You are on page 1of 70

Group Number:

Assignment:
Date:
316SE UAV Design PeerAssessment
You will need to get together as a group in this peer assessment. You have been given 100 marks and
you need to allocate these marks between all the group members. The criterion for the allocation of the
marks is how well each team member has contributed to the success of the overall project. These criteria
may include roles, jobs,
tasks, responsibilities, activities, helps, extra effort, technical aptitude, skills,
efficiency, effectiveness, etc., that each person has contributed to this project.
For example, if there are five members within the group and each have contributed equally to the project,
then each should be allocated 20 marks.
A
{ir\sL ilei'.'ct
(A)
rs/s/zors
Name Mark Siqnature
Ch.i"*- clnor %ncre 1-3
Sh*.^ct ftxtw
Le+-\
ftt*ocJ. [)aurrcez.
76
1
Z%
Shat^. klnm
6'5
W
{l^^ [ilalLrn
(9.3
These allocated marks will be used to weight the overall project mark amongst all the team members to
arrive at a final individual project mark. You will need to get everyone within the group to agree with
the mark allocation by signing the peer assessment form.
316SE
-
Aerospace Systems Design

1




PART A


DESIGN EVOLUTION, THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS AND
SIMULATIONS


PART B


FLIGHT TEST PERFORMANCE





GROUP A


S. ALAM, S. COOKE, R. DAINTREE, C. PEARCE, T. WALTON
AEROSPACE SYSTEM DESIGN FINAL REPORT


2









PART A

3...DESIGN EVOLUTION
9.ANALYSES EVOLUTION
17UAV SIMULATION
26.TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
26MANUFACTURING PROCESS
36...SUMMARY SHEET
37.CONCLUSIONS

















S



1. DESIGN EVOLUTION


Conceptual Design

The conceptual design process began by analysing the requirements of the aircraft as
defined in the aircraft specification. The aim of the aircraft was defined as being a
military or civilian reconnaissance vehicle able to record video footage of the ground in
indoor spaces using a predetermined camcorder. The specification stated that the aircraft
must be a short range, ultra lightweight, highly manoeuvrable UAV (unmanned aerial
vehicle). A number of pre-selected components were required to be used as part of the
design. These included a motor, servos, speed controller, receiver and a choice of three
propellers and batteries. The aircraft was also required to be fixed winged and not
exceed a maximum take off weight of 0.9kg. (Coventry Aerospace, 2012)

With these parameters in place, the group set about trying to define the size of the
aircraft that would be able to fly with the payload outlined in the specification. It was
thought that the take-off and cruise speeds of the aircraft should be kept to a minimum,
to enable easier control in confined spaces. However there was an inevitable comprise
between flight speeds and the wingspan. The group was reluctant to design an aircraft
with a wingspan greater than 1.2 meters due to concerns over manoeuvrability, so to
ensure the aircraft could still fly at reasonable speeds, research was undertaken into
aerofoil shapes. Jacobs and Shermans NACA report on aerofoil characteristics was
used to compare a wide variety of aerofoils. An aerofoil with a high coefficient of lift
and a reasonably low coefficient of drag was desired, however it was also thought that a
highly cambered aerofoil might have lead to manufacturing issues. For these reasons,
the group settled on NACA 2412. (Jacobs 1937)

Figure 1 shows a sketch of the initial
design. The group found the design to be
very effective at meeting the
specifications needs and it was also
thought the design could be easily
manufactured. The design was based
around a simple aircraft configuration after
research was undertaken. (Cook 2012)

However the project brief described the
desired outcome of the project as being a novel aircraft product (CovUAV 2012). The
group felt that the initial design could not be described as novel due to the design
being based on a very generic configuration. As a result the group set about redesigning
!"#$%& () *+","-. /&0"#+

4
the aircraft. The design process employed by the group was based around an
evolutionary optimisation method, where the design features that where perceived to be
good where incorporated into the next design and features that where detrimental to the
design where removed.

Figure 2 shows the design that followed the
initial design. The simple empennage
arrangement was still implemented, however
the long sweeping wings gave the design a
distinctive look that the group felt was very
novel. Despite this it was decided that the
fuselage was too small to hold all the
necessary components and enlarging the
fuselage was detrimental to the look of the
aircraft.

The design that followed still featured a curved, swept wing design, which the group felt
gave the aircraft a distinctive appearance, however this design was based on the idea of
a flying wing. The aircraft had no empennage, just elevons located on the trailing edge
of the wings. To enable a clean pointed nose, the propeller was design to be mounted on
the rear of the aircraft, however this gave rise to concerns over the centre of gravity
location, due to the shape of
the fuselage being larger at
the back and little room at the
nose for any components. A
tail-heavy aircraft would
result in instability, which the
group wanted to avoid.
Further to this, the group
expressed fears over the
complexity of constructing
elevons and also the effectiveness of the elevator due to the small moment as a result of
being mounted on the wing trailing edge as opposed to on a tail configuration. The
group also had reservation about the stability of a flying wing design. The lack of yaw
stability or control would give the aircraft inherent flight control and handling quantity
problems. (Hepperle 2012)

Despite these concerns, the group found design 3 to be very aesthetically pleasing, due
to the simple curved lines creating an uncluttered appearance. Design 4 attempted to use
this idea, but make the design more practical, easier to construct and more stable.

!"#$%& 1) 2&0"#+ 1 3 4,"+#%-5 67*
!"#$%& 8) 2&0"#+ 8 3 4,"+#%-5 67**

S
To achieve this, a twin boom tail configuration and a curved fuselage section that
blended seamlessly into the wings profile were designed. The new fuselage allowed for
a nose mounted propeller and enough
space for the relevant components to
be in suitable positions to ensure a
correct location for the centre of
gravity. The twin boom empennage
allowed for two rudders and a simple
elevator design. The group felt that this
arrangement would allow a simple
actuation mechanism to be used on the
elevator that would simply be pivoted
on each end, adding improved
reliability and ease of construction. It
was also thought that the twin boom
arrangement would add strength to
that area as a result of the elevator tying the booms together. The elevator is at a raised
position, relative to the fuselage. This was thought to be beneficial as the elevator would
be effected less by the wake produced by the fuselage and wings, increasing its
efficiency. (Simons 1994)

However despite the aesthetic appeal of this design, the group had reservations about
the delta wings. It was felt that performing the relevant calculations on a design such as
this would cause problems, due to the complex nature of the wing shape and would
likely result in inaccurate results. It was also thought that constructing a wing shaped
like this design, which was curved in all planes, would be extremely challenging; not
only for the structure, but also during the skin application. At all points of the
preliminary design stage the viability of manufacturing was always considered. The
group wanted to achieve a high quality finish on the aircraft, so a design that would be
easier to construct was required.

Through research it was also found that the majority of the aircraft that have used delta
wings have been high-speed aircraft, such as Concorde or the Avro Vulcan. As the
primary aim of the aircraft was reconnaissance, a high-speed wing did not make any
engineering sense. For these reasons, the final design was contrived.

The final design features the same duel empennage arrangement as design 4, and a
similar blended fuselage however the wings on this model were considerably less
complex. They remained at a dihedral angle, however they are not curved. This was
done to aid the manufacturing process, as constructing wings that continually curve up
towards the wing tips, at a constantly changing rate would be been an extremely
problematic process.

!"#$%& 9) 2&0"#+ 9 3 6-+,-3%-5 67*

6
The delta wing used on design 4 has also been replaced with a standard wing of a
constant aerofoil and simple wing
tips. Similarly, it was thought that
this would aid the manufacturing
process but would also enable
greater accuracy during analysis
and suit the specification better.

The group felt that it would be
useful to investigate aircraft that
have a similar configuration to the
final design. Whilst similar designs
have been used in the past on
aircraft such as the de Havilland Vampire and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the design
is still relatively uncommon. Both of the aircraft successfully used the configuration to
produce an aircraft that had excellent handling qualities (Mason, 1965), which gave the
group confidence that the design could be successful.

The final design offers a configuration far from ordinary, giving a striking yet simple
appearance. It delivers a concept that is a balanced comprise between aesthetic feel and
functionality. The design enables plenty of space for all components, a suitable position
for the required camera, large control surfaces and a large wingspan.

Preliminary Design

This part of the design phase allowed the group to complete the entire design. The main
system that was designed at this point was the undercarriage. Other minor changes were
also made as a result of feedback from the technical committee.

One of the concerns raised by the technical committee was the location and design of
the rudder and elevator actuation system. To overcome this, the servos were moved
towards the rear of the aircraft, one on each of the tail booms, keeping the symmetry.
By moving the servos closer to their corresponding control surfaces the control rods
connecting them would be shorter in length, saving weight and also making the control
surfaces more sensitive.

The technical committee also raised a question in the conceptual design presentation as
to why the camera was not secured in place simply by Velcro instead of the originally
planned elastic bands. It was thought that Velcro would be easier to work with and
would allow for a quick method of removing the camera from the UAV, which would
be highly reliable. For these reasons it was decided that Velcro would be ideal for
securing the camera.

