LIST OF CONTENTS

S NO. CONTENTS PAGE No

1 INTRODUCTION

2 CONSTRAINTS FOR THE REGULAR CLASS

2.1 AIRCRAFT DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS

2.2 MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR REGULAR CLASS

2.3 AIRCRAFT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

2.4 PAYLOAD REQUIREMENTS

2.5 OTHER REQUIREMENTS

3 PROJECT BEGINNING

4 DESIGN PROCESS

5 WING SELECTION

5.1 ELLIPTICAL WING

5.2 TAPERED WING

5.3 RECTANGULAR WING

5.4 SWEPT BACK

1|Page
5.5 CONCLUSION ON WING PLANFORM SELECTION

6 WING CONFIGURATION

7 WING PLACEMENT

7.1 LOW WING

8 STABILITY FACTORS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE WING

9 AIRFOIL SELECTION

10 FINAL CONCLUSION FOR THE WING DESIGN

11 DESIGN CALCULATION OF WING

11.1 TAIL STABILIZER

12 FUSELAGE DESIGN

13 WING, TAIL AND POWERPLANT POSITIONING

14 AERODYNAMIC CENTER OF THE WING

15 CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE WING

15.1 MOMENT ARM OF THE TAIL

16 FABRICATION PROCESS

17 PAYLOAD FRACTION

18 CONCLUSION

2|Page
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

S NO. SYMBOLS DEFINITION

1 β SLIDE SLIP ANGLE

2 Vn NORMAL VELOCITY

3 ∆L DIFFERENCE IN LIFT

4 Λ SWEEP BACK ANGLE

5 ∆α CHANGE IN ANGLE OF ATTACK

6 V VELOCITY ALONG Y AXIS

7 u VELOCITY ALONG X AXIS

3|Page
 LIST OF FIGURES

S NO. FIGURE PAGE NO.

1 ELLIPTICAL WING 10

2 TAPERED WING 10

3 RECTANGULAR WING 10

4 SWEPT WING 11

5 HIGH WING 13

6 MID WING 13

7 LOW WING 14

8 FLOW ACROSS HIGH WING 14

9 FLOW ACROSS LOW WING 15

10 DIHEDRAL WING 16

11 PRESSURE CONTOUR OVER NACA 2415 18

12 MODIFIED PRESSURE CONTOUR OVER NACA 2415 18

13 CALCULATION OF FUSELAGE DIAMETER 21

14 COMPARISON OF RECTANGULAR AND CIRCULAR FUSELAGE 22

15 LOCATION OF AC AND CG 23

16 LOCATION OF NEUTRAL POINT 24

17 MOMENT ARM OF THE TAIL 24

18 STRESS INTENSITY ON THE WING. 25

19 MODEL OF THE GLIDER 25

20 2D DRAFTING OF THE GLIDER 26

4|Page
1.INTRODUCTION

SAE has been conducting competitions for encouraging the engineering students to learn in a more

practical way. The event is conducted annually and is conducted in two division, namely two classes of

gliders, one is Regular class and the other is micro class. Workshop was conducted on how to design a

glider and how to make level flight in the air. Students for several streams benefit from this workshop and

learn much when it is a competition. The constraints were posted for both the classes and Regular class of

RC glider was chosen by our team, since bigger the size, greater the complexity and higher we learn.

2. CONSTRAINTS FOR THE REGULAR CLASS:

2.1 Aircraft Dimension Requirement

The dimension must not exceed 175 inches.

2.2 Material and Equipment Restrictions for Regular Class

The use of Fiber Reinforced plastic (FRP) is not allowed, except in the motor mount, propeller, landing

gear and control linkage component. Also, not allowed is the use of rubber bands to make the wing

retain to fuselage. Furthermore, any types of gyroscopic or other stability assistance are not allowed.

2.3 Aircraft System Requirements

The airplane requires the use of a electric single motor, gearboxes, belt drive systems,

and propeller shaftextensions are allowed in tow condition (one-to-one propeller to motor RPM should b

e maintained)and the propmust rotate at motor RPM.

The battery should have: 6 cell (22.2 volt) Lithium Polymer (Li-Poly/Li-Po) battery pack. The minimum

requirements for Li-Po battery are: 3000 mAh, 25c and homemade batteries are prohibited.

5|Page
2.4 Payload Requirements

For the payload, the team will focus on the interior dimension and we must follow the requirement given

10.00”× 4.00” ×4.00” with a tolerance of + 0.125”, - 0.000”

The airplane should have one or more removable access for the payload bay. The payload interior

surfaces have to be unbroken and smooth. The payload must also be secured to the airframe, as well as

contain payload plates. The only penetrations are allowed in the payload bay surfaces is payload support

assembly. The support assembly for the payload must be removable and the bay will never consider as

payload.

