28 views

Uploaded by dinhanhbao

reref

- CFD Analysis of Delta Winged Aircraft – A Review
- AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM FOR SST WING-BODY CONFIGURATION
- lecture22.pdf
- Design Data Sheet (10 2015)
- Mekanik Deney 1
- Divergence_of_Airfoils.pdf
- Background and Theory Flow Pass a Circular Cylinderdocx
- ENERGY MANVRTY.pdf
- Can Anyone Explain the Area Used in Drag Coefficient
- Basic Aerodynamics Terms
- AE1110x 3b Slides
- final complete doc
- LA-oct-2010
- Full-Configuration Drag Estimation
- JT QB -1 (Previous Times Questions) (2)
- 746619_fulltext01
- 3618
- Harvesting the Wind
- Motion Problems
- A car

You are on page 1of 119

AAE451

THIOKOL FINAL DESIGN REPORT

10/31/06

Team 2

Chris Selby

Jesse Jones

Xing Huang

Tara Trafton

Matt Negilski

Neelam Datta

Ashley Brawner

Michael Palumbo

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter 1: Introduction..........................................................................

2

Chapter 2: Aerodynamics .....................................................................

3

3

2.1 Drag Model.................................................................................

4

2.2 Lift Model....................................................................................

4

2.3 Design Parameters Selection.....................................................

4

2.3.1 Taper Ratio.........................................................................

4

2.3.2 Main Wing Airfoil Selection.................................................

5

2.3.3 Tail Airfoil Selection............................................................

6

2.3.4 Dual Boom Design Affect....................................................

2.3.5 Wing Planform....................................................................

7

7

2.3.6 Aspect Ratio........................................................................

Chapter 3: Propulsion............................................................................

9

Chapter 4: Dynamics and Controls........................................................ 14

4.1 Tail Sizing................................................................................... 14

4.2 Control Surface Sizing................................................................ 16

4.3 Static Stability............................................................................. 16

4.4 Trim Analysis.............................................................................. 17

4.5 Feedback Control System........................................................... 18

Chapter 5: Structures and Weights........................................................ 20

5.1 Introduction................................................................................. 20

5.2 Load Factor................................................................................. 20

5.3 Wing Analysis and Design.......................................................... 21

5.3.1 Bending Analysis................................................................ 21

5.3.2 Twisting Analysis................................................................ 22

5.3.3 Final Wing Design and Construction Method...................... 22

5.4 Fuselage and Tail Design........................................................... 23

5.5 Catia Model................................................................................. 23

Chapter 6: Conclusion 24

Chapter 7: Lessons Learned and Vehicle Summary............................. 25

7.1 Flight Test................................................................................... 25

7.2 Propulsion System.. 26

7.3 Structures. 27

7.4 Design Suggestions 28

ii

Appendix A............................................................................................. 29

Appendix of Code............................................................................. 30

Appendix B............................................................................................. 34

List of Symbols.................................................................................. 35

Appendix of Equations...................................................................... 36

Appendix of Figures.......................................................................... 38

Lifting Line Derivation....................................................................... 42

Appendix of Code............................................................................. 43

Appendix C............................................................................................ 50

Appendix of Tables........................................................................... 51

Appendix of Figures.......................................................................... 53

List of Symbols.................................................................................. 56

Appendix of Equations...................................................................... 57

Appendix of Code............................................................................. 58

Appendix D............................................................................................ 65

List of Symbols.................................................................................. 66

Tail Sizing......................................................................................... 68

Static Stability Derivatives................................................................. 72

Trim Diagram Equations and MATLAB Code................................. 72

Feedback Control System................................................................. 77

Appendix of Code............................................................................. 79

Appendix E............................................................................................. 83

Appendix of Equations...................................................................... 84

Appendix of Figures.......................................................................... 85

V-n Diagram Walk-through............................................................... 91

Comparison of Exact Airfoil Structural Properties with Elliptic

Approximation................................................................................... 92

Center of Gravity............................................................................... 93

Appendix of Tables........................................................................... 94

Internal Layout of TFM-2.. 95

Appendix of Code............................................................................. 96

Appendix F... 112

Basic_Constants.m [updated]. 113

iii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Abstract

This mission called for the design of a high-speed aerial vehicle in the form of a remotecontrolled aircraft. There were two missions that the aircraft was required to perform. The first was

considered the design mission. This mission required the aircraft to takeoff, climb to an altitude of

20 feet, dash at high-speed for 500 feet, loiter for five minutes and return home at an economical

speed. The second mission was to demonstrate an aircraft endurance of seven minutes. Several

constraints were placed on the design. The first constraint was that the flight was outdoors,

typically the senior design aircrafts are flown indoors at Mollenkopf (a Purdue athletic facility).

Secondly, an area for payload must be incorporated and allow for a volume of 30 in3 with a weight

of one pound. The aircraft was required to use an electric motor (battery powered) within a budget

of $185. The aircraft was also constrained to have a Dutch roll mode damping ratio of at least 0.8.

This constraint also required that if a feedback controller was needed, that the feedback control

system used implement two feedback gains (off and nominal) which were selectable by the pilot.

The aircraft was also required to have four distinct performance properties. They were a take-off

distance of less than 120 feet, take-off with minimum climb angle of 35 degrees, descent angle of

5.5 degrees, and stall velocity of at least 30 ft/sec. In addition to meeting these constraints, the

aircraft must also be robust to crashes. The final constraint was implemented through the budget

of $250. This amount did not include radio-control gear, speed controller, and rate gyro.

The mission specifications for this aircraft were required to be completed in 14 weeks. The

design process was set to have an 11 week period and the build and test process set to 3 weeks.

Design Summary

Design Specifications

Total length (in)

53.24

Wing span (ft)

60

Wing root chord (in)

16.47

Wing tip chord (in)

7.42

Tail span (in)

18

Tail height (in)

6

Weight (lbf)

5.5

Stall speed (ft/sec)

30

Top speed (ft/sec)

107

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

For initial sizing purposes a constraint diagram was constructed. The constraint diagram

shown as figure 1.1, shows the optimism of the group early in the design process. For this diagram

the cruise speed was estimated at 150 ft/sec. The constraint diagram provided an estimation of

the power loading and wing loading. The design point was found to have a wing loading of 1.26

lbf/ft2 and power loading of 3.0 lbf/hp. This corresponded to a desired horsepower of 1.8. Also the

wing area was estimated at 4.3 ft2. In addition to building a constraint diagram, the weight of the

aircraft was also estimated. The initial weight was estimated at 5.42 pounds using the MATLAB

code in Appendix A. Initial sizing was found to be a useful starting point for the design process.

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

2.1 Drag Model

The mathematical models used to model the lift and drag forces are nondimensionalized

by the lift and drag coefficients. These coefficients are presented below for clarity.

L

D

CL

CD

1

1

V2 S

V2 S

2

2

Lift Coefficient

Drag Coefficient

The method chosen for estimating the drag polar of the entire aircraft comes from L.

Nicolai, references 1 and 2. This method was chosen because it outlined both a viscous drag

model and a laminar drag model in more detail than the usual parabolic drag model. Nicolai

approximates the drag using equation 2.11. This takes into account that having a cambered airfoil

will generate its minimum drag as some non-zero value of CL.

The different K and K values are the inviscid and viscous drag factors respectively. K is

the familiar term defined in equation 2.12. The K term is not as simply defined as K. The viscous

drag factor is defined from the 2D airfoil section data because in 2D, drag-due-to-lift can be

neglected. The assumptions made are that CL,min Cl,min where CL,min and Cl,min are the lift

coefficient and section lift coefficient at minimum drag respectively. To find K, the value of (ClCl,min)2 is plotted against Cd. The relationship is almost linear as shown in figure 2.11. The slope of

a linear fit to the lower range of (Cl-Cl,min)2 was taken as K because the aircraft will be operating at

these lower sectional lift coefficients for high speed flight.

A drag build-up method was used to compute the minimum/parasite drag. This method is

outlined in the book by D. Raymer, reference 3 Chapter 12, and in the white paper by Nicolai,

reference 1. This method estimates the subsonic parasite drag of each aircraft component by

modeling each component as a flat-plate. The flat-plate has a know skin-friction drag coefficient

and a component form factor is added to the flat-plate estimation. The form factor estimates the

pressure drag due to viscous separation. An interference effect is used on components such as

the fuselage for the fuselage/wing interface. Equation 2.13 below is taken from Raymer, equation

12.24 and shows the calculation for the estimation of CD,min. The flat-plate skin friction coefficients

are a function of the local Reynolds number. The turbulent and laminar skin friction coefficients are

modeled in the Nicolai white paper, figure 3 reference 1. The figure is reproduced in figure 2.12.

Using the characteristic length of each component, a local Reynolds number can be found

and the component skin friction coefficient can be computed. Then, the component form factor is

applied along with any interference effects. Other terms not shown in equation 2.13 are the

various fudge factors described in Raymer, Chapter 12 reference 3. For example, Raymer

suggests a form factor about 10% higher than the one described in his text for a tail surface with a

hinged rudder. So, the tail surface would have and extra 1.10 factor multiplying the other drag

component terms such as Cf,c, FFc, Qc, and Swet,c. Once the individual drag components are

computed, they are added together and divided by the reference area which is taken to be the wing

planform area.

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

The lift coefficient model is taken from Roskam, reference 4, who expresses the lift

coefficient as equation 2.21. A Matlab code call FlatEarth.m solves for the coefficients in

equation 2.21 using Roskams definitions defined in equations 2.22-25.

The stall speed requirement determines the CL,max needed for steady level flight. At stead

level flight lift is equal to the weight of the aircraft. CL,max can be determined by setting the lift

equal the weight and substituting Vstall as V into the definition of CL. A similar procedure can be

done to find CL,min for steady level flight but instead substituting Vmax as V. These two lift

coefficients are thus set by the mission requirements and the design speed and are shown in

equations 2.26 and 2.27.

The conversion between 2D and 3D CL,max was taken from Raymer reference 3 and is

shown in equation 2.28. The structures and the aerodynamics team decided that a quarter chord

sweep of 0 degrees was best. This decision produced simplifications in the computations for both

teams. The conversion between 2D and 3D CL,min was found through lifting line theory. The

simplifying assumption made was that the lift distribution was elliptical. This is desired because the

induced drag is minimized with an elliptic lift distribution as proven by Prandtl. Also, this greatly

simplifies the derivation for the lifting line theory results. In the end, the results of lifting lift theory

predicts equation 2.29. The derivation of the lifting line theory is presented in Appendix B: Lifting

Line Derivation. Equation 2.29 was used to find the 2D Cl,min. This value was then used as a

parameter for airfoil selection.

The method used to determine the CL,max due to the flaps comes from Nicolai reference 2.

The mathematical model used to represent CL,max is shown in equation 2.210. The CL,max in

equation 2.210 is the change in CL,max due to flaps and is determined by equation 2.211 where K

is an empirical sweep correction found from equation 2.212.

An example on how to use these equations is presented for clarity. Assuming that the

weight of the aircraft is 5.5 lbf, the planform is 4.75 ft2, the design speed is 92 ft/sec, and an aspect

ratio of 5, CL,max needs to be at least 1.04 from equation 2.26. A clean wing with a NACA 1408

airfoil will produce a CL,max of 0.847. Thus, at this speed a CL,max of 0.193 is needed for steady

level flight. With the chord of the flaps configured at 20% MAC and a flap deflection of 30, Cl,max

is about 1. Solving equation 2.211 for SWF sizes the span of the flaps. SWF will have to be a

minimum of about 1 ft2. This means that each of the two flapperons on the wing must affect about

0.5 ft2. This also means that the span of each flap must be a little over 0.5 ft since the mean chord

is approximately 1 ft.

2.3 Design Parameters Selection

2.3.1 Taper Ratio

A taper ratio of 0.45 was recommended by Raymer, reference 3 Chapter 4. This taper

ratio is shown through the use of lifting line theory to most accurately produce an elliptical lift

distribution along the wing with a drag-due-to-lift less than 1% higher than the ideal. Prandtl

proved in the early 20th century that elliptical lift distribution produces the least amount of induced

drag. Reducing the drag on the aircraft by using a 0.45 taper ratio will decrease the thrust required

for all speeds, allowing a greater maximum speed.

2.3.2 Main Wing Airfoil Selection

After some preliminary mission analysis, it became evident that the high speed dash

design point would be the most constraining aspect for the airfoil selection. Stated differently, a

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

high speed wing which has low lift and low drag can use flaps to achieve higher lift coefficients for

the stall constraint. However, a high lift airfoil cant easily be modified to achieve minimal drag at

small lift coefficients. Additionally, the loiter and economic cruise requirements will likely be

irrelevant, as a power plant sized for the high speed mission should have more than enough

energy to meet the endurance requirements of the loiter and economic cruise on a separate run.

Having set the high speed cruise condition as the primary design point, the task was to find

an airfoil with minimal drag in the range of Cl,min calculated using equation 2.27. There are,

seemingly, an endless number of airfoils to choose from; and there isnt time to analyze them all.

In the end, several NACA 4-series airfoils were analyzed as they are a staple of aerodynamics and

plenty of experimental data is available for them. Also, a NACA 6-series airfoil was examined for

similar reasons to the above but also due to its design for high speed / low drag. The Martin

Hepperle series of airfoils were examined as likely candidates because many of them are designed

for model pylon racer airplanes, which share the low Reynolds number high speed mission of this

design. Finally, the team also made an effort to create an R.T. Jones type airfoil that would meet

the design needs. The R.T. Jones airfoil design was conducted utilizing a code created by Dr. J.

Sullivan, Professor, Purdue University. To ascertain the performance behavior of these various

airfoils, an airfoil design tool called XFOIL (created by Mark Drela) was utilized. The viscous

subroutine of XFOIL was utilized for these calculations with the following parameters.

Table 2.31: XFOIL viscous parameter identification

Reynolds Numer

500,000

Mach Number

0.15

9

e

Transition Criterion

The XFOIL results for some of the more likely candidates are seen in figure 2.31 in Appendix B.

As can be seen in this figure, there were several airfoils that met the design requirements. After

discussion of the XFOIL results and prospective airfoils, it was decided that the NACA 1408 would

be the chosen airfoil for the main wing. This decision was based on the NACA 1408s drag bucket

aligning most closely with the aircrafts high speed lift coefficient range, as well as the abundance

of experimental data available for the airfoil. The experimental data was expected to be crucial in

determining a dependable Cl,max value.

2.3.3 Tail Airfoil Selection

Keeping with the theme of designing for high speed cruise, the primary consideration for

tail airfoil selection was to minimize drag. Some aircraft designs utilize a lifting horizontal tail

section to more efficiently counter thrust and loading moments or to supplement the lift of the main

wing. However for the sake of simplicity, as a result of the infant condition of the loading and thrust

designs, and under the presumption that the loading and propulsion design would attempt to

minimize the moments at the high speed cruise condition, the horizontal tail section was

predetermined to be symmetric. As is usually the case, the vertical tail was also predetermined to

be symmetric. One other significant constraint on the tail airfoil selection is that they had to be

thick enough for structural and manufacturability purposes. The aerodynamics of drag would

dictate an extremely thin airfoil at zero angle of attack, but this would lead to a wing that was

impossible to manufacture and/or structurally inadequate.

Using rough geometric scaling, a preliminary chord estimate of six inches was agreed

upon for the tail sections; and after consulting with the structures design group, a minimum

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

thickness of 6% was established implying a thickness of less than half an inch. From this point, the

strategy was to analyze the drag performance of various symmetric airfoils.

The obvious candidates for symmetric airfoils around 6% thicknesses were the NACA

0006, 0007, and 0008. The team also made an effort to create an R.T. Jones type airfoil that

would meet the design needs. The R.T. Jones airfoil design was conducted utilizing a code

created by Dr. J. Sullivan, Professor, Purdue University. Drag behavior of the various candidate

airfoils were again calculated using XFOIL. The viscous subroutine of XFOIL was utilized for these

calculations with the parameters listed in table 2.31. The calculations from XFOIL are plotted in

Appendix B as figure 2.31 and figure 2.32. Figure 2.32 is simply a close-up of the smaller angles of

attack.

A first attempt was to make the vertical tail and horizontal tails flat plates. Upon analyzing

this configuration in XFOIL, the flat plate was discovered to have enormous drag penalties

compared to the other airfoils being tested as seen in Appendix B, figure 2.33. The next

consideration was discerning the likely angle of attack range for the tail sections at the high speed

cruise condition. It was determined that the vertical tail should be relatively easy to attach to the

aircraft at a fairly accurate zero angle of attack. Also, there should be no significant steady state

forces or moments that would drive the vertical tail from zero degrees angle of attack. In fact, zero

degrees angle of attack should represent a stable equilibrium for the vertical tail. This implies that

the best airfoil for the vertical tail is the one with the least drag at very small angles of attack which

is arbitrarily chosen to be less than 2. Figure 2.32 shows that the NACA 0006 airfoil and the

Jones (6.8%) best met this criteria. The NACA 0006 airfoil was chosen because again, there is a

plethora of NACA airfoil data available.

The horizontal tail required some alternative considerations. The first consideration is that

from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult to mount the horizontal tail precisely at zero

degrees angle of attack due to the lack of a well defined longitudinal axis. Also, due to the

likelihood of unbalanced wing and loading moments at the high speed cruise condition, the

horizontal tail would probably have an incidence at some small angle of attack other than zero and

at most 5 degrees. For this reason it was desired that the horizontal tail section have a low drag

coefficient over a range of angles of attack. Again, looking at the XFOIL results in Appendix B,

figure 2.32, it is apparent that the Jones (8%) was the best choice for the horizontal tail. The R.T.

Jones / Joukowski parameters that define this airfoil are presented below in table 2.32.

Table 2.32: Jones (8%) Airfoil Definition Parameters

Parameter

Value

xc

-0.0617

yc

0

xt

1

yt

0

The horizontal tail span was set due to a rather unconventional requirement. The aircraft

configuration utilizes a dual boom tail with the booms connecting to the main wing. Thus, the span

of the tail affects the main wings flapped area. Specifically, having flaperons inboard and outboard

of the boom mounting locations would be mechanically more complex and likely cause more

interference drag than added lift. The picture at the end of this sub-section illustrates this

unconventional layout and dual boom affect on flapped area.

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

Since the main wing section has minimal camber, a large CL,max will be required of the

flaps. Having a large tail span will limit the span of the flaps due to the boom mounting. On the

other end, having a tail span that is relatively small will decrease the control authority of the

horizontal tail and also cause interference drag between the booms and the fuselage as illustrated

in figure 2.34. After consulting with the dynamics and controls group and performing some

preliminary calculations on tail sizing, the horizontal tail span was set at 18 inches. The

dimensions of the vertical tail as well as the area of the horizontal tail were determined via

dynamics and control considerations discussed later in the Dynamics and Control Chapter of this

report.

Interference drag

The wing planform was first determined from initial sizing. From the initial sizing of the

aircraft, a wing loading was determined. An overall weight of the aircraft was then guessed and

from the wing loading, a planform area of the wing was found. The final sizing of the planform was

calculated from equation 2.31. The final planform was found based on updated weight estimates,

the value of CL,max that the wing and flap system could obtain, and the stall speed mission

requirement.

2.3.6 Aspect Ratio

In surveying several sources of relevant literature, two values are found to be directly

related to AR. The simplest of these is the relationship between AR and induced drag. Induced

drag is often modeled according to equation 2.32. As seen from equation 2.32, the induced

component of drag increases with aspect ratio for a given lift coefficient. The next relationship is

with parasite drag which is defined as CD,min in equation 2.13. At first glance, equation 2.13 does

not appear to provide a relation with AR. However, the flat plate skin friction coefficient model is

purely a function of Reynolds number seen in figure 2.12 of Appendix B; and Reynolds number is

a function of the characteristic length. For the case of a wing, this characteristic length is the

chord. This means that for a given planform area, changing aspect ratio directly affects the friction

coefficient of the wing. Since the wing is the largest single component in terms of wetted area of

Chapter 2: AERODYNAMICS

the aircraft, this effect is significant. Using the above description of CD,min, equation 2.13 can be

rewritten as equation 2.33. In this equation, c is inversely proportional to AR and friction coefficient

is inversely proportional to Reynolds number and the rest of the terms are directly proportional.

This leaves CD,min to be positively correlated with aspect ratio.

At this step, the equations show that induced drag decreases with AR and increases with

lift coefficient, while parasite drag decreases with AR. Since total drag is the sum of these two

drag types, there is no clear answer to what the best AR is for an aircraft. Using drag as a

measure of merit for an aspect ratio trade study, the primary variables of interest are AR and lift

coefficient. This means that an expression is needed for CD in terms of CL and AR. In equation

2.32, Oswalds efficiency factor presents itself as an undesirable independent variable. However,

Raymer provides an empirical expression for e as a function of AR and LE sweep, equation 2.34.

Holding the sweep constant gives the desired result shown in equation 2.34.

The expression for parasite drag in equation 2.33 is seemingly, very complex, but by

holding all other geometry (besides AR) fixed, the equation reduces to purely a function of AR.

This leaves equation 2.36 as the expression for drag which meets the initial variable/measure of

merit statement. The drag coefficient is now in a form that can be analyzed using a Matlab script

and the results are graphically displayed in a more comprehendible manner in Appendix B, figure

2.35.

The trends of figure 2.35 in Appendix B are consistent with intuition. The induced drag

becomes more prominent at higher lift coefficients and so larger AR values lead to reduced drag at

high CL values. The design of issue, however, is primarily about speed. The aircraft will cruise

with a lift coefficient of about 0.1. At this low end of the lift coefficient spectrum, the parasite drag

dominates. The chart clearly depicts the answer to the important design question of what AR to

use: for the cruise design point, there is no optimal AR, the smaller the better. This trend is shown

explicitly in Appendix B, figure 2.36.

And so, the results of the study demonstrate that to minimize the lift of the plane in the

effort to maximize speed the airplane must be constructed with the smallest feasible aspect ratio.

This statement contains some vagueness. Obviously, AR cant be zero. So what is small enough?

The answer must account for the increased complexity of wing analysis below an AR of about 3. In

the end, the aspect ratio is set by the span of flaps necessary to achieve the customers stall speed

requirement as well as the limitations due to transportability concerns. Thus the span of the wing

will be small enough to fit in the vehicle used to transport the aircraft to its flight facility. The aspect

ratio was chosen to be 5.

References

1. L. M. Nicolai. (2002). Estimating R/C Model Aerodynamics and Performance. [Electronic

version]. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Co..

2. L. M. Nicolai. (1975). Fundamentals of Aircraft Design. Dayton, Ohio: University of Dayton

3. D. Raymer. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. (4th Ed.). Reston, Virginia: AIAA.

4. J. Roskam. (2001). Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls. (3rd Ed.).

Lawrence, KS: DARcorporation.

5. Sankaran, Venke, 2005 Fall: AAE 334 Lecture Notes, Purdue, 2005.

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

The design of the propulsion system began with a conceptual design meeting. Two main

propulsion systems were considered; a conventional propeller system and a ducted fan system.

By creating a list of pros and cons for each system, the group came to a unanimous decision. The

electric ducted fan (EDF), while unconventional, was the most intriguing. The EDF system is

relatively new to the remote control hobby aircraft world. While it can be found in use today, it is no

where near as popular as the conventional propeller system.

The ducted fan maybe new to the hobby world, but it has been around in the aviation

world for many decades. A ducted fan is essentially a propeller inside of a circular shroud or duct.

