1

Executive Summary
Neil Johnson, Senior Research Engineer at Scientific Systems Company Inc. (SSCI), is currently
leading a military sponsored project to significantly increase drone reconnaissance capabilities
within the army. His expectations for this project center around increasing the flight time of the
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) currently being used. While the expectation seems simple on
the surface, the complexity of designing and constructing this new fixed-wing UAS lies in
matching the necessary capabilities already onboard the SSCI drone. To reach Neil’s
expectations, our UAS will need to be completely autonomous from takeoff to landing and back
to takeoff again. This means the UAS needs to be able to charge itself with no human
interference. Additionally, the drone will need to be able to identify and relay critical
information, such as SAR targets or potential threats, back to the squadron, without requiring
human observation. Lastly, the UAS needs to be quiet, discrete, portable, and robust in both
desert and arctic conditions. Ultimately, the expectation is that this new UAS, rather than being a
tool for the army, will be a super-intelligent aerial squad member. Thus, we refer to the drone as
Teammate​.

The design intent focused on achieving these key mission requirements. This allowed for
decision making to be based on function and manufacturability. With the main mission
requirement of achieving a “team-mate” productivity level, we designed our fuselage to enable
the wireless receiver coil to mate with the charging landing pad autonomously. Combined with
vertical take-off and landing (VTOL), this eliminates the need for any interaction from the
soldier for take-off and recharging. The fuselage was designed such that the electronics, payload,
and battery can be easily accessed if the battery did need to be switched out, as well as a National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) air flow duct to prevent overheating. The
placement of the propellers was spaced not only to achieve a stable flight but also to minimize
sound, thus aiding ​Teammate in surveilling undetected. Additionally, it will be painted to try to
minimize detection.

VTOL capabilities were selected primarily to allow ​Teammate to operate independently from
soldier interaction. The boom tail was selected as the two booms would provide attachment
points for the motors required for VTOL. This also increases the overall structural stability of the
drone. By adding skids at the bottom of these booms, it will mitigate damage to the structure
with repeated landings and provide extra durability if ​Teammate​ needed to belly land.

To optimize the surveillance camera’s field of view, the camera was placed at the front of the
fuselage. This focus shifted our initial propeller configuration from a tractor to a pusher to
prevent impact on the field of view for the camera. The camera specifications were also matched
with the cruise velocity to obtain a desired resolution from light to dark operating hours. The
lower cruise velocity was designed to maximize endurance over range. Our wing design also
utilizes a high aspect ratio and efficiency for gliding, measured by lift over drag.

2
The requirement of portability is achieved through overall sizing of ​Teammate as well as ease of
assembly. While the UAS will need to be transported to the SAR site and spend minimal time
with assembly, this still meets our stakeholders' need for the UAS to perform as a teammate. Our
lightweight design also aids in the overall portability requirement.

Lastly, this design seeks to withstand harsh environmental conditions. This relates not only to
material selection and structural stability but also the limits of our flight envelope and the design
for belly landing in the case of an emergency or failure. The wings were designed with a thicker
airfoil and large root and tip chord. This allows for more than one spar to reinforce the span of
the wing and minimize tip stall. Fiberglass will cover the foam wings to minimize wear from
dust, rain, etc. The tip of the fuselage will have a plexiglass shell to protect the camera from
varying weather conditions as well.

​ AS Model
Figure 1: ​Teammate U

After considering many different aircraft configurations, we chose a tapered wing and boom tail
design with dual vertical fin stabilizers. ​Teammate will use a pusher propeller as its main
propulsion when cruising. To prevent interference with the propeller and the camera's field of
view, space is left in the front of the fuselage for a camera and sensor suite. The horizontal
stabilizer is raised up, similar to a T-tail, in order to ensure it is not affected by prop wash from
the pusher or downwash from the main wing. The four motors that are used for vertical take-off
and landing are placed on the booms which extend backwards towards the tail as well as
forwards in front of the main wing.

3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Table of Contents 4
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 6
Management Summary 7
Conceptual Design 10
Stakeholder Needs and Design Requirements 10
Mission Plan and KPIs 11
Design Concepts and Configurations 13
Preliminary Design 19
Airfoil Selection and Wing Design 19
Aircraft Lift, Drag, and Stability 24
Propulsion Component Selection 26
Flight Pattern and Flight Time Estimation 27
Future of Preliminary Design 32
Glider 33
Mission Model Capabilities and Uncertainties 35
Preliminary Manufacturing Plan 44
Final Assembly 47
Verification/Validation Plan and Results and Testing Plan 48
Conclusions and lessons learned 49
Structural Arrangement 51
Power Bay 67
Control Bay 67
Propulsion Bay 68
Appendix A 69
References 72

4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Teammate UAS Model 03
Figure 2: Team Organization Tree 07
Figure 3: Gantt Chart 08
Figure 4: Teammate Mission Plan 12
Figure 5: Constraint Analysis of Teammate 16
Figure 6: Airfoil Analysis 19
Figure 7:Selected Airfoil 20
Figure 8: Shows the analysis results of the design iteration in XFLR5 22
Figure 9: The lift distribution along the main wing, vertical stabilizer, and horizontal stabilizer 23
Figure 10: Root locus plots of the five different stability modes 23
Figure 11: Phugoid and Short Period Longitudinal Modes 25
Figure 12: Dutch Roll and Roll Dampening Lateral Modes 25
Figure 13: UAS Drag Force 28
Figure 14: VTOL Battery Consumption 29
Figure 15: Flight Time Over a Range of Flight Speeds 30
Figure 16: Thrust required at different airspeeds for throttles 31
Figure 17: Distance Covered at a Range of Airspeeds 32
Figure 18: Final form of glider as constructed 33
Figure 19: NASA Risk Matrix for mission uncertainties 35
Figure 20: Structural layout of aircraft 37
Figure 21:VTOL Mount, Motor, and Propeller 37
Figure 22: 3D-Printed Custom Bracket for Wing-Boom Connection 38
Figure 23: 3D-Printed Custom Bracket for Empennage-Boom Connection 39
Figure 24: VonMises Stress Distribution for Wing-Boom Bracket 40
Figure 25: VonMises Stress Distribution for Simplified Empennage-Boom Bracket 41
Figure 26: Weight Allotment by Subteam 43
Figure 27: Final Assembly 47
Figure 28: Top-Down View of Teammate 51
Figure 29: Power Bay - Controls Diagram 67
Figure 30: Control Bay - Controls Diagram 67
Figure 31: Propulsion Bay - Controls Diagram 68

5
List of Tables
Table 1: Master Budget 10
Table 2: Stakeholder Mission Needs and Design Requirements 11
Table 3: Camera Choice Matrix 12
Table 4: Wing Configuration Pugh Matrix 13
Table 5: Tail Configuration Pugh Matrix 14
Table 6: Inputs to Weight Analysis 17
Table 7: Outputs to Weight Analysis 17
Table 8: Chosen UAS Configuration 21
Table 9: UAS Aerodynamic Characteristics 25
Table 10: Inputs for Drag Calculation 28
Table 11: Glider Aerodynamic Specifications 34
Table 12: Risk Analysis Matrix 36
Table 13: Manufacturing Preliminary Budget 41
Table 14: Description of Supplementary Materials 41
Table 15: Wing Manufactuability Options 44
Table 16: Verification and Validation Tests 48

6
Management Summary
In order to efficiently design and build ​Teammate​, we split the team into four subteams. Each
subteam is responsible for designing and building a specific part of the aircraft. The first subteam
is Aerodynamics, which is responsible for the configuration, selection, and construction of the
airfoil, wing, and tail. Next, Controls team is in charge of all electrical components on the
aircraft with the exception of propulsion elements. Controls focuses heavily on the autopilot
system and its programming. Propulsion subteam is responsible for sizing, designing, and
analyzing the propulsion system on our aircraft. Propulsion subteam works closely with Controls
in order to incorporate the motor, electron speed controls (ESC), and battery into the control
system. Lastly, we have Structures team which works with all subteams to ensure the design
comes together smoothly. This includes Computer Aided Design (CAD), Finite Element
Analysis (FEA), and manufacturing. A large portion of Structures’ work focuses on feasibility
and manufacturability of the aircraft.

In addition to our subteams, we have two design leads, a treasurer, and a team manager. The
design leads make sure all aspects of the design are going smoothly and are available to help
other subteams if needed. The treasurer keeps track of costs in addition to overseeing all
purchases made by the team. The team manager oversees scheduling of deadlines, weekly
meetings, and coordinating with the faculty advisor. A graphic of our team organization and
assignment of each member is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Team Organization Tree

7
Our team’s milestones and deliverables are tracked and scheduled in a gantt chart. The gantt
chart is updated periodically throughout the course of this project and, therefore, dates and
timeranges change. An example of the most updated version is shown in Figure 3, whereas our
original gantt chart for planned events is shown in Appendix A. To keep our schedule organized
and easy to read, the tasks are broken up by subteam. Please note that this gantt chart is only for
Fall semester. A gantt chart for spring semester will be created over the winter break.

