, the analysis. From these screening criteria, pink foam and balsa wood are selected to be used for primary and secondary structure. Balsa works well in tension and compression; however, it can become too strong for the stresses that are endured in the aircraft. This leads to unrealistically thin parts that have buckling problems therefore pink foam is utilized. Pink foam does not have the strength capabilities that balsa contains; however, it is approximately nine times lighter than balsa. The structural properties of each material are passed down from past WSU DBF teams. Displayed below, Figure 26, is a breakdown of each aircraft component, and displays the percent of the total weight of the aircraft it contains.
Fuselage 3.2% Vert. Tail 0.1% Misc. 1.0% Motor 9.9% Wings 12.4% ESC 2.4%

Landing Gear 7.2%

Structure
Spars 3.5%

Wires + Servos 17.9%

Control System

Propulsion

Batteries 38.1%

Propeller 2.8%

Receiver 1.4%

Figure 26 - Aircraft Component Weight Breakdown 4.8.3 Spar Trade Study The front spar is the primary load bearing structure in the aircraft. The airfoil chosen for the aircraft is 13.9% thick which translates to 2.25 in. of useable spar height at the root. The maximum height of the spar allows the bending rigidity of the spar to increase without the addition of large amounts of structural weight. A simplified analysis using the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory
31 30

and Castiglianos second theorem

calculates beam stresses and tip deflections which are utilized to evaluate several different spar shapes. After the spar shapes are screened, different combinations of materials are applied to each of the spar 33

caps and shear webs to determine the lightest possible structure while still meeting the needed requirements.

Type

Restriction

I-Beam

Box Beam

Sandwich Beam

> 1.00 Bending FS Shear FS > 1.00 Worst Case Flight Deflection (in) < 5% * Span Wing Tip Test < 5% * Span Deflection (in) Total Spar Weight (oz) Lightest

2.01 1.44 1.26 1.49 1.40

1.73 1.08 1.30 1.68 1.58

1.53 1.08 1.47 2.00 1.86

Table 12 - Spar Shape Trade Study 4.8.4 Spar Carry Through Structure The carry through structure has to be compact in order for the payload to be properly spaced and minimize weight penalties. The carry through structure is located specifically to tie into the spar and transfer the wing loads through the fuselage. Two in. x in. balsa rods are placed on the inside of each spar. These are the resolving points for the landing gear loads as well as the main handling point for the fuselage box to attach. The use of two structural supports to resolve different loads is another example of how structure in this aircraft must perform multiple purposes in order to score the highest in competition . 4.8.5 Motor Mount Optimization After preliminary sizing of the motor mount with hand calculations, a finite element model (FEM) is constructed using the Abacus plug-in for Catia . The results illustrate that the balsa rods can be made a 1/16 in smaller in diameter, reducing the structural weight of the mount.
22 1

Figure 27 - Motor Mount FEM Fringe Plot 4.9 Landing Gear The scoring analysis displays the RAC as a critical factor in this years competition . A historical analysis is performed on previous DBF winning aircraft landing gear weights, resulting in an average 34
1

weight of a lb in landing gear . The result of this analysis determines that a new method of designing landing gear is needed in order to improve the RAC. 4.9.1 Dimensions Taildragger landing gear has a tendency to ground-loop during taxiing if not set up properly. Thus, the dimensions during design and manufacturing must be accurate. Raymers method determines landing gear placement for a tail-down angle of 10, allowing sufficient ground handling stability near stall AOAs . The CG of the aircraft is between 16 and 25 behind the vertical main landing gear (MLG) dimension to keep the aircraft from ground looping or going nose over during T/O and landing . The lateral gear spacing is determined by creating a 25 angle off of the CG to prevent the aircraft from overturning . A computer aided design (CAD) part is created in order to shift the CG forward, and re-size the landing gear efficiently during design changes. 4.9.2 Attachment A breakaway plate attaches the MLG to the fuselage, which transfers the load to the main spar (Figure 28). Hard landings will break the gear away from the flight vehicle, but will leave the aircraft structure intact.
2 2 2

Figure 28 - Landing Gear Breakaway Plate Design 4.9.3 Material Due to the RAC impact on the total score, light weight landing gear is needed. Steel wire landing gear is designed and built using Logans FEM analysis, to deflect and absorb 24% of a 4G landing load for Mission 2 . The landing gear is not designed to land with the max payload of M3, given that it is dropped during flight. This is a necessary risk in order to improve the RAC score. 4.10 Preliminary Mission Performance Predictions Performance estimations are shown in Table 12 for each of the three mission profiles. The critical case for the majority of parameters is M3, with a T/O weight of six lbs. These performance predictions are validated through flight testing.
32