The purpose of the shroud is to eliminate the negative effects that occur on the tips of a propeller

and increase efficiency. When comparing a propeller and fan that create the same amount of

thrust, the fan will be smaller, have more blades, and operate at higher revolutions per minute

(RPM).

The main benefits of a ducted fan for this design include landing technique, direct drive,

and appeal. Thanks to the high static thrust that is typical of an EDF, a hand launch is feasible. A

hand launch removes the necessity of landing gear, landing gear retracts, and runway steering.

This greatly reduces the drag and the amount of time and effort spent in designing for takeoff and

landing. A hand launch was chosen as the method of launching for the design. The landing will

have to be a belly landing; which will require added structural reinforcements on the bottom of the

aircraft but should be simpler than designing for the point loads applied by landing gear. Due to

the comparatively smaller diameter of a fan, a motor is capable of spinning the fan at a higher RPM

than a propeller. Because the desired RPMs are high, there is no need for a gearbox. An EDF

costs a great deal more than a propeller, but the cost of landing gear and a gear box, which is now

unnecessary, balances this cost. While a ducted fan is unconventional and presents an added

challenge, the appeal and performance promise to exceed the negatives.

As mentioned before, EDFs are still uncommon in most hobby marketplaces. In fact, very

few are capable of handling the power required to travel at this designs high speeds. The average

ducted fan is very cheaply made and can only handle a fourth of the horsepower required for this

mission. Upon researching available fans, only four were deemed acceptable. Those fans are

listed in table 3.1. Upon further research into the world of EDFs, only the Wennmacher Modell

Technik (WeMoTec) brand of ducted fans had any information of performance. According to

popular opinion of RC aircraft hobbyists, they are the best model aviation ducted fans available for

their prices. Kontronik, a German manufacturer of brushless electric motors, has performance data

of the WeMoTec fans and their motors posted on their website (reference 1). The WeMoTec brand

of fans is also readily available for purchase from many distributors, something the other brands of

fans cannot claim.

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

Manufacturer

Model

10

Diameter

Weight

Max RPM

Cost

[ in ]

[ lbs ]

[ RPM ]

[$]

Wemotec

Midi Fan

3.5

0.231

35,000

$74.95

Wemotec

2.72

0.132

45,000

$53.90

Great Planes

Hyperflow

2.23

0.081

49,000

$30.00

VASA

VasaFan 65

45,000

$60.00

2.6

0.077

Table 3.1: Ducted Fan Canidates

This reduces the fans for consideration to only the WeMoTec models. The first is the Mini

480 model and the second is the Midi model. The fans are nearly identical but differ in diameter

and blade count. The Midi fan has a larger diameter hub as well. The larger hub allows for a

larger, typically more powerful, diameter motor. By using the data from Kontronik, a relationship

between RPM and exhaust velocity was established; see Appendix C figure 3.1. A relationship

between thrust and exhaust velocity squared was also established, which can be found in

Appendix C figure 3.2. By using equation 3.1, and the relations established above it was possible

to calculate thrust available throughout a range of speeds. Thrust required to maintain steady level

flight is equal to drag; see equation 3.2. The speed at which thrust available no longer exceeds

thrust required (or drag) is the maximum theoretical speed. For the Midi and Mini 480 models,

those plots can be found in Appendix C figures 3.3 and 3.4. Both of the mentioned plots assume

the fans are spun at their maximum RPM.

While the research was underway on fan performance, a battery solution was stumbled

upon. Thanks to the advice from a local hobby store specialist, an affordable solution was found.

Currently, Lithium Polymer (LiPo) battery packs are the most desirable solution on the market;

however they are the most expensive. A breakdown of typical hobby application batteries can be

found in Appendix C table 3.2. With the budget constraint, even the cheapest batteries in table 3.2

are unreasonable. Thanks to an employee at Hobby Town USA (reference 2), who redirected the

design team to a company named A123 Systems (reference 3), a high performance battery

capable of the performance required and within the budget was found.

The batteries the Hobby Town USA employee redirected the teams attention to are of

Lithium Ion chemistry. Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) cells perform similar to LiPo cells, but are far less

dangerous. LiPo batteries are known to explode or combust when not taken care of properly. LiIon cells are nearly as expensive as LiPo cells. The breakthrough came when it was discovered

that DeWalt, a popular power tool manufacturer (reference 4), uses A123 Systems Li-Ion batteries

in their cordless drill batteries (reference 5). These cordless drill batteries can be found on the

market for $169.99 Retail. Upon researching into the availability of these drill batteries, an

available battery was located for a discounted price of $115.00. These cordless drill batteries

contain ten A123 Systems Li-Ion cells. Compare the price of $11.50 per cell for the A123 Li-Ion

cells to LiPo cells, which cost an average of $25.00 per cell. To further reduce the price of these

batteries, the cost of the DeWalt battery was split with another design team. Each team received 5

Li-Ion cells for a total cost of $57.50. An extensive guide for converting the DeWalt battery into a

RC hobby battery can be found at the website cited as reference 6. The specifications of the A123

Systems Li-Ion cells can be found in table 3.3.

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

11

Voltage per Cell

3.6 V

70 Amps

120 Amps

Capacity

2300 mAh

0.16 lbf

$11.50

Table 3.3: A123 Systems Lithium Ion Batteries

With the batteries already chosen and only two fans to analyze, the selection of a motor was a

simple one. The code TestDesignAircraft.m, which was received from Professor Andrisani, was

edited to calculate various system values for a ducted fan system. The code was originally

designed for a propeller to maximum endurance. The code was altered to design for the high

speed mission. The code may be found in the code Appendix C under code 3.1. This code is

written in MATLAB.

By iterating the design process, it was possible to find a Kv and highest speed at which

only 5 Li-Ion cells were required by each fan. A generic motor with a varying Kv was used by the

altered code TestDesignAircraft.m to find a Kv that would bring the number of Li-Ion cells required

to 5 for both fans; the results from this optimization process can be found in Appendix C table 3.4.

A cost-effective motor capable of the desired performance from the WeMoTec Mini 480

ducted fan is difficult to find; only one motor was found to match these specifications. The HET-RC

Typhoon 2W-20 EDF brushless motor is the only candidate; the motors specification can be found

in Appendix C table 3.5 (reference 7). When compared with the WeMoTec Mini 480 data from

Appendix C table 3.4, it is apparent the motor meets the requirements. Any of the required values

that exceed the motors specifications are considered acceptable because they will only be used

sparingly; the high speed dash will be for only a few seconds. This motor appeared to be the only

motor on the market capable of the performance and within a reasonable cost range. Upon

contacting the only distributor of this motor located in the USA, the team was informed the motor

was unavailable and would be so for a long time.

With the Typhoon motor out of the picture, it was obvious the WeMoTec Midi Fan was the

only remaining path to follow. The performance specifications found in Appendix C table 3.5 for

the Midi Fan are not easy to achieve. No motors on the market were found to be capable of

handling the current necessary to produce the required torque to achieve maximum RPM. By

stepping the RPM down about 15%, the current necessary became an achievable number. A

motor manufactured by Electrifly (reference 8) was found to match the requirements; the motor is

called the Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300. The motors specifications can be found in table 3.6.

Motor

Ammo 36-50-2300

Kv

2300

Max Voltage

18

60 Amps

100 Amps

Weight

0.35 lbf

Cost

$79.99

Table 3.6: Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300 Brushless Motor

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

12

With the WeMoTec Midi Fan running at 85% of its maximum RPM it still achieved a similar

top speed as the Mini 480 Fan at 100% RPM. While the Midi Fan setup costs a little more, the

desirable Mini 480 Fan system is not available. The Midi fan is far less efficient than the Mini 480

fan. The team settled to run at a low efficiency to achieve a high performance under budget

system. The final propulsion system thrust curve can be found in figure 3.5. The rest of the final

systems high speed specifications can be found in table 3.7. Table 3.8 contains the maximum

endurance mission operating conditions. Designing for maximum speed has provided the system

with plenty of juice to achieve the desired endurance time of 7 minutes.

Propulsion System at Max Endurance Operation Conditions

Fan

Battery

Motor

Ammo 36-50-2300

Operating RPM

16,000 RPM

Aircraft Velocity

47 ft/s

Endurance

10.1 min

Voltage Required

Current Required

7.4 V

19.9 A

Propulsion System at High Speed Operation Conditions

Fan

Battery

Operating RPM

Aircraft Velocity

30,000 RPM

Endurance

Motor

2.1 min

107 ft/s

Table 3.8: Final Propulsion Max Endurance Specs

Ammo 36-50-2300

Current Required

Voltage Required

73.5 A

16 V

Chapter 3: PROPULSION

13

References

1. Kontronik Drives. "Kontronik Downloads." Fan Measurements. 22 April 2003. Kontronik Drives.

22 September 2006 <http://www.kontronik.com/index2e.htm>.

2. http://www.hobbytown.com/

3. http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html

4. http://www.dewalt.com/us/core/

5. Webster, Mel. "A123Systems Unveils Lithium-Ion Battery Technology that Delivers

Unprecedented Levels of Power, Safety and Life." A123 Systems News 2 November 2005.

5 October 2006 <http://www.a123systems.com/html/news/articles/051102_pr.html>.

6. Kauffman Ph.D. , Sid. DeWalt 36V Technology (A123 Systems). 22 August 2006. 14 October

2006 <http://slkelectronics.com/DeWalt/index.htm>.

7. WarBirds Rc. HET-RC - Typhoon EDF 2W-20 (700 Watt). . 14 October 2006

<http://www.warbirds-rc.com/Store/hett-edf2w20.html>.

8. Electrifly. Electrifly - Ammo In-Runner Brushless Motors. . 14 October 2006

<http://www.electrifly.com/motors/gpmg5105.html>.

14

Analysis of the dynamics and controls for the TFM-2 was completed in several steps. The

first task was to determine the dimensions of the tail geometries for the aircraft. Team 2s design

called for an unusual configuration featuring twin vertical stabilizers and one horizontal tail attached

to the fuselage via booms extending from the wings. Next, the control surfaces were sized. Then,

a check of all static stability control derivatives was performed. Following this, a trim diagram was

constructed. With the aircraft sized, a feedback control system was designed to meet the mission

specifications for the Dutch roll mode.

An important tool for analysis used throughout the Dynamics and Controls Chapter was

the use of Prof. Andrisanis Flat Earth Code. This course-provided MATLAB code involves a

great deal of computation based on the size of the aircraft. The code is executed by running seven

steps in order upon completing the file BasicConstants.m (this file defines all vehicle constants that

are needed to compute stability and control derivatives). The first step calculates the aircrafts

aerodynamic and mass properties. The second step trims the aircraft for the desired speed and

altitude. The third step runs a Simulink model to simulate a 6 degree of freedom aircraft with

nonlinear equations of motion. The fourth step plots the results of the nonlinear simulation and

was not used during analysis. The fifth step linearizes the aircraft system found previously during

nonlinear analysis. The sixth step sets up linear models for the longitudinal control system design.

The seventh step sets up linear models for the lateral control system design.

4.1 Tail Sizing

For tail sizing, a preliminary sizing method was used from Raymer reference 1 using the

Tail Volume Coefficient method (Class I sizing). This is a historical approach in that the volume

coefficients are based on aircrafts that are similar to the teams design. Class I sizing would allow

for a preliminary estimation of the vertical and horizontal tail areas needed. This method led to a

horizontal tail area of 0.8159 ft2 and a vertical tail area of 0.3300 ft2.

The next step was to size the tail using the Class II Method by producing X-plots as

proposed by Roskam (reference 2). In order to do this, longitudinal and directional X-plots were

produced based on functions of the tail areas. An important decision was made at this point to

place the center of gravity in the longitudinal direction at the wings quarter-chord. In addition to

this, it was also noted that if this could not be accomplished, it is desired that the center of gravity

be in front of the quarter-chord. This ensures that there is sufficient horizontal tail area for the

aircraft. Another complexity for the tail sizing was the twin-tail configuration and the need for

sufficient total vertical tail area. Table 4.1 summarizes the results of using this method. Figures

4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the X-plot method.

Area (in2)

Span (in)

Chord (in)

Aspect Ratio

Horizontal Tail

90

18

5

3.6

Vertical Tail

60

6

5

1.2

15

0.8

0.7

0.6

Xac

X per Cw

0.5

0.4

0.3

Xcg

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

SH (ft )

Vertical Tail Sizing - Directional Stability

0.2

0.15

0.1

-1

-1

Cnbeta (rad )

Cnbeta=0.102 rad

0.05

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

SV (ft )

0.25

0.3

16

For the sizing of control surfaces, a historical approach was used for the elevator and

rudder. The aerodynamics portion of the team had previously sized the flaperons due to the stall

speed constraint. In order to gain perspective on how to historically size the elevator and rudder,

the Raymer book was consulted (reference 1). Raymer suggests that both the elevator and rudder

extend 25-50% of the tail chord and a span that extends from tip to tip of 90% of the span. It was

then at this point that varying the size of both the elevator and rudder were evaluated to observe

the effectiveness of both. To easily compute the elevator effectiveness (Cme) and the rudder

effectiveness (Cnr), the Flat Earth Code was consulted.

The elevator was sized first at 25% of the horizontal tail chord. The span of the elevator

was set to 2/3 of the horizontal tail span. An elevator sized with a chord of 1.25 inches and a span

of 12 inches has an elevator effectiveness of -1.2805 rad-1. The suggested range from the Flat

Earth Code (reference 5) is -1 to -2 rad-1.

Rudder sizing was sized such that the chord was 90% of the vertical tail chord. This was

due to the desire to only implement one rudder on the twin-tail configuration. Also, the span was

set to roughly 92% of the span to avoid rudder interference with the horizontal tail. The rudder was

sized with a chord of 4.5 inches and span of 5.5 inches and has a rudder effectiveness (Cnr) of 0.035 rad-1. This value is close to the desired range as suggested by the Flat Earth Code of -0.06

to -0.3 rad-1. This rudder effectiveness calculation was based on a conventional tail configuration

and for the purposes of this design showed a reasonable approximation of the yawing moment

coefficient due to rudder deflection.

4.3 Static Stability

In order to ensure that the TFM-2 would be stable in flight, calculations of the aircrafts

static stability was calculated. The longitudinal static stability was first addressed to ensure that the

aircraft has a sufficient amount of horizontal tail. Then the lateral-directional static stability was

addressed by checking the weathercock stability to check that the aircraft has enough vertical tail

volume. Also the effect of dihedral was computed as another measure of the lateral-directional

static stability. In addition to the longitudinal and lateral static stability check, a check of control

surface sizing was to compute the control derivatives of each surfaces effectiveness.

In order to ensure that each stability derivative was sufficient for flight, the TFM-2 was

compared to the MPX-5. The MPX-5 was a small remote controlled model aircraft that was

designed by Mark Peters for his masters thesis. All values of the TFM-2 static stability derivatives

were found to be sufficient for the high-speed flight. Table 4.2 summarizes parameters necessary

for static stability.

Cm

Cn

Cl

Cla

Cme

Cnr

TFM-2

-0.602

0.102

0.007

0.242

-1.280

-0.035

MPX-5

-1.049

0.057

-0.055

0.114

-2.318

-0.070

17

A trim diagram was produced to ensure that the aircraft would be trimmable at all

anticipated flight conditions with elevator deflection. The diagrams were produced using the

method outlined by Roskam (reference 2). For the TFM-2 the incidence of both the wing and

horizontal tail was set to zero degrees.

Cm = 0

Xcg forward

1.2

Cm = 0

Xcg nominal

Cm = 0

Xcg aft

CLmax

1

0.8

= 7o

0.6

CL

0.4

= 3o

0.2

-0.2

0.3

= -1o

0.2

0.1

0

Cm0.25c

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

Figure 4.3 shows the trim triangle. The triangle is seen below the red line which indicates

the maximum lift coefficient and between the two center of gravity (CG) lines (forward and aft).

The multi-colored diagonal lines represent the effects of different elevator deflections. Typical trim

diagrams account for a shift in the CG due to mass loss. However with an electrically powered

aircraft there will be minimal mass losses during flight, so the analysis was made for two flights;

one with payload and one without. From this diagram the range of elevator deflection is -2 to 12

degrees for trimming was determined. The typical range is typically between -20 and 20 degrees.

This suggests that the elevator is somewhat oversized; however it does not interfere with the TFM2s desired flight operations.

18

Using the Flat Earth Code through Step 7, the yaw rate transfer function was obtained. It

is from this transfer function that the Dutch roll damping ratio was obtained. The open-loop transfer

function was found to be as follows:

=

r ( s)

( s + 6.75)( s 0.169)( s 2 + 1.535s + 16.83)

From this equation the Dutch roll mode damping ratio was found to be 0.187. This value was not

sufficient in that it did not meet the mission specifications of Dutch roll damping ratio of at least 0.8.

At this point, a feedback controller must be integrated into the aircraft. In order to do this, the servo

controlling the rudder, rate gyro, and a control law transfer function must be incorporated with the

yaw rate transfer function. The servo transfer function used for this feedback controller was given

in reference 6 for a Futaba S-148 Servo. The rate gyro was assumed to be 1. And the control law

transfer function was determined to be a simple negative gain through the use of MATLABs

SISOTool. In order to obtain a damping ratio for the Dutch roll mode of at least 0.8, a control law

gain of -0.4 was chosen. This gain corresponds to a Dutch roll mode damping ratio of 0.823, which

meets mission specifications. Figure 4.4 depicts the final control system to be used to control the

yaw rate feedback controller. For the integration of the determined control low gain, the rate gyro

will be properly set to desired gain of -0.4. Through the use of SISOTool the root locus of the

feedback control system was found. Stability of the system was confirmed through evaluation of

the closed-loop pole locations (all appear in the left hand plane of the root locus). A plot of the root

locus and the corresponding closed-loop poles can be found in Appendix D figure 4.4.

Futaba Servo

950

s + 40 s + 950

2

-0.4

r [rad]

( s + 6.75)( s 0.169)( s 2 + 1.535s + 16.83)

Figure 4.4: Feedback Control System for Aircraft

Yaw

rate

[r/sec]

19

References

1. D. Raymer. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. (4th Ed.). Reston, Virginia: AIAA.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Co..

2. J. Roskam. (1985). Airplane Design: Parts I-VIII. Ottawa, Kansas: Roskam Aviation and

Engineering Corporation.

3. J. Roskam. (1977). Methods for Estimating Stability and Control Derivatives of Conventional

Subsonic Airplanes. Lawrence: Third Printing.

4. Brandt, S.A., Stiles, R. J., Bertin, J. J., and Whitford, R. (2004). Introduction to

Aerospace: A Design Perspective. (2nd Ed.). AIAA.

5. MATLAB Flat Earth Code

6. AAE 451 D&C Sourcebook given by Professor Andrisani

7. -- Peters, Mark E. Development of a Light Unmanned Aircraft for the Determination of Flying

Qualities. Masters Thesis, 1996, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN.

20

5.1 Introduction

The dual boom design necessitated by the ducted fan propulsion system introduced structural

complications not present in a more traditional configured aircraft. Throughout the design process,

decisions were continually influenced by manufacturability and cost of production concerns. An

initial survey showed that a fiberglass and epoxy covered foam construction was capable of

meeting the structural demands while maintaining a light weight aircraft. Classical structural

analysis techniques and laminated plate theory were used in the design of the aircrafts structure.

A model created in CATIA was used extensively for weight analysis which included component

placement and locating the center of gravity. CATIA was also vary valuable in calculating

moments and products of inertia and producing accurate drawings for production.

5.2 Load Factor

The load factor, n, is a critical design parameter for aircraft structural analysis because the

entire structure scales with load factor. The lower the load factor is, the lighter the aircraft structure

can be made. With the current mission of high-speed flight, light weight became an even more

critical goal than in the case of a more general purpose aircraft.

The load factors for flight at maximum lift conditions, in level-flight turn, and in climb as a

function of vertical turn were examined to determine the appropriate design load factor. Equations

yielding the instantaneous load factors as a function of the given flight conditions are in Appendix

E: V-n Diagram Walk-through. Graphical representations of these results are presented in

Appendix E figures 5.2.1 5.2.4.

Based on realistic aircraft handling characteristics, input parameters were limited for each flight

regime. The load factors were then extracted from figures 5.2.1 5.2.4. At maximum lift, velocity

was said not exceed 50 ft/sec. This led to a maximum load factor of 3.3. In level turning flight,

bank angle was not to exceed 75 degrees. This resulted in a maximum load factor of 4. In

climbing flight, a vertical turn radius of 25 feet was considered to be reasonable. With

maneuvering speed limited to 60 ft/sec, this resulted in a load factor of 5.

The permissible diving speed limits the V-n diagram, and this is typically specified at 20%-50%

higher than the maximum level flight airspeed (Peery and Azaar Reference 1). For this design it

was set at 125 ft/sec based on a dash speed of about 100 ft/sec.

The combination of the above analyses for total flight regime loading is shown below in figure

5.2.1.

21

Below 60 ft/sec, it is not possible to exceed the limit load factor in positive load maneuvering, and

similarly for 45 ft/sec in negative load maneuvering, because the wing will stall prior to reaching

these conditions. Above these speeds, it is necessary for the pilot to exercise discretion as it is not

practical to design an aircraft structure for enduring excessively violent maneuvers.

Historically, a safety factor of 1.5, which was based on the ratio of ultimate tensile load to

yield load of 24 ST Aluminum alloy, has been used. Using this safety factor, the final load factor

used in all analyses was determined to be 7.5.

5.3 Wing Analysis and Design

For both the bending and twist analyses, the wing was discretized into ten sections, as

shown in figure 5.3.1 of Appendix E. Bending and polar moments of inertia of the wing cross

section at each station were found using XFOIL. The fiberglass and epoxy composite skin was

assumed to bear all of the wing loading such that the bending and polar moments of inertia were

functions only of skin thickness. A first attempt was made to approximate the airfoil section as an

ellipse of approximately the same thickness ratio as the actual airfoil. This was determined to be a

poor approximation and is discussed in Appendix E: Comparison of Exact Airfoil Structural

Properties wit Elliptic Approximation.

5.3.1 Bending Analysis

The lift was modeled as an elliptic distribution, congruent with the 0.45 taper ratio. This is

shown with the discretized lift in figure 5.3.2 of Appendix E. Bending moment as a function of span

(figure 5.3.3) was then found from this lift distribution. Using equation 5.3.1 and the yield stress of

E-glass/epoxy composite, the maximum stress was used to find the necessary thickness of the

22

wing skin through the bending moment of inertia, which is a function of skin thickness. Deflection

was found using equation 5.3.2. The MATLAB code containing this bending analysis is shown in

the Appendix E.

5.3.2 Twisting Analysis

First, the maximum torque about the quarter chord due to the lift distribution was found

using equation 5.3.3. The torque in the equivalent force system about the shear center of the

cross section was lower than the result of equation 5.3.3 as the pitch down torque due to Cm was

opposed by the pitch up torque of the lift. However, this result was used as the extreme for a

conservative analysis. The torque distribution due to aerodynamic loading is shown in figure 5.3.4

in Appendix E.

The dual-boom tail design presents structural analysis issues not inherent in conventional

aircraft design. The tail loads must be transferred via the booms and born by the wing as opposed

to the fuselage. These loads are significant when considering control surface deflection at high

speeds. In order to analyze this contribution to twist, a torque due to the force on the horizontal

stabilizer was included at the boom station. With the maximum aerodynamic loading conditions on

the tail, this torque, with its large moment arm, was dominant in the twisting analysis. The total

resultant force can be seen in figure 5.3.5.