Figure 3: Gantt Chart

8
When it comes to budgeting, each subteam records their expenses and future purchases
individually. The budget of each subsystem is put together in our master budget shown in Table
1. Many of the components needed for ​Teammate​, especially for Controls team, are already
on-hand from past projects. This will save us thousands of dollars that would have been taken
from our allotted $4,000 budget.

Table 1: Master Budget

Subteam Item Quantity Cost Total Cost
Glider Supplies 1 $20.00 $20.00
Wing 1 $34.99 $34.99
Wing Spars 2 $97.99 $195.98
Aerodynamics
Elevator and Fin Spars 1 $108.99 $108.99

Booms 2 $102.99 $205.98

Wurth Electronics 200W Kit 1 $372.00 $372.00
Controls
Anmbest Balancer 4S BMS 1 $9.29 $9.29
Tattu 14.8V 25C 4S 10000mAh Lipo
Battery Pack without Plug 1 $149.99 $149.99
E-Flite Power 15 Outrunner 950Kv 1 $64.99 $64.99
Talon 25 Amp/6s 1 $44.95 $44.95
Propulsion
Master Airscrew 11x6 Pusher 1 $3.84 $3.82
KDE3510XF-715 4 $92.95 $371.80
APC Thin Electric 14x6 4 $4.60 $18.40
Scorpion Commander 15V 45A $59.99 $239.96
Mount for VTOL Motors 4 $6.42 $25.68
Structures Laser Cut Fuselage Stock 3 $7.72 $24.00
3D Printed Parts 1 TBD TBD
Total Budget $4,000.00
Total $1,890.82

9
Conceptual Design

Stakeholder Needs and Design Requirements

For this project we have three key stakeholders, excluding the AerosPACE team members, that
are helping with our decisions. Our primary stakeholder is Neil Johnson at SSCI. Neil has years
of experience in the UAS industry with a current emphasis on SAR missions. Neil posed basic
mission needs as well as specific design ideas that would benefit the technical concept generation
of ​Teammate.​ Since our UAS is primarily serving the United States Army, we felt it was
important to get opinions from military personnel as well.

Airforce Pilot, Danny Pinter, has experience performing SAR missions and was willing to
provide valuable insights into necessary flight aspects for our design. Pinter’s pilot expertise
allowed him to ask specific questions for our team to discuss and develop. In addition to Pinter,
we also talked with Hunter Dymond, a private in the Army. While Dymond’s knowledge of SAR
missions was limited, he brought good ‘boots-on-the-ground’ information to the table. Dymond’s
comments focused on portability and integration into existing army units. After speaking with
these stakeholders a few times, our team was able to develop a comprehensive list of stakeholder
mission needs and correlated design requirements, shown below in Table 2, to ensure
Teammate’s ​success.

10
 Table 2: Stakeholder Mission Needs and Design Requirements
Design Requirement
Stakeholder Mission Needs
(The UAS shall…)

Be equipped with the Pixhawk 4 autopilot system

running PX4
Autonomous from takeoff, landing, and to
takeoff again Be equipped with GPS and compass

Follow pre-programmed routes

Be equipped with thermal and EO cameras

Ability to identify SAR targets or threats Have a high-resolution camera capable of viewing
targets at 50 m AGL

Have an onboard TX2 for computing and a telemetry

Ability to relay recon info autonomously
module for communication

Withstand temperatures -20℃ to 55℃

Robust in desert and arctic conditions
Endure wind speeds up to 4m/s

Be in a fleet of 2 or more (one in the air, one

Allow for consistent surveillance charging)

Have a flight time of between 30 and 40 min

No intervention for battery exchange Have enabled wireless charging

Have a build budget of no more than $4000 per UAS

Must be cost effective to the Military Retail for less than current competitors (RQ-11
Raven ~ $40k)

Must be able to integrate easily into military Weigh less than 5.4 kg (12 lbs)
units Have a wingspan no larger than 2 m

Have a well camouflaged color coat

Must be hard to detect from the ground
Produce < 30dB on the ground while cruising

Mission Plan and KPIs

With stakeholder mission needs and design requirements defined, a mission plan was developed.
The main goal of ​Teammate​, as mentioned before, is to be a fully autonomous SAR platform.

11
The first item needed for a SAR mission is a specified flight path. Our team decided to select a
conventional ‘lawn-mowing’ pattern since it was the simplest path to cover the greatest area
possible and would be relatively easy to program with our autopilot waypoint system. A key
stakeholder need that drives our mission plan is their request to have continuous surveillance,
meaning eyes in the sky at all times. Out of this need, we grew our idea to have a ​Teammate
fleet, where one or more ​Teammates can remain in the sky while any charge-depleted
Teammates ​can recharge. With an average charge time of around 40 minutes and average flight
time of just over 48 minutes, we can easily satisfy this need with three aircraft. This mission
plan is illustrated below in Figure 4.

​ ission Plan
Figure 4: ​Teammate M

Table 3: Camera Choice Matrix

Camera Choice
FLIR Duo Pro R Flir Vue Pro FLIR Vue TZ20
Camera Type IR Visual IR IR Visual
Distance above ground (m) 50 50 50 50 50
View angle 1 (deg) 35 56 69 95 95
View angle 2 (deg) 17 45 56 95 95
Area of coverage (m​2​) 471.22 2202.41 3654.34 11909.54 11909.54

12
A main aspect driving our design, moving forward, is the camera. Since the purpose of
Teammate is to be a SAR drone, the UAS must be able to clearly see targets and have a camera
that can cover large distances (wide field of view). After looking at many cameras, our team
settled on the FLIR Vue TZ20 due to its excellent resolution and wide viewing angle. Since this
camera is very expensive, we will substitute it with a GoPro camera and will adjust the view to
match the specifications of the Vue TZ20.

Design Concepts and Configurations

There are numerous potential configurations for aircraft design, so a concept analysis was
performed by the aerodynamics sub-team. A separate analysis was performed for the wing
configuration and tail structure in order to determine the optimal design path. This analysis was
conducted by a weighted rating system that took the stability, manufacturability, reliability, and
the empty weight of multiple configurations into consideration to find one that best suited the
mission. The weighting behind these categories was determined by how important they were for
the mission, with the perfect score listed in bold. A sampling of some of the options considered
for the wing configuration are shown below in Table 4, with the tapered wing as the chosen
configuration.

Table 4: Wing Configuration Pugh Matrix

Wing Configuration

FOM SIgnificance Biplane Tapered Wing Rectangular Wing

Stability 3 2 4 3
Manufacturability 2 2 4 5
Reliability 3 5 4 3
Empty Weight 1 3 3 2
VTOL 4 2 4 5
Total 65 36 51 50

Note the significance rating of each category in the above table. It was determined that the
selected configuration must be conducive to a VTOL function above all else, as that aspect is key
to the mission. Stability and reliability were also incredibly important to the wing configuration,

13
as a UAS designed for military operation should not be prone to failure. Manufacturability and
empty weight were considered to be somewhat less significant, as the team felt confident in
manufacturing methods that were both lightweight and simple. A similar analysis was
performed for the tail configuration, of which a small section is shown below in Table 5.

Table 5: Tail Configuration Pugh Matrix

Tail Configuration

FOM Significance Inverted V Tail Twin Tail Boom Tail

Stability 3 4 3 5
Manufacturability 2 1 4 3
Reliability 3 2 4 4
Empty Weight 1 4 3 2
VTOL 4 2 4 5
Total 65 32 48 55

Significance ratings for each category of tail configuration are identical to the wing configuration
matrix. There were additional challenges faced during this process. Geometrically, tail
configurations can be incredibly complicated, and designers often face the challenge of attaching
the tail directly or utilizing “boom” configurations that decentralize the tail from the main body.
Again, the selected configuration must prove to be stable and reliable in a VTOL function, and
this was the driving force behind the decision. Thus the boom tail was the chosen tail
configuration.

Constraint and Weight Analysis

Before the team could move forward with a preliminary design for ​Teammate,​ it was necessary
to determine an operable design space. The design space is determined from satisfying a set of
standard constraints that include: takeoff, maximum speed, ceiling, rate of climb, turns, and
landing. Due to the given mission of ​Teammate​, not all of these standard constraints were
applicable. The standard takeoff constraint refers to a conventional takeoff of an aircraft, where
the aircraft takes flight after moving down a runway. ​Teammate requires a vertical takeoff, and
thus this conventional takeoff constraint was not considered when determining the design space.
The maximum speed constraint was not considered either. The main requirement for ​Teammate

14
is that it provides surveillance around a given area for at least 30 minutes at an optimal cruising
speed. If ​Teammate h​ appens to move faster than the cruising speed, it will not affect the mission
critically enough to matter.

Teammate m ​ ust be able to fly in harsh conditions. While this requirement includes different
temperatures and weather conditions, it also includes altitudes. The army operates in
mountainous regions as well as sea level regions. Therefore, a ceiling constraint was considered
when determining the design space. An altitude of 2000 meters was used as the ceiling. This
value was a conservative choice and was based on the average elevation in Utah. Utah was used
as the benchmark for the ceiling constraint because it has the highest altitude among South
Carolina and Indiana, the locations of our team, and will likely be the location of first flight.

