Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dust Thrusters
AE 440
2
1. Nomenclature:
Adisk=disk area of propeller
A fcsw=fuselage cross sectional area at the wing aerodynamic center
A fcst=fuselage cross sectional area at the tail aerodynamic center
Av =area of the ultimate wake
b=wing span
bh =span of horizontal tail
BHP =brake horse power
bv =height of vertical tail
c
=wing mean aerodynamic chord
ch =horizontal tail mean aerodynamic chord
cht =horizontal tail area
C L L=derivative of the lift of horizontal tail wrt angle of attack
c m=derivative of pitching moment
c m fus=derivative of pitching moment of the fuselage with respect to
angle of attack
cp =power coefficient
ct =thrust coefficient
cr =chord length at the root of the vertical tail
ct =chord length at the tip of the vertical tail
c vt =vertical tail volume ratio
C zamin =minimum total normal force
C zamax =maximum total normal force
D=propeller diameter
F p =derivative of fin force wrt %alpha
f ssw =fraction of the wing embedde in the slipstream
f T =corrects for non-zero thrust
g=gravitational constant
GW =gross weight
J =advance ratio
K =gust alleviation factor
K 1 =propeller downwash factor
K 2 =propeller downwash factor
K F =empirical pitching moment factor
kp=propeller diameter coefficient
L f =total length of the fuselage
3
lh =distance between the aerodynamic
centers of the horizontal tail and wing
lt =distance between the wing and tail aerodynamic centers
lv =distance between the aerodynamic centers of the
vertical tail and wing
m=non-demensional height between tail and wing
n=rotation speed of the propeller rev /sec
N B=number of blades
N gear =gear load factor
ng =gust load factor
nload=load factor
npos=positive limit load factor
nneg =negative limit load factor
q=dynamic pressure
r=non-demensional distance between the aerodynamic centers of the tail
and wing
S=wing area
S stroke =Stroke
Sh =horizontal tail area
S.M.=static margin
ST =stroke of tire
Sv =vertical tail area
T =thrust of the propellor
T ff =thrust for foward flight
T static=static thrust
U=equivalent airspeed
V =airspeed far upstream
V tipstatic =prop tip velocity, static
V tiphelical=prop tip velocity during flight
V disk=airspeed at the propellor disk
V v =airspeed in the ultimate wake
V vertical=vertical velocity
W =induced airspeed at the propeller disk
W F =maximum width of the fuselage
X =position normalized by mean aerodynamic chord
xach =position of the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail
xacw =position of the aerodynamic center of the wing
xcg =position of the center of gravity
4
xp =position of propeller
z t =perpendicular distance between the tail aerodynamic center and the
line parallel to the x-axis and from the wing trailing edge
h
=total downwash and derivative at the horizontal tail
p
=total downwash derivative at the propeller
C Nblade
=normal force per blade with the propeller at zero thrust
=downwash angle derivative
p
= derivative of the downwash produced by the propeller slipstream
at the tail
u
=upwash derivative at the propeller due to the wing
sa=efficency of shock absorber
h=efficiency of horizontal tail
p =prop efficiency
T =efficency of the tire as a shock
=wing tip to chord ratio
=density
mass=airplane mass ratio
5
2. Executive Summary (JN):
This design report is the first submission towards completion of the AIAA request for
proposal: Agricultural Unmanned Aircraft System (AUAS). The basics of the RFP [1] are to
create an unmanned aircraft and accompanying equipment that will spray a field with chemical
or solid particles. The aircraft must be capable of servicing a field which is 2640 by 1000 feet
and be able to take off and land on an unpaved surface which is a maximum of 750 feet long and
50 feet wide. The aircraft is to carry a payload of 300 pounds in addition to the equipment which
will apply the load. The final major requirement is that the aircraft and all equipment needed to
operate the vehicle must be moved from site to site with only a standard pick-up truck.
Instead of looking at three radically different designs in great depth, the group decided to
only carry the three designs into the first stage of development and then choose a configuration.
With this design, the next steps of the design process included extensive trade studies and
typically tried to look at three or more variations that could be applied to the situation. For
example, the wing for a traditional design is typically in a high, low, or mid fuselage
configuration. Each of these possibilities were considered and the best design for this set of
requirements was then chosen. This design philosophy allowed the group to continually narrow
and perfect the design instead of having the best features mixed with the worst features across
three designs. It also allowed for more in depth analysis since time was not wasted on
6
3. Structures (JF, DC)
Introduction
The objective of this report is to establish a base for the future structural design of the
aircraft. A rough sizing for the fuselage was conducted along with a design for the structure of
the fuselage. The wing and wing box were selected based upon the ability to carry the critical
load paths. Materials were selected for the fuselage, wings, and skin of the aircraft. The landing
gear was selected based on trade studies. A V-n diagram was created using initial data for the
aircraft. Finally shear and bending moment analysis were conducted for the root of the wings.
were used. Usually the size of the fuselage is designed using the engine size, the cowling for the
engine, the payload, placement of the wings and tail, along with any cut outs needed in the
structure [2]. Without this data it was decided to use historical data to get a very rough estimate
of the fuselage size. Looking at the Piper Pawnee A-25-235 which has a length of fuselage to
length of wingspan ratio of .6878, and the Cessna 152 with a length of fuselage to length of
wingspan ratio of .7109, and the Piper Cub J-3 with a length of fuselage to length of wingspan
ratio of .6374. It was decided using the historical data and a wing span of 25 ft that the length of
the fuselage would be 16 ft. The rough height of the aircraft was decided in a similar fashion.
From the middle of the aircraft to the ground is 4 ft. The radius of the front of the fuselage was
designed to be 2 ft, using initial engine data that the engine would be roughly around 4 ft in
7
diameter. This was a rough fuselage sizing, with more data on the sizing requirements of the
engine and payload, the actual dimensions of the fuselage will be established.
for the fuselage structure. The structure types are the monocoque, the semi-monocoque, the
veneer, and the truss structure. When deciding upon the fuselage structure the following
considerations were taken into account: maintainability, strength, and its ease of production.
continuous shell usually made up of small wood strips laid on top of one another so the grain of
each layer is in the opposite directions. This type of structure is very time consuming to make
and requires more time to create than the other three configurations [3]. It is also difficult to
repair if the structure breaks because it is one continuous shell. Due to the time required to
produce the monocoque type structure and the maintenance problems it was decided to not use
The next structure that was considered was the semi-monocoque type structure. This
structure is similar to the monocoque structure, but instead of being one continuous shell it has
two halves of a shell that are glued or bolted together. Like the monocoque type structure it takes
a lot of time to build, and is difficult to repair if it is broken. Therefore it was decided to not use
8
The next structure considered was the veneer structure. The veneer structure usually
contains four longerons, and uses elliptical bulkheads attached to the longerons by glue or
screws, for support. It also uses veneer panels attached to the longerons and the bulkheads for
added support [3]. Like the monocoque type structure maintenance would be difficult due to the
panels. The veneer structure also contains rings as its bulkheads which would be harder to create
or find than metal rods. Veneer is also not an ideal material in moister climates; the wood gets
moist and rots. This would not create a very suitable structure because the structure relies
partially on the panels for its strength. For maintenance difficulties and the fact that it uses veneer
The final structure type to be looked at was the truss structure type. The truss structure
type usually contains four horizontal longerons held together by vertical struts. It uses triangles to
create a rigid structure. A benefit of the truss structure is it is easier to repair when damaged.
Unlike the monocoque and veneer there are not round bulkheads or rings which would be
difficult to replace. Also unlike the semi-monocoque there are not multiple stringers that would
be difficult to replace. There are only four longerons which if broken would be difficult to
replace, and smaller struts which are easy to fix if broken. The downside of using the truss type
structure is it is more box like than the others and therefore is not as aerodynamic. This can be
solved by using a small number stringers and small bulkheads to form the fuselage to be a
rounder shape. It was therefore decided that the best option for the structure of the aircraft would
9
be the truss because of the high strength to weight ratio, and easy maintainability as seen in
figure 3.1.