!"#$%& :) !"+-. /&0"#+ 3 6-+,-3%-5 67**

7
The structural rigidity of the wing was brought under scrutiny by the technical
committing due to the absence of a main spar. Model aircraft wing structures were
researched by the group to find a suitable solution that met the concerns of technical
committee. It was found that an I-beam spar would be the most effective, due to its
good strength to weight characteristics. However, despite the research, the group was
confident with the initial design. The main benefit of having multiple stringers as
opposed to a large spar and less stringers, is that there would be a greater surface area to
adhere the skin to producing a higher quality finish. To prove to the technical committee
that the design would be strong enough, a model of a similar structure was presented for
a structural test. The design was quickly approved and any previous concerns were
dismissed following the strength tests undertaken. This meant that the structure of the
wing could be kept as before; without the inclusion of a main spar.

The wings were originally attached flush to the bottom of the fuselage. However, the
group implemented sub group A2's suggested idea in the presentation; that it would be
better to have the wings attached at an angle of incidence, so that the UAV could
produce more lift in steady level flight. The addition of the angle of incidence would
also mean that the cruise speed would be lower. The angle of attack used in the analysis
for take-off was 6 degrees and originally produced solely by the undercarriage. It was
now split up into a 3 degree angle of incidence and the undercarriage would also cause
the nose to be elevated at 3 degrees totalling the required 6 degrees for take-off.

The initial design had the fuselage section of the UAV as just ribs and skin structure,
however this would mean that the components would be resting on the ribs or skin;
causing unnecessary stress. The group decided that the best way to solve this would be
to have the entire underneath of the fuselage section as a solid piece of balsa wood. This
gave many benefits, such as the components resting on a stronger material, a large
surface area to attach the skin and undercarriage to, and finally a strong surface to attach
the access flap for the camera.

After addressing the concerns expressed by the technical committee about the
preliminary design, the group began to design a suitable undercarriage design. Initially,
it was intended that prefabricated undercarriage struts would be utilised. However, after
researching this field, it was found that it would not be feasible to do this, due to budget
restrictions and the specific dimensions required. Therefore the group decided to design
the undercarriage for the aircraft; minimizing the cost. The resulting design of the
undercarriage consisted mainly of balsawood components glued together to form a strut
and casing for a rotating wheel.

The preliminary design stage allowed the group to finalise the design before
construction. It was an opportunity to polish the design as much as possible to increase
the reliability, ease of build and functionality of the design. However despite this, the
group changed the design further during the detailed design phase.


8
Detail Design

During the construction phase it soon become clear that the design needed a few minor
alterations. Problems quickly became apparent when attempting to build certain aspects
of the design or during the testing of the aircraft, when certain components failed. These
components were then either improved or re-designed. This part of the design evolution
allowed for physical testing of the designs, which gave a key indicator to their
capabilities. As a result of some design failures, the group employed a problem-solving
approach to any faults found.

One of the first problems the group encountered was the proposed position of the
motor. The group decided that mounting the motor on the inside of the fuselage would
cause serious problems due to the rotating natural of the motor casing and the relatively
small shaft length. As a result, the group chose to mount the motor on the front of
former one, which was additionally strengthened to the fuselage and former two.

Another design change that occurred during manufacturing was a
re-design of the landing gear. It was thought that the
undercarriage design submitted as part of the preliminary design
was a poor design; being too heavy, having too many
components, featuring no shock absorption and likely to fail
under a high loading. For these reasons a new undercarriage
design was contrived. Figure 6 shows the new design. It was
constructed from steel wire, which was thought to be lighter,
simpler and more able to absorb a higher impact.

Before the group began to skin the UAV, an assessment was
undertaken into the feasibility of skinning the fuselage section
using the structure previously designed. It was concluded that it
would be extremely difficulty to achieve the quality finish the
group required. As a result, a balsa wood mesh was devised that
would enable the fuselage to be skinned in small sections. Not only would this improve
the quality of the skinning and make the process less difficult, it would also strengthen
the fuselage considerably.

As a result of conducting a number of aircraft tests, the group found a few areas of
improvement. During flight test one, it became clear the undercarriage design had
significant failures. One of which was the inconsistent rolling resistance between each
wheel, which caused the aircraft to be uncontrollable when taxiing and more
significantly, when taking off. Further to this, during an attempted take-off the nose
wheel failed structurally, buckling under the load exerted apon it. This caused
catastrophic failure of key components as a result of the propeller striking the ground.
As a result, the group re-designed a new undercarriage configuration based on the
concept of skids. Due to the damaged caused by the propeller striking the ground, the
Figure 6, The second
undercarriage design

9
group wanted to design an undercarriage arrangement that would limit the chance of
this happening as much as possible. With this in mind, the group decided that
incorporating skids into the design would form a solid barrier between the ground and
the propeller, even when the aircraft was at a nose down attitude. The skid design would
provide a strong structure that would enable to withstand higher impacts. It was also
thought that the design would be less likely to deviate left or right when taking off due
to the equal contact areas with the ground between both skids. Any concerns about the
level of resistance created by the skids was quickly dismissed when the width of the
skids, the ground surface material, the power of the motor and the smooth finish of the
skids were taken into consideration.

As a result of the failure during the first test, where the aircraft nosed forward during
take-off as described above, the group developed concerns over the appropriateness of
the elevator size. It was decided that the elevator chord could be extended, which would
lead to the elevator being able to generate larger forces. It was hoped that this would
provide greater longitudinal control of the aircraft.

During the second test, the aircraft suffered a high impact collision with the ground,
which resulted in the detachment of the empennage. When the aircraft was being
reconstructed for the third test, the group decided that the booms needed to be
strengthened to reduce the chance of a similar fault occurring. Steel rods where spliced
into the underside of the booms, adding considerably more strength to the empennage.


2. ANALYSES EVOLUTION


Aerodynamics

Once the group had a rough estimate of the weight and size of the aircraft from the
conceptual design an aerofoil shape was needed to be chosen so that the UAV would
perform well at low speed. It was desirable to have one that would produce high lift as
the aircraft would be reasonably heavy for its size and was required to fly at low speeds.
The amount of lift the wings needed to produce was more than that of the weight of the
aircraft so that it could climb. After a reasonable NACA number had been decided upon
through research, the coefficient of lift and drag needed to be found so that the group
could calculate how much lift they would produce. Firstly this was achieved by using a
piece of online software called Javafoil. Although the Javafoil data was a reasonable
rough estimate, it was easy to see that it was inaccurate as the data provided produced
the graph on figure 7.


1u

Figure 7, Graph produced by Javafoil showing Coefficients of lift and drag at different angles of attack for
NACA2412. Data input is also shown.(Hepperle 1996)
It was shown that the NACA 2412 provided the most suitable values for our
application. The NACA 2412 provided a coefficient of lift of 0.873 at 3 degrees angle
of attack; this was the angle of attack the wing was going to be in for take-off, created
by the 3 degrees angle of incidence. The quantity of lift provided by the wings at the
take off speed, estimated to be 6.5m/s, was more than that of the estimated weight of the
aircraft, allowing for this NACA number to be used without any doubt that the aircraft
would not take off, especially as this was not including the extra velocity of the relat ive
airflow induced by the prop, known as prop wash.

To verify the validity of this data another online source called WolframAlpaha was
used, which calculates the coefficient of lift and the co-efficient of drag for a certain
angle of attack of the selected NACA number.
-u.2
u
u.2
u.4
u.6
u.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-1u -S u S 1u 1S 2u
;+#.& <= -,,->?
@->- 19(1 A<&==">"&+,0 B0
;+#.& <= ;,,->?
Cl
Cu

11

Figure 8, User interface of WolframAlpaha and results (Alpha 2010)

This was a long method as each angle had to be calculated individually and then made
into a graph using excel by the group members.

The two previously stated methods used to source the coefficient of lift and drag of the
selected aerofoil, were similar values to one and other but not close enough that the
group could decide which ones were correct. Due to the tight constraints of the UAV
build and the smallest margins for error, it was essential that the lift produced by the
wings was more than enough to carry the aircraft into wing borne flight. This is why the
group then decided to use a more professional piece of aerodynamics simulating
software called Xfoil; once the NACA number that was going to be used was chosen.
Xfoil gave a much more reliable source for the Cl and Cd of the aerofoil it also allowed
for the dihedral angle of the wings to be inputted and showed how each different point
along the wing produced lift and the pressure distribution around the aerofoil.

12

Figure 9, Xfoil results showing pressure distribution around the A NACA2412 aerofoil at 12 degrees

Figure 10, Force distribution across the whole wing calculated by Xfoil


Structures

From the research in the design process it was decided that there was no need for a main
spar in the wings, as it would make the wing a greater weight and would only achieve
an unnecessary amount of strength. The first strength test that was undertaken was a
physical test conducted on a prototype wing, similar to the designed wing. The wing
was assessed by the technical committee by applying high lateral loading of a greater
magnitude that what would ever be achieved in flight. The strength of the semi
monocoque wing was deemed more than satisfactory with respect to its strength. The
physical strength tests on the main body of the aircraft were good enough for the group
to neglect the inclusion of a main spar; it was acceptable to use multiple load bearing
stringers as a replacement. The undercarriage however had little structural tests
performed on it, just an estimated simple force pushed down on them by a hand.

1S
Obviously the amount of testing and structural analysis on the undercarriage was not
enough as this was the first component to fail under the applied loads in flight test 1.