35

Performance Parameter CLMax Oswald Efficiency Factor CD0 (L/D)Max Takeoff Weight (lbs) W/S (lb/ft2) T/W Takeoff Distance (ft) Cruise Speed (ft/s) Stall Speed (ft/s) Total Flight Time (sec) Capacity Required (mAh)

Mission 1 (Ferry Flight)

1.60 0.31 1.25 5 75 32 240

Mission 2 (Passengers) 1.10 0.85 0.04 9.60 5.35 1.04 0.37 75 73 32 70 1450

Mission 3 (Water Climb)

6.06 1.21 0.32 90 69 32 75

Table 13 Preliminary Mission Performance 5.0 Detail Design After preliminary design is frozen (with wing sizing parameters as listed in Table 14), optimization begins. Solutions are developed for the payload release mechanism, the tail fairing assembly, and overall weight reduction. Weight and CG build-up calculations are improved based on manufacturing experience, while the RAC is constantly assessed to ensure competitive design requirements are met.

Table 14 - Final Aircraft Dimensional Parameters 5.1 Wing Iteration Within the wing iteration, certain changes are made in the dimensions. The root chord is kept at the current length of 16.5 inches. Making the root chord smaller is a possibility for Team Black; however, doing so will force the fuselage to shift down exposing more of the front face. This will inevitably add more drag to the aircraft. The major changes to the wing dimensions are within the span and the taper ratio. The wing area is decreased from 766.08 in to 739.20 in and the taper ratio is changed from 0.4 to 0.6. A combination of these two changes allows Team Black to derive a wing span of 55.125 in. The disadvantage to the change in taper ratio is a resulting increase in induced drag. This increase is within the tolerance set earlier in preliminary design. 5.2 Hoerner Tips A main component of an aircrafts total drag is known as induced drag or drag-due-lift. This type of drag is produced when high pressure on the bottom of the wing travels towards the wingtip where it combines with low pressure on the top of the wing to create a vortex. According to Hoerner , as the tip 36
33 2 2

vortex forms on the lateral edge of the wing, the effective aspect ratio actually becomes smaller than the geometric aspect ratio. To counteract this problem, Team Black is looking into employing Hoerner tips on the aircraft. Hoerner tips will essentially help reduce the size of this vortex. However, due to the design of the wing structure, a Hoerner tip will not allow for any reduction of weight or increase of AR. Constructing the Hoerner tip will extend the manufacturing process as well. 5.3 Fuselage Aerodynamics 5.3.1 Fuselage Nosecone The fuselage originally had a flat plate on the front face. A flat plate in flow, according to Hoerner , has a parasitic drag coefficient of 2.05. This number is based upon the aircrafts reference area. There is also a decrease in lift over the midsection of the wing due to the knife-edge corners of this flat face. This knife-edge does not allow the flow to stay attached, thus causing turbulence along the bottom side of the fuselage and along the root of the wing. A nose cone, in the shape of a two-dimensional half-circle, has the potential to reduce the parasitic drag coefficient by approximately 50%. This nosecone will not only reduce the parasitic drag but reduce flow separation as well, thus promoting lift along the bottom of the fuselage and root of the wing. However, while adding the nose cone bolsters aerodynamic performance, the motor mount must be shifted to accommodate the new hardware.
33

Figure 29 Nose Cone Side View 5.3.2 Tail Fairing Assembly After the preliminary design WTT, a tail fairing is needed to reduce base drag . The tail fairing is added, but with minimal structure to avoid weight penalties that are not included in the initial weight buildup. The fairing is also needed as a platform to attach the steerable rear landing gear, the vertical tail, and the water drop mechanism. Emphasis is placed on designing a structure that can hold the items listed above and support any loads that are produced. The fairing must follow the 12 upsweep as stated in Raymer ; however, significant loads will not be resolved through it. Foam serves as the perfect material for this application with the addition of balsa cross members that will handle the impact loads of the rear landing gear as well as hold the tail wheel servo in place. Two stiffeners are added in order to prevent the foam from flexing from side to side during a turn. The entire assembly is covered in Micro-Lite in order to provide the lightweight skin for aerodynamics. 37
2 33