Twist deflection was then found using equation 5.3.4. J, the polar moment of inertia, is a

function of thickness. As total twist was constrained to be less than 1 degree in the design

requirements, thickness could then be solved for from equation 5.3.4 via expressing the polar

moment of inertia as a function of thickness.

5.3.3 Final Wing Design and Construction Method

A number of different weighted E-glass cloths were examined as possible skin materials.

Thicknesses were not available for the lighter weight cloths, so data was extrapolated from the

known thickness to weight relations. These results are summarized in figure 5.3.6. The lighter

weight cloths are easier to work with and soak up less resin than the heavier weight cloths.

In all cases, the maximum allowable twist was the governing design constraint. Therefore,

it was desirable to have the greatest shear modulus possible. A +45o/-45o type of laminate is often

used to provide greater shear rigidities in composite structures, so this type of lay-up was

investigated. Classical laminated plate theory was used to find the equivalent moduli of the

laminates.

Between the booms, where maximum stiffness is desired, the skin analysis resulted in the

requirement of three plies of 2 oz E-glass cloth in a [45/0/45] lay-up. Two plies of 2 oz E-glass

cloth were used in [0/45] configuration outboard of the booms. The resin system used was the 30

minute EZ-Lam system. This configuration had a maximum tip twist of -1.04 degrees and a tip

deflection of 0.0032 inches.

The wing employed a NACA 1408 airfoil, with a span of 4.97 ft, and a taper ratio of 0.45

with root chord at 1.353 ft and tip chord at 0.6125 ft. The cross-section quarter chords were all

aligned so that the quarter chord sweep is zero degrees. Flapperons began outboard of the booms

and extend to the wing tips. The wing geometry was hot-wire cut from foam in two pieces, and

then joined together with the boom structure. Balsa blocks shaped to the local airfoil and

embedded in the foam were used for the boom integration and as hard point mounts for the

fuselage and motor/duct assembly. Flapperon pushrod sleeves were placed in the foam and flush

with the surface before glassing the entire wing.

23

The fuselage was modeled by using two airfoil shapes. Vertically, a nonsymmetrical,

modified NACA 1308 was used, and horizontally, a symmetrical, modified NACA 0006 was used.

As suggested by the aerodynamics team, a smooth fuselage decreased drag dramatically and

allowed for better flow into the duct. This general limitation allowed for the modifications of the

airfoils used in order to fit the majority of the components within the front of the fuselage for center

of gravity considerations. The construction was similar to the main wing, but due to the complex

geometry, a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine was used to cut two foam halves. A

balsa sheet was used to join the foam halves and later for hard point mounts for servos, batteries,

and payload when the foam was partially hollowed out. Also, 3 oz satin weave E-glass and epoxy

was used for the skin due to its ability to match complex curves.

The tail was sized by the dynamics and controls team. The two vertical tails each had a

span of 6 inches, a chord of 4 inches, area of 24 square-inches, and an aspect ratio of 1.5. The

horizontal tail has a span of 18 inches, a chord of 5 inches, an area of 88.56 square-inches, and an

aspect ratio of 3.66. The horizontal tail was sized with the intention of placing the center of gravity

at the wing quarter chord. Also, the horizontal tail was placed at the top of vertical tails in order to

minimize any flow interference with the ducted fan. The construction was similar to the main wing,

with a hot-wire cut foam core covered in 2 oz E-glass and epoxy and embedded balsa for hardpoint attachments.

The dynamics and controls team set the distance requirement from the root chord trailing

edge to the leading edge of the tails at 18 inches. With the front ends of the booms located at 20%

of the local chord from the leading edge, the booms had to be 36 inches in length. They are

located 9 inches from the center of the aircraft along the span. Carbon composite arrow shafts

were readily available and met the light weight and stiffness requirements; therefore, they were

used for this application.

5.5 CATIA Model

The CATIA model offered many contributions to the analysis and design of the aircraft. It

allowed for visualization of the completed aircraft and for the opportunity to exercise intuition of

proportionality and aesthetic appeal. Accurate wetted areas were able to be found for drag

analysis. Component weights were assigned and a total aircraft weight was found. The center of

gravity was able to be calculated and components placed accordingly. It was located 2.78 inches

behind the root leading edge and 1.101 above it. The moments and products of inertia were also

output from the model. They are summarized in the table 5.5.1 below. Production drawings and

data for the CNC machine were also obtained from the CATIA model (Appendix E figure 5.5.1).

Table 5.5.2 in Appendix E: Center of Gravity presents the component weights and postions.

Ixx [slug.ft^2]

Iyy [slug.ft^2]

Izz [slug.ft^2]

0.111078

0.132622

0.240218

Ixy [slug.ft^2]

Ixz [slug.ft^2]

Iyz [slug.ft^2]

0.000127154

0.00188893

0.00E+00

Table 5.5.1: Moments and Products of Inertia

References

1. D. J. Peery and J. J. Azaar. (1982). Aircraft Structures. (2nd Ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill Co.

Chapter 6: CONCLUSION

24

Chapter 6: CONCLUSION

With this aircraft, Team 2 set out to design a high speed aircraft that would be

easy to fly and meet the customers mission specifications. A total of 2205 man hours

was estimated to have been put into the design and fabrication of this vehicle. The

engineering costs including overhead would cost approximately $220,500. The total

fabrication cost of the airplane is $507 which includes the price of the speed controller

and other items which are free and/or outside the teams budget. The actual budget of

$250 has been exceeded by approximately $50 to a total of $300, but compared to the

man hour cost and actual worth of the plane, is insignificant. The end result of all the

work is an airplane that is expected to have a top speed of 107 ft/sec and fly at least seven

minutes for the endurance mission. The performance of this aircraft will be demonstrated

at McAllister airfield in Lafayette, IN on the 21st of November.

25

VEHICLE SUMMARY

Table of Constants

Span Horizontal tail [in]

Span Vertical Tail [in]

2

Surface Aera Vertical Tail [in ]

Span Elevator [in]

Chord Elevator [in]

Span Rudder [in]

Chord Rudder [in]

Location of H-tail [in]

Desgin

18

6

60

12

1.25

6

4.5

6

Actual

17.5

9

90

15

2.25

7

3.25

9

The aircraft passed all flight readiness review considerations with the exception of some

concerns regarding the tail and control surfaces. First, though Sean (the pilot) believed the control

surface sizing to be adequate, professor Andrisani urged the team to increase the size of the

elevator. Professor Andrisani stressed that on take-off, the slow airspeed combined with the

forward pitching thrust moment would demand a large compensation by the elevator. If the

elevator was in fact too small, the plane would crash, nose first, immediately after launch. The

team accepted the recommendation, to error on the side of safety, and increased the elevator

chord by about 40%. The next issue was regarding the gap between the main wing surfaces and

the attached control surfaces. Due to the gap it was recommended that the team cover the hinge

line with packaging tape to minimize the effect of the gap (this is a common RC model airplane

technique). There was also some concern regarding slop in the flapperon connections. This issue

was addressed by more rigidly fixing the sheathes of the flexible control cables. The final issue

was excessive flex of the tail. After the review, the team decided to make the tail more rigid by

using small pieces of balsa wood as angle braces where the vertical stabilizers met the horizontal

tail.

The team attempted its first flight test on Monday morning. Unfortunately it became

quickly apparent that the plane was under-powered and never successfully climbed out from

launch. Launch #1 was smooth but quickly settled to the ground in a graceful belly landing. It was

suggested that perhaps the hand launcher wasnt running fast enough and/or let go too soon of the

aircraft. The second launch was faster, although slightly less stable. The pilot had adequate

control to recover the airplane from the unstable launch. The plane settled close to the ground but

continued to fly in ground effect. Shortly after launch (about 3 seconds) the pilot decided to

terminate the flight as the plane was not quickly climbing out of ground effect and there were low

obstacles in its flight path. The throttle was reduced and the plane made another graceful belly

landing. Launch #3 was in a different direction, to provide the plane the longest amount of room to

climb out of ground effect. The launch was smoother, but slower this time (similar to the first

launch) and quickly settled to the ground. The pilot tried to continue the take off from the ground,

26

but the aircraft simply scooted along the ground. The fourth launch was very unstable. The

aircraft was released at a very high pitch attitude. The pilot was able to correct the pitch, but the

aircraft still stalled. The plane crashed to the ground nose first from a height of about 6 feet. After

the nose hit, the tail of the plane dropped to the ground. At this time the vertical tails separated

from the tail booms. After launch #4, it was obvious that repairs would have to be made before

further flights could be attempted. In the post flight evaluation, the propulsion design group came

to the consensus that the propulsion system didnt seem to be performing to design. As such, the

team split into two groups upon returning to the lab. One group concentrated on the repairs that

had to be made to the tail while the other worked on testing the propulsion system. After setting up

the ducted fan in the wind tunnel and conducting a quick test, it became apparent that the system

was not performing as designed which well be discussed in the section 6.2.

A second flight test took place Monday evening and the launch was not particularly fast,

but was smooth. The plane leapt into the air with little effort. The aircraft was climbing out stably

for about 5 seconds before the motor cut out. The aircraft made a smooth decent and graceful

belly landing. It was determined in the post flight evaluation, that it was a setting in the speed

controller combined with the high current draw of the system that had led to the engine cutting out.

The propulsion group experimented further with the system and had what they believed to be a

successful system going into Tuesdays flight.

The third and final flight test took place Tuesday morning. The launch was fairly slow and

smooth as before and again leapt into the air. The plane climbed out quickly. The pilot leveled off

and flew two turns in a pattern around the field. The airplane appeared stable, maneuverable and

quick. However, after 20 seconds of flight the engine cut out. The pilot glided the plane for a lap

around the field before approaching to land. The approach was going smoothly until about 4ft off

the ground, when the plane suddenly pitched forward and landed nose first. Upon approaching the

aircraft the team realized that the fuselage had failed and was unrepairable.

The aircraft proved itself numerous times in this mission. Though the plane had two

serious crashes, neither could have been prevented by having landing gear, as the crashes were in

a severe nose first/down attitude. The aircraft proved itself to be stable and have adequate

command/control authority. The underpowered hand-launch attempts made the success of the

control system very apparent. The planes aerodynamic design appeared to be successful. The

plane was quick and maneuverable under power. It also demonstrated a smooth, controlled, and

quite prolonged glide capability. The foam/fiberglass wing construction proved adequate and very

durable. Ultimately however, it must be pointed out that the fuselage and tail sections should have

been more durable. The ducted fan proved itself as a very effective, clean looking, and cool

propulsion system type. The team remains convinced, from the design results and flight testing,

that provided a more appropriate battery/motor combination, the ducted fan design would have

allowed the TFM-2 to dominate the competition.

7.2 Propulsion System

The propulsion system proved to be the most disappointing and difficult area of the build

process. While the team was aware of the difficulties and possible shortcomings, the system

performed below even the worst case scenarios the team had prepared for. The integration of the

propulsion system was an unknown going into the build phase, but proved to be rather simple.

The ducted fan itself was a beautiful system for the teams design. The ducted fan unit

outperformed our original design estimations. Originally, this system was estimated to produce 4.4

lbf at full throttle at static conditions. The system was placed in a wind tunnel for testing, and when

compared with the design results the system was outperforming. The system exceeded

27

expectations, but it never achieved its maximum expected thrust value. The fan surpassed

expectations at low RPM, but never reached its maximum RPM.

A major breakthrough occurred when a Whatt-Meter was purchased. A normal multimeter is rated for 10 Amperes of continuous current, since the design called for upwards of 80

Amps, a multi-meter was useless. The Whatt-Meter was capable of 70 Amps of continuous

current which gave a very close to maximum throttle reading. The Whatt-Meter was capable of

reading Voltage, Current, Power, and Milli-Amp-Hours simultaneously. This was extremely

beneficial in analyzing the performance of the power system. As it turns out, when drawing high

amperages, Lithium-Ion batteries voltage drops extensively. The original design code handed out

to the class to analyze battery performance never included a section for high amp drawing

systems. While the code indicated 5 cells, each at 3.7 volts/cell and 80 amps being drawn from

them would be sufficient, it was found that at 80 amps, each cell was only producing about 1.5

volts. The 1.5 volts/cell decreased quickly until it reached 1 volt/cell, at which time the speed

controller shut off the batteries to prevent damaging them. When the plane was launched for the

first time, with 5 cells of Li-Ion batteries, it was operating at about 8 volts total; the original design

called for 18 volts (this explains the weak take-off).

Luckily, another team who split a pack of ten Li-Ion cells with our team abandoned their

batteries all together. Those scorned cells were salvaged and incorporated into an 8 cell pack

which was ultimately used on the final days flight. With more cells, the amps were not as high,

likely around 70 amps, and the voltage was around 14 volts. This is still a far cry from the 18 volts

the original design called for. The worst case scenario that was planned for by the propulsion

division of the team was 15 volts. The plane could still fly at 14 volts; however it was dangerously

close to the cut-off limit of the speed controller. About 1 minute into the flight while the speed

controller was limiting the voltage to maintain the cut-off limit of the cells, it turned off the power

altogether. This is a feature the speed controller uses to save batteries. Had the speed controller

just maintained the batteries at the cut-off limit, the system would have been fine. Due to the fact

the speed controller is programmed to hold at the cut-off limit for only a little while and then turn off

the power, the system gave out a little over a minute into the flight.

In conclusion, the ducted fan system selected could have competed against the propeller

systems. The system was ultimately doomed due to the high amperages required to spin the fan

so fast. The speed controller arrived very late in the build phase, and with more time to learn about

the features of the speed controller, it would have been possible to program it accurately and have

a successful flight. The ducted fan is a competitive choice, but due to the propulsion budget, it is

not feasible. The system requires many batteries and a motor with a low motor constant (Kv). The

system was compromised and fewer batteries and high Kv motor was selected to appease the

budget. This proved to be the issue that doomed the propulsion system.

7.3 Structures

The construction technique used was that of foam core with fiberglass skin. Pink

expanded polystyrene construction foam was used for the cores of the wing and horizontal and

vertical tails, which were cut using a hot wire made at the beginning of the build phase. Plywood

templates were made for the root and tip airfoils, which were wrapped around their circumferences

with aluminum tape and held to the foam using nails and double sided tape. Much practice was

required to produce satisfactory results with the highly tapered wing sections. The fuselage and

duct cores were made using the CNC machine and closed cell foam. The density was only eight

percent more than the pink foam, and it produced highly superior results in both time required for

machining and surface finish.

28

The fiberglass used for the wing and horizontal and vertical tails was 2 oz plain weave,

using a 30 minute EZ-LAM laminating epoxy (http://www.acp-composites.com/). The multiple

layers on the wing were given time to cure overnight before applying the next layer. The fuselage

was covered with 3 oz satin weave as it is more adept at shaping to complex geometry than the

plain weave. Surface finish was obtained through fine grit sanding. The fiberglass skin technique

worked well; however, it is recommended that the fiberglass method be practiced and that a weight

estimate be liberal since the actual weight didnt match the predicted weight.

7.4 Design Suggestions

With respect to the design phase of this project, there are a few things that this team has

suggested that needs more attention. First, when designing a model aircraft, one should be very

liberal with amount and weight estimates of glue, epoxy, resin, and other materials included in

construction that are more than likely not included in the initial model. These things add a

considerable amount of weight, and changes had to be made near the end of the construction

process in order to reduce total aircraft weight as a result.

Another suggestion involves the computer-aided design of the aircraft. Although it is

difficult to build an assembly of the model with more than one person, the individual components

can be built by different people working together. This would take less time and allow for a more

detailed design. In the case of this team, if more people had worked on the model, it could have

allowed for enough time to include hard points into the design and to run more structural and

aerodynamic analyses. It is very difficult to do this if much of the model is created by one person

alone before someone else joins him/her. There are many ways to create and constrain models,

and the order in which these are done affects the ability of any outside party (other team member)

to make any necessary changes to the model.

7.5 Lessons Learned

Plan to get trained on the CNC machine early and set up the session without outside

assistance. It is much more efficient to have someone familiar with it explain everything than to

waste valuable time trying to figure it out.

Foresight must be given to all aspects of the aircraft before building. All attachment hard

points, pushrod paths, and servo orientations and mounting techniques should be decided before

building. While on-the-fly solutions can be made to work, preliminary planning will save time and

frustration. Weight should have been monitored more carefully throughout the build process to

prevent an overweight declaration at the end, when weight-saving alterations were much more

difficult.

It is the consensus of the team that time could have been used more beneficially over the

course of the semester. It is fairly apparent from the results of the project that the structures team

could have used more help. At the beginning of the semester, there were subgroups of the team

that did not have a heavy workload and perhaps they could have been assisting with the internal

layout of the plane and designing interfaces. Problems that came up during the construction phase

could have been brought to the teams attention earlier had a more accurate CATIA model been in

place. Some of these issues were the placement of internal components and servos. Had the

model also contained the hard point map, perhaps the predicted weight would have more closely

resembled the final weight. The team also feels that the reports of lessons learned by previous

semesters are an invaluable tool. This team tried to read as many such reports as possible.

Appendix A

Appendix A

29

Appendix A

30

Appendix of Code

MATLAB Code to Produce Constraint Diagram

close all

clear all

clc

% Provided by Prof. Andrisani

% FILE: Constraint3.m

% Script to generate constraint diagram:

%

%

disp(' '); disp('*** Start here ***'); disp(' ')

% DataSection

WperSmin=.2

% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/ft^2)

WperSmax=2

% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/ft^2)

WperPmin= 0

% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/hp)

WperPmax=5

% Limit on the axes of the constraint diagram (lbf/hp)

Vs=30 % Stall speed (ft/sec)

CLmax=[1.2,1.5,1.8] % Possible values of maximum lift coefficient

(nondimensional), use 3 of them

rho=0.002377 % air density (slugs/ft^3)

Vcr=150

% cruise speed (ft/sec)

EtaP=.8 % propeller efficiency (nondimensional)

CD0=[.025,.027,.030] % Possible values of CD0, use 3 of them

LoverDmax=[12,14] % estimated maximum lift to drag ratio

gamma=45/57.3 % Take-off flight path angle

WperS1=.5*rho*Vs^2*CLmax; % wing loading constraints

numCLmax=length(CLmax);

ifig=0;

ifig=ifig+1; figure(ifig)

clf

WperSdat=[WperS1(1),WperS1(1)];

WperPdat=[WperPmin,WperPmax];

plot(WperSdat,WperPdat)

axis([WperSmin,WperSmax,WperPmin,WperPmax])

hold on

title('Constraint Diagram')

hash_right(WperSdat,WperPdat)

%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat,30)

WperSdat=[WperS1(2),WperS1(2)];

plot(WperSdat,WperPdat)

hash_right(WperSdat,WperPdat)

%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat)

WperSdat=[WperS1(3),WperS1(3)];

plot(WperSdat,WperPdat)

hash_right(WperSdat,WperPdat)

%hash_left(WperSdat,WperPdat,-30)

% string1=['Stall Constraint: CLmax=[', num2str(CLmax),'], Vs= ',

num2str(Vs), ' ft/sec'];

% text2(.2,.2,string1)

Appendix A

slopes=((.75)*(550)/(.5*rho*1.1))*EtaP./(Vcr^3*CD0);

inc=(WperSmax-WperSmin)/10;

WperSdat=WperSmin:inc:WperSmax;

plot(WperSdat,slopes(1)*WperSdat)

hash_left(WperSdat,slopes(1)*WperSdat,0)

plot(WperSdat,slopes(2)*WperSdat)

hash_left(WperSdat,slopes(2)*WperSdat,0)

plot(WperSdat,slopes(3)*WperSdat)

hash_left(WperSdat,slopes(3)*WperSdat,0)

% string2=['Cruise Constraint: CD0=[', num2str(CD0),'], Vcruise= ',

num2str(Vcr), ' ft/sec'];

% text2(.05,.9,string2)

% text2(.3,.03,'DESIGN SPACE')

% Climb constraint

WperPclimb=550*EtaP./(Vcr./(.866*LoverDmax)+Vcr*sin(gamma))

plot([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(1) WperPclimb(1)])

plot([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(2) WperPclimb(2)])

hash_left([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(1) WperPclimb(1)])

hash_left([WperSmin WperSmax],[WperPclimb(2) WperPclimb(2)])

% string3=['Climb constraint, gamma= ',num2str(gamma*57.3),' deg,

Vclimb= ',num2str(Vcr),' ft/sec. Lower L/D gives lower line.']

% text2(.05,.08,string3)

% string4=['L/D max= ',num2str(LoverDmax)]

% text2(.05,.15,string4)

xlabel('Wing loading lbf/ft^2')

ylabel('Power loding (lbf/hp)')

%disp('Click twice on the desired design point')

% [X,Y] = GINPUT(N)

%[WperSin,WperHPin]=ginput(1)

%plot(WperSin,WperHPin,'rx')

%weight=2.5

%S=weight/WperSin

%Bhp=weight/WperHPin

hold off

Weight Estimation

close all

clear all

clc

% Provided by Prof. Andrisani

% FILE: Weight_3.m

% Preliminary weight estimator for electric powereed aircraft

% Revised 9/5/06

disp(' '); disp('>>>>>>>>>Start here <<<<<<<<<'); disp(' ')

LoverDmax=14

% for fixed gear GA aircraft (Skyhawk) (See

Raymer p. 22)

LoverD=.866*LoverDmax % for loiter (See Raymer p. 22)

31

Appendix A

32

Vloiter=50

% ft/sec, Estimated loiter speed

ETAmotor=0.8

ETAprop= 0.75

%RHOb=72900

% battery energy density for NiCad joule per pound

%RHOb=9.25E+04 % battery energy density for NiMH joule per pound

RHOb=2.39E+05 % battery energy density for Lithium polymer joule per

pound

disp('Battery energy density for NiCad batteries, joules per pound')

EnduranceMIN=8

Wpayload=1 % payload weight pounds

EnduranceSEC=EnduranceMIN*60

TimeLoiterStraight=EnduranceSEC/2

% Loiter time in straight flight

(sec)

TimeLoiterTurn=EnduranceSEC/2

% Loiter time in turning flight

(sec)

g=32.17 % acceleration of gravity ft/sec^2

WlsperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeLoiterStraight/(ETAmotor*ETAprop*RHOb*LoverD)

% For loiter in turning flight

R=50 % Turn radius at loiter from mission spec.

phi=atan(Vloiter*Vloiter/(R*g)) % bank angle in the turn (rad)

WltperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeLoiterTurn/(ETAmotor*ETAprop*RHOb*LoverD*cos(

phi))

% For climbing flight

gamma=45/57.3 % climb angle (rad)

TimeClimb=12/(Vloiter*sin(gamma)) % time to climb to 12 feet

WclimbperW=Vloiter*1.356*TimeClimb*(cos(gamma)/LoverD+sin(gamma))/(ETAm

otor*ETAprop*RHOb)

% For Takeoff

disp('From integration of eoms at takeoff, assume that the battery')

disp(' weight fraction is .002.')

WtoperW=.002

% For warm-up assume takeoff times aree about 3 sec and

% warm-up times are about 30 seconds.

disp('Assume that the warmup weight fraction is 10 times the ')

disp(' takeoff weight fraction.')

