JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Preliminary Sizing Correlations for Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle Characteristics

Dries Verstraete∗
University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
Jennifer L. Palmer†
Defence Science and Technology Group, Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207, Australia
and
Mirko Hornung‡
Technische Universität München, Garching 85747, Germany
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199
A comprehensive set of preliminary sizing correlations can be invaluable in the early design stages of any aircraft or
to provide initial characteristics for multidisciplinary optimization. For unmanned aircraft, such a set of correlations
is not available. The current paper provides correlations based on data for 856 fixed-wing platforms. Correlations for
the main mission, mass, and geometric parameters are derived through a nonlinear least-squares regression analysis.
Where needed, a distinction is made between aircraft employing different propulsion systems; and the aircraft are
split into five categories: piston-, battery-, turbine-, fuel-cell-, and solar-powered aircraft. Significant trends are
revealed, and a closed set of correlations is provided to generate an initial sizing, starting from mission and payload
requirements.

Nomenclature [1–6]. For more unconventional and/or low-production volume

A = regression constant aircraft categories like airships or model aircraft, on the other hand,
B = regression exponent the early parameter specification is often based on empiricism and
B0 = regression exponent for the null hypothesis rules of thumb [1,7]. Regardless of the design approach, empirical
b = wingspan, m correlations between key design parameters are often preferred in
D = Cook’s distance early concept appraisals, as they enable a fast evaluation of a range of
dfbetas = delete-1 scaled difference in coefficient estimates design parameter combinations [2–4,8].
dffits = delete-1 scaled change in fitted values Despite the increased importance of unmanned aerial vehicles
E = endurance, h (UAVs), both from an application and an economic perspective,
m = number of fitted coefficients empirical relations for their main characteristics are scarce and are
mE = empty mass, kg typically based on a limited number of platforms [9–11]. The present
mPL = payload mass, kg paper aims to fill this gap by developing scaling laws through
mTO = gross takeoff mass, kg empirical fitting of the interdependence of the essential character-
n = number of observations in the dataset istics of 856 platforms. Whereas not all entries in the dataset are
P = engine power, kW complete, its breadth and depth permit the derivation of significant
p = probability statistical trends and relationships amongst the parameters. These can
R2 = coefficient of correlation serve as initialization for concept evaluations and multidisciplinary
Sw = wing area, m2 optimization studies, or they can provide a benchmark and sanity
sB = standard error of the computed power-law exponent check for the evaluation of new proposals by design teams, vendors,
t = test statistic for the t distribution and service providers.
X = independent parameter The paper furthermore attempts to balance the two aforementioned
Y = dependent parameter design approaches by considering a manageable set of parameters,
for which information is readily found in the public domain and
developing quantitative relations amongst those parameters. This
provides a good balance between the empiricism of the model aircraft
I. Introduction approach and the detailed bottom-up approach of specifications for

E ARLY design phases for aircraft are characterized by a high

degree of design freedom and are therefore inherently highly
iterative in nature. A variety of approaches can thus be adopted to
estimate the size and performance of a new design [1]. For the initial
design stages of conventional manned aircraft, one usually relies
strongly on historical data to obtain a starting point and concept
Received 30 August 2016; revision received 9 July 2017; accepted for
publication 7 August 2017; published online 15 September 2017. Copyright
© 2017 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and
permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com;
employ the ISSN 0021-8669 (print) or 1533-3868 (online) to initiate your
request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp.
*Senior Lecturer, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic
Engineering; Dries.Verstraete@sydney.edu.au. Senior Member AIAA.
†
Senior Research Scientist, Aerospace Division, 506 Lorimer Street.
‡ are predominantly collected from [12] to provide characteristics that
Professor, Lehrstuhl für Luftfahrtsysteme, Boltzmannstrasse 15. Senior
Member AIAA.
Article in Advance / 1
conventional aircraft. Although data for manned aircraft, if adjusted
for known differences in manned- and unmanned-aircraft data, can be
useful and meaningful for large UAVs, manned-aircraft correlations
cease to be valid for smaller UAVs and available data can be limited
for certain types of propulsion systems. For instance, manned-aircraft
data for electric propulsion systems (whether battery-, fuel-cell-, or
solar-powered) are scarce; hence, correlations for manned aircraft
would not be available for use in the design of UAVs in those
categories. However, the correlations provided here could, if adjusted
to account for differences, be used as a starting point for manned
aircraft with those propulsion systems.
II. Methodology
The correlations presented in this paper are derived from the
principal characteristics of 856 unique fixed-wing platforms. Data
are defined as consistently as possible. For a small number of
 2 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
Table 1 Number of
UAVs with each propulsion-
system type in the dataset
Type n following form:
All types 856
Battery 230
Fuel cell 32
Solar 40
Piston 432
Turbine 107
platforms (less than 5%), supplemental data from [13] and
manufacturers’ specifications are added. The number of UAVs in the
dataset for each different propulsion-system type, n, is listed in
Table 1. Note that the sum of the numbers of entries in the dataset for
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199
the various subclasses of UAVs is slightly less than the total number
in the population. This is because UAVs powered by ramjets and
rocket motors, as well as unpowered (glider or ballistic) UAVs, are
included in the complete population, but not considered separately,
because there are so few in each category.
Correlations are derived in the form of power laws because the
datasets, when logarithmically transformed, are strongly linear in
most cases. This is also a very common formulation for manned-
aircraft preliminary design laws [2,3,10,14] and is used for
empirical regression analyses in many disciplines [15]. The bulk of
the correlations presented in this paper are thus in the following
form:
Y
A ⋅ XB (1)
where Y is the dependent parameter; X is the independent
parameter; and A and B are regression coefficients derived from an
ordinary least-squares (OLS) fit of the logarithmically transformed
data for the various platforms, performed in MATLAB® using the
fit function.
Although the data are intrinsically linear and logarithmic
transformations are used to enable OLS regression [16], several
features of the data must be considered when applying this statistical
approach. First, in deriving some of the power-law fits, it is unclear
which variable should be considered independent and which should
be considered dependent. For example, a power-law relationship
between payload mass and maximum gross takeoff mass (MGTOM)
is desired; however, the selection of the independent variable is not
obvious because no “experimenter” is controlling either variable
[16]. The choice can have a significant effect on the resulting power
law because of regression dilution bias, which occurs when the
independent variable is susceptible to random error [17].
At any given value of a selected independent variable (e.g.,
MGTOM), the dependent variable being examined (e.g., payload
mass or wingspan) displays scatter about its mean value; if the
independent and dependent variables are switched, scatter in the
variable originally chosen as the independent variable (MGTOM)
may also be nonnegligible. Leaving aside for the moment the usual
requirements of normality and constant variance in the distribution of
the errors in the logarithmically transformed data [16], this scatter can
be considered comparable to the random error that would be found in
a measured dataset. Scatter is expected in the UAV dataset as a result
of technology and requirement changes, improvements in design and
manufacturing practices, and variations in design intent and mission,
along with Reynolds-number effects and increased propulsion-
system efficiency for larger vehicles [1,8,14]. It is anticipated that the
level of scatter will be higher for the current UAV dataset than for
equivalent datasets of manned aircraft due to the wide range of
materials (from foam over composites to metal) and propulsion
technologies used, as well as the large variety of roles for which
UAVs are designed.
Thus, rather than applying a correction for regression dilution that
would be appropriate if the independent variable were identifiable
[17], here, the technique employed by Greenewalt [18] in analyzing
data for flying birds and insects has been used. The data for one of the
variables, Y are fitted with the other variable, X, taken to be
“independent,” yielding the coefficients in an expression of the
ln Y
ln A1   B1 ⋅ ln X
Then, the data are fitted with the selections of the independent and
dependent variables reversed to obtain the coefficients for the
following expression:
ln X
ln A2   B2 ⋅ ln Y
Rearranging the second expression to obtain ln Y as a function of
ln X and evaluating the geometric mean of the slopes from the two
regression analyses yields
p














