You are on page 1of 118

AERODYNAMIC DATA GENERATION AND

DESIGN SUPPORT FOR SOLAR UAV:

WIND TUNNEL TESTING

Submission Report for Undergraduate Award 2014


Abstract
The Solar Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Solar UAV) project aims to design and fabricate a medium
altitude long endurance (MALE) UAV with 24-hour continuous flight mission using solar energy
as the sole power source. The aircraft has a high wing and T-tail configuration, with a wing span
of 17.7m and chord length of 1.26m. Having a target weight of 85kg, the aircraft is targeted to fly
at 8000m altitude with flight speed of 14m/s. To have a better understanding of the flight
characteristic for further design evaluation of the UAV, a 1:9 scale wind tunnel model was
designed to generate aerodynamic data of the aircraft.

The wing and horizontal tail were made out of carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) and foam
core structure. The other major components of the model were made out of aluminium and
stainless steel. 3D-printed components like control surfaces, wing tips etc were also incorporated
in the model. The model weighs only 5.96kg and is well within the desirable weight category for
the balance chosen, meeting measuring accuracy. The model also meets the safety requirement
NAA W T C (1) and low speed wind tunnel practice of limiting
the model span to 80% of tunnel width (2) and flow blockage below 3-5%.

The wind tunnel test was carried out in the 3m x 2.25m low speed wind tunnel of National Wind
Tunnel Facility at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur to generate aerodynamic force and
moment data at test speed of 63.4m/s matching the flight Reynolds number of 610000. The
aircraft was found to have good lateral and directional stability and better lifting characteristics
than the empirical estimation. However, the aircraft exhibits longitudinal instability and this
requires second tunnel entry for test results verification and further aircraft design
improvements to enhance the stability of the aircraft.
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. I
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... I
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... IV
List of Symbols .................................................................................................................................. V
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Project Scope .................................................................................................................... 2
2. Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Model Design and Accuracy ............................................................................................. 3
2.2. General Guidelines for Wind Tunnel Tests ....................................................................... 4
2.2.1. General test procedure ............................................................................................ 4
2.2.2. Permissible Measuring Errors of the Load Balance .................................................. 5
3. National Wind Tunnel Facilities ................................................................................................ 6
3.1. Balance Selection and Balance Mounting Scheme........................................................... 7
4. 1:9 Scale Wind Tunnel Model Design ....................................................................................... 9
4.1. Design Evolution ............................................................................................................... 9
4.2. Model Component Description ...................................................................................... 11
5. Model Stress Analysis ............................................................................................................. 19
5.1. Mechanical Properties of Materials and Aerodynamics Inputs on Component Loads .. 19
5.2. Factor of Safety............................................................................................................... 19
5.3. Stress Analysis of Model Structural Components .......................................................... 19
5.3.1. Wing........................................................................................................................ 19
5.3.2. Horizontal Tail......................................................................................................... 21
5.3.3. Tail boom ................................................................................................................ 21
5.4. Analysis of the Structural Joints ..................................................................................... 24
5.4.1. Wing Joint ............................................................................................................... 24
5.4.2. Wing Mounting Block Fasteners Analysis ............................................................... 26
5.4.3. Horizontal Tail Joint Analysis .................................................................................. 27
5.4.4. Tail Mounting Block Fasteners Analysis ................................................................. 28
5.4.5. Vertical Fin Joint Analysis ....................................................................................... 28
5.4.6. VT Empennage Loft Fastener Analysis.................................................................... 29
5.4.7. Tail Boom Joint Analysis ......................................................................................... 29
5.5. Thread Engagement Length ........................................................................................... 30
5.6. Wing and Tail deflection ................................................................................................. 30
5.7. Summary......................................................................................................................... 33
6. Hinge Moment Estimation and Servo Selection ..................................................................... 34
6.1. XFOIL Computation:........................................................................................................ 34
6.2. E A C ............................................................................. 36
6.3. Results: ........................................................................................................................... 37
7. Manufacturing Process of the Wind Tunnel Model ............................................................... 39
8. Model Assembly and Inspection ............................................................................................ 41
9. Control Surface Actuation System and Calibration Process ................................................... 44
9.1. Control Calibration Process ............................................................................................ 44
9.2. Control Surface Loading Test .......................................................................................... 45
10. Wind Tunnel Test and Data Analysis .................................................................................. 48
10.1. Wind Tunnel Test Matrix ............................................................................................ 48
10.2. Wind Tunnel Test Procedures .................................................................................... 48
10.3. Measurement Accuracy.............................................................................................. 51
10.4. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52
10.4.1. Transformation Matrix ........................................................................................... 52
10.4.2. Velocity Sweep Test ................................................................................................ 53
10.4.3. Step vs Sweep Test ................................................................................................. 54
11. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 57
12. References .......................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix B...................................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix C...................................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix D ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix E ...................................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix F .................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix G ................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix H ................................................................................................................................... 106
List of Figures
Figure 1: Mission Profile ................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Half Model Test (1) Figure 3: 2D Wing Test ................................................................ 3
Figure 4: Fibre-Glass Model (4) Figure 5: Laminated Mahogany Model NA-73X (5)................ 4
Figure 6: DAQ System ....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 7: Balance G ........................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8: Balance G Assembly Figure 9: Balance Interface Unit .................................................. 8
Figure 10: Balance G Setup............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 11: Conceptual Model ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 12: Final Design.................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 13: Fuselage Cap Figure 14: Fuselage Cap (3-view Drawing Extracted) ......................... 11
Figure 15: Fuselage Figure 16: Fuselage (3-view Drawing Extracted)................................... 12
Figure 17: Wing Mounting Block Figure 18: Wing Mounting Block (3-view Drawing Extracted)
................................................................................................ 12
Figure 19: CFRP Foam Core Composite Wing ................................................................................. 12
Figure 20: Wing Bottom View ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 21: Tailboom Connector Figure 22: Tailboom Connector (3-view Drawing Extracted) .. 13
Figure 23: Fuselage Patch Figure 24: Fuselage Patch (3-view Drawing Extracted) .................. 14
Figure 25: Tailboom ........................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 26: Empennage III Figure 27: Empennage III (3-view Drawing Extracted) .................... 14
Figure 28: VT Empennage Loft Figure 29: VT Empennage Loft (3-view Drawing Extracted) .... 15
Figure 30: Vertical Fin ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 31: Tail Mounting Block Figure 32: Tail Mounting Block (Side View) ........................... 16
Figure 33: Horizontal Tail................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 34: Horizontal Tail Bottom View.......................................................................................... 16
Figure 35: Rocker Arm Assembly 1 Figure 36: Rocker Arm Assembly 2 .................................... 16
Figure 37: Wing Cap Figure 38: Horizontal Tail Cap ................................................................. 17
Figure 39: Elevator.......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 40: Levelling Block and Model Stand Figure 41: Model On The Stand............................ 18
Figure 42: Wing Bending Moment ................................................................................................. 19
Figure 43: Airfoil Approximation 1 ................................................................................................. 20
Figure 44: Tail Boom Stress Analysis .............................................................................................. 22
Figure 45: Tail Boom Cross Section ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 46: Tail Boom Torsion Analysis. ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 47: Wing Joint Illustration ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 48: Tensile Load Due To Bending And Rolling Moment Figure 49: Tensile Load Due To Lift
.................................................. 25
Figure 50: Tensile Load Due To Pitching Moment.......................................................................... 25
Figure 51: Wing Mounting Block M5 Fasteners Figure 52: Tensile Load Due To Pitching Moment
......................................................................... 26
Figure 53: Tensile Load Due To Rolling Moment............................................................................ 26
Figure 54: Tail Joint Analysis Figure 55: HT Lift Bending .......................................................... 27

I
Figure 56: Tail Mounting Block Fastener Analysis .......................................................................... 28
Figure 57: Fin Joint Analysis............................................................................................................ 28
Figure 58: VT Empennage Loft Fastener Analysis........................................................................... 29
Figure 59: Tail Boom Joint Analysis Figure 60: M4 Fastener Internal Load ............................ 29
Figure 61: Wing Lift Distribution .................................................................................................... 31
Figure 62: Tail Boom Upward Bending Deflection ......................................................................... 32
Figure 63: FBD For Tail Deflection Analysis .................................................................................... 32
Figure 64: Tail Boom Defection Due To Side Force ........................................................................ 32
Figure 65: GDES Function ............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 66: Experimental Data of ( ) (11) ............................................................................... 35
Figure 67: Ch vs deflection angle (sigma) ....................................................................................... 37
Figure 68: Ch vs deflection angle (empirical) ................................................................................. 37
Figure 69: JR DS181 Slim Wing Servo (Courtesy of hobbyking.com (12)) ...................................... 38
Figure 70: Metallic Components .................................................................................................... 39
Figure 71: CFRP Wing and Tail ........................................................................................................ 40
Figure 72: Wing Load Test .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 73: Model Full Assembly Front View ................................................................................... 41
Figure 74: Model Full Assembly Side View ..................................................................................... 41
Figure 75: Model Full Assembly Bottom View ............................................................................... 41
Figure 76: Airfoil Inspection ........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 77: Model Reference Plane ................................................................................................. 43
Figure 78: Assembly Inspection 1 ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 79: Assembly Inspection 2 Figure 80: Assembly Inspection 3 ........................................ 43
Figure 81: Wiring Diagram (Side View) Figure 82: Wiring Diagram (Bottom View) .................. 44
Figure 83: Wiring Diagram (Overall) ............................................................................................... 44
Figure 84: Control System Block Diagram ...................................................................................... 45
Figure 85: Aileron Calibration......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 86: Control Surface Loading Test Setup .............................................................................. 46
Figure 87: Linkage Schematic ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 89: Aileron Load Test (1kg) Figure 90: Aileron Load Test (Close Up) ............................ 47
Figure 88: FBD Aileron .................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 91: Pre-Test Activities .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 92: Model Balance Fitting Check ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 93: Roll Lock ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 95: Vertical Mounting Configuration Figure 96: Horizontal Mounting Configuration .... 50
Figure 94: Balance Calibration ........................................................................................................ 50
Figure 97: Wind Tunnel Test Block Diagram .................................................................................. 50
Figure 98: Mounting Configurations.............................................................................................. 52
Figure 99: Sign Conventions ........................................................................................................... 52
Figure 100: Velocity Sweep Test (10-64m/s) .................................................................................. 53
Figure 101: Velocity Sweep Data (10-40m/s) ................................................................................. 54
Figure 102: Pitch Step and Sweep Test .......................................................................................... 55
Figure 103: Yaw Step and Sweep Test ............................................................................................ 55

II
Figure 104: Yaw Step and Sweep Test ............................................................................................ 56
Figure 105: Full Assembly (Isometric View).................................................................................... 96
Figure 106: Inspection Table 1 ....................................................................................................... 98
Figure 107: Inspection Table 2 ....................................................................................................... 98
Figure 108: Inspection Table 3 ....................................................................................................... 99
Figure 109: Inspection Table 4 ....................................................................................................... 99
Figure 110: Inspection Table 5 ..................................................................................................... 100
Figure 111: Inspection Table 6 ..................................................................................................... 100
Figure 112: Inspection Table 7 ..................................................................................................... 101
Figure 113: Inspection Table 8 ..................................................................................................... 101
Figure 114: SD7062 Airfoil Data (24) .............................................................................................. 89
Figure 115: 0010 Airfoil Data Generated From Airfoil Tool.com.................................................... 89

III
List of Tables
Table 1: Permissible Measuring Error (3) ......................................................................................... 5
Table 2: NWTF at IITK (7) .................................................................................................................. 6
Table 3: Balance G Specification....................................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Test Reynolds Number........................................................................................................ 9
Table 5: Basic Dimension of Wind Tunnel Model........................................................................... 11
Table 6: Horizontal Tail Stress Analysis .......................................................................................... 21
Table 7: Tail Mounting Block Fastener Analysis ............................................................................. 28
Table 8: Minimum Thread Engagement Length ............................................................................. 30
Table 9: Young's Modulus............................................................................................................... 30
Table 10: Factor of Safety Summary 1............................................................................................ 33
Table 11: Factor of Safety Summary (Joint Analysis) ..................................................................... 33
Table 12: SD7062 Max Ch ............................................................................................................... 37
Table 13: NACA0010 Max Ch (XFOIL) ............................................................................................. 38
Table 14: NACA0010 Max Ch (Analytical Approach) ...................................................................... 38
TTable 15: DS181 Specifications (13) ............................................................................................. 38
Table 16: Model Inspection Table .................................................................................................. 42
Table 17: Measuring Errors in Aerodynamic Coefficients .............................................................. 51
Table 18: VM and HM Data Comparison ........................................................................................ 51
Table 19: Material Properties Table ............................................................................................... 88
Table 20: Aerodynamic Force And Moment Derivatives................................................................ 90
Table 21: Standard Tightening Torque (15) .................................................................................... 92
Table 22: Hardware List .................................................................................................................. 96
Table 23: Model Mass Properties ................................................................................................. 103
Table 24: CG Table ........................................................................................................................ 103
Table 25: Material Density ........................................................................................................... 103
Table 26: Wind Tunnel Test Matrix ........................................................................................ 109