WwarmperW=10*WtoperW

WbperW=WlsperW+WltperW+WclimbperW+WtoperW+WwarmperW

echo on

Appendix A

33

echo off

disp('Your weight estimate will only be as good at that historical data

represented in the equation above')

Wbattery=WbperW*Weight;

WbplusWpay=Wbattery+Wpayload;

plot(Weight,WminusWe,Weight,WbplusWpay)

xlabel('Weight~lbf')

ylabel('W-We and Wb+Wp~lbf')

% Determination of aircraft weight

delta=WminusWe-WbplusWpay;

% YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI)

Waircraft=interp1(delta,Weight,0)

y=.2103*Waircraft+.1243;

string1=['Estimated aircraft weight is ',num2str(Waircraft),' pounds.']

text2(.25,.2,['

',string1])

title('Weight estimation using historical weight data')

legend('Historical data','Estimated weight')

hold on; plot(Waircraft,y,'o'); hold off

Wb=WbperW*Waircraft

% string2=['Estimated battery weight is ',num2str(Wb),' pounds.']

% text2(.25,.15,['

',string2])

% string2=['Payload weight is ',num2str(Wpayload),' pounds.']

% text2(.25,.1,['

',string2])

Appendix B

Appendix B

34

Appendix B

List of Symbols

Symbols

AR

b

c

Cd

CD

CD,i

CD,min

Cf

Cl

CL

Cl, min

CL,ih

CL,max

CL,e

CLo

CLo,h

CLo,wf

CL

CL,h

CL,wf

croot

ctip

D

d/d

e

FF

ih

K

K

K

L

Q

Re

S or Sref

Sh

Swet

Swet,c

SWF

V

0L

stall

CL,max

e

o

h

0.25c

LE

e

Description

Aspect ratio

Span of the wing

Mean geometric chord

Section drag coefficient (profile drag)

Drag coefficient (airplane)

Induced drag (drag due to lift)

Parasite drag

Skin friction coefficient

Section lift coefficient

Lift coefficient (airplane)

Section lift coefficient at minimum Cd

Lift curve slope (horizontal tail incidence)

Maximum lift coefficient

Lift curve slope (elevator deflection)

AoA = 0 Lift coefficient

AoA=0 lift coefficient of horizontal tail

AoA = 0, lift coefficient of wing and fuselage

Lift curve slope (wing)

Lift curve slope of horizontal tail

Lift curve slope of wing and fuselage

Wing root chord

Wing tip chord

Drag force

Downwash curve slope

Oswalds efficiency factor

Form factor (drag estimation)

Horizontal tail incidence angle

Inviscid drag factor due to lift (iduced drag)

Viscous drag factor due to lift

Empirical Sweep Coefficient

Lift force

Interference drag correction factor

Reynolds number

Wing planform

Planform area of horizontal tail

Total wetted area

Component wetted area

Flapped region of planform

Velocity

Angle of attack

Zero lift angle of attack

Stall angle of attack

Circulation

Change in maximum lift coefficient due to flaps

Elevator deflection

Downwash angle (on horizontal tail)

Dynamic pressure ratio of horizontal tail

Quarter chord sweep

Leading edge sweep

Elevator effectiveness coefficient

35

Appendix B

Appendix of Equations

CD = CD , min + ( K '+ K ' ' )(CL CL , min ) 2

Equation *.11: Aircraft drag polar

K'=

1

A Re

C Dmin =

(C

f ,c

FFc Qc S wet ,c )

S ref

C L = C L0 + C L + C Lih ih + C L e e

Equation *.21: Aircraft lift coefficient

CL0 = CL0 CL h

wf

Sh

S

0 + CL0h h h CL0wf

S

S

CL = CL + CL h

wf

Sh d

1

S d

CLi = CL h

h

Sh

S

CL = CL h

e

Sh

e

S

C Lmax =

W

1

2

Vstall

S

2

C Lmin

W

1

2

Vmax

S

2

Equation *.28: CL,max 3D-2D conversion

36

Appendix B

CL =

Cl

S=

W

1

2

Vstall

C L ,max

2

Equation *.210: CL,max with flaps

CL ,max = Cl ,max

SWF

K

SW

4

K = 1 0.08cos 2 0.25 c cos3/0.25

c

C D ,i

C L2

eAR

C D ,o

(C

c

fc

S

0.15

3.1

C D ,i f ( AR, C L , e) C D ,i f ( AR, C L )

Equation *.33: CD,i as a function of AR and CL

C D C D ,i + C D , o

C D f ( AR, C L ) + f ( AR)

37

Appendix B

38

Appendix of Figures

Viscous Drag Coefficient of NACA 1408

Re = 500,000

0.025

K'' = 0.0167

0.02

y = 0.0167x + 0.0051

2

R = 0.9952

Overall:

y = 0.0243x + 0.0045

2

R = 0.9915

Cd

0.015

0.01

Complete Range

High Speed Range

0.005

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(Cl-Cl,min)

0.6

0.7

Appendix B

39

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

NACA 1306

NACA 1406

NACA 1408

NACA 2206

NACA 64(1)-106

Jones airfoil

Cl

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

Cd

Various Symmetric Airfoils Cd- curve

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.01

NACA 0006

NACA 0007

NACA 0008

Jones (6.8% t/c)

Jones (7.2% t/c)

Jones (8% t/c)

Cd

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

alpha [deg]

4.5

Appendix B

40

0.008

Cd

0.007

NACA 0006

NACA 0007

NACA 0008

Jones (6.8% t/c)

Jones (7.2% t/c)

Jones (8% t/c)

0.006

0.005

0.004

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

alpha [deg]

Various Symmetric Airfoils Cd- curve

0.025

0.02

NACA 0006

NACA 0007

NACA 0008

Jones (6.8% t/c)

Jones (7.2% t/c)

Jones (8% t/c)

Flat Plate

Cd

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

alpha [deg]

Figure *.33: XFOIL tail airfoil section data (flat plate effect)

4.5

Appendix B

41

Appendix B

42

The fundamental lifting line equation is presented below (see reference 5).

b2

( y o )

(d dy ) dy

1

( yo ) =

+ L =0 ( yo ) +

V c( yo )

4 V b 2 ( yo y )

Fundamental Lifting Line Equation

Note that is the geometric angle of attack as a function of the location along the span, yo.

L =0 is the zero lift angle of attack as a function of yo. c is the chord length as a function of yo. y

is a variable of integration over the span. V is the free stream velocity; and finally, is the

circulation around a wing section as a function of yo. The end goal is to obtain a relation between

CL and Cl. To do this a relation between gamma and angle of attack must be obtained, which can

be used in the Kutta-Joukowski theorem lift equation given below (see reference. 5). Note that an

expression for the circulation in terms of the lift coefficient can be derived from the definition of 2D

lift coefficient.

L' = V 0

Kutta-Joukowski theorem

Note that an expression for the circulation in terms of the lift coefficient can be derived from the

definition of 2D lift coefficient.

C Vc

0 = l

2

Circulation

In general, the desired expression would be quite a complex expression. However, for

elliptical lift distributions, the circulation can be expressed quite simply as he equation (see

reference 5). Note that b in this equation represents the total span of the wing.

2y

( y ) = o 1

b

By substituting the elliptical distribution of circulation expression into the fundamental lifting

line equation, it can be shown that the chord distribution for a wing with elliptical lift distribution is

elliptical (simply, elliptic planform gives elliptic loading). So, for a wing with elliptical chord

distribution the lift coefficient can be calculated using the following.

L = V o

b2

b 2

b

2y

1 dy = V o

4

b

2

V o b4

b

L

CL = 1

= 1

=

0

2

2

2V S

2 V S

2 V S

Lift Coefficient with Elliptic Lift Distribution

b Cl V c

CL =

= Cl

2V S 2

4

Elliptic Lift Coefficient

Appendix B

Appendix of Code

Aero Main Code

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

%

% Aero Code

%

% Written by Chris Selby & Jesse Jones

% AAE451 Fall 2006

% Purdue University

% Aircraft Senior Design

%

% Last Updated: 10/29/06

% by: Chris Selby & Jesse Jones

%

% User defined functions:

%

Rel - Reynolds number

%

Cf_t - Turbulent skin friction model

%

Cf_l - Laminar skin friction model

%

ff_f - Fuselage form factor

%

ff_w - Wing/tail form factor

%

eta - Oswald's efficiency factor

%

CDi - Elliptical induced drag factor

%

CLa_wf - Wing fuselage lift curve slope

%

% What this code does:

%

Step 1) Compute major geometric parameters of the wing

%

Step 2) Estimate aircraft wetted area

%

Step 3) Estimate Drag Polar based on the drag build-up method,

%

Nicolai, and Raymer text

%

Step 4) Finds CLwf, the 3-D lift coefficient of wing-fuselage

%

Step 5) Finds CLh, the 3-D lift coefficient of the horizontal tail

%

Step 6) User inputs aerodynamic center distances of the aircraft

%

Step 7) User inputs additional basic constants

%

Step 8) If given an array of AR, plots the AR trade study

%

Step 9) Tabulates important values to the screen if given one AR

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

clear all

close all

clc

%-------%

% Input %

%-------%

pct_cyl_f = 0.4; %fraction of fuselage modeled as cylinder

d = 5/12; %Nose diameter = Fuselage diameter [ft]

l_f = 3; %Fuselage length [ft]

AR_w = linspace(5,5,1); %Wing AR

lambda = 0.45; %Wing taper ratio

S_w = 4.95; %Wing area [ft^2]

b_h = 18/12; %Horizontal tail span [ft]

c_h = 5/12; %Horizontal tail chord [ft]

43

Appendix B

h_vtail = 6/12; %Vertical tail height [ft]

c_v = 4/12; %Vertical tail chord [ft]

l_b = 1.5; %Boom length [ft]

d_b = 1/12; %Boom diameter [ft]

l_d = 10/12; %Length of the duct [ft]

W = 5.5; %Aircraft weight [lb]

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

%

Step 1) & 2) Wetted Area/Wing Geomety Approximation

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

%--------%

% Output %

%--------%

%-% Geometry

b_w = sqrt(AR_w.*S_w); %wing span [ft]

c_root = 2.*S_w./(b_w.*(1+lambda)); %wing root chord [ft]

c_tip = lambda.*c_root; %wing tip chord [ft]

Lambda = rad2deg(atan((c_root-c_tip)./(2*b_w))); %leading edge angle [deg] (assuming c/4 angle = 0)

lam_te = -rad2deg(atan(3*(c_root-c_tip)./(2*b_w))); %trailing edge angle [deg](assuming c/4 angle = 0)

Lambda_c2 = -Lambda; %half chord angle [deg] (assuming c/4 angle = 0)

AR_h = b_h./c_h; %Aspect ratio of horizontal tail

AR_v = h_vtail/c_v; %Vertical tail aspect ratio

l_n = l_f.*(1-pct_cyl_f)./2; %Length of nose [ft] (front and back cone)

%-% Wetted Area

swet_n = pi.*d./2.*sqrt(d.^2./4+l_n.^2); %Area of cones modeling front and aft of fuselage [ft^2]

swet_f = pi.*d.*l_f.*pct_cyl_f+2.*swet_n; %Area of entire fuselage (including cones) [ft^2]

swet_w = 2.*S_w-c_root.*d; %Omits unwetted area of wing

swet_ht = 2.*b_h.*c_h;

swet_vt = 2.*(2.*h_vtail.*c_v); %Accounts for two tails

swet_b = 2.*(pi.*d_b.*l_b); %Accounts for two booms

Swet = swet_f+swet_w+swet_ht+swet_vt+swet_b; %total wetted area [ft^2]

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

%

Step 3) Aircraft Drag Polar

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

% Functions called:

%

Rel - Reynolds number

%

Cf_t - Turbulent skin friction model

%

Cf_l - Laminar skin friction model

%

ff_f - Fuselage form factor

%

ff_w - Wing/tail form factor

%

eta - Oswald's efficiency factor

%

CDi - Elliptical induced drag factor

%

% =====Component Buildup Method=====

% CD0 calculation method found in Dr. Leland Nicolai paper and in Raymer

% textbook on pages 328-337. Utilized local Reynolds numbers for each

% components and models the skin friction to that of a flate plate at the

% same Reynolds number. Sums up the total contributions

% and then divides by the wing planform reference area. (Sref = S_w)

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

%-------%

% Input %

%-------%

44

Appendix B

rho = .00237; %Air density (rho) [slugs/ft^3]

Vinf = 103; %Flight speed (Vinf) [ft/sec]

a = 1116.43; %Speed of sound [ft/sec]

mu = 3.62e-7; %Coefficient of viscosity (mu) [slugs/ft-sec]

tc_w = 0.08; %Maximum wing thickness in percent chord

tc_h = 0.08; %Maximum horizontal tail thickness in percent chord

tc_vtail = 0.06; %Maximum vertical tail thickness in percent chord

xc_m_w = 0.4; %x/c location of maximum thickness for wing

xc_m_htail = 0.3; %x/c location of maximum thickness for horizontal tail

xc_m_vtail = 0.4; %x/c location of maximum thickness for vertical tail

lamda_m_w = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for wing

lamda_m_htail = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for horizontal tail

lamda_m_vtail = deg2rad(0); %Sweep of maximum thickness line for vertical tail

FFfudge_f = 1.20; % The fuselage is not perfectly round ?

FFfudge_w = 1.05; % Accounts for gap in front of flaperons over half the span

FFfudge_vtail = 1.05; % Accounts for gap in front of rudder on one tail

FFfudge_htail = 1.10; % Accounts for gap in front of elevator

FFfudge_b = 1.00; % None as the boom is a perfect cylinder

Q_htail

= 1.08; % Interference drag coefficient (from vertical tails)

Q_vtail

= 1.08; % Interference from horizontal tail

Q_w

= 1.10; % Interference from fuselage

Q_b

= 1.00; % No interference on booms

Q_d

= 1.20; % Interference with fuselage

%--------%

% Output %

%--------%

%-% Fuselage

Re_f = Rel(rho,Vinf,l_f,mu); %local reynolds number

Cf_f = Cf_t(Re_f); %loal skin fricition coefficient

FF = FFfudge_f.*ff_f(l_f,d); %Form factor

CDmin_f = FF.*Cf_f.*(swet_f)./S_w; %component parisite drag

%-% Wing

Re_w = Rel(rho,Vinf,S_w./b_w,mu); %local reynolds number

Cf_w = Cf_t(Re_w); %loal skin fricition coefficient

M = Vinf./a; %Mach number

FF = FFfudge_w.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_w,tc_w,xc_m_w); %Form factor

CDmin_w = FF.*Q_w.*Cf_w.*swet_w./S_w; %component parisite drag

%-% Horizontal Tail

Re_htail = Rel(rho,Vinf,c_h,mu); %local reynolds number

Cf_htail = Cf_t(Re_htail); %loal skin fricition coefficient

FF = FFfudge_htail.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_htail,tc_h,xc_m_htail); %Form factor

CDmin_htail = FF.*Q_htail.*Cf_htail.*swet_ht./S_w; %component parisite drag

%-% Vertical Tail

Re_vtail = Rel(rho,Vinf,c_v,mu); %local reynolds number

Cf_vtail = Cf_t(Re_vtail); %loal skin fricition coefficient

FF = FFfudge_vtail.*ff_w(M,lamda_m_vtail,tc_vtail,xc_m_vtail); %Form factor

CDmin_vtail = FF.*Q_vtail.*Cf_vtail.*swet_vt./S_w; %component parisite drag

%-% Tail Boom

Re_b = Rel(rho,Vinf,l_b+c_root,mu); %local reynolds number

45

Appendix B

Cf_b = Cf_t(Re_b); %loal skin fricition coefficient

FF = FFfudge_b.*ff_f(l_b,d_b); %Form factor

CDmin_b = FF.*Q_b.*Cf_b.*swet_b./S_w; %component parisite drag

%-% CD0 total

C_bar_D_o = CDmin_f+CDmin_w+CDmin_htail+CDmin_vtail+CDmin_b; %Total parisite drag

Cf_tot = C_bar_D_o .* S_w ./ Swet; %Total skin friction coefficient

e = eta(AR_w); %Oswalds span efficiency factor

k = 1./(pi*AR_w.*e) + 0.0167; %Induced drag coefficient from Nicolai white paper

Clmin = 0.1428; %wing section lift coefficient at minimum section drag coefficient

CLmin = Clmin; %Assume 2D is approximately equal to 3D minimum section lift coefficient.

Cd_0 = C_bar_D_o+k*CLmin^2; %CD at CL=0 ==> CD = CD0 + k(CL-CLmin)^2

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Step 4) Wing body lift Coefficient (Roskam Eq 3.17)

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Functions called:

%

CLa_wf - Wing fuselage lift curve slope (Raymer Eq. 12.6)

%

% =====Roskam wing-fuselage lift coefficient=====

% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.16 to break the the total CL into different

% components. Eq 3.17 is the wing-fuselage lift coefficient component.

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Cl_alpha_w = 5.543; %2-D wing lift curve slope [1/rad]

Beta2 = 1-(Vinf./a).^2; %Prandtl Glauret correction factor squared

F = 1.07.*(1+d./b_w).^2; %Fuselage lift factor (Raymer Eq 12.9)

CLawf = CLa_wf(AR_w,Cl_alpha_w,Beta2,swet_w,S_w,F); %Wing fuselage lift curve slope

Cl0w = .1439; %2-D wing lift coefficient at zero a.o.a.

CL0wf = 0.9*Cl0w; %3-D wing lift coefficient at zero a.o.a. (90% rule)

alfa = 0; %Aircraft a.o.a [deg]

i_w = 0; %Wing incidence angle [deg]

alfaw = alfa + i_w; %Wing angle of attack

CL_wb = CL0wf + CLawf.*deg2rad(alfaw); %Wing/body lift coefficient at alfa

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Step 5) Horizontal tail and body lift Coefficient (Roskam Eq 3.19) %

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% =====Roskam Horizontal tail and body lift coefficient=====

% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.16 to break the the total CL into different

% components. Eq 3.19 is the wing-fuselage lift coefficient component.

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Cl_alpha_h = 5.451; %2-D horizontal tail lift curve slope [1/rad]

CLah = Cl_alpha_h; %3-D horizontal tail lift curve slope [1/rad] (assume infinite wing)

deda = 0.4667; %Downwash gradient

eta_h = 0.9; %Dynamic pressure ratio for horizontal tail

eta0 = 0.00001; %###### ASSUME VERY SMALL NUMBER FOR NOW #####

toue = 0.5; %Elevator angle of attack effectiveness (Roskam Fig 2.23)

dele = 0; %Elevator deflection angle, positive trailing edge down [deg]

i_h = 0; %Elevator incidence angle [deg]

alfah = alfa+i_h-(eta0+deda.*alfa); %Horizontal tail angle of attack [deg]

CL_hb = CLah.*deg2rad(alfah)+CLah.*toue.*deg2rad(dele); %horizontal tail lift coefficient at alfa

CL_hb = round(CL_hb);

46

Appendix B

47

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Functions called:

%

Xac_A - Aerodynamic Center of aircraft (Roskam 3.38)

%

% =====Roskam wing-fuselage lift coefficient=====

% Uses Roskam text Eq 3.38 to find the aerodynamic center of the aircraft.

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

c_w= (c_root+c_tip)/2;

Xach = c_root+l_b+c_h/4-(c_root-c_w)/4; %Distance from LE of MAC to ac of horizontal tail [ft]

Xacwb = c_w/4; %Distance from LE of MAC to ac of wing and body [ft] (assume: body generatis no lift)

Xacw = c_w/4;

%Distance from LE of MAC to ac of wing ALONE [ft]

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Step 7) ADDITIONAL BASIC CONSTANTS

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------% Basic Constants defined in tabulated output below

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------alpha_0 = deg2rad(-1.05);

CL = W/(.5*rho*Vinf^2);

Cl_alpha_v = 2*pi;

dihedral_h = 0;

epsilon_t = 0;

epsilon_0_h = eta0;

Lambda_c4 = 0;

Lambda_c2_h = 0;

Lambda_c4_h = 0;

lambda_h = 1;

l_f = l_f+l_b;

S_h = swet_ht/2;

S_v = swet_vt/2;

theta = 0;

theta_h = 0;

if length(AR_w)>1

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Step 8) Aspect ratio trade study

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------CL = linspace(0,1.4,100);

AR_ws = length(AR_w);

CLs = length(CL);

for i = 1:AR_ws

CL_matrix(i,:) = CL;

end

for i = 1:CLs

AR_w_matrix(:,i) = AR_w;

end

for i = 1:CLs

C_bar_D_o_matrix(:,i) = C_bar_D_o;

end

AR_w = AR_w_matrix;

CL = CL_matrix;

C_bar_D_o = C_bar_D_o_matrix;

e = eta(AR_w);

CD_ind = CDi(CL,e,AR_w);

Appendix B

48

CD = CD_ind + C_bar_D_o;

lines = [.0255 .026 .0265 .027 .0275 .028 .029 .030 .035 .04 .05 .06 .08 .10 .12];

[c,h] = contour(AR_w,CL,CD,lines);

title('Lines of constant C_D (An AR trade study)')

xlabel('AR')

ylabel('C_L')

clabel(c,h,'manual')

grid off

else

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

Step 9) Tabulated Output

%

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------form = '%-9s %.2f %7.0f %.5f %.4f\n';

fprintf('\n\n')

fprintf('Component Area

Re

Cf

CD0\n')

fprintf('

(ft^2)

(local)\n')

fprintf('========= ======== ========= ========= ========\n')

fprintf(form,'Wing',swet_w,Re_w,Cf_w,CDmin_w)

fprintf(form,'Fuse/Duct',swet_f,Re_f,Cf_f,CDmin_f)

fprintf(form,'V_tails',swet_vt,Re_vtail,Cf_vtail,2*CDmin_vtail)

fprintf(form,'H_tail',swet_ht,Re_htail,Cf_htail,CDmin_htail)

fprintf(form,'Booms',swet_b,Re_b,Cf_b,CDmin_b)

fprintf('--------- -------- --------- --------- --------\n')

fprintf('%-12s %-22.2f %-8.5f %-.4f\n', 'Totals:', Swet, Cf_tot, C_bar_D_o)

fprintf('

(Normalized Results)')

fprintf('\n\n')

fprintf('--------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n')

fprintf(' Basic Constants

Definition

\n')

fprintf('===================== ================================================\n')

form = '%-12s %.3f %s\n';

fprintf(form,'alpha_0',alpha_0,'Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]')

fprintf(form,'AR_h',AR_h,'Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail')

fprintf(form,'AR_w',AR_w,'Aspect ratio of the wing')

fprintf(form,'b_h',b_h,'Span of the horizontal tail [ft]')

fprintf(form,'b_w',b_w,'Span of the wing [ft]')

fprintf(form,'C_bar_D_o',C_bar_D_o,'Parasite drag')

fprintf(form,'Cd_0',Cd_0,'Drag coefficient at zero lift(parasite drag)')

fprintf(form,'c_h',c_h,'MAC of the horizontal tail [ft]')

fprintf(form,'CL',CL,'Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2) (U=max flight speed)')

fprintf(form,'CL_hb',CL_hb,'Lift coefficient of the horizontal tail/body')

fprintf(form,'CL_wb',CL_wb,'Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0')

fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_h',Cl_alpha_h,'2-D lift curve slope of horizontal tail [1/rad]')

fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_v',Cl_alpha_v,'2-D lift curve slope of vertical tail [1/rad]')

fprintf(form,'Cl_alpha_w',Cl_alpha_w,'2-D lift curve slope of wing [1/rad]')

fprintf(form,'c_w',c_w,'MAC of the wing [ft]')

fprintf(form,'c_v',c_v,'MAC of the vertical tail [ft]')

fprintf(form,'d',d,'Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]')

fprintf(form,'dihedral_h',dihedral_h,'Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]')

fprintf(form,'epsilon_t',epsilon_t,'Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]')

fprintf(form,'epsilon_0_h',epsilon_0_h,'Downwash angle at the horizontal tail [rad] (see Note in Ref(3) under section

8.1.5.2)')

fprintf(form,'eta_h',eta_h,'Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream')

fprintf(form,'i_h',i_h,'Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad]')

fprintf(form,'i_w',i_w,'Incidence angle of the wing [rad]')

fprintf(form,'k',k,'k of drag polar, generally=1/(pi*AR*e)')

fprintf(form,'Lambda',deg2rad(Lambda),'Sweep angle of wing [rad] (l.e.)')

fprintf(form,'Lambda_c2',deg2rad(Lambda_c2),'Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]')

Appendix B

fprintf(form,'Lambda_c4',Lambda_c4,'Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]')

fprintf(form,'Lambda_c2_h',Lambda_c2_h,'Sweep angle at the c/2 of the horizontal tail [rad]')

fprintf(form,'Lambda_c4_h',Lambda_c4_h,'Sweep angle at the c/4 of the horizontal tail [rad]')

fprintf(form,'lambda',lambda,'Taper ratio of wing')

fprintf(form,'lambda_h',lambda_h,'Taper ratio of horizontal tail')

fprintf(form,'l_f',l_f,'Horizontal length of fuselage and boom [ft]')

fprintf(form,'S_h',S_h,'Aera of horizontal tail [ft^2]')

fprintf(form,'S_w',S_w,'Surface area of wing [ft^2]')

fprintf(form,'S_v',S_v,'Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]')

fprintf(form,'tc_w',tc_w,'Thickness to chord ratio of wing')

fprintf(form,'tc_h',tc_h,'Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail')

fprintf(form,'theta',theta,'Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]')

fprintf(form,'theta_h',theta_h,'Horizontal tail twist [rad] (-) for washout')

fprintf(form,'Xach',Xach,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of the Horizontal tail [ft]')

fprintf(form,'Xacwb',Xacwb,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of wing/body [ft] (assume: body has no lift)')

fprintf(form,'Xacw',Xacw,'Distance from LE of wing MAC to AC of wing ALONE [ft]')

fprintf('--------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n')

end

49

Appendix C

Appendix C

50

51

Appendix C

Appendix of Tables

Manufacturer

Diameter

Weight

Max RPM

Cost

[ in ]

[ lbs ]

[ RPM ]

[$]

Model

Wemotec

Midi Fan

3.5

0.231

35,000

$74.95

Wemotec

2.72

0.132

45,000

$53.90

Great Planes

Hyperflow

2.23

0.081

49,000

$30.00

VASA

VasaFan 65

45,000

$60.00

2.6

0.077

Table 3.1: Ducted Fan Candidates

Voltage

Avg. Weight

Avg. Cost

Type

Abbreviation

[V]

[ lbf ]

[$]

NiMH

Nickel Cadium

NiCd

Lithium Polymer

LiPo

3.70 per Cell

0.13 per Cell

Table 3.2: Available Hobby Batteries

Voltage per Cell

3.6 V

70 Amps

120 Amps

Capacity

2300 mAh

0.16 lbf

$11.50

Table 3.3: A123 Systems Lithium Ion Batteries

RPM

Kv

Voltage Req.

