See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257581521

ITU tailless UAV design

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10846-012-9695-4

CITATIONS READS

12 5,811

3 authors:

Hakki Karakas Emre Koyuncu

Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
1 PUBLICATION   12 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gokhan Inalhan
Istanbul Technical University
110 PUBLICATIONS   1,838 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AUTOFLY-Aid: Flight Deck Automation Support with Dynamic 4D Trajectory Management for Responsive and Adaptive Airborne Collision Avoidance View project

TÜBİTAK 1003: Control System Design for Enabling Autonomous Agile Maneuvering Execution and Planning for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emre Koyuncu on 04 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
DOI 10.1007/s10846-012-9695-4
ITU Tailless UAV Design
Hakki Karakas · Emre Koyuncu ·
Gokhan Inalhan
Received: 8 May 2012 / Accepted: 9 July 2012 / Published online: 28 July 2012
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Nowadays, mini Unmanned Aerial Ve-
hicles (UAVs) are utilized in a wide range of
reconnaissance and surveillance missions with an
ever increasing need for endurance and range.
Thus, a slight improvement on these two pri-
mary performance parameters is considered as
a competitive advantage. In this work, a multi-
functional tailless UAV concept and its design
process is presented. In comparison to existing
conventional UAV designs, the concept is shown
to have superior aerodynamic and flight perfor-
mance characteristics. In addition the detachable
wing and body concept provides the much needed
flexibility and multi-functionality for using the
UAV for a range of operation concepts, in which
each concept requires different payloads of dis-
tinct weight and size.
H. Karakas · E. Koyuncu
Controls and Avionics Laboratory,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
H. Karakas
e-mail: karakashak@itu.edu.tr
E. Koyuncu
e-mail: emre.koyuncu@itu.edu.tr
G. Inalhan (B)
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: inalhan@itu.edu.tr
Keywords Unmanned aerial vehicles ·
UAV design and development · Tailless aircraft ·
Flying wing aircraft
1 Introduction
This paper focuses on the conceptual design and
analysis of a dual control (RC/autonomous mode)
mini UAV tailored for reconnaissance and sur-
veillance missions. ITU Tailless UAV concept is
inspired by the cost effective role of mini UAVs
on civilian and military applications. Given the
low manufacturing and operating cost of such
UAVs, they are a good choice for every day high-
risk-of-loss missions such as in-situ forest fire sur-
veillance. In addition, mini UAV systems, such
as the ones used in NASA X 48 Blended Wing
Body program [1], serve as an initial prototype
and learning step before scaling up to full size
variants.
During the design process of a new aircraft, de-
termination of requirements and mission profile
play a key role as these two steps shape the air-
craft design process. In general, determination of
requirements is made by clients who will purchase
the vehicle. In this work, the design criteria are
selected using the endurance time and operational
characteristics of existing successful commercial
mini UAV characteristics. Specifically, the mini
132 J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146

Table 1 Competitor study

Wing span Take-off weight Range Endurance Speed (km/h) Payload
Orbiter UAV 2.2 m 7 kg 20 km 3h 92.6 1.5 kg
Zala 421-04 1.6 m 4.8 kg 25 km 2h 95 1 kg
Selex-Strix 3m 8 kg 35 km 2.25 h 70 1.5 kg
Skylite-B 2.4 m 6.5 kg – 1.5 h 80 1.5 kg
Remoeye 2.72 m 6.5 kg – 1.5 h 70 1.5 kg
Skylark-1LE 2.4 m 5.5 kg – 1.5 h 70 1.5 kg
Bayraktar 2m 5 kg 20 km 1h 60 1 kg
AE-Puma 2.8 m 5.9 kg 15 km 2h 80 –
ITU Tailless 2.6 m 7.7 kg 20 km 3h 72 1.3 kg