IV
List of Symbols

Symbol Description
Wing Area
Wing span
Vertical tail span
/ Angle of attack
Cruise angle of attack
Zero lift angle of attack
Sideslip angle
Elevator deflection
Aileron deflection
Rudder deflection
Lift Coefficient at zero angle of attack
Lift Coefficient with respect to angle of attack
Lift Coefficient with respect to elevator deflection
Incremental lift coefficient due to control surface deflection
Pitching moment
Pitching moment Coefficient
Pitching moment Coefficient at zero lift
Pitching moment Coefficient with respect to angle of attack
Pitching moment Coefficient with respect to elevator deflection
Yawing moment
Yawing moment Coefficient
Yawing moment Coefficient with respect to sideslip angle
Yawing moment Coefficient with respect to rudder deflection
Rolling moment
Rolling moment Coefficient
Rolling moment Coefficient with respect to sideslip angle
Rolling moment Coefficient with respect to aileron deflection
Side Force
Side force Coefficient
Side force Coefficient with respect to sideslip angle
Side force Coefficient with respect to rudder deflection
Hinge moment
Hinge moment coefficient
Hinge moment coefficient with respect to control surface deflection
Bending Moment
Torsion
Tensile stress
Ultimate tensile strength
Yield tensile strength
Shear stress
Ultimate shear strength
Yield shear strength
Area moment of inertia
Second moment of area
Factor of safety

V
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Overview
The Solar UAV project was initiated by the Defence Science Organization (DSO), National
Laboratories Singapore. This project aims at design and development of a medium altitude long
endurance (MALE) UAV with 24-hour continuous flight mission using solar energy as the sole
power source.

The solar UAV has a high wing and T-tail configuration. Low Reynolds laminar airfoil SD7062 was
selected as the wing airfoil while NACA 0010 was selected for the aerodynamic surfaces of the
empennage. The aircraft has a wing span of 17.7m and chord length of 1.25m which yield an
aspect ratio of 14.04. Having 85kg as the target weight, the UAV is designed to fly at 8000m
altitude with a target speed of 14m/s and the mission profile of the UAV is depicted in the figure
below. The latest estimated range and endurance of the UAV Aero Loads,
Performances, Stability and Control Analysi P .

Figure 1: Mission Profile

The project consists of 5 main design teams namely:

1. Aerodynamics
2. Propulsion
3. Flight Controls and Avionics
4. Solar Energy
5. Aircraft Structures

In this detailed design phase of the solar UAV project, the Aerodynamics Design team will be
focusing on the study of the aerodynamics, flight stability and control, flight performance and
the propulsion system of the aircraft through three different aspects: empirical calculations,
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel test. These data will be validated, compared
and analyzed to form the fundamental design principle for this solar UAV.

Subsequently, the Aerodynamics team is divided into 4 areas namely,

1. Aero Loads, Performances, Stability and Control Analysis: Part 1


2. Aero Loads, Performances, Stability and Control Analysis: Part 2
3. Wind Tunnel Testing

1
4. Computational Fluid Dynamics

1.2. Project Scope


Particularly for wind tunnel testing, the objectives are to design and build a 1:9 scale wind tunnel
model of the solar UAV, to complete the servo selection for the actuation system of the model,
to do pre-test planning and wind tunnel test matrix preparation and lastly to perform wind
tunnel testing, aerodynamic data generation and preliminary analysis.

2
2. Literature Review

2.1. Model Design and Accuracy


The type and construction of the wind tunnel model should be decided by the objective of the
tests and the tunnel facilities where the tests will be conducted. For example, 2D wing model is
used to study the aerodynamics of the 2D airfoil; half-model test is used for symmetrical object
and is normally focusing on the study of the particular aspect of the design such as engine and
wing flow interaction and acoustic condition near the wing. Half model test is also advantageous
in providing a more detailed representation than full models because larger scales can be used
(1). Two main important aspects to be considered in the model design are: 1. Safety
considerations; 2. model accuracy.

Figure 2: Half Model Test (1) Figure 3: 2D Wing Test

Laminated mahogany or other wood laminates are generally used for the construction of low
speed wind tunnel models. The laminated wood can withstand test speed up to 100mph without
metal reinforcement. For higher test speed, wood or various epoxy models with metal load
members are used. According to L - W T T , generally the criterion for
model strength is structural deflection rather than yield load limits as high rigidity is desired. For
NAA W T M C

strength (2).

Besides, it is also advisable to have metal beams for the control surfaces in order to have best
precision in hinge line alignment. For wooden models, assembled components must be secured
using machined screws which normally mates with the threaded metal piece bonded into the
part. As the technology advances, new materials such as plastics, epoxy resins, fibreglass and
carbon fibre are also used as an alternative material for the construction.

An aircraft model with a span of 6 to 8 ft (1.83 to 2.44m) tested at 7 x 10ft tunnel requires a wing
contour accuracy up to 0.005in (1mm) to the actual contour; fuselage contour accuracy of
0.01in (2.5mm). Distinct ridges and joint on the model should be avoided. Furthermore,
surface finish of rms 10 (0.635micron) is desired for a metallic model (3).

3
Figure 4: Fibre-Glass Model (4) Figure 5: Laminated Mahogany Model NA-73X (5)

2.2. General Guidelines for Wind Tunnel Tests


The guidelines and some of the standard procedure of a wind tunnel test are (reference taken
L - W T T (3)),

1. Clearly address the problems and issues to be investigated and define the objectives of
the experiment. Clear objective statement is critical and essential in obtaining efficient
I
misunderstanding and confusion in any related information transferred.
2. Identify the required parameters to resolve the problem. For example, different
operating states or model configurations, geometries and etc.
3. Identify feasible model provisions and suitable test facilities. This will lead to the
preliminary design of the model and corresponding fixtures. From that, required wind
tunnel boundary corrections, tare, interference and other required data correction
needs to be identified.
4. Prepare the test schedules and runs (test matrix) including with configuration change
implications. Replication, randomization and blocking can be used to enrich the data
obtained.
5. Start the experiment and monitor all processes and data acquisition. This includes the
evaluation of the achieved accuracies and measurement precision.
6. Conduct data analysis and provide quantitative evaluation of the achieved data
accuracies. This information should be compiled and provided to the project personnel
such as aerodynamicists as a full data package.

2.2.1. General test procedure


Basic parameters of the tunnel facilities that needs to be taken care of before starting the tests
are: flow angularity, average dynamic pressure and balance loads. Flow angularity is the term
used to describe the flow angle with respect to the tunnel T
method is by comparing the aerodynamic data of the normal and inverted mounted model.
Small amount of flow angularity is not evitable even in the most elegantly designed wind tunnels

4
(6). Therefore, flow angularity correction is required in the data analyses or even data acquisition
process to account for this issue.

The general procedure for the wind tunnel test activities are listed as follows,

1. First hand data check against predicted/estimated results should be done after the first
test run was completed. Some key parameters to be checked are 0 , / , ,
0 and 0
2. Determine the testing accuracy through repeatability tests. The repetition test can be
done immediately after one run or after several intervening runs. This is to determine
the reproducible accuracy of the settings including control surface deflections, accuracy
of the balance and speed control.
3. Plot out the acquired data promptly so that uncertain points can be substantiated and
make corrections for the following test runs. Bad data points and unexpected results can
also be spotted and adjustment and improvement on the system can be made
immediately.
4. Repeat a basic run periodically to identify any possible model warp or any time
dependent changes. It is also known that long hours of test would have certain effect on
the surface of the model. This check could help to identify this effect.
5. Create self-contained data sheets. Each data sheet should include the model designation,
configuration, test speed, date, tunnel temperature and pressure. It is also advisable to
have information like test Reynolds number and model dimensions stated in the data
sheet.
6. Have an accurate log of everything that happens during the test phase.
7. Keep the test runs list in a chronological order with clear indications of orders. Avoid
ambiguous or complex ordering system.

2.2.2. Permissible Measuring Errors of the Load Balance


A L W T T
balance are stated as follows,

Low Angle of Attack High Angle of Attack


Lift = 0.001 or 0.1% = 0.002 or 0.25%
Drag = 0.0001 or 0.1% = 0.002 or 0.25%
Side Force = 0.001 or 0.1% = 0.002 or 0.25%
Pitching Moment = 0.001 or 0.1% = 0.002 or 0.25%
Yawing Moment = 0.0001 or 0.1% = 0.001 or 0.25%
Rolling Moment = 0.001 or 0.1% = 0.002 or 0.25%
Table 1: Permissible Measuring Error (3)

This table is used as a guideline only as the desired accuracies of the measurement differ
according to the test objectives and different test setups.

5
3. National Wind Tunnel Facilities
The wind tunnel test was conducted at the National Wind Tunnel Facilities (NWTF) in Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur (IITK), India. The following table provides a brief summary of the
facility:

Test Section 2.25m(H) x 3m(W) x 8.75m (L)


Fan Power Single, 1000kW
Highest Test Speed 80m/s
Reynolds Number Range (per m) 0 - 500000
Free-stream turbulence level U U
Data Acquisition Systems PXI system with real time embedded controller
Virtual Instrumentation (LabView)
Separation of console and user stations
Standard DAQ and motion control hardware
Capabilities Full model testing with sting support system
Half model testing with external balance
Turntable system
Moving belt for ground effect simulation
Gust and cross wind simulation
Aero-acoustic testing
Laser light sheet generation system for flow visualization
3D stereoscopic PIV system
Table 2: NWTF at IITK (7)

LabVIEW is used for all the tunnel controls and data acquisition functions. It is a graphical
programming platform for measurement and control system developed by National Instruments
(8). The figure below shows the schematic of the communication between the DAQ system and
the instrumentation control interface. The DAQ system has a sampling rate of 200/sec.

Figure 6: DAQ System

In this experiment, the design test speed is 63.4m/s and turn table rig was used. More
information about the balance selected will be discussed in the next two sections.

6
3.1. Balance Selection and Balance Mounting Scheme
There are seven different internal balances available for the wind tunnel facilities. The balances
are different in size and load range, targeted for different experimental purposes. The list of the
NWTF balances available is shown in the Appendix A.

Balance Selection was completed in the last year project. Based on the maximum lift coefficient
of the airfoil = 1.2 and dynamic head of 2205 at 60m/s, maximum load on the model
was estimated as 695N. As a result Balance G was selected. The specification of the balance is
shown as follows,

Balance G
Dimension 30mm (diameter), 270mm (length)
Normal Force (N1,N2) 75kg (736N)
Side Force (S1, S2) 50kg (491N)
Axial Force (Ax) 20kg (196N)
Rolling moment (Rm) 4kgm (39Nm)
Table 3: Balance G Specification

Figure 7: Balance G

The interface between the force balance and the model is very critical. Tight fitting must be
ensured at the interface attachment of the two components so that load transfer can be
achieved effectively and to prevent vibration or any mechanical interference in the assembly.

The figure below shows the balance G assembly with the interface units. The yellow component
in the front is the balance front interface unit which will be tightly fitted into the fuselage cap. It
is the sole contact point and hence the load transfer path from the model to the balance. 5mm
clearance was provided between the balance and model. The rear interface unit provides the
connection with the model strut and the entire balance assembly is mounted on the sting of

7
turntable shown in blue. The portion of the strut highlighted in red is the wiring guiding slot for
the wires of balance and the model actuation system.

Figure 8: Balance G Assembly Figure 9: Balance Interface Unit

Figure 10: Balance G Setup

The fuselage was made longer in order to accommodate the length of the balance assembly.
13mm (equivalent to 0.12m increase in the prototype) was added ahead of the wing leading
edge while 138mm was added behind the leading edge (equivalent to 1.24m increase in the
prototype). This geometric distortion would cause marginally higher drag in the model than the
actual prototype. The drag experienced by the actual size fuselage can be accounted for in the
post data analysis.

8
4. 1:9 Scale Wind Tunnel Model Design
According to similarity law, similar flow pattern can be predicted in different flow conditions if
same Reynolds number is attained in the flow. Therefore, in wind tunnel practices, to have a
good resemblance of the actual flight condition, it is always desirable to have the test Reynolds
number that is similar to flight Reynolds number. However, this is often not the case due to the
limitations of the setup and the interaction between the model dimension and the tunnel
capabilities.