Stability

Once the conceptual design had been created, the centre of gravity position needed to be
calculated. Firstly the weight of each individual component and their respective position
from the nose of the aircraft, the chosen datum point, was measured on a schematic
drawing. With the inclusion of the weight of the balsa wood acting at different distances
along the aircraft the centre of gravity was able to be determined by using formula 1.
The result can be found in the summary table,

1 =
wcght o] componcnt dstuncc ]om dutum
totuI wcght


The density of balsa wood varies significantly with each sample which is why the group
weighed a section of the balsa wood that was to be used and divide it by the volume of
the section. This allowed for a more accurate representation of the centre of gravity to
be found. The centre of gravity was estimated to be in front of the aerodynamic centre,
meaning that the aircraft was positively stable. See table of results for static margin.

The Group also constructed some code in Matlab to see how the elevators lift will affect
the pitching moment at each angle of attack of the wings. Figure 11 shows a graph of
available pitching moments for each angle of attack of the wings. At each of the angles
of attack that the aircraft was designed to fly at the elevator could always produce a
pitching moment in the direction that would allow the aircraft to return to horizontal
flight. As the aircraft was always able to return to horizontal flight from the angle of
attack it should have been operating at the longitudinal stability of the UAV was
deemed adequate for flight. During the test flights period the size of the elevator was
increased to provide even more control over the longitudinal moments of the aircraft.

14

!"#$%& (() 6-,.-C ></& -+/ %&0$.,0 -00&00"+# ,D& .<+#",$/"+-. 0,-C".",5
The graph shows that for all positive angle of attack there is a positive pitching moment
that can be created allowing for the UAV to nose down. It also shows that the for each
negative angle of attack there is the availability of a negative pitching moment to be
selected, allowing for the aircraft to nose up returning to horizontal flight. Refer to
section B flight test 2 for a detailed description of how the pitching moments affected
the aircraft in flight.

Flight dynamics

The group made an assumption that each section along the wing produced the same
amount of lift. The surface area of the ailerons were then measured and used in the
equation =
L
0.5 pv
2
S
at the cruise speed of the aircraft where the ailerons were at a 15
degree angle; which was the maximum angle they were able to deflect to and also where
they would produce the most lift. This does not mean that the angle of attack of the

1S
wings changed from 3 degrees as they were needed to be, so that the fuselage would be
parallel to the ground; this is the state that UAV was designed to fly in, so that the
camera has a clear field of view of the ground. The force produced by one of the
ailerons was then doubled to give the force produced by both ailerons. The force was
then converted into an angular velocity and with the radius of the rolling circle being the
distance from the middle of the fuselage to the centre of the aileron a roll rate could be
calculated using trigonometry. This can be seen in figure 12. The roll rate was found to
be 82.6 degrees per second, which was an excellent amount of control; although it was
thought that this amount of movement would be too sensitive for the pilot to control.

Figure 12, Diagram showing roll rate

Systems

For the movement of the control surfaces the group initially thought it would be most
aerodynamically efficient to have the servos all located within the fuselage, with long
push rods connecting to the horns on the control surfaces possibly via pivots. The
technical committee informed the group that it would be more beneficial to have the
servos located much closer to the control surfaces, as it would provide an increased
response time. As a result, the group decided to move the aileron servos to a position
within the wings where the servo arm was in line with the ailerons horn. Similar to the
aileron servos, the rudder and elevator servos were moved to a site on the rear booms
where they would be close to and aligned with the control surface horns. After testing to
see how much faster the response of the control surfaces were, the group realised that
the shorter control rods needed for the application also provided a much more precise
level of control. Due to the shorter control arms there would be a more reliable system
controlling the control surfaces and with more parts being external if something were to
fail, they would be much easier to access for repairs and maintenance.

Performance

Once the group knew an estimate of the weight, the propeller that would be pulling the
aircraft along was necessary to be selected. The three obtainable propellers undertook a

16
force test to see how much thrust they could produce. A pivot point was created where
the bottom of an arm was attached to it and the propeller was attached to the top of this
arm where it created a forwards force. Another arm was attached to the pivot point
where it produced a downwards force on a set of scales. This arrangement can be seen
in figure 13. The 7x6E propeller out performed the other two propellers massively as
the force created by the propeller T(prop)=(6.9651 x 0.42)/0.34 = 8.6N


Figure 13, A diagram to show the propeller testing jig used to determine thrust

The group wanted to save as much weight as possible but wanted to have a maximum
flight time for the reconnaissance task, to allow for greater flexibility. The medium size
battery was chosen as a result of a compromise of these two points. The medium size
battery has a capacity of 800mAh=48Aminutes. The maximum amount of power the
motor can draw from the battery is 20Amps/min therefore the minimum amount of time
the battery will last can be calculated using equation 2.

3..
48
20
= 2.4 = 144.

The group thought that this was a satisfactory time limit for the aircraft to experience all
of the manoeuvres necessary for the reconnaissance flight. For most of the flight the
aircraft will be travelling at cruise speed which is normally around 40% of the max
speed so if we take 40% of the 20A/min the motor draws the more reasonable value the
UAV can fly for is around. (Roskam,2002).

4..
48
200.4
= 6 = S6u

The cruise speed that the aircraft was assumed to be operating at was the speed at which
the fuselage was at 0 degrees angle of attack. Therefore the wings were at 3degrees
angle of attack and the lift produced by the wings equalled the weight of the aircraft.
Using equation 5 this can be calculated.

piop
thiust
u
.
S
4
m

u.42m
6.96S1
N

17
5. = _
L
0.5pCIS
= 1u.u6

The range of the UAV was found by multiplying the cruise speed by the endurance,
assuming the cruise speed is the most efficient. Therefore Range = 1u.u6 S6u =
S621.6
The stall speed was found out to be 5.84m/s by using equation 5, where the lift is equal
to the weight and the coefficient of lift is the value for the wing at the stall angle.



3. UAV SIMULATION



Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools were used throughout the build, varying in
complexity to simulate how the aircraft would perform in flight. At the start of the
project, the CAE tools employed in the design phase were minimal compared to at the
culmination of the build. The group began by creating a small piece of MatLab coding
to determine if the aircraft could return to horizontal flight, they later moved on to
trying to simulate how the aircraft would perform using a 2D model using NASAs
Xfoil software to give an estimation on how the aircraft would perform
aerodynamically. This was to be used as an accurate representation of flight however
after a test flight using these results, the aircraft did not perform as desired and a clear
solution was to use a 3D model to simulate what was required to make the aircraft
succeed in safe and stable flight. Fortunately, as the technical drawings had been
completed in SolidWorks, it was decided to use SolidWorks in-house CFD
(Computational Fluid Dynamics) simulation software add-on. This would provide
greater accuracy on pressure distribution on the surfaces of the aircraft as well as
providing the team with information on lift and drag. The advantage of using
SolidWorks add-ons for these applications was that only one mesh was required to be
built for the different add-ons, this saved time on creating alternative meshes for any
different software programs. Unfortunately, the solver would not run the entire mesh
due to unforeseen errors in the fuselage, attempts to fix the fuselage mesh did not
materialise and it was decided that it would be far better to concentrate on the analysis
of the rest of the aircraft to efficiently determine if the rest of the structure was safe to
fly for test day.

MatLab

In addition to having the graph of pitching moments in relation to the angle of attack of
the aircraft, a function was created using MatLab that simply stated Yes or No if it
were possible for the aircraft to return to horizontal flight. This was done using a similar
piece of coding as before, however this time the user input the velocity, angle of attack

18
of the aircraft and the angle at which the elevator would be moved to. The coding used
can be found in Appendix 2.

Figure 14 Function Results
This piece of coding clarifies what the previous piece of coding displays. Figure 14
displays how the function works. The user inputs a desired value of the velocity, angle
of attack of the aircraft and angle of the elevator, the function then calculates if it is
possible for the elevator to produce correcting pitching moment to set the aircraft
horizontal again. The group did multiple tests at different angles of attack for both the
aircraft and the elevator; it was shown that under the perceived operating conditions the
elevator was sufficient enough to return the aircraft to horizontal flight. The second
flight test clarifies this information (see Part B Flight #2 for more information).

Xfoil Simulations

Prior to using Xfoil, simple aerofoil solvers such as Javafoil were used to find the lift
and drag coefficients, however the group wanted a method of assessing the wing design
and not just the aerofoil. Due to the inefficiencies wings when compared to aerofoils, it
was important the group obtained reliable data, showing the lifting capabilities for a
finite wing with a dihedral angle.

A set of data relating to NACA 2412 was found from the UIUC aerofoil coordinate
database, which was entered into Xfoil using the XFLR5 user interface (UIUC, 2012).
Running a batch analysis on the aerofoil produced the data required to run a wing
simulation. Xfoil calculated the coefficient of lift of the aerofoil for a range of different
Reynolds numbers. Results of this analysis can be seen in figure 15.

19

One of the key reasons for using this software was to validate the analytical calculation
already conducted. The group wanted to ensure that the calculated take-off speed was
accurate. To achieve this, a wing was built using XFLR5, which incorporated all the
dimensions of the design. The wing was then simulated at various airspeeds and for a
range of angles of attack.

Figure 16 shows the results of simulation. It can be seen that as the airspeed is higher,
the lift force produced by the wing increases. It can also be seen that at an angle of
attack of 6 degrees the aircraft produces 6N, when in an airflow of 7m/s. This confirms
the groups estimate of the take-off speed.


Figure 15, Coefficient of lift at various angles of attack for a range of Reynolds numbers.