B
B1 ∕B2
which is deemed the most suitable representation of the slope of the
logarithmically transformed dataset. The corresponding value of the
coefficient A appearing in Eq. (1) is the value that places a line of
slope B through the centroid of the data for ln X and ln Y. It is
given by
!
1 Xn Xn
lnA
ln Y i  − B ln X i 
n i
1 i
1
where n is the number of observations in the dataset (the number of
UAVs for which data for a particular set of independent and
dependent variables are available).
In addition to the aforementioned method to improve the
robustness of the fit, biasing of the derived correlations by outliers is
avoided through several methods. Outliers are identified as points on
the fringes of the data cloud for a particular set of independent and
dependent variables that have either a high leverage or a high
influence on the coefficients. The influence measures used here are
MATLAB functions for Cook’s distance D, “delete-1 scaled change
in fitted values” (dffits), and “delete-1 scaled difference in coefficient
estimates” (dfbetas) [19]. Cook’s distance and dffits measure the
impact of omitting a specific observation on the vector of regression
coefficients, whereas dfbetas identifies the influential observations
for individual regression coefficients [19]. The following cutoff
values are adopted in the current analysis [19]:
4
D>
n1−m
r




m
dffits > 2 ⋅
n
2
dfbetas > p


(2)
n
where n is the number of observations in the database and m is the
number of coefficients to be fitted. Points that exceed the cutoff value
for one or more of the three criteria are removed from the analysis to
determine the regression coefficients, but they are included in the
plotted datasets to indicate the spread on the data.
Despite all measures taken to increase the robustness of the fitting
process, the datasets analyzed here do not strictly meet the
requirements for statistical analysis through linear regression because
of the (likely) nonrandomness of the scatter (“errors”) and because
the scatter may not to be normally distributed or have constant
variance at different values of a chosen independent variable [16].
However, a statistically based approach is appropriate for obtaining a
useful set of correlations and is deemed fit for this purpose.
 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
III. Results and Discussion
The results of the various fits are given in this section. As the
correlations are intended to provide a closed set for the conceptual
and preliminary designs of UAVs, mission-related parameters such as
payload and endurance are investigated first. The MGTOM is
determined from the payload requirement because the purpose of a
UAV is often to carry a certain payload for an intended mission; then,
other mass correlations are explored. Geometric parameters are
investigated next, before engine and performance characteristics are
analyzed. Finally, a comparison is made between data for UAVs and
data for light manned aircraft to reveal the differences and similarities
between manned and unmanned aircraft.
A. Mission Parameters
Mission capabilities are paramount to the selection of a platform to
perform a specific task. Payload capacity and mission endurance are
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199
therefore selected as key starting points (input parameters) for the
process. The first scaling laws derived here relate MGTOM and
payload mass, enabling the MGTOM of a UAV to be estimated from
the desired payload mass, or vice versa. Scaling laws relating the
endurance to the MGTOM and payload mass are then derived. These
permit estimation of the UAV’s endurance for given values of
MGTOM and payload mass. Although payload is often traded for
fuel, the use of payload mass, rather than a useful load, permits direct
sizing based on the intended use of the UAV. Alternatively, readers
may choose to use the correlation for empty to takeoff mass of the
aircraft to initiate sizing based on the useful load (fuel and payload).
1. Payload Mass
Figure 1 shows the variation of the MGTOM, mTO , with the
payload mass, mPL , for the various classes of unmanned aircraft. The
logarithmically transformed data for the complete UAV population
are strongly linear, as indicated by the observed coefficient of
correlation (R2 value) of 0.945 [16]; and a good power-law fit of the
data (shown with a solid line) is thus obtained. The coefficients of the
power-law fit for the complete UAV population are provided in
Table 2, along with those of the power-law fits for the various UAV
subclasses. The number of UAVs, n, for which payload-mass data are
available is provided for each category, and the coefficient of
correlation R2 for each logarithmically transformed dataset is given.
Comparisons among those values show that the logarithmically
Fig. 1 MGTOM as a function of payload mass.
3
Table 2 Coefficients for power-law fits of MGTOM as a
function of payload mass, mTO
A ⋅ mB PL , where mPL and mTO are
in units of kilograms
Type n A B R2 Mean, mPL ∕mTO pB0
1
All 654 4.964 1.001 0.945 0.224 0.62
Battery 151 5.147 0.849 0.843 0.211 1 ⋅ 10−6
Fuel cell 15 4.180 1.027 0.825 0.221 0.54
Solar 15 15.872 0.690 0.912 0.199 2 ⋅ 10−3
Piston 385 4.567 1.001 0.884 0.240 0.86
Turbine 82 4.752 1.076 0.932 0.164 0.09
transformed data for the different UAV subgroups have lower levels
of linearity than does the complete population. This is particularly
true for the battery- and fuel-cell-powered UAVs, which display the
lowest coefficients of correlation, indicating that the power-law fits
derived for those subclasses may be less accurate.
The reader is also provided with a simplified method of estimating
the MGTOM from the payload mass through the use of the means of
the payload-mass fraction (mPL ∕mTO ) for the various UAV categories
given in Table 2. The analysis described in the following indicates
when it is justifiable to assume that the payload-mass fraction is
constant or, in effect, to assume that the power-law exponent B is
equal to one. The results of that analysis are also summarized in
Table 2, which provides the probability that another random sample
of data from each of the underlying populations would yield a value
of B farther from one than that computed for the current dataset, if the
actual exponent for the underlying population were equal to one. This