UAV Prototype 1:9 scale Wind Tunnel Model


Air Density (kgm-3) 0.5258 1.225
Dynamic Viscosity (Pas) 1.527x10-5 1.789x10-5
Speed (m/s) 14 63.4
Wing Chord (m) 1.26 0.14
Reynolds Number 607407 607775
Table 4: Test Reynolds Number

In this case, the model was designed to be tested at wind speed of 63.4m/s, which is achievable
in IITK wind tunnel facility, in order to attain the similar flow condition as the actual flight.

4.1. Design Evolution


In the last year project, a conceptual wind tunnel model was created. Using aluminium as the
main material, the metallic model was designed to be modular for the ease of transportation and
assembly of the model. The model also possessed multiple interchangeable dihedral wing
brackets which provide different dihedral configurations for the study of the dihedral effect on
the flight stability of the aircraft.

Figure 11: Conceptual Model

9
Figure 12: Final Design

This year, the design of the model had gone through several major changes and improvements.
First of all, the material of the wing and horizontal tail were changed into carbon fibre and foam
core sandwich structure. CFRP and foam core structure is a better solution as compared to CNC
aluminium because of its lower cost of production and higher strength to weight ratio. On the
other hand, different dihedral configuration design on the CFRP wing was much more complex
and challenging. As the result, the idea of having multiple dihedral brackets had to be dropped.

Moreover, several joints in the model were improved and made feasible for the manufacturing
process such as, the joint between the tail boom and the empennage, fuselage and wing, vertical
fin, horizontal tail and etc. Several sharp corners in the previous design were also made
streamline in the current model.

Lastly, the dimensions of the aircraft had also been through several iterations. For example,
increase of the wing chord from 1.15m to 1.26m, fuselage diameter from 0.40 to 0.45m and etc
(refer to table for basic scaled down dimension of the wind tunnel model). Every change in
dimension or geometry of the aircraft requires revisit to the wind tunnel model design in terms
of manufacturing feasibility, structural integrity and cost consideration. After a long iterative
design process, the model was finally completed and was sent to IITK for wind tunnel test at the
end of March 2014.

Wing (SD7062) Solar UAV Wind Tunnel Model


Aspect ratio 14.04 14.04
Span 17.70 1.96667
Chord 1.26 0.14000
Wing area 22.30 0.27533
Aileron span (per side) 2.21 0.24583
Aileron chord (total) 0.25 0.02800
Horizontal Tail (HT) NACA 0010
Aspect ratio 5.00 5.00000
Taper ratio 1.00 1.00000
Span 3.34 0.37103

10
Chord 0.67 0.07421
Elevator chord (total) 0.20 0.02226
Elevator span (total) 3.34 0.37103
Vertical Fin (VF) NACA 0010
Aspect ratio 1.50 1.50000
Taper ratio 0.49 0.48700
Span 1.53 0.17003
Tip chord 0.67 0.07421
Root chord 1.37 0.15238
Rudder span (total) 1.30 0.14444
Rudder chord 0.41 0.04571
Fuselage
Infront of wing 0.80 0.08889
Behind of wing 0.40 0.04444
Total length 2.46 0.27333
Diameter 0.45 0.05000
Boom
1/4 chord of wing to 1/4 chord of horizontal tail 6.00 0.66667
Table 5: Basic Dimension of Wind Tunnel Model

4.2. Model Component Description


In this section, the description of the design of each model component is presented. The detailed
3-view drawings of the design are attached in Appendix B.

Fuselage Cap (Aluminium)

Figure 13: Fuselage Cap Figure 14: Fuselage Cap (3-view Drawing Extracted)

Figure 14 shows sectional view of fuselage cap. The joint between the cap and the fuselage is
achieved by the M40 fine male thread on the fuselage cap and female thread at the inner wall of
the fuselage. As shown in the figure, the cylindrical cavity with a diameter of 35mm is designed
to accommodate the front interface unit (FIU) of the force balance. There is an internal tapered
slot matching the tapered tip of balance G at the FIU to ensure tight fit between these two
components. An M10 screw is used to secure the model to the force balance from the tip of the
cap. Another design features on the fuselage cap are the roll locks which are located radially
around the fuselage cap. Four M3 set screws (roll locks) were used to exert normal force onto
the FIU in order to prevent any rolling motion of model.

11
Fuselage (Aluminium)

Figure 15: Fuselage Figure 16: Fuselage (3-view Drawing Extracted)

The figures above shows the isometric and section view of the fuselage. The hollow section
provides 5mm clearance between fuselage inner wall and the force balance in order to avoid any
fowling between the two components. A 29mm x 130mm slot at rear of the fuselage permits to
take model strut from the aft interface unit (AIU) of the balance. The rectangular platform on the
fuselage, as shown in Figure 15, is the provision for the wing mounting block. The wing mounting
block sits on the fuselage and is secured by four M5 screws. Moreover, 3 etched marks (model
reference points) are made at top and both sides of the fuselage.

Wing Mounting Block (Aluminium)

Figure 17: Wing Mounting Block Figure 18: Wing Mounting Block (3-view Drawing Extracted)

Wing mounting block is one of the main structural components of the model. This component is
secured onto the fuselage by four M5 screws from the top. The wing will be sitting on the 2
degree angled surface of the mounting block and another six M5 screws are used to secure the
wing onto this component.

Wing (CFRP And Foam Core Sandwich Structure)

Figure 19: CFRP Foam Core Composite Wing

12
Figure 20: Wing Bottom View

The wing of the model is made out of carbon fibre and foam core sandwich structure. Two PVC
control hinges and three metal plates (two servo plate and a wing central plate) with threaded
holes are embedded in the wing in the carbon fibre laying up process. Figure 20 shows the
bottom view of the wing in which the wing central plate is made visible (shown in grey).

On the other hand, servo footprint cut out slots are made at both sides of the wing so that the
servos are made flush with the bottom surface of the wing and flow obstruction can be
minimized.

In addition to hard foam core, CFC skin and embedded metallic plate, each side of the wing is
further reinforced by 3 carbon flats extending from the central metallic plate to the tips.
Structural strength and stiffness due to such a spanwise reinforcement by carbon flats is not
quantified and taken into consideration in stress analysis and wing tip deflection studies.

Tail Boom Connector

Figure 21: Tailboom Connector Figure 22: Tailboom Connector (3-view Drawing Extracted)

This component serves as a connection between fuselage and tail boom. Tail boom is inserted
through the central 13mm-diameter circular slot as shown in Figure 22. A rectangular cut-out is
created for the unique mate with the flat tongue created at one end of the tailboom.

13
Fuselage Patch (Stainless Steel)

Figure 23: Fuselage Patch Figure 24: Fuselage Patch (3-view Drawing Extracted)

This component serves as a special nut plate for the M4 screw which secures the fuselage, tail
boom connector and the tail boom in place.

Tail Boom (Stainless Steel)

Figure 25: Tailboom

As discussed before, a flat tongue is created at one end of the tail boom in order to mate with
the horizontal surface at the tail boom connector. This prevents any undesired tilt of the
empennage which is mounted perpendicular to the tail boom. In addition, the tail boom is
designed with transitional fit (K7/h6 ISO standard) with the corresponding slots at the tail boom
connector and the empennage III. This transitional fit is a compromise between clearance and
interference fit. As frequent assembling and disassembling of the empennage is expected, the
transitional fit provides tight and firm fitting at the same time ensures smooth installation.

Empennage III (Aluminium)

Figure 26: Empennage III Figure 27: Empennage III (3-view Drawing Extracted)

Empennage III is the component onto which the vertical and horizontal tail assembly is fastened.
The front and aft fastener holes are the provisions for two M4 screws which are used to secure
VT Empennage Loft, a component on which the vertical fin will be attached, onto the
empennage III. The rear end of the tail boom is inserted through the 13mm diameter circular slot
in this component. Similarly, 3 etched marks are made on both sides of the component.

14
VT Empennage Loft (Aluminium)

Figure 28: VT Empennage Loft Figure 29: VT Empennage Loft (3-view Drawing Extracted)

This component serves as a special base plate for the vertical fin. On top of it, an airfoil footprint
is created to mate perfectly with the fin. The cross section gradually morphs into the footprint of
the empennage III at the bottom of the base plate. The two holes at the two ends are the
provisions for the M4 screws which are used to secure this component onto empennage III. The
other two counterbore holes in the middle are designed for the fasteners securing the fin.

Vertical Fin (Aluminium)

Figure 30: Vertical Fin

Similar to wing, there are two servo footprint cut out slots at the fin. One for the rudder another
for the elevator control. As the elevator servo is located at the fin, a special rocker arm linkage is
required to translate the servo horn motion in the yz-plane to elevator control horn motion in
the xy-plane. The two M2 tapped holes near the fin tip is designed for the installation of this
special linkage.

15
Tail Mounting Block (Aluminium)

Figure 31: Tail Mounting Block Figure 32: Tail Mounting Block (Side View)

The tail mounting block is mounted on the tip of the vertical fin by two M4 fasteners at the
central column. Four 3mm through holes are the provisions for the fasteners which secure the
tail to the mounting block. Four corners of the mounting block are filleted to reduce form drag.
The slot at the leading edge of this component provides reference for alignment during the
assembly process. Moreover, as shown in Figure 32, thin layer of material is removed at the
trailing edge to prevent interference with the horizontal tail.

Horizontal Tail (CFRP and Foam Core Sandwich Structure)

Figure 33: Horizontal Tail

Figure 34: Horizontal Tail Bottom View

Akin to wing, the tail is made out of CFRP and foam core sandwich structure with metal central
plate and PVC control hinges embedded. The tail is sitting on the tail mounting block which is
secured firmly at the tip of the vertical fin.

Rocker Arm

Figure 35: Rocker Arm Assembly 1 Figure 36: Rocker Arm Assembly 2

16
As discussed before, the rocker arm is a special linkage that translates the servo arm motion in
the yz plane into I
components, rocker arm and nut plate. The aluminium nut plate is first mounted onto the fin
and then the rocker arm is mounted on top of that. Push rods from the servo and control horn
are then connected to the rocker arm to complete the assembly.

3D Printed Components (Polycarbonate)


The 3D printing technique has helped to ease the manufacturing process of the components
with more complex shape and smaller size. Although the achievable surface finish of the 3D
printed material is incomparable with both the well polished metallic and glossy CFRP surface, its
streamlined shape which can be easily formed using this advanced manufacturing technique is
significantly effective in reducing form drag caused by straight and sharp corners.

Wing and Horizontal Tail Cap

Figure 37: Wing Cap Figure 38: Horizontal Tail Cap

The wing and tail caps are pasted at the tips of their respective aerodynamic surfaces.

Control surfaces

Figure 39: Elevator

All the control surfaces of the model are 3D printed. Using this rapid-prototyping technology, the
slots for the control hinges can be easily made, as shown in the figure above. With these nicely
made slots, the hinges can be firmly inserted.

Levelling Block and Model Stand Design


Levelling blocks are used for the measurement and alignment purposes during the model
assembly and inspection stage. For example, the wing levelling block has an airfoil curvature that
mates the top surface of the wing. On top of the block, horizontal surface was created for the
placement of the inclinometer for angle measurement. The small rectangular embossed surface
(see
Figure 80).

17
Figure 40: Levelling Block and Model Stand Figure 41: Model On The Stand

The model stand is made up by three components: base, front stand and rear stand. The V-shape
at the front stand supports by the outer cylindrical surface of the fuselage while the rear stand
slots into the rectangular cut-out at the rear-end of the fuselage to prevent the model from
turning.

18
5. Model Stress Analysis

5.1. Mechanical Properties of Materials and Aerodynamics Inputs


on Component Loads
Appendix C includes mechanical properties of all the materials and the aerodynamic force and
moment derivatives used for estimating model loads.

5.2. Factor of Safety


According to NAA W T M C (2),
be equal or greater than 4 when using the material
strength is used. Furthermore, the thread engagement length should be at least one times the
nominal diameter of the fastener for tapped holes in material with ultimate tensile strength
greater than 830MPa. For tapped holes in materials less than 830MPa ultimate tensile strength,
1.5 times the nominal diameter of the fastener should be used as the minimum thread
engagement length. If less thread engagement is used, the minimum shear strength of the
threads in the joint shall be at least 4/3 times the bolt preload.

5.3. Stress Analysis of Model Structural Components


In this section, the critical loading cases of the major load bearing structural components of the
model are evaluated.

5.3.1. Wing
The critical loading case of the wing occurs when = and with aileron fully deflected
( = 10) which yields maximum rolling moment on the aircraft. Rolling moment due to side
slip is negligible in this calculation as the angle of side slip derivatives on rolling moment is very
insignificant as compared to aileron control derivatives on rolling moment.