2u

Figure 16, Lift force produced at difference angles of attack for different airspeeds
Xfoil is also capable of producing images that show how the lift force is distributed
across the wing. The results from these sorts of simulates greatly aided the group in
designing a structure that gave additional strength to the parts of the wing that require it.
Figure 17 shows an image of the wing after a simulation of 6 degrees angle of attack at
10m/s. The amount of force exerted on each section of the wing is displayed by
coloured arrows.













Figure 17, Force distribution across the wing at 10m/s, 6 degrees AoA

21
3D Simulation

Using the SolidWorks CFD add-on, the following results were obtained for lift & Drag.


Figure 18, Coefficient of lift at various angles of attack for the whole plane, simulated in SolidWorks
From the graph, it can be interpolated, using the trendline, that the stall angle is approximately
12
O
falling within the range of 12-16
O
where the stall usually occurs (Lambert, 2010). The
shape of the coefficient of lift graph correlates with that of a typical graph for coefficient of lift:









Figure 19, Typical Cl vs AoA graph (Kermode 1996)
u
u.2
u.4
u.6
u.8
1
1.2
1.4
u 2 4 6 8 1u 12 14 2u
A
E

;+#.& <= ;,,->? F
<

A<&==">"&+, <= E"=, B0 ;<;

22

From figure 21, it can be seen that there is some relationship between the simulation
data and the theoretical graph. The team used this to determine that the aircrafts drag
followed a typical profile.


















u
u.uS
u.1
u.1S
u.2
u.2S
u.S
u 2 4 6 8 1u 12 14 2u
A<&==">"&+,
<= 2%-#
;+#.& <= ;,,->? G
H
I
A<&==">"&+, <= 2%-# B0 ;<;
Figure 20, Coefficient of drag at different angles of attack, produce using the SolidWorks CFD plug in
Figure 21, Typical drag graph (Clancy 1975)

2S
As well as obtaining this data, pressure on the surface of the aircraft was also obtained,
as can be seen in figure 22.

The above shows the aircraft with a simulated flow of 10m/s, the approximated cruise
speed. Using the corresponding legend, certain aspects of the design produce
unsurprising results, there is a pressure build-up on the leading edges of the wings and
there is low pressure on the upper surface of the wings. However the simulation shows
an unexpected build-up of pressure around the control surface inner edge on both wings
is most probably associated with turbulent flow due to the gap between the control
surface and the wing.

Figure 22, Surface pressure distribution around the aircraft.
Figure 23, Surface pressure around the aircraft

24
Similarly, the lower surface produces some very predictable simulated results, there is a
higher pressure, relative to the upper surface, and a similar unexpected build-up of high
pressure around the aileron control surface is evident and can be assumed to be because
of the same reason as the upper surface, the gap between the wing and the control
surface

As well as the pressure at the surface, airflow can be simulated by applying streamlines
to the simulation. This gave the team the advantage of understanding the way the air
would flow over the aircraft in flight. This tool was useful in determining any problems
with the design that might cause undesirable airflow over certain components of the
UAV.

Figure 24, Streamline over the starboard boom

Figure 24 shows a forward facing view of the rear of the starboard boom and the
corresponding wing root. From this image, it can be seen that the air flow approaching
the boom is deflected onto the wing and increases in pressure (Red) as it attaches to the
flow parallel to the boom. It can be noted that turbulence occurs towards the rear of the
rudder control surface, this is most likely due to the gap between the control surface and
the fuselage.


2S

Figure 25, Streamlines over the starboard wing
Around the wing it can be noted that the airflow is laminar and uniform, as to be
expected from a low speed ultra-small UAV. This gave the team the impression that this
wing design would be sufficient for the purpose.

Figure 26, Streamlines over the empennage
From the rearward facing view of the empennage, flow has been cropped to give the
impression of how the flow behaves around the tail. As with the previous orientation of
the boom, there is high pressure at the rear of the rudder sections. Unexpected flow at
the base of the boom surprised the team as it was not expected that the flow would
deviate from a parallel flow to a bulbous flow away from the surface. The team felt

26
that this would not be an issue and would not cause the aircraft to have any adverse
effects and therefore proceeded with the design

FEA

The team intended on using SolidWorks simulation, SolidWorks in-house FEA
software add on to simulate how the aircraft structure would behave ahead of concerns
on the integrity from the technical committee. The intention was to simulate if the wing
was able to withstand the forces and moments imposed on it by the lift produced and
whether the aircraft would be able to withstand gravity on these components as well as
determining if the booms were strong enough to withstand the force imparted on them
due to the moment produced by the elevator and rudders. There was also the intention
of investigating how much force could be put on the landing gear before failure to judge
how severe a landing the aircraft could withstand.

Unfortunately the use of this software feature could not be utilised, errors within the
program kept crashing the software making it impossible to run any kind of
simulation. Numerous attempts were made to apply some kind of analysis using this
method, however in the end; the team opted for a different approach. Considering the
UAV had such a low weight, the team assumed the aerodynamic forces on the aircraft
were not going to be greater than that that could be employed by human force. For this
reason, the team decided to experiment to see how much force the wings, wing root to
fuselage connection, booms and elevator could take. This method consisted of applying
a load to the assembly concerned and determining how much resistance the structure
imparted, the team judged that if it felt more than would be experienced in flight, the
aircraft would not disintegrate.



4. TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

Technical drawings representing the final design can be found in appendix 2.



5. MANUFACTURING PROCESS


Pre-Manufacture Preparations

Before any of the manufacturing could commence the group needed to make sure all of
their components were in the correct file format to use with the laser cutting machine.
This meant all of the individual components that were required to be cut out had to be
saved as a .DXF file in either SolidWorks or CATIA. As none of the group members
had any previous experience with the laser cutter a few members approached the laser

27
cutting technician in charge of the machines and he ran through the procedure;
explaining the steps to follow and covering any safety precautions.

Laser Cutting

The wood was received on 16/01/2013 and the cutting began immediately. Due to a lack
of time available in the lab the cutting out of components had to be finalised on the
morning of the 17
th
; meaning construction could begin that afternoon.


The laser cutting machine was very straight-forward to use; a simple drag and drop of
the components that were required, set the power of the laser (dependent upon the
thickness of the wood) and the set the machine running.

Gluing & Sanding

Following the cutting out of each component the assembly of the aircraft commenced.
The task was divided up into sections where two members worked on a wing each, one
member worked on the fuselage section and two members worked on sanding and
shaping components into their required shape (rudders, elevator, ailerons, tail booms
and other ribs that were rough). 1:1 scale drawings were used to assist the
manufacturing process for each assembly; placing the balsa upon the drawing and
aligning each component and then gluing in place using epoxy mixed with hardener to
secure.

Figure 28 Assemblies Glued and Sanded
The gluing, sanding and most of the construction were completed on 17/01/2013, ahead
of the Gantt chart (Appendix 3).

Electrical Wiring & Moving Components

The electrical parts (servos, surplus wire, motor, receiver, speed controller and
connectors) were received by the group on 21/01/2013 meaning they could be applied to
!"#$%& 1J A<KL<+&+,0 E-0&% A$,

28
the aircraft immediately. The first things to be wired up were the ailerons. This required
gluing the servos in position and threading the wire through the prefabricated holes in
the ribs. As the wires from the servos was not originally long enough to reach to the
location of the receiver they had to be extended, connectors were provided for this,
however they proved to be incredibly fiddly. Once the servos were in place the hinges
for the ailerons could be attached, along with the push rods to connect the servos and
ailerons, these required accurate lengths of steel rods to be cut to position the ailerons in
their neutral position.

Figure 29 Control Rod & Wing Wiring
Once the wings were wired attention was turned to the empennage; wiring and hinging
the rudders and elevator. After doing the same procedure to the ailerons this was
relatively straight forward; attaching the servos to the tail booms in their appropriate
locations and extending the wire back to the main body of the fuselage. Pre-made holes
in the booms meant that the elevator was attached simply. For the two rudders, small
notches needed to be cut to allow the hinges to fit whilst keeping the surface smooth,
ready for the application of the skin.

Figure 30 Components Wired & Hinged
The control rods for the elevator and rudders were attached next. The elevator rod was
straight forward; a vertical rod running straight from the servo to the elevator. The two
rudders however were slightly more complicated; they required one rod running from
the servo to the first rudder, and then a secondary rod running between the two rudders;
connecting them (shown in Figure 31).

29

Figure 31 Rudder and Elevator Connecting Rods
The final component to be attached before the attachment of the wings was the motor.
This required some unforeseen strengthening blocks to be attached to the nose of the
aircraft; the wires were then threaded through the pre-cut holes in the formers to their
desired location.

Wing Attachment

Once everything was wired and set in place the wings were attached. As the wings were
dihedral this meant setting them at the same angle, 2.5
o
. To achieve this, two small
wooden chocks of equal size were created for the wings to sit on. The wires from the
wings were threaded through the booms into the body of the fuselage; glue was then
applied to the connecting surfaces and held in place using tape, the wooden chocks
helped hold the wings in their position until the glue was set.

Figure 32 Wings Attached
Once the glue was set on the wings, the rest of the electrical components could all be
joined together; this meant gluing the receiver and speed controller in position and
wiring the servos into the receiver. As the two ailerons were being controlled by two
separate servos and there was only one port on the receiver dedicated for the ailerons;
meaning they needed to be wired together into one wire. This was done by intertwining
the exposed wire and using a connector. Due to the set-up of the servos it meant that
from the same current they would move in the same direction, this was not a problem as
the servos were positioned in a mirrored state to one-another. The elevator and rudders

Su
were threaded through small holes in the rear former, allowing them to pass through the
fuselage to the receiver at the nose of the aircraft (Figure 33).