UAV is aimed ensure further enhanced require-
ments such as;
• Aircraft’s endurance should be 3 h.
• Aircraft has to be weighted under 9 kg.
• Aircraft’s stall speed must be under 12 m/s for
easy launch capability.
• Aircraft’s loiter speed should be near 20 m/s.
• Aircraft’s range must be 20 km.
• Payload: Day or night camera.
(Interchangeable)
• Wing Span should be less than 3 m.
• Hand launched or bungee launched.
• Landing with parachute.
• Operating altitude is 250 m.
• Rate of climb to operating altitude should be
below 2 min. (ROC 2.1 m/s)
Each of these requirements not only stem from
real-life and standard operational needs, but also
result from needs such as portability and ease of
operation. A short survey of the existing tailless
and conventional mini UAVs, which are denoted
as best-in-class, can be seen in Table 1. This survey
on performance characteristics not only gives a
clear and competitive design goal for our concept,
but also provides an estimate of the concept air-
craft’s design values such as wing span and maxi-
mum take-off weight. The design goals and initial
size estimates position ITU Tailless UAV within
the list for a solid overall performance not only in
range but also in endurance while being compact
and light enough to be carried on a backpack.
ITU Tailless UAV’s selection of design goals
can be classified as follows: Aircraft’s endurance
time is chosen as 3 h following the best perfor-
mance in class. In comparison to other UAVs,
ITU Tailless has slower stall and loiter speed de-
sign goals as to obtain smaller navigation patterns
and slower reconnaissance fly-bys. Range require-
ment is selected as 20 km because of an already
available low weight, low power and lost cost
communication equipment. If direct and real-time
link is not required, the vehicle can cover a much
larger operational radius based on its endurance
and cruise speeds. Wing span constraint results
from portability requirement. Operating altitude
and rate of climb values are chosen to be inline
or better in comparison to other fixed wing mini
UAVs. 3D conceptual model of the ITU Tailless
UAV is illustrated in Fig. 1.
We chose a tailless aircraft configuration for
our UAV because of its aerodynamic advantages
[2–4]. As there are no tail or canard surfaces
for longitudinal stability, there is a considerable
decrease in drag, which in fact increases the en-
durance time. Various conceptual designs and
analysis show that tailless aircraft configurations
increase the aircraft’s overall L/D ratio and thus
leading to better basic flight performance [2–4].
This performance advantage can be easily ob-
served by comparing tailless mini UAVs with
Fig. 1 ITU Tailless UAV’s 3D model—the body/fuselage
pod and its compartments can be resized/redesigned for
different missions
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
other conventional fixed wing mini UAVs as done
in Table 1. Specifically, the first three UAVs
which are tailless designs have better basic flight
performance in comparison to the remainder
three conventional mini UAVs. Therefore, we can
easily conclude that tailless concept is aerodynam-
ically efficient within even the best-of-class mini
UAVs.
This can be further validated from the fact that
the first three UAVs have longer endurance time,
even though they have nearly the same take-off
and payload weight in comparison to the other
conventional UAVs within the Competitor Study.
As an initial step towards ITU Tailless UAV,
a smaller flying wing variant has been designed
and manufactured (Figs. 2 and 3). This initial
prototype provided a platform for refining our
knowledge on manufacturing and flight testing a
tailless aircraft configuration. Specifically, it was
also experimentally observed that even though
the tailless aircraft is aerodynamically advanta-
geous and has good maneuverability character-
istics, the stability and control characteristic is
greatly affected by the location of the center of
gravity. Thus the manufacturing process and pre-
cision plays a critical role in the flight performance
and controllability of the tailless wing designs.
The design process that is developed for ITU
Tailless UAV is based on an iterative “concept—
aerodynamics—performance” design loop. In
page 4 this design process can be seen. In the next
Fig. 2 Manufacturing process of the previously designed
tailless (flying wing) UAV
133
Fig. 3 Flight test of the previously designed tailless (flying
wing) UAV
sections, we go over the design process step-by-
step, first starting with the initial sizing.
2 Initial Sizing
2.1 W/S and P/W Selection
W/S and P/W selection plays a critical role in
design of the UAV. Specifically, these two pa-
rameters not only drive flight performance but
also these parameters determine the size of the
aircraft for a given set of aerodynamic and weight
properties. To further improve the range of fea-
sible results, a constraint diagram was developed.
The constraint diagram, as seen in Fig. 4, shows
the interrelation between P/W and W/S values
versus maximum performance characteristics over
specific mission segments.
For mini UAVs the P/W values are usually
denoted via “W/N” because of the fact that mini
UAVs generally use electric motors with Watt
ratings. For a propeller driven aircraft the main
constraint equations are [5]:
Stall Speed:
1
W/S = ρV 2 C L (1)
2 stall max
Maximum Propeller Loiter:

W/S = q 3C D0 π Ae (2)
134 J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146 135

Fig. 4 W/S and P/W 22

constraint diagram and
the in comparison 20
aircrafts’ W/S and P/W 18
values
16 Orbiter
Puma
14 Raven

P/W(W/N)
12 Metu Guventurk
Desert Hawk
10 Climb
Stall
8
Loiter
6 Climb

4
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
W/S (N/m^2)

Rate of Climb: Following the preliminary selection method

   2 [5], W/S and P/W values are chosen as seen in
(T/W) −G ± (T/W) − G − (4Cdo/π Ae) Table 3. It can be seen that our aircraft’s charac-
W/S =
2/q Ae teristics are comparable to Orbiter UAV because
of the fact that both UAV’s mission profile and
h
G= ClimbGradient (3) configuration are close to each other.
X
For calculating the specific values of these 2.2 Initial Weight Estimation
equations, some initial assumptions have to be
made. Some of these assumptions are made by Initial weight estimation is a crucial design step
using existing design values and the remainder as it affects all the other design parameters.
assumptions are based on design requirements. A From our laboratory’s previous experiences on
complete list of these assumptions can be seen in similar in-house developed mini UAV systems,
Table 2. the weight of the UAV can be precisely pre-
In our design calculations, take-off and land- dicted (Table 4). Survey of typical camera and
ing constraints are not used as the UAV will be video/data transmission systems shows that a max-
launched by hand (or possibly though a simple imum weight of 1.3 kg will be suffice to cover a
bungee mechanism) and the UAV will be landed range of mission types. Initial weight prediction
through a remote controlled pop-up parachute of the UAV is 7620 g, which is very close to our
(and can potentially land on the belly in smooth design goal of Wtake-off : 7.7 kg.
grass conditions). Therefore, the only notable con-
straints for take-off and landing is the total weight 2.3 Wing Geometry Calculation
of the aircraft, which is indeed within safe limits
for a hand launch and parachute recovery. After the estimation of take-off weight and W/S
ratio, the wing area can be easily predicted. How-
ever static stability property is the real driving fac-
Table 2 Initial assumptions tor for the tailless wing geometry for tailless air-
Vstall 12 m/s e 0.8
craft. Specifically there are two ways of obtaining
Vloiter 20 m/s K 0.0510
G (h/X) 0.15 Clmax 1.2
Table 3 Selected W/S
ηp 0.7 q@ 250 m 238 Selected values
and P/W values
ρ@250 m 1.19 kg/m3 Cdo 0.035 W/S 91 N/m2
ρ 1.225 kg/m3 AR 7.8 P/W 8 Watt/N
136 J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146

Table 4 Initial weight estimation based on available prod-

ucts and experience with similar sized UAVs static stability (or flyable/controllable instability)
for tailless aircraft. One approach is to give large
Initial weight assumptions g
sweep and twist to the wing and choose an airfoil
Motor+Propeller 360
Autopilot 300
with “Cmac ≈ 0”. The other approach is to give
Antenas x2 50 small sweep and no twist to the wing and choose
Servos x2 60 an airfoil with “Cmac > 0”.
ESC 150 These two concepts are analyzed in order to
Video transmitter 250 design the most feasible and optimum aircraft
IMU 150 configuration. The analysis process is given in
Parachute 400 Fig. 5. First, some initial values are chosen for
Payload 1,300
wing geometry. After that, various wing profiles
Wing/Fuselage 1,300
Battery 3,300 are analyzed and selected for their best perfor-
Wtake−off 7,620 mance. After selecting the wing profile, each of
the two concepts’ wing geometries are changed