Lift on wing is assumed to be elliptically distributed and the lift is acting at the centroid of the
quarter- ) on either sides of the wing. With a moment arm of 0.417m, the
maximum bending moment due to lift occurs at wing root. The additional bending moment due
to rolling moment should also be taken into consideration to obtain the maximum bending
moment at the wing root.

L/2

0.417m

Figure 42: Wing Bending Moment

The moment arm is calculated as follows,

19
4
= = 0.417
3

Where is half of the wing span = 0.984m

Wing lift,

= = 728

Hence, bending moment due to wing lift is

= 2
= 152

Rolling moment coefficient of the model can be obtained as follows,

= + = 0.028

Rolling moment due to roll and yaw rate are neglected here as we are only interested in static
motion. As discussed above, the rolling moment due to sideslip is also negligible.

Rolling moment can be obtained as follows,

= = 33

And the resultant bending moment on the wing will be the sum of these two components

Conservatively, it is assumed that the bending moment is only sustained by the wing skin.
Assuming wing as cantilever beam structure, the formula of flexural stress on the wing due to
bending moment is shown below,

Unlike the regular cross-section of the cantilever beam, the area moment of inertia I of an airfoil
is relatively complex to obtain. Hence, in this analysis, the cambered airfoil is approximated as a
symmetrical airfoil with the same maximum thickness as shown in the figure below.

0.1c 0.8c
y x

Figure 43: Airfoil Approximation 1

9 4
The area moment of inertia of the wing skin is computed in SolidWorks, = 6.26 10 ;
0.14 140
= 2
= 9.8

The resultant flexural stress experienced on the wing,

= 290 Factor of safety,

= = 5.17 > 4

20
Direct shear due to transverse load and torsional shear due to wing pitching moment constitute
the total shear stress of the wing.

Bending shear stress,

2
= = 0.22

3 2
Where = 1.62 10

Pitching moment coefficient of the wing can be calculated as follows,

= 0 +

= 0.1 0.00570 10 = 0.157

Hence the resultant torsion due to pitching moment on the wing is,

= = = 13.34

Shear stress borne by the wing skin is calculated using Bredt-Batho formulation, as shown below,

= =2

3 2
Where is the cross sectional area of the wing (1.68 10 ); is the thickness of the 2-ply
carbon fibre skin(0.8 10 3 )

= 4.96

= 5.14 > 4

Shear strength of the Carbon Fibre skin is 25.5MPa, experimental data by the structures team.

5.3.2. Horizontal Tail


The loading on the horizontal tail is very similar to that of the wing. By using the same approach,
the result of the analysis can be concluded in Table 3,

HT skin
Tensile stress (Bending) (Mpa) S.F
5.49 273
Shear Stress (Pitching moment) (MPa)
1.59 16
Table 6: Horizontal Tail Stress Analysis

5.3.3. Tail boom


Tail boom is also a critical structural component of the model. As depicted in Figure 44, tailboom
experiences torsion, sideward (lateral) and upward (longitudinal) bending moment due to
aerodynamic loads from the horizontal tail and vertical fin. As the result, the total stress
experienced at the tailboom due to the overlapping of all these stresses can be very significant.
The critical loading case (bending) for the tail boom occurs at the directional test, when the
r

21
Figure 44: Tail Boom Stress Analysis

Lift coefficient at horizontal tail

= = 0.0724 8.840

Hence, lift at tail, = = 39 N

Bending moment due to horizontal tail,

= = 14

Where, =Tail lift moment arm = 0.371 . Tail pitching moment is zero due to symmetrical
airfoil.

Side force coefficient at vertical tail

= + = 0.002687 12 + 0.00223 15

Hence side force at vertical fin,

= = 40N

Consequently, the side ward bending moment due to side force from the fin is,

= = 14

Where, = Fin lift moment arm =0.356 . Similarly, fin airfoil pitching moment is zero due to
symmetrical airfoil.

22
Figure 45: Tail Boom Cross Section

(+)Plus sign indicates tension while (-) minus sign indicates compression. It can be observed that
there must be a quadrant which sustains the highest tensile stress, depending on the nature of
the sideslip and rudder deflection.

Total tensile stress on the tail boom,

0 0
= + = 131 MPa

9 4 3
Where = 1.40 10 ; 0 = 6.5 10

Factor of Safety,

= 8.7 > 4

T th aileron
fully deflected. The resultant torsion on the tail boom is the sum of the two moments (rolling
moment due to deflected aileron and torsional moment due to the fin side force).

Figure 46: Tail Boom Torsion Analysis.

Figure 46 -
positive aileron deflection. Hence it can be seen that the resultant torsion experienced on the
tail boom is the sum of these moments.

23
Assuming that the side for MAC
shown as follows,

= = 20

= = 1.5

Where MAC m

From section 5.3.1., rolling moment due to aileron deflection is equals to 33 .


Consequently, the total torsion of the boom = 34.5 and the resultant shear stress
due to torsion is calculated as follows,
0
= = 80

9 4
Where = 2 = 2.8 10

The total shear stress of the boom is calculated as follows,

2 2
= + + = 80.3

= 8.5 > 4

5.4. Analysis of the Structural Joints


5.4.1. Wing Joint

Wing Central Plate


y

M5 screws x6
x

New Wing
Mounting Block

Figure 47: Wing Joint Illustration

Besides wing lift, wing root bending moment (along X-axis) and pitching moment at quarter
chord (along Y-axis) all cause tensile stress at the 6 M5 fasteners used to secure the wing
mounting block to the embedded wing central plate. Based on the loading direction, it can be
concluded that the two screws in the last row will be subjected to the highest stress.
Tensile load due to lift bending and rolling moment( 1 ) and Tensile load due to lift( 2 ) ,

24
+
2
0.045
1 = = 1497.4 ; 2 = = 121.4
3 6

L
45mm Bending Moment

F1 F2

Figure 48: Tensile Load Due To Bending And Rolling Moment Figure 49: Tensile Load Due To Lift

Tensile Load due to pitching moment,


d3
d2
d1

M_wing
2xR1 2xR2 2xR3

Figure 50: Tensile Load Due To Pitching Moment

Figure 50 shows the free body diagram of the 3 M5 screws which secure the wing to the
mounting block. Assuming linear load distribution, each bolt load R1, R2 and R3 can be
calculated as follows,

2 1 1 +2 2 2 +2 3 3 =

1 2
Where 1 = 0.005 ; 2 = 0.02 ; 3 = 0.035 ; 1 = 3; 2 = 3; = 13.34
3 3
(obtained from section 5.3.1.

3 = 142

Hence, the total tensile stress subjected by the M5 screws is

1+ 2+ 3
= = 89.65
5

Fastener Part Number: CBSTS5-8

Strength Class: SUS304 equivalent

= 4.5 > 4

25
5.4.2. Wing Mounting Block Fasteners Analysis
As shown in Figure 51, four M5 fasteners are used to mount the wing mounting block on the
fuselage. The entire wing load and moment are concentrated here; the four mounting screws
sustain tensile load due to wing lift, pitching moment and rolling moment due to asymmetrical
lift (aileron deflection). Therefore it is critical to examine the structural integrity of this assembly.

L M5 screws x4
Mwing 45mm
30mm
0.25c
15mm
Mwing
l
F2
Figure 51: Wing Mounting Block M5 Fasteners Figure 52: Tensile Load Due To Pitching Moment

Tensile load due to wing lift 1 = 182 ;

Tensile load due to pitching moment is obtained using the same approach as in section 5.4.1.
2 = 597

= 0 + +

= 0.1 0.00570 10 0.0223 15 = 0.492;

= = 41.76 ;

2 = 597

25mm

l
F3

Figure 53: Tensile Load Due To Rolling Moment

Taking the edge of the mounting block as the pivot point for the rolling moment, the tensile load
( 3 ) borne by the central bolt can be found as follows,

( )
0.025
3 = = 334
4

The maximum stress experienced on the central M5 screw and the safety factor can be found as,

26
1+ 2+ 3
= = 56.7
5

Fastener Part Number: CBSST5-8

Strength Class: A2-50

= 8.8 > 4

5.4.3. Horizontal Tail Joint Analysis


As discussed before, a central aluminium plate H T C P is embedded in
the composite tail. As shown in Figure 54 the tail load will be transferred through the four M3
screws to the fin. The critical loading condition for the tail occurs at max AOA with full elevator
deflection ( e C load on the tail is expected to be
much smaller.
Note: HT Angle of attack - C AOA T -

Horizontal Tail
LHT Central Plate

M3 screws x4
79mm
L/2
20mm
F1

F2
Figure 54: Tail Joint Analysis Figure 55: HT Lift Bending

= +

= 0.0724 8.840 + 0.004835 15 = 0.713

= = 43

Using the similar analysis done for the wing joint, 1 = 11 and 1 = 43

Hence maximum tensile stress experienced on the M3 fasteners can be obtained as follows
1+ 2
= = 7.6
3

Fastener part number: CBSST3-5


Strength Class: A2-50

= 65.7 > 4

27
5.4.4. Tail Mounting Block Fasteners Analysis

M4 Fasteners x 2

Figure 56: Tail Mounting Block Fastener Analysis

Tail load is fully transferred to the two tail mounting block M4 fasteners. Using the similar
approach as the previous calculation, the results can be obtained as follows,

Fastener part number: CBSST4-8


Strength Class: A2-50

Tensile load (bending) (N) Tensile load (lift) (N) Total stress (Mpa) S.F.

0.00 21.5 1.71 292.2


Table 7: Tail Mounting Block Fastener Analysis

5.4.5. Vertical Fin Joint Analysis


The vertical fin is secured by two M4 fasteners at the root of the fin. The critical loading case for
r A Figure 57, the fasteners
sustain a combination of transverse shear and bending stress due to the offset side force from
the fin.

Transverse force = 20 ;
Tension due to tail lift 1 = 22
Bending moment = 0.075 = 1.5
Axial force due to bending moment
0.0075
YVT 2 = = 192
2
7.5mm
Tensile stress on the bolt = 17
75mm
Fastener part number: CBSST4-12
Strength Class: A2-50
V

F1+F2 = 29.4 > 4

Figure 57: Fin Joint Analysis

28
5.4.6. VT Empennage Loft Fastener Analysis

2 M4 Fasteners

Figure 58: VT Empennage Loft Fastener Analysis

Fastener part number: KBBS4-10; FKBB4-26-6


Strength Class: A2-50; 8.8
T VT E L M
the same as the fin joint fasteners. The distance between the two screws is wider and therefore
it can be deduced that the resolved shear load will be smaller than the fin joint screws. Hence,
without showing detail calculations, it can be concluded that the results obtained from section
5.4.5. are enough for assuring the safety of the joint.

5.4.7. Tail Boom Joint Analysis


The tail boom of the model is only secured by one M4 fastener as shown in the figure below. The
bolt is subjected to transverse shear due to the combined torsion between the boom and the
fuselage.

Figure 59: Tail Boom Joint Analysis Figure 60: M4 Fastener Internal Load

The maximum torsion on the tail boom joint can be obtained from section 5.3.3.

= 34.5

Hence transverse shear V and the corresponding shear stress can be calculated as shown,

= = 2717 ;
0.0127

= 216

Fastener part number: FBAB4-48-5


Strength class: 12.9

29
= 3.4 > 3 (Yield Shear Strength is used)

5.5. Thread Engagement Length


Minimum Thread Engagement Length Le is calculated using the two formulas below,

For bolt shank to fail before thread stripping in the bolt (first order approximation) (9),

0.7454 0.9382 2
=
0.27125 0.54127

For bolt shank to fail before thread stripping in the nut (first order approximation) (9),

0.7454 0.9382 2
=
0.27125 0.54127

Where, =yield strength of the bolt material; = yield strength of the nut material

The larger value of the above calculated Le should be used as the minimum thread engagement
length required.

Thread engagement
Joint Le (mm)
length provided (mm)
Wing Mounting Block to Fuselage 3.45 4
Wing to Wing Mounting Block 3.45 5
Tail Boom to Fuselage 2.7 4.5
VT Empennage Loft to Empennage III 3.94 6
Vertical Fin to VT Empennage Loft 2.7 6
Tail Mounting Block to Vertical Fin 2.70 5
Horizontal Tail to Tail Mounting Block 2.05 3
Table 8: Minimum Thread Engagement Length

5.6. Wing and Tail deflection


Wing tip and tail deflection due to aerodynamic forces are calculated here. Similarly,
conservative approximations are used in this analysis in order to simplify the mathematical
calculations as well as making sure that the actual deflection will be smaller than expected value.