The truss structure is designed to contain 45-45-90 degree triangles. This is so each
member carries the tension and compression loads equally, and no member is doing more work
than another. The vertical spars for structural stability should be spaced between 10 to 24 inches
apart. It was decided to go with 24 inches. It is also designed so that the longerons carry the
bending load, while the vertical and diagonal struts carry the shear. The diagonal struts are also
designed to carry the tension and compression loads, so that when one of the members is in
compression, shear, and the load due to lift. The spars are designed to carry the bending load,
the web or covering of the wing handles the shear load. While the ribs are designed to maintain
the cross section and prevent the wing from buckling. The tension and compression loads are
10
carried by both the spars and the ribs, while the load due to torsion is carried by wire bracing
between the ribs [4]. The front spar should be placed at a length of 15% of the chord length from
the leading edge, in our design .525 ft from the leading edge. The rear spar should be placed at a
length of 60-70% of the chord, in our design 2.275 ft from the leading edge [4]. This can be seen
There two types of spar designs were looked at when choosing the type of spar for this
aircraft. They were the solid spar and the I beam spar. The solid spar tends to be heavier than the
I beam spar because it is more solid. However the solid spar is much stronger than the I beam
spar design. With the solid spar there is also the option of drilling holes through out the spar to
reduce the weight of the solid spar, this changes the strength of the solid spar by an insignificant
amount. It was therefore decided to use the solid spar as the spar design because of its strength
Another consideration for the structure of the wings is the placement of the ribs. The ribs
11
should be place between 6 and 14 inches apart. This distance depends on the aircrafts
performance. The faster the aircraft flies the closer the ribs need to be. For our design, because of
the low speed, it is estimated to have the ribs spaced farther apart. This spacing reduces the
number of spars, which reduces the weight. Further structural analysis will be needed to get an
The RFP calls for an aircraft that can easily be transported in the back of a standard truck
or a in a trailer. Three different designs were considered to meet this requirement. These designs
include the foldable wing, a design where the tail and wings would be removed, and the design
It was decided that the design where the tail and wings would be removed was also not
ideal for the design. This design is generally seen in small UAV designs and is not practical for a
larger UAV. This design would add weight to the fuselage because of the need to adapt the tail
end to have the tail be removed. Also, the fuselage is only estimated to be around 16 ft long. This
This leaves two designs for the wing attachment. It was decided for this report to have two
designs for the wing attachment. They are the foldable wing and the detachable wing. Both
currently proved to be equal when a rough trade study was conducted. It was therefore decided
that further information would be needed to decide upon the wing attachment. Both are designs
12
along with their pros and cons are discussed further in this section along with a picture that
The first design is the detachable wing. With the detachable wing, the fuselage along with
the two halves of the wing could easily fit in a trailer. Aircrafts such as the Aerocar, the Pulsar
150, and the BD-5, which are in the ultra light category, use the design of the detachable wing.
This shows that historically the design is structurally sound. All three examples rely on bolts to
attach the fuselage to the wings. A flap would be placed on each wing to allow the operator to
reach into the interior of the wing and bolt the wing on, or unbolt the wing from the body of the
aircraft. The problem is at the root of the wing high shear and bending loads occur. Therefore a
strong material along with the proper placement of bolts will be needed at this connection point
to handle the bending moment and the lift load that occurs at the root of the wing. However this
design might not be optimal because of the lack of ability to create a structurally sound bond
Therefore a second design was considered in case further trade studies show that the first
is not structurally sound. The design calls for a foldable wing, with a tip of the wing that
detaches. This design would minimize the problem of having a break at the root of the wing.
However, the problem with using a foldable wing is it adds weight to the wings, which is not
ideal. Therefore a strut would be used to add more structural stability to the wing, and reduce the
load placed on the root of the wing. The strut could be removed and the wing could be folded.
13
The design also calls for a detachable part of the wing at the end of the wing, so it more readily
fits in the back of a truck. Both designs can be seen below figure 3.3.
Further trade studies and analysis will have to be conducted to decide upon the design for
the lift on the wing. There were four designs that were initially considered when picking a wing
box design. These designs include the box carrythrough, the ring frame, the bending beam and
the strut braced. When deciding upon the type of wing box, the following criteria were
considered, weight, space, ability to handle the sprayer system, and drag.
The first design considered was the ring frame. This design although it tends to reduce
14
the amount of space the wing box takes up, requires heavy bulk heads that would substantially
add to the weight of the aircraft. It also is generally used for fighter aircraft designs and not
general aviation [5]. Due to the high weight of the ring frame wing box, it was decided another
The next wing box considered was the bending beam. This design relies on the fuselage
to carry the lifting load, and the beam to carry the bending moment. A benefit of this design is it
does not take up as much space as the box carrythrough design. This design is usually seen on
aircrafts composed mostly of composites due to the heavy strain the fuselage must endure due to
the lifting load it carries [5]. It was therefore decided another design would be considered.
The next design considered was the strut braced design. This design is usually seen on
general aviation, and is a great way to save space in the fuselage. However, it has a higher drag
than the other three designs because of the strut. This design will be used if the foldable wing
design is used for the wing attachment. It will save space in the fuselage, and reduce the load at
The next wing box design considered was the box carrythrough. This design is usually
seen on general aviation aircrafts. It is just an extension of the wing through the fuselage. This
can be seen in the below figure. This means a bending moment is not applied to the fuselage of
the aircraft. The wing box carries both the lifting load from the wings, and the bending moment
at the root of the wing. However the problem with the wing box carrythrough configuration it
15
takes up valuable fuselage space. Compared to the other three designs this configuration best fits
the first fuselage structure that was selected. Therefore the box carrythrough design was selected
for the wing box design of the first wing attachment. This can be seen in the figure below.
make the aircraft fuselage out of. They include wood, aluminum, and steel. These materials were
chosen due to there relatively low cost compared to other materials available.
The first considered was wood. It has a good strength to weight ratio, and can act like a
composite due to the grain, for a much cheaper cost. Another benefit of wood is that structurally
it is easy to repair if damaged, and has a relatively low production cost [5]. It is generally the
structure used on homebuilt type aircrafts. One of the disadvantages from a structural point of
view is that in moister climates wood has a tendency to rot [5]. This rotting reduces the structural
integrity of the aircraft. Also if it gets wet the wood can expand due to moisture content which
deforms the structure, and can add weaknesses to the design. Our aircraft will be operated in
16
third world countries where climates tend to be more tropical and moist. There for it was decided
that a wood frame would not be an ideal structural material for our aircraft.
This leaves two materials, steel and aluminum, to be considered for the main material of
the aircraft. Both materials are readily available throughout the world which would make them
ideal from the stand point of reparability of the material. Aluminum has a high strength to weight
ratio, and is relativity light [5]. Steel is heavier, but is stronger and has a higher fatigue resistance
than aluminum. It is also easier to fabricate steel, which means that steel comes at about 1/6th the
cost of aluminum [5]. Steel tends to be seen on many truss design type structures, due to the fact
that it does not require as frequent maintenance as wood [2]. After completing a trade study
taking into account, strength, stiffness, density, corrosion tendencies, reparability, cost and
availability, it was decided that steel would be the ideal material for the fuselage. It is lower cost
and stronger than aluminum, it is easier to repair, and has a three times higher elasticity than
aluminum [5]. Another reason that steel was chosen and the initial design material for the
fuselage is it is much easier to convert from steel to aluminum than vice versa. Therefore during
later trade studies if it is decided that there is an ability to use aluminum, it will be easier to
convert to.
The next consideration is to look at the materials to create the structure of the wings out
of. For the same reasons as above it was decided to crate the spars of the wings out of steel. For
the ribs three different materials were considered wood, steel and aluminum. A composite rib
17
was considered but due to the high cost this was immediately ruled out as an option. It was
decided for the same reason as the fuselage that wood would not be an optimum choice. It would
be difficult to replace the spars frequently. It was therefore decided that the ribs would be made
out of aluminum. Although this comes as a higher cost, structurally it is not desirable to have the
wings be too heavy, which steel would do. This increases the load put on the root joint of the
was decided that aluminum would be the best choice for the ribs. However, steel will still be used
at the connection point of the wings to the fuselage because of its higher strength and elasticity
The final material choice to be made is the material of the skin of the aircraft. As an
initial choice it was decided to use a fabric covering for the surfaces of the aircraft. With the
exception of the leading edge of the wing which needs an aluminum covering for aerodynamic
purposes. Fabric is lighter and cheaper than any other material choice. Therefore as a rough
initial choice it was decided to use fabric. Further trade studies will be conducted next semester
considered. The choices were the single main, the quadricycle, the bicycle, the tricycle, the multi-
bogey and the taildragger. When considering the landing gear the following considerations were
18
taken into account, ability to handle on rough surfaces, prop clearance, and drag.
It was immediately decided that the multi-bogey configuration was not going to be used
as the design. There is no need for multiple tires, the aircraft is a lightweight aircraft. Also the
increase in tires would add increased drag. It was decided that the multi-bogey configuration was
The quadricycle and bicycle configurations were also easily ruled out for possible
designs. Both require the aircraft to land and take off with a flat attitude [5]. Due to the
elementary controls that will control the aircraft this would be a difficult requirement to meet, so
it was decided another configuration could meet the needs of the design with out an increase in
The single main configuration is also not an ideal design for the aircraft. It s design has
the aircraft close to the ground. This design is not ideal for a crop duster because of the rocks,
dirt, and grass that can easily be thrown into the propeller if it is close to the ground [5]. The
single main configuration also is not ideal because it does not balance on its tires till the aircraft
starts moving, therefore when it is no in motion it rest on one of its wings. This would not be
The landing gear configuration was therefore narrowed down to two configurations the
Tricycle configuration and the Taildragger configuration. A trade study was conducted to decide
on the type of configuration that would best suit the design. Taken into account was propeller
19
clearance, ground handling, drag, weight, ability to handle rough terrain, takeoff distance, and
historical use on crop dusters. Some of the benefits of the Tricycle configuration were it can not
nose over due to the front wheel, and it is stable on the ground, it does not have problems with
ground looping [5]. Some of the negatives of the tricycle configuration were it has more drag due
to the front wheel and is heavier than the taildragger. Some of the benefits of the taildragger
configuration were it handles well on rough surfaces, it has a high propeller clearance, it has a
shorter takeoff distance than the Tricycle configuration, and less drag due to having a small rear
tire [5]. With the trade study conducted it was decided to go with the taildragger configuration, it
would best suit an aircraft that would need to operation on rough terrain, and take off in short
distances.