Figure 33
Undercarriage

The undercarriage design required sections of wood to be cut for the brass rods to
connect. These sections of balsa were cut with a large surface area for the glue to have a
large contact region. These wooden sections were rounded and shaped to provide
minimal drag. The undercarriage design entailed two brass rods leaving the wooden
sections and passing through the centre of the wheel. Two rods were used to increase
the strength of the structure; they also provided more stability, as the triangular shape
was less likely to move out of position.

Figure 34 Undercarriage (Brass)
The rods first had the wheel threaded onto them and then bent into shape using pliers.
The ends that went into the balsa wood were glued into place and held until the glue had
set. The two rear wheels were shorter than the nose wheel by 1cm, giving the desired
angle of incidence, 3
0
.

Skinning Wings/Rudders/Elevator & Ailerons

Once all of the components were created and wired the skinning of most of the aircraft
could commence. The skin used was heat-shrink, this required an iron (at 140
o
C
180
o
C) to heat the material and shrink it to our desired shape. As none of the group
members had any previous experience with the heat shrink material research was done
to ensure it would be applied properly with minimal waste. The solid components were
done first to get used to the process of using the iron; the ailerons, elevator and rudders.

S1
The first step was to cut a piece of the heat shrink to the correct size so that it would fit
over one side on the component. The skin was then tacked to the balsa to hold it in
place; this was done by pressing the iron against the skin sticking it to the wood. The
iron is then used to seal the rest of the material to the wood, working from the middle of
the piece outwards; removing any wrinkles. The reverse side was done in the same
method, trimming any excess skin so the pieces met with minimal overlap.

Figure 35 Skinning Process
For the framed structures, such as the wings, research advised to first tack the skin at a
few places around the frame and then seal all the edges; leaving the rest to be shrunk
tight to the structure (RC Airplane Advisor, 2005). The upper and lower surfaces had to
be done in quick succession to make sure the skin didnt warp the structure of the wing
whilst it was being tightened.

Figure 36 Skinning Of Wings
The components that had their control rods already attached required some care when
skinning around the horn that attached them. To do this the skin was applied up to the
horn, then carefully cut and tacked around it. Once all components were skinned they
could be re-attached to the aircraft.

Figure 37 Skinned components
One major difference that the group found after the skin had been applied was the
strength of the structure of the aircraft had increased substantially.

Trimming & Controller Configuration

As the electrical wiring had been completed the group could take the aircraft to have it
set-up with the controller. This gave an opportunity to trim the control surfaces,
meaning they wouldnt move past their limit, potentially breaking the structure, or move
too much/too little to make the aircraft unstable. Several issues arose immediately, the
first one being that the connections to the elevator and ailerons were faulty. These were

S2
found as a when giving the controller an input the surfaces would not move until wires
were moved slightly. A second issue was that the motor was wired in backwards,
meaning the propeller was rotating the opposite way than required; this was a simple fix
as it just meant two wires were swapped.

Soldering & Re-Wiring

From the session configuring the aircraft and testing the electrical components, two wire
connections needed to be redone; the ailerons and elevator. Previously these were done
using the supplied connectors, however as these were difficult to connect and had
multiple exposed wires the group decided to progress by soldering the wires together;
covering the exposed wire in heat shrink tubes. This method proved to be much more
effective and worked well.

Meshing Fuselage

Once the group was satisfied that the electrical systems were all working and didnt
need any more adjusting, the mesh over the fuselage section could be constructed. This
required cutting small notches into the formers of the aircraft for small strips of balsa
wood to slot into. This mesh would be used to assist the skinning of the curved body,
along with providing additional structural strength to the fuselage.

Figure 38 Mesh Framework
During the process of waiting for the glue to dry on the mesh the access panel for the
camera was fabricated, this involved sanding the panel smooth, adding the hinges and
skinning it.

Undercarriage Attached

The undercarriage was the next component to be attached; they were glued with their
large surface area to the underside of the aircraft. Once the glue was set, the application
of skin was also used to secure the undercarriage.

SS

Figure 39 Undercarriage

Skinning Fuselage

The final piece of the aircraft could now be skinned; the fuselage. This was done using a
lot of smaller pieces of heat shrink; tacking them to the edge of the mesh and shrinking
down tight. This process was chosen over the use of much larger pieces as a large piece
would cause much bigger wrinkles and pockets of air, making the skin less smooth;
affecting the aerodynamics. Using smaller pieces proved to be very effective although
more time consuming.

Figure 40 Skinning the Fuselage

Flight Test #1

The first flight test took part on the 04/02/2013, (for more information, see Part B Flight
#1). Due to faults that occurred in the undercarriage substantial damage was cause to the
nose of the aircraft.

S4

Figure 41 Crash Damage
Because of this damage certain parts of the aircraft had to be fixed or changed.

New Elevator

The first change that took place following the crash was a much larger elevator was
created; to provide a larger pitching moment during take-off. This was manufactured in
the same was as with the smaller, original elevator. Firstly the component was laser cut
to the correct size, then sanded down to the desirable shape, it was then smoothed,
skinned and had the hinge mechanism reattached.

New Undercarriage Design

The second change the team decided upon was a new undercarriage set-up. From the
first flight test it was obvious that a common problem that occurred within most designs
was that the undercarriage wheels didnt roll evenly, causing the aircraft to rotate on the
ground. A second problem that was noticed was the devastating effects of a propeller
strike. To counter both of these problems a secondary design was created; skids. Skids
would theoretically provide an equal amount of friction; making it less likely to turn.
The skids were created in three parts, the outside pieces and the middle containing the
struts. All of these separate components were laser cut out, sanded and glued together.
The reason for having two outside pieces sandwiching the struts in the middle was for
added support and a larger surface area touching the ground. Once glued together the
skids were also skinned, this provided a smoother surface; causing less friction between
the aircraft and the ground on take-off.

Figure 42 Skids



SS
Re-mesh & Re-skinning

The final adjustments that needed to take place before the second flight test were re-
meshing the nose of the aircraft and re-skinning the same area. This was relatively
straight forwards, following the same method as initially used. Once this was done the
aircraft was ready for testing.

Figure 43 Finished Aircraft


































S6
6. SUMMERY SHEET


























Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design Test Data
Maximum take-off weight (kg) 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.55
Stall speed (m/s) 5.9 5.9 5.84
Rate of Climb (m/min) 918 870
Maximum speed (m/s) 22.4
Location of the CoG from rib 1 (mm) 88 91 118 122
Static Margin (m) 0.042 0.039 0.0125 0.008
Take-off speed (m/s) 6.5 6.5 7.4 6
Landing speed (m/s) 7.67 8.03
Stall Angle (deg) 11 12 12
Wing span (m) 1.2 1 0.999 0.998
Wing Surface area (m2) 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.1197
Aspect Ratio 8 6.7 6.7 6.7
Dihedral angle (deg) 2.5 2.5 2.5 4
Wing loading (N/m2) 71
Endurance (s) 144 144 360
Maximum range (m) 1448 1448 3621.6
Roll rate (deg/sec) 82.6
Combined Aileron Surface area (m
2
) 0.024
0.018 !"#$%
Elevator surface area (m
2
) 0.009
!"!!'( !"!#)
Combined rudder surface area (m
2
) 0.0024
0.03 !"!!(

S7
7. CONCLUSIONS

Seveial conclusions have been uiawn ovei the couise of this pioject. The uesign
piocess coulu have been impioveu by conuuction moie in uepth analysis. The
NatLab couing coulu have been impioveu to be moie useful, foi example in the
function that stateu if the aiiciaft coulu ietuin to hoiizontal flight it coulu be
uevelopeu to also give the time that it woulu take the aiiciaft to ietuin to this
position. Bau this been uone then peihaps changes woulu have been maue to
ueciease the twitchiness of the aiiciaft. Anothei aiea in which the gioup coulu
have impioveu was to cieate a finite element analysis (FEA) mouel in a uiffeient
piogiam, such as BypeiWoiks. This coulu have been useu to test uiffeient
stiuctuies in the aiiciaft; finuing how much loauing uiffeient aieas coulu
withstanu. Bau this been uone on the initial wiie unueicaiiiage then the gioup
coulu have solveu the buckling pioblem piioi to the ciash. The access panel foi the
aiiciaft pioveu to be flimsy anu uifficult to open anu close. Theiefoie a uiffeient,
moie iobust solution coulu be uevelopeu in futuie uesigns, with a moie usei
fiienuly latch foi opening anu closing. The CFB simulations anu calculations coulu
have been impioveu by using a moie complex piogiam to iun them, options
incluue 0penFoam. The use of this piogiam coulu have given moie accuiate
figuies foi the gioup to woik on anu theiefoie optimise the uesign.




























S8
REFERENCES


Alpha, W. (2010). Naca 2412. Available:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cl+naca
+2412. Last accessed 14/03/2013.

Clancy, L. J. (1975). Aerodynamics (Vol. 2).
London: Pitman.

Cook, P. (2012) Basic Guide To Model Aircraft
Design [online] available from <
http://www.modelflight.regheath.com/mf085/fly
docset.htm> [6 March 2013]

Coventry Aerospace [2012] Aircraft Design
Requirements & Constraints. Technical
Specification Requirements for Coventry
Aerospace UAV Programme, 2-5

CovUAV (n.d.) Executive Summary. Aircraft
Design Project Briefing, 1

Hepperle, M. (1996). Naca 2412. Available:
http://www.mh-
aerotools.de/airfoils/jf_applet.htm. Last
accessed 14/03/2013.