5.3.3 Wing Fillets Another contributor to the total aerodynamic performance is interference drag. This is the drag that is produced between the wing and the fuselage . However, upon further inspection of Hoerner, the decrease in interference drag is not large enough to counteract the additional weight that these fillets will add to the aircraft. This years scoring is based highly on aircraft weight, thus removing weight at the cost of having a small amount of extra drag serves as a benefit. 5.4 Water Tight Fuselage The mission requires the water to be carried within the mold lines of the aircraft as well as the use of a non- pressurized vessel. In order to carry the payload during M3, the fuselage will be constructed to hold water. Four full-scale concepts are built and tested for water tightness and weight. The concepts include laminated paper that is hot glued at the seams, a combination of foam and epoxy, balsa sheets with Micro-Lite, and a balsa truss structure with Micro-Lite. The laminated paper does not effectively store water without leaking. However, the rest of the concepts hold water successfully. After weighing each water tight fuselage, it is determined that the foam and epoxy design is the lightest. During the prototype building process, lightening holes are added to the sides of the foam fuselage in order to lose weight. The sides of the fuselage are then covered in Micro-Lite in order to keep the water tightness and allow for a smoother surface. 5.5 Water Release Mechanism A water tight door design is needed to carry water to 100 m and then be released for time to stop. A trade study is conducted between the door size and the weight gained in order to seal a larger area. The size of the door directly affects the M3 flight score as well as the RAC. During conceptual and preliminary design, the fuselage contains a sealed door that swings open thus dropping all of the water instantaneously. A rubber o-ring provides the seal around the door. A prototype test of this concept determined that the seal is ineffective, due to the porous and flexible qualities of the foam. The o-ring is unable to make a proper seal. A simple cork attached to a servo is designed to solve this issue. This allows the manufacturing of the fuselage to be more efficient. The servo will attach to the pre-existing structure of the tail fairing. This also allows for the landing gear to be shortened from seven inches to two inches, thus saving approximately an ounce of weight. The time to drop the water increases from an instant drop to five seconds to completely release all of the water. It is determined that this will not cause any instability during flight. A concern of water visibility arose due to the smaller release area. A group of underclassmen designed a basic water-drop system and released water from a personal radio controlled (R/C) aircraft (Figure 30). This test is designed to determine how small of a release area can be utilized to effectively see the water when released at 100 m. The result of this test verifies that the water is capable of being seen when released from a four square inch hole at the 100 m mark. This test proves that a smaller release area can be used as effectively as a larger area. 38
33

Figure 30 - Water Visibility Test Drop System The cork fits in a 1.77 in area hole and is easily extruded by the servo once the CAM releases it. Ground testing is used to ensure water tightness around the cork and release effectively multiple times (Figure 31).
2

Figure 31 - Ground Test Photo of Water Release Mechanism 5.6 Flight Performance Summary Table 15 details flight and mission performance parameters. Applicable final predictions are compared to actual test results in Section 8.

Table 15 - Flight Performance Parameters 5.7 Drawing Package The drawing package includes: 3-view (dimensioned), Structural Arrangement, Aircraft Systems Layout, and Mission Configuration. 39

56.1 26.3

13.2 3.1

B
9.9 26.2

16.5

15

25% Chord Elevons

3.9

Top view
10.0 4.5 .8 6.1 2.0 12 18.7
DRAWN BY DATE DATE DATE

1.0

3.5

A Front view

6.5
J. Winkel
CHECKED BY

Right view

2/6/2012 2/7/2012 2/8/2012

T. Blumenshine
APPROVED

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY Shockin Stingray

TITLE

WSU

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

Aircraft Overview
SIZE DWG NO REV

B
SCALE

2012-001
1:6 Report Page
40 of 59 SHEET

X
1 OF 4

4 Engineering Bill of Materials Item Part Number Qty Material 1 Half-Wing Cutout 2 Foam 2 Main Spar Cap 2 Balsa 3 Rear Spar Cap 2 Balsa 4 Foam Nose Cone 1 Foam 5 Motor Mount 1 Balsa/Spruce 6 Main Landing Gear 2 Balsa Support Rod 7 Wing Box Carry 2 Balsa Through 8 Main Rib 2 Balsa 9 Rear Landing Gear 2 Balsa Support Rod 10 Tail Fairing 2 Balsa Stiffener 11 Rear Landing Gear 1 Balsa Alignment Panel 12 Tail Fairing 1 Foam 13 Fuselage 1 Foam

3
B

1 8 9

7 6
A

10

11
A
DRAWN BY DATE DATE DATE

5
J. Winkel
CHECKED BY

2/6/2012 2/7/2012 2/8/2012

T. Blumenshine
APPROVED

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY Shockin Stingray

TITLE

WSU

4 13
4 3

Structural Arrangement

12
2

SIZE

DWG NO

REV

B
SCALE

2012-002
XX Report Page
41 of 59 SHEET

X
2 OF 4

2
Aircraft Components List Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 Part Propeller Elevon Servo Tail Wheel Servo Motor Battery Pack Reciever Battery Receiver Speed Controller Fuse Release Servo Altitude Sensor Front Wheel Rear Wheel Type APC 10 x 7 E