With a landing gear configuration chosen the type of shock absorbers was the next
decision. Six different types of shock absorbers where initially considered. The types include the
rigid axle, solid spring, levered bungee, Oleo shock-strut, Triangulated, and Trailing link
configurations. They were narrowed down to two configurations, taking into account cost,
The first designs to be ruled out for the possible shock absorber configuration were the
Triangulated, Trailing link, and Oleo shock-strut. The RFP calls for a low cost rugged vehicle
which is easy to maintain. The Oleo strut does not fit this criteria, it is higher maintenance, and
higher cost than the other three configurations. Therefore if the design used an Oleo strut the
20
configurations was immediately discarded.
The next configuration to be discarded was the rigid axle. Although this design is low
maintenance and low cost, compared to the other two configurations. It did not compare when it
came to its ability to handle rough terrains. It relies solely on the tire for the shock absorber
which would not be enough shock absorption for our aircraft applications [5].
This left two configurations for the shock absorbers, the solid spring and the levered
bungee. A trade study was conducted taking into account the weight, drag, scrubbing effects, and
simplicity. The Solid Spring was the final choice because of its reduced drag, and its simplicity
Next a rough estimate for the stroke, S, of the shock absorbers was calculated. It needed
to meet the requirements of an stroke between 8-12 in., this value is the general aviation value
2
V vertical ηT
S stroke = − S (3.1)
2gηNgear η T
from Raymer and the fact that for general aviation vertical velocity is 10 ft/s, gear load factor is
3, efficiency is .5, tire efficiency is .47 and the calculated stroke of the tire to be .3354 ft, the
rough estimate for the stroke of the landing gear is .983 ft or 11.79 in. This fits well into the
The final thing to be considered initially for the landing gear is the location of the landing
21
gear. The landing gear needs to form a 16 to 25 degree angle with the CG. Using this analysis, it
was decided that the landing gear would be placed 1.46 ft in front of the CG. For the taildragger
configuration the landing gear needs to be placed at a 25 degree angle from the front center of
the aircraft [5]. The final consideration is the tail wheel. According to Raymer the “shimmy” of
the tail wheel needs to be reduced so that when the aircraft is moving the tail wheel does not tear
off from the body of the plane. To solve this problem a rake angle of negative 4-6 degrees is
required.
important to know and understand the maximum loads that the aircraft can experience. A V-n
diagram shows the limit load factor as function of the airspeed of the aircraft [5]. A V-n diagram
is needed to ensure that the aircraft can structurally operate at certain velocities under certain
loads. The positive limit load factor and the negative limit load factor were calculated using the
following equations:
Using a gross weight of 1000 lbs, the positive limit load factor was found to be 4.28 and the
negative limit load factor was found to -1.71. Next using an Excel spreadsheet and the Cl, Cd, and
Cm-t data from aerodynamic data the maximum and minimum lift curves were calculated using
the following two equations given in class. The first being for maximum lift, and the second
22
being for minimum lift.
1
n=Czamax ρ V2 (3.4)
W
2
S
1
n=Czamin ρ V2
W (3.5)
2
S
Where the maximum Cza is 1.41, minimum Cza is -0.664, density is 0.002378 slug/ft3, and W/S is
5.413. Next the dive speed was calculated using the fact that the dive speed is usually 40-50
percent higher than the cruise speed. Next the positive and negative gust load lines where
KUaV
ng =1±
498
W
S (3.6)
Where KU is 17.5 ft/s, a is 5.167 1/radians, the velocity is 75.6 knots, and W/S is the same as
before. The gust loads and the maximum and minimum lift curves where then plotted to get the
23
Figure 3.5: V-N Diagram
The area enclosed by the blue curves is the region in which the aircraft can structurally
fly. Outside of this region the aircraft is no longer structurally sound and will break apart. The
green lines indicated the gust loads. The point on the V-n diagram labeled High AOA is the point
where the maximum load factor is reached without stalling at the slowest speed. This point is
important because here the load on the wing is almost perpendicular to the direction of flight.
The dive speed is also an important point because represents the maximum load factor on the
aircraft. At this point the aircraft has a low angle of attack which means the load is almost
vertical in the body axis. Both the High AOA and the dive speed can be used for structural sizing.
24
It also can be noted that according to Raymer at lower speeds the load factor is limited by the
maximum lift that the aircraft can produce, at higher speeds the load factor is limited by the
positive limit load, based upon the aircrafts use (i.e. general aviation, transport, fighter).
equilibrium. The weight of both wings is approximately 167 lbs which means 83.5 lbs per wing.
The lift generated by the wings is 1000 lbs, and that implies 500 lbs per wing. The system on the
wing was represented as in figure 3.6, the weight of the wing is represented by a linearly
distributed load, and the lift was represented by a triangular load across the wing, with the lift
To simplify things the weight of the wing is considered a point force at the mid point of the wing.
The lift was represented as a point force, one third of the way down from root of the wing. These
25
Figure 3.7 Simplified force and moment diagram for the wing
To find the reaction force and moment the following equations were used (the moment is solved
at the root)
Solving for these equations, yielded a reaction force of 416.5 lbs, and a reaction moment of
Conclusion
Through this structural analysis many initial plans for the structural design of the aircraft
were decided. These include rough dimensions of the aircraft, the decision to use a truss structure
for the fuselage, steel to be used as the material of the fuselage and strut of the wing, aluminum
to be used as the rib of the wing, and fabric to be used as the covering. Two designs for the wing
attachment and wing box were decided upon. An initial V-n diagram was constructed to show the
maximum load the aircraft can handle at particular velocities. Finally bending moments and
shear were calculated at the root of the wing. Further analysis and trade studies will have to be
conducted on the structural designs of the aircraft, but the initial designs are now in place.
26
4. Propulsion (KV)
Introduction
The design requirement indicated that the aircraft needed to take off and land from a 750
ft by 50 ft. gravel or grass runway. In addition, the operating altitude for the aircraft was only 20
ft. AGL. Finally, the selected engine must be an “off the shelf engine” that can be easily acquired
[1].
engine. For this design turbojet and turbofan engines did not seem practical or cost effective. Due
to the low operating altitude and harsh take off and landing conditions, a jet engine would be
highly susceptible to damage caused by dirt and debris being sucked into the engine. So it was
decided that a propeller driven aircraft would be the best option. Once a propeller powered
engine was decided upon, the next thing was deciding whether to use a piston engine or a Wankel
(rotary) engine. A turboprop engine could have been used, but again it would not have been very
cost efficient.
the first flight of aircraft, and also used in automobiles. Piston engines used in aircraft today are
basically just modified automobile engines that are similar in design to engines used 50 years
ago. Due to the invention of the jet engine there has not been much research and development
that has gone into updating the piston engine for aircraft use. Piston engines however have been
27
proven to be reliable engines. However, they need to be constantly adjusted during flight to insure
proper fuel and oil mixtures. The Piston engines also aren t designed for the constantly high
RPMs that aircraft require, making them more likely to overheat or break. Therefore they also
need to be overhauled quite often, usually every 1200 hours or less. And since they are so
complex, it takes a long time and a lot of money to overhaul them [6].
For example, rotary engines are designed to operate for long periods of time at high RPMs. This
is vital for aircraft. Another plus for rotary engines is that they have only a few moving parts,
compared to piston engines that have thousands of moving parts. This makes them less
susceptible to breaking. Rotary engines are also smaller in size and weight compared to piston
engines but provide more output power. They also cost less than piston engines and are cheaper
to maintain as well. The only disadvantage of rotary engines is that the combustion phase is
shorter than for a piston engine, resulting in a less efficient burn of the fuel which results in
slightly lower fuel efficiency. However current research is constantly improving the fuel
efficiency [7].
require a T/W ratio of around 0.3. For the analysis, it was difficult to accurately calculate the fuel
weight fractions due to the uncertainty of the fertilizer drop during the cruise part of the
28
mission. Therefore we were only able to estimate the amount of fuel burned during this time. We
also had to take into account the possibility where the payload is not dropped and the entire
mission is carried out with a full payload. It was also calculated that the TOGW of the aircraft
To calculate the required power needed for the aircraft, it should first be noted that the
term T/W (thrust-to-weight ratio) is used to describe jet engines while P/W (power-to-weight
ratio) is used to describe propeller engines. For homebuilt, singe engines, and/or agricultural
aircraft, a P/W of 0.07 to 0.09 is desired with units of (hp/lb) [8]. Therefore for an initial
estimate, the engine for the aircraft should be about 70-90 bhp to meet the initial design
requirements.