Current Req.

Efficiency

Fan

[RPM]

[ RPM / Volt ]

[ Volts ]

[ Amps ]

[ % 0f 100]

WeMoTec Midi

35,000

2800

17.5

120

70%

45,000

2500

17.8

42

Table 3.4: Results from Iterative Process to Find Fan Systems with 5 Li-Ion Cells

Motor

Kv

2980

Max Voltage

17 V

70 Amps

100 Amps

Weight

0.2 lbf

Cost

$64.00

Table 3.5: HET Typhoon 2W-20 EDF Brushless Motor

86%

52

Appendix C

Motor

Ammo 36-50-2300

Kv

2300

Max Voltage

18

60 Amps

100 Amps

Weight

0.35 lbf

Cost

$79.99

Table 3.6: Electrifly Ammo 36-50-2300 Brushless Motor

Propulsion System at High Speed Operation Conditions

Fan

Battery

Motor

Ammo 36-50-2300

Operating RPM

30,000 RPM

Aircraft Velocity

107 ft/s

Current Required

73.5 A

Voltage Required

16 V

Weight

0.23 lbf

0.78 lbf

0.35 lbf

Price

$47.00

$58.00

$79.99

Endurance

2.1 min

70 A

60 A

120 A

100 A

Max Voltage

18 V

Max Voltage

18.5 V

Totals

Weight

1.36 lbf

Price

$184.99 ** - Surge is 10 seconds

Table 3.7: Final Propulsion High Speed Specs

Propulsion System at Max Enduranc Operation Conditions

Fan

Battery

Motor

Ammo 36-50-2300

Operating RPM

15,000 RPM

Aircraft Velocity

47 ft/s

Current Required

19 A

Voltage Required

7.4 V

Weight

0.23 lbf

0.78 lbf

0.35 lbf

Price

$47.00

$58.00

$79.99

Endurance

10.2 min

70 A

60 A

120 A

100 A

Max Voltage

18 V

Max Voltage

18.5 V

Totals

Weight

1.36 lbf

Price

$184.99 ** - Surge is 10 seconds

Table 3.8: Final Propulsion Max Endurance Specs

53

Appendix C

Appendix of Figures

Exhaust Velocity vs. Rev/sec

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Rev/Sec

y = 0.3314x

y = 0.2591x

WeMoTec Midi

R2 = 0.9969

R = 0.9928

5.00

Thrust [ lbf ]

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2

25000

2

30000

35000

Efflux [ ft /s ]

y = 1.426E-04x

y = 7.24205E-05x

R2 = 1.000E+00

R2 = 1.00000E+00

40000

Appendix C

54

Appendix C

55

Appendix C

List of Symbols

Symbols

Ta

m

Ve

V

S

Cd

TR

Description

Thrust available

Mass flow

Exhaust velocity

Freestream velocity

Density of free stream

Wetted area

Drag coefficient

Thrust required

56

Appendix C

Appendix of Equations

Ta = m (Ve V )

Equation 3.1: Thrust Available (Momentum)

TR =

1

V2 SC d2

2

57

Appendix C

Appendix of Code

Code 1:TestDesignAircraft.m

% Script to design an end-to-end propulsion system for an

% electric-powered propeller-driven aircraft.

% Given:

% drag polar,

% aircraft weight, air density,

% pitch to diameter ratio of the prop and prop data,

% motor constants for a particular motor.

%

% Find:

% speed for maximum endurance,

% propeller diameter,

% gear ratio,

% voltage at which to operate the motor,

% battery sizes to achieve the desired battery voltage,

% endurance for single strand and dual strand batteries,

% for an aircraft flying straight and level.

Clear

close all

clc

fprintf('>>>>---- Start ----<<<<')

%--------------------------- Design Requirements -------------------------%

V_stall_REQ = 30; % Stall Speed [ft/sec]

Dash_distance_REQ = 1320;

Endurance_REQ = 7; % min

%----------------------- PHASE 1: AIRCRAFT SUBSYSTEM ---------------------%

% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variables <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<%

CD0=0.02; % drag coefficient when CL=0.

CL0=0.09; % Zero Angle of Attack lift.

e=0.89; % Oswalds efficiency factor

V=[10:.01:170]; % velocity in ft/sec

rho=0.002377; % air density in slugs/ft^3

S= 4.95; % wing area [ft^2]

R = 100; % Turning Radius [ft]

W = 6; % lbf, Weight of Aircraft

%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<%

%Generate Power Required Curve

[Pr,Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V,CL0);

%----------------------- PHASE 2: Propulsion System ----------------------%

%%% FAN SPECS %%%

% fan_name = ['WeMoTec Mini 480 Fan'];

% Dia_fan = 2.72; % [in]

% Dia_hub = 1.3; % [in]

% RPMmax=45000;

% Ct=0.8293; %

58

Appendix C

59

% Cp=0.8;

% Tve=7.242e-5; %relation between thrust and eflux squared

% Venrel=0.2696; %relation between Efflux and Rev/sec of fan

fan_name = ['WeMoTec Midi Fan'];

Dia_fan = 3.5; % [in]

Dia_hub = 1.7; % [in]

RPMmax=30000; %Design RPM Value

Ct=0.9112; %coefficient of Thrust for Prop

Cp=1.1;

%relation between power and rpm, coefficient of power for Prop

Tve=1.426e-4; %relation between thrust and eflux squared

Venrel=0.3314; %relation between Efflux and Rev/sec of fan

FSA = pi*((Dia_fan/24)^2-(Dia_hub/24)^2); % [ft^2] Fan Swept Area

D=Dia_fan/12; % Fan Diameter in inches

nmax=RPMmax/60; % Revolutions per second

Vemax=nmax*Venrel % Max Exhaust Velocity

Tstamax=Tve*Vemax^2 %Max Static Thrust

Pre=rho*nmax^3*D^5*Cp; %Power Input Required in ft-lbf/sec

Prewatts=Pre*1.356 %Convert Power Input Required to Watts

RPMprop=RPMmax; %Adapter to Existing Code

Tavail=(Tstamax/Vemax)*(Vemax-V); %Thrust Available Curve

T_req=Pr./V;

%Thrust Required Curve

delta=Tavail-T_req; %Difference between thrust available and required

Vmax=interp1(delta,V,0) %Find Max Speed

Tneed=interp1(V,T_req,Vmax) %Find Thrust Required for Max speed

%Plot Thrust Curves

figure(4)

hold on

grid on

H(1) = plot(V,Tavail,'LineWidth',3)

H(3) = plot(linspace(V_stall_REQ,V_stall_REQ,5),[0:4],'k--','LineWidth',3);

H(2) = plot(V,T_req,'k','LineWidth',3);

title(['Thrust vs Velocity (' fan_name '@' num2str(RPMmax) 'RPM)'])

xlabel('Velocity [ft/s]')

ylabel('Thrust [lbf]')

H(4) = plot(Vmax,Tneed,'rp','LineWidth',3)

legend(H,[{'Thrust Available'} {'Thrust Required'} {['Stall Speed = ' num2str(V_stall_REQ) 'ft/s']} {['Max Velocity = '

num2str(Vmax) ' ft/s']}])

axis([0 170 0 3])

Pout=rho*nmax^2*D^4*Ct*Vmax; %Power out of Fan

EtaProp=Pout/Pre %Efficiency of Fan

% %----------------------- Motor Analysis -------------------------%

% Motor Info in format

% Motor Model/Name

% Motor Constants

% Ammo 28-45-2700

Appendix C

60

% Kv=2700; % RPM/volt

% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere

% R= .37; % Ohms

% Io=1.5; % amperes

% Mega AC 22/20/2

% Kv=2875; % RPM/volt

% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere

% R= .012; % Ohms

% Io=3.37; % amperes

% Mega AC 16/25/2

% Kv=2650; % RPM/volt

% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere

% R= .012; % Ohms

% Io=2.3; % amperes

% HET RC Typhoon EDF 2W-20

% Kv=3450; % RPM/volt

% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere

% R= .02; % Ohms

% Io=3; % amperes

% HET RC Typhoon EDF 2W-18

% Kv=3700; % RPM/volt

% Kt=1355/Kv; % inch-ounce per ampere

% R= .02; % Ohms

% Io=3; % amperes

% Electrifly Ammo 36/50/2300

Kv = 2300;

Kt = 1355/Kv;

R = 0.041;

Io = 2;

% Electrifly Ammo 36/50/1800

% Kv = 1800;

% Kt = 1355/Kv;

% R = 0.041;

% Io = 1.9;

% Fun 600-13

% Kv=1300;

% Kt=1355/Kv;

% R=0.0339;

% Io=0.89;

% MEGA 16/25/1

% Kv = 4800;

% Kt=1355/Kv;

% R = 0.012;

% Io = 7;

[Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Prewatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,4); % Find Max

Efficiency Point of Motor

disp(' '); disp('PRELIMINARY MOTOR ANALYSIS');

Appendix C

61

string21=[' For maximum motor efficiency this motor must be provided with ',num2str(Vinstar),' input volts.'];

string22=[' Under these conditions, the input current will be ',num2str(Iinstar),' amperes'];

string23=[' and the input power will be ',num2str(Pinwattsstar),' watts.'];

string24=[' The motor shaft will be spinning at ',num2str(RPMstar),' RPM.'];

string25=[' The motor efficiency will be ',num2str(EtaMotorMax),'.'];

disp(string21); disp(string22); disp(string23); disp(string24); disp(string25);

disp(' ');

RPMactual= RPMprop; % Compute for specified gear ratio

string20b=['At this point the motor RPM and output power of the motor are specified, so motor inputs can be found.'];

string20c=[' Motor RPM= ',num2str(RPMactual),' RPM and motor output power= ',num2str(Prewatts),' watts'];

disp(string20b); disp(string20c);

% compute motor input properties

disp(' ');

[Vinactual,Iinactual,Pinwattsactual,PoutHP,EtaMotoractual,ifig]=MotorInputs(Prewatts,RPMactual,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig);

%Find Operating point of motor

string30a=['MOTOR DESIGN SUMMARY'];

string30= [' The output power of this motor is ',num2str(Prewatts),' watts or ',num2str(PoutHP),' Hp.'];

string31= [' The motor input voltage is

',num2str(Vinactual),' volts.'];

string32= [' The motor input current is

',num2str(Iinactual),' amperes.'];

string33= [' and the motor input power is ',num2str(Pinwattsactual),' watts.'];

string34= [' The electric motor shaft is spinning at ',num2str(RPMactual),' RPM.'];

string36= [' The motor efficiency is

',num2str(EtaMotoractual),'.'];

disp(string30a); disp(string30); disp(string31); disp(string32); disp(string33); disp(string34);

disp(string36);

% BATTERY SUBSYSTEM

%

disp(' '); disp('BATTERY SUBSYSTEM'); disp(' The battery pack will be made up of individual cells with the following

properties:')

VoltsPerCell=3.3;

% volts per cell

mAmpsHoursPerCell=2300; % milliamps hours per cell

gramspercell=70; %grams per cell

slugspercell=(gramspercell/1000)/14.5939;

lbfpercell=32.17*slugspercell;

string54=[' ',num2str(VoltsPerCell),' volts per cell, and ',num2str(mAmpsHoursPerCell),' milliamp hours per cell, and

',num2str(gramspercell),' grams per cell.'];

disp(string54);

disp(' '); disp(' A single string battery pack designed for the above conditions will have the following properties.')

nCells1=ceil(Vinactual/VoltsPerCell);

nVolts=nCells1*VoltsPerCell;

weight1=nCells1*lbfpercell;

BatteryEnergy1Joule=(mAmpsHoursPerCell*3600/1000)*nVolts; % Joules=watt*sec=ampere*volt*sec

ActualEnduranceMin1=(1/60)*(BatteryEnergy1Joule/Pinwattsactual); % predicted endurance for single strand battery,

minutes

string50=[' ',num2str(nCells1),' total cells, arranged in a 1x',num2str(nCells1),' array.'];

string51=[' producing ',num2str(nVolts),' volts, and giving a predicted endurance of ',num2str(ActualEnduranceMin1),'

minutes,'];

string54=[' and weighing ',num2str(weight1),' lbf.'];

disp(string50); disp(string51); disp(string54);

figure(4)

Appendix C

Code 2: Power_Required.m

function [Pr,Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V,CL0)

% function [Pre,Ve]=Power_Required(W,rho,S,CD0,A,e,V)

% OUPUTS

% Pop is operating power of the aircraft (ft-lbf/sec)

% Vop is the operating velocity of the aircraft (ft/sec)

% Pre is the minimum power required (ft-lbf/sec)

% Ve is the velocity of the aircraft for minimum power required (ft/sec)

%

% INPUTS

% CD0= drag coefficient when CL=0.

% A= aspect ratio span squared divided by reference area

% e= Oswalds efficiency factor

% V= velocity vector in ft/sec

% rho= air density in slugs/ft^3

% W= aircraft weight in pounds (lbf)

% S= wing area

% ifig is the figure number of the plot

%--------------------------- Drag Calculations ---------------------------%

k=1/(pi*A*e); % k from the drag polar CD=CD0+k*CL^2

kvisc=0.0167;

kvisclow=0.0243;

marker=interp1(V,[1:length(V)],45);

CL=2*W./(rho*S*V.*V); % Lift cofficient as a function of velocity

CD(1:marker)=CD0+(k+kvisclow)*(CL(1:marker)-CL0).^2; %Cd for low speed (<45ft/s)

CD((marker+1):length(V))=CD0+(k+kvisc)*(CL((marker+1):length(V))-CL0).^2; %Cd for high speed (>45ft/s)

% CD=CD0+k*CL.*CL % Drag coefficient as a function of velocity

Pr=.5*rho*S*V.^3.*CD; % Power required ft/lbf/sec

CLe=sqrt(3*CD0/k); % Lift coefficient for maximum endurance (minimum power required)

CDe=4*CD0; % Drag coefficient for maximum endurance (minimum power required)

Ve= sqrt(2*W/(rho*S*CLe)); % Speed for maximum endurance (minimum power required)

Pre=interp1(V,Pr,Ve); % YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI) % minimum power required

%---------------------------- Output Settings ----------------------------%

figure(1)

hold on

grid on

plot(V,Pr/550,'LineWidth',2)

xlabel('Velocity [ft/sec]')

ylabel('Power required [hp]')

title('Aircraft Power Required vs Speed')

% plot(Ve,min(Pre)/550,'rp')

fprintf('\nMinimum power of %.2f [ft-lbf/sec] is achieved at a speed of %.2f [ft/sec]',Pre,Ve);

62

Appendix C

63

Code 3: MotorMaxEff.m

function [Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Poutwatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)

% function [Vinstar,Iinstar,Pinwattsstar,RPMstar,PoutHP,EtaMotorMax,ifig]=MotorMaxEff(Poutwatts,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)

% Computes Vinstar(volts), Iinstar(amps) from Poutwatts(watts) assuming that the

% motor is running at the conditions for maximum efficiency.

% Iin=sqrt(Io*Vin/R)

%

% Requires motor constants Kv,Kt,R,Io.

% Kv= RPM/volt

% Kt= inch-ounce per ampere

% R= Ohms

% Io= amperes

%

% Additional outputs include

% Pinwattsstar =input power (watts)

% RPMstar =RPM for motor running at most efficient conditions.

% PoutHP =output power in HP

% EtaMotorMax =maximum motor efficiency (non-dimensional)

%

% ifig in the current figure number and is updated if a figure is plotted.

Vinmat=1:.1:20;

% lets vary voltage over this range (volt)

Iinmat=sqrt(Io*Vinmat/R); % current for max efficiency at Vinmat (amp)

Poutmat=(Iinmat-Io).*(Vinmat-Iinmat*R); % power at max efficiency conditions (watts)

% ifig=ifig+1; figure(ifig)

% plot(Poutmat,Vinmat)

% hold on; plot(Poutmat2,Vinmat,':'); hold off

% xlabel('Power output (watts)')

% ylabel('Input voltage (volts)')

% title('Motor performance for maxmum efficiency')

% YI = INTERP1(X,Y,XI,'spline')

Vinstar=interp1(Poutmat,Vinmat,Poutwatts,'spline'); % finds voltage for appropriate amount of power (volts)

% The above solution technique solves for Vinstar using a graphical

% technique (table lookup).

Poutwatts2=interp1(Vinmat,Poutmat,Vinstar,'spline'); % double check (watts)

% hold on

% plot([Poutwatts,Poutwatts],[0,Vinstar],'r:',[0,Poutwatts],[Vinstar,Vinstar],':')

% hold off

Iinstar=sqrt(Io*Vinstar/R); % Input current in amperes

Pinwattsstar=Iinstar*Vinstar; % Input power in watts

Poutwatts3=(Iinstar-Io)*(Vinstar-Iinstar*R); % triple check (watts)

PoutHP=Poutwatts/745.7; % hp

EtaMotorMax=((Iinstar-Io)/Iinstar)^2; % non-dimensional

RPMstar=Kv*(Vinstar-Iinstar*R); % RPM

Appendix C

Code 4: MotorInputs.m

function [Vin,Iin,PinWatts,PoutHP,EtaMotor,ifig]=MotorInputs(PoutWatts,RPM,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)

%function [Vin,Iin,PinWatts,PoutHP,EtaMotor,ifig]=MotorInputs(PoutWatts,RPM,Kv,Kt,R,Io,ifig)

% Computes Vin(volts), Iin(amperes) from PoutWatts(watts), RPM(rpm).

% Requires motor constants Kv,Kt,R,Io.

% Kv= RPM/volt

% Kt= inch-ounce per ampere

% R= Ohms

% Io= amperes

%

% ifig in the current figure number and is not used in this function.

Kt=KvKt/Kv; % Doing this improves accuracy

KvKt=12*16*60/(2*pi*1.355818); % This is by definition

Kt=KvKt/Kv; % Doing this improves accuracy

Poutftlbfsec=PoutWatts/1.355818; % ft-lbf/sec

Omegarps=RPM*2*pi/60;

% radians per sec

Torqueftlbf=Poutftlbfsec/Omegarps; % ft-lbf

Torqueozin=Torqueftlbf*12*16; % oz-in

Iin=Torqueozin/Kt+Io; % amps

Vin=RPM/Kv+Iin*R; % volts

PinWatts=Iin*Vin; % watts

PoutHP=PoutWatts/745.7; % Convert output power from watts to hp

EtaMotor=PoutWatts/PinWatts; % non-dimensional

end

64

Appendix D

Appendix D

65

Appendix D

List of Symbols

(In order of Appearance)

Symbol

Description

SHT or Sh

cHT

CW or cavg

SW or S

LHT or lh

SVT or Sv

cVT

bW or b

LVT or lv

X acA

Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient

Wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC)

Wing Area

Length Wing MAC to Horizontal Tail MAC

Vertical Tail Area

Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient

Wing Span

Length Wing MAC to Vertical Tail MAC

Aircraft Aerodynamic Center

X acwf

CLH

Downwash Effect

d h

X ach

CLwf

AR

zh

ch

Aspect Ratio

Taper Ratio

Distance Wing Centerline to Horizontal Tail Centerline

Horizontal Tail Chord

Weathercock Stability (Yawing Moment Coefficient with Sideslip Angle)

C n

C nw

C nf

C nV

KN

KRl

SBs

lB

Reynolds Number Factor for Fuselage

Side Body Area

Fuselage Length

Side Force Coefficient with Sideslip Angle of Vertical Tail

C yV

CL

CL0

CL

CLih

ih

CLe

e

C m0

dC m

dC L

Angle of Attack

Lift Coefficient

Zero-Lift Coefficient

Lift-Coefficient with Angle of Attack

Lift Coefficient with Horizontal Tail Incidence

Incidence Angle of Horizontal Tail

Lift Coefficient with Elevator Deflection

Elevator Deflection

Pitching Moment Coefficient for Zero Lift

Static Margin

C mih

C me

66

Appendix D

xcg

tail stall

M

F

d

L

Cl

V

A

Moment Generated

Force

Distance

Lift

2-D Lift Coefficient

Density

Velocity

Area

Aircraft Yaw Rate Transfer Function

R( s)

r ( s)

67

Appendix D

68

Class I: Tail Sizing Volume Coefficient Method

Two equations were used to find the preliminary tail areas, they are as follows:

c C S

S HT = HT W W

Equation 4.1

LHT

c b S

SVT = VT W W

Equation 4.2

LVT

The lengths found in the denominator of each equation is an estimation of the length from

the quarter-chord of the wing to the quarter-chord of the vertical and horizontal tails was made.