value can be thought of as the plausibility with which B can be
assumed to have a value of one. If the probability is acceptably high,
one may simply use the ratio of the payload mass to the MGTOM to
relate one parameter to the other, rather than rely on the power-law fit.
As can be seen in Fig. 1 and Table 2, the payload mass for the full
dataset appears to be proportional to the MGTOM, with an exponent
very close to one. As a further confirmation of this proportionality, a
Student’s t test [16] is used to evaluate the likelihood that the payload
mass for the underlying population of UAVs is in fact proportional to
the MGTOM. If the null hypothesis of this t-test (B0
1) is true
(to some specified level of certainty), the mean ratio of the payload
mass to the MGTOM can be used to estimate one of those quantities
from the other. The relevant test statistic, t, is given by
 4 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
B − B0
t
(3)
sB
where B0 is the value of B if the null hypothesis is true, and sB is the
standard error of the computed power-law exponent [16].
Let us assume that another equally sized random sample of the
same underlying population (for which B0
1) were analyzed and a
power-law exponent of B 0 were obtained. The t-distribution at the
value of t computed by inserting B into Eq. (3) then gives the
probability of observing a value of B 0 at least as far from B0 as B.
Halving the value of the two-tailed t-distribution at t yields the one-
tailed t-distribution, which is the probability that a value of B 0 larger
than B would be observed if B is greater than B0 , or the probability
that a value of B 0 smaller than B would be observed if B is less than
B0 . This statistic has a Student’s t-distribution with n − 2 degrees of
freedom.
Table 2 shows that there is a 62% probability that a value of B 0
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199
would be observed that is as different from one as the value of B given
in Table 2 for the dataset of 654 UAVs. In other words, if the true value
B for the underlying population is one, there is a 62% chance that a
value of B 0 at least as far from one (higher or lower) would be
computed if another identically sized sample of the same underlying
population were analyzed. As this probability is reasonably high, the
payload-mass fraction (mPL ∕mTO ) could be assumed to be invariant
(on average) with the MGTOM. An analysis of the data for piston-
powered UAVs provides similar findings: an exponent close to one
and a high probability (86%) that another random sample of data
would yield an exponent at least as far from one if the actual value of
the exponent were one. This indicates that the payload-mass fraction
for piston-powered UAVs may be taken to be constant with a high
level of confidence.
An examination of the power laws for the other UAV subclasses,
on the other hand, reveals some significant departures from the
behavior seen for the complete dataset. For example, the MGTOM of
turbine-powered UAVs is seen to rise faster than the payload mass, as
indicated by the power-law exponent being greater than one. A t-test
shows that the exponent for another random sample of the same
underlying population of UAVs has only a 9% chance of being farther
from one than the computed exponent (i.e., farther from one on either
side) or a 4.5% chance of being higher than the computed exponent
(i.e., farther from one on the high side), if the actual value of the
exponent is one. In either case, to a reasonable level of certainty, the
plausibility of the null hypothesis is supported by the data; however,
Fig. 2 Payload–endurance product as a function of MGTOM.
for greater accuracy, the power-law fit obtained for the turbine-
powered UAV dataset should be used rather than simply relying on
the mean value of the payload mass to the MGTOM.
The faster than linear increase in the MGTOM with the payload
mass observed for turbine-powered UAVs is likely the result of the
largest aircraft in the dataset being designed for high-altitude, long-
endurance operation, for which payload capacity is sacrificed for
increased fuel (for increased endurance) [20]. Except for the lightest
turbine-powered UAVs, the mean MGTOM for a given payload mass
for turbine-powered UAVs is larger (on average) than that of the other
classes. This is also reflected in the smaller mean payload-mass
fraction given in Table 2.
Like turbine-powered UAVs, solar-powered UAVs appear to have
a notably different relationship between payload mass and MGTOM
as compared with the other subclasses, with a t-test showing that there
is less than a 1% chance that such a low estimate of B would be
obtained if its actual value were one for the underlying population.
However, the difference may not be significant, as so few solar-
powered platforms (only 15) are included in the derivation of the
power law due to the scarcity of the data in the literature.
2. Mission Endurance
Aside from payload capacity, mission range and endurance are
critical factors in the selection of an appropriate platform for an
intended mission. Because range is often governed by the
communication system, rather than by inherent platform limitations
[11], mission endurance is analyzed here as a second mission-related
parameter. The payload–endurance capability of each platform is
fitted as a function of the MGTOM for each subclass of UAV, and the
results are shown in Fig. 2.
Distinct differences amongst the various categories can be
observed. For example, fuel-cell-powered and, to some extent, solar-
powered UAVs offer a higher payload–endurance capability than
does the “average” piston-powered platform of the same mass. In
contrast, turbine-powered platforms tend to offer a lower-than-
average payload–endurance capability, which stems from their
comparatively higher fuel consumption (and thus fuel load, which
competes with payload mass) and from their increased airspeed as
compared to piston- and fuel-cell-powered aircraft. A significant
spread amongst the platforms with different types of propulsion
system can be observed; however, the data are still reasonably
correlated, as indicated by an R2 value of 0.878 for the overall
population. The variations amongst and within the different classes of
 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG 5