The next thing that needed to be calculated was the propeller diameter and the number of
propellers to be used. For our analysis, a prop system of 3 propellers was chosen to go along with
the data given in reference [8]. When comparing the number of propeller blades used, static
thrust and forward thrust will be affected. A two-bladed system will have a 3% better propeller
efficiency than a two-bladed system but with have about 5% less static thrust. A four-bladed
system though will have 5% better static thrust than the three-bladed system but a 3% reduction
4
D=K P Power bhp ft (4.1)
29
Table 4.1. KP Values (hp,ft units)
Number of Blades KP
2 1.7
3 1.6
4 1.5
Equation 4.1 and Table 4.1 were used to calculate the propeller diameter based on
horsepower and the number of blades used. Equations 4.2 and 4.3 are used to calculate the
propeller diameter at which the tips will go supersonic. The propeller diameter should be kept
under this value. For metal propellers Vtip,helical needs to be less than 950 ft/s, less than 850 ft/s for
wood propellers, and less than 700 ft/s if noise is an issue. Equation 6.1 and Table 6.1 are also
used to calculate the propeller diameter based on engine output and number of blades. After
calculating the diameter using these two methods, the smaller diameter is then chosen as the
After calculating the diameter, the static and forward thrust can then be calculated. To
calculate the thrust, Figures 13.11 and 13.12 were used from [8]. To calculate the thrust the
30
V
J= (4.4)
nD
550∗bhp
C P= (4.5)
ρ n3 D5
C T 550∗bhp
T static= lbf (4.6)
CP nD
550∗bhp∗η P
T forward flight= lbf (4.7)
V
Equation 4.4 was used to calculate the advance ratio and equation 4.5 was used to
calculate the power coefficient. These two values were used to find ηP, the propeller efficiency,
and θ3/4, the angle of the propeller ¾ of the diameter away from the hub, from Figure 13.12 in [8].
CP was then used to find CT/CP using Figure 13.11 from [8]. This data was calculated and
tabulated for the various engines being considered and for a different number of blades as well.
The engines selected for initial consideration were the Rotax 912 S piston powered engine, the
AR682R rotary engine, the Rotamax 650cc rotary engine, the Revolution One Turbo 650cc
rotary engine, and the Rotamax 1300cc rotary engine. Table 4.2 below shows the data and
31
Table 4.2 Engine Comparison Data
Rotamax Revolution Rotamax
Rotax 912 S AR682R 650cc 650cc 1300cc
Type Piston Rotary Rotary Rotary Rotary
Options w/EFI Turbocharger Turbocharger Carburetor
HP 95 90 120 120 90 120
RPM 5500 7000 8000 6500 5500 6500
Weight (lbs) 164.6 124.6 130 140 170
Cost 18,000 11,000 13,725 11,070
SFC (lb/bhp/hr) 0.54 ~0.5 ~0.5
Fuel Flow(gal/hr) 6.8 3.9 - 7.6 4.5 - 5.5 2.8 - 5.6 4.92 - 9.84
Gear Ratio 2.43:1 2.03:1 2.273:1 (est.) 2.273:1 (est.) 2.273:1 (est.)
RPMprop 2263.4 3448.3 3940.9 2859.7 2419.7 2859.7
RPSprop 37.7 57.5 65.7 47.7 40.3 47.7
D2 (ft) 5.31 5.24 5.63 5.63 5.24 5.63
D3,max 5.00 4.93 5.30 5.30 4.93 5.30
D4 4.68 4.62 4.96 4.96 4.62 4.96
Dmax,metal 7.98 5.24 4.58 6.32 7.47 6.32
Dselect 4.85 4.85 5.15 5.15 4.85 5.15
J 0.48 0.32 0.26 0.36 0.45 0.36
Cp 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.07
n,prop 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.58
Ct/Cp 1.15 2.50 2.75 2.15 1.75 2.00
Tstatic,2 312.00 421.77 509.74 549.21 420.74 510.89
Tstatic,3 328.42 443.97 536.57 578.11 442.88 537.78
Tstatic,4 344.84 466.16 563.40 607.02 465.03 564.67
Tforward,2 336.36 318.66 386.25 424.88 347.63 444.19
Tforward,3 326.56 309.38 375.00 412.50 337.50 431.25
Tforward,4 316.77 300.09 363.75 400.13 327.38 418.31
the engine to use. This engine was the cheapest of the five engines when comparing the output
power. It was also decided that a 3-blade propeller system would be the best. If 2 blades would
32
have been chosen, the forward flight thrust would be higher but the static thrust would be lower.
The opposite would be true for a 4-blade system. Therefore a 3-blade system was selected to get
the best of both. The calculation of thrust for the selected engine revealed that the resultant thrust
was more than what was needed. When looking at smaller engines initially, their power output
was just barely enough to meet the requirement. So it was decided to ere on the safe side and
upgrade to a larger class of engines. Also, since the RFP it how there should be room for
improvement and development in the future. Therefore, if a customer decides to increase the
payload, they will not have to worry about getting a new engine in the process. Also for this
analysis, drag from the cowling was not taken into consideration. So the actual thrust that the
Figure 4.1: Drawing and Model of the Rotamax Single Rotor 650cc Rotary Engine.
For the selected engine, the Rotamax Single Rotor 650cc Rotary Engine, shown above in
Figure 4.1, its turbocharged engine gives it an additional 10 lbs of boost. Figures 4.2 and 4.3
below show the difference between the engine having and not having a turbo charger. The
33
turbocharger allows more air to enter the combustion chamber, increasing the energy released
from the combustion therefore producing more power. From the Figures 4.2 and 4.3 below, it can
be seen that a turbo charger has a big effect on the output power of the engine. Figure 4.4 below
shows the thrust versus velocity curve for the Rotamax 650cc engine. This graph shows that there
is a lot of available thrust at lower RPMs. This also shows that a smaller engine may be used. See
34
Figure 4.3: HP/Torque vs. RPM with Turbocharger
Thrust vs. Velocity
1000
800
600
Thrust, T (lbf)
Actual Thrust
Cruise Speed
Static Thrust
Theoretical Thrust
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Velocity, V (ft/s)
Figure 4.4: Thrust vs Velocity Curve for the Rotamax 650cc Rotary Engine
consumption, SFC, all that could be found was that the engine had an estimate SFC of 0.5. This
35
was provided by the Rotamax Company. However from the engine data it was found that the
selected engine had an estimated fuel burn rate of 5.5 gallons per hour. It was estimated that the
mission would take about one and a half hours to complete. With a 20 minute fuel reserve and
noting that not all of the fuel will be able to be extracted, it was decided to calculate the fuel
needs for a two hour mission. Since rotary engines are capable of using regular 87 octane
gasoline, an estimated total of 11 gallons of fuel would be needed for the mission. Using the fact
that 7.5 gallons of fuel occupies 1 ft3, the aircraft will require 1.47 ft3 of fuel space [8]. Also using
the fact that one gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 pounds, the total weight of our fuel
When considering where to put the fuel in the aircraft, it the group chose between putting
it in the wings, in the fuselage, or a combination of both. Since the design calls for the wings
detaching for easier transportation, it was considered to be easier to just put the fuel in the
fuselage. Putting the fuel in detachable wings would require an extensive system of hoses and
connectors that would be prone to leaks after repeated use in the rugged landing conditions.
However, putting the fuel in the fuselage would result in a lot of empty space in the wing. What
was decided upon was to extend the wings out approximately 3 to 4 feet and then have the wings
detach after that point. This would allow fuel to be put inside the wings, using a discrete tank,
without having to worry about fuel connectors. Also if there is still leftover fuel in the wings,
they can be detached leaving the leftover fuel in the wings. If the fuel were in the detachable
36
portion of the wing, then the pilot would have to empty the fuel out of the wing before detaching
it for transportation.
requirements for the aircraft. Because the respective specialists now have a good idea of what is
required for designing and aircraft, the group will be able to go back and adjust some of the
initial estimates in order to optimize the aircraft’s performance. For propulsion, it will be needed
to go back and get more in-depth performance data for the engine picked for the aircraft. This
semester the engine was based on meeting the minimum thrust requirement and keeping it low
cost. However with the engine chosen, it seems the thrust produced may be too much. So the
engine size also may need to be recalculated as well. Also a cowling will also need to be
designed. The cowling for this design was just a basic circular design. Also the fuel system will
need to be designed in more detail. For this semester, just the sizes of the tanks needed were
calculated and the placement of those tanks was decided. Next semester after more research and
calculations are done, the fuel system will be able to be designed more in depth.
37
5. Aerodynamics (MS)
Introduction
The basic requirements for the aerodynamics of the aircraft were taken from the AIAA
2007/2008 RFP. The design calls for a very simple design that can fit in a confined space. The
purpose of the aircraft is to deliver liquid or solid material onto a field in order to spray
chemicals or drop fertilizer on the crops. Two primary requirements for the design forces are the
ability to fit in a trailer and also that the design and construction must be easy to maintain and
operate. These requirements led to the following analysis of different wing geometries, with the
results following.
efficiency of a given geometry was taken into account, but not as significantly as the prior
requirements. First, the sweep of the wing was taken into account. A wing that is swept back
generally has a lower drag for equal lift generated. But a swept back wing also introduces a more
complex design and would cost more to acquire and also be more complex to maintain. As a
result, the wing would have no sweep of the leading edge. Another geometry consideration is the
taper ratio. By the same arguments as for the sweep, a taper ratio of 1 was decided for the wing.