This length was estimated at 3 feet and was based on the preliminary length of the aircraft to be

approximately 4.5 feet long. The aerodynamics team members provided the remaining values for

the variables in the two equations (wing span, wing mean chord, and wing area).

cHT

cVT

bW

SW

LHT

LVT

CW

SHT

SVT

0.50

0.04

4.97

4.95

3

3

1.041

0.3300

0.8159

ft

ft2

ft

ft

ft

ft

ft2

vertical tail volume coefficient

wing span

wing area

length c/4 wing to c/4 horizontal tail

length c/4 wing to c/4 vertical tails

wing mean chord

horizontal tail area

vertical tail area

The first X-plot made was for the static longitudinal stability, which sizes the horizontal tail

area. This X-plot is based on the aircrafts aerodynamic center and the non-dimensional location of

the center of gravity. Roskam suggests that the center of gravity leg of the plot be represented as

a function of the horizontal tail area. However, the center of gravity was decided to be placed at

the quarter-chord of the aircraft wing for simplicity. The next step was to find the aerodynamic

center of the aircraft as a function of the horizontal tail area. The equation for a tail-aft airplane for

the aerodynamic center of the aircraft is as follows:

X acA

Where,

1 d h

S h X

C

L

ach

H

d S

= X acwf +

C Lwf

Equation 4.3

Appendix D

d

S h C

F = 1 + C Lh 1 h

d S Lwf

69

Equation 4.4

For each instance in the equations, the horizontal tail area (Sh) the area was varied over a

range. This range varied from 0 to 1 ft2. The values for the coefficients and the aerodynamic

center of the wing-fuselage in these two equations were also provided by the aerodynamics group.

The computations made while producing the longitudinal X-plot were critical to the design of the

aircraft. This is because several values for the dimensions of the aircraft had to be defined. A very

important parameter was the length of the dual booms being used to support the twin vertical tail

configuration. This length was set at 1.5 feet. Also the placement of the horizontal tail between

with the two vertical tails was decided. This was placed at the top of the two vertical tails. This is

because of the propulsion system placement. If the horizontal tail was placed mid-span, the

engine exhaust would directly hit the horizontal tail. The high horizontal tail would reduce the

amount of exhaust hitting the surface. The effect of horizontal tail placement was considered while

computing the downwash ratio at the horizontal tail ( d h d ). For the computation of this

variable, Ref. 4 was utilized.

d h

21C L c avg 10 3 z h

Equation 4.5

=

1

d

b

AR 0.725 l h 7

The downwash effect also took into account the changing horizontal tail area because the

length from the aerodynamic center of the wing to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail was

changing as the chord of the tail varied. The chord of the tail was based on the fixed horizontal

span of 1.5 feet and then computed as the tail area varied. This change in chord was crucial for

the horizontal aerodynamic center location computation. The aerodynamic center of the horizontal

tail was assumed to be at the quarter-chord of the tail.

Taking all of these parameters and the effect of varying the horizontal tail area led to the Xplot. The design point chosen was based on the desire to have a static margin greater than 15%.

Research proved that a static margin greater than 15% would give a longitudinal stable aircraft.

The design point was chosen as a horizontal tail area with an area of 0.625 ft2. This resulted in a

corresponding chord length of 0.41667 feet (5 inches). This gives the horizontal tail aspect ratio as

3.6. The static margin was computed as 18.1% by taking difference between the aerodynamic

center and the center of gravity.

bH

Xacwf

CLh

CLwf

AR

zh

1.5

0.249

5.451

5.545

5

0.45

0.5

feet

feet

rad-1

rad-1

feet

aerodynamic center of wing-fuselage from leading edge

lift coefficient per angle of attack for horizontal tail

lift coefficient per angle of attack for wing-fuselage

aspect ratio

wing taper ratio

distance from wing centerline to horizontal tail centerline

Appendix D

SH

cH

d h

0.625

0.4167

0.127

ft2

ft

rad-1

70

chord of horizontal tail

Downwash effect

X ach

2.115

X acA

0.4314

Table 4.3: Design Point Parameters of Horizontal Tail

In addition to the horizontal tail sizing, the longitudinal static stability (Cm) can be

computed. This value is -0.79132 rad-1 (as computed by Flat Earth Code Ref. 5). This is another

check of the static margin which was computed previously by the longitudinal X-plot to be 18.1%.

The next step was to design the vertical tail area. This was done by following the method Roskam

recommends to make a directional X-plot based on the equation for the variation of yawing

moment coefficient with sideslip angle (weathercock stability). The tail area is found to be sufficient

by ensuring that the weathercock stability is met. The stability criterion is found by relating the

yawing moment coefficient with sideslip for the wing, fuselage, and the vertical tail seen in the

following equation (rad-1):

C n = C nw + C nf + C nV

rad-1 Equation 4.6

For this equation the wing contribution (Cnw) is neglected as recommended by Roskam (Ref. 3).

For the fuselage the contribution is based on the following equation (rad-1):

S l

C nf = 57.3K N K Rl Bs B rad-1 Equation 4.7

S b

This value was computed to be -0.1334 rad-1 based on the parameters that were used (shown in

Table 4). It was at this point that the vertical tail span was chosen as 0.5 feet (6 inches). This was

based on observing similar aircraft that have boom mounted tail. In each instance it was seen that

the vertical tail span was only slightly larger than the maximum height of the fuselage. The span of

0.5 feet was chosen because it is only slightly larger than the fuselage.

KN

KRl

SBs

S

lB

b

0.002

1.2

0.914

4.97

2.52

0.5

ft2

ft2

ft2

ft

Reynolds Number factor for fuselage

side body area

wing area

fuselage length

vertical tail span

Table 4.4: Parameters for Computation of Cnf

The next step in the calculation of the yawing moment coefficient with sideslip angle was to

observe the effects of the vertical tail. In order to do this Roskam Ref. 3 was again used.

l cos + zV sin

C nV = C yV V

rad-1 Equation 4.8

b

For this equation the second term in the numerator can be neglected because the angle of attack

() is assumed to be zero. The distance from the center of gravity to the aerodynamic center of the

vertical tail (lV) is also varied with the vertical tail area. The complication of this equation occurs

with the variation of side force coefficient with sideslip angle (CyV). This is because it is at this

instant that the vertical tail contributions can be accounted for. In order to compute this value

Appendix D

71

Equation 9 is needed. With the use of figures provided in Ref. 3 values are obtained in order to

complete the calculation. It is at this stage that the variation in the vertical tail area is considered.

C yV (WBF )

SV

C yV = 2

C yVeff

S

C yVeff

b

4.97

ft

1

C yV (WBF )

C yVeff

CyVeff

S

2.8

4.95

ft2

rad-1

Equation 4.9

Wing span

Found through use of Figure 7.10 (Ref. 3)

Found through use of Figure 7.9 (Ref. 3)

wing area

At this point the directional X-plot can be found. Roskam recommends that the value of

the weathercock stability be at least 0.06 rad-1. The Flat Earth Code (Ref. 5) used throughout this

course advises that the range of Cn be from 0.06 to 0.12 rad-1. The chosen area for each vertical

tail was 0.203 ft2 (30 in2). This tail area allowed for weathercock stability of 0.102 rad-1, which is

within the values suggested by the Flat Earth Code. This was chosen because with this area the

corresponding vertical tail chord was 5 inches. This is the same length of the horizontal tail chord

and was thought that this would help to ease construction. The aspect ratio of each vertical tail is

1.2.

Appendix D

72

In order to compute the static stability derivatives found in 4.3, Flat Earth Code provided by

Prof. Andrisani was used. Flat Earth Code references Roskams Methods for Estimating Stability

and Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes, unless otherwise noted in the script.

It should be noted that the weathercock stability Cn was found previously for the twin-tail

configuration during tail sizing (4.1).

C L = C L 0 + C L + C Lihih + C Lee

0 = C m0 +

SM =

dCm

C L + C mihih + C mee

dC L

) (

dCm

C

= m = x cg x ac = x ac x cg

dC L

C L

%Tara Trafton

%AAE 451 - Trim diagram

%Equations below from 4.2.2 - 'The Airplane Trim Diagram' of Raymer % Stability and Control During Steady State Flight

clear all

close all

clc

color = ('bcgymkr');

CM0 = 0.029;

%zero lift pitching moment

CL0 = .074581;

%CL at alpha = 0

CLih = 0;

%1/rad

CMih = -5.5;

%1/rad

CLa = 5.543;

%1/rad

CMa = .60178;

%1/rad

CLde = .2022;

%1/rad

CMde = -1.28;

%1/rad

ahstall = deg2rad(7.2);

%stall angle horiz. tail (rad)

dedalfa = deg2rad(40);

%downwash angle (rad)

eps0 = 0;

%initial downwash

CLmax = 1.042;

%CL for stall condition

%------User Defined Variables------alfa = [0:deg2rad(.5):deg2rad(10)];

%angle of attack (rad)

ih = 0;

%h-tail stab. incidence (rad)

gam = 0;

%flight path angle (rad)

de = deg2rad([8 5 2 -1]); %elevator deflection (rad)

deA = deg2rad([-8:.1:16]);

%array of de to plot alfa max

j = length(de);

%constant used for counter

aoa = deg2rad([-1:4:7]);

%AoA to plot alfa max

Equations 4.10-4.13

Appendix D

CLt = [0:.01:CLmax];

CMCLm = [.29:-.001:-.29];

%x range to show CLmax

%wing chord [ft]

LE = 13/12;

%distance of LE from nose

xCGa = 20/12;

%aft center of gravity [ft]

xCGf = 16.902/12;

%forward center of gravity [ft]

xCG = 18.06/12;

%quarter chord of wing [ft]

xCGap = (xCGa - LE)/c;

%aft CG percent chord

xCGfp = (xCGf - LE)/c;

%forward CG percent chord

xCGp = (xCG - LE)/c;

%nominal CG percent chord

CG = [xCGfp xCGp xCGap];

%CG vector to get V of trim CG locations

%-----------Trim Diagram----------figure()

%---CL vs. ALPHA PLOT---subplot(121)

%subplot gives conventional layout of trim diagram

%Loop iterates for all values of deflection

for i = [1:1:j]

CL = (CL0 + CLa.*alfa +CLih*ih + CLde*de(i));

%Raymer 4.61a

plot(rad2deg(alfa),CL, color(i),'LineWidth',2)

hold on

i = i+1;

end

xlabel('\alpha [deg]')

ylabel('C_L')

grid on

legend('\delta_e = 8^o', '\delta_e = 5^o','\delta_e = 2^o','\delta_e = -1^o')

title('Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack')

%----TRIM TRIANGLE-----subplot(122)

grid off

%plotting CLmax on trim diagram... horizontal line at top

plot(CMCLm,CLmax, 'r.', 'LineWidth',1)

% xlabel('C_{m_{0.25c}}')

% ylabel('C_L')

hold all

%plotting aoa

for c = 1:length(deA)

for d = 1:length(aoa)

CMA(d,c) = CM0 + CMa*aoa(d) + CMih*ih + CMde*deA(c);

CLA(d,c) = CL0 + CLa*aoa(d) +CLih*ih + CLde*deA(c);

CMt(d,c) = CMA(d,c) - CLA(d,c)*(.25 - xCGfp);

end

plot(CMt(:,c),CLA(:,c), 'm.','LineWidth',2)

hold on

end

73

Appendix D

for k = [1:1:j]

CM = -(CM0 + CMa.*alfa +CMih*ih + CMde*de(k)); %Raymer 4.61b

plot(CM,CL, color(k),'LineWidth',3)

hold on;

set(gca,'xdir','reverse')

k = k+1;

end

%plotting CG positions on trim diagram... getting the 'V'

for a = [1:1:length(CG)]

SM = -1*(CG(a) - xCGp);

%Raymer 4.61b

CMt = 1*SM.*CLt;

%Raymer

plot(CMt,CLt, 'k','LineWidth',3)

hold on

a = a+1;

end

title('Trim Diagram C_L vs C_M_c_g for varying \delta_e')

xlabel('C_M_c_g')

ylabel('C_L')

hold off

74

Appendix D

75

This was performed as a check of TFM-2. The TFM-2 has a greater nose down pitching

moment than traditionally experience due to the elevated line of action of the propulsion system

with respect to the center of gravity of the aircraft. Analysis of moment generated and how to

balance it using the elevator was conducted using the following equations.

M = F d

V 2

A

L = C l

2

Equations 4.14 - 4.15

Variable

M

F

d

L

Cl

V

A

e

Definition

Moment Generated

Force

distance

Lift

2D Lift Coefficient

Density

Velocity

Area

Elevator deflection

Units

lb-ft

lbf

ft

lbf

lb/ft3

ft/s

ft2

degree

The equations above are general expressions for calculating moments (M) and lift (L),

Table A.4.6 contains the definition of each term. After creating a MatLab code that found the value

of the moments generated by the elevator and the propulsion system, it was found that an elevator

deflection angle of -10.26o was needed to trim the aircraft. It can be seen in Figure A.4.2, as the

location at which the moments are equal. From there, logic shows that the sign of the angle should

be negative using the traditional notation. However, this did not take into consideration the

enhanced elevator efficiency which results from the location of the elevator. Once that was

considered along with the more traditional trim diagram and low deflection values it was apparent

that the aircraft is trimmable at a velocity of 107 ft/s.

Appendix D

76

4

Elevator

Thrust

3.5

Moment [lb-ft]

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-15

-10

-5

e [deg]

Figure 4.2: Moment versus Elevator Deflection

Appendix D

77

Without Feedback Control System

% Ashley Brawner

% Finding the damping of the open-loop yaw rate transfer function

% A&AE 451

damp(RperDr)

Eigenvalue

0.00e+000

1.69e-001

-7.68e-001 + 4.03e+000i

-7.68e-001 - 4.03e+000i

-6.75e+000

Damping

-1.00e+000

-1.00e+000

1.87e-001

1.87e-001

1.00e+000

Freq. (rad/s)

0.00e+000

1.69e-001

4.10e+000

4.10e+000

6.75e+000

Appendix D

78

% Ashley Brawner

% Finding the damping of the Feedback Control System

% A&AE 451

sys=feedback(Servo*RperDr,-0.4); damp(sys)

Eigenvalue

0.00e+000

2.33e-001

-5.38e+000

-4.66e+000 + 3.21e+000i

-4.66e+000 - 3.21e+000i

-1.68e+001 + 2.13e+001i

-1.68e+001 - 2.13e+001i

Damping

-1.00e+000

-1.00e+000

1.00e+000

8.23e-001

8.23e-001

6.21e-001

6.21e-001

Freq. (rad/s)

0.00e+000

2.33e-001

5.38e+000

5.66e+000

5.66e+000

2.71e+001

2.71e+001

Appendix D

79

Appendix of Code

BasicConstants.m

Basic Constants.m is a MATLAB file which was used for running Prof. Andrisanis Flat Earth code.

This code was used to determine many constants which were needed for analysis, in addition it

also evaluated the longitudinal and lateral stability of the TFM-2 aircraft after the equations of

motion were linearized.

% *********************************************

% BasicConstants_TFM2 Version 2.0 10/30/06

% This version requires Xcg and low_wing to be defined here.

%

% OBJECTIVE: Collect into one location all the vehicle specific constants (a.k.a. basic constants).

%

From these basic constants all the stability and control derivatives

%

can be determined.

% INPUTS: None

% OUTPUTS: Many basic constants defined in the Matlab workspace.

%

% This version is the first for team Balsa to the Wall

% Arbitrary reference point is the quarter chord of the wing

% Moment reference point is the quarter chord of the wing

% Trim velocity assumed to be 107 ft/s

%

% *********************************************

% BasicConstants - Identifies, describes, and assigns all of the

%

the most basic variables for analyzing the control

%

and stability of a generic aircraft.

% *********************************************

%

% A&AE 451 Fall 2006 - Purdue University

%

% Note: This code is provided for a first order approximation of the dynamic

%

analysis of an airplane and is not intended for final designs.

%

% Equations/Figures can be found in :

%

% (Ref.1) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight

%

Controls"

%

Published by DARcorporation

%

120 E. Ninth St., Suite 2

%

Lawrence, KS 66044

%

Third Printing, 2001.

%

% (Ref.2) Roskam, Jan. "Methods for Estimating Stability and

%

Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes"

%

Published by the Author

%

519 Boulder

%

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

%

Third Printing, 1997.

%

% (Ref.3) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Design: Part IV: Preliminary Calculation

%

of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power Characteristics"

%

Published by Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation

Appendix D

%

%

%

80

Ottawa, Kansas 66067

Second Printing, 1990.

aircraft='TFM2';

adelf = 0;

% Two dimensional lift effectiveness parameter Ref.(2),Equ(8.7)

alpha = 0*pi/180; % Trim Angle of attack [rad]. This should be zero since our

%

equations of motion are body axis system rather then the stability axis system.

alpha_0 = -0.018;

% Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]

altitude= 620;

% Trim altitude [ft] [We fly at 20 feet plus West Lafayettes sea level altitude]

disp(['Trim altitude= ',num2str(altitude),' ft'])

AR_h = 3.6585;

% Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail

AR_w = 5;

% Aspect ratio of the wing

b_f =3.47;

% Span of the flap [ft] (Alieron total span)****

b_h = 1.5;

% Span of the horizontal tail [ft]

b_h_oe =6/12;

% Elevator outboard position [ft]

b_h_ie = 0;

% Elevator inboard position [ft]

b_w = 4.97;

% Span of the wing [ft]

b_v = 6/12;

% Vertical tail span measured from fuselage centerline[ft]

b_v_or = 5.5/12;

% Outboard position of rudder [ft]

b_v_ir = 0;

% Inboard position of rudder [ft]

c_a = 0.1825;

% Chord of aileron [ft]

C_bar_D_o = 0.018;

% Parasite drag

Cd_0 = 0.019;

% Drag coefficient at zero lift (parasite drag)

c_e = 1.25/12;

% Elevator chord [ft]

cf = 0.1825;

% Chord of the wing flap [ft]

c_h = 5/12;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail [ft]

CL = 0.598;

% Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2)

CL_hb = 0;

% Lift coefficient of the horzontal tail/body

CL_wb= 0.130;

% Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0

Cl_alpha_h = 5.451;

% 2-D Lift curve slope of horizontal tail

Cl_alpha_v = 6.283;

% 2-D Lift curve slope of vertical tail

Cl_alpha = 6.032;

% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of whole aircraft

Cl_alpha_w = 5.543;

% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of wing

Cm_0_r = -0.029;

% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing root

Cm_o_t = -0.029;

% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing tip **Cm_0_r = Cm_o_t because wing

has

% No twist

c_r = 4.5/12;

% MEAN Chord of the rudder [ft]

c_w = 1.041;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the wing [ft]

c_v = 5/12;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical tail [ft]

D_p = 10/12;

% Diameter of propeller [ft]

d = 0.417;

% Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]

delf = 0;

% Streamwise flap deflection [rad] NO FLAPS

delta_e = 0;

% Elevator deflection [rad]

delta_r = 0;

% Rudder deflection [rad]

dihedral = 0*pi/180; % Geometric dihedral angle of the wing [rad], positive for

%

dihedral (wing tips up), negative for

%

anhedral(tips down) [rad] ***EST

dihedral_h = 0*pi/180;

% Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]

e = 0.9;

% Oswald's efficiency factor

epsilon_t = 0;

% Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]

epsilon_0_h = 0*pi/180;

% Downwash angle at the horizontal tail (see Note in

%

Ref.(3) under section 8.1.5.2) [rad] ***EST

eta_h = 1;

% Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream ***EST

Appendix D

eta_ia = 0.3;

% Percent semi-span position of inboard edge of aileron

eta_oa = 1;

% Percent semi-span position of outboard edge of aileron

eta_p = 0.8;

% Propeller Efficiency ***EST

eta_v = 1.0;

% Ratio of the dynamic pressure at the vertical tail

%

to that of the freestream

h1_fuse =4/12;

% Height of the fuselage at 1/4 of the its length

h2_fuse = 3/12;

% Height of the fuselage at 3/4 of the its length

h_h = 6/12;

% Height from chord plane of wing to chord plane of

%

horizontal tail [ft] - Fig 3.7, Ref. 2

hmax_fuse = 4.2/12;

% Maximum height of the fuselage [ft]

Ixx = .444312;

% Airplane moment of inertia about x-axis [slug-ft^2] *** With 4 lb load

Iyy = .530488;

% Airplane moment of inertia about y-axis [slug-ft^2]

Izz = .960872;

% Airplane moment of inertia about z-axis [slug-ft^2]

Ixz = .007557;

% Airplane product of inertia [slug-ft^2]

i_h = 0*pi/180; % Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad] This has applications from Trim Diagrams.

i_w = 0*pi/180;

% Incidence angle of wing [rad]

k = 0.087;

% k of the drag polar, generally= 1/(pi*AR*e)

Lambda = .076;

% Sweep angle of wing [rad]

Lambda_c2 =-0.076; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]

Lambda_c4 = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]

Lambda_c2_v = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the vertical tail [rad]

Lambda_c4_v = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the vertical tail [rad]

Lambda_c2_h = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the horizontal tail [rad]

Lambda_c4_h = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the horizontal tail [rad]

lambda = .45; % Taper ratio of wing

lambda_h = 1;

% Taper ratio of horizontal tail

lambda_v = 1.0;

% Taper ratio of vertical tail

l_f = 45/12;

% Horizontal length of fuselage [ft]

l_v = 31.43/12;

% Horizontal distance from aircraft arbitrary reference point to vertical tail AC [ft]

%Ref fig 2.1 in thesis for l_v, ref pt is c/4

low_wing=1;

% low_wing=-1 if the wing is high

% low_wing=1 if the wing is low

% low_wing=0 if the wing is mid

% Trim Airspeed

u = 107; % ft/sec

M = u/1221;

% Mach number

S_b_s = 131.035/144;

% Body side area [ft^2]

S_h = .625;

% Area of horizontal tail [ft^2]

S_h_slip = 100/144;

% Area of horizontal tail that is covered in

%

prop-wash [ft^2] - See Fig.(8.64) - Ref.(3) ***EST

%

[Estimation]

S_o = 15/144;

% Fuselage x-sectional area at Xo [ft^2] %

See Fig.(7.2) - Ref.(2)

%

Xo is determined by plugging X1/l_b into:

%

0.378 + 0.527 * (X1/l_b) = (Xo/l_b) [Estimation at this point]

S_w = 4.95;

% Surface area of wing [ft^2]

S_v = 60/144;

% Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]

tc_w = .08;

% Thickness to chord ratio of wing

tc_h = .08;

% Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail

theta = 0*pi/180; % Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]

theta_h = 0*pi/180; % Horizontal tail twist between the root and tip

%

stations,negative for washout [rad]

two_r_one = 0/12;

% Fuselage depth in region of vertical tail [ft] Ref.(2),Figure 7.5

U = u/1.7; % knots

% Free Stream Velocity (Trim velocity) [KNOTS true]

disp(['Trim airspeed= ',num2str(U),' knots'])

81

Appendix D

82

W = 5.45242;

% Weight of Airplane [lbf]

wingloc = 0;

% If the aircraft is a highwing: (wingloc=1), low-wing:(wingloc=0)

wmax_fuse =3.6/12; % Maximum fuselage width [ft]

X1 = (14+3)/12;

% Distance from the front of the fuselage where the

%

x-sectional area decrease (dS_x/dx)

%

is greatest (most negative) [ft] - Ref.(2),Fig. 7.2

x_m = 15.875/12;

% Distance from nose of aircraft to arbitrary reference point [ft]

%

measured positive aftward. Reference point will be MAC.

x_over_c_v = .25

% PARAMETER ACCOUNTING FOR THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE HORIZONTAL

AND VERTICAL TAILS

%

defined as the fore-and-aft distance from leading edge of vertical fin to the

%

aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail divided by the chord of the vertical tail

%

[nondimensional] - See Fig 7.6 of Ref. 2

Xach = 2.882;

% Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail (positive aftward) [ft]

Xacwb = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the wing and body.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xacw = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the wing ALONE.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xref = 2.92/12; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the arbitrary moment reference point. The equivalent force system

%

for the aerodynamic force system is given about this point.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xcg = 0.15*c_w;

% Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the center of gravity.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

%

% Xcg is ignored until Step 2. It an be changed later in Step 2.