Jacobs, E. N., and Sherman, A. (1937) Airfoil
section characteristics as affected by variations
of the Reynolds number. National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics Report 586.

Kermode, A. C. (1996). Mechanics of Flight (10
ed.). (R. H. Philpott., Ed.) Longman

Lambert, D. C. (2010). Basic Aerodynamics 2.
Coventry, West Midlands, England: Coventry
University.
Mason, F. K. (1965) Aircraft Profile #48. De
Havilland Vampire [online] available from <
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/vampire.html>
[7 March 2013]

Mialon, B., and Hepperle, M. (2012) Flying
wing aerodynamics studies at ONERA and DLR
[online] available from
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/22858
0060_Flying_wing_aerodynamics_studies_at_O
NERA_and_DLR> [5 March 2013]

RC Airplane Advisor. (2005). Covering RC
Airplanes with Heat Shrink Plastic
Film. [online] Available: http://www.rc-
airplane-advisor.com/heat-shrink-covering.html.
[13 March 2013]

Roskam, J. (2002). Determination of stability
control and performance
characteristics. Airplane Design. 1 (7), 225.

Simons, M. (1994) Model Aircraft
Aerodynamics. 3rd edn. Herts: Argus

UIUC Applied Aerodynamics Group (2012)
UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database [online]
available from <http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-
selig/ads/coord_database.html> [10 March
2013]


















S9
APPENDICIES

Appendix 1

function [Safe] = SafetyFunction(V, AoAw, AoAe)
%Safety Function determines if the aircraft can return to horizontal
flight
% User inputs the values of airspeed & angle of attack of the
aircraft & % angle of the elevator (ranging from -15 to +15 degrees)
Dw = 0.0275;
CLw = [-0.709, -0.686, -0.652, -0.607, -0.553, -0.489, -0.416, -0.336,
-0.25, -0.16, -0.081, 0.038, 0.158, 0.279, 0.4, 0.52, 0.638, 0.756,
0.873, 0.988, 1.098, 1.205, 1.305, 1.392, 1.463, 1.518, 1.541, 1.352,
1.364, 1.365, 1.353];
De = 0.445;
CLe = [-1.118, -1.113, -1.096, -1.067, -1.026, -0.975,-0.913, -0.886,
-0.807, -0.705, -0.593, -0.478, -0.360, -0.24, -0.12, 0, 0.12, 0.24,
0.36, 0.478, 0.593, 0.705, 0.807, 0.886, 0.913, 0.975, 1.026, 1.067,
1.096, 1.113, 1.118];
i=16+AoAw;
j=16+AoAe;
Le = 0.5*CLe(j)*1.225*(V*V)*0.009;
Lw = 0.5*CLw(i)*1.225*(V*V)*0.15;
Me = Le*De;
Mw = Lw*Dw;
G=Me+Mw;
if AoAw >0
if(G > 0)
Safe = 'Yes';
end
if(G < 0)
Safe = 'No';
end
end
if AoAw < 0
if G >0
Safe = 'No';
end
if G <0
Safe = 'Yes';
end
end
end













Appendix 2 Technical Drawings

/3
SHEEI 1 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD001
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
SKlNNED CVEFVlEW

D/lNIFEE, F.
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 2 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD002
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
SKlNNED SlDE /ND FFCNI

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 3 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD003
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
SIFUCIUFE CVEFVlEW

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 4 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD004

FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11


SIFUCIUFE FFCNI & SlDE W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 5 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD005
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
SIFUCIUFE FL/N VlEW

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
3 5 7
8
11

2 4 1
10
12
/ SKlN CF SHEEI 8/LS/,
IHlCKNESS 3.175, WlLL 8E
FlIIED 8EIWEEN 1 /ND 2
/ND IHE SIFlNGEFS
1 lS lNCLlNED ICW/FDS
IHE FESI CF IHE WlNG 8Y
2.5 DEGFEES IC CFE/IE
IHE DlHEDF/L WlNG
FCFM/IlCN
15
18
17
1 14
13
lIem NumLer CcmpcnenI McIeric| Ihickne:: SheeI
1 FiL 1 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
2 FiL 2 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
3 FiL 2 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
4 FiL 1 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
5 FiL 3 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
FiL 3 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
7 FiL 1 SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
8 Wing Iip SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 8
/i|ercn Cc:ing SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 7
10 Irci|ing Ecge SheeI 8c|:c Mcx 5.44 7
11 /i|ercn SheeI 8c|:c Mcx 11. 12
12 Servc McunIing SheeI 8c|:c 3.175 7
13 Smc|| Semi SIringer Sucre 8c|:c 4.7 7
14 Smc|| SIringer Sucre 8c|:c 4.7 7
15 Mcin SIringer Sucre 8c|:c .35 7
1 Smc|| SIringer Sucre 8c|:c 4.7 7
17 Leccing Ecge Dcwe| 8c|:c 3.175 7
18 Mcin SIringer Sucre 8c|:c .35 7
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 3 CF 1 SC/LE:1:5
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/ED CIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
SI/F8C/FD WlNG
lS / FEFLECIlCN lN
IHE 'Y' /XlS
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD00
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
WlNG CVEFVlEW

181.15

1

4

370.45

.
3
5

370.45

4
.
7


187.50
184.33
4.7

1
2
.
5



1
2
.
0
7

3.18
5.44
370.45

3
.
1
8


4
.
7



3
.
1
8


5

.
3
3

57.55
LE/DlNG EDGE {Fcciu: cf 1.5)
M/lN SIFlNGEF {:ucre crc:: :ecIicn cf .35mm)
/lLEFCN C/SlNG
SEMl SM/LL SIFlNGEF {:ucre crc:: :ecIicn cf 4.7mm)
IF/lLlNG EDGE
SM/LL SIFlNGEF {:ucre crc:: :ecIicn cf 4.7mm)
WlNG SEFVC FL/IE
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 7 CF 1 SC/LE:1:1
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/IED CFIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD007
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
WlNG CCMFCNENIS

148.24
.35
4.7
4.7
.35
4.7

.
5
7


4

128.2

4

4.7
4.7
.35
4.7
.35
5.0
.35
.35
4.7
4.7

4


2
5


3
.
1
8

150
0.7 20
1.21

1
8

Fl8 1
Fl8 2
Fl8 3
WlNG IlF
NCIES:
/LL Fl8S /FE 8/SED CN Fl8 1 {8ELCW).
/LL Fl8S H/VE / IHlCNESS CF 3.175mm.
/LL Fl8S SH/FES /FE N/C/ 2412.
NCIES: DlHEDF/L /NGLE
WlNGS /FE /I /N /NGLE IC IHE FUSEL/GE IC CFE/IE DlHEDF/L
WlNGS. IC FCFM IHlS, F/FI 1 {Fl8 1) lS lNCLlNDED ICW/FDS IHE
FESI CF IHE WlNG 8Y 2.5 DEGFEES. IHE GUlDE C/N 8E USED
DUFlNG CCNSIFUCIlCN IC ENSUFE F/FI 1 lN /NGLED
CCFFECILY.
GUlDE
W/LICN, I
FE/FCE, C
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 8 CF 1 SC/LE:1:1
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/IED CIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/EFCFClL SH/FE lS 4412
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD008
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
WlNG CCMFCNENIS 2

1 2
3
4
5

10
8
7

11
12
lIEM NUM8EF CCMFCNEI M/IEFl/L IHlCKNESS SHEEI NUM8EF
1 I/lL 8CCM 8/LS/ SHEEI .35 10
2 I/lL 8CCM 8/LS/ SHEEI .35 10
3 FUSEL/GE 8/SE 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
4 FCFMEF 7 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 10
5 FCFMEF 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 10
FCFMEF 5 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
7 FCFMEF 4 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
8 FCFMEF 3 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
FCFMEF 2 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
10 FCFMEF 1 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 11
11 /CCESS F/NEL 8/LS/ SHEEI 3.175 10
12 MCICF SUFFCFI 8/LS/ 8LCCK 14 10
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/IED CIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD00
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
FUSEL/GE CVEFVlEW

50 75

1
5
.
2
8


3
5
.
1
5

200

1
0
.

2


2
2
.

0

30 .35

7
3

24
200
75

8


2
4
.

1


5

48

7
8
.
5
0

3.18

2
0

40

1
4


3
5

I/lL 8CCM
FCFMEF FCFMEF 7
/LL FCFMEFS H/VE / IHlCKNESS CF 3.175mm
/CCESS F/NEL
/LL EDGES /FE S/NDED IC / GENILE CUFVE
MCICF SUFFCFI
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 10 CF 1 SC/LE:1:2
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SI/IED
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD010
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
FUSEL/GE CCMFCNENIS

200
115.23
40

2

.
7
8


1
5
0


4
0


8
0

50

8
0

3.18
40
113.0
200

4.40

3
5


5
4
.
5
3

84.0

.4
7


4
7

82.08

3

.
4
0


5
8
.
8
0


4
1
.
1


140

1

.
4
0


5
0
.
5
0

200

5
.
7
1

50
13.2

3
5
.

2


2
7
.