Assumptions:
1. Wing and tail boom as approximated as cantilever beam (Bernoulli-Euler Beam
Model)
2. Rectangular wing lift distribution
3. Wing CFRP skin is the sole supporting structure of the wing
4. Aileron control effectiveness = 0.2 (aileron chord to wing chord ratio)
5. Wing area moment of inertia is approximated the same as in section 5.3.1.

Material Young s Modulus E


Carbon Fibre UD 135GPa
AISI 302 Stainless Steel 193GPa
Table 9: Young's Modulus

30
T Y
deflection using Bernoulli-Euler Beam Model.

The critical wing tip deflection occurs at full aileron deflection at highest possible angle of attack.
However, deflecting aileron when = will lead to aileron stall. Therefore this analysis is
AOA a A
will have = where the rest of the part of the wing will have 1 = 0.093 7 = 0.651.

R2 N/m
R1 N/m

0.9835 0.246 0

Figure 61: Wing Lift Distribution

R1 and R2 are the distributed load on the wing.

1 = 1
;

2 =

1
2
1 = = 240 / ;
(0.9835 0.246) 2 0.9835

1
2
2 = (0.246) 2 0.9835
= 59 /

The tip deflection can therefore be calculated as follows,

1 0.246 1 3 0.9835 0.246 1 0.246 2


= { 0
+ 0.246 2 0.246 + };
2 2 2

= 25

The actual deflection is expected to be much smaller than the estimated value due to the

distribution) used in this analysis. Furthermore, there are 6 carbon fibre strips as stiffeners (3 on
each side of the wing) will be bonded at the bottom wing skin to enhance the wing stiffness. This
unison of CFC skin, hard foam core, carbon rod stiffeners essentially constitute the structural
strength of the wing. Hence the actual deflection will be much lower than the values obtained
above.

31
LHT

Wemp
R N/m

20.15mm

Figure 62: Tail Boom Upward Bending Deflection

Similar approach is used in analyzing the tail deflection.

1
= = 7.45 ;

=7 ;

= 43 ( 5.4.3. );

LHT-Wemp
R N/m

0
371 20.15mm

Figure 63: FBD For Tail Deflection Analysis

1 0.371 2 7.45 3
= 0
43 7 0.02015 + 2
= 2.4

0 YVT

371

Figure 64: Tail Boom Defection Due To Side Force

32
Similarly, tail boom deflection due to side force is calculated as follows,

1 0.371 2
= 0
= 2.5

Where = 40 is the side force obtained from section 5.3.3.

5.7. Summary
The tables below show a summary of the results from the model components and joint analysis.
It is concluded that al
are larger than 4 (for UTS) and 3 (for YTS).

Components Type of stress Factor of Safety


Wing Tensile 5.2
Shear 5.1
Horizontal Tail Tensile 273.0
Shear 16
Tail Boom Tensile 8.7
Shear 8.5
Table 10: Factor of Safety Summary 1

Joint Fastener size Type of stress Factor of Safety


Wing to Wing Mounting Block M5 Tensile 4.5
Wing Mounting Block to Fuselage M5 Tensile 8.8
Horizontal Tail to Tail Mounting M3 Tensile 65.7
Block
Tail Mounting Block to Vertical Fin M4 Tensile 292.2
Vertical Fin to VT Empennage Loft M4 Tensile 29.4
Tail Boom to Connector M4 Shear 3.4
Table 11: Factor of Safety Summary (Joint Analysis)

33
6. Hinge Moment Estimation and Servo Selection
Integrated model actuation system was used in this wind tunnel model so that control surface
deflection can be achieved remotely. This would significantly reduce the downtime of the
experiment and ensure a smoother run between each test. As the experiment would be
conducted at high speed 63m/s, much higher than most of the RC aircraft flight speed, the
selected servo must be strong enough to withstand the high pressure and actuate under the high
loading condition. Therefore servo selection becomes one of the critical design stages for the
wind tunnel model.

Some other selection criteria are as follows:

1. Slim, as the servos are required to be fitted in the respective aerodynamic surfaces,
protrusion of the parts into the flow is undesirable.
2. Fast response and precise actuation
3. Easy installation

In the servo selection process, hinge moments at the respective control surfaces were evaluated.
The servo models that meet the torque requirement were then being compared based on the
abovementioned selection criteria. Finally the suitable servo was selected.

Two different approaches were used to estimate the hinge moment of the respective control
surfaces. Suitable actuators were then be selected for the model control system based on the
calculated results. As the methods only give a rough gauge of the hinge moment magnitude,
conservative results were chosen as the baseline for the servo selection. This ensured that the
servo is slightly oversized and able to actuate efficiently in the wind tunnel environment.

6.1. XFOIL Computation:


First developed by Mark Drela at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), XFOIL is a
program for the design and analysis of the low speed subsonic airfoils (10). In the stress analysis,
XFOIL was also used to calculate the pitching moment coefficient of the NACA0010 with
deflected control surfaces (elevator and rudder).

Figure 65: GDES Function

Flap at the desired hinge line of the 2D airfoil was modified in GDES, integrated airfoil design
XFOIL U FMOM

34
was obtained. However, two important keys to take note about this analysis were: 1.
Incremental hinge coefficient of the SD7062 is already available in experimental data, only hinge
moment due to angle of attack is computed. The total hinge moment coefficient is the sum of
the experimental data and XFOIL results. 2. The reference parameters used to non-
dimensionalize hinge moment in XFOIL are wing area and wing span. Extra calculation steps are
required to obtain the conventional hinge moment coefficient expression.

=
1 2
2

Where and are control surface area and chord respectively

Wing (SD 7062):


Hinge moment coefficient at different angle of attack (AoA sweep from - nd zero
flap deflection angle) was estimated by XFOIL. The due to was
obtained from the experimental data - E
R T both dimensionless numbers yielded the total
.

Figure 66: Experimental Data of ( ) (11)

Horizontal Tail and Vertical Fin (NACA 0010):


As no experimental data is available for NACA 0010, of the elevator and rudder were
estimated purely by XFOIL. As stated before, flap position and deflection angle are set under
GDES function of XFOIL.

35
6.2. Empirical Approach Cl estimation
This is a similar method to the XFOIL approach. However the hinge moment due to control
surface deflection was obtained empirically. Firstly, the incremental lift due to control surface
deflection was estimated. It was assumed that this purely acted on the control surface and
the centre of pressure is located at 50% of the control surface chord. The hinge moment was
then obtained by multiplying with half of the chord length of the control surface, which was
the equivalent moment arm.

due to deflected control surface

Where, - flap effectiveness = 0.3


a 2D lift curve slope = 0.1096/degree
As discussed above, it was assumed that was completely acting on the control surface,
with centre of pressure located at 0.5 of the control surface chord. Hence multiplying with
0.5 and dividing the term with control surface chord to non-dimensionalize it.
1
= 0.5 ( )

Where, control surface chord

due to angle of attack


The equation below shows the estimation of the incremental lift acting on the control surface at
different angle of attack. The coefficient 0.5 represents the fraction of the total lift increment
that acts on the control surface.

= 0.5

Similarly, the hinge moment coefficient due to angle of attack was calculated as follows,
1
= 0.5 ( )

Hence, the total hinge moment coefficient can be express as the following equation,
= +

36
6.3. Results:
This section presents a summary of the results obtained. Figure 67 and 68 show the relationship
between hinge moment coefficient and the control surface deflection angle using the XFOIL
and empirical approach respectively.

Ch vs sigma (XFOIL)
1
AoA -7deg
0.9
0.8 AoA -5deg
Ch_total

0.7 AoA -3deg


0.6
AoA 0deg
0.5
0.4 AoA 2deg
0.3 AoA 4deg
0.2 AoA 6deg
0 5 10 15 AoA 8deg
deflection angle_sigma (degree) AoA 10deg

Figure 67: Ch vs deflection angle (sigma)

Ch vs sigma(Empirical)
AoA -7

0.3 AoA -5
AoA-3
Ch_total

0.2 AoA0
AoA2
0.1
AoA4
0 AoA6

0 5 10 15 AoA8
AoA10
deflection angle_sigma (deg)

Figure 68: Ch vs deflection angle (empirical)

It can be seen from both of the graphs that higher magnitude of moment occurs at higher angle
of attack and larger control surface deflection angle.

The following tables show the comparison between the results of SD7062 (maximum hinge
AOA
XFOIL Empirical
Ch_max 0.96 0.319
HM_max (Nm) 0.40 0.150
HM_max (kgcm) 4.11 1.534
Table 12: SD7062 Max Ch

Conservatively, hinge moment of 4.11kgcm was chosen to be the wing servo selection criteria
(torque)

37
Similarly, the following tables show the comparison between the results of NACA 0010
(maximum hinge moment coefficient obtained at AOA
approaches.

NACA 0010 XFOIL Approach (Max Ch)


Rudder Ch_Max 0.0142
HM (Nm) 0.086
HM (kgcm) 0.877
Elevator Ch_Max 0.0142
HM (Nm) 0.0744
HM (kgcm) 0.758
Table 13: NACA0010 Max Ch (XFOIL)

NACA 0010 Empirical Approach (Max Ch)


Rudder Ch_Max 0.244
HM (Nm) 0.0179
HM (kgcm) 1.827
Elevator Ch_Max 0.244
HM (Nm) 0.111
HM (kgcm) 1.136
Table 14: NACA0010 Max Ch (Analytical Approach)

Conservatively, HM of 1.827kgcm was chosen to be the tail servo selection criteria (torque)

The selected servo is shown in the figure below.

DS181 specifications
Type Digital
Torque 4.3kgcm@4.8V; 5.4kgcm@6V
Speed 16sec/60degree@4.8V;
13sec/60degree@6V
Size 30 x 10.9 x 29mm
Weight 20g
Figure 69: JR DS181 Slim Wing Servo (Courtesy of
hobbyking.com (12)) Gear Metal
Type
Voltage 4.8V to 6.0V
T
Table 15: DS181 Specifications (13)

38
7. Manufacturing Process of the Wind Tunnel Model
The wind tunnel model is made out of four major materials namely, CFRP and foam core
sandwich structure, 3D-printed polycarbonate, aluminium and stainless steel. The components
of the model were manufactured by different vendors who are specialized in the manufacturing
of the respective materials.

Most of the metallic components such as fuselage, tail boom and etc are created using milling
and lathing machine. Lathing machine was used to create the rounded surface at the fuselage
cap and tail boom connector. More complex shape like vertical fin are created using computer
numerical control (CNC) machine.

Figure 70: Metallic Components

(Left: Model body components; Right: Vertical Fin)

The figures below show the manufacturing process of the CFRP wing and horizontal tail. The
moulds were first cut out using the automated KUKA robotic arm. According to the vendor, the
machine has an accuracy of 0.5mm. Carbon fibre laying-up and vacuum bagging process were
then carried out at both of the male and female moulds. Metal plates, PVC control hinges and
carbon stiffeners were integrated in between the laying up process to ensure good attachment
with the skin. Foam core was sandwiched between the moulds and resin was pumped into the
mould to fill up the cavities. The wing and tail were finished by a thin layer of paint.

39
Figure 71: CFRP Wing and Tail

(Top left corner: Mould being cut out by KUKA machine; Top right: Horizontal Tail with central
plate integrated; Bottom: Finished wing)

Simple load test was carried out by the vendor to show the strength of the wing. 100kg load
(30kg more than the maximum aerodynamic load) was applied on the wing, around the effective
wing lifting point. The wing generally displayed high strength capability with smaller than
expected deflection at the wingtip.

Figure 72: Wing Load Test

40
8. Model Assembly and Inspection
The figures above show the 3 view of the full assembly of the model. The complete assembly
steps and hardware list can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 73: Model Full Assembly Front View

Figure 74: Model Full Assembly Side View

Figure 75: Model Full Assembly Bottom View

Inspection of the individual component as well as the full model assembly is an important
process before the model enters the wind tunnel. This process is to identify the shape
conformity and any dimensional deviation of the physical model from the CAD design. Key
dimension such as wing span, chord, fuselage diameter and etc, of the actual model parts were
measured. In order to minimize human error in measurement, three separate measurements
were taken and averaged values of the three were used. The measured data is then compared

41
with the CAD data and the error percentage can be calculated. The following table shows a
portion of the result extracted from the model inspection stage table. Complete model
inspection table can be found in Appendix E.