The use of an unswept and untapered wing also enables simpler internal structures to support the
The placement of the wing was also considered. A high-wing (mounted to the top of the
38
fuselage) versus low-wing (mounted on the bottom of the fuselage) were both considered. The
deciding factor between these two designs was dictated by the purpose of the aircraft. One of the
two main purposes of the aircraft is to spray chemicals on an agricultural field. Booms to carry
and spray the liquids need to be carried over the entire span of the wings and even further out to
increase the spray area over each pass, so the low-wing design was selected in order to
accommodate the booms. Attaching the booms to the wings will keep weight down, since the
A wing-tip is also an important aspect of a wing. The three designs that were considered
are: rounded, sharp, and cut-off tips. According to Raymer, a rounded tip would easily allow air
to flow around the tip, which will decrease the efficiency due to increased induced drag. A sharp
edge would make it more difficult for the air to flow past the tip, but would require caution when
working around the ends of the wing. The sharp design is also another component that would
have to be considered when looking at maintenance. Hence, the cut-off wing-tip was selected for
the unmanned crop-duster. The cut-off wing tip provides better resistance to airflow around the
tip and also offers the simplest design out of the three already simple designs [9].
In order to calculate the size of the wing, initial sizing data was used to perform the
calculations. From initial sizing, the wing loading of the aircraft is 11 lbs/ft2. As a result, the
wing reference area is 90.9 ft2. The span of the wings was limited to 25 feet, and as a result the
aspect ratio of 7 was selected. This aspect ratio falls in between the values that Raymer provides
39
based on historical data [9]. The historical data suggests an aspect ratio of 7.5 for agricultural
purposes and 6 for homebuilt/ultralight, both of which are appropriate descriptions for the
unmanned crop-duster design. The chord length ended up being 3.6 feet as a result. A drawing of
When the airfoil selection came under consideration, an airfoil that has lift over a wide
range of angle of attacks was desirable. At spraying speed, the angle of attack for the aircraft
must be stable enough not to cause loss of control. Since the aircraft is flying only 20 feet above
ground, any stalls might lead to a crash, so a high angle of attach at which the aircraft stalls
would be desired in order to prevent a crash. The database provided by Selig [10] was used in
deciding on a proper airfoil that would provide the performance that is demanded of an
The airfoil that was selected is the S4083; this airfoil is shown in figure 5.1 [10]. The
airfoil has a good overall lifting force, while maintaining relatively low drag through a wide
range of alpha. The CL versus angle of attack for this airfoil can be seen in figure 5.2 with a
Reynolds number of 2.10 x106, with a Mach value of 0.01. The values were obtained using
XFOIL. The maximum angle of attack that this airfoil allows before stall is more than 13 degrees.
This will provide the grounded pilot more maneuverability in which to operate the aircraft
40
Fig. 5.1 Airfoil coordinates of S4083
When considering the performance of the airfoil at the take-off and landing, stall speed
was important to calculate. According to Raymer, the stall speed can be calculated by using the
(5.1)
41
The maximum lift coefficient is known, so calculating the stall speed becomes trivial. The stall
speed becomes 24.4 fps. This speed is very reasonable for the application of an unmanned crop-
duster, since the landing speed will be 31.8 fps. This is a relatively low speed and will enable the
ground pilot enough time to make maneuvers to land the aircraft safely. With this analysis, it was
decided that high-lift devices would not have to be employed in order to provide better stall
speeds when landing/taking off. Also, the wing incidence angle to the fuselage will be set to
zero, since the lift at an angle of attack of zero is high enough to support the cruise speed of the
aircraft.
This method takes the sum of the individual components and refers it to the aircraft via the
reference area of the wing. The basic formula for finding the CDo is given as:
(5.2)
In this equation, CDπ is given in table 5.1 and the Aπ as the reference area to use for the
calculation. The CDπ values are given in Roskam and apply to propeller driven airplanes. Since
this applies only to the surfaces of the aircraft, the landing gear term will be added.
42
Table 5.1 Parasite drag buildup method
Component CDo Aπ (given in ft2)
Wing .0070 90.9 (Sref)
Fuselage .1100 8 (total fuselage frontal area)
Tail, horizontal .0080 14.8 (Sh)
Tail, vertical .0080 8.28 (Sv)
Interference Add 5% to CDo
Roughness and Add 10% to CDo
Protuberances
The total calculated parabolic drag is then CDo= 0.0187, for the surfaces of the aircraft. In
addition, the landing gear will contribute significantly. The nonretractable landing gear of the
solid spring type is given a Cd value of 0.62 [12]. This value is corrected to the sizing of the
aircraft by multiplying it by the frontal area of the wheel and dividing by the reference area of the
wing. The landing gear drag coefficient ends up being 0.008. This value is added to the total
parabolic drag, so the total parabolic drag is now 0.0267. And an additional 15% is added to this
value to account for the spraying booms, roughness, and interferences, to give the final value of
0.031.
(5.3)
(5.4)
The drag polar can be seen in Fig. 5.3 and demonstrates that the overall drag on the plane is
lowest when CL is equal to 0.7. Even though the design speed of the aircraft while flying over the
43
field is higher, the drag is still very low overall.
the airfoil, the slope was taken during the linear portion of the Cl versus angle of attack figure.
(5.5)
(5.6)
(5.7)
This formula was modified, since it also contained a term for the sweep angle, but would end up
being zero. Using the suggested value for (Sexposed/Sreference)(F) of .98, given by Raymer, the CLα is
calculated and is equal to 4.49. This value also matches the sample values provided by Raymer.
44
5.7 Future Work
Although the current geometry and airfoil selection satisfy the requirements, methods that
are more precise will be employed to maximize the performance of the aircraft, while staying
easy to maintain and simple to fly. More complex methods for predicting the accurate behavior of
the wings will be employed in the future to better predict the performance of the aircraft. The
addition of a boundary layer and other airflow properties will lead to more complex results and a
re-evaluation of the selected airfoil will ensue. Also, more accurate methods for predicting the
was to determine the size of the control surfaces, such as the vertical and horizontal tail. Then,
the neutral point was found. A weight build-up was used to determine the center of gravity using
a simple weight times moment arm analysis. These values were used to ensure the static margin
0.5 [13]. These volume ratios are defined in equations 6.1 and 6.2.
l h Sh
c ht = (6.1)
c
S
lv Sv
c vt = (6.2)
bS
45
Since different references suggest different methods to determine lh and lv, the average of
both methods was used [13]. The two methods suggest either using 2.5-3.5 times the wing s
mean aerodynamic chord or 40-50% of the wingspan. Both methods yielded approximately the
same range for the tail length. The aspect ratio of the horizontal tail is typically 4-5 while the
aspect ratio of the vertical tail is typically 2.5-3 [13]. The aspect ratios for the tail are defined in
b 2h
AR h= (6.3)
Sh
b 2v
AR v =1. 55 (6.4)
Sv
The rudder size was determined using the fact that the rudder area to vertical tail area
ranges ratio from 20-35%. The elevator size was determined using the fact that the elevator to
horizontal tail area ratio ranges from 20-35% [13]. The rudder size was used to determine the
root chord and tip chord of the vertical tail. The resulting geometry based on these equations and
given geometry of the wing are summarized in Table 6.1. When a range of values was given, the
46
Table 6.1: Horizontal and Vertical Tail Geometry
l (ft) 11.07591
Sv (ft ) 8.282105
2
Sh (ft ) 14.77408
2
bv (ft) 3.833283
bh (ft) 8.153734
cv (ft) 2.160578
ch (ft) 1.811941
Se (ft ) 4.062873
2
Sr (ft ) 2.277579
2
ct (ft) 0.594159
cr (ft) 3.726996
6.2 Determination of Neutral Point
In order to have static pitch stability, any change in angle of attack must generate
moments that oppose the change. This means that Cmα must be negative. The point where the c.g.
can be placed and there is no change in pitching moment as angle of attack is varied is called the
neutral point. This is the aft most location the c.g. can be located to still maintain static pitch
stability. Equation 6.5 shows the definition of Cmα used [14]. All positions are defined from the
tip of the fuselage with the positive defined in the aft direction.
Sh ∂ αh F ∂ αp
cg− X
C mα =C Lα X acw Cmα fus −η h
S
C Lαh
∂α
X ach− X cg qSpα ∂α
X cg− X p (6.5)
Moving the c.g. to the neutral point (Cmα=0) and solving for the position yields equation
6.6.
Sh ∂ αh F Pα ∂ α P
acw −Cmα fus η h
C Lα X C Lαh ach
X P
X
np= S ∂α qS ∂α
X (6.6)
S ∂ α h F Pα ∂ αp
C Lα ηh h C Lαh
S ∂α qS ∂α
47
Where CLα, CLαh, Xacw and S were provided from aerodynamic data. Sh was determined
above and q was determined from flight conditions. Cmαfus was determined using equation 6.7.