The two other main constraints that were considered for ​Teammate were its rate of climb and
turns. ​Teammate n​ eeds to reach 50 meters above ground level fairly quickly. A conservative time
of 30 seconds was used for the constraint, however, this time will likely be shorter. The turns
constraint refers to the highest turning rate that the aircraft can handle aerodynamically. This
constraint was calculated using the desired cruising speed and a standard load factor of two.

The last standard constraint is the landing constraint, which is based off the landing speed,
coefficient of lift, and height above ground level before descent. Due to ​Teammate’s mission
requirement in having a vertical landing, this constraint ideally would not be considered.
However, in the event that an emergency landing is necessary, the landing constraint becomes a
factor in choosing a design space. A landing speed of nine meters per second at a height above
ground level of 50 meters and max coefficient of lift of 1.4 were used for the analysis. The
landing constraint is denoted as “Vapproach” in Figure 5.

Using all these necessary constraints, along with estimates for: the aspect ratio, parasitic drag
coefficient, span efficiency, propeller efficiency, and motor efficiency, a design space was
determined. This design space is represented as the portion in Figure 5 above and to the left of all
the constraints.

15
 Figure 5: Constraint Analysis of ​Teammate

Based on the calculated design space, a design point was chosen in order to perform the weight
analysis. The design point, shown above as a star, chosen uses a wing loading of 60 N/m​2 and a
power loading of 10 W/N. This point was chosen because it is low in the design space and is
relatively conservative on both ends of wing loading and power loading.

By performing a weight analysis on ​Teammate using the mission constraints, the following
outputs were determined: overall weight (W​to​), empty weight (W​e​), battery weight (W​b​), wing
area (S), wing span (b), and power required (P). These outputs were calculated using several
inputs that include: the aspect ratio (AR), parasites drag coefficient (CD​0​), span efficiency (e),
propeller efficiency (𝜂​prop​), motor efficiency (𝜂​motor​), wing loading, power loading, battery k factor
(k​battery​), empty weight fraction (W​e​/W​to​), payload weight, density of air, and maximum
coefficient of lift (CL​max​). The values for these inputs are shown in Table 6 below. Values for the
outputs are shown in Table 7.

16
Table 6: Inputs to Weight Analysis
Input Value

AR 5.71

CD​0 0.035

e 0.8

𝜂​prop 0.5

𝜂​motor 0.72

Wing Loading [N/m​2​] 60

Power Loading [W/N] 10

Battery k Factor [J/N] 52540

W​e​/W​to 0.5

Payload Weight [N] 15.7

Density of Air [kg/m​3​] 1.225

CL​max 1.65

Table 7: Outputs to Weight Analysis

Output Value

W​to​ [N] 44.58

W​e​ [N] 22.29

W​b​ [N] 6.59

S [m​2​] 0.74

b [m] 2.06

P [W] 445.79

Determining the outputs from the weight analysis were an important step in the design process.
The values determined helped provide a starting point for preliminary, detailed design.

17
Summary of Conceptual Design
The system we have designed is a quadplane, a UAS that consists of four stationary rotors that
work solely for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and a propeller that generates thrust for the
forward motion. This configuration fits the needs of our mission better than a tilt-rotor system,
namely in the factors of control and efficiency. The propulsion system of a quadplane
configuration will also be lighter than that of a tilt-rotor configuration for our mission. Having
the two discrete systems for takeoff and forward flight allow the motors and propellers to be
optimized for maximum flight time. In addition, the transition between VTOL and forward flight
in the tilt-rotor configuration is more difficult to control, especially in high wind conditions.

The forward flight propeller is a pusher configuration located behind the fuselage and the wing
but ahead of the tail. The pusher configuration allows the camera to be mounted on the front of
the plane, optimizing field of view. In addition, the pusher configuration is less sensitive to
crosswind, making the design more effective in extreme conditions.

The boom tail was also a necessary choice for the configuration. The boom tail design minimizes
the effect of the tail and the fuselage connected to the tail on the VTOL components. Lifting the
horizontal stabilizer reduces the effect of vortices produced by the propeller on the efficiency of
the horizontal stabilizer. The boom tail configuration provides an opportunity to reduce the
weight of the UAS, as well as increase overall flight stability. These factors are crucial to the
durability of the UAS.

Teammate i​ s designed to cruise at an airspeed velocity of 13.4 m/s for 48 minutes and 25 seconds
before needing to be recharged. While maintaining an altitude of 50m above ground this allows
the ​Teammate ​to survey an area of over 11,000 m​2 ​using the FLIR Vue TZ20 camera. It is
possible to employ multiple aircraft at once to ensure there is constant coverage over an area.
The number of aircrafts that are required is dependent on the distance to the surveillance area as
well as local weather conditions. It is expected that each aircraft will be able to fully charge in 40
minutes. With a complete payload, the aircraft weighs 5.081 kg (11.2 lbs). So far, our team has
manufactured a full-scale glider to test manufacturability. Up until the manufacturing readiness
review, the team may make slight changes to the fuselage design. We will begin ordering
electronic components and materials in December 2020.

18
Preliminary Design

Airfoil Selection and Wing Design

After establishing the requirements of the conceptual design according to stakeholder needs and
mission parameters, the preliminary design and analysis could begin. The first analysis that took
place was the selection of which airfoil design would best fit out mission parameters. Over 40
different individual airfoils were selected from the database compiled by the Applied
Aerodynamic Group at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. These airfoils were all
analyzed in XFLR5; a representative sample of the different airfoils is shown below in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Airfoil analysis

19
Of the 40 different airfoils that were analyzed, a small number were selected for further analysis.
The airfoils were simulated at a wide range of Reynolds numbers, comparing the results of the
detailed analysis to the mission parameters.

The airfoil NACA5312 was chosen because it has a good compromise between performance,
manufacturability, and stability. It has the third highest lift coefficient of the ones presented in
Figure 6, and a consistent ratio of lift to drag for a wide range of angles of attack. The
NACA5312 airfoil will perform better in the area of stability also, as it has a much smaller
pitching moment than the higher lift airfoils. Those two high lift airfoils, S1210 and S1223, had a
difficult to manufacture shape, featuring a thin cross section and a heavily cambered shape. In
comparison, the NACA5312 airfoil will be manageable to manufacture.

Figure 7: Selected Airfoil

After selecting the airfoil it was possible to begin the design and analysis of the aerodynamic
surfaces of the plane. A preliminary basic design for the aircraft was created based on
dimensions from similar UAS designs available on the market. In addition, some basic
dimensions of the main wing were determined using the criteria of cord length and wing
thickness in order to prevent tip stall. The exact wing and tail configuration were determined at
this point, as it was crucial to perform sizing and stability testing on a three dimensional model in
order to determine its finer characteristics. Using the trade study methods shown previously in
Tables 4 and 5, a tapered wing and boom tail configuration were selected, as shown below in
Table 8.

20
Table 8: Chosen UAS Configuration
Chosen Configuration

FOM Significance Tapered Wing Boom Tail

Stability 3 4 5
Manufacturability 2 4 3
Reliability 3 4 4
Empty Weight 1 3 2
VTOL 4 4 5
Total 65 51 55

The tapered wing and boom tail both received the highest scores within the trade study, and thus
were determined best suited for the mission. The tapered wing had the best balance of
efficiency, manufacturability, weight, and reliability. It is suitable for the mission because the
angle of the taper allows for the team to maximize its efficiency and reliability during the sizing
studies. The boom tail proved to be a much more complicated decision to make, as multiple tail
configurations were applicable for the mission. The deciding factor was that the boom tail
provided excellent pitch and yaw stability during the VTOL and forward flight portions of the
mission. In addition, it provides easy mounting points along the boom for the VTOL motors to
be mounted, a trait not shared by many other configurations. With this configuration in mind,
the initial plane design was created in XFLR5 and then distributed to several members of the
team.

Beginning with this design several different team members iterated on the design and therefore
improving the flight characteristics. Dimensions such as wingspan, root and tip cord lengths,
sweep and dihedral were all optimized. The optimum design parameters were determined based
on the XFLR5 analysis. The analysis results of the iterative design process, not the final design
specifications, are shown in Figure 8 below.

21
 Figure 8: Shows the analysis results of the design iteration in XFLR5

The analysis performed in XFLR5 was critically important in allowing us to determine the exact
dimensions on the main wing, vertical stabilizers, and horizontal stabilizers. The analysis also
resulted in the aircraft design speed and angle of attack. It should be noted that during this
analysis the weight of all major aircraft components as well as their locations were included. An
extra drag term was included to represent the drag induced by the fuselage and other
non-aerodynamic surfaces.

Besides the polars shown above in Figure 8, XFLR5 calculates the lift distribution along the
wing using strip theory analysis. The results are displayed in Figure 9:

22
 Figure 9: Lift Distribution along the Main Wing, Vertical Stabilizer, and Horizontal Stabilizer

The optimum efficiency lift distribution can be achieved with an elliptical wing, however an
elliptical wing is extremely difficult to manufacture accurately, so instead, we opted to use a
tapered wing design that still achieves a very high wing efficiency of 97% while being much
easier to manufacture. Figure 9 shows the lift distribution is the highest in the center before
tapering off towards the edges. This is ideal in order to avoid tip stall of our wing.