CAD Measured
Wing Span(without wing caps) 1947.00 1947.50
Wing Chord 133.50 133.50
Aileron Span 246.00 246.00
Aileron Chord 27.80 28.00
Horizontal Tail Span (without tail caps) 351.00 352.00
Horizontal Tail Chord 51.95 52.00
Fuselage Diameter 50.00 50.00
Fuselage Length 310.00 310.00
Vertical Fin Root Chord 149.40 149.00
Vertical Fin Span 179.00 179.00
Table 16: Model Inspection Table

In general, the dimensional accuracy of the model fluctuates about 1mm. Nonetheless, most of
the key features such as wing span, chord and etc were found to be matching the CAD data
(refer to Table 16).

Besides, the shape conformity of the airfoil section of the wing and tail were checked by
sweeping an airfoil template acrylic block along the span wise of the respective aerodynamic
surfaces. Unlike the coordinate-measuring machine, error could not be quantified using this
method. However, it gives the user a gauge on how well the shape of the physical wing conforms
to the design. It can be seen from Figure 76, the cross section of the wing matches well with the
airfoil template, the gap between the two components is almost unnoticeable. This gives us
enough confidence that the wind tunnel model carries a high degree of resemblance to the
actual prototype.

Figure 76: Airfoil Inspection

As discussed in the previous section, model reference points were made on the model by
creating 0.5mm etched marks on the fuselage. Fuselage reference line and model reference
planes can be constructed for model assembly and inspection purposes by adopting the
reference points, as seen from the Figure 77. Similarly, the position of wing, tail and other X-
stations (relative position with respect to aircraft nose) were checked. They were found to be
conforming to the CAD data with an average error of 0.5%.

42
Figure 77: Model Reference Plane

In addition, the orientations of the installed components were inspected. For example, Figure 78
and 79 show how the inspection of the wing orientation was being done. The wing levelling
block placed on top of the wing provides a levelled surface for roll and pitch angle measurement.
The yaw angle of the wing was checked by aligning the steel ruler to the model reference line as
seen from Figure 80.

Figure 78: Assembly Inspection 1

Figure 79: Assembly Inspection 2 Figure 80: Assembly Inspection 3

The total weight of the model is 5.96kg and the C.G. location (with respect to aircraft body axis,
aircraft nose as the origin) is shown as follows, refer to Appendix F for complete component
mass and CG table.

x y z
-355.87 0.03 -32.53

43
9. Control Surface Actuation System and Calibration Process
Arduino microcontroller was used to control the model actuation system. The four servos in the
model, 2 for Aileron controls, 1 for elevator and 1 for rudder control, were connected to the
Arduino controller. Inputs given from the computer was transferred to the Arduino board via
USB type B cable. Refer to Appendix G for Arduino control code.

The figures below show the wiring of the entire setup. Unfortunately, due to model strength and
other design considerations, most of the wires of the control system had to be exposed in the
airflow. Therefore it is critical to make sure that all the wires are not taut as strong wind might
break the wire under the wind-on condition.

Wires of the aileron servos were kept in the wing, as shown as dotted lines in figure. The wire
loom was attached along the wiring slot on the strut which leads the wire to the sting. The wires
from the empennage were brought directly to the sting and were secured firmly on the
structure. Figure 83 shows how the wire was brought out of the wind tunnel and connected to
the Arduino board and the computer where control command was given.

Figure 81: Wiring Diagram (Side View) Figure 82: Wiring Diagram (Bottom View)

Figure 83: Wiring Diagram (Overall)

9.1. Control Calibration Process


The control system applied is an open loop process. As angular deflection feedback was not
retrievable through the program automatically, calibration process was done by physically
measuring the deflection angle of the respective control surfaces. The input command was
manually tuned until the desired deflection angle was achieved. The inputs corresponding to all
target angles were recorded.

44
Figure 84: Control System Block Diagram

The figure below shows the calibration process of the aileron control. The aileron was first set at
zero deflection and the alignment was verified by using the airfoil template. The print-out
protractor was adjusted that the zero line matches the chord of the aileron.

Initial guess of the input which corresponds to the target deflection was made. Measurement
was then taken and feed backed to the controller. The input was fine-tuned until the desired
deflection was achieved. In order to minimize human error in taking the measurement, each
final measurement was cross checked trice by different person.

Figure 85: Aileron Calibration

9.2. Control Surface Loading Test


Nevertheless, the calibration process was carried out under wind-off condition, in other words,
no load was acting on the control surfaces. One might question that the actual deflection under
the wind-on condition will deviate from the input value. To measure the actual load that the
servos are able to withstand, control surface loading test was performed. As much higher load (4
times higher than the rudder and elevator) was expected to be acting on the ailerons, the load
test was performed only on the ailerons. The test was carried out on the assumption that if the
ailerons are able to withstand the load, the rest of the control surfaces will also do as same
servos were used throughout this model.

The figure below shows the setup of the test. The load was applied through a metal plate in
order to simulate the distributed load on the control surface. Lead weights (200g each) were
hanged below the wing. Once the setup was complete, control surface deflection was applied
and actual deflection was measured.

45
Figure 86: Control Surface Loading Test Setup

The maximum Ch of the aileron is 0.96 at 10 degree angle of attack and 15 degree deflection.
Based on this value, the maximum hinge moment (at test speed of 35m/s) is calculated as
follows,
2
=

= 750.31 0.96 0.246 0.02782

= 0.137 = 1.4

Figure 87: Linkage Schematic

Figure 87 shows a simple schematic of the mechanical linkage between the servo and the
aileron. The servo arm is denoted as l1 whereas l2 is the length of the control arm. Based on this
schematic, the relationship between hinge moment and servo torque, 1 and 2 can be found as
follows,

2 1
= ; 2 = 1
1 2

When l1 is larger than l2, deflection angle is magnified (control range increases) but torque
strength is reduced, and vice versa. Here in this model, l1 is equal to l2 as both angle deflection

Assuming the acting point of the aerodynamic load located the centre point of the chord of the
aileron, as shown in the figure below, it could be easily deduced that 1kg load is required to
simulate the aerodynamic loading experienced on the aileron under wind-on condition.

46
=
2
1.4
=2 =2 2.8
=1

Figure 88: FBD Aileron

Figure 89: Aileron Load Test (1kg) Figure 90: Aileron Load Test (Close Up)

The figures above show the aileron load test with 1kg loading. Here, the input angle deflection
was 15 degree but as shown in Figure 89, the measured angle was only 10 degree when 1 kg load
was applied. However, as we observe closely, the 5 degree reduction was actually not due to the
lack of holding strength of the servo but the deflection near the tip of the aileron. In Figure 90,
the white string which hung the lead weights below was resting on the aileron which in turns
applying point load (instead of distributed load) on that polycarbonate structure.

Nonetheless, the centre portion of the aileron, where distributed load was successfully applied,
was displaying a strong resistant to the applied load. Disregarding the near tip deflection, the
same 15 degree deflection was obtained at the centre portion of the aileron. This gave us a good
amount of confidence that the servos have the ability to withstand the aerodynamic load
without having much compromise in the deflection angle.

47
10. Wind Tunnel Test and Data Analysis
The wind tunnel testing of the 1:9 scale solar UAV model was conducted in 3m x 2.25 m low
speed wind tunnel (National Wind Tunnel Facility) of Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (IITK)
from 31st March to 3rd April 2014. The objective of the test was to generate aerodynamic force
and moment data at flight Reynolds number of 610000. The test data will be used for the study
of the lift and drag polar, flight stability and control effectiveness of the UAV prototype. In this
section, the test matrix of the wind tunnel test and the pre-test results validation are presented.

10.1. Wind Tunnel Test Matrix


The wind tunnel test matrix was planned according to the operational procedure of the wind
tunnel in order to reduce the down time and to optimize the efficiency and smoothness of the
conduct of the tests. The test matrix included the following test segments: Pre-test runs,
Longitudinal (with and without empennage), Lateral and Directional (with and without
empennage), no wing test and lastly flow visualization.

The test began with the velocity sweep test from which suitable test speed could be determined.
Test speed of 63.4m/s allowed us to simulate the actual flight Reynolds number of 610,000.
However, it was not necessary to run at such high speed if same results could be obtained at a
lower speed. From the power consumption point of view, this meant more power saving and
therefore lower tunnel operation cost.

Before proceeding to any of the longitudinal and directional tests, pitch & pause and sweep tests
were conducted to identify the suitable sweep rate for the tests. Longitudinal, lateral and
directional tests formed the main part of the tunnel test activities. In these three test segments,
aerodynamic loads and moments at different flight attitude and control surface deflections were
recorded. The wing and tail contribution of the aircraft were identified from the no empennage
and no wing test.

The test matrix is shown in the Appendix H. Due to time constraint and some other unforeseen
problems, a few runs were not executed (highlighted in red).

10.2. Wind Tunnel Test Procedures


The pre-test activities are captured in the figure below.

Model Assembly Model


Inspection and Balance
Control System Fitting
Calibration Check
Tunnel
Entry

Balance
Calibration

Figure 91: Pre-Test Activities

48
Model assembly inspection and control system calibration were already discussed in chapter 8
and 9 respectively. In the model balance fitting check, the model was mounted on a dummy
balance mounting scheme to check on any mechanical interference between the two
assemblies.

The model rolling issue was discovered at this stage. The joint between the fuselage cap and
fuselage was unable to lock the rolling motion of the aircraft and therefore the rolling moment
was not able to be transferred to the balance. When rolling moment was applied on the wing,
the anti-clockwise moment would unscrew the wing fuselage body from the fuselage cap which
was the sole attachment interface with the balance. In order to mitigate this problem, four M3
roll locks were added, as shown in Figure 93.

Figure 92: Model Balance Fitting Check

M3 Roll Lock

Figure 93: Roll Lock

Balance calibration was carried out in parallel with the other activities. Controlled loads were
applied to the balance strategically to simulate the 3 forces and 3 moments. The voltage signals
received were then translated into the known value of loads and moments. Those inputs were
used to form a calibration matrix which relates the voltage inputs from the strain gauges to
applied loads.

49
After the calibration cycle, load prediction process took place to
determine the measurement accuracy of the balance. Comparison
between the measurement result through the calibration matrix
and the known applied load yielded the prediction error of the
balance. The calibration process was completed when the
deviation between the two results reached 0.1%.

The model was ready for tunnel entry when all the pre-test
activities were completed.

The turn table in the wind tunnel is only limited to rotational


motion of the vertical axis. Therefore, the model was mounted
Figure 94: Balance Calibration
vertically when pitch sweep motion is required and was mounted
horizontally for yaw sweep test. As discussed before, the cross section of the tunnel test section
is 3m (width) x 2.25m (height). For vertical mounting configuration, the ratio between the wing
span and the tunnel cross section is 0.87 which is 7% more than the recommended value. This
means that for this configuration, tunnel walls will have some effect on the aerodynamics of the
model. The data validation of these two mounting configuration will be discussed in the next
section.

Figure 95: Vertical Mounting Configuration Figure 96: Horizontal Mounting Configuration

The flow of the wind tunnel test can be represented using the block diagram below.

Figure 97: Wind Tunnel Test Block Diagram

50
10.3. Measurement Accuracy
The prediction errors of the balance are: 0.53% for axial force, 0.28% for normal force, 0.77% for
side force and 0.55% for rolling moment. Considering 0.1 degree of error in the angle
measurement, the errors can be translated to equivalent force coefficients measurement
accuracy which is shown in the table below,

Error
CL 0.0001
CD 0.0002
CY 0.00006
Table 17: Measuring Errors in Aerodynamic Coefficients

As discussed in the previous section, the model was mounted vertically in the longitudinal test
(pitch sweep) while in the lateral and directional test (yaw sweep), the model was horizontally
mounted. For the vertical mounting configuration, tunnel wall was expected to have some effect
in reducing the induced drag of the model due to the near wall effect. Moreover, downwash
angle over the wing due to image vortex system (on tunnel wall) would be reduced resulting in
increase in lift. However, after comparing both sets of data (for horizontal and vertical mounting
schemes), it was found that higher lift and lower drag occurred in the horizontal instead of
vertical mounting configuration.

VM HM Delta Percentage
CL 0.467 0.505 -0.0382 -7.57
CD 0.0476 0.0452 0.00241 5.33
Table 18: VM and HM Data Comparison

Besides, another interesting finding was that the moment values between the two were not
A
moment and rolling moment should be equal to zero. However, as shown in Figure 102, there
are offsets in all the three mentioned coefficients: +0.003, +0.001, -0.02 offset in Cl, Cn and CY
respectively. Moreover, the CY of the graph is found to be large, while according to theory,
angle of attack should not have any effect on the side force. Similarly, small offsets are found in
the three coefficients in the horizontal mounting configuration: +0.005 and 0.0025 offset in Cl
and Cn respectively.

Those deviations are found to be within measurement accuracy of the balance and partly could
be attributed by the asymmetry in the model and possible flow angularity of the tunnel air flow.