K F W 2F L F
C mα fus = (6.7)
cS
In this equation, KF is an empirical pitching moment factor determined from Figure 16.14
of [14]. The maximum width of the fuselage, WF, the total length of the fuselage, LF, the mean
aerodynamic chord, c, and the reference area, S, were all given parameters from the geometry of
the aircraft. The efficiency of the horizontal tail, ηh, was different for power off and power on
ηh=η hT=0 1− f sst
T
qAdisk (6.9)
The fsst factor is included to account for the area of the horizontal tail in the slipstream of
the propeller and is defined in the following equations 6.10 to 6.14. [13].
w=
1
2 [ ]
−V V 2
2T
ρA disk
(6.11)
V disk=V w (6.12)
V u=V 2w (6.13)
f sst =
bh
1 4 Au A fcst
π
(6.14)
The total downwash α derivative at the propeller is defined in terms of the upwash
48
derivative at the propeller due to the wing, which can be found using Figure 16.11 of [14]. The
∂α p ∂ εu
=1 (6.15)
∂α ∂α
The total downwash α derivative at the horizontal tail is different for power off and power
∂α h ∂ε
=1− (6.16)
∂α ∂α
∂α h ∂ε ∂ εP
=1− − f sst (6.17)
∂α ∂α ∂α
∂ε
In this case, was found using Figure 16.12 of [14] and is based on the aspect ratio, r,
∂α
m, and λ. The parameters r and m were found using equations 6.18 and 6.19, respectively.
lt
r=
b (6.18)
2
Zt
m=
b (6.19)
2
The α derivative of the downwash produced by the propeller slipstream at the tail was
∂ εP ∂ C Nblade ∂ α P
=K 1K 2 N B (6.20)
∂α ∂α ∂α
NB is the number of blades. K1 and K2 are propeller downwash factors and were found
using Figure 16.17 in [14]. The propeller normal force coefficient were found using Figure 16.15
49
in [14]. The propeller normal force coefficient was also used to calculate the propeller normal
∂ C Nblade
F Pα =qN B Adisk f T (6.21)
∂α
The function f(T) was found in Figure 16.16 of [14]. Once all of the parameters were
defined, the neutral point was found using equation 6.21. The neutral point was found to be 4.29ft
from the front of the fuselage with the power off and 4.27ft from the front of the fuselage with
determined using the weight build-up from Configurations. The moment arm for each
component in each flight condition was computed using the angle of attack information from
Performance, where the front of the fuselage was the datum. The results are summarized in table
6.2.
50
6.4 Determination of Static Margin
In order to have a neutrally stable aircraft, the c.g. must be located in front of the neutral
point. This means the static margin (as defined in equation 6.22) must be positive.
np − X
S . M .= X cg (6.22)
The static margin was initially negative for the cruise condition. In order to adjust for this,
the payload was moved closer to the engine. Since the fertilizer is flammable, a firewall was
added to the engine configuration. This added more weight to the front of the plane and the c.g.
shifted forward, resulting in static pitch stability for the cruise condition. The static margin for
the landing condition was also initially negative. The avionics box and the agricultural system s
sphere were shifted forward in the fuselage. The results for the static margin for the flight
increasing the perpendicular distance between the wing and horizontal tail. The results are
51
Table 6.4: Static Margin for each flight condition with t-tail configuration
Static Margin [%] Static Margin [%]
Mission Segment (power off) (power on)
Takeoff 13.7 13.1
Climb 14.9 14.2
Cruise beginning 12.1 11.6
Cruise end 2.9 2.5
Descent 5.9 5.5
Landing 2.9 2.5
The T-tail configuration proved to have a larger static margin than the traditional
configuration. The T-tail configuration is more likely to pitch up at high angles of attack when
the propeller is on than the traditional configuration, but this particular aircraft will not generally
be operating at high angles of attack. Further investigation into the cost and benefits of the T-tail
configuration is required.
to that, the flexibility of the longitudinal fuselage, wing span-wise bending, and wing torsional
deflection must be considered. The dynamic stability will be the largest challenge for this
aircraft, as much of the mission profile includes turns. There is also a constant payload drop
throughout the cruise condition. This will provide additional dynamic instabilities. Ensuring
dynamic stability will probably involve the development of a stability augmentation system.
7. Performance
Introduction
Conventional crop dusters are often lowerend small aircraft models that an airplane
manufacturer may have on their product line. This is because simple designs are often suitable for
52
the relative short range and low service ceilings of the missions flown during crop dusting. For
these reasons the RFP asks for an affordable, uncomplicated Agricultural Unmanned Aircraft
particles) to a plot of about 61 acres. In addition, the fuel reserves are to be designed to last a
total of 20 minutes of flight. The aircraft will cruise at an altitude of 20 feet to apply the
fertilizers to the field; however ferry flights require the aircraft to be airworthy at 1,000 feet.
Flight at this altitude will be discussed in the ferry mission profile section. The landing and
takeoff distances are at a maximum of 750 feet.
It can be inferred from the RFP that the performance requirements necessary to fulfill the
customer’s criteria are low when compared to general aviation. Consequently, this crop duster is
primarily designed around costeffectiveness, simplicity in design, and reliability under varying
circumstances. These are the motivators for developing the performance analysis in the mission
profile segments.
7.1 Crop Dusting Mission Profile
Crop dusting requires a mission profile that is highly symmetrical. However, it differs
from other aircraft mission profiles in that the payload is not detached at one point during the
cruise segment but in this scenario the payload is dispersed throughout the entire duration of the
cruise segment. Figure 7.1 illustrates such a mission. Segment 1 is the warmup and taxi five
minute requirement before the 2nd segment (takeoff). The aircraft must climb, segment 3, to its
53
50foot above ground level (AGL) requirement. Once it is aligned with the field the crop duster
will descend to a 20foot AGL, segment 4, where it will spray the field until the entire area has
been covered in the 5th segment. Finally, segments 68 are climb, descent, and landing
respectively.
7.2 Warmup and Taxi
Segment 1 assumes the aircraft is built from the configuration in which it was transported
and is powered up. The performance requirements for this segment are accounted by the
propulsion system to be able to taxi and the landing gear to be able to move in different runway
conditions. These issues are discussed in their respective sections.
7.3 Takeoff
The AUAS is not heavily regulated by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
airworthiness standards because of the low service ceilings, flight in urban areas, and unmanned
flight system. Nevertheless, a 50foot requirement for clearing an obstacle was given by the RFP
to ensure the aircraft will clear possible telephone poles and twostory buildings in the
54
surrounding area. Eq. 7.1 and its integral were used to numerically compute the takeoff velocity
to be 108.9 feet/second and takeoff distance to be 532 feet. In this analysis no intermediate
safety speeds were calculated because the aircraft is equipped with a single propeller. Refer to
Figure 7.2 for the computed values.
1
v t=v t [T −D−W −L] t (7.1)
m
7.4 Climb and Descent
There are two climb and descent portions during the mission profile. In the first portion,
the aircraft climbs from sea level to 50 feet then it descends to 20 feet. In the second portion, the
aircraft climbs from 20 feet to 50 feet then it descends to sea level. The velocity, given a rate of
climb dh/dt, is calculated via Eq. 7.2. It was calculated that a 13degree climb and descent angle
for takeoff and landing, respectively, was favorable. The average velocity during the climb
segments was 185 feet/second while it was 95 feet/second for descent segments.
dv T – D 1 dh
=v t[g – ] t (7.2)
dt W v dt
55
7.5 Cruise and Turns
Potential customers will most likely base the performance of this aircraft on its ability to
dispense fertilizers onto the field. Hence the fifth segment of the mission profile, as illustrated in
Figure 7.1, is the most critical in achieving product differentiation from other crop dusters on the
market.
Length and width requirements for a rectangle 61 acre plot of land are give to be 2640
feet and 1,000 feet respectively. It is estimated that at an altitude of 20 feet and a wingspan of 25
feet the sprayer system will have a swath width of 30 feet. Figure 7.3 demonstrates the proposed
mission path around the field. Since the swath width will have to cover the 1,000 feet width of
the field, the aircraft will have to make 34 passes. It is desirable for the aircraft to finish the entire
job (including turns) in 70 minutes in order to optimize the maximum flight time to be 1.5 hours
including the 20minute fuel reserve. Given this constraint the aircraft can spray the field at 65
miles per hour during each pass. This value is well above the stall velocity.
A steadylevel turn analysis was made using Eq. 7.3. The load factor n was capped by the
structural limitations of the aircraft. See the structures discussion. This allowed for up to 175
degrees/second for turn rate at a 76.4 degree bank angle. The mission requires two regimes of
turns. From the improvised runway to the field the sharpest turn radius is 20 feet while from one
pass to another the sharpest turn radius is 15 feet.
g
= n2−1 (7.3)
v
56
Figure 7.3: Mission Path
7.6 Landing
The discussion for landing is analogous to the discussion for takeoff. Minor exceptions
occur in the landing flare complications. The descent and landing distances in Figure 7.4 account
for the flare, increased coefficient of friction and decreased velocity during landing. The short
landing distance is augmented by the reverse thrust provided by the power plant.