QTY 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Hitech HS-65MG Futaba S3114 Rimfire 0.10 1250 kV 5-Cells Elite 1500 4-Cells KAN 180 Spectrum 6 Channel Phoenix 25Amp ATO 20 Amp Slow-Blow Hitech HS-65MG CAM Altitude Sensor 2" Dubro Super Lite 3/4" Dubro Super Lite

B 2 1

7 8 9 10 11 12

A Isometric view 12

13

Detail A Scale: 1:2 5

13 Landing Gear Projection View 3

11 7

8 6 A
DRAWN BY DATE DATE DATE

10
J. Winkel
CHECKED BY

2/6/2012 2/7/2012 2/8/2012

T. Blumenshine
APPROVED

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY Shockin Stingray

TITLE

WSU

4 Front view
SIZE

Aircraft System Layout

DWG NO REV

B
SCALE

2012-003
1:7 Report Page
42 of 59 SHEET

X
3 OF 4

3 Mission 2 Payload Configuration Aluminum Bars

2 Mission 3 Payload Configuration 2 Liters of Water

B 8 - 1" x 1" x 5" Aluminum Bars

2 L Water Tank 1" Vertical Spacing 1/2" Horizontal Spacing Water Release System Detail View

Release Servo 1/16" Steel Wire A 1/4" Foam Cutouts

DRAWN BY DATE DATE DATE

1" Cork
J. Winkel
CHECKED BY

2/6/2012 2/7/2012 2/8/2012

T. Blumenshine
APPROVED

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY Shock'n Stingray

TITLE

WSU

Mission Configuration
SIZE DWG NO REV

2012-004
XX Report Page
43 of 59 SHEET

X
4 OF 4

NOTE: All views have hidden components for clarity 4 3 2

SCALE

5.8 Aircraft Component Weight and CG Buildup Accurate weight and CG locations are presented for each mission (Table 16). Consistent flight handling characteristics result from minimal change in SM between missions. Batteries and payloads are relocated between missions to keep the same SM. Particular attention is paid to M3, where constant CG location is desired after the water is released.

Table 16 Component CG and Weight Buildup

Table 17 Mission Specific CG and Weight Estimates 6.0 Manufacturing Plan and Processes Practice refines the manufacturing approach throughout the course of the design process. The manufacturing team includes the five senior engineers and underclassmen. 6.1 Manufacturing Methods The RAC is a key factor for the type of material used to construct the aircraft. Trade studies show that a foam leading edge, foam spar webs, balsa spar caps, and a foam fuselage are lighter than the traditional balsa and MonoKote model. The majority of the aircraft is constructed from foam. This allows the design to be cut into four main parts using the hot wire computer numerical controller (CNC) foam 44

cutter. The four parts include two half-wings, the front and sides of the fuselage, and the bottom of the fuselage with the tail fairing. This reduces glue joints and adhesive weight. 6.2 Prototypes Five prototypes are constructed prior to the initial mission ready model. A half-scale, solid foam prototype is fabricated using the CNC foam cutter. Initial efforts demonstrate that the taper results in extra burning on the wing tip causing the tip chord and thickness to be inaccurate. A code is created to take into account this inaccuracy to produce proper sized components. The second prototype is a full scale, solid foam wing aircraft for flight testing. This construction validated the code for the wing cut outs. Due to the structural test not being completed at the time of this construction, extra structure is added to the joint between the wings. The fuselage is constructed similar to the final mission ready model to accommodate for water drop mechanism testing. This fuselage construction also validates the two part cut out technique. The third and fourth prototypes are full scale, structural models of the wings. The first wing is used in the wing tip deflection test and the second wing is used in the whiffletree test. The fuselage is not constructed for these models because the fuselage is designed not to contain any structural elements. The final prototype is a full scale, solid foam wing, constructed for a full-scale WTT. In order to reduce the interference from the mounting system, the two-point mount is fixed to the aircraft inside the fuselage. To structurally support the mount, the fuselage and tail fairing are created from a 4 in x 6 in solid wood post in place of the foam model. With this final prototype construction, the mission ready model, including all the tooling, is finalized and tested. 6.3 Mission Ready Model Each wing is cut out of two sheets of solid foam that are glued together with 3M77 spray adhesive to attain the max thickness of the airfoil. The areas between the foam ribs are cut out and the leading edge is hollowed out of each wing. Each wing has a groove inscribed where the spar caps are placed allowing for each wing to line up along the spar. The sides of the fuselage and front foam bulkhead are created using the foam cutter followed by the bottom of the fuselage with the tail fairing. Spar caps as well as two balsa ribs are cut out with the laser cutter. CAD drawings are created for the laser cutter to read and cut out 1/8 in thick sheets. The spar caps are laser cut out given that the fuselage is straight and the wings are swept. This prevents the aircraft from having a glue joint at the location of the maximum bending moment. The MLG is constructed once, and is used on all prototypes due to the breakaway plate design. Steel wire is first cut to the correct length for each separate MLG. A Piranha hydraulic press brake is used to bend and flatten the wire achieving the correct angles (Figure 32). In order to attain the correct dimensions, a full-scale CAD drawing is printed and the fabricated landing gear utilizes the sheet as reference tooling.