Table 3 Coefficients for power-law fits of payload– Table 4 Coefficients for power-law fits of empty mass as a
endurance product as a function of MGTOM, function of MGTOM, mE
A ⋅ mB TO , where mE and mTO are in
mPL ⋅ E
A ⋅ mBTO , where mPL and mTO are in units of units of kg
kilograms and E is in units of hours
Mean
Type n A B R2 Type n A B R2 mE ∕mTO  pB0
1
All 597 0.107 1.487 0.878 All 705 0.830 0.964 0.987 0.680 7 ⋅ 10−6
Battery 139 0.096 1.615 0.827 Battery 164 0.858 0.977 0.966 0.749 0.86
Fuel cell 12 0.588 1.603 0.891 Fuel cell 21 0.815 1.018 0.984 0.723 0.11
Solar 8 0.242 1.525 0.462 Solar 19 0.988 0.989 0.977 0.758 0.92
Piston 363 0.080 1.603 0.830 Piston 401 0.699 0.994 0.974 0.658 0.39
Turbine 70 0.012 1.551 0.829 Turbine 92 0.659 1.004 0.963 0.638 0.81

UAVs cannot only be attributed to the different roles for which variances [16]. The results show that the power-law coefficients have
unmanned aircraft are designed, but most likely also stem from a vanishingly small probability of being identical for the different
different payload definitions or operating conditions for the subclasses of UAV; thus, individual regression coefficients are given
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

endurance reported by manufacturers. For instance, some
manufacturers may report the maximum endurance at a reduced
payload, whereas others report the endurance at maximum payload.
The solar-powered aircraft category has the smallest number of
entries in the dataset and shows the largest spread of all categories,
with an R2 value of 0.462, indicating only a moderately strong
correlation. Care should thus be taken when using this correlation in
early design phases for solar-powered aircraft. The corresponding
coefficients for the various UAV categories are given in Table 3.
B. Mass and Geometrical Correlations
With the MGTOM known from the mission requirements, its value
may be used to estimate the remaining UAV characteristics by use of a
set of power-law correlations derived in this section.
1. Empty Mass
First, the empty mass of the airframe mE is derived as a function of
the MGTOM, as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 4. A very strong
correlation is seen for the overall population, as indicated by the
correlation coefficient of 0.987. The empty masses for the individual
aircraft categories appear to show only small differences. To
determine whether or not the differences are significant, the
coefficients of the power laws for the individual classes of UAV are
compared with those for the overall population by use of t-tests
performed with Welch’s correction for unequal sample sizes and
in Table 4 to allow greater refinement once the propulsion system is
selected. The individual regression lines are omitted from Fig. 3
because they would obscure the data.
The mean value of empty mass to the MGTOM (mE ∕mTO ) for each
class of UAV is also given in Table 4. In each case, the probability of
observing a value of B 0 that is at least as far from one as B (i.e., the
probability of observing jB 0 − B0 j − jB − B0 j) indicates that it is
highly, or at least reasonably, plausible that B0
1; thus, one may
choose to use the mean value of empty mass to the MGTOM to
estimate the empty mass from the MGTOM (or vice versa) for a given
design rather than relying on the power-law fits. The ratios of the
empty mass to the MGTOM may also be used to estimate the total
useful load, of mTO ⋅ 1 − mE ∕mTO , for a given class of UAVs.
2. Wingspan
With the main aircraft masses known, trends for geometrical
parameters are derived. As the wingspan, b, has a large impact on the
aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft, and therefore its overall
performance. The trends of the wingspan are identified first; and the
results are given in Fig. 4 and Table 5. As expected from the diversity
of UAV types [20], a large spread exists amongst the different
categories of UAV. To minimize power requirements, solar- and fuel-
cell-powered aircraft have comparatively large spans, whereas faster-
flying turbine-powered aircraft typically employ much smaller
wingspans. Nonetheless, a relatively large spread also exists amongst
aircraft of a given subclass, which results in lower correlation

Fig. 3 Empty weight as a function of MGTOM.