Fig. 5 Wing geometry

design process
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
for optimum performance in an iterative fashion.
Lastly, from the two concepts, one of them is se-
lected in terms of performance, manufacturability
and cost.
The initial analysis of the wing geometry de-
sign process is performed by using the program
XFLR5. XFLR5 utilizes Vortex-Lattice-Method
which gives preliminary results from which the
configurations can be compared.
After the optimization of these two different
wing configuration concepts, estimated values
from XFLR5 were compared. The drag coefficient
was found to be equal to 3.1 N for the first concept
in trimmed loiter condition. For the second con-
cept we found the drag coefficient to be equal to
3.13 N for trimmed loiter condition. Given the fact
that the analysis was done using Vortex-Lattice-
Method, such minor differences in drag coefficient
can be ignored. Comparing from the ease of man-
ufacturing perspective, if the wing with a large
sweep and twist is chosen, the mold which has
to be used in manufacturing has to be bigger
and involve a much higher precision 3D CNC in
Fig. 6 Airfoils’ analyzes: Fauvel 14% airfoil is chosen because of positive Cm and favorable Cl/Cd value at cruise
137
comparison to the small sweep no twist wing mold.
Therefore, the second concept with no twist and
positive profile moment was chosen on the basis
of similar performance but easier manufacturing.
In order to select the wing profile, various air-
foils are analyzed with XFOIL program and by us-
ing UIUC Airfoil Coordinate Database. Airfoils
are compared based on their Cmac, Clmax and
Cl/Cd ratio (Fig. 6).
For the longitudinal static stability of the flying-
wing, airfoil’s moment around the aerodynamic
center must be positive. The airfoils which ensure
such moment characteristics are sometimes called
as reflexed airfoils because they have negative
camber near the trailing edge. The pitch up mo-
ment of the reflexed airfoils will neutralize pitch
down effect of the wing’s lift. This is because of
the fact that in tailless configurations with fuse-
lage pods, aircraft’s center of gravity is generally
in front of the aerodynamic center. It can be
seen in Fig. 7, the reflexed profile helps to get
stability/trimability of the aircraft as its Cmo is
greater than “0”. In addition the front position of
138
Fig. 7 Forces around the wing of the tailless aircraft
the cg with respect to aerodynamic center leads to
negative Cmα and thus static stability.
Based on these stability reasons, the airfoils
with Cmac greater than “0” (i.e. MH-78 and Fau-
vel 14% namely) are chosen as final set of candi-
dates. Focusing on Cl/Cd and Cl graphics of final
set of candidate airfoils, we observe that Fauvel
14% has better Cl/Cd ratio. Even though this
profile has lower Clmax value, a big part of the
loiter time will occur where Fauvel 14% airfoil
has good Cl/Cd ratio. For this reason, Fauvel 14%
airfoil is selected.
For the chosen wing geometry, Cm, Cl, Cd and
Cl/Cd vs. alpha graphs can be seen in Fig. 8. The
green dots in the subplots show aircraft’s trimmed
Fig. 8 ITU Tailless UAV’s final aerodynamic configuration results from the XFLR5 program. The green dots correspond
to trimmed loiter flight condition
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
Table 5 Wing’s area and W/S 99.39 N/m2
aircraft’s Pmax
P/W 78.48 Watt/kg
S 0.76 m2
Pmax 604.3 Watt
loiter flight condition’s values. It can be seen that
the aircraft’s moment coefficient decrease with
respect to angle of attack. This behavior of the
moment coefficient is important for static stability
condition. Also, moment coefficient at the zero
angle of attack is positive thus allowing us to
trim the aircraft. In summary, the wing and airfoil
geometry design achieves Cmα < 0 Cmo = 0.
As noted in the design process, wing’s geome-
try is changed iteratively to obtain the optimum
performance. The optimal values of W/S and P/W
are noted in Table 5.
It can be seen that W/S ratio has changed from
91 to 99.39 N/m2 after this analysis phase. The
final W/S value provides a considerably good per-
formance (both in terms of flight mechanics and
stability) as can be seen in Fig. 4. Even though
the final value is slightly higher than our initial
W/S selection, the final value provides accept-
able climb rate. After evaluating wing’s area and
aircraft’s Pmax values, wing’s taper ratio, sweep
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146 139