45

Figure 32 - The Piranha Bending the MLG Two 1/8 in balsa sheets are fabricated with the laser cutter in order to construct the breakaway plate. Each sheet is then routed where the landing gear will be placed. The landing gear rods can then be sandwiched between the plates to prevent twisting. Epoxy is used to adhere both sheets of balsa together with the landing gear wire placed in between (Figure 33).

Figure 33 - Main Landing Gear Construction 6.3.1 Tooling Early build experiences reveal that the classic ruler and square layout methods are inaccurate and lengthy. A rapid, precise, and repeatable manufacturing method is sought. Tooling is a viable and simple solution to this manufacturing problem. When the wings are built from the solid pieces of foam, they have a starting point of 1.75 in from the bottom and two inches into the block enabling the remaining foam, without the wing, to be used as the tooling device. This tooling does not only line up the wings, but also provides support on the thin trailing edge when spar caps are glued. This prevents the foam from being crushed. A third foam block is cut to the width of the fuselage, enabling the block to sit between the two wing tools. This sets the correct spacing between the wings. During detailed design, lightening holes are analyzed in order to lose weight. In order to accurately cut out the lightening holes with a router or razor blade, tooling is required. The tooling is laser cut out of 1/8 in plywood to the proper dimensions. The tooling is then placed on the aircraft to be utilized as a stencil during the cutting process. This same principle is then used when cutting out the passenger constraints. 46

7.0 Testing Plan Preliminary design testing focuses on validation of the airfoil, AC location, and propulsion system predictions. Detail design testing begins with a full scale, flight ready prototype to test ground and flight handling qualities. 7.1 Half-Scale Wind Tunnel Testing Two half-scale wind tunnel tests are conducted in WSUs 3ftx4ft Low Speed Wind Tunnel.

Figure 34 - Half-Scale Model mounted in WSUs 3ftx4ft Wind Tunnel These tests are conducted to validate aerodynamic and stability calculations for the Liebeck la2573a. The test plan matrix is shown in Table 18.
Primary Test Matrix---1/2 scale model Run # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tare Dynamic Static Model q = takeoff q = cruise q=0 Configuration Alpha Sweep = -4 to 12 Alpha Sweep = -4 to 12 Alpha Sweep = -4 to 20 upsweep = 20 deg = 2, then 12 to 20 by = 1 = 2, then 12 to 20 by = 1 = 2 No Model No deflections No deflections Repeat Run 3 Deflection = -5 Deflection = -5 Repeat Run 6 Deflection = +5 Deflection = +5 Repeat Run 9 Deflection = -10 Deflection = -10 Repeat Run 12 Deflection = +10 Deflection = +10 Repeat Run 15 x x x x x x x x x x x Install foam fuse extension piece Secondary Test Matrix----1/2 Scale Model q = 1.717 Alpha Sweep = -4 to 12 = 2, then 12 to 20 by = 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Static

Static

Static

Static

Run # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Tare Static

Model Configuration upsweep = 12 No deflections No deflections Repeat Run 2 Deflection = +15 Deflection = +15 Repeat Run 5 Deflection = +20 Deflection = +20 Repeat Run 8

q = 5.6 Alpha Sweep = -4 to 20 = 2 x x

q=0 Alpha Sweep = -4 to 20 = 2 x

Static

Static

Table 18 - Half-Scale Wind Tunnel Test Matrix 47

7.2 Propulsion System Testing An all inclusive propulsion system test is necessary to validate predictions from the preliminary selection as well as address various uncertainties. Motor and battery performance, in addition to reliability and endurance of the total system, are evaluated at this point of the design phase. 7.2.1 Battery Testing Batteries are thoroughly assessed though a computerized battery analyzer (CBA) (Figure 35). This gives voltage values per given discharged amperage. Results are plotted against time. Reliability and performance degradation are assessed by analyzing cold soaked and elevated temperature batteries along with deep cycled batteries. Reliability proves essential because lower weight cells tend to be sensitive to environmental factors, such as excessive temperatures. Figure 36 shows an average of 25% decrease in performance of cold batteries.