2.5 Other Requirements

The airplane must take off within a maximum distance of 200 ft. Likewise, the airplane must land within

a maximum distance of 200 ft. Also, the time to complete all aerial tasks must be no more than 180 sec.

3. PROJECT BEGINNING:

Team, Fliegen. A team with armatures in designing and flying. This is the first project for the whole team

in design and fabrication and flying a RC glider. The team was formed and enrolled in the sight of practical

knowledge. A competition like this would help us explore our self and motivate self-learning towards

achieving the objective. Before the start of the project, discussions were made and each member in the

team were able to find their interest and strength in individual contribution to the project. The work was

split up considering the interest of each individual in the team.

Madhu Nathuram Kumawat - Carrying out the design calculations to find the design parameters for the

glider with respect to the limitations posed for the competition.

Arvind Kumar Nathuram - Since, familiar with CAD modelling, the glider model and the 2D drawing

was assigned.
6|Page
Mohammed Danish - Good in time management and team management and gathering information.

Hence, posted with the responsibility of gathering information and summarizing all together and time

management.

Kiran Chowdary - Interested in aerodynamics and hence airfoil selection is taken care by him

Kumbhar Sankalp Vijaykumar - Flow analysis for airfoil selection and to find the hotspots of drag in

the design

D Akhil Kumar - Works on electronics much and hence undergoing practice for Radio controls for the

RC glider.

Soma Sekhar - Design methodology and report

4. DESIGN PROCESS

As the discussion began, the conceptual design was discussed and all the aspects of the glider were

sketched as a rough draft. From these sketches a probable design was selected.

Then the preliminary phase of the design starts with the weight estimation

5. WING SELECTION

The wing selection was carried out in a conceptual manner and then the detailed design calculations were

made. The items discussed were about the planform of the wing, number of wings, type and configuration.

First up was the wing planform configuration.

5.1 Elliptical wing:

By the studies conducted on elliptical wing, it was knownthat, it has advantages of minimum drag

produced due to vortices, that is minimal induced drag. An elliptical wing well suits a cargo aircraft

however, fabrication of the wing is difficult comparted to other planforms of the wings.

7|Page
 Fig 1: Elliptical wing

5.2 Tapered wing:

The taped wing is a combination of both elliptical wing and a rectangular wing. It is structurally strong

and fabrication is of ease compared to elliptical planform.

Fig 2: Tapered wing

5.3 Rectangular wing:

Rectangular wing is often used since it is easy to fabricate, low cost and is used for low speed RC gliders.

Additional benefits of the rectangular wing is that it has more planform area, hence more surface contact

resulting in more lift. Rectangular wing has one disadvantage that, it tends to stall at the wing root during

take-off or steep climb.

Fig 3: Rectangular wing

8|Page
5.4 Swept back

Wings with swept back angle are preferred for high speed airplanes and as advantage with the weep back

wing is that, it is more stable that the other three when a slide slip stream of wind hits the airplane. This

could be justified by the logic we learnt through.

Fig 4: Swept wing

Section 1:

Vn= Vcosβ

Vn= Vcos(β+Λ)

-∆L, Negative lift produced

Section 2:

Vn= Vcosβ

Vn= Vcos(β+Λ)

+∆L, Positive lift produced

In the other three types of wings, when a disturbance is caused from the side, tend to slip to the side

opposite to the wind. When a swept back wing moving forward in the path of flight disturbed by a side

slip stream an angle β from right side on the section 2 (assumed to act on this side) a negative moment is

created resulting in instability. Hence, a positive moment should be created by the plane to retain back to
9|Page
its original body fixed axis. The swept backwing will produce a difference in lift on the port side and the

starboard side of the wings due to the angle of sweep Λ. Hence due to the difference in lift generation on

the wings the plane tends to get back to its path by itself to a certain limit. Now its well know that the

sweep back of a wing helps in stability.

5.5 Conclusion on wing planform selection:

Comparing all the four common types of wing shapes, rectangular and swept back wing holds the upper

hand in fabrication, less cost, strength. Rectangular wing tends to stall at root, it can be overcome by

adding washout to the wing. (A positive small twist of the wing which makes the root more incident to

the air than the wing tips). By adding this washout, the disadvantage of stall could be diminished. Now,

by adding a sweepback, washout and a being a polyhedral wing (discussed later in the report) the

construction using balsa wood would be very complicated and also lowers the strength of the wing. Hence,

rectangular planform is finalized for the glider designcompromising the stability factors of the sweep back

wing.