Table 6 Wing parameters Table 7 Component drag build-up method results

Airfoil Fauvel 12% b 2.6 m Re Cf FF Q CDo
AR 8.89 croot 0.4 m Wing 507733 0.0056 1.74 1 0.022
Taper ratio 0.46 Ctip 0.185 m Fus. 1586667 0.0045 1.22 1.2 0.0067
Wing incidence 4◦ cmean 0.305 m Winglet 264973 0.0063 1.56 1.03 0.0044
Sweep 15◦ Dihedral 0◦ CD0 0.0331
CD 0.0408 D 7.39 N

degree, incidence and dihedral angles are chosen

following a straight-forward aerodynamic analy-
sis. These values and wing geometry can be seen
in Table 6 respectively.
Please note that a CFD program is further used
after the conceptual design to verify the results
of our initial analysis covering not only the wing
but also the complete wing and pod-fuselage com-
bination. The CFD analysis is further detailed in
Section 5.
3 Aerodynamics
At this stage, using the estimated design parame-
ters, it is possible to calculate the drag force at the
loiter condition. The specific motor configuration
can be further chosen using the energy approach
which utilizes the drag force at loiter condition
and the batteries’ energy to weight ratio.
In our study, we use the Raymer’s “Component
Build-up Method” [5] to calculate the drag force
at loiter. Component Build-up Method is com-
pactly given as Eq. 4:
 