Figure 35 - Computerized Battery Analyzer System

12 Cold Soak Pack 11.5 11 10.5 Room Temperature Pack

Volts

10

9.5 9 8.5 8 0 50 100 Time (S) 150 200

Figure 36 - Cold Soak Test Results 48

7.2.2 Total System Testing The entire propulsion system is tested in the Wichita State 3ftX4 ft windtunnel. This test allows for the verification of the propeller and battery selection. Data is gathered by the internal windtunnel balance as well as a battery data logger. Setup information is shown in Table 19. The basis of the test is to perform two runs with the power supply at the predicted battery wattage to verify the 10X7 and 11X5.5 propellers. After these runs, the better performing propeller is selected for further evaluation with the batteries. The batteries are selected based on their weight and predicted performance. Table 20 shows the test matrix.
Motor ESC Data Logger Prop Rimfire 10 1250KV Phoenix 45 Eagle Tree V3 APC EF 10X7 , 11X5.5

Batteries (2 5-Cell Packs in Series) Elite 1500 4/5 A or Elite 2000 AA

Table 19 - Setup Information

Run # 1 2 3 4 5 Propeller 10X7 10X7 11X6 10X7 10X7 Battery Power Supply 10V 20amp Power Supply 10V 20amp Power Supply 10V 20amp 10 Cells Elite 2000s 10 Cells Elite 1500s Type Exploratory Run, q sweep q Sweep q Sweep Static, Cruise q Endurance Static, Cruise q Endurance Motor Run Time (min) 2 2 2 4 4

Table 20 - Propulsion Test Plan Matrix

Figure 37 - Propulsion Test Apparatus 49

7.2.3 Results Data from this test is conclusive. The 11X5.5 propeller proves inadaquate for the wattage required for the motor to operate efficiently. Furthermore, the Elite 1500s pack performed as predicted, matching the output power of the Elite 2000s while being two ounces lighter for the entire pack. The Elite 2000s pack, however, underperformed the predicted output. Data is compared to Java prop for the given batteries predicted power and similarly matched predictions for the Elite 1500s output. Results are shown in Figure 38, Figure 39, and Figure 40.
28

Figure 38 - Actual Recorded Static Power

Figure 39 - Actual Recorded Thrust Compared to Predictions

50

Figure 40 - Actual Recorded Cruise Power 7.3 Structural Testing Structural testing is needed to validate the theoretical analysis and locate areas where additional structure can be removed to lighten the aircraft. Three structural test articles are built in order to test and simulate different load cases. 7.3.1 Final Spar Validation The front spar in the aircraft is the primary support for all flight loads. A whiffletree test is setup in order to apply a close approximation of the calculated lift distribution loads to ensure that the theoretical analysis is comparable to actual results. Deflections are measured with a laser extensometer to ensure high accuracy when measuring the small deflection changes. The predicted results are 25% higher than the actual results. Furthermore, the test proves that analyzing the foam as an isentropic material is an over-simplification.

Figure 41 Spar Whiffletree Setup 51

7.3.2 Wing Tip Test A wing tip test is performed to validate the primary structural configuration when loaded in the critical load case. The model is a full scale model without Mircro-Lite. The wing tips are supported by ropes hanging down and sand is applied to the center payload section in order to simulate the correct weight placement. Six pounds is added to simulate the maximum T/O weight of the aircraft (Figure 42). The configuration of the aircraft causes the CG not to fall in line with the wing tip. Therefore, a third support must be added underneath the wing apex in order to balance the model. This invalidates the boundary conditions of a true wing tip test. A more theoretically correct way of testing the aircraft for stress and deflection validation is sought.

Figure 42 - Wing Tip Test 7.3.3 Final Wing Structural Validation In this test a full scale half wing is constructed. This test utilizes the same whiffletree test setup that the spar validation was performed with (Figure 43). Two laser extensometers are setup on both the front and rear spar in order to validate the torsion resistance that is predicted for the wing. The wing held an eight percent greater load than had been predicted and the maximum tip deflection is 16% greater than predicted. A correction factor that was obtained from the spar testing still does not cover the deflection difference. Looking further into the results, the divergence from the theoretical deflection does not occur until the loads approach failure loads. This can be expected for a non-elastic material such as foam. The wing is predicted to rotate seven degrees under the maximum lift distribution while the actual rotation is two degrees. From this test, several design changes are made to improve the RAC score. The first improvement involves resizing the front spar from a thickness of 0.375 in to 0.300 in. The rear spar is reduced in size from 0.375 in to 0.250 in due to the torsion resistance being higher than predicted. This allows the total aircraft weight to drop from 1.66 lbs to 1.60 lbs.