%

Z_h = -6/12;

%

%

%

%

%

%

Z_v = 3/12;

%

Z_w = -1.5/12;

%

%

Z_w1 = -1.5/12;

%

%

centerline to the horizontal tail aero center

(Z_h is a negative number FOR TAILS ABOVE THE CENTERLINE)

- Ref.(2), Fig.7.6

***This produces a bunch of interpolation errors because

Roskam doesn't have data for horizontal tails below the

centerline of the fuselage

% Vertical distance from the aircraft arbirary reference point to the vertical

tail aero center (positive up) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.18

% This is the vertical distance from the wing root c/4 [ft]

to the fuselage centerline,

positive downward - Ref.(2), Equ(7.5)

% Distance from body centerline to c/4 of wing root

chord,positive for c/4 point

below body centerline (ft) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.1

Appendix E

Appendix E

83

Appendix E

Appendix of Equations

bending =

My

I

FL3

3EI

T=

1

V 2 SC m c

2

TL

GJ

84

Appendix E

85

Appendix of Figures

Load Factor vs. Velocity

14

12

10

nmax

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Velocity [ft/sec]

70

80

90

100

Load Factor vs. Bank Angle

12

10

nturn

10

20

30

40

50

Bank Angle [deg]

60

70

80

90

Appendix E

86

10

npull up

8

6

4

2

0

150

150

100

100

50

50

0

Velocity [ft/sec]

Figure 5.2.3: Load factor in climb vs. vertical turn radius and velocity

35

30

30 [ f t / s]

35 [ f t / s]

25

40 [ f t / s]

45 [ f t / s]

50 [ f t / s]

55 [ f t / s]

20

60 [ f t / s]

65 [ f t / s]

70 [ f t / s]

15

75 [ f t / s]

80 [ f t / s]

85 [ f t / s]

90 [ f t / s]

10

95 [ f t / s]

100 [ f t / s]

5

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ve r t i c a l T u r n R a di us [ f t ]

Figure 5.2.4: Load factor in climb vs. vertical turn radius for range of velocities

Appendix E

87

0.8

0.6

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

1

0

0.5

0.5

1

1.5

0

2

2.5

-0.5

Chord [ft]

Span [ft]

12

10

8

Lift [lbf]

Thickness [ft]

0.4

6

4

2

0

0.5

1

1.5

Distance from Root [ft]

2.5

Appendix E

88

25

20

15

10

5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Distance from Root [ft]

2.5

0

Torque [ft-lbf]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

0.5

1

1.5

Distance from Root [ft]

Figure 5.3.4: Torque vs. Span

2.5

Appendix E

89

0

-5

-15

-20

-25

-30

0.5

1

1.5

Distance from Root [ft]

2.5

0.012

Fiberglass Cloth Thickness [in]

Torque [ft-lbf]

-10

y = 0.0015x

R2 = 0.9851

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0

0

Appendix E

90

0.4

0.3

0.2

y/c

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation

0.3

0.2

y/c

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Appendix E

91

The design variables which were used in V-n diagram analysis are summarized in Table

5.2.1 below.

Design Variables

Velocity

V

Bank Angle

r

Table 5.2.1: Load factor parameters.

Velocity and bank angle will be relatively easy to control. The vertical turn radius is more arbitrary,

but can still be physically attained within reason.

The entire structure scales with load factor; therefore, the lower the load factor is, the

lighter the aircraft structure can be made. As the intended mission is high speed, light weight

becomes even more critical than in the case of more general purpose aircraft.

Three separate flight conditions were examined to determine the appropriate load factor.

The first condition was level-flight at maximum lift, where CLmax was given by the aerodynamics

team as 1.06. The second condition was a level-flight turn. The third condition was the climb.

C L S

n = max V 2

2W

Load factor at CL,max

n=

1

cos

n=

V2

+1

gr

These equations yield the instantaneous load factors for the given flight conditions and

required input parameters. Graphical representations of the above equations are presented in

figures 5.2.1 through 5.2.4.

Appendix E

92

Elliptic Approximation

For simplification of analysis, the bending moments of inertia and polar moments of inertia

were initially approximated using an ellipse with thickness and chord corresponding to that of the

local station airfoil. This was later compared with the exact airfoil structural properties obtained

using XFOIL. The trade study evaluating this approximation was conducted with a uniform wing

skin of 4 oz E-glass/epoxy having a thickness of 0.0059 in.

The bending moments of inertia and polar moments of inertia were calculated for the area

and for the skin at each of the ten discretized stations. The errors presented in table 5.3.1 are the

errors averaged over the ten stations. The comparison of tip vertical deflection and tip twist is

shown in table 5.3.2 below. While providing an approximate initial first guess for structural design,

the elliptic approximation proved to be a poor analysis approximation when precise results were

desired.

I_xx_area_avg_error

22.70%

I_xx_skin_avg_error

6.79%

J_area_avg_error

23.81%

J_skin_avg_error

27.30%

Table 5.3.1: Average errors in structural properties in elliptic approximation

Ellipse Tip Vertical Deflection

Airfoil Tip Twist

Ellipse Tip Twist

1.386e-4 [ft]

1.298e-4 [ft]

-1.045 [deg]

-0.8199 [deg]

Table 5.3.2: Comparison of exact airfoil calculations with elliptic approximation

Appendix E

93

The tail construction was designed with respect to a center of gravity located at the front

quarter chord of the wing. In order to ensure this location of the center of gravity, the majority of

the components needed to be placed in the front section of the fuselage. The internal components

placed near the front of the fuselage included the payload, battery, rate gyro, receiver, and four

servos. The dynamics & controls team stated that the rate gyro and receiver needed to be placed

close to each other due to wire length constraints between them. The four servos have been

placed closest to the wing in order to reduce the complexity of any extra linkages between the

servos and the push-rods. The battery and payload have been placed as close to the front of the

fuselage as possible based on their individual weights being the two largest of all the components

individual weights. The motor has been placed inside the ducted fan which is located directly

behind the fuselage. The speed controller needed to be placed in the back of the fuselage due to

the short wire which must connect it to the motor. All of these components were modeled in these

specific locations using CATIA. Based on given dimensions of each component, CATIA assigned

each component a volume. The given mass of each component was determined by manually

assigning a volumetric density. The specific locations and weights of all components are listed in a

table, below.

Component

Booms

Fuselage

Tail

Motor

Batteries

Speed Controller

Receiver

Wing

Flapperon Servos

Vert. Tail Servos

Horiz. Tail Servo

Rate Gyro

Payload

Weight [lbf]

0.250

0.651

0.150

0.375

1.250

0.100

0.040

0.849

0.008

0.008

0.004

0.010

1.000

Position [ft]

2.431

1.681

4.125

1.738

1.613

0.083

0.417

1.306

0.322

0.322

0.322

0.083

0.250

Appendix E

94

Appendix of Tables

[0/90] Woven Cloth

E_1 [Msi]

3.5

E_2 [Msi]

3.5

G_12 [Msi] 0.68

Table 5.3.3: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties

2 Ply Laminate

E_x [Msi]

E_y [Msi]

G_xy [Msi]

[0/45]

2.87

2.87

1.13

Table 5.3.4: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties, 2-ply equivalent moduli

E_x [Msi]

2.62

E_y [Msi]

2.62

G_xy [Msi]

1.28

Table 5.3.5: Woven E-glass Epoxy Material Properties, 3-ply equivalent moduli

Appendix E

95

Appendix E

Appendix of Code

Wing Bending Analysis

% Wing Bending Analysis

close all

clear all

clc;

% Updated 12 October 2006

% Assumes Elliptic Lift Distribution

W = 5.5; % weight

Span = 5;

n = 5;

SF = 1.5;

g = 32.174;

L = n*SF*W;

a = Span/2;

A = L/2;

b = 4*A/(pi*a);

n = 11;

x = linspace(0,a,n);

y = sqrt(b^2*(1-x.^2/a^2)); % Lift

for i = 1:length(x)-1

x_avg(i) = (x(i)+x(i+1))/2;

y_avg(i) = (y(i)+y(i+1))/2;

end

dx = x(2);

dl = x(2)/2;

n_dl = [1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19];

for j = 1:length(x_avg)

L_local(j) = dx*y_avg(j);

end

for k = 1:length(L_local)

M_local = L_local(k:length(L_local)).*(dl*n_dl(1:length(L_local)+1-k));

M_station(k) = sum(M_local);

end

96

Appendix E

M = L/2*4*a/(3*pi)

M_approx = M_station(1)

Half_Lift = A

Half_Lift_approx = sum(dx*y_avg)

plot(x,y,'o-')

hold on

bar(x_avg,y_avg)

title('Elliptic Lift Distribution and Discretized Approximation')

xlabel('Distance from Root [ft]')

ylabel('Lift [lbf]')

figure

plot(x(1:n-1),M_station,'o-')

grid on

title('Bending Moment vs. Span')

xlabel('Distance from Root [ft]')

ylabel('Bending Moment [ft-lb]')

97

Appendix E

98

% NACA 1408 Wing Analysis

close all

clear all

clc;

% Updated 25 October 2006

% Station Properties

%

[ A,

Xc,

Yc,

Iyy,

Iyy/t, Ixx,

Ixx/t,

J,

J/t ]

fprintf('[ A

Xc

Yc

Iyy

Iyy/t Ixx Ixx/t J

J/t ]')

Properties = [0.1003652, 0.5689842, 1.0439277e-2, 1.0145793e-2, 0.4540932, 6.8701578e-5, 4.4289734e-3,

2.7061885e-4, 1.4723400e-2;

0.089689165, 0.5378717, 9.8684337e-3, 8.1021124e-3, 0.3836002, 5.4863063e-5, 3.7414338e-3,

2.1610824e-4, 1.2437802e-2;

0.079600058, 0.5067170, 9.2968261e-3, 6.3818241e-3, 0.3207298, 4.3214237e-5, 3.1282266e-3,

1.7022298e-4, 1.03992991e-2;

0.070112742, 0.4755621, 8.7252399e-3, 4.9512368e-3, 0.2651335, 3.3526972e-5, 2.5859731e-3,

1.3206442e-4, 8.5966438e-3;

0.061227284, 0.4444072, 8.1536258e-3, 3.7758080e-3, 0.2163654, 2.5567635e-5, 2.1103078e-3,

1.0071212e-4, 7.0153750e-3;

0.052943632, 0.4132523, 7.5820335e-3, 2.8232406e-3, 0.1739763, 1.9117340e-5, 1.6968708e-3,

7.5304190e-5, 5.6409743e-3;

0.045261785, 0.3820978, 7.0104208e-3, 2.0634034e-3, 0.1375204, 1.3972162e-5, 1.3412997e-3,

5.5037035e-5, 4.4589327e-3;

0.038181752, 0.3509431, 6.4388211e-3, 1.4683584e-3, 0.1065501, 9.9428771e-6, 1.0392308e-3,

3.9165472e-5, 3.4547555e-3;

0.031711873, 0.3198301, 5.8679874e-3, 1.0128941e-3, 0.0806497, 6.8587369e-6, 7.8661321e-4,

2.7016893e-5, 2.6149678e-3;

0.025834661, 0.2886758, 5.2963835e-3, 6.7223917e-4, 0.0593026, 4.5520369e-6, 5.7840504e-4,

1.7930692e-5, 1.9228162e-3;

0.020559255, 0.2575209, 4.7247875e-3, 4.2572958e-4, 0.0420998, 2.8828013e-6, 4.1061913e-4,

1.1355497e-5, 1.3650381e-3]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Wing Geometry Parameters

Span = 5;

c_root = 16.24/12;

c_tip = 7.35/12;

% NACA 1408 Airfoil Parameters

t = 0.08;

p = 0.4;

m = 0.01;

% Stations and chord

a = Span/2;

Appendix E

99

n = 11;

Station_loc = linspace(0,a,n);

chord = (c_tip-c_root)/a.*Station_loc + c_root;

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Defines x-coordinates for discretized airfoil coordinates

x_1 = [0,0.00025,0.001,0.002,0.003,0.006,0.01,0.015,0.025,0.04];

x_2 = linspace(0.06,0.15,4);

x_3 = [0.2,0.25];

x_4 = [0.3:0.1:1];

x_disc = [x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4];

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Finds discretized normalized airfoil coordinates for output to Catia model

for i = 1:length(x_disc)

X = x_disc(i);

y_t = t/0.2*(0.2969*sqrt(X) - 0.1260*X - 0.3516*X^2 + 0.2843*X^3 - 0.1015*X^4);

if X < p

y_c = m/p^2*(2*p*X - X^2);

else

y_c = m/(1-p)^2*((1-2*p) + 2*p*X - X^2);

end

x_pos(i) = X;

y_upper(i) = (y_t + y_c);

y_lower(i) = (-y_t + y_c);

end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Fixing Numerical Error at TE in discretized airfoil

q = length(x_pos);

y_upper(q) = 0;

y_lower(q) = 0;

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Finds exact and elliptic approximation normalized airfoil geometry

dx = 0.0001;

x = [0:dx:1];

for i = 1:length(x)

X = x(i);

Appendix E

100

if X < p

y_c = m/p^2*(2*p*X - X^2);

else

y_c = m/(1-p)^2*((1-2*p) + 2*p*X - X^2);

end

x_pos_i(i) = X;

y_upper_i(i) = (y_t + y_c);

y_lower_i(i) = (-y_t + y_c);

y_ellipse_upper_i(i) = sqrt((1 - (X-0.5)^2/0.5^2)*(t/2)^2);

y_ellipse_lower_i(i) = -sqrt((1 - (X-0.5)^2/0.5^2)*(t/2)^2);

end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Output coordinates for Catia model

Normalized_airfoil_coords_i = [x_pos_i'-0.25,y_upper_i',y_lower_i'];

Normalized_ellipse_coords_i = [x_pos_i'-0.25,y_ellipse_upper_i',y_ellipse_lower_i'];

% Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos',y_upper',y_lower']

Output_coords_i =

[[flipud(Normalized_airfoil_coords_i(:,1));Normalized_airfoil_coords_i(2:length(x_pos_i),1)],[flipud(y_upper_i');y_lower_i

(2:length(y_lower_i))']];

Output_ellipse_coords_i =

[[flipud(Normalized_ellipse_coords_i(:,1));Normalized_ellipse_coords_i(2:length(x_pos_i),1)],[flipud(y_ellipse_upper_i');

y_ellipse_lower_i(2:length(y_ellipse_lower_i))']];

dim_airfoil = size(Output_coords_i);

dim_ellipse = size(Output_ellipse_coords_i);

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Creates station airfoil geometry and plots as wing

figure(1)

hold on

grid on

axis equal

title('Exact Wing Geometry')

for i = 1:n

position = Station_loc(i)*ones(dim_airfoil(1),1);

scale_factor = chord(i);

Station_airfoil_coords = Output_coords_i*scale_factor;

y = Station_airfoil_coords(:,1);

z = Station_airfoil_coords(:,2);

plot3(position,y,z)

end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Input station moments from BendingAnalysis code

Appendix E

101

M_station = [21.3922 16.6243 12.5079 9.0330 6.1824 3.9314 2.2465 1.0835 0.3846 0.0715

0.0000001];

L_local = [2.6195 2.5929 2.5390 2.4560 2.3405 2.1875 1.9881 1.7255 1.3602 0.5723 0.0000001];

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Elliptic airfoil approximation wing geometry and analysis

figure(2)

hold on

grid on

axis equal

title('Elliptic Approximation Wing Geometry')

skin_t = 0.0059/12;

for i = 1:n

position = Station_loc(i)*ones(dim_ellipse(1),1);

scale_factor = chord(i);

Station_ellipse_coords = Output_ellipse_coords_i*scale_factor;

y = Station_ellipse_coords(:,1);

z = Station_ellipse_coords(:,2);

plot3(position,y,z)

b(i) = t*chord(i)/2;

a(i) = chord(i)/2;

h(i) = (a(i)-b(i))^2/(a(i)+b(i))^2;

circumference(i) = pi*(a(i)+b(i))*[1 + 3*h(i)/(10+(4-3*h(i))^(1/2))];

skin_thick = 0.0059/12;

sigma(i) = M_station(i)*a(i)/(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));

L = Station_loc(2);

I_ellipse_area(i) = (pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3));

% I(i) = (pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));

I_ellipse(i) = pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3));

I(i) = Properties(i,7)*skin_t;

% d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3))));

d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(I(i)));

d_ellipse(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(I_ellipse(i)));

% while sigma(i) > 165e3*12^2 % E-glass/Epoxy longitudinal tensile strength

%

skin_thick = skin_thick + 0.00000001;

%

sigma(i) = M_station(i)*a(i)/(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3)));

% end

%

% skin_thickness(i) = skin_thick;

end

deflection = sum(d)

deflection_ellipse = sum(d_ellipse)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Numerical integration airfoil function

Appendix E

102

for i = 1:length(x_pos_i)

dA_upper(i) = y_upper_i(i)*dx;

dA_lower(i) = abs(y_lower_i(i))*dx;

x_num_upper(i) = x_pos_i(i)*dA_upper(i);

x_num_lower(i) = x_pos_i(i)*dA_lower(i);

y_num_upper(i) = y_upper_i(i)*dA_upper(i);

y_num_lower(i) = y_lower_i(i)*dA_lower(i);

end

A_upper = sum(dA_upper);

A_lower = sum(dA_lower);

x_bar_upper = sum(x_num_upper)/A_upper;

x_bar_lower = sum(x_num_lower)/A_lower;

y_bar_upper = sum(y_num_upper)/A_upper;

y_bar_lower = sum(y_num_lower)/A_lower;

A = A_upper + A_lower;

x_bar = (sum(x_num_upper) + sum(x_num_lower))/A;

y_bar = (sum(y_num_upper) + sum(y_num_lower))/A;

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Plots Normalized Airfoil and Centroid

figure

plot(x_pos,y_upper,'r*-')

hold on

plot(x_pos,y_lower,'r*-')

plot(x_pos_i,y_upper_i)

plot(x_pos_i,y_lower_i)

% plot(x_bar_upper-0.25,y_bar_upper,'o')

% plot(x_bar_lower-0.25,y_bar_lower,'o')

plot(x_bar,y_bar,'*')

grid on

axis equal

title('NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Centroid Location')%,'FontSize',20)

xlabel('x/c')%,'FontSize',18)

ylabel('y/c')%,'FontSize',18)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Plots Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation

figure

plot(x_pos_i,y_upper_i)

hold on

plot(x_pos_i,y_lower_i)

plot(x_pos_i,y_ellipse_upper_i,'k')

Appendix E

103

plot(x_pos_i,y_ellipse_lower_i,'k')

grid on

axis equal

title('NACA 1408 Normalized Airfoil and Elliptic Approximation')%,'FontSize',20)

xlabel('x/c')%,'FontSize',18)

ylabel('y/c')%,'FontSize',18)

% % Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos'-0.25,y_upper',y_lower']

Normalized_airfoil_coords = [x_pos',y_upper',y_lower']

Output_coords =

[[flipud(Normalized_airfoil_coords(:,1));Normalized_airfoil_coords(2:length(x_pos),1)],[flipud(y_upper');y_lower(2:length

(y_lower))']]

% figure

% plot(Output_coords(:,1),Output_coords(:,2))

% axis equal

% x_bar

% y_bar

Num_stations = n;

Cm = -0.2; % Alpha = 0

g = 32.2;

% ft/s^2

rho = 0.00237; % slug/ft^3

V = 100;

% ft/s

% G = 0.62e6*12^2;

% lbf/ft^2

% HT with elevator x/c = 0.2 , del_e = 30 deg

Chord_ht = 5/12;

Span_ht = 1.5;

C_L_ht = 1.22;

S_ht = Chord_ht*Span_ht;

L_ht = C_L_ht*0.5*rho*V^2*S_ht

Station_chord = linspace(c_root,c_tip,Num_stations);

Station_A_bar = Properties(:,1);

l_boom = 1.5; % TE of wing to LE of HT

T_ht = -L_ht*(l_boom+Chord_ht/4+3/4*Station_chord(4));

for k = 1:length(Station_chord)-1

Station_S(k) = Span/2/(Num_stations-1)*(Station_chord(k)+Station_chord(k+1))/2;

T_local(k) = 0.5*rho*V^2*Station_S(k)*(Station_chord(k)+Station_chord(k+1))/2*Cm;%-L_local(k)*Station_chord(k)/4;

% if k == 4

%

T_local(k) = T_local(k) + T_ht;

% end

end

T_local(3) = T_local(3)+T_ht;

Thickness_opts = [0.00075, 0.00087, 0.001095, 0.0021, 0.003, 0.00345, 0.0046, 0.0059, 0.0093, 0.0107]/12;

% for m = 1:length(Thickness_opts)

skin_t_1 = 0.009/12;

Appendix E

104

G_1 = 1.277e6*12^2;

E_1 = 2.62e6*12^2;

% For Section 1

for k = 1:3

T_stat = sum(T_local(k:10));

% q(k) = T_station(k)/(2*(Station_A_bar(k)+Station_A_bar(k+1))/2);

% J_ellipse(k) = pi*((a(k)^3*b(k)^3/(a(k)^2+b(k)^2))-((a(k)-skin_t)^3*(b(k)-skin_t)^3/((a(k)-skin_t)^2+(b(k)-skin_t)^2)));

% J_area_ellipse(k) = pi*((a(k)^3*b(k)^3/(a(k)^2+b(k)^2)));

J(k) = Properties(k,9)*skin_t_1;

phi_station(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G_1*J(k))*180/pi;

% phi_station_ellipse(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G*J_ellipse(k))*180/pi;

% f(k) = 1;

% while abs(phi_station) > .1

%

f(k) = f(k) + 1

%%

if f(k) > 113

%%

break

%%

end

%

skin_t = skin_t + 0.00005/12

%

J = Properties(k,9)*skin_t;

%

phi_station = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G*J)*180/pi;

% end

% t_torsion(k) = abs(q(k)*circumference(k)*(1/Span/2*pi/180)/(2*Station_A_bar(k)*G));

T_station(k) = T_stat;

% end

% Torsion_thickness(k) = skin_t*12;

% Polar_Moment(k) = J;

% Station_Twist(m) = sum(phi_station);

I(k) = Properties(k,7)*skin_t_1;

% d(i) = L_local(i)*L^3/(3*6e6*12^2*(pi/4*(a(i)*b(i)^3 - ((a(i)-skin_thick)*(b(i)-skin_thick)^3))));

d(k) = L_local(k)*L^3/(3*E_1*(I(k)));

end

skin_t_2 = 0.006/12;

G_2 = 1.1283e6*12^2;