3

FUSEL/GE 8/SE
FCFMEF 2 FCFMEF 1
FCFMEF 3
FCFMEF 4
FCFMEF 5
/LL FCFMEFS H/VE / IHlCKNESS CF 3.175mm
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 11 CF 1 SC/LE:1:2
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/IED CIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD011
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
FUSEL/GE CCMFCNENIS 2

0

2
8


11.
182.33

4



7
0

10
1

2
2
.
8



2
5
.

0

20
/XLE FCF
ELEV/ICF
MCVEMENI lS 2mm
Dl/MEIEF SIEEL
E|evcIcr
Fuccer:
/i|ercn
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 12 CF 1 SC/LE:1:1
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
8/LS/ WCCD UNLESS SI/IED CIHEFWlSE
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FlNlSH:
FD012
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
CCNIFCL SUFF/CES


15
3

1
1
3
4
5

.
1
2

303.0
145
2
2
lIEM NUM8EF CCMFCNEI M/IEFl/L IHlCKNESS SHEEI NUM8EF
1 CUIEF SK/IE MDF 3 14
2 SIFUI MDF 3 14
3 lNNEF SK/IE - 1 MDF 3 14
4 lNNEF SK/IE - 2 MDF 3 14
5 lNNEF SK/IE - 3 MDF 3 14
MCUNI 8/LS/ 14
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 13 CF 1 SC/LE:1:2
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
MDF cnc 8c|:c wccc
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD013
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
UNDEFC/FFl/GE CVEFVlEW

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
3

1
7
.

5

303.0
lNNEF SK/IE 2
lNNEF SK/IE 3
lNNEF SK/IE 1
3

1
0
8
.
0
7


1
7
.
7


3
3
153.25
13.5

1
7
.

5

3
104.81
8.85

1
7
.

5

M/lN SK/IE
SIFUI
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 14 CF 1 SC/LE:1:1
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
MDF cnc 8c|:c wccc
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD014
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
UNDEFC/FFl/GE CCMFCNENIS

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
1
2
7

5
3
4
1
1 1
lIEM CCMFCNEI NCIES
1 SEFVC g MlCFC SEFVC
2 8/IIEFY 800m/h 13V
3 MCICF
8FUSHLESS DC MCICF
2208 - 2200kv
4 FFCFELLEF 7 x E FFCF
5 FEClEVEF CH/NNEL 2.4Hz
SFEED CCNIFCLLEF
18/ 8FUSHLESS SFEED
CCNIFCLLEF 8EC 5V@2/
7 C/MEF/
VEHC VCC-003 MUVl
MlCFC DV C/MCCFDEF
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 15 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD015
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
CCMFCNENI LCC/IlCN

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
DEI/lL /LlEFCN
SC/LE 1 : 1
1
3
2
3
4
DEI/lL SI/F8C/FD
SC/LE 1 : 1
5
4
3
2
5
1
3
3
2
lIEM CCMFCNENIS NCIES
1 SEFVC HCFN
SlNGLE /FM SEFVC HCFN /S
SUFFLlED WlIH SEFVC
2 CCNIFCL FCD
M2 SIEEL FCD CUI IC SlZE FCF /
NEUIF/L FCSlIlCN
3 SN/F LlNK FL/SIlC M2 SN/F LlNK
4 HCFN
SI/ND/FD 1mm FL/SIlC
CCNIFCL SUFF/CE HCFN
5 HlNGE
MlNl K/V/N HlNGE
2mm x 11mm
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 1 CF 1 SC/LE:1:4
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD01
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
CCNFCL SUFF/CE
/CIU/IlCN MECH/NlSM

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
DEI/lL FCFI
SC/LE 1 : 1
4
2
3
4
5
5
1
3
2
3
DEI/lL /lLEFCN
SC/LE 1 : 2
11
11
1
3
NCIES:
lIEM N/MES /ND DEI/lLS C/N 8E
FCUND CN DWG NC. FD01
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 17 CF 1 SC/LE:1:4
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD017
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
CCNIFCL SUFF/CE
/CIU/IlCN MECH/NlSM 2

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
NCIES:
/ MESH CCNSIFUCIlCN C/N 8E USED IC /DD SIFENGIH IC IHE
FUSEL/GE /ND GlVE / L/FGEF SUFF/CE /FE/ IC /II/CH / SKlN.
IHE MESH lS CCNSIFUCIED FFCM 1mm IHlCK 8/LS/ SIFlFS
/FFFCXlM/IELY 3mm WlDE.
SIFlFS /FE FlIIED IC SlZE /ND EM8EDDED lNIC IHE Fl8S, LE/VlNG
/ SMCCIH SUFF/CE IC SKlN
WElGHI:
/3
SHEEI 18 CF 1 SC/LE:1:2
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
M/IEFl/L:
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD018
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
FUSEL/GE MESH

W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
1012.5

5
0
0

400
200

7

.
5
0

400

2
7
0
.
1


NCIES
IHE CENIFE CF GF/VlIY lS LCC/IED
122mm FFCM IHE NCSE CF IHE /lFCF/FI
W/LICN, I.
FE/FCE, C.
D/lNIFEE, F.
/3
SHEEI 1 CF 1 SC/LE:1:3
DWG NC.
IlILE:
FEVlSlCN DC NCI SC/LE DF/WlNG
D/IE SlGN/IUFE N/ME
DE8UF /ND
8FE/K SH/FF
EDGES
FlNlSH: UNLESS CIHEFWlSE SFEClFlED:
DlMENSlCNS /FE lN MlLLlMEIEFS
SUFF/CE FlNlSH:
ICLEF/NCES:
LlNE/F:
/NGUL/F:
/FFV'D
CHK'D
DF/WN
FD01
FlN/L DESlGN - M/NI/F/Y MK11
GENEF/L GECMEIFY


4u
Appendix 3






























Group Number: t+
Assignment:
Date:
316SE UAV Design Peer Assessment
You will need to get together as a group in this peer assessment. You have been given 100 marks and
you need to allocate these marks between all the group members. The criterion for the allocation of the
marks is how well each team member has contributed to the success of the overall project. These criteria
may include roles, jobs,
tasks, responsibilities, activities, helps, extra effort, technical aptitude, skills,
efficiency, effectiveness, etc., that each person has contributed to this project.
For example, if there are five members within the group and each have contributed equally to the project,
then each should be allocated 20 marks.
Name Mark Siqnature
Chri,*oohoc?.'c*
Lu-6
GV(va.
3h xarl(mve-
Z\+ Lr
t'GJq
R,ck^o}- O.-r,
^Y(@
z{6 Zfu
Shntn frtnnrr \\
t
W-L-
-1-h*
rnn \ il.ttn,,^,
\3.6
..'/--_*--
These allocated marks will be used to weight the overall project mark amongst all the team members to
arrive at a final individual project mark. You will need to get everyone within the group to agree with
the mark allocation by signing the peer assessment form.
tr"rt f-rg-rt
G)
r*/9zors
3165E
-
Aerospace Systems Design

41
PART B

42...FLIGHT TEST SCHEDULE
42.FLIGHT TEST 1
44.FLIGHT TEST 2
46.....FLIGHT TEST 3
49...CONCLUSION
































42
1. FLIGHT TEST SCHEDULE


For the flight test, the following parameters were to be recorded by the team for
analysis:
Take-off speed
Stall speed
Maximum speed
Landing speed
Roll rate
For calculating take off speed, the team decided to utilise a method of measuring speed
using a known distance combined with video evidence to determine the speed of the
aircraft. When the aircraft takes off, it is then just a case of using the distance the
aircraft travelled on the take off run and then using the time stamp on the video to
calculate the speed.
For determining the stall speed, the team came to the agreement that the best method for
determining the stall speed was to perform a series of stalls with a form of GPS (Global
Positioning System) device onboard the aircraft and using a similar method to the take
off speed, calculating the time it took the aircraft to travel a certain distance at the stall.
For investigating the maximum speed, V
ne
, the method of carrying an expensive GPS
device to record the distance seemed too risky a strategy, in case of a failure with the
aircraft. The aircraft was to be flown to its maximum altitude and put in a safe dive at
full speed and then levelling out at approximately 10ft. Using a similar method to the
take off speed, markings set at a known distance and measuring the time it took to pass
between the markings, the maximum speed could be found.
The groups approach to recording the roll rate was done by timing the period from
rolling the aircraft 30
O
port to 30
O
starboard. This would give a roll of 60
O
that would
allow the team to accurately time how long it would take to roll then converting it into
O
/s.


2. FLIGHT TEST 1


The first test was conducted in an enclosed environment, with a width of no more than
15 metres. It was decided that the area of the enclosed area was too small for the aircraft
to be controlled successfully in full flight. As a result, the group wanted to use the test
to ensure all components and systems where working correctly, assess the
controllability of the aircraft during taxiing and tentatively test some of the flight
abilities by conducting simple hops. As a result of thorough fault finding and testing
conducted during manufacturing, all electrical systems where found to be in perfect
working order.


4S
However problems soon arose when the group began to taxi the aircraft. It became clear
that the uneven rolling resistance between each wheel caused a total lack of control
when on the ground. The aircraft was unable to travel forwards without deviating either
to the left or the right.

Despite these problems, the group attempted to perform a small hop off the ground, to
measure the take-off speed. Due to the confined space, the aircraft was held in place
while the throttle was opened, as inline with short take-off procedures. The aircraft was
then released, which enabled it to accelerate quickly. However this quick acceleration
highlighted some fundamental flaws with the undercarriage design. Figure 44 shows
this test flight, frame by frame. It can be seen, that due to the greater resistance suffered
by the left rear wheel, the aircraft turned to port. This resulted in the aircraft entering a
sharp bank, allowing the port wing tip to come into contact with the ground.