6. WING CONFIGURATION:

Studies were made on the placement and the number of wing in this section. The Glider could be a

monoplane, Biplane or Tandem. On the scope of drag produced and ease in design calculation, the

monoplane was selected. Then comes along the type of wing configuration.

Conventional, blended and flying wing configurations were discussed. On basis of the limits set, the cargo

section dimensions are difficult to be set within a flying wing configuration and also a blended wing is

difficult to be fabricatedwith balsa wood gliders. Therefore,the conventional wing is taken into account

for the design.

10 | P a g e
7. WING PLACEMENT:

The adjacent topic in discussion was the Placement of the wing on the fuselage.The wing may be a high

wing, mid or low.

A high wing is more stable compared to mid or low wing as it lifts the load from above. Also, a high wing

will be suitable when it comes to carrying the glider across places by dismantling and ease in attaching to

the fuselage.

Fig 5: High wing

The mid wing is out of scope for the discussion as it needs a break at the fuselage and can’t be in a single

piece attached tothe fuselage. Since, it is a cargo carrying glider, the amount of load imposed on the wing

is much, so the wing needs more strength. A mid wing is far compared to less in strength to a high or a

low wing.

Fig 6: Mid wing

11 | P a g e
7.1 Low wing:

A low wing is as good as a high wing in assembly and dismantling, and also can be made as a single

straight wing to possess more strength. However, the low wing would have much less ground clearance

as the discussion is all about glider. The Glider are less in height compared to normal aircraft, employing

a lower wing with studies from actual aircraft would lead to a loss in efficiency of the glider wing at

takeoff. Thus, the lower wing is omitted from the discussion.

Fig 7: Low wing

8 STABILITY FACTORS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE WING.

Since, mid wing is neglected from the discussion, only the high wing and the low wing are discussed in

terms of stability factors

For a high wing, at times of gust from sides, the wind flowing under the wing comes across the fuselage

and tends to move up crosses the fuselage and swirls back to the lower surface of the other side of the

wing. The winds swirling back to the under part of the wing which lower in lever, will have a tendency to

uplift the wing from below

Fig 8: Flow across high wing

12 | P a g e
For the same compared to a low wing, the from the side when a gust hits the low wing, the wing on the

side of gust tends to raise, hence increasing in lift. Once the wind swirls to the other side on the wing to

its upper surface, it makes the other side go lower much. Hence, from the point of stability a lower wing

is less efficient than a high wing.

Fig 9: Flow across low wing

Since, the team is full of beginners at RC design and flying, Stability factors much. A literature review on

“how to make gliders stable by itself?” showed that introducing a dihedral angle to the wing would make

it more stable compared to a level wing.

Fig 10: Dihedral wing

13 | P a g e
For a Dihedral wing,

Vn = VsinГ

=VГ (Since angle is very less, sin was neglected)

𝑣
β=𝑢

here the change in angle of attach is

𝑉𝑛
∆α = 𝑢

VГ
∆α = 𝑣
β

= βГ

∆α = βГ

From the derived expression above, when a side wind aims at the glider, if it is a level wing, the wing on

the side of the gust would tend to increase angle of attack and the other side would tend to decrease. If it

is a dihedral wing, the change in angle of attack would produce higher lift at the lower angle of wing and

lower lift at higher angle of wing, hence the wing restores to its position back and making the glider more

stable.

As the discussions and study progressed, polyhedral wing came in to highlight.

A polyhedral wing is a one which has multiple dihedral at certain breaks on the wing. The limitation for

the size of the glider was given. Hence, introducing a polyhedral wing into the design of the glider will

make more surface area with a limited span since, the wing is at an angle, the horizontal measure of the

span will be less compared to a straight wing.

14 | P a g e
However, polyhedral wing may give, these advantages, the disadvantage is the feasibility. A straight wing

has more strength compared to a polyhedral wing as the polyhedral has no be made with breaks in the

spars. Hence a polyhedral wing comes with the cost of structural stability and manufacturing difficulty.

Common methodology is to go with the usual design or a dihedral wing. However, the polyhedral wing is

selected because of its advantage and scope of knowledge. Making a polyhedral wing and fabricating is

difficult compared to other types. Since, the team aims at learning new ideas, polyhedral wing is selected

and looking forward for challenges to be accomplished when it is fabricated.

9. AIRFOIL SELECTION.

A huge number of airfoil sections are available and from those a flat bottom airfoil is best suited for cargo

carrying RC planes. A flat bottom airfoil is best suited because the bottom flat surface will produce a

better lift to drag ratio than a cambered airfoil. A flat bottom airfoil is hard to find on a real aircraft,

however, found in most RC cargo planes.