7.7 Ferry Mission Profile
This AUAS must be capable to fly ferry flights for special transportation and
miscellaneous missions. The mission profile is then modified to figure 7.5. Warmup, taxi, take
57
off, and landing requirements remain the same for this mission profile. However, the climb,
descent, and cruise segments must be altered to account for a reduction in atmospheric density
from 2.37 x 103 lb/ft2 at sealevel to 2.30 x 103 lb/ft2 at 1,000 ft. This crop duster will not have
altitudes is the powerplant. In spite of this the drop in density is insignificant and the rotary
engine can operate under those altitude effects and also achieve the twomile range required.
7.8 Conclusion
This section attempts to quantify the aircraft’s performance as it applies to achieving the
requirements of the customer. This AUAS meets all the requirements given by the RFP while
maintaining costs low. However, due to limitations in this report the discussion here is
rudimentary and details in calculations were omitted. As the project develops and more data
becomes available, an indepth discussion into mission optimization will be presented.
58
8. Configurations (JN, DC)
Introduction
The purpose of the configurations is to coordinate all of the other areas and bring the
design together into one unified airplane. The first step was to pick a design path and then to
narrow the design so that more advanced analysis was possible. The group looked at three more
radical designs against the standard configuration as the starting point for the project.
Forth Edition by Daniel Raymer [18]. The sizing was preformed to get an initial takeoff weight
(Wo) estimate for an aircraft that would meet the design requirements. The method in Raymer
starts by breaking the weight down in to four different components; The weight of the crew,
The weight of the fuel and the weight of the empty aircraft are directly related to the
takeoff weight, and as such the equation written above can be expressed as
Wf We
W o =W crewW payload (8.2)
Wo Wo
The weight of the crew and payload were set forth in the RFP. Since this is an unmanned
aircraft, the crew weight is zero. The payload weight was set to 300 pounds, as per the
requirements set fourth in the RFP. It should also be noted that there was no consideration for the
payload drop during this analysis. This was so that if there was a problem with the delivery
59
system the aircraft would still be able to land safely, also this would provide a lager margin of
The weight of the fuel was found by performing calculations to find the fuel fraction
Wf/Wo (the weight of the fuel divided by the takeoff weight). First the mission profile had to be
analyzed, and broken in to segments, as previously discussed in section [18]. The mission has
three distinct parts; the takeoff, the crop dusting, and finally the landing. As per the RFP
specifications, no credit was given to the climb or decent. The crop dusting was represented in
this analysis as several consecutive cruise segments. The number of cruise segments required was
determined by taking the width of the field (1000 ft) and dividing that by the wingspan of the
airplane. According to Raymer’s method the fuel fraction for takeoff is .970. Raymer also lists
the Landing fuel fraction as .985. The cruse segment fuel fractions was calculated using the
Range of the cruse (.5 miles), the velocity of the aircraft (estimated to be 65 miles per hour, or 93
feet per second), the L/D (estimated to be 20), and the specific fuel consumption (estimated to be
(2.34E-5). The fuel fraction was determined to be .999, with 134 passes required to completely
spray the field. The fuel fractions were multiplied together to get the mission fuel fraction. The
RFP also called for 20 minutes of reserve fuel. This yielded a total fuel fraction W f/Wo .067.
Table 8.1 has a short summery of the Mission fuel break down.
60
Table 8.1: Fuel Fraction
Mission segment wi/wi1
Takeoff 0.97
Landing 0.995
Each pass of the field 0.999
Wi/Wo for take off and first pass, no payload drop 0.97
Wi/Wo for take off and all passes, no payload drop 0.97
Wi/Wo for take off, all passes and landing, no payload drop 0.96
Wf/Wo (including reserve fuel) 0.067
The next step was to calculate the empty fuel fraction We/Wo This was done using in
iterative process. The gross takeoff weight equation above can also be expressed as
W crewW payload
W o=
W f We (8.3)
1− −
Wo Wo
The weight of the Crew, Payload, and the fuel fraction are all ready known, so a Wo was guessed.
From this guess and historical data a We/Wo, can be calculated. This calculation was then
plugged in to the above equation and compared with the guess. Microsoft excel was used to do
the iterations. If the Guessed Wo and the calculated Wo did not match, the Guessed and the
calculated weights were averaged and the calculation was repeated using this average until the
two numbers were with in a pound of each other. The We/Wo was found to be .603.
From these numbers the initial takeoff weight was estimated to be 910 pounds. Since this
was just an estimation it was decided to ere on the side of caution and round the take off weight
to 1000 pounds for all initial calculations. Upon doing a weight build up later this number ended
up being a fairly good estimation of the aircrafts weight. table 8.2 has a breakdown of the weight
were: a VTOL craft, a flying wing, and a twin boom pusher. Sketches of these designs are shown
in table 8.3. Basic research was conducted by the team to evaluate the effectiveness of each
design. To get a conceptual idea of how these ideas might work in the real world, different
categories were chosen to provide a basis for comparison. With the traditional design as the
baseline, numerical values were assigned to each quality so that a quantitative approach might be
taken. The results of this analysis are found in table 8.3. After careful consideration and much
discussion, the group decided that a radical design was not the best way to meet the demands of
the RFP. All three of the radical aircraft designs were given a negative rank, indicating that while
each had advantages for this application, overall they were not well suited to give the highest
62
Table 8.3: Design Comparison
VTOL Flying Wing Twin boom pusher
Traditional
-4- high composite -2- composites are N- No components
Overall Cost makeup, high necessary for greatly increase or
propeller costs complex structure decrease overall cost
+1- propellers are in N- Generally is as
+1- controlled
cased in a ring, safe as traditional
Safety landing with power
minimal risk of when no passengers
off
injury are on board.
-3- requires
N- no problems were N – Cg is farther back
Stability computer software
found with stability but not an issue
and control laws
+1- large wetted -1- Engine cooling is a
N- no positive or area allows easy problem causing
Maintenance
negative in this area access for stress on engine
maintenance components
+1- designed for the N- no major -1- Rocks and debris
Durability military, can with advantages or are a problem in the
stand a lot disadvantages prop
-1- as of now too +1- entire surface
N- Extra boom
TOGW light for the lifts giving less
weight is minimal
applications needed weight
N- wings less
N- computer
+1- handles well, effective and tail
Handling controls allow
easy to maneuver more effective due to
ease of hangling
prop wash
+1- already has had
-1- Propwash is where
Spray spray cans +1- lots of area to
spray system
integration integrated in other install sprayer
operates
designs
-1- blended wing
+1- wings are N- No major
Ability to fit can not be
detachable, small advantages or
in truck separated for
enough to fit disadvantages
transport
N- No major N- No major
+1- Minimal, entire
Drag advantages or advantages or
body lifts
disadvantages disadvantages
63
Total 0 -1 -3
8.3 Constraint Analysis
To get initial values of the thrust to weight ratio and the wing loading, a constraint
analysis was done. This analysis utilized equations in Raymer [19] as well as historical data for
similar class aircraft. The results of this analysis are best summarized in figure 8.1 below. From
this graph a design point was chosen which gave the group a rough estimation of the thrust
required for this vehicle as well as the most basic dimensions of the wing. This point is shown
below in figure 8.1 and has a corresponds to a T/Wo value of .3 and a Wo/S of 11. The constraint
analysis made many assumptions and estimations so that a basic design could be molded into a
Wing loading vs. Thrust to weight
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000 Cruis e
Landing
T/Wo
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000 10.0000 20.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 60.0000
Wo/S
64
airfoil was chosen and from that many other qualities were locked into place. An initial tail
sizing, following The Principles of Design [18], gave the final necessary to construct a detailed
weight build up. The weight buildup not only gave a more accurate estimate of the gross take off
weight but also broke it out into components so that the CG of the craft could be found. The
lbs. From this point the weight of the plane was broken down into components so that more
8.5 Modeling
Once the basic structure of the airframe was decided upon, sketching and modeling
became necessary. Using the software package, Autodesk Inventor each of the components were
modeled and then joined in and assembly file. This visualization was important because it gave
the group a clear idea of what it looked like as well as provided an excellent means of
communicating the idea to others. The first view of the plane was only the most basic
65
Figure 8.2: First Visualization
The second iteration of the design incorporated more elements of the design as well as
changed the aesthetic of the plane by adding fillets. The front of the fuselage was modified to
include a rounded, lower drag front section and lead to a more aerodynamic shape as is seen in
figure 8.3.
The third model in this design string includes the final modifications for the airframe.
Main landing gear were added to the underside of the fuselage. Also, the vertical tail was
redesigned; a tapered leading edge was added for decreased drag. The final model included as an
isometric view in figure 8.4 as well as a detailed (dimensioned) view on the next page.
66
67
68
8.6 Conclusion
All of the internal components will need to be modeled in the next stage of the project.
Additionally, it will be necessary to modify the current design. As more and more detail is added
considerations in weather or not it gets purchased. To this end it is important to find the expected
flyaway and operating costs of the proposed UAV. With this information, the consumers can
make an informed decision on weather or not this UAV will help them with there farming
operation.
are already remote control airplanes that have software that allow the operator to practice flying
from their computer, using the actual remote control used to operate the aircraft. This UAV will
take it one step further and use the same software used to simulate flight on the computer to
Feedback will be provided to the pilot through two cameras, one mounted to each wing,
and a GPS located mounted in the fuselage. It is assumed the pilot will be the farmer who owns
the land, and that they are intimately acquainted with their fields. The GPS locator will show
where the aircraft is on a map, as well as show the UAV s velocity. A third camera will be
69
mounted in the aft part of the fuselage so that the farmer can watch the spray fall and ensure
proper fertilizer distribution. The cameras will cost $300 each, and the GPS locater will cost
$800.