C f c F Fc Qc Swetc
CDo(subsonic) = (4)
Sref
Equation 4 gives parasite drag coefficient using
the associated parametric values in which
0.455
Turb ulent C f =  2.58  0.65
log10 Re 1 + 0.144M2
(5)
Equation 5 calculates turbulent friction coef-
ficient of the components using Reynolds number
for each component’s form factor in which
60 f
F Ffuselage = 1 + 3 + (7)
f 400
l l
f= = (8)
d (4/π ) Amax
Equations 6–8 calculates component’s form fac-
tor values. These values depend on the flow-
encounter area of the aircraft. The associated
component drag contributions and resultant total
drag are summarized in Table 7. As an addi-
tional safety margin, aircraft’s components’ drag
coefficients are increased by 7% for to neutralize
the effect of any miscellaneous drag.
One can find energy needed for the flight dura-
tion by using the total drag calculation and batter-
ies’ energy/weight ratio. For ITU Tailless UAV,
we assume the mini UAV standard LiPo batteries
with predefined energy densities. The complete
battery weight calculations are given in Table 8.
Here, for Pcruise calculation, 74% efficiency is used
for battery and motor configuration efficiency.
Note that our initial weight assumption for bat-
teries (Table 4) and the final calculated weight
(Table 8) is very close. This is not a surprising fact
given the existing in-house know-how on similar
sized mini UAV platforms.
The specific propulsion unit selection (i.e. bat-
tery and motor selection) is detailed in the next
section.
Table 8 Weight estimate of battery
Pcruise 199.6870 W
Pclimb 550 W
Battery Cruise 10.79 A
4 
Climb 29.73 A
0.6 t t Cruise 2.95 h 31841.9 mAh
FFwing,winglet = 1 +  x  + 100 Climb 0.05 h 1486.4 mAh
c m
c c
Total 33328.47 mAh
  Weight of battery 3.291 kg
× 1.34M0.18 (cos)0.28 (6)
140
4 Propulsion Unit Selection
4.1 Electric Motor Selection
There are two different types of electric motors
considered for ITU Tailless UAV. These motors
are namely brushed and brushless motors. The
brushed motor has an internal contact between
the brush and the armature. This contact may
cause heating especially at high rotation speeds
and can further result in additional cooling needs.
Motor cooling need is also indirectly proportional
with the efficiency of the motor.
The other motor type is brushless electric mo-
tor which generates higher torque with less heat
because of the fact that the effective resistance of
the brushes is much higher. In addition, brushless
motors can fit much thicker wires in comparison
to a brushed motor of equivalent size. This advan-
tage results in lower resistance, higher efficiency,
and increased torque. Based on these facts, brush-
less motors have the inherent capability to spin
faster, operate at higher currents, and produce
more power without the performance deteriora-
tion at high currents and temperatures. Hence,
most recent mini UAVs have been using smaller
brushless type motor in order to get higher power.
A recently developed outrunner brushless mo-
tor has been designed to produce high torque with
large size propellers without the need for a gear-
box. As there are no contacts between the inner
and the outer surface of the rotating part of the
motor, these motors offer several advantages over
brushed motors. These advantages include higher
efficiency and reliability, reduced noise, longer
lifetime (no brush erosion) and overall reduction
of electromagnetic interference.
Following our calculation in the previous sec-
tion (Table 7), the power required from the bat-
tery at level flight is about 200 W. At full power,
the vehicle should be able to sustain a climb angle
of about 8◦ , which indeed corresponds to 550 W
battery power. Therefore, our motor must sustain
550 W power. Based on this power need and the
gross weight of the proposed mini UAV totaling
around 7.7 kg, Axi 4120/20, with the specifications
shown in Fig. 9, is chosen.
It is estimated in Table 5 that aircraft needs
604 W maximum power input for the motor and
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
Fig. 9 Axi 4120/20 motor specifications
447 W for output and 74% efficiency. We select
5s Li-Po battery, supplying 18.5 V at 40 A and
thus 740 Watt continuously. It can be seen that
this configuration can give enough power for our
aircraft. Also, a standard 12 × 8 inch propeller
is chosen from motor manufacturer’s suggestion.
This propeller can be furthered changed to get
optimum performance, following the initial flight
tests.
4.2 Battery Selection
The selected battery configuration specifications
can be seen in Table 9. In this configuration we use
Thunderpower RC Pro Lite MS 16 C 8000 mAh
5S4P with four of these batteries connected in
parallel to produce 32000 mAh. The energy sup-
plied with this configuration is merely 3% less
than the required energy through initial estimates.
This indeed translates to loiter time loss of 6 min.
However, given the fact that the drag estima-
tion was made by adding 7% miscalculated drag
safety factor, this battery configuration is evalu-
ated to be adequate without the need to increase
Table 9 Battery pack specifications
Thunder power RC Pro Lite MS 16C 8000 mAh 5S16P
Voltage 18.5 V
Cells 5S-16P
Capacity 32000 mAh
Max continuous discharge 16 C
Weight 3160 g
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
the battery size and decrease the payload design
weight.
5 CFD Analysis
In our design process we have used Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis [6]. to
solve for aerodynamic properties of the complete
UAV including the wing and the fuselage pod.
Specifically, such an analysis can give deeper in-
sight to the designer in conceptual design phase by
enumerating the effects of the changes made on