Frame 3 shows the aircraft at a decidedly nose down attitude, with the elevator raised
significantly higher than the fuselage. If pilot error is to be ruled out, the only
conclusion that the group could draw was that the elevator was not effective enough to
recover from this position. At 0.9 seconds the force exerted on the nose undercarriage
exceeds its maximum-loading capabilities, causing it to buckle. Figure 45 shows the
extent of the damage to the nose wheel undercarriage. The reduction in ground
clearance and the extremely nose down attitude led to the propeller striking the ground,
causing catastrophic damage to the motor mount, electrical systems, fuselage skin and
the structure forming the nose of the aircraft.
Frame 1 (T=0s) Frame 2 (T=0.3s) Frame 3 (T=0.6s)
Frame 4 (T=0.9s) Frame 5 (T=1.2s) Frame 6 (T=1.5s)
Figure 44, Frame by Frame of flight test 1

44


Although the aircraft never managed to achieve flight, the group was still able to learn
from the test. It was obvious that a new and improved undercarriage design was
required, that would be stronger, allow for easier and more predictable control when
taxiing and provide a safe guard against a propeller strike. For these reasons, a skid
arrangement was design. As the contact area with the ground would be the same on both
skids, the resistance to motion would be the same for both. The skids where also design
to extend beyond the propeller, so even when the aircraft was pointing nose down, the
propeller was protected by the front of the skids. Due to the power of the motor and the
smooth surface from which the aircraft would be operated from, it wasnt thought that
there would be a significant increase in total resistance when taxiing or taking-off.

As a result of the perceived ineffectiveness of the elevator, an elevator with a larger
surface area was designed. The chord was simply extended, which would enable the
elevator to produce greater forces, but still allowed to be operated and attached in the
same manor as the original design.


3. FLIGHT TEST 2


Flight test 2 was the first flight outdoors after the specification had been changed, due to
a large enough venue not being able to be reserved. There were many more factors that
would affect the aircraft in flight due to outdoor conditions, such as; cross winds and
gusts that could dramatically alter the performance and flight dynamics of the aircraft.

Figure 46 UAV Take-Off
Figure 45, Nose undercarriage damage
after flight test 1

4S

Figure 47
Figure 47 shows the maximum altitude that the UAV reached. It was just before this
moment when the aircraft had to counter the steep take-off angle by trying to level out
with the use of the elevator, creating a positive pitching moment.


Figure 48
The aircraft was able to change the pitch rapidly, meaning the pilot had little time to
respond to the alterations in the UAV's pitch; this is why the aircraft managed to rotate
into an inverted position, shown above in figure 48.

!"#$%& 9M
The snapshots above are taken at points within the flight where the pilot inputted the
movement of the elevator to counter the half front flip that had previously been induced.
The aircraft was then able to recover from the manoeuvre, levelling out. It shows how
the rate of change of pitch angle is very large, although it was later described to the
group that the sensitivity of the angle of attack of the elevator was too fine for the pilot
to control the aircraft. The sensitivity of the control surfaces was altered before the next
flight test to try and improve on this aspect of the flight, improving the longitudinal
stability.


46

!"#$%& :N
Figure 50 shows the aircraft just as it was coming into land on the skates and one wing,
at a high speed and steep angle. Upon landing, the structure of the starboard wing was
perfectly intact; it was only the glue binding the rib closest to the fuselage that failed.
The glue holding the wing to the fuselage was not expected to keep them attached at
such a high force on the wing tip. It was fortunate that the glue gave was more
cataclysmic structural damage to the wing could have occurred; increasing time spent
on repairs. Along with the wing breaking off from the fuselage the front part of the
skates also broke off. Although part of the skates were no longer structurally intact they
served their purpose of allowing the aircraft to taxi smoothly, in a straight line and
dissipate any possible impacts from the nose of the aircraft so that the main body and
components remained safe. One of the rear booms also cracked from the impact of
landing. (See flight test #3 for how the booms were strengthened).

!"#$%& :(
Due to the small flight time and forced landing/crash, it was unable to record any sort of
flight data. Further analysis was unable to be obtained from the flight due to a lack in
the video footage quality; this needed to be improved on for flight test #3.


4. FLIGHT TEST 3


The final day of flying the aircraft occurred on 04/03/2013, by this date the aircraft had
been fully restored. The only structural change that had been made was the inclusion of
two steel strengthening rods running along the twin tail booms, as the pilot mentioned
from the previous test that the problem was in the sensitivity in the elevator, therefore
the trimming of the elevator had been adjusted by the pilot himself, to his preferences.
During the initial test of the systems the pilot noticed a small flutter in the starboard
aileron when the throttle was increased. This was a bizarre thing to occur and the pilot
(who has considerable experience flying model aircraft) had never seen this before. The

47
group suspect that the flutter is caused by a fault in the receiver that may have been
caused by a prior crash. The fault is suspected to be in the receiver as that is the only
place the throttle and aileron wires get close to one another. A small section of the skin
was removed to check the connections and everything seemed to be in order, this
baffled the group as to what caused the flutter. As the pilot did not want to risk the
flutter occurring during the flight and had experience flying an aircraft with one aileron
before, the connecting rod for the starboard aileron was disconnected and the aileron
was taped into place.

!"#$%& :1 O-?&3<== G2$%-,"<+ (0&>I
Figure 52 displays the take-off of the first flight attempt, the aircraft climbed very
quickly to a height of approximately 4m at which point the pilot adjusted the elevator to
level out, however the controls were still too twitchy, causing the aircraft to nose
down and, without enough time to correct the manoeuvre, hit the floor. Figure 53 shows
the crash. After checking with the pilot about what went wrong he stated that the
trimming of the elevator had been too much, meaning he was unable to level out before
the ground collision.

Figure 53 Crash (Duration 2secs)
As this was the last day available for the group to test the aircraft a quick fix was made
on the nose of the aircraft to restore the shape and hold it together in hope of a second
attempt of flight, figure 54 displays this change.

Figure 54 Crash Damage & Repair
Following the quick repairs the aircraft was ready to be tested again, the camera was
loaded into the access panel, the elevator was given more movement and it set off. The
second flight attempt was very similar to that from Flight #2 two weeks earlier, the
aircraft pitch up vertically then nosing forwards due to a correction from the pilot, then

48
violently pitching backwards. This displayed that the elevator was definitely big enough
to restore the aircraft to horizontal flight at any angle of attack, however reacted far too
quickly for the pilot to have any real control over it.

Figure 55 Second Flight (Duration 4secs)
Fortunately the aircraft landed on its undercarriage on the second flight attempt, this
meant minimal damage was sustained, only two small parts of the undercarriage broke
off, this was easily repaired using tape. The undercarriage here did exactly what it had
been designed to do; protecting the propeller from a fatal strike.

Figure 56 Repairs
As the aircraft was still in working order, and the group was persistent to try and get
some reasonable data from a flight, a third attempt took place. This attempt was
monumentally more successful that the previous flight attempts. As shown in figure 57
a small hop was achieved, taking the aircraft 2 feet off the ground before landing
smoothly. Despite not flying over the reconnaissance boxes or performing any
maneuvers, some measurements could be taken. The take-off speed was possible to
calculate. From the video footage the aircraft passes clearly marked lines on the hockey
pitch Astroturf, these lines were exactly 12m meters apart and the aircraft took two
seconds to pass from the first one to taking off at the final one, by averaging this, the
take-off speed can be found to be 6m/s.

Figure 57 Small Hop (Duration 2secs)
As no damage was inflicted on the aircraft at all from the third flight attempt, a more
ambitious attempt was taken. This fourth and final attempt of the day was catastrophic
(Figure 58). The aircraft took off as before in a vertical fashion, once it reached an
approximate height of 8 meters the aircraft nosed forward to level out, however, as
before it pitched too much heading straight for the ground. In this attempt there was no
correctional pitch and a direct nose collision with the ground occurred, this was

49
devastating to the aircraft, the motor had broken along with crumpling the structure in
the nose.

Figure 58 Final Flight Attempt (Duration 3secs)


5. CONCLUSIONS



As it was obvious no further flight attempts were an option the group spoke to the pilot
to find out exactly what had gone wrong and what could be improved to give a more
successful performance. The main issue that arose was the length of the twin tail booms,
the pilot suggested that if these were extended then he would have a longer reaction
time to correct any maneuvers. He admitted that the crashes were a mixture of pilot
error and error within the aircraft; his reactions perhaps not being quick enough and a
far too quick reaction time from the aircraft itself.

From the Cooper-Harper rating chart the aircraft receives a 10 (McLean, 1990). It
receives this rating due to major deficiencies and control being lost during the required
operation.

If this task was to be repeated in the future changes that would be make include;
lengthening the twin booms, following the advice given from the pilot, having larger
rudders; although these were never used to test them, the group feel they were too small
to provide any significant movement. The chord length of the wing could also be
increase. This would enable the aircraft to fly at slower airspeeds; ensuring more
control.


REFERENCES


NcLean, B (199u). !"#$%&#'( *+',-# .$/#0$+ 123#4%3. Beitfoiushiie: Pientice Ball Inteinational (0K)
Ltu. p1S4-1SS.