The information will be relayed back to the ground station via an antenna. A suitable
antenna can be purchased for under $200, as a very powerful antenna is not needed. This leads to
a total avionics cost of $1700. The software and ground station will cost about the same as a
modern personal computer, which is $2000. This brings the total cost for avionics and ground
operation to $3700.
different cost models available; however, as this is a rather unique aircraft, none of the models
The first cost model used was found in Aircraft Design, A Conceptual Approach, fourth
edition, by Daniel Raymer. This flyaway cost method provided in this book was intended for
aircraft that are much larger then the aircraft proposed in this report. The method provided in this
book is dependent on the gross takeoff weight of the aircraft, the maximum velocity, and the
70
number of aircraft to be produced in five years. Upon direct application of this cost model, the fly
away cost for one aircraft was found to be over six million dollars; this is an unrealistic and high
number. Upon assuming ten thousand UAVs would be produced over the course of five years, the
cost per UAV came out to be $65,000. While this number is more reasonable, it is still seems
high. The method in Raymer was then modified to take into account the nature of this UAV. First,
the tooling cost was greatly reduced because a major goal of this craft is to use as many off the
shelf parts as possible. Anything that is already being built does not need new tooling. For the
same reason, the manufacturing cost was reduced. After modification, the cost method in Raymer
for one UAV came out to be just over one million dollars. Assuming that ten thousand UAVs
would be produced in five years, the cost per UAV came out to be around over $58,000.
The reason that the cost comes down per UAV created is due to a learning curve effect .
It is assumed that the more aircraft that are produced, the more the manufacturer is going to
know about producing the aircraft. The more one knows about manufacturing an aircraft, the
more efficient they will be. Another reason that the cost per UAV goes down with each aircraft
produced is that one time fixed costs, such as research and development, tooling, and the like gets
71
The next cost methods applied came from [21]. The methods in this book were based just
on the gross takeoff weight and the type of aircraft being manufactured. For an agricultural
aircraft, the UAV cost was $12,000. This method was for aircraft over twelve hundred pounds.
For an ultra light, the cost was $10,000, but this method was for use on aircraft less than eight
hundred pounds. The cost method provided for a sail plane was the only method whose weight
requirement was within the weight of the UAV. The cost associated with this method was
$23,000. One last method was used to find the cost of the UAV. This was for the single engine,
piston plane, and the cost associated with this method was $20,000 dollars. The average of all of
fuel used by the UAV. The UAV will use approximately 12 gallons of fuel per mission. Using the
current price of gas ($3.50/gal), the cost of fuel per mission is $42. The cost of the chemicals
used will not be included in this analysis, because they can vary widely depending on the
chemical and concentration used. For example, some historical costs for fertilizer applications are
less than $1.00 an acre, and anti fungal applications can cost as much as $5.00 and acre. It
assumed that those are costs the farmer will have regardless of whether they use a ground based
system, a traditional crop duster, or the proposed UAV. If the farmer needs the chemicals to
ensure a quality crop, he will make sure they are applied. Since it is assumed that the farmer will
72
be the owner of this UAV and the UAV can be stored in a barn, no cost is being associated with
storage. It is assumed that the UAV will have a life span of approximately 15 years, and assuming
6% depreciation per year, the UAV will depreciate in value $3000 a year. This will leave 10% of
the initial value left after 15 years, which is the expected value of the plane on the resale market
[22].
From a report created by the university of Idaho [23] , the average total number of
chemical applications on a field in one season is 13, as seen in Table 9.3. It should be noted that
this report did not include the number of times fertilizer was applied. However, not every type of
crop needs every type of chemical. For example, corn is generally not sprayed with fungicide.
This leads to a total fuel cost of $550 per field, assuming a sixty acre field, or $9 per acre per
season. The engine is uses 5.5 gallons of fuel an hour, at a cost of $20 an hour. The engine oil
needs to be changed after every 1500 hours of flight time, or once every 3 months if 1500 hours
is not reached first. The engine uses 5 quarts of oil, at a cost of $12 a quart. This means that 20
quarts of oil will be needed each year, with a total cost of $240 per year. If the 1500 hours is
reached before 3 months, the cost is negligible per hour. The farmer should be familiar with the
73
spray system and be able to perform the required maintenance with negligible cost. One hour of
inspection and maintenance will be required for every 5 hours of flight, at a cost of $78 an hour
[22], or $15 a flight hour. This leads to an hourly operating and maintenance cost of $35.6 an
hour. This is comparable with an ultra light crop duster, the gt500 [23]. Insurance will be
option. They are readily available, and farmers are very familiar with the current systems.
However, upon further analysis, a preassembled system would either have too big of boom, or too
small of a tank for this particular aircraft. The smallest tractor mounted system with a 500 gallon
tank has a 30 foot boom. The proposed UAV only has room for two 11 foot booms, so even
cutting the boom in half and rerouting it results in 9 feet of waste. The pre-built spray systems
with a 22 foot boom have 65 gallon tanks. In addition to this, complete systems are very
expensive. The complete 500 gallon system described above costs $4,000.
The next option that was explored was building the spray system by buying separate parts
and putting them together. This would mean that a farmer will be intimately acquainted with the
operation and maintenance of the equipment. This maintains one of the key advantages of the
pre-built spray, as it will be very similar to land based equipment that this UAV will be replacing.
In addition, all of the equipment is readily available. For the boom, an ATV sprayer appears to be
74
the best option; they come in eleven foot booms and cost $170 a piece. A 500 gallon tank costs
$665. The pump will cost $1100. The hose costs 1.55 per foot, and since 45 feet of hose is
needed, the cost of the hose will be $70. This brings the total cost of the sprayer system to $2175,
a little more than half of the cost of the 500 gallon pre-built spray system. Building the spray
system from parts rather than buying a pre-built system also allows the UAV to be customized to
The booms will be directly mounted to the wings just after the leading edge. The tank
will be positioned in the fuselage inline with the wings and the pump will be located 6 feet
to be found or developed. Also the operating costs need to be refined as well. In effort to do this,
more attempts will be made to contact people and companies all ready in the industry. The exact
avionics package also needs to be refined, this is a revolutionary aircraft, and as a result using
existing data has yielded questionable results, but with more time and effort a solution will soon
75
10. Conclusion
The general direction of this particular agricultural aircraft is clear. The main goal of this
aircraft is to allow for more payload than was required while still maintaining a reasonable cost.
Another goal was to ensure that the user of this aircraft is already familiar with most of the
equipment. In order to reach this goal, many off the shelf parts were chosen. After comparison
with many options, a low-wing puller aircraft proved to be the superior choice. With the current
design, there is still room in the fuselage for extra payload. In addition, the current proposed
76
11. References
[1] 2007-2008 AIAA Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition,
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=223 Retrieved November 2008
[2] Teichmann, Frederick, “Design of the Wing”, “The Fuselage”, Airplane Design Manual,
Pitman Publishing Corporation, New York, 1939, pp. 159-195, 222-229.
[3] Pomilio, Ottorino, “Structure of the Airplane” Airplane Design and Construction,
McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York, 1919, pp.37-44.
[4] Younger, John, Airplane Construction and Repair, McGraw-Hill Vocational Texts, New
York, 1931.
[5] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 388-449
[6] “Rotary Aircraft Engines,” [online], October 2007,
http://rotaryaircraftengines.com/enginemodels.htm [retrieved 8 October 2007]
[7] “Rotomax Engines,” [online], October 2007, http://www.rotamax.net/aviation.html
[retrieved 8 October 2007]
[8] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 365-387
[9] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 302-364
[10] UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database Version 2.0 Updated 11/29/2006
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html Retrieved November 2008
[11] Roskam, Jan, Methods for Estimating Drag Polars of Subsonic Airplanes, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 1973.
[12] Roskam, Jan: Airplane Design Part III Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and
Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Profiles Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation
Ottawa, Kansas, 1985
[13] Richgruber, Chris. “Stability and Control” University of Illinois, Champaign, Il 2007.
77
[14] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 467-513
[15] Anderson, J.D., Jr., Aircraft Performance and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[16] McCormick, B.W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, John Wiley &
Sons, 2nd Ed. 1995.
[17] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 514-560
[18] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 451-464
[19] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 111-126
[20] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, J.A.
Schetz, Ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 4th Ed.
2006, pg 561-578
[21] Roskam Jan: Airplane Design Part VIII Airplane Cost Estimation Design, Development,
Manufacturing and Operating Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation Ottawa,
Kansas, 1985
[22] Water Quality update, University of Idaho, Volume3, Number 4 August 1993
http://www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqu/wqu34.html
[23]Quick Silver Aircraft, GT500, http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/gtspray.htm
Retrieved November 2008
78