 6 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 4 Wingspan as a function of MGTOM.

coefficients than were found for datasets of payload or empty mass vs thirds as the value derived here (0.659) if the true exponent were equal
the MGTOM and commensurately higher uncertainty levels to two-thirds. Thus, it is highly plausible that the exponent is actually
associated with the power-law fits for wingspan as a function of the two-thirds, although it is clear that the differences amongst the
MGTOM. Despite this large spread, the trend for the overall UAV categories are significant. This is evidenced by t-tests comparing the
dataset appears to follow the cube-square law fairly closely, with a coefficients of the power laws (both A and B) for the individual
power exponent close to the theoretical value of one-third for classes of UAVs with those for the overall population [16]. The
geometrically scaled objects [1,10,21–23]. However, a one-tailed derived correlations for the various UAV classes are thus of sufficient
t-test demonstrates that there is a vanishingly small chance that value for an initial selection of the wing area. However, a further
another sample of data would yield an exponent as low as one-third. refinement of wing area is recommended, once more design details
The spread of the data for the different UAV categories makes the are known or fixed.
correlation derived for the overall dataset useful only for a rough As shown in Table 6, of the individual classes of UAVs, only the
initial estimate of wingspan, and additional refinement will certainly piston-powered category appears to follow the cube-square law
be required when the propulsion technology is chosen. reasonably closely (i.e., to yield a best-fit value of B close to two-
thirds). For all other categories, the wing area grows faster with an
3. Wing Area increasing MGTOM than predicted by geometrical scaling. A t-test
The wing area, SW , is equally as important as the wingspan for indicates that it is plausible that B
2∕3 for piston-engined UAVs,
aircraft performance. However, the wing area is reported for less than although there is only a 3% chance of observing a value of B as far
one-third of the dataset; and the derived correlations for the parameter from two-thirds as that computed here if the exponent for the
therefore have lower confidence levels, as compared to those for the underlying population were actually two-thirds. This suggests that
wingspan. As shown in Fig. 5, a large spread exists amongst the piston-powered UAVs have greater geometric similarity than do the
various UAV categories, with the wing area for a 100-kg solar- other subclasses or the entire population of UAVs. However, a t-test
powered UAV being ∼100 times the wing area of a turbine-powered shows that it is equally plausible that turbine-powered UAVs are
UAV of the same mass. Despite this, there is a moderately high (on average) geometrically similar to each other; and there is an even
correlation coefficient for the entire population of UAVs, as shown in greater probability that the exponent for battery-powered UAVs is
Table 6 (0.779). Furthermore, the power-law fit for the complete actually two-thirds. The small number of UAVs for which the wing
dataset is consistent with the cube-square law for geometrically area is available in each of these latter categories makes those findings
similar objects, for which the wing area would be proportional to the less significant than that for piston-powered UAVs. For piston- and
two-thirds power of the MGTOM. A t-test indicates a 70% turbine-powered UAVs, the variation in vehicle density with size is
probability that the exponent derived from another random sample of thus comparatively small, whereas variations in vehicle density are
the same underlying population would be at least as far from two- larger for the other categories.
Given the relatively large spread of the wing area as a function of
Table 5 Coefficients for power-law fits of the MGTOM, correlations for the wing area as a function of wingspan
wingspan as a function of MGTOM, are also derived. As illustrated in Fig. 6, a strong correlation exists for
b
A ⋅ mB
TO , where b and mTO are in units of
the complete set of 272 wing area and wingspan data pairs. Its
meters and kilograms, respectively coefficient of correlation is 0.900, and the resulting regression fit for
the overall population is given by
Type n A B R2
All 836 0.828 0.370 0.760 SW
0.2327 ⋅ b1.591 (4)
Battery 227 0.822 0.572 0.830
Fuel cell 31 0.973 0.583 0.923 A t-test indicates a vanishingly small chance that the exponent is
Solar 37 2.331 0.502 0.900
Piston 421 0.642 0.421 0.810
actually as large as two, which is the value that would be expected if
Turbine 105 0.200 0.496 0.693 the wings of the UAVs in the dataset were geometrically similar,
scaled copies of a single design. Only small differences are apparent
 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG 7
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 5 Wing area as a function of MGTOM.