52

Figure 43 - Final Wing Whiffletree Test 7.4 Full Scale Wind Tunnel Test This full-scale prototype is constructed using the solid foam build-up outlined in Section 6.2. All of the electronics are installed so that deflections can be made using the trim settings on the transmitter. A spinner is attached to the motor to simulate propulsion geometry during runs without an active propulsion system. Testing is conducted in the NIAR 7ftx10 ft Walter H. Beech Memorial Wind Tunnel (Figure 44).

Figure 44 - Two Point Mounting System with Fairing for Dynamic Tare (Left) Model Attached to Mounting System with Spinner (Right) Tufts are used to enable flow visualization. The tufts enable Team Black to determine which angle the flow begins to separate along the wing and the fuselage (Figure 45).

53

Figure 45 - Tufts Showing Separation Near Stall

q (Psi) Run # Tare 1 Dynamic Takeoff 2 Dynamic Cruise 3 Static 0 4 ----Takeoff 5 ----- Repeat Run 4 6 ----Cruise 7 ----Takeoff 8 ----Takeoff 9 ----Takeoff 10 ----Takeoff 11 Static 0 12 ----Takeoff 13 ----Cruise 14 ----Cruise 15 ----Cruise 16 ----Cruise 17 18 19 20 21 22 --------static ------------Takeoff Cruise 0 Takeoff Takeoff Takeoff () -4,18,2 -4,16,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,16,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,16,2 -4,16,2 -4,16,2 -4,16,2 -4,18,2 0 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 -4,18,2 Primary Test Matrix e () () Notes 0 0 ----0 0 ----0 0 ----0 0 Lift, Drag, and Moment Polars 0 0 " 0 0 To determine if Re transition point is crossed -10/-10 0 Control surface effectiveness +10/+10 0 " 0 10 Sideslip 0 20 Sideslip 0 0 Propeller run 0 0 Propeller run -10/-10 0 Use following runs if Re transition is crossed +10/+10 0 " 0 10 " 0 20 " Secondary Test Matrix 0 0 Flow visualization ? 0 Trim in real time 0 0 Remove verticle tail 0 0 " 0 10 " 0 20 "

Table 21 - Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Test Matrix Aerodynamic data is obtained and compared to predictions (Figure 47 in Section 8). 7.5 Ground Testing Proper operation of electrical subsystems and the propulsion system is verified upon completion of the prototype aircraft. The water drop mechanism is tested multiple times to ensure there is no fatigue. 54

Ground handling is a concern in the design of the aircrafts landing gear; therefore, ground handling testing is needed before flights are conducted. This test validates that the aircraft does not ground loop and the steerable tail wheel helps in the case of a crosswind. 7.6 Flight Testing A foam prototype model is built to validate the concept and verify aerodynamic, propulsion, and stability and control parameters (Figure 46). The pre-flight checklist (Table 22) and flight test plan (Table 23) are designed for a DBF competition simulation.
Team Black Preflight Checklist
Night Before
1.) 2.) Set up reciever batteries on the charger Set up propulsion batteries on the charger

3.) Set up transmitter batteries on the charger 3.) Get supply box ready

Pre-Flight
1.) Attach receiver batteries to aircraft 2.) Attach propulsion batteries to aircraft 3.) CG aircraft 4.) Plug in receiver batteries 5.) Plug in propulsion batteries 6.) Plug in fuse 7.) Range check 8.) Elevon deflection check 9.) Door servo operation check 10.) Throttle up check 11.) Fail safe check

Table 22 - Pre-Flight Checklist

Table 23 - First Flight Test Matrix Multiple flight tests are scheduled to familiarize the pilot with the aircrafts handling and performance.

55

Figure 46 - First Ferry Flight - January 13, 2012 8.0 Performance Results The half-scale and full-scale WTT results are compared in Figure 47. The mounting system in the 7x10 ft wind tunnel is much larger than the mount for the 3x4 ft wind tunnel. This reduces the amount of lift that is produced by the fuselage and creates turbulence over the fuselage thus creating more drag. Another reason for an increase in drag during the 7x10 test can be attributed to the landing gear being added to the full-scale model and also a propeller or spinner added to the motor. Trim plots comparing predicted and actual results can be found in Section 4.6.2 on Figure 18.