E_2 = 2.87e6*12^2;

for k = 4:10

T_stat = sum(T_local(k:10));

J(k) = Properties(k,9)*skin_t_2;

phi_station(k) = T_stat*Station_loc(2)/(G_2*J(k))*180/pi;

T_station(k) = T_stat;

I(k) = Properties(k,7)*skin_t_2;

d(k) = L_local(k)*L^3/(3*E_2*(I(k)));

end

phi_deg = sum(phi_station)'

deflection = sum(d)

figure

plot(Station_loc(1:length(Station_loc)-1),T_station)

Appendix E

title('Torque vs. Distance from Root')

xlabel('Distance from Root [ft]')

ylabel('Torque [ft-lbf]')

grid on

105

Appendix E

106

% Matt Negilski

% AAE 451

close all

clear all

clc

% Woven Glass/Epoxy (M10E/3783)

% 2-ply Analysis

% Given material properties

E_1 = 3.5e6; % psi

E_2 = 3.5e6;

G_12 = 0.68e6;

Nu_12 = 0.11;

Nu_21 = E_2*Nu_12/E_1;

X = 62.8e3;

X_pr = -54.6e3;

Y = 55.9e3;

Y_pr = -48.6e3;

S = 12.2e3;

t_k_1 = 0.003; % in

t_k_2 = 0.003;

h = t_k_1 + t_k_2;

z_bar_1 = -(t_k_1/2);

z_bar_2 = (t_k_1/2);

% Q matrix for given material

Q_11 = E_1/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_12 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_21 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_22 = E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_66 = G_12;

% +45 deg ply

theta = 45;

Q_bar_45 = zeros(3,3);

Q_bar_45(1,1) =

Q_11.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_45(1,2) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_45(1,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(2,1) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Appendix E

107

Q_bar_45(2,2) =

Q_11.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_45(2,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,1) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,2) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,3) = (Q_11+Q_22-2*Q_122*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_66.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

T_sigma_45 =

[cos(theta*pi/180)^2,sin(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)^2,cos(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),cos(theta*pi/180)^2-sin(theta*pi/180)^2];

% 0 deg ply

theta = 0;

Q_bar_0 = zeros(3,3);

Q_bar_0(1,1) =

Q_11.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_0(1,2) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_0(1,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(2,1) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_0(2,2) =

Q_11.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_0(2,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,1) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,2) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,3) = (Q_11+Q_22-2*Q_122*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_66.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

T_sigma_0 =

[cos(theta*pi/180)^2,sin(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)^2,cos(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),cos(theta*pi/180)^2-sin(theta*pi/180)^2];

% Case a: [+-45]s

fprintf('For [45,0,45] Layup, \n')

A = t_k_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*Q_bar_0

B = t_k_1*z_bar_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*z_bar_2*Q_bar_0

D = (t_k_1*z_bar_1^2+t_k_1^3/12)*Q_bar_45 + (t_k_2*z_bar_2^2+t_k_2^3/12)*Q_bar_0

E_x = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(2,2))

E_y = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(1,1))

Nu_xy = A(1,2)/A(2,2)

Nu_yx = A(1,2)/A(1,1)

G_xy = A(3,3)/h

Appendix E

epsilon_o = inv(A)*[1;0;0];

sigma_x_45 = Q_bar_45*epsilon_o;

sigma_1_45 = T_sigma_45*sigma_x_45;

sigma_x_0 = Q_bar_0*epsilon_o;

sigma_1_0 = T_sigma_0*sigma_x_0;

fprintf('FIRST PLY FAILURE: \n\n')

fprintf('For fiber breakage, \n')

N_x_45 = X/sigma_1_45(1)

N_x_0 = X/sigma_1_0(1)

108

Appendix E

109

% Matt Negilski

% AAE 451

close all

clear all

clc

% Woven Glass/Epoxy (M10E/3783)

% 3-ply Analysis

% Given material properties

E_1 = 3.5e6; % psi

E_2 = 3.5e6;

G_12 = 0.68e6;

Nu_12 = 0.11;

Nu_21 = E_2*Nu_12/E_1;

X = 62.8e3;

X_pr = -54.6e3;

Y = 55.9e3;

Y_pr = -48.6e3;

S = 12.2e3;

t_k_1 = 0.003; % in

t_k_2 = 0.003;

t_k_3 = 0.003;

h = 0.009;

z_bar_1 = -(t_k_3/2);

z_bar_2 = 0;

z_bar_3 = (t_k_1/2);

% Q matrix for given material

Q_11 = E_1/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_12 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_21 = Nu_12*E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_22 = E_2/(1-Nu_12*Nu_21);

Q_66 = G_12;

% +45 deg ply

theta = 45;

Q_bar_45 = zeros(3,3);

Q_bar_45(1,1) =

Q_11.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_45(1,2) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_45(1,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Appendix E

110

Q_bar_45(2,1) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_45(2,2) =

Q_11.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_45(2,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,1) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,2) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_45(3,3) = (Q_11+Q_22-2*Q_122*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_66.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

T_sigma_45 =

[cos(theta*pi/180)^2,sin(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)^2,cos(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),cos(theta*pi/180)^2-sin(theta*pi/180)^2];

% 0 deg ply

theta = 0;

Q_bar_0 = zeros(3,3);

Q_bar_0(1,1) =

Q_11.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_0(1,2) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_0(1,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(2,1) = (Q_11+Q_224*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_12.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

Q_bar_0(2,2) =

Q_11.*sin(theta*pi/180).^4+2.*(Q_12+2.*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_22.*cos(theta*pi/180).^4;

Q_bar_0(2,3) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,1) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3.*cos(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,2) = (Q_11-Q_12-2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).*sin(theta*pi/180).^3+(Q_12Q_22+2*Q_66).*cos(theta*pi/180).^3.*sin(theta*pi/180);

Q_bar_0(3,3) = (Q_11+Q_22-2*Q_122*Q_66).*sin(theta*pi/180).^2.*cos(theta*pi/180).^2+Q_66.*(sin(theta*pi/180).^4+cos(theta*pi/180).^4);

T_sigma_0 =

[cos(theta*pi/180)^2,sin(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)^2,cos(theta*pi/180)^2,2*sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180);sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),sin(theta*pi/180)*cos(theta*pi/180),cos(theta*pi/180)^2-sin(theta*pi/180)^2];

% Case a: [+-45]s

fprintf('For [45,0,45] Layup, \n')

A = t_k_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*Q_bar_0 + t_k_3*Q_bar_45

B = t_k_1*z_bar_1*Q_bar_45 + t_k_2*z_bar_2*Q_bar_0 + t_k_3*z_bar_3*Q_bar_45

D = (t_k_1*z_bar_1^2+t_k_1^3/12)*Q_bar_45 + (t_k_2*z_bar_2^2+t_k_2^3/12)*Q_bar_0 +

(t_k_3*z_bar_3^2+t_k_3^3/12)*Q_bar_45

E_x = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(2,2))

E_y = (A(1,1)*A(2,2)-(A(1,2)^2))/(h*A(1,1))

Nu_xy = A(1,2)/A(2,2)

Appendix E

Nu_yx = A(1,2)/A(1,1)

G_xy = A(3,3)/h

epsilon_o = inv(A)*[1;0;0];

sigma_x_45 = Q_bar_45*epsilon_o;

sigma_1_45 = T_sigma_45*sigma_x_45;

sigma_x_0 = Q_bar_0*epsilon_o;

sigma_1_0 = T_sigma_0*sigma_x_0;

fprintf('FIRST PLY FAILURE: \n\n')

fprintf('For fiber breakage, \n')

N_x_45 = X/sigma_1_45(1)

N_x_0 = X/sigma_1_0(1)

111

Appendix F

Appendix F

112

Appendix F

% *********************************************

% Compilation: Ashley Brawner

% BasicConstants_TFM2 Version 2.0 Final Modifications: 12/4/2006

% This version requires Xcg and low_wing to be defined here.

%

% OBJECTIVE: Collect into one location all the vehicle specific constants (a.k.a. basic constants).

%

From these basic constants all the stability and control derivatives

%

can be determined.

% INPUTS: None

% OUTPUTS: Many basic constants defined in the Matlab workspace.

%

% This version is the first for team Balsa to the Wall

% Arbitrary reference point is the quarter chord of the wing

% Moment reference point is the quarter chord of the wing

% Trim velocity assumed to be 107 ft/s

%

% *********************************************

% BasicConstants - Identifies, describes, and assigns all of the

%

the most basic variables for analyzing the control

%

and stability of a generic aircraft.

% *********************************************

%

% A&AE 451 Fall 2006 - Purdue University

%

% Note: This code is provided for a first order approximation of the dynamic

%

analysis of an airplane and is not intended for final designs.

%

% Equations/Figures can be found in :

%

% (Ref.1) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight

%

Controls"

%

Published by DARcorporation

%

120 E. Ninth St., Suite 2

%

Lawrence, KS 66044

%

Third Printing, 2001.

%

% (Ref.2) Roskam, Jan. "Methods for Estimating Stability and

%

Control Derivatives of Conventional Subsonic Airplanes"

%

Published by the Author

%

519 Boulder

%

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

%

Third Printing, 1997.

%

% (Ref.3) Roskam, Jan. "Airplane Design: Part IV: Preliminary Calculation

%

of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power Characteristics"

%

Published by Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation

%

Rt4, Box 274

%

Ottawa, Kansas 66067

%

Second Printing, 1990.

113

Appendix F

114

aircraft='TFM2';

adelf = 0;

% Two dimensional lift effectiveness parameter Ref.(2),Equ(8.7)

alpha = 0*pi/180; % Trim Angle of attack [rad]. This should be zero since our

%

equations of motion are body axis system rather then the stability axis system.

alpha_0 = -0.018;

% Airfoil zero-lift AOA [rad]

altitude= 620;

% Trim altitude [ft] [We fly at 20 feet plus West Lafayettes sea level altitude]

disp(['Trim altitude= ',num2str(altitude),' ft'])

AR_h = 3.6585;

% Aspect ratio of the horizontal tail

AR_w = 5;

% Aspect ratio of the wing

b_f =3.47;

% Span of the flap [ft] (Alieron total span)****

b_h = 17.5/12;

% Span of the horizontal tail [ft]

b_h_oe =7.75/12;

% Elevator outboard position [ft]

b_h_ie = 0;

% Elevator inboard position [ft]

b_w = 4.97;

% Span of the wing [ft]

b_v = 9/12;

% Vertical tail span measured from fuselage centerline[ft]

b_v_or = 7/12;

% Outboard position of rudder [ft]

b_v_ir = 0;

% Inboard position of rudder [ft]

c_a = 0.1825;

% Chord of aileron [ft]

C_bar_D_o = 0.018;

% Parasite drag

Cd_0 = 0.019;

% Drag coefficient at zero lift (parasite drag)

c_e = 2.25/12;

% Elevator chord [ft]

cf = 0.1825;

% Chord of the wing flap [ft]

c_h = 6/12;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the horizontal tail [ft]

CL = 0.598;

% Lift coefficient (3-D) CL=W/(1/2*rho*U^2)

CL_hb = 0;

% Lift coefficient of the horzontal tail/body

CL_wb= 0.130;

% Lift coefficient of the wing/body - assuming iw=0

Cl_alpha_h = 5.451;

% 2-D Lift curve slope of horizontal tail

Cl_alpha_v = 6.283;

% 2-D Lift curve slope of vertical tail

Cl_alpha = 6.032;

% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of whole aircraft

Cl_alpha_w = 5.543;

% Two-dimensional lift curve slope of wing

Cm_0_r = -0.029;

% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing root

Cm_o_t = -0.029;

% Zero lift pitching moment coefficient of the wing tip **Cm_0_r = Cm_o_t because wing

has

% No twist

c_r = 3.25/12;

% MEAN Chord of the rudder [ft]

c_w = 1.041;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the wing [ft]

c_v = 5/12;

% Mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical tail [ft]

D_p = 10/12;

% Diameter of propeller [ft] Approximation used because of integration of ducted fan motor

d = 0.417;

% Average diameter of the fuselage [ft]

delf = 0;

% Streamwise flap deflection [rad] NO FLAPS

delta_e = 0;

% Elevator deflection [rad]

delta_r = 0;

% Rudder deflection [rad]

dihedral = 0*pi/180; % Geometric dihedral angle of the wing [rad], positive for

%

dihedral (wing tips up), negative for

%

anhedral(tips down) [rad] ***EST

dihedral_h = 0*pi/180;

% Geometric dihedral angle of the horizontal tail [rad]

e = 0.9;

% Oswald's efficiency factor

epsilon_t = 0;

% Horizontal tail twist angle [rad]

epsilon_0_h = 0*pi/180;

% Downwash angle at the horizontal tail (see Note in

%

Ref.(3) under section 8.1.5.2) [rad] ***EST

eta_h = 1;

% Ratio of dynamic pressure at the horizontal tail to that of the freestream ***EST

eta_ia = 0.3;

% Percent semi-span position of inboard edge of aileron

eta_oa = 1;

% Percent semi-span position of outboard edge of aileron

eta_p = 0.8;

% Propeller Efficiency ***EST

eta_v = 1.0;

% Ratio of the dynamic pressure at the vertical tail

Appendix F

%

to that of the freestream

h1_fuse =4.5/12;

% Height of the fuselage at 1/4 of the its length

h2_fuse = 4.5/12;

% Height of the fuselage at 3/4 of the its length

h_h = 9/12;

% Height from chord plane of wing to chord plane of

%

horizontal tail [ft] - Fig 3.7, Ref. 2

hmax_fuse = 6/12;

% Maximum height of the fuselage [ft]

Ixx = .444312;

% Airplane moment of inertia about x-axis [slug-ft^2] *** With 4 lb load

Iyy = .530488;

% Airplane moment of inertia about y-axis [slug-ft^2]

Izz = .960872;

% Airplane moment of inertia about z-axis [slug-ft^2]

Ixz = .007557;

% Airplane product of inertia [slug-ft^2]

i_h = 0*pi/180; % Incidence angle of horizontal tail [rad] This has applications from Trim Diagrams.

i_w = 0*pi/180;

% Incidence angle of wing [rad]

k = 0.087;

% k of the drag polar, generally= 1/(pi*AR*e)

Lambda = .076;

% Sweep angle of wing [rad]

Lambda_c2 =-0.076; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the wing [rad]

Lambda_c4 = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the wing [rad]

Lambda_c2_v = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the vertical tail [rad]

Lambda_c4_v = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the vertical tail [rad]

Lambda_c2_h = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/2 of the horizontal tail [rad]

Lambda_c4_h = 0*pi/180; % Sweep angle at the c/4 of the horizontal tail [rad]

lambda = .45; % Taper ratio of wing

lambda_h = 1;

% Taper ratio of horizontal tail

lambda_v = 1.0;

% Taper ratio of vertical tail

l_f =31/12;

% Horizontal length of fuselage [ft]

l_v = 32/12;

% Horizontal distance from aircraft arbitrary reference point to vertical tail AC [ft]

%Ref fig 2.1 in thesis for l_v, ref pt is c/4

low_wing=1;

% low_wing=-1 if the wing is high

% low_wing=1 if the wing is low

% low_wing=0 if the wing is mid

% Trim Airspeed

u = 60; % ft/sec

M = u/1221;

% Mach number

S_b_s = 131.035/144;

% Body side area [ft^2]

S_h = (17.5*6)/144;

% Area of horizontal tail [ft^2]

S_h_slip = 100/144;

% Area of horizontal tail that is covered in

%

prop-wash [ft^2] - See Fig.(8.64) - Ref.(3) ***EST

%

[Estimation]

S_o = 15/144;

% Fuselage x-sectional area at Xo [ft^2] %

See Fig.(7.2) - Ref.(2)

%

Xo is determined by plugging X1/l_b into:

%

0.378 + 0.527 * (X1/l_b) = (Xo/l_b) [Estimation at this point]

S_w = 4.95;

% Surface area of wing [ft^2]

S_v = 45/144;

% Surface area of vertical tail [ft^2]

tc_w = .08;

% Thickness to chord ratio of wing

tc_h = .08;

% Thickness to chord ratio of horizontal tail

theta = 0*pi/180; % Wing twist - negative for washout [rad]

theta_h = 0*pi/180; % Horizontal tail twist between the root and tip

%

stations,negative for washout [rad]

two_r_one = 0/12;

% Fuselage depth in region of vertical tail [ft] Ref.(2),Figure 7.5

U = u/1.7; % knots

% Free Stream Velocity (Trim velocity) [KNOTS true]

disp(['Trim airspeed= ',num2str(U),' knots'])

W = 6.5;

% Weight of Airplane [lbf]

wingloc = 0;

% If the aircraft is a highwing: (wingloc=1), low-wing:(wingloc=0)

wmax_fuse = 6/12; % Maximum fuselage width [ft]

X1 = (14+3)/12;

% Distance from the front of the fuselage where the

115

Appendix F

116

%

x-sectional area decrease (dS_x/dx)

%

is greatest (most negative) [ft] - Ref.(2),Fig. 7.2

x_m = 15.875/12;

% Distance from nose of aircraft to arbitrary reference point [ft]

%

measured positive aftward. Reference point will be MAC.

x_over_c_v = .25

% PARAMETER ACCOUNTING FOR THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE HORIZONTAL

AND VERTICAL TAILS

%

defined as the fore-and-aft distance from leading edge of vertical fin to the

%

aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail divided by the chord of the vertical tail

%

[nondimensional] - See Fig 7.6 of Ref. 2

Xach = 2.882;

% Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail (positive aftward) [ft]

Xacwb = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the wing and body.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xacw = 0.249; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the aerodynamic center of the wing ALONE.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xref = 2.92/12; % Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the arbitrary moment reference point. The equivalent force system

%

for the aerodynamic force system is given about this point.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

Xcg = 0.15*c_w;

% Distance from the leading edge of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

%

to the center of gravity.

%

Measured as positive aft, starting from the leading edge of the mean aero. chord. [ft]

%

% Xcg is ignored until Step 2. It an be changed later in Step 2.

%

Z_h = -6/12;

%

%

%

%

%

%

Z_v = 3/12;

%

Z_w = -1.5/12;

%

%

Z_w1 = -1.5/12;

%

%

centerline to the horizontal tail aero center

(Z_h is a negative number FOR TAILS ABOVE THE CENTERLINE)

- Ref.(2), Fig.7.6

***This produces a bunch of interpolation errors because

Roskam doesn't have data for horizontal tails below the

centerline of the fuselage

% Vertical distance from the aircraft arbirary reference point to the vertical

tail aero center (positive up) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.18

% This is the vertical distance from the wing root c/4 [ft]

to the fuselage centerline,

positive downward - Ref.(2), Equ(7.5)

% Distance from body centerline to c/4 of wing root

chord,positive for c/4 point

below body centerline (ft) - Ref.(2), Fig. 7.1

- CFD Analysis of Delta Winged Aircraft – A ReviewUploaded byIRJET Journal
- AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM FOR SST WING-BODY CONFIGURATIONUploaded byparvaz747
- lecture22.pdfUploaded byTihomir Markovic
- Design Data Sheet (10 2015)Uploaded bymurad_ashour
- Mekanik Deney 1Uploaded bymert münir yanar
- Divergence_of_Airfoils.pdfUploaded bydeanaero deanaero
- Background and Theory Flow Pass a Circular CylinderdocxUploaded byShafiq Hakimi
- ENERGY MANVRTY.pdfUploaded byscijugeor34028
- Can Anyone Explain the Area Used in Drag CoefficientUploaded byReyes Reyes Emerzon
- Basic Aerodynamics TermsUploaded bydaoodilyas
- AE1110x 3b SlidesUploaded byMartinLuk
- final complete docUploaded byapi-106074229
- LA-oct-2010Uploaded byAviation World
- Full-Configuration Drag EstimationUploaded byAdrian Cruz Romero
- JT QB -1 (Previous Times Questions) (2)Uploaded byRohit
- 746619_fulltext01Uploaded bykleidi85
- 3618Uploaded by최민수
- Harvesting the WindUploaded byRazor11111
- Motion ProblemsUploaded byMarielle Krizanne Catral
- A carUploaded byharshanauoc
- F-hpje Technical ReportUploaded byrobbertmd
- HydraulicsUploaded bySaydahmad
- 978-94-015-8981-9_3Uploaded bySupriyaRong
- LA-Feb-2012Uploaded byAviation World
- Lp 3420942103Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- An Overview on Dynamics and Controls Modelling of Hypersonic VehiclesUploaded byRitesh Singh
- 14989529024ed6499347f05Uploaded byAmoo Mehrdad
- Roache 1997Uploaded byhawxfly
- Merchant 1977Uploaded bysohcahtoa
- hal reportUploaded bythoshif khan

- trade offUploaded bydinhanhbao
- Mã_IPUploaded bydinhanhbao
- 64 Interview QuestionsUploaded byshivakumar N
- w387Uploaded bydinhanhbao
- Release NotesUploaded bySalman Adri
- 2014-MCDUploaded bydinhanhbao
- Internet (1)Uploaded bydinhanhbao
- Ch3_Phan_a_Giao_thoa_Lythuyet.pdfUploaded bydinhanhbao
- 230cau hinhUploaded bydinhanhbao
- points out of envelopUploaded byVenkat Subbu
- plot.psUploaded bydinhanhbao
- TN34_P02_E08_Bcao.pdfUploaded bydinhanhbao

- Mazak Mazatrol Matrix Control Classroom Maintenance Manual C740MT0201EUploaded byMACKAY9999
- kobelco sk350-8Uploaded byHarlinton
- Capacitor Electric ChargerUploaded byAgbarakwe Ikechukwu
- xthUploaded byPap Ingos
- 8. CELLSUploaded byDanel
- Mpc 1802Uploaded byTần Long
- G Board Hoverboard ManualUploaded byCivil Defence
- Solar-powered Refrigerator and Freezer SystemsUploaded byسامح الجاسم
- LTWI-BATCHG125+Battery+charger_Operating+instruction_English+ver.pdfUploaded byธนววรณ โภคาอนนต์
- TipsnTricks_DS01146aUploaded byTonyandAnthony
- Lux TX1500E Thermostat User GuideUploaded byBrendan Keith
- RVM100 Instruction ManualUploaded byRubén
- 07572053 an Efficient Regenerative Braking System Based OnUploaded byMuhammad Nur Fajri
- Dmcfz47 AdvUploaded bycapowayruh
- batriUploaded bythomas obi
- TrailerBoats_batteryguide_201105Uploaded byJamie Robinson
- Manual Câmera Nikon D100Uploaded bymarieta_dantas
- Premier Quatro Installation ManualUploaded byali_1976sweet7448
- Battery SimulatorUploaded bySuman Racha
- Autolite Generator and Starter technical manualUploaded byjuliansimon
- Andes DC Solar Home System (P sSeries)_enUploaded bydatavolume
- Improved Lead -Acid Battery Modelling for Photovoltaic Aplication by Recurent Neutral NetworksUploaded bychokrib
- Methods in Environmental Analysis III_ElectrogravimetryUploaded byseysea
- Boatowners Mechanical and Electrical ManualUploaded byHenriqueSpall
- vn16bUploaded byJose Ariel Chejanovich
- HD208_ukUploaded byroooyy
- Abdul Quadir Et Al-2014-International Journal of Energy ResearchUploaded byJorge Rodrigo Balboa Zalles
- YamahaUploaded byMarjan Ivanovski
- Lenovo S430 User GuideUploaded bydynamicwhiz
- Eaton EX 700-1500 Manual Installation OperationUploaded byZawZawAung76