Another advantage to the flat bottom airfoil is that it gives more control and is easy to be fixed on the flat

surface.

As it is well known that a flat bottom airfoil is best suited, NACA 2415 is selected and modified to a flat

bottom airfoil. NACA 2415 is selected since it has a coefficient of lift around 1.5. The ideology behind

this modification is that, the project is aimed at to acquiring more knowledge. Using a flat bottom airfoil

as regularly obtained from sources diminishes the capability of innovative thinking. Hence, the team

considered the competition to be a challenge and a way to learn and plug in innovative ideas.Hence,

NACA 2415 is selected as it has a better coefficient of lift and the profile is suitable for changes for a flat

bottom.

A flat bottom airfoil mostly is flat from the 30% of chord to the trailing edge. Hence, NACA 2415 is given

a flat bottom from 30% of its chord. Flow analysis has been conducted to check if the strategy is feasible.

15 | P a g e
 Fig 11: Pressure contour over NACA 2415
Flow analysis was made over a NACA 2415 airfoil and the result was observed. The same parameters

were used on a modified airfoil for the analysis. Trial and error method was used for the modification and

hence finally concluded with an airfoil with flat bottom as good as NACA 2415.

Fig 12: Modified pressure contour over NACA 2415

From the above two contours, it is well evident that the pressure difference for the modified airfoil is better

than the original NACA 2415. Hence, more the pressure difference, more the lift generated. The aim of

the modification is to learn innovation and make it a practical application, hence much concentration was

not given to the values of the analysis.

16 | P a g e
10. FINAL CONCLUSION FOR THE WING DESIGN.

S no Type Selection Reason

1 Wing planform Rectangular Strength, ease of attachment, more surface area.

2 Number of wing Monoplane Less drag and ease in design calculations

3 Configuration Conventional Simplicity in construction

4 Placement of wing High wing Stable and ease in attachment and dismantling

5 Level/angled from Polyhedral wing More stable, surface area could be increased

from view within the limited span of the wing

6 Airfoil Modified airfoil to a Flat surface is easy to attach, suitable for cargo

flat bottom airfoil gliders.

11. DESIGN CALCULATION OF WING:

Conventional design calculation of the wing will be carried out based on the total load carrying capacity,

lift needed to carry the load. Since, the total size of the glider is set, maximum utilization of the size is

made. So, for a wing fuselage combination with limitations in mind, a ratio of wing to fuselage is assumed

from the reference gliders. would be preferable. Hence, maximum wing span could be set for the given

limitation.Hence, instead of following the common procedure of weight calculation and wing sizing, the

wing sizing is fixed with respective to limits and the load carrying capacity of the wing is found.Later, the

model limited to the weight for the lift the wing could provide. As, the limitations are set for the cargo

area, the fuselage circular diameter should be around 5”(Discussed in the later part of the report). Since a

5” diameter fuselage, the length of the fuselage is approximated around 60”. From studiesof reference

17 | P a g e
gliders, for a fuselage of this length the wing span would be more than 65. Hence, based on the fuselage

length the wing span is calculated.

WS = 67in and WS area needed is 770.5 in2

Hence 67× chord= 770.5 in2

Chord= 11.5 in

11.1 Tail stabilizer.

A conventional tail design is fixed, since, a V tail or a H tail adds more weigh to the glider and also

complexity in maneuvering and controls. The type of glider is cargo and hence the need or a complicated

tail is neglected and conventional type of tail is selected. From studies on airplane design and stability, it

was clear that the horizontal stabilizer should be around 25% to 35% of the wing area. And the Chord

length of the tail is one third of the of the wing span.

Hence a considerable percentage is assumed as 30% of the wing and the horizontal tail are is determined.

H. stab area is around 25% to 35% of using area

H. stab area = 770.5×0.30

=231.15 in2

1
H. tail span =3× 67

= 22.3 in

Hence

THS × C = Tail area

22.3 × C =231.15

18 | P a g e
CH =10.3 in

H. tail = 22.3 in × 10.3 in

12. FUSELAGE DESIGN.

The most common fuselage design for RC gliders is a rectangular cross section. Opting for a rectangular

cross section would be much easy in construction, however, polyhedral wing is employed for the glider,

polyhedral wing has a disadvantage of much side slip due to cross winds. If the fuselage is too is given a

rectangular cross section, the glider will be prone to directional instability. Hence to reduce the movement

of glider from its path due to cross winds, the fuselage cross section is concluded to be a circle. The

diameter of the fuselage is calculated based on the cargo section dimensions.