the aircraft’s configuration. In addition it allows
the designer to verify initial estimations and analy-
sis. For the ITU Tailless UAV initial drag and lift
estimations, we have utilized the XFLR5 program.
To further show the associated CFD methodology
developed for mini UAV designs, we detail our
CFD analysis step-by-step in the next subsections.
5.1 Mesh Generation
For CFD solutions we have utilized the Star
CCM+ program which has very powerful meshing
tools. This program not only has advantages in
generating mesh and selecting physics models, but
the program also provides good post-processing
tools.
The first step for CFD analysis is modeling the
geometry. UAV’s 3D Cad model was drawn and
saved in .iges format and transferred into Star
CCM+. In Star CCM+ this model is cut into
two pieces from the symmetry plane to produce
a bigger mesh for more accurate solutions.
There were several possible models for gen-
erating the mesh of the UAV model within the
Star CCM+. Users can refine the mesh at specific
regions using brick, cone, cylindrical and spherical
volume tools. Also, Star CCM+ has two mod-
Fig. 10 Three types of
meshes: a Tetrahedral,
b Polyhedral, c Trimmed
Mesh. Trimmed Mesh is
chosen because of
computation speed and
cost
141
Table 10 Selected Three-dimensional
physical models for CFD
analysis Steady
Stationary
Gas, air
Segregated flow solver
K-Epsilon turbulence
model
els for surface meshes. One of them is surface
remesher and the other is surface wrapper. Sur-
face remesher prepares the surface for volume
mesh. There are three volume mesh models inside
the Star CCM+. These are namely trimmed, poly-
hedral and tetrahedral mesh. Tetrahedral mesh
offers a simple solution and uses the least amount
of computation time, but this model is not ap-
propriate for complicated geometries. Polyhedral
mesh offers a computationally-efficient and accu-
rate solution. However, the output quality of this
model is dependent on model quality. Trimmed
mesh is similar to polyhedral mesh in that it gives
a computationally-efficient and accurate solution.
Also, trimmed mesh model is not dependent on
model quality. This means that even though the
model can have limited detail, it is most likely to
give reasonable solutions that match the order of
magnitude of aerodynamic parameters. Because
of these reasons, trimmed model is chosen for
volume mesh (Fig. 10).
5.2 Physical Modeling Selection
Physical model selection determines all of the
environmental and numerical variables. The vari-
ables used in our analysis are shown in Table 10.
The first three parameters to be selected are
about state, space and time. To simplify the com-
putation process, we assume that the flow is
steady and stationary. In addition, the standard
142
Table 11 CFD solution’s values with K-Epsilon turbu-
lence model
L (N) D (N) D (N) with 50% error assumption
75.2 4.74 7.11
properties of fluid (density, dynamic viscosity,
molecular weight and specific heat) are chosen.
There are two options for energy and flow
solvers; namely segregated and coupled flow
solver. The coupled flow mode solves momentum
and continuity equations together in a coupled
fashion. However, segregated flow solver solves
these equations in an uncoupled fashion. Segre-
gated flow solver link these two equations with a
predictor-corrector approach [7].
Coupled flow solver offers high accuracy in
compressible problems. However this solver has
a higher computational complexity and computa-
tional power need in comparison to the segregated
flow solver. Given the low Mach number flight
regime of ITU Tailless UAV, segregated flow
solver is chosen as energy and flow solver.
Last choice is the solver model. Specifically,
within our analysis we can choose from four
different Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes solver
models; Spalart-Allmaras, K-Epsilon, K-Omega
and Reynolds Stress Transports. Reynolds Stress
Transport model provides the most robust and
accurate solution across all of these models. How-
ever, Reynolds Stress Transport is also the most
computationally expensive model within the set
of four models. K-Omega model comes after the
Reynolds Stress Transport model in terms of ac-
curacy and computational expense. Other two
Fig. 11 CFD velocity
distribution solution on
the UAV
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
models that are considered are Spalart-Allmaras
model and K-Epsilon model.
Spalart-Allmaras model use momentum, con-
tinuity and energy equations [7]. The Spalart-
Allmaras turbulence models solve a single
transport equation while also determining the
turbulent viscosity. This is in contrast to many of
the earlier one-equation models which solve an
equation for the transport of turbulent kinetic
energy while requiring an algebraic prescription
of a length scale. However, Spalart-Allmaras is
appropriate for aerospace applications with low
complexity models.
The Standard K-Epsilon Model is the de facto
version of the two-equation model that involves
transport equations for the turbulent kinetic en-
ergy and the energy dissipation rate [7]. There-
fore, K-Epsilon Model is more appropriate for the
analysis of our UAV model which has complex
junctions.
5.3 CFD Solution
As seen in Table 11, CFD solution using K-
Epsilon model gives non-contradicting values for
our designed UAV. Calculated pressure and ve-
locity distribution from CFD analysis can be seen
in Figs. 11 and 12.
Note that the CFD model used in our analysis
did not include the propeller and the manufactur-
ing errors. Therefore, using the universal standard
convention we obtain the final drag result of 7.11N
with 50 % error assumption.
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146 143