51
Figure 98: Mounting Configurations

10.4. Data Analysis


10.4.1. Transformation Matrix
The forces and moments were measured with respect to the body axis with the origin located at
the balance centre (BC). BC is the midpoint between the strain gauges (for example N1 and N2).
Transformation of forces and moments are required in order to find out the resultant forces and
moment acting on the model reference point. In this case, the model reference point (MRP),
which is the target CG position of the UAV prototype, was taken at 40% chord along the fuselage
reference line. The MRP is 88.75mm behind BC.

The axes systems and the sign conventions employed are shown in the figure below,

Figure 99: Sign Conventions


(taken from the specification sheet of the balance G)

Hence, the force and moment transformation matrix can be written as follows,

52
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
= 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1

Where = 0.08875 , MRP behind of BC

Furthermore another transformation is required from body axis to wind axis. The transformation
matrix for the three forces and moments are shown as follows,

0
=

=
0

10.4.2. Velocity Sweep Test


Figure 100 shows the result of the velocity sweep from 10m/s to 64m/s. It can be seen that lift
and pitching moment coefficient are Reynolds number dependent, the values did not converge
at at any point before the notional test speed, 63.4m/s. Ideally, the test should be conducted at
63.4m/s. However, at test speed beyond 40m/s, it was realized that the normal load would
exceed the balance load limit at high angle of attack. As a result, test speed of 35m/s was
selected.

U sweep alfa2; beta0


0.8

0.6
CL
0.4 CD
0.2 CY

0 Cl

0 20 40 60 80 Cm
-0.2
Cn
-0.4
m/s

Figure 100: Velocity Sweep Test (10-64m/s)

53
U sweep alfa2;beta0
0.6
CL
0.4
CD
0.2
CY
0
Cl
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.2 Cm
-0.4 Cn
m/s

Figure 101: Velocity Sweep Data (10-40m/s)

10.4.3. Step vs Sweep Test


As discussed, the objective of the step and sweep test is to identify the suitable sweep rate for
the tests. In step test, a pause for 5 seconds was given at every angle of interest and data was
taken in this 5-second window. However, in sweep test, the model was moved continuously at
certain rate causing the airflow to establish over the UAV model. A low and moderate sweep
rate will allow the data flow to establish and the force and moment data compares well with the
data obtained from the step test. Therefore by comparing the results from the two tests,
suitable sweep rate could be identified for either pitch

The comparison results for pitch tests are shown in the figure below. The sweep run was
conducted at a sweep rate of 2deg/s and it can be observed that the sweep data generally
matches the step data. As the result, 2deg/s sweep rate was selected. Moreover, it was observed
that mechanical jerks occur at the extreme ends of the sweep motion and this could be the
reason of the sudden jump at two ends of the Cn and Cl graph.

54
Figure 102: Pitch Step and Sweep Test

The figure below shows the comparison graphs for the yaw tests . It can be observed that
for Cn and Cm plots, the two data sets do not converge well with each other. Another run with
lower sweep rate (1deg/s) was also performed but there were no major change in the results.
Therefore, it can be concluded that further reducing the sweep rate will not improve the data
obtained. As the result, 2deg/s sweep rate was selected.

55
Figure 104: Yaw Step and Sweep Test

The analysis results of the aerodynamics and stability of the UAV is co A L


P C A P P

56
11. Conclusion
In this final phase of the 3-year solar UAV project, a 1:9 scale solar UAV model was designed and
built and wind tunnel testing was carried out in Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur in late
March 2014. This is the most critical design stage for the entire solar UAV aerodynamics team as
it is finally throwing some light on UAV ehaviours and flight stability which
form the core of the aircraft design.

P UAV D W T Testing
achieved. It has covered the detailed design and the production of the 1:9 scale wind tunnel
model. The model complies with the design requirements set NAA W T
C s of the model. JR DS181 slim
wing servo with torque strength of 4.3kgcm was selected for the model actuation system.
Furthermore, upon the completion of the model, model assembly, inspection and pre-tests
checks were also performed. The model was found to be conforming to the CAD design with
accuracy of 1mm. Besides the roll lock issue, the model generally did not pose any other
assembly or integration issues with the balance mounting scheme.

Wind tunnel test matrix with 112 test runs covering velocity sweep, longitudinal, lateral,
directional, tail and wing contribution and flow visualization was planned. However not all tests
could be carried out. The tests to isolate wing contributions and tail contribution tests could not
be performed due to time constraint and some unforeseen systematic errors. Nonetheless, the
general aerodynamic behaviour and stability of the aircraft were still captured from these tests.
M R number was achieved in these wind tunnel tests making the test
data generated closest to real flight conditions.

In addition, the model had displayed its high structural strength and stability throughout the
entire test activities. Even at 66m/s test speed achieved in the velocity sweep tests, the model
showed no sign of vibration including no flapping of exposed wires. However, some model
asymmetry was spotted from the test data showing certain bias in side force, yawing and rolling
moments. This can be remedied in the post data analysis as these effects are not significant

From this project, the author has gained invaluable experience and insights about wind tunnel
model design and wind tunnel test practices. For example, in the pre-test planning, each run
must be planned purposefully and important runs must be prioritized so that some useful
information about the aircraft will not be lost in the case of time constraint or other unforeseen
problems. It is also very necessary to have on-site data analysis and verification to minimize any
confusion with the test data especially when the wind tunnel facility is not conveniently available.

In short, the overall objectives of the scope of this project were achieved. Further post data
analysis and more tests such as wing contribution tests and variable tail incidence angle tests are
required in order to facilitate deeper study and understanding of this UAV design.

57
12. References
1. Archived - Engineering and Construction, High Speed Wind Tunnel. National Research Council
Canada. [Online] http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/multimedia/highspeed-wind-tunnel.html.

2. Wind-Tunnel Model Systems Criteria. s.l. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
2009.

3. Jewel B.Barlow, William H.Rae, Jr, Alan Pope. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. s.l. : Wiley-
Interscience, 1999.

4. Gallery. National Wind Tunnel Facilities - Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. [Online]
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nwtf/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=27
&Itemid=175.

5. 28 June 1940. This Day in Aviation - Important Dates in Aviation History. [Online]
http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/28-june-1940/.

6. Timmy T.Kariya, Jean M.Foster, David S.Shaw, James L.Dilon. Flow Angularity Measurement
and Computational Methodology for AGDD/RFB Facilities. s.l. : Aero- and Gas Dynamic
Division/Research Facilities Branch.

7. Aerospace Testing Facilities in India. National Wind Tunnel Facility (IIT-Kanpur). [Online]
http://atfi.dlis.du.ac.in/WTT29.html.

8. LabVIEW System Design Software. National Instruments. [Online] http://www.ni.com/labview/.

9. Minimum Thread Engagement. Fernando, Dr. Saman. 2001.

10. XFOIL Subsonic Airfoil Development System. [Online]


http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/.

11. Experimental and Computational Study of Two Flapped Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers.
Nea Ylilammi, Andre Valdetaro Gomes Cavalieri, Erkki Soinne. p. 9.

12. Hobbyking.com. [Online]


https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__42271__JR_DS181_Mini_Wing_Servo_with_M
etal_Gears.html.

13. JRRadios. [Online] http://www.jrradios.com/Products/TechnicalSpecs.aspx?ProdID=JRPS378.

14. IITK, NWTF. Six Component Strain-Gauge Balances at NWTF. National Wind Tunnel Facilities,
IIT Kanpur. [Online]
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nwtf/templates/nwtf/data/details/List_of_balance_at_NWTF.pdf.

15. Aluminium 2024-T86. Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. [Online]


asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA2024T86.

16. Aluminium 6061-T6; 6061-T651. Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. [Online]


http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061t6.

58
17. AISI Type 302 Stainless Steel, Cold Rolled to 1140Pa Tensile Strength. Aerospace Specification
Metals Inc. [Online] http://www.aerospacemetals.com/contact-aerospace-metals.html.

18. Mechanical Properties of Carbon Fibre Composite Materials. Performance Composies Ltd.
[Online] http://www.performance-composites.com/carbonfibre/mechanicalproperties_2.asp.

19. Divinycell H Technical Data. s.l. : DIAB Group, 2012.

20. MISUMI Parts Catalogue. MISUMI South East Asia. [Online] http://sg.misumi-
ec.com/pdf/fa/2013/p1601.pdf.

21. RoyMech. Strength Grade of Bolts and Screw. [Online]


http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Screws/Strength.htm.

22. Bolt Grade Markings and Strength Chart. Bolt Depot. [Online]
http://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-information/materials-and-grades/bolt-grade-chart.aspx.

23. Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data. Christopher A.Lyon, Andy P. Broeren, Phillippe Giguere,
Ashok Gopalarathnam, Michael S. Selig. s.l. : SoarTech Publications, Vol. 3.

24. Standard Tightening Torque For Metric Screw Threads. Maryland Metrics. [Online]
http://mdmetric.com/tech/Standard_tightening_torque.pdf.

25. NASA AMES Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Blockage Recommendations. Daugherty, J.C. 1984.

59
Appendix A
List of Load Balances

60
Balance Name Balance ID Loading Capacity
Balance A BA-A025_D60_L425 Ax = 25kg, N1, N2 = 120kg, S1,
S2 = 35kg, Rm = 13kgm
Balance-B BB-A075_D60_L425 Ax = 75kg, N1, N2 = 300kg, S1,
S2 = 75kg, Rm = 50kgm
Balance-C BC-A120_D60_L425 Ax = 120kg, N1, N2 = 600kg,
S1, S2 = 150kg, Rm = 120kgm
Balance-D BD-A050_D60_L425 Ax = 50kg, N1, N2 = 200kg, S1,
S2 = 100kg, Rm = 25kgm
Balance-E BE-A060_D50_L325 A Ax = 60kg, N1, N2 = 200kg, S1,
S2 = 80kg, Rm = 30kgm
Balance-F BF-A025_D40_L270 Ax = 25kg, N1, N2 = 100kg, S1,
S2 = 60kg, Rm = 5kgm
Balance-G BG-A020_D30_L270 Ax = 20kg, N1, N2 = 75kg, S1,
S2 = 50kg, Rm = 4kgm
Balance-H BH-A050_D60_L425 Ax = 50kg, N1, N2 = 200kg, S1,
S2 = 150kg, Rm = 10kgm
Note:- In Balance ID column A stands for Axial, D stands for Diameter of balance and L stands for
length of balance (14)

61
Appendix B
Model Component Design and Assembly

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Appendix C
Material Properties and Aerodynamic Derivatives

87
Material Properties:
Material Density Young's Modulus Shear Modulus UTS YTS YSS
3
(kg/m ) E (Gpa) G (Gpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
AL2024-T86 (15) 2780 72.4 28 515 440 310
AL6061-T6 (16) 2700 68.9 26 310 276 207
AISI 302 (17) 7860 193 77.2 1140 NA 684(U
SS)
Standard Carbon Fibre 1600 135(0 )/10(90 ) 5 1500 NA 25.5
UD (18)
Foam Core (19) 130 0.175 0.05 4.8 3.5 2.2
Fastener (CBSTS) (20) NA NA NA 400 NA 240
Fastener (A2-50) (21) NA NA NA 500 240 180
Fastener (8.8 Strength NA NA NA 830 660 495
Class) (22)
Fasterer (12.9 Strength NA NA NA 1220 970 727.5
Class) (22)
Table 19: Material Properties Table

For steels, USS is approximated as 0.6UTS

88
Wing airfoil (SD7062) 2D Data:

Figure 105: SD7062 Airfoil Data (23)

Tail and Fin 0010 Airfoil Data (Re500000):

Figure 106: 0010 Airfoil Data Generated From Airfoil Tool.com

89
Angle of Attack Derivatives
CD 0.00353
CL 0.0971
CM -0.00570
Angle of Sideslip Derivatives
Cy -0.0724
Cl -0.000102
Cn 0.000886
Control Derivatives
CL 0.00483
CM -0.0223
Cy a 0.000
Cl a -0.00280
Cn a -0.000134
Cy r 0.00223
Cl r 0.000400
Cn r -0.00779
Table 20: Aerodynamic Force And Moment Derivatives

90
Appendix D
Model Assembly Procedures and Fastener List

91
Model Assembly Procedure
This section presents the assembly steps of the 1:9 scale wind tunnel model.

Note: The pictures shown in the model assembly steps are just for illustration only.

Tightening torque of all the model joints are in accordance with ISO 898-1 (Clamp load as 75% of
proof load)

Thread Diameter T series (N/m) 1.8T series (N/m)


M3 0.63 1.14
M4 1.5 2.7
M5 3 5.4
Table 21: Standard Tightening Torque (24)

T series is for strength class 4.6-6.8 or equivalent; 1.8T is for strength class 8.8-12.9 or
equivalent.