Figure 47 - Lift and Drag Comparison for Half-Scale and Full-Scale WTTs To aquire data, a telemetry sensor is installed in the model which has the ability to attain global positioning system (GPS) speed, altitude, and battery information. From this data, an average cruise and T/O velocity are calculated. (Figure 48). Table 24 displays important information about the conditions and setup of each of the three flights.

56

90 80 70 60 50

Mph

40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 Time (S) 150 200 250

Figure 48 - Recorded GPS Speed (Wind 12 mph)

Flight # 1 2 3 Battery Elite 1500 Elite 2000 Elite 1500 Endurance-Max Power Total Time (min) 3.9 4.8 3.9 4.75 5.5 4.25 CG (in) 5.375 5.25 5.125 Temp (F) Wind (mph) 30 32 34 S 12 S 12 S 12 Aircraft Weight (lbs) 2.2 2.2 2.2 Type Stability and Propulsion Analysis

Table 24 - Flight Information

57

9.0 References
1

2011/2012 Rules and Vehicle Design, AIAA Student Design/Build/Fly Competition [http://www.aiaadbf.org. Accessed 8/19/11]. Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4 ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2006.
th

WSU 2009 SAE Heavy Lift Team Buffalo Works, Final Report, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, 2009. WSU 2009 AIAA DBF Team sUAVe, Scheduling Macro, Software, Brian Hinson, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, 2009. The Weather Underground, Inc., Almanac for Wichita, KS, Weather Underground, 2011, http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT [Accessed 8/02/11] Montgomery, Douglas C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, 7 ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009. Nickel, K. and Wohlfahrt, M., Tailless Aircraft in Theory & Practice, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Great Britain, 1994 Hepperle, M., Basic Design of Flying Wing Models, Dr. Martin Hepperle Engineering, Germany, January, 2002, [http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/flywing1.htm. Accessed 10/3/11]. Roskam, J., Airplanes Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Lawrence, KS, 2007. Buchmann, I., Batteries in a Portable World, Cadex Electronics, [http://www.buchmann.ca/. Accessed 9/9/11]. Merchant, M., and Miller, L.S., Propeller Performance Measurement for Low Reynolds Number UAV Applications. AIAA paper 2006-1127, 2006 Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 6 ed., McGraw Hill Anderson Series, Boston, 2005. Sarafin, T.P. (ed.), Spacecraft Structures and Mechanisms, Hawthorne, CA, 2007.
th th

10

11

12

13

14

WSU 2011 AIAA DBF Team MiniWheat, Team MiniWheat Design Report, AIAA DBF Report Archive, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, 2011. Selig, M. (2008, 02 19). UIUC Airfoil Data Site. Retrieved 10 01, 2008, from [www.ae.uiuc.edu/mselig/ads.html]. Miley, S.J. A Catalog of Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Data for Wind Turbine Applications. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1982. Stivers, L & Rice, F., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Four NACA Airfoil Sections Designed for Helicopter Rotor Blades. NACA-RB-L5K02. Langley, Langley Field, VA: 1946. Liebeck, R.H., Laminar Separation Bubbles and Airfoil Design at Low Reynolds Numbers, AIAA Paper 92-2735, Jun. 1992. Drela, M., & Youngren, H. (2008, 08 04). AVL. Retrieved 09 14, 2011, from [http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/]. 58

15

16

17

18

19

20

Etkin, B., and Reid, L.D. Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control. 3rd ed. New York. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1996. p 19 -59. X-Plane, Software Package, Vers. 9.7, Laminar Research, Austin Meyer, United States, 2011. CATIA, Software Package, Vers. 5.18, Dassault Systemes, Vlizy-Villacoublay, France, 2008 Loose Cells. CheapBatteryPacks. 10 September 2011 http://www.cheapbatterypacks.com19 Brushless Motors, Towerhobbies. 10 September 2011 <http://www.towerhobbies.com Brushless Motors. 20Hobby King. 10 September 2011 http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/index.rc Phoenix 25. Castle Creations. 26 October 2011 http://www.castlecreations.com/products/phoenix25.html AWG. American Wire Gauge. 28 November 2011 http://www.hardwarebook.info/AWG Hepperle, Martin . "Java Prop." 14 November 2011 http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javaprop.htm. Zamora, A., et al, DBF Propulsion Manual, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, 2007. Allen, D. & Haisler, W. Intro. to Aerospace Structural Analysis. College Station, TX: Wiley, 1985 Hibbeler, R.C., Mechanics of Materials, 7 ed., Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey, 2008. Logan, D.L., Finite Element Method, 5 ed., Cengage Learning Inc., Stamford, CT, 2012.
th th

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Hoerner, S.F. Fluid Dynamic Drag. 1st ed. Bakersfield, CA: Hoerner, 1965.

59