amongst the various UAV categories, as displayed in Fig. 6, and This is apparent in the mean values of installed power to the MGTOM
pairwise t-tests indicate that it is plausible that the exponents of the (P∕mTO ) for the various UAV categories provided in Table 8. Fuel-
power laws derived for several of the subclasses of UAV (B values) cell- and solar-powered UAVs are shown to have (on average) less
are identical to that for the overall dataset. However, t-tests also show than one-half the installed power of battery-powered UAVs of the
that the other coefficients (A values) are very unlikely to be the same same MGTOM and only about one-third and one-quarter of the
as that given in Eq. (4). Thus, results obtained with linear regression installed power of comparable piston- and turbine-powered UAVs,
for each subclass of UAV are provided in Table 7 and recommended respectively. This is most likely a consequence of the limited power
for use when the type of propulsion system has been selected. density of fuel cells [24–26] and solar panels. Note that the 13
turbine-powered UAVs represented in Fig. 7 and Table 8 are all
C. Engine and Performance Parameters turboprop-engined aircraft, as data for installed power are not directly
For conventional aircraft, engine power, P, is usually determined available for UAVs driven by turbojet or turbofan engines.
via an analysis of a set of performance constraints such as takeoff Also provided in Table 8 are the results of t-tests performed to
runway limits and minimum climb rates [2–4,10]. However, determine the likelihood of computing values of B closer to one than
unmanned aircraft often require mechanical or hydraulic catapults for those found here. The results indicate that it is plausible that the
takeoff and use belly landings, in which the aircraft skids along the installed power is directly proportional to the MGTOM for several of
landing site [11]. Several of the classical constraints related to takeoff the classes of UAVs. Thus, it may be preferable to use the mean value of
and landing are therefore harder to quantify for UAVs than for P∕mTO to relate one parameter to the other rather than to use the power-
manned aircraft, especially in the early concept-design stage; and a law fit derived for that class of UAVs. For example, the exponents of
statistical approach to initial engine/motor sizing is of greater use. the power-law fits for battery- and fuel-cell-powered UAVs are greater
Figure 7 presents the results of a regression analysis of the available than one, suggesting an increased mass penalty for those power
data for installed engine/motor power as a function of the MGTOM. sources with higher power. However, the finding for fuel-cell-powered
As can be seen in Fig. 7, a strong correlation exists between installed UAVs may result from the small number of UAVs on which it is based.
power and the MGTOM for the entire dataset, confirming the This is evidenced by a t-test showing a 40% chance that the exponent
usefulness of the analysis. derived from another sample of the same size from the underlying
Table 8 gives the regression coefficients for the different UAV population of fuel-cell-powered UAVs would be farther from one than
categories. Large differences in engine power as a function of the the value derived here. In contrast, a t-test for battery-powered UAVs
MGTOM are observed amongst the classes. Fuel-cell- and solar- indicates only a small (4%) likelihood that another sample of data
powered UAVs typically employ considerably lower propulsive would yield a value of B farther from one than that derived from the
power than do battery-powered aircraft, which in turn have less current sample. This indicates that, although it is plausible that the
installed power than piston-engined UAVs of comparable MGTOM. supplied power for battery-powered UAVs is proportional to
the MGTOM, the power-law fit is generally preferred over the use of
the mean power-to-MGTOM ratio.
Table 6 Coefficients for power-law fits of Because of the relative scarcity of installed power data and the
wing area as a function of MGTOM,
aforementioned utility of a statistical approach to engine/motor
SW
A ⋅ mBTO , where SW and mTO are in units of
kilograms and square meters, respectively sizing for UAVs, the use of a “power index” is explored. The power
required for flight at the speed for minimum cruise power may be
Type n A B R2 written as [22]:
All 272 0.161 0.659 0.779  
Battery 52 0.192 0.737 0.819 mTO 3∕2
Fuel cell 11 0.170 0.825 0.995 P ∝ SW ⋅ (5)
SW
Solar 33 0.599 0.861 0.910
Piston 130 0.111 0.678 0.882
Turbine 40 0.007 0.923 0.743 Data on wing area are relatively scarce for the current UAV dataset;
however, as shown in Fig. 6, the wingspan is highly correlated with
 8 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 6 Wing area as a function of wingspan.

wing area. The power index (PI) is thus defined here to be a function As the data in Table 9 indicate, there is a relatively high (61%)
of the wingspan and span loading (mTO ∕b2 ): probability that the exponent for power-law fit for the complete UAV
dataset is actually equal to the theoretical value of seven-sixths. In
 3∕2
mTO contrast, most of the subclasses of UAVs cannot plausibly be
PI
b2 ⋅ (6) characterized by proportionality between PI and m7∕6
b2 TO . The single
exception is turbine-powered UAVs, for which the PI may be
7∕6
As shown in Fig. 8, installed power is strongly correlated with the reasonably assumed to be proportional to mTO .
power index, despite its definition being an adaptation of an
expression for minimum cruise power. The fit for the full dataset is D. Comparison with Manned Aircraft
given by In this final Results and Discussion (Sec. III) subsection, the span
loading, power loading, and wing loading of the unmanned aircraft
P
105.9 ⋅ PI0.9175 (7) are compared with those of small manned aircraft. Figure 10 shows
the variation of span loading (mTO ∕b2 ) with power loading (mTO ∕P)
The power index may be used to derive the engine power for the for the dataset in comparison with general aviation aircraft, powered
different classes, as shown in Fig. 9. The data show strong sailplanes, and human-powered aircraft (data from [27]). The figure
correlations between the power index and MGTOM for the different shows that piston-powered unmanned aircraft in general have similar
vehicle classes, with correlation coefficients higher than 0.939 being span and power loadings to general aviation aircraft, albeit with a
obtained for all classes. The coefficients for the various UAV classes larger variation in span loading. Battery-powered UAVs on the other
hand typically have a lower span loading (larger span) for a
are given in Table 9.
Implicit in the definition of the power index are the assumptions of comparable power loading. As UAVs are typically designed for
endurance, rather than range, a lower span loading is preferred to
geometric and aerodynamic similarity. These assumptions also lead
reduce lift-induced drag. Fuel-cell- and solar-powered UAVs display
to the conclusion that the power index (or best-range power) is
power loadings that fall between those of powered sailplanes and
proportional to the MGTOM raised to the power of seven-sixths [21].
human-powered aircraft. Whereas the fuel-cell-powered UAVs have
Thus, an alternate means of predicting the power index may be
a span loading that is comparable to that of the manned aircraft, solar-
obtained by evaluating the mean ratio of the PI to m7∕6TO . The value of powered UAVs tend to have lower span loadings, even when
this ratio is provided in Table 9 for each class of UAV and for the compared to human-powered aircraft.
complete dataset. Also given for each category is the probability that Figure 11 shows the variation of power loading with wing
another random sample of the same underlying population would loading for various classes of UAVs in comparison with general
yield a value of B farther from seven-sixths than the value obtained aviation aircraft (data from [27,28]). The data clearly show that
through the power-law fits. most UAVs have a much lower wing loading than do manned
aircraft, especially if the UAV is battery- or solar-powered. It is
Table 7 Coefficients for power-law fits of wing area also apparent that a much larger variation in power loading exists
as a function of wingspan, SW
A ⋅ bB , where SW is in for UAVs as compared with their manned counterparts. Lines of
units of square meters and b is in units of meters mTO ∕P ⋅ mTO ∕SW are added, as they give a good indication of the
overall aircraft performance and maneuverability [27]. They show
Type n A B R2 that most battery- and solar-powered UAVs have either comparable
All 272 0.234 1.591 0.927 or slightly lower performance than small manned aircraft. The
Battery 52 0.227 1.235 0.937 performance data for piston-powered unmanned aircraft show a
Fuel cell 11 0.193 1.227 0.988 much larger variation, with some vehicles clearly outperforming
Solar 33 0.124 1.738 0.975
Piston 130 0.221 1.651 0.838
manned aircraft.
Turbine 40 0.327 1.605 0.887 Figure 12 shows UAVs on the so-called great diagram of flight
[29]. Supplemental data from [29] are plotted for aircraft, as well as
 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG 9
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 7 Installed engine/motor power as a function of MGTOM.

Table 8 Coefficients for power-law fits of installed engine/motor power

as a function of MGTOM, P
A ⋅ mB TO , where P and mTO are in units of
watts and kilograms, respectively
Type n A B R2 Mean, P∕mTO pB0
1
All 408 90.58 1.099 0.922 140 1 ⋅ 10−6
Battery 69 77.94 1.096 0.866 120 0.04
Fuel cell 21 23.89 1.244 0.817 56 0.40
Solar 20 36.21 0.989 0.949 52 0.71
Piston 284 289.4 0.874 0.848 150 2 ⋅ 10−5
Turbine 13 1357 0.748 0.656 220 0.15

Fig. 8 Installed engine/motor power as a function of power index.

 10 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 9 Power index as a function of MGTOM.

Table 9 Coefficients for power-law fits of power index as a function of

MGTOM, PI
A ⋅ mB TO , where PI and mTO are in units of kilograms to
the 3/2 power per meter and kilograms, respectively

Type n A B R2 Mean, PI∕m7∕6

TO pB0
7∕6
All 836 0.910 1.203 0.972 1.08 0.61
Battery 227 1.111 1.006 0.946 1.07 <1 ⋅ 10−6
Fuel cell 31 0.927 0.966 0.972 0.737 <1 ⋅ 10−6
Solar 37 0.392 1.024 0.977 0.351 3 ⋅ 10−5
Piston 421 1.152 1.145 0.971 1.02 1 ⋅ 10−6
Turbine 105 1.982 1.118 0.939 1.70 0.09

Fig. 10 Comparison of combinations of span and power loading.

 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG 11
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199

Fig. 11 Comparison of combinations of wing and power loading.

Fig. 12 Great diagram of flight.

birds and insects. Also shown is the mean wing loading, given by
[29]:
mTO

10.3 ⋅ m1∕3
TO (8)
SW
The figure shows that all piston-powered UAVs, as well as most
turbine-powered and electric UAVs, follow the mean line closely.
However, a large deviation is found for solar-powered UAVs, which
tend to have lower wing loadings than the mean line suggests. Similar
findings were reported in [30,31]. The figure also confirms that
variations within most UAV subclasses, albeit significant, are of the
same order of magnitude as those found for manned aircraft, birds,
and insects.
IV. Conclusions
Relations have been developed to enable a rapid sizing of
unmanned aerial vehicles. The relations are derived through a
nonlinear least-squares regression analysis of the parameters of 856
fixed-wing platforms. These platforms are grouped in five classes
based on their propulsion systems: piston-, electric-, fuel-cell-,
turbine-, and solar-powered. The correlations presented offer a
simple and direct method for computing design parameters as
compared to more elaborate procedures employed in later design
stages or empiricism as found for model aircraft. The relations allow
a first-order sizing and facilitate a rapid tradeoff analysis between
the different propulsion options and a comparison of their
performance.
 12 Article in Advance / VERSTRAETE, PALMER, AND HORNUNG
Acknowledgments
The authors thank former Defence Science and Technology Group
employee James Harvey and student Brendan Blake for their
additions to the database of unmanned aircraft systems maintained by
Palmer, and they acknowledge the provision of aircraft data by
Tianshu Liu of Western Michigan University.
References
[1] Lorenz, R., “Flight Power Scaling of Airplanes, Airships, and
Helicopters: Application to Planetary Exploration,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001, pp. 208–214.
doi:10.2514/2.2769
[2] Roskam, J., Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes,
DARCorporation, Lawrence, KS, 2005.
[3] Raymer, D., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA
Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2006.
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON on October 3, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034199
[4] Gudmundsson, S., General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods
and Procedures, Elsevier, Waltham, MA, 2014.
[5] Vouvakos, X., Kallinderis, Y., and Menounou, P., “Preliminary Design
Correlations for Twin Civil Turboprops and Comparison with Jet
Aircraft,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 82,
No. 2, 2010, pp. 126–133.
doi:10.1108/00022661011053427
[6] Ibrahim, K., “Selecting Principal Parameters of Baseline Design
Configuration for Twin Turboprop Transport Aircraft,” 22nd Applied
Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2004-5069, 2004.
[7] Chevalier, H., Model Airplane Design and Performance for the
Modeler, Challenge Engineering, New Baden, TX, 1993.
[8] Loftin, L., “Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the Matching of Size to
Performance,” NASA RP-1060, 1980.
[9] “Advanced Aircraft Analysis,” Software Package, Ver. 3.6, DarCorpo-
ration, Lawrence, KS, 2014.
[10] Nicolai, L., and Carichner, G., Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship
Design: Volume 1—Aircraft Design, AIAA Education Series, AIAA,
Reston, VA, 2010.
[11] Gundlach, J., Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive
Approach, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2011.
[12] Streetly, M., Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft: Unmanned 2014–2015,
IHS Global, London, 2014.
[13] Anon., Unmanned Vehicles Handbook 2013, Shephard Media,
Berkshire, England, U.K., 2013.
[14] Balaba, D., and Mavris, D., “An Empirical Approach Towards the Rapid
Derivation of Vehicle Scaling Laws in Conceptual Design,” 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 2011-0643, 2011.
[15] Mendez, P., and Ordonez, F., “Scaling Laws from Statistical Data and
Dimensional Analysis,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 72, No. 5,
2005, pp. 648–657.
doi:10.1115/1.1943434
[16] Devore, J., Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Physical
Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publ., Salt Lake City, UT, 1982.
[17] Frost, C., and Thompson, S., “Correcting for Regression Dilution Bias:
Comparison of Methods for a Single Predictor Variable,” Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 163, No. 2,
2000, pp. 173–189.
doi:10.1111/rssa.2000.163.issue-2
[18] Greenewalt, C., “The Flight of Birds: The Significant Dimensions, Their
Departure from the Requirements for Dimensional Similarity, and the
Effect on Aerodynamics of the Departure,” Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, Vol. 65, No. 4, 1975, pp. 1–67.
doi:10.2307/1006161
[19] Rawlings, J., Pantual, S., and Dickey, D., Applied Regression Analysis:
A Research Tool, 2nd ed., Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer,
New York, 1998.
[20] Palmer, J., “Assembly and Initial Analysis of a Database of the
Characteristics of Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Defence
Science and Technology Org., DSTO-TR-2952, Fishermans Bend,
VIC, Australia, 2014.
[21] Liu, T., “Comparative Scaling of Flapping- and Fixed-Wing Flyers,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2006, pp. 24–33.
doi:10.2514/1.4035
Liu, T., Oyama, A., and Fujii, K., “Scaling Analysis of Propeller-Driven
[22]
Aircraft for Mars Exploration,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 50, No. 5, 2013,
pp. 1593–1604.
doi:10.2514/1.C032086
[23] Gale, F., Scaling Sailplanes, B2Streamlines, Olalla, WA, 1994.
[24] Verstraete, D., Lehmkuehler, K., Gong, A., Harvey, J., Brian, G., and
Palmer, J., “Characterisation of a Hybrid, Fuel-Cell-Based Propulsion
System for Small Unmanned Aircraft,” Journal of Power Sources,
Vol. 250, March 2014, pp. 204–211.
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.11.017
[25] Verstraete, D., Gong, A., Lu, D.-C., and Palmer, J., “Experimental
Investigation of the Role of the Battery in the Aerostack Hybrid, Fuel-
Cell-Based Propulsion System for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems,”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2015,
pp. 1598–1606.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.11.043
[26] Gong, A., Palmer, J., Brian, G., Harvey, J., and Verstraete, D.,
“Performance of a Hybrid, Fuel-Cell-Based Power System During
Simulated Small Unmanned Aircraft Missions,” International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 41, No. 26, 2016, pp. 11418–11426.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.044
[27] Stinton, D., The Design of the Aeroplane, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science,
Boston, MA, 2001.
[28] Mueller, F., and Thomas, D., Flugzeugentwurf: Entwurfssystematik,
Aerodynamik, Flughmechanik und Auslegungsparameter fuer kleinere
Flugzeuge, TFT-Verlag, Fuerstenfeldbruck, Germany, 2003.
[29] Tennekes, H., The Simple Science of Flight: From Insects to Jumbo Jets,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
[30] Noth, A., Engel, W., and Siegwart, R., “Design of an Ultra-
Lightweight Autonomous Solar Airplane for Continuous Flight,”
Field and Service Robotics, edited by P. Corke, and S. Sukkariah,
Vol. 25, Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Springer, Berlin,
2006, pp. 441–452.
[31] Leutenegger, S., Jabas, M., and Siegwart, R., “Solar Airplane
Conceptual Design and Performance Estimation,” Journal of Intelligent
and Robotic Systems, Vol. 61, Nos. 1–4, 2011, pp. 545–561.