Wing Assembly

1. Measure and mark the location of the


control horn on the aileron. Mount
the control horns in place.
2. Secure the ailerons on the hinges
using epoxy.

3. Insert servo wire through the wiring


tube from the opening at the side of
the servo slot.
4. Crimp connectors at both ends of the
wire. (Female at servo end; male at
the wing root)

5. Mount the servos through the four


mounting holes at the servo slots.
6. Connect the servo and control horn
with metal push rod.

92
7. Epoxy wing caps at both wing tips
when the wing inspection is
completed.

Empennage Assembly
1. Measure the location of the elevator
control horn and mount it in place.
2. Secure the elevator on the hinges
attached to the tail using epoxy.
3. Epoxy horizontal tail caps at both ends
of the tail when tail inspection is
completed.

4. Mount the servos and hinges onto the


provisions at the fin.
5. Install rocker arm and connect the
etal
push rod.

6. Measure the location of the rudder


control horn and mount it in place.
7. Secure the rudder on the hinges
attached to the fin using epoxy.

8. M VT
E L

93
9. Fasten the tail mounting block on the
fin tip. Measure the orientation of the

10.Place the horizontal tail on the


mounting block. Fix the orientation of
the tail by lightly screwing in the
fasteners. Inspect the orientation of
the tail
11.Tighten the screws and then complete
the control linkages by connecting the
elevator control horn to the rocker
arm using metal push rod.

12. Mount the tail fin assembly on


E III
M VT
E L

13. I E
III
14. Tighten the M4 bolt located at the
VT E L
putting a nut from the bottom.

Model Assembly
1. Place the front balance interface unit
(shown in yellow) at the tip of balance
G (shown in green).
2. Position the fuselage such that balance
G enters the hollow section of the
fuselage from behind.

94
3. Screw in Fuselage Cap
4. Screw in M10 screw from the opening
at the nose to secure the model to
balance

5. Place the wing mounting block on the


platform on the fuselage. Make sure
that the higher end of the component is
facing the front.
6. Measure the orientation of the

7. Secure the mounting block to the


fuselage using 4 M5 screws
8. Place the wing on the wing mounting
block
9. Partially screw in 2 M5 screws from the
bottom of the mounting block to fix the
orientation of the wing.
10.Perform wing orientation check
11.Fully screw in all 6 screws
12.Slot in tailboom connector together
with fuselage patch from the back of
the fuselage.
13.Hold them in place until the next step is
completed

14.Insert the tail boom with the entire


assembled empennage into the circular
slot at the tail boom connector. Hold
the empennage with care during this
process.
15.Secure the tail boom joint with a M4
screw from the top of the fuselage.
16.Inspect the tail orientation and tail
boom deflection.

95
Figure 107: Full Assembly (Isometric View)

Hardware Lists
The following table includes all the screws and bolts used in the full model assembly. The
M FA M C ,
SEA Edition

Part number Qty Description Remarks


Tail Mounting Block
CBSST4-8 2 Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap Screw pg190 Tail Mounting Block to VT
CBSST3-5 4 Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap Screw pg190 Tail Mounting Block to HT
VT
CBSS2-5 2 Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap Screw pg191 nut plate to VT
Empennage loft
KBBS4-10 1 low small head cap crew pg192 empennage loft to empennage
FKBB4-26-6 1 Configurable Length Small Head Cap Screws pg192 empennage loft to empennage
LBNR4 1 RH thread nut pg227 empennage loft to empennage
WSSB6-4-1 3 standard washer pg101 empennage loft to empennage
WSSB8-4-1 2 standard washer pg101 empennage loft to VT
CBSST4-12 2 Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap Screw pg190 enpennage loft to VT
Fuselage
Configurable Length Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap
FBAB4-48-5 1 Screw pg192 fuselage to tail boom
wing mounting block to
CBSST5-8 4 Hexagon Socket Low Head Cap Screw pg189 fuselage
Wing
CBSTS5-8 6 Hexagon Socket Extra Low Head Cap Screws pg190 Wing to wing mounting block
Servo
NKJ3-4 16 Cross Recessed Pan Head Screws pg217 Servo to servo plate
Bell Crank to nut plate
NA Provided in the off-the-shelves Bell Crank set Bell Crank to nut plate
Hinges
NKJ2-4 8 Cross Recessed Pan Head Screws pg217
Table 22: Hardware List

96
Appendix E
Model Inspection Table

97
Figure 108: Inspection Table 1

Figure 109: Inspection Table 2

98
Figure 110: Inspection Table 3

Figure 111: Inspection Table 4

99
Figure 112: Inspection Table 5

Figure 113: Inspection Table 6

100
Figure 114: Inspection Table 7

CAD Measured Error


Wing Leading Edge 179.60 180.50 0.5%
Tail Leading Edge 862.73 872.50 1.13%
Aircraft Length 953.30 954.00 0.07%
X Station 798.30 801.00 0.3% Figure 115: Inspection Table 8
In order to minimize human error in measuring, three separate measurements were done at
each point and average value of the three was used for the comparison. The error in the
assembly can be due to manufacturing error, human error in measurement, the accumulation of
the fastener holes tolerance (0.5mm). For example, the table shows the largest error at the
position of the tail leading edge. Some reworks were done on this component: a shim plate was
added and fitting holes were enlarged which results in slight shift in the x direction.

101
Appendix F
Model Mass and CG Table

102
Component Estimated Measured X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)
Mass (kg) Mass (kg)
Fuselage Cap 0.348 0.349 -78.830 0.00 0.00
Fuselage 0.478 0.522 -272.180 0.00 -1.73
Wing Mounting Block 0.111 0.112 -234.050 0.00 -28.94
Fuselage Patch 0.026 0.025 -431.390 0.00 21.51
Connector 0.277 0.274 -447.770 0.00 0.00
Tailboom 0.442 0.461 -637.530 0.00 0.00
Empennage 0.173 0.170 -869.870 0.00 -1.27
Empennage Loft 0.052 0.053 -857.400 0.00 -12.07
Vertical Fin 0.258 0.357 -855.860 0.00 -88.68
Rudder 0.030 NA -906.27 0.00 -104.47
Nut Plate 0.0009 NA -884.580 5.82 -187.50
Horizontal Tail 0.070 0.194 -888.860 0.00 -204.76
Left Tail Cap 0.002 NA -889.990 -178.19 -204.60
Right Tail Cap 0.002 NA -889.990 178.19 -204.60
Tail Central Plate 0.017 NA -890.210 0.00 -203.20
Tail Mounting Block 0.023 0.023 -893.670 0.00 -200.10
Rudder Servo 0.022 NA -844.240 0.67 -44.89
Elevator Servo 0.022 NA -856.260 1.67 -93.17
Elevator 0.017 NA -927.820 -0.25 -204.04
Wing 2.862 3.378 -234.160 0.00 -33.18
Wing Central Plate 0.104 NA -234.780 0.00 -34.39
Left Servo Plate 0.017 NA -219.900 -828.00 -37.13
Right Servo Plate 0.017 NA -219.900 828.00 -37.13
Left aileron servo 0.022 NA -219.900 -828.00 -37.13
Right aileron servo 0.022 NA 219.900 828.00 -37.13
Left Aileron 0.022 NA -296.450 -849.75 -28.78
Right Aileron 0.022 NA -296.450 849.50 -28.78
Total Mass 5.458 5.918
Table 23: Model Mass Properties

3
CG position wrt nose Material Density (kg/m )
X Y Z Al2024-T86 2780
Estimated -350.60 0.009 -29.84 Al6061-T6 2700
Computed -355.87 0 -32.53 AISI 302 7860
Table 24: CG Table Carbon Fibre Skin 1600
Foam Core 130
3D printed material 920
Table 25: Material Density
Table 23 shows the comparison between the estimated mass and measured mass of the
individual model components. Estimated mass was done by multiplying the volume which
attained from SolidWorks with the respective material density. In the measured mass data, some
components mass, noted with NA, are absorbed by other components as they are measured
together as a sub-assembly. As those components are either symmetrical in the sub-assembly or
relatively much lighter, it is assumed that they have no effect on changing the CG of the sub-
assembly. Therefore same component CG coordinates are used for the sub-assemblies. Including
the mass of the bolts and nuts used, the resultant mass of the model is 5.96kg.

103
Appendix G
Servo Control Program Code

104
#include <Servo.h>

Servo HT; // create servo object to control a servo

Servo RWing;

Servo VF;

Servo LWing;

// input control command here

int pos1 = 97; //HT variable to store the servo position

int pos2 = 79; //RWing

int pos3 = 84; //VF

int pos4 = 57; //LWing

void setup()

HT.attach(9);

RWing.attach(5);

VF.attach(10);

LWing.attach(11);// attaches the servo on pin 9 to the servo object

void loop()

// in steps of 1 degree

HT.write(pos1); // tell servo to go to position in variable 'pos'

RWing.write(pos2); //

VF.write(pos3); //

LWing.write(pos4); //

delay(15); // waits 15ms for the servo to reach the position

105
Appendix H
Wind Tunnel Matrix

106
S No. Model Details
Aileron Elevator Rudder a b Model Config Mode Speed m/s

Pre-Test Runs
1 0 0 0 0 0 U sweep 10-64m/s
2 0 0 0 (-6 to 18) 0 Full Pitch Step
TBD
3 0 0 0 0 0 Pitch Sweep
Longitudinal
4 0 -15 0
5 0 -10 0
6 0 -5 0
7 0 0 0 0 Full
8 0 5 0
9 0 10 0
10 0 15 0
11 0 NA NA 0 w/o empennage

w/o wing and


12 NA NA NA 0
empennage

13 0 -15 0
14 0 -10 0
15 0 -5 0
16 0 0 0 5 Full
17 0 5 0
(-6 to 18) Pitch Sweep TBD
18 0 10 0
19 0 15 0
20 0 NA NA 5 w/o empennage

w/o wing and


21 NA NA NA 5
empennage

22 0 -15 0
23 0 -10 0
24 0 -5 0
25 0 0 0 -5 Full
26 0 5 0
27 0 10 0
28 0 15 0
29 0 NA NA -5 w/o empennage

w/o wing and


30 NA NA NA -5
empennage

Pre-Test Runs
31 0 0 0 0 Yaw Step
2 Full TBD
32 0 0 0 0 Yaw Sweep
Lateral & Longitudinal
33 -15 0 0
2 (-12 to 12) Full Yaw Sweep TBD
34 -10 0 0

107
35 -5 0 0
36 0 0 0
37 5 0 0
38 10 0 0
39 15 0 0
40 0 0 -15
41 0 0 -10
42 0 0 -5
43 0 0 0
44 0 0 5
45 0 0 10
46 0 0 15
47 -15
48 -10
49 -5
50 0 NA NA 2 (-12 to 12) w/o Empennage
TBD
51 5
52 10
53 15

w/o wing and


54 NA NA NA 2 (-12 to 12)
empennage

55 -15 0 0
56 -10 0 0
57 -5 0 0
58 0 0 0
59 5 0 0
60 10 0 0
61 15 0 0
5 (-12 to 12) Full TBD
62 0 0 -15
63 0 0 -10
64 0 0 -5
65 0 0 0
66 0 0 5 Yaw Sweep
67 0 0 10
68 0 0 15
69 -15
70 -10
71 -5
72 0 NA NA 5 (-12 to 12) w/o Empennage
73 5 TBD
74 10
75 15

w/o wing and


76 NA NA NA 5 (-12 to 12)
empennage

108
77 -15 0 0
78 -10 0 0
79 -5 0 0
80 0 0 0
81 5 0 0
82 10 0 0
83 15 0 0
10 (-12 to 12) Full TBD
84 0 0 -15
85 0 0 -10
86 0 0 -5
87 0 0 0
88 0 0 5 Yaw Sweep
89 0 0 10
90 0 0 15
91 -15
92 -10
93 -5
94 0 NA NA 10 (-12 to 12) w/o Empennage
95 5 TBD
96 10
97 15

w/o wing and


98 NA NA NA 10 (-12 to 12)
empennage

Flow Visualization
99 -15 0 -15
100 -10 0 -10
101 -5 0 -5
102 0 0 0 2 (-12 to 12) Full Yaw Sweep TBD
103 5 0 5
104 10 0 10
105 15 0 15
106 -15 0 -15
107 -10 0 -10
108 -5 0 -5

109 0 0 0 15 (-12 to 12) Full Yaw Sweep TBD


110 5 0 5
111 10 0 10

112 15 0 15
Table 26: Wind Tunnel Test Matrix (Highlighted in red unexecuted runs)

109