Fig 13: Calculation of fuselage diameter

A rectangular sketch (cross section of the payload cabin) is made and the diagonals of the rectangle are

drawn. The intersecting point of the rectangle gives the center point for the circle. The circle is made with

the center point and with the radius of half of a diagonal of the rectangle. The diameter of the circle is

measured as fixed as the fuselage diameter. This could be the least possible diameter for an RC plane with

the cargo dimensions as given.

19 | P a g e
 Fig 14: Comparison of rectangular and circular fuselage
A rectangular cross section will need, four sides and by using a circular cross section the four sides is

limited to only two. Hence reducing weight

13. WING, TAIL AND POWERPLANT POSITIONING

Total length of the fuselage is 58.6 in. From studies of stability on aircrafts, it was known that the wing

should be placed at 1/3rd of the fuselage. Hence the fuselage, center of gravity is aligned with one third of

the fuselage from the nose tip.

14. AERODYNAMIC CENTER OF THE WING:

Aerodynamic center of the of the wing lies at 1/4th of the wing from the wing’s leading edge.

Hence,

AC of the wing is 1/4 × 11.5 = 2.8in

Length of the chord after the AC is

Lw= 11.5 – 2.8 = 8.7in

AC of the horizontal tail is 1/4 × 10.3 = 2.57in

20 | P a g e
Lt, Length of the tail chord after AC of tail is 10.3-2.57 = 7.72

Hence, the distance between the AC of the wing and the AC of the horizontal tail gives the value of “L”.

Using the value of L the neutral point of the wing could be determined.

𝐻 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑏ℎ 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
Distance between AC and NP, D =L× 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎+𝐻 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑏ℎ 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

L = (1/3 of fuselage + Lt) – (Fuselage length)

L = (19.51+7.72)-58.6

L = 31.37

231.15
Hence, D = 31.37×770.5+231.15

D = 7.21in

Fig 15: Location of AC and CG

15. CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE WING:

From trade studies, the CG of the wing lies at around 25% to 33% of the chord of the wing from the

leading edge.

21 | P a g e
Chord of the wing is 11.5, thus

CG of the wing lies at 11.5 ×0.3 = 3.45 in from the leading edge of the wing.

The distance between the AC and the CG is (Distance of AC from leading edge – distance of CG from

leading edge),

3.45 – 2.8 = 0.65in

Fig 16: Location of neutral point

15.1 Moment arm of the tail:

Fig 17: Moment arm of the tail

The glider is calculated for weight and the weight would arrive around 2200g, and hence the tail would

have to support a load of around 1000 g to stabilize the wing. The tail moment arm is calculated by the

moment formula

Tail arm moment = 0.79 × 9.8 = 7.742 Nm

22 | P a g e
16. FABRICATION PROCESS

The fabrication is planned to be done with the balsa wood. The total weight of the Glider is to be 1700g,

however, at the time of fabrication it would go more. Hence a margin is added to the weight and the total

weight is assumed to end up around 2200g. The placement of the ribs and the spars on the wings is yet

undetermined. A simple structural analysis has shown that, the section attached to the fuselage will have

more bending moment than the tip.

Fig 18: Stress intensity on the wing.

As seen, the stress intensity is more at the center like in a cantilever beam. Hence, at the time of fabrication,

it is planned that the number of rib adjacent to the fuselage, would be closer in distance and greater in

number compared to the tip of the wing.

Fig 19: Model of the glider

The glider is drafted in a CAD software, and the dimensions are marked since, at the time of fabrication, this

would help a lot and makes the process easy simple.

23 | P a g e
Fig 20: 2D drafting of the glider

24 | P a g e
17 PAYLOAD FRACTIONS:

For a cruise condition the lift equals the weight. The lift is dependent upon few of the parameters, like velocity,

coefficient of lift and the surface area of the wing. The surface area is constant throughout the flight. If the Cl

and the velocity is constant then, only the density plays the roll in change in lift as well as density altitude.

The payload faction and the density altitude curve are given below.

PF = (-0.0000068)*(D.A) + 0.862

Fig 21: payload prediction factor Vs D.A

25 | P a g e
18 CONCLUSION:

As the project was taken up and the team started working on the design calculation, we realized that a team is

better than an individual, when it comes to innovation. All the while we were intended to try something new

as well as to make the glider up to the mark. Few ideas are to be employed. A great challenge in fabricating a

wing with both polyhedral and also with a washout amuses us. Also, looking forward on how our modification

of airfoil works in practice. The best part on the competition is, knowledge comes with fun. Hopes up to see

our innovations fly in air.

26 | P a g e