Finally, a stability analysis was performed to ensure that the aircraft designed was both statically
and dynamically stable in all the different modes necessary for flight. This analysis was also
done in XFLR5 and the results can be seen in Figure 10 below in the form of root locus plots.

Figure 10: Root locus plots of the five different stability modes

23
Initially, the aircraft was not stable in all of these modes, but by changing the locations of some
of the heavier objects within the aircraft it was possible to stabilize the aircraft without changing
any of the dimensions of the aerodynamic surfaces. It can be seen in Figure 10 that all five
stability modes are stable except the spiral mode. However, the spiral mode can safely be left
unstable in this instance because our aircraft will be both autonomously controlled and will only
fly in conditions with good visibility. It should be noted that while the phugoid stability mode is
dynamically stable, it is dangerously close to being neutrally stable and therefore should be
monitored closely as design changes are made moving forward.

Aircraft Lift, Drag, and Stability

As the design has progressed and materials have been selected for various components, the
estimates provided from the preliminary design review have been updated. Following the process
explained above for methodology, the current design has the following specifications shown in
Table 9 below.

Table 9: UAS Aerodynamic Characteristics

Parameter Value

AOA 3.325°

C​L 0.704

C​L​/C​D 14.67

V 13.4 m/s

V​stall 9.56 m/s

Static Margin 19.3%

Aspect Ratio 5.73

Total Mass 5.081 kg

The time step response plots for short period, phugoid, roll dampening, and dutch roll were also
analyzed in XFLR5. Shown in the figures below are the plots for pitch vs. time for the
longitudinal modes, short period and phugoid, and roll vs. time for the lateral modes, roll
dampening and dutch roll. There was some tradeoff between the settling time for the phugoid
mode and static margin. And not shown is the spiral mode, which although it is still unstable the
effects can be mitigated through the use of autopilot.

24
Figure 11: Phugoid and Short Period Longitudinal Modes

Figure 12: Dutch Roll and Roll Dampening Lateral Modes

25
Propulsion Component Selection
The quadplane configuration allows for the VTOL and forward flight subsystems to be
optimized. However, these two subsystems need to be powered by one battery in order to be
charged wirelessly. As a result, the battery’s C rating must be high enough to generate the
upward thrust required in the VTOL configuration. Through iteration in Motocalc, it was found
that the battery’s C rating had to be at least 20C in order to take off at a reasonable pace. Another
consideration was the battery's capacity. In order to reach the desired 30-minute flight time, the
battery has to have a significant capacity. Both the capacity and C rating increase the price of
batteries, so in order to be cost effective, a battery was chosen with a large capacity and a smaller
C rating that meets our minimum requirements. The battery that was chosen was a Tattu 25C
10000 mAh battery that has 4 LiPo batteries in series.

The options for the VTOL and forward flight motors were narrowed down initially by the
maximum voltage of 14.8V which comes from the battery. Next, the motors were selected by
optimizing for different factors. For the VTOL motors, a motor was selected that could handle a
large amount of current. In addition, the VTOL motors need to be smaller in size and weight so
as to maintain the weight budget and to ensure that the booms will be able to easily support
them. In addition to the weight and the size, the desired motor will consume less energy from the
battery saving more energy for longer forward flight time. The motor selected for the VTOL is
the KDE3510XF-715, a good compromise of these ideals, with a fully wired weight of 175g and
a max allowed continuous amperage of 45A. In comparison, the forward motor was selected for
efficiency as to lengthen the flight time. The forward flight motor needs to have a high motor
constant. This will allow the motor to perform the flight at a lower throttle setting. This lower
throttle setting will result in higher efficiency. The motor selected is the E-Flite Power 15
Outrunner 950Kv.

The propellers were selected iteratively by trying the recommended sizes for the propellers for
each of the two systems. The 14x6 propeller was selected for the VTOL motors, as it allows the
VTOL system to generate a large amount of thrust, almost twice the body weight of the aircraft.
This will allow the system to operate a lower throttle setting. This adds a factor of safety in case
of extreme weather conditions, such as a downward wind. The 11x6 propeller was selected for
efficiency purposes as the smaller diameter will perform more efficiently. There was a factor of
part availability in selecting the forward flight propeller as the pusher propeller comes in fewer
sizes due to the less common use.

Finally, the ESC’s were selected by inputting the motors, propellers, and battery for the two
systems, and checking the amperage. For the VTOL system, the amperage at maximum throttle
was well below the 45A that was specified for the motor. As a result, the ESC chosen was the
Scorpion Commander 15V 45A. For the forward flight motor, the ESC selected was the Talon
6S 25A. The amperage rating for both of these are passed if the throttle setting is high, occurring

26
at 80% throttle for the ESC. As a result, the selected autopilot software, PX4, will be used to
limit the current draw with its “mot_i_max” parameter. The UAV will not have to operate near
the 80% throttle point, requiring only 67% throttle to maintain forward flight at the desired
speed.

Flight Pattern and Flight Time Estimation

In order to determine the required forward thrust of the aircraft, the propulsion subteam
determined the drag at different velocities. In order to calculate the drag, the dimensions of the
UAS wing were taken out of XFLR5. The weight of the aircraft used was based on the parts list
and the estimated body weight. The value for the density of air was taken from an average value
at an altitude of 1524 meters (5000 ft), approximately the height in Provo, Utah. The value for
the span efficiency was assumed to be 0.8 for the tapered configuration. The zero-lift drag
coefficient used was an average value. The values used can be seen below in Table 10.

Table 10: Inputs for Drag Calculation

Parameters Values

Weight 5.081 kg

Wing Area (S) 0.698 m​2

Aspect Ratio (AR) 5.735

Density 1.2214 kg/m​3

Cd0 0.04

Span Efficiency - e 0.8

D=C​D​⍴​AV​2​/2 (1)

The drag force, D, generated by the aircraft is found by equation 1 above. It is found by
multiplying the coefficient of drag, C​D​, later calculated using equations 2 and 3, by: the density
of air (⍴), the area of the wing (A), the forward velocity of the aircraft (V), and dividing by 2.
C​D​=C​d0​+C​L​2​/𝜋(AR)e (2)

The drag coefficient necessary to calculate the drag force comes in the form shown above in
equation 2. The total drag coefficient comes from two sources, the skin friction, which is
represented by C​d0 and the induced drag coefficient. The induced drag coefficient is found by the

27
lift coefficient, C​L​, squared, divided by 𝜋, the aspect ratio (AR), and the span efficiency (e). The
lift coefficient is found using equation 3.
C​L​=2W/⍴V​2​S (3)

The lift coefficient required is calculated using: the weight of the aircraft W, the density of air ⍴,
the velocity of the aircraft V, and the surface area S.

The resulting drag force at different velocities can be seen on Figure 13.

Figure 13: UAS Drag Force

The desired operation point of the UAS determined from the XFLR5 analysis is at 13.4 m/s,
which is marked with a black star on Figure 13. The drag force at this velocity is 0.27 Newton or
19.11 oz. This operation speed is efficient, as it occurs near the local minimum of the drag force.
Another benefit of the location near the minimum is that the drag force doesn’t vary much. As a
result, there is more room for variance.

Utilizing the drag force calculated, the forward flight time was then calculated. This was done in
Motocalc by inputting the specifications of the propellers, motors, battery, and ESC’s. However,
the VTOL and forward flight systems utilize the same battery, which cannot be modeled in
Motocalc. As a result, the amount of the battery consumption used during VTOL was
determined, as shown in Figure 14.

28
 Figure 14: VTOL Battery Consumption

Figure 14 is the plot that compares the battery consumption by the VTOL propulsion systems at
different throttle settings. The battery consumption was found by utilizing motocalc and the 50
meter height specified by the flight pattern. The total flight time possible was calculated using
the propulsion components for different take-off speeds. Knowing the speed and height needed,
the total time for ascent can be calculated. As a result, the fraction of the battery energy
consumed can be found. The maximum velocity at each throttle is determined by whether the
thrust generated at that velocity can match the thrust for our VTOL requirement. The data points
at full throttle show that the energy consumption is less at higher velocity with 7 m/s being the
upper boundary. Then, the throttle is reduced to find the throttle setting and optimal speed that
will work for our UAS.

Based on the results shown in Figure 11, we determined that the ideal point for takeoff is 10 mph
or 4.47 m/s, as it can be reached without reaching full throttle. The operation point chosen is
marked with a black star. The benefits of a faster VTOL takeoff speed are negligible. At that
point, approximately 3.75% of the battery energy would be used in the takeoff. The UAS would
reach the desired 50 meters in approximately 12 seconds. The amount of thrust for the UAS
during this time was given by 1.6 times the mass of the UAS. The amount of battery capacity
used during the whole duration of VTOL was estimated to be double that of the takeoff. This
may be an overestimation of the power used, but it will provide a safe bounds for our system to
operate within.

29
 Figure 15: Flight Time Over a Range of Flight Speeds

Figure 15 above shows the resulting flight time for different airspeeds given the selected
propulsion components. The potential flight time of the UAS as determined in Motocalc is well
above the 30 minutes specified by our requirements. For the operation point of 13.4 m/s, the
flight time achieved would be 48.4 minutes, not including the time for VTOL. This shows that
the propulsion components selected will achieve the flight time requirement easily, and allow for
variation of the design and flight pattern comfortably.

Figure 16 below shows the thrust required for forward flight at full throttle, maximum capable
throttle, and operating throttle. The curve for thrust required is the same as that of the curve for
drag from Figure 13. These curves are equal because the UAS must overcome the drag in order
to successfully fly. Using Motocalc, operating throttle was found to be 67%. This value was
determined by analyzing where the thrust for the cruising speed of 13.4 m/s intersected the drag
force. This intersection occurs at one of the lowest points in the thrust required curve. At this
throttle, the UAS is very efficient. As mentioned above, it will have a flight time of 48.4 minutes
and 30 seconds. At higher throttles, the system is capable of generating more thrust which
creates higher airspeeds, however, flight time is decreased. At full throttle, the UAS would be
able to reach a maximum airspeed of 21.5 meters per second. This value was determined from
Figure 16 at the intersection point between the 100% throttle curve and thrust required curve.
However, at this throttle setting, the selected propulsion components would burn out. From
analysis, it was determined that the maximum capable throttle without a burnout is 79%. From
Figure 16, the 79% throttle curve intersects the thrust required curve at approximately 17 m/s.
Thus, the true maximum airspeed the UAS can operate at is 17 meters per second. At this

30
airspeed, the thrust required increases to just over six Newtons. The flight time also decreases to
35 minutes and 26 seconds.

Figure 16: Thrust required at different airspeeds for throttles for 11x6 Prop

Another factor to be considered is the amount of area that the UAS can survey in its flight time.
Figure 17 shows the straight line distance that can be covered by the UAS given different
airspeeds. In general, the distance covered by the aircraft increases as the airspeed increases. The
stakeholders did not specify a required area of surveillance for the drone, so if the area surveyed
by the drone needs to be increased as the design process progresses, a solution can be found by
balancing higher operating speed and image resolution.

31
 Figure 17: Distance Covered at a Range of Airspeeds

Future of Preliminary Design

Currently, we are in the process of ensuring the coordination between the subsystems in order to
meet our requirements. For instance, we are making sure that the charging coils are at the proper
distance from the launch pad for wireless charging, which requires coordination from the
structures and controls subteams.

For propulsion and controls subteams, we still need to acquire the materials specified earlier in
the master budget in Table 1. All of the parts are currently available, but there could be issues
when the ordering process begins. If we change parts, there will be downstream effects on the
rest of the design, from the size of the parts causing interference to changing the mass of the
components in XFLR5.

The XFLR5 model will be crucial in making small changes in our design in the future. In order
to make sure the flight is as stable as possible in all modes, we may need to iterate the design.
This may come from modification of the length of the plane, but, most likely it will involve
changing the center of gravity by moving components in the fuselage.

32
Glider
A glider was constructed in order to verify the results of the aerodynamic analysis and obtain
manufacturability experience. Initially, the plan was to construct a glider that would be ½ scale
of the final design. However, after meeting to begin construction of the glider, we realized that a
full scale glider was both possible and would provide more useful information. The final form of
the glider can be seen below in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Final form of glider as constructed

The purpose of the glider is to compare the results of our aerodynamic analysis to a test model as
well as learn about manufacturing difficulties that can be expected. Therefore, it was constructed
with a much simpler design while still meeting these goals. The glider was mainly constructed
out of foam board with wood spars and booms as opposed to the carbon fiber spars and boom
and fiberglass wing covering that is expected to be used in the final design. Various types of
adhesives were used to put all the pieces together along with tape to reinforce to joints; the final
design is expected to use custom brackets that will be 3D printed.The dimensions of the glider
are identical to those that are expected to be present in the final design, the only exception being
the fuselage has a slightly larger diameter while also being shorter than the planned final design.

One of the most important lessons that was learned while manufacturing the glider was the
limitations of the foam cutter when cutting pieces for the main wing. Because the span of the
main wing is larger than the width of the foam cutter, it is necessary to cut the main wing in
multiple pieces. Those pieces then need to be securely attached together. Originally, we had
decided on a fully tapered wing that would come to a point at the center, however, that would
require cutting the wing out of four separate pieces. By changing the design slightly so the main
wing has a portion in the center that is not tapered, as can be seen in Figure 18, we are able to

33
manufacture the entire wing out of three pieces instead of four. This also allows the wing to be
more easily attached to the fuselage in the center. The change will also allow for a more durable
design because the highest bending stresses experienced by the wings are found near the center.
With these design changes the center of the wing will be constructed of a single piece so that
there is no danger of failure in the joint where the two wings meet. The original root and tip cord
lengths as well as the span remained unchanged with this new design. We also performed an
analysis in XFLR5 with these simplified design changes to ensure stable flight of our glider. One
of the main goals was to test the lift to drag ratio which involves the constant aspect ratio
between the glider and final UAS designs even though the design speed, angle of attack and
static margin vary as shown in the table below.

Table 11: Glider Aerodynamic Specifications

Parameter Value

AOA 5.5°

C​L 0.879

C​L​/C​D 12.317

V 6.33m/s

V​stall 5.20m/s

Static Margin 21.9%

Aspect Ratio 5.73

Total Mass 1342g

Besides the manufacturing lessons that were learned while building the glider we were also able
to gain important information about the aerodynamics of our design. Because the materials used
in the construction of the glider are very different from those that are proposed in the final
design, the total weights of the aircraft and glider are very different. However, we took great care
when building the glider to ensure that the center of gravity is in exactly the same location of
about one quarter of the chord length for both the glider and final design. The center of gravity is
critical for the stability of the aircraft during flight. When test flying the glider we were able to
see that the aircraft was stable in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Horizontal stability
can be seen because despite a slight wind the glider flew in a very straight line when thrown.
Vertical stability was seen during test flight when the plane was able to pull out of a dive and
level itself. Both of these things can be seen in the video of one of the test flights that can be
found ​here​.

34
Lastly, the glider enabled us to test the lift to drag ratio (L/D) of our aircraft. This was done by
throwing the glider from on an incline and then letting it fly until it hit the ground The vertical
height it was thrown from was measured to be about 6.5 m and the horizontal distance the glider
flew was measured to be about 95 m. This allows the glider to fly for longer distances closer to
the design speed of 6.33 m/s and avoiding the stall speed. It turns out that the distance an aircraft
can glide from a given height is not a function of the weight of the aircraft, but instead is only
dependent on the lift to drag ratio. Using this method we were able to determine that the lift to
drag ratio of our aircraft is about 14. This number is actually slightly higher than had been
predicted by our analysis in XFLR5. The discrepancy is likely because the glider has less drag
than will be present on the final design because the glider lacks VTOL components that will add
to the drag.

Mission Model Capabilities and Uncertainties

Our model’s capabilities are well-defined in the design requirements and mission plan. However,
the uncertainties are also a crucial aspect that we considered in order to avoid potential
catastrophes down the road. Using the NASA Risk Matrix shown to the right in Figure 19, we
rated the potential roadblocks and failures that would impact ​Teammate’s s​ uccess. Details on the
compiled list of risks, with their associated risk score, are included below in Table 12. The full
table is shown in Appendix A.

Figure 19: NASA Risk Matrix for mission uncertainties

35
 Table 12: Risk Analysis Matrix
Likelihood Consequence
Mitigation Risk Score
Title Description Type Owner (1-Low, 5 - (1-Low, 5 - Mitigation Plan
High) High) Method (25 max)
Battery and The required battery Schedule Controls/ Dual sourcing Contact other
motor or motor is currently Prop battery suppliers for
supplier out of stock and may potentially expedited
2 5 10
schedule not be available shipping.
when needed for
flight test.
Pilot The UAS pilot Operationa Team Early training Provide early and
experience acquired by this l Manager enhanced pilot
project may not training based on
2 4 8
have the necessary preliminary design of
skills and experience UAS.
for a UAS of this size
UAS lost The UAS Technical Controls Check Determine the
communicatio communications weather and weather for test
n during test system may be include both flight to ensure no
flight affected by nearby an RC communication is
thunderstorms. 2 3 receiver and lost due to poor 6
telemetry weather. Install
modem for backup coms for real
two options UAS
of control.

Structural Characteristics and Capabilities

Teammate c​ ontains several different structural elements in order to combine the major
components and ensure that it is sturdy enough to complete the mission. These elements include
booms, spars, and brackets. The booms hold the empennage to the wings as well as hold the
VTOL motors and propellers, the spars help provide structural support to the wings as well as the
empennage, and the brackets provide a connection between the boom and wing as well as the
boom and empennage. Figure 20 provides a structural layout of how all these components work
together. The fuselage is excluded from the figure in order to provide better clarity of the wing
spars.

36
 Figure 20: Structural layout of aircraft

The booms are made of pullbraided carbon fiber tube and have an outer diameter of 25 mm. The
fibers in the tube are orientated in 0, +45, -45, and 90 degrees in order to provide bending,
torsional, and crushing strength. As shown in Figure 20, the boom runs all the way through the
bracket in the wing down to the empennage where it connects to the vertical stabilizer via
another bracket.The boom is secured in place by both brackets.

A VTOL motor and propeller is mounted to the boom both in front of the wing and behind it as
shown in Figure 20. The mounts are made up of four semi-circle clamps and a plate. The clamps
and mounting plate will be secured around the boom using fasteners. Figure 21 below shows an
illustration of the VTOL mount, motor and propeller. The fasteners are excluded in the figure.

Figure 21: VTOL Mount, Motor, and Propeller

37
The spars are made of carbon fiber and are used to provide structural support to the wings,
vertical stabilizers, and elevator. Two spars of outer diameter 12.1 mm are used for the wings,
and three spars of outer diameter 12.8 mm are used for the empennage. Both wing spars run from
the left wing, through the fuselage, all the way out to the right wing. The spars are kept whole
through the fuselage in order to help eliminate the need for further connections. Figure 20 shows
how the wing spars run through the wing. For the empennage, one spar runs horizontally through
the elevator, and one spar runs vertically through each of the vertical stabilizers. Figure 20 shows
the locations of the holes for these spars. The vertical stabilizer spars run all the way through the
empennage-boom bracket and into the boom, where a pin will be used to help secure the
components together. Figure 20 shows this architecture with the exclusion of the pin.

To create the connection between the boom and the wing, a 3D printed PLA custom bracket is
used. This bracket is shown in Figure 22 below. In Figure 20, this bracket is referred to as the
Wing-Boom Bracket. The bracket takes the airfoil shape of the wing and runs directly through it.
It has two constraining surfaces on each end to help prevent the boom from bending up and
down. In addition, two holes are located in the top part of the bracket to allow the wing spars to
pass through. Each side of the bracket will also be glued to the wing. A similar custom bracket is
used at the tail end of the boom to create the connection to the vertical stabilizer. This bracket is
shown in Figure 23. In Figure 20, this bracket is referred to as the Empennage-Boom Bracket.
The bracket is designed aerodynamically to help reduce drag and allow the vertical stabilizer to
sit flush against it. A hole runs through the bracket to allow passage for the spar that is used for
the vertical stabilizer. This hole is not visible in Figure 23. In addition, a hole runs through the
bracket horizontally where the center of the boom would be. This hole will be used for securing
the vertical stabilizer with a pin.

Figure 22: 3D-Printed Custom Bracket for Wing-Boom Connection

38
 Figure 23: 3D-Printed Custom Bracket for Empennage-Boom Connection

Due to the design decision of implementing 3D printed PLA brackets, there is concern that the
brackets might not be strong enough to support the booms. In order to help verify that the boom
brackets will be capable of providing the necessary structural support to the aircraft, finite
element analyses (FEA) were performed in SolidWorks. The simulations provide an overall
vonMises stress distribution on the components. If the yield stress of PLA is higher than the
highest vonMises stress on the bracket, then it can be concluded that the bracket is structurally
strong enough to be used on the aircraft. Before the simulations were run, initial force and
moment analyses were performed in static conditions in order to estimate the loads acting on the
brackets.

For the Wing-Boom Bracket, it was determined that an overall downward force of approximately
5 Newtons and an overall bending moment (going into the page using the right-hand rule) of
approximately 8.5 Newton-meters act on the bracket. To be conservative, these values were
doubled when inputting them into the simulation. Constraints were placed on the wing spar
holes. As shown in Figure 24, the yield stress for PLA is 39.8 MPa [1]. The highest vonMises
stress acting on the bracket is 9.850 MPa. Based on these results, the bracket is capable of being
used on the aircraft.

39
 Figure 24: VonMises Stress Distribution for Wing-Boom Bracket

For the Empennage-Boom Bracket, it was calculated that an overall downward force of
approximately 10 Newtons and bending moment (coming out of the page using the right-hand
rule) of 6 Newton-meters act on the bracket. A simulation was attempted to be run on the bracket
in SolidWorks similar to how it was run for the Wing-Boom Bracket, however, it was
unsuccessful due to an incompatible mesh. In order to get the bracket to mesh, a lot of geometry
needed to be simplified. All fillets and holes needed to be removed from the model. The
simplified model also made it impossible to apply a bending moment as needed, and therefore
that load was left out of the simulation. What is left is shown in Figure 25 below. A downward
force of 20 Newtons was applied producing a maximum vonMises stress of 11.78 kPa. It is
important to also note that the constraints applied for this simulation were applied to part of the
sides of the model. If the mesh would have been compatible with the original model as shown in
Figure 23, then the constraints would have been applied at the pin hole. While the observed
maximum vonMises stress for the simulation was lower than the yield stress of PLA, it cannot be
concluded that this bracket will be capable of being used on the aircraft. However, due to more
trustworthy results obtained from the Wing-Boom Bracket simulation, it is reasonable to assume
that the Empennage-Boom Bracket may still be a structurally capable component since both will
be made of PLA. Thus, more testing will need to be done. This may include printing samples of
the bracket and physically testing them or modifying the model on SolidWorks and doing further
simulations.

40
 Figure 25: VonMises Stress Distribution for Simplified Empennage-Boom Bracket

As stated earlier, each subteam listed their contributions to the construction of the UAS.
However, it is well known that this preliminary cost estimate will not be the final cost of the
UAS. As such, further budgetary analysis was performed in order to determine more closely the
costs associated with the entire manufacturing process and is summarized in the below table.
Each subteam was allocated a certain amount of the $4000 budget in order to plan expenses with.
The controls and propulsion subteams both received a larger share due to their expensive
electronic components. Expenses for each subteam are then listed, subtracting from the allocated
budget. Finally, a net balance is found after these expenses are taken into account. Note that the
below info is an anticipated guideline, and as such an amount of leftover money is saved in order
to allow for rapid adjustments.

Table 13: Manufacturing Preliminary Budget

Starting Budget: $4000 - Budget Breakdown
Subteam Aerodynamics Controls Propulsion Structures
Allocated Subteam Budget $900.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $900.00
Expenses
Primary Materials (From Table X) -$100.00 -$381.29 -$894.01 -$49.69
Supplementary Materials -$100.00 -$50.00 -$50.00 -$150.00
Shipping Allocation -$50.00 -$100.00 -$150.00 -$200.00
Net Balance
Leftover Budget Per Subteam $650.00 $568.71 $5.99 $500.31
Total Leftover "Flex" Money: $1,725.01

41
This analysis is about each subteam’s need for supplementary materials, which includes:
adhesives, fasteners, other parts not shown on the current CAD model, and additional tooling.
While the total cost or necessity of these materials cannot be precisely determined at this point in
time, it is important to allocate a certain amount of money for them. See below for a table of
predicted supplementary materials for each subteam.

Table 14: Description of Supplementary Materials

Subteam Supplementary Materials

Aerodynamics Spare foamular, fiberglass fabric, carbon fiber tubing

Controls Spare wiring, wiring tiedowns, electronics fasteners

Propulsion Spare wiring, wiring tiedowns, electronics fasteners

Structures Adhesives, structural fasteners, additional 3D printer filament,

spare laser cutting material

As seen above, many of the additional costs will likely come from small materials that are used
to secure individual parts or potentially necessary spare materials in the event of a manufacturing
error. An important part of budgetary manufacturing planning lies in the usage of materials and
tools that are supplied by the participating schools, however. A matrix was assembled early on
in the project that documented the tools and material available from each university. It was
found that a suitable amount of material and all necessary tooling could be sourced from the
universities with little to no cost. This includes the foamular material for the wings, PLA
filament for 3D printed parts, and a variety of shop tools (including 3D printers and laser
cutters). It was easily determined that all the necessary tooling could be sourced from the
university or individual team members, negating any tooling costs. This was especially
influential to the aerodynamics subteam as the wings and tail could be constructed using low
cost, school-supplied foamular and the Brigham Young foam hot wire cutter.

Lastly, shipping costs must be accounted for as the manufacturing must be performed at every
university. Due to the fragility of the wings, it was determined that they would remain at
Brigham Young University while the other main parts were shipped there for completion. Freight
costs were budgeted using rough estimates created using the flat rate UPS shipping calculator.
This value was considered a minimum amount in order to anticipate further shipping fees. Each
subteam’s anticipated shipping budget is reflective of the size of the items they will ship. The
structures subteam was allocated the most in this plan, due to the large sizing of the objects that
will be shipped, whereas aerodynamics was allocated the smallest amount as the wings will not
be shipped. There is a very large pool of “flex” money, which can be allocated anywhere in the
event of a deviation from the manufacturing plan. This spare money will likely be necessary for
unplanned or more expensive shipping, and redundant or spare parts.

42
Much like the cost of the ​Teammate, the weight budget has also been carefully decided and
tracked through design iterations. With a total allowable weight of 12.5 lbs, this was divided
among the four subteams. Weight for each component has not only been added to individual
Solidworks parts but also in a master spreadsheet. This aids in locating the cg of the UAS and
keeping track of total weight. The current weight division by subteam, summing their required
components, is shown in the figure below with a total weight of 5.081kg (11.2lbs).

Figure 26: Weight Allotment by Subteam

43
 Preliminary Manufacturing Plan
Due to the division of the team between three universities across the country, manufacturing
posed a challenge, and thus it is very important to consider early in the design process. To ensure
that ​Teammate can be manufactured on time and correctly, the team created a preliminary
manufacturing plan that would not only help organize the manufacturing process later on, but
also aid in the detailed design process. The manufacturing plan outlines the materials, methods,
and locations for the building the major components

Manufacturing Methods
The manufacturing plan for the UAS will be divided in five main categories: wings, fuselage,
structural supports, nose cone, and custom designed brackets. While the stakeholders may decide
to fund and implement more than one of the ​Teammates, ​the manufacturing plan consists of
building one complete UAS. For the wings, a study was done on three manufacturing options
including balsa wood and mylar combination, 3D printing, and foam and fiberglass combination.
Weight, cost, surface roughness, structural strength, electronics incorporation, production time,
and production skill are all factors considered.

Table 15: Wing Manufactuability Options

Wing Manufacturability

FOM Significance Balsa Wood/Mylar 3D Print Foam/Fiberglass

Weight 3 5 4 5
Cost 2 1 3 5
Surface Roughness 3 3 2 2
Structural Strength 4 2 1 4
Electronics Assembly 3 4 5 3
Production Time 2 3 2 3
Production Skill 3 5 3 3
Total 100 67 56 71

44
The balsa wood and mylar combination is a lightweight option. This process yields well for
repeatability and accuracy by laser cutting airfoils across the span of the wing, elevator, and fin.
This tradeoff between production skill is balanced between the production time of laser cutting,
assembly, and the mylar coating. Additionally, there is a concern about tolerances and achieving
a tight fit between the airfoil sections and the spar. Assembly is more complex as well because
there could be some inherent twist in how the airfoils are secured to the spar. Overall, balsa
wood and mylar did not seem to be the best way to manufacture the wings because they provide
less support structurally due to their thin cross-sections, adding to the possibility of the wings
breaking upon landing impact to the risk matrix . For cost, balsa wood is a more expensive
option compared to the other options researched. The mylar covering is inherently waterproof
but is susceptible to ultraviolet degradation due to exposure to sunlight. So, although mylar
would be a lightweight material for covering the balsa wood, the stakeholders’ requirement to
endure harsh weather conditions eliminates this manufacturing option.

3D printing the wings allows for a much more creative design for incorporating electronics and
overall wiring of the UAS. Constraints include the capabilities of the 3D printer for filament
material, overall sizing, and design limitations such as overhangs and angles. Thus, this method
increases the time required to design the part and respective production skill as print orientation
is another large factor. Strength is also dependent on print direction and the layering method
contains inherent stress and potential fracture locations. 3D printing can also require a large
amount of time and the rough surface finish would need post-processing to achieve comparable
aerodynamic efficiencies. Filament cost is relatively cheap, but it can be expensive to outsource
3D prints if printers are not easily accessible.

The foam and fiberglass manufacturing option scored the highest in the decision matrix for
manufacturing the wings. This option provides ample structural support without limiting the
placement of the electronics. The foam is also cheap to purchase, and using the 4-axis CNC wire
cutter to create the desired airfoils has both a high accuracy and repeatability. Spar holes can be
cut with the wire cutter to get desired placement. Cutting the foam is faster than 3D printing and
the required production skill is minimal. Some extra planning is required for electronics
placement and assembly of the wings and tail as it will be difficult to cut the fiberglass once it
has been overlaid on the foam. Laying fiberglass will take time and skill; however, resources at
the various universities will aid in this process. This option also has a great surface finish, and
although the fiberglass adds weight, it greatly increases the structural stability and limits
damages from weathering. Thus, the chosen method for manufacturing the wings is the
combination of foam and fiberglass.

For the fuselage, the decision for the manufacturing plan was between 3D printing and laser
cutting plywood. While 3D printing allowed for greater flexibility in design and securing
payload components, the time of production, size, and limited strength shifts the decision to laser
cutting. If any components such as a NACA duct needed to be implemented in the fuselage

45
design, this could still be accomplished through a combination of 3D printed parts secured to the
MDF fuselage.

The booms require high strength and stiffness to support the frame of the UAS under bending
from wing loading and weight. The manufacturing decision for these is to purchase carbon fiber
tubes from Rockwest Composites. Desired specifications for these carbon fiber tubes include a
tradeoff between high stiffness, high bending strength, and low density. The fabric weave carbon
tubing was selected for the spars as it has the structural qualities of a unidirectional tubing with
an outer woven fabric ply that helps to minimize fraying during cutting and drilling. The pull
braided tubing was selected for the booms as the interlocked fibers increase the bend and
twisting stiffness.

The nose cone and brackets are innovatively designed components to meet the design
requirements. 3D printing is the best manufacturing method to accomplish these lower quantities
and greatly design flexibility needs. Consideration will be made to optimize the print direction,
strength, and design needs. Wall thicknesses will be increased in 3D printed components
carrying a load, and the surface roughness can be minimized through sanding. This method also
allows for prototypes to be made prior to the final component at a low cost.

Collaboration
When deciding on manufacturing locations, several factors were considered. These factors
included equipment and machinery availability, team members' manufacturing experience, and
number of team members at each university.

The wings and empennage will both be manufactured at BYU. This decision resulted from
several factors. As mentioned above, the wing and empennage will be made from foam and
fiberglass. Because of this, Clemson was not considered as the manufacturing location for these
components since the university does not have an easily accessible wire cutter. Purdue has a wire
cutter, but was also ruled out of consideration for the manufacturing location of these
components because of less team member availability and experience compared to that of BYU.

The fuselage will be manufactured at Clemson using a laser cutter. Three team members will be
available to help cut it into six different and interlocking pieces. After ensuring that the pieces fit
together properly and meet the design specifications, the fuselage will be shipped to BYU. The
pieces will not be glued together at this stage, so that they can be flat-packed without risk of
damaging the integrity of the fuselage. The structural supports which include the booms and
spars will be ordered and shipped to BYU. Any necessary modifications needed for these
components will be made there as well. The nose cone and structural brackets will be

46
manufactured at Purdue using the university's 3D printer. These will then be shipped to BYU
once they are finalized and tested.

Final Assembly
Final assembly will occur at BYU. Since the wing and empennage are the largest of the
components, the team felt it necessary that they should not be shipped compared to other
components.

Figure 27: Final Assembly

47
Verification/Validation Plan and Results and Testing Plan
To verify that ​Teammate is meeting the objectives of our mission, we have developed a series of
tests. Below is a list of our tests and preliminary schedule:

Table 16: Verification and Validation Tests

Test Name Objective Schedule

Glider Test Test overall feasibility, Late November, 2020 -

manufacturability, and Completed
stability of aircraft

Field of View Camera Test Adjust camera based on field January, 2021
of view and resolution

Static Forward Flight Test Gather thrust data of forward January, 2021
flight motor

Dynamic Forward Flight Test Gather thrust data of forward February, 2021
flight motor in a wind tunnel

VTOL Bench test Gather thrust data of VTOL February, 2021

propulsion system

Controls System Bench Test Make sure all servos, GPS, February, 2021
and telemetry work properly

Wing Deflection Test Make sure the wings can February, 2021
bend an adequate amount
before breaking

48
Conclusions and lessons learned
Different structural considerations were taken into account when designing ​Teammate​. These
considerations included the material and strength of components, as well as the methods needed
to secure everything together. The major components of ​Teammate ​are secured through spars,
booms, and brackets. The spars and booms were chosen to be made of carbon fiber since the
material offers a lightweight, yet strong option. The brackets were chosen to be made of PLA
which is a common material used in 3D printing. Since PLA is not as strong as other materials, a
finite element analysis was done on the brackets. Results indicated that the Wing-Boom Bracket
was capable of withstanding the structural loads of the aircraft, however, results for the
Empennage-Boom Bracket were not as clear. Due to this uncertainty, further analysis and testing
needs to be done on the Empennage-Boom bracket moving forward. In addition to testing the
brackets, a wing tip test will be performed on the wings to determine the maximum deflection of
the wings.

The main aerodynamic design has been selected at this point which includes a rectangular wing
center with tapered tips and two booms supporting the boom tail. During manufacturability of
the glider it was learned that the foam wire cutter had length constraints affecting how many
sections our wing would need to be cut in order to achieve the desired span. Thus the decision
was changed from an entire tapered wing requiring 4 sections to a combination of a rectangular
center and tapered tips requiring 3 sections. The two inch thickness of the foamular also drove
the max chord length as the NACA 3512 is a thick airfoil and our original dimensions had a
thickness greater than 2 inches. From the glider testing, confidence was gained in achieving the
desired center of gravity location and flight performance. We learned the importance of updating
weights of components and keeping the modes of stability, especially phugoid, stable throughout
various iterations.

The propulsion system selection has been finalized at this point. We selected quadplane for our
VTOL configuration as it fits better for our mission and has advantages in weight and control
aspects. Communication between the subteams is very important. The configuration would affect
different aspects that include tail designs and control system designs of the entire aircraft. Inputs
from other subteams helped us determine the advantages and disadvantages of different VTOL
configurations, thus, helping us finalize our selection. Since our mission requires charging the
plane wirelessly, our battery selection was limited to a battery without cells in parallel and one
battery for the entire plane. This made us look for a huge battery to lengthen the flight time. The
forward flight motor was easy to select after the aerodynamic parameters were finalized for the
drag calculation. Propellers were then selected with iterations to find the one that can generate
the maximum flight time. It was difficult for us to select the VTOL motors since the thrust
required is very high with a safety factor of 1.6. It took us multiple iterations to find the motor
and propeller that can generate enough thrust and minimize energy consumption for VTOL. The

49
lessons we learned during the process are the importance of communications between subteams
and the need of iterations, scientific analysis, and guesses to obtain the optimal subsystem.

Teammate’s mission is heavily dependent upon onboard computing and a robust controls
configuration. Aside from the complexity of ensuring a successful system of electronics for
drones, we had to learn how to implement a wireless charging subsystem onboard our UAS.
From learning to use DAVE software to program the wireless charging components to ensuring
that our wireless charging coils will be able to transfer the the expected power necessary to
charge our high-capacity battery, we became very familiar with the nuances and challenges of
wireless charging. Another unique opportunity we had was to familiarize ourselves with Nvidia’s
TX2 as well as the Robotics Operating System (ROS) that we will need to use to utilize its
computing power. Becoming more comfortable using ROS will be crucial for our data collection
during our future flight tests. Additionally, we gained a greater understanding of the PX4
software on the Pixhawk autopilot system. We learned how vast its capabilities are as well as the
importance of tuning parameters for our specific drone. We learned how to run flight simulations
in Gazebo and we will rely on that skill to ensure the success of our drone before its first flight.
Ultimately, we learned how complex constructing a reliable controls system for a drone is,
especially given the required capability of our specific mission.

50
Structural Arrangement

Figure 28: Top-Down View of ​Teammate

51
 2 1
2.10

0.57
B B

1.65

ALL DOCUMENT UNITS

IN METERS AND DEGREES.
A TITLE: A
AIRCRAFT
STRUCTURE
DWG. NO. REV
1 7
SCALE: 1:10 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 2

2 1
 2 1
FIN-ELEVATOR BRACKETS
ELEVATOR SPARS (ADHERED TO FIN AND ELEVATOR)
(ADHERED INSIDE ELEVATOR) FOAM CUT ELEVATOR
(ARHERED TO ELEVATOR-FIN
BOOM-FIN BRACKETS BRACKETS)
(FASTENED TO BOOM AND FIN)

FOAM-CUT FINS
B (ADHERED TO ELEVATOR-FIN
& BOOM-FIN BRACKETS) B
WING SPARS
(ADHERED INSIDE WING) BOOMS (FASTENED TO
WING-BOOM & BOOM-FIN
BRACKETS)

FIN SPARS
(ADHERED INSIDE FIN)
FOAM-CUT WING
(ADHERED TO SPARS
AND FUSELAGE)

FUSELAGE (LASER CUT

AND ADHERED TOGETHER)

A VTOL MOTORS x4 TITLE: A

(FASTENED TO BOOMS)
WING-BOOM BRACKET
STRUCTURAL
(FASTENED TO WING AND BOOM) DIAGRAM
DWG. NO. REV

1 7
SCALE: 1:20 WEIGHT: SHEET 2 OF 2

2 1
 2 1

B B

0.05

0.05

A TITLE: A
PROP PLACEMENT - CENTERED FUSELAGE
(1:2.5 SCALE MAGNIFIED)
DWG. NO. REV

7 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 5

2 1
 2 1

B MAIN MOTOR/PROP ASSEMBLY B

COUNTERWEIGHT
VTOL ESC (x4) ONBOARD COMPUTER
CAMERA
(IN NOSECONE) GPS MODULE
RC RECIEVER LIDAR

BATTERY ASSEMBLY WIRELESS CHARGING COIL

MAINBOARD
MAIN PROP ESC RADIO MODEM
VOLTAGE RECTIFIER

A TITLE: A
COMPONENT
LAYOUT
DWG. NO. REV

2 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 2 OF 5

2 1
 2 1

NOTE: NOTCHES AND TEETH ON ALL LASER-CUT PIECES

ARE THE EQUIVALENT DEPTH OF THE THICKNESS OF THE STOCK
MATERIAL (1/8" OR 3.175 mm). ALL ARE 5 MM IN LENGTH.

B B
SEE DETAILS A AND B FOR EXAMPLES

0.05

0.003175 0.003175
0.05

DETAIL A
DETAIL B SCALE 1 : 1
SCALE 1 : 1

A B
TITLE: A
FUSELAGE
A DWG. NO. REV

2 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 3 OF 5

2 1
 2 1
BASE DIMENSIONS FOR LASER CUT STOCK ARE 0.75X0.1
HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR TEETH LARGER STOCK
MUST BE USED.

0.75

B TOP AND BOTTOM PANELS B

0.10 0.09365 HAVE TEETH ON LONG SIDE

0.75635

ENSURE STOCK IS AT LEAST 0.75635X0.1

0.75635

PORT AND STARBOARD PANELS

0.10 HAVE NOTCHES ON LONG SIDE

0.75

A TITLE: A
LASER CUT PARTS
DWG. NO. REV

2 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 4 OF 5

2 1
 2 1
0.185 0.075
0.01 PORT
MAJOR DIM. OF FRONT AND
BACK PANELS ARE IDENTICAL
0.03 0.024
FRONT
B 0.10 B
0.03 SPAR HOLES (x2) STARBOARD
0.185

0.10

BACK

0.075 SPAR HOLES (x2) 0.024

0.15 BOTTOM
R0.01
0.05
0.03

0.01 TOP
0.12 0.00810
A 0.01
TITLE: A
LASER CUT PARTS
DWG. NO. REV
0.02
0.17 0.10
0.17
2 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 5 OF 5

2 1
 2 1

NOTE ON SPARS:
FOR ALL DRAWINGS CONSULT THIS DOCUMENT FOR SPAR SPECS
SPARS FOR FINS AND ELEVATOR ARE ROCKWEST MODEL
45550-UHM REV NC
ELEVATOR SPAR
SPARS FOR MAIN WING ARE ROCKWEST MODEL 464001 REV B (SEPARATED)
B ALL ARE CUT TO LENGTH CUSTOM.
B
0.0635

FIN SPAR

0.225
LONG WING SPAR

SHORT WING SPAR

2.10

1.10

A TITLE: A
SPAR
DESCRIPTION
DWG. NO. REV

3 7
SCALE: 1:10 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1

0.38

B 0.73
B

0.23

WING IS SYMMETRICAL ACROSS MIDLINE

0.23
0.04

0.38

0.12

0.30
A 0.37
TITLE: A
MAIN WING
DWG. NO. REV

4 7
SCALE: 1:20 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 2

2 1
 2 1

WING IS SYMMETRICAL ACROSS MIDLINE

A B

0.10

B B

A B
0.50

SPAR HOLES (x2) (464001 REV B)

0.17
0.25
0.30
0.37
0.08

A SECTION A-A SECTION B-B

TITLE: A
FITS DIMENSIONS OF NACA 5312
MAIN WING
DWG. NO. REV

4 7
SCALE: 1:10 WEIGHT: SHEET 2 OF 2

2 1
 2 1

0.25

B SPAR HOLE (45550-UHM REV NC) B

0.01300

0.25

0.20
0.137

0.051
0.20
FITS DIMENSIONS OF
NACA 0013
A 0.15 TITLE:
A
FIN
0.20 DWG. NO. REV

5 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1

0.20

B B

0.57 0.501

A SPAR HOLE
(45550-UHM REV NC) 0.051 TITLE: A
DIMENSIONS OF NACA 5322 ELEVATOR
DWG. NO. REV
0.15
6 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1

TOP VIEW

B 0.036
B

DIMENSIONS OF NACA 5312

0.026
0.075

0.026

0.02 0.03 0.135 0.065 0.016

0.065 0.08
SIDE VIEW
ALL FILLETS 0.1m

BOTTOM VIEW
A TITLE:
A
WING-BOOM
BRACKET
DWG. NO. REV

7 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1
TOP VIEW

0.02 0.15

B B
DIMENSIONS OF NACA 0012

0.03 0.10 0.10 0.003

135.02° ALL FILLETS 3 mm

0.02

0.01 0.02
0.03 R0.02
0.03
0.26 SIDE VIEW

A TITLE:
A
EMPENAGE
BOOM BRACKET
DWG. NO. REV

8 7
SCALE: 1:3 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1

0.0094

0.02
0.005

B B
0.214

FITS DIMENSIONS OF NACA 5322

PART IS MIRRORED ACROSS A 45 ANGLE

0.025 0.0263 0.039

0.0127
FITS DIMENSIONS OF NACA 0012

0.039

A TITLE:
A
ELEVATOR
BRACKET
DWG. NO. REV

9 7
SCALE: 1:5 WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
Power Bay

Figure 29: Power Bay - Controls Diagram

Control Bay

Figure 30: Control Bay - Controls Diagram

67
Propulsion Bay

Figure