Fig. 12 CFD pressure

distribution solution with
K-Epsilon turbulence
model: it is seen that
pressure distribution is
same as expected: lift’s
major part is at the front
of the wing, which is
expected from reflexed
airfoils

Comparing the estimated drag force 7.39 N
(Table 7) and the calculated drag force 7.11 N
from CFD analysis, we observe that the estimation
and the calculation provide non-contradictory
results.
6 Manufacturing
ITU Tailless UAV’s first prototype was built
using the most readily available materials from
the remote controlled vehicle market. For the
wing structure, we used balsa ribs and carbon-
fiber spars because of ease of manufacturing.
Balsa sheets were cut with laser CNC machine.
In Fig. 13, it can be seen that the balsa ribs are
assembled together with carbon-fiber spars. This
rib structure is covered with 1 mm balsa sheets,
resulting in a total wing weight of 650 g. The
manufactured flying wing can be seen in Fig. 14.
For the flight tests, a prototype fuselage pod
is built for to carry the receiver, motor, batteries
and the electronic test equipment. In addition,
extra weight was placed within the pod in order

Fig. 13 Internal rib

structure of the wing
144 J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146

Fig. 14 Manufactured
wing covered with balsa
sheets

to simulate payload weight. The complete system
including the flying wing and a model fuselage pod
is given in Fig. 15. It is important to note that the
fuselage pod can be easily changed for different
missions.
flight tests, various maneuvers including coordi-
nated turns, bank to turns, climbs and descents are
conducted. In Figs. 16 and 17, the aircraft’s take-
off and loiter flight from one of the flight tests can
be seen.
From the various flight tests, we concluded
that,

7 Flight Test • The aircraft is stable and the aircraft’s center

of gravity position is right for stability,
ITU Tailless UAV’s first flight tests are completed • The power system (motor + propeller) is rated
under pilot radio control in order to fully grasp its enough to sustain the desired climb rate and
aerodynamic and stability characteristics. In these loiter velocity,

Fig. 15 Complete ITU

Tailless Wing including
the test fuselage pod
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
Fig. 16 Take-off of ITU Tailless UAV
Fig. 17 Flight of the ITU
Tailless UAV
• The drag calculations and assumptions are in-
deed realistic as the throttle stick in loiter was
only a little under from the theoretical mid-
position corresponding to loiter.
In addition, it was also observed that the ma-
neuvering capability of the aircraft is higher in
comparison to similar sized UAVs built and tested
within the laboratory. Specifically, the tailless
configuration has provided a very valuable UAV
platform not only because of its high performance
capabilities, but also via its ease of operation.
Current work involves composite manufacturing
of the ITU Tailless Wing and performing au-
145
tonomous flight tests using the in-house micro-
avionics system.
8 Conclusion
In this work, the design study of a tailless air-
craft with electric propulsion system has been de-
scribed. Final system performance analyses indi-
cate that up to 20 m/s cruise speed and maximum
3 h of flight endurance can be achieved while car-
rying a 1.3 kg payload—a superior performance
in comparison to the other conventional fixed
wing UAVs within the mini class. First prototype
has been built and its initial flight tests indicate
146
that the design carries the desired handling quali-
ties while satisfying the target loiter velocity and
climb-rate values. Current work is focused on
achieving fully autonomous flight.
References
1. NASA X-48B Blended Wing Body Official Page. http://
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B (2012).
Accessed 19 July 2012
View publication stats
J Intell Robot Syst (2013) 69:131–146
2. Liebeck, R.H., et al.: Blended wing Body Analysis and
Design. AIAA (1997)
3. Nickel, K., Wolfahrt, M.: Tailless Aircraft in Theory and
Practice. AIAA Education Series (1994)
4. Kroo, I., Watayama, S.: The Challenge and Promise of
Blended-wing-body Optimization. AIAA (1998)
5. Raymer, D.P.: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Ap-
proach, 2nd edn. AIAA Education Series (1992)
6. Viieru, D., Albertani, R., Shyy, W., Ifju, P.: Effect of tip
vortex on wing aerodynamics of micro aerial vehicles.
In: 22th AIAA Conference Paper, Reno (2004)
7. CD-Adapco: Instruction Manual of Star CCM+ 6.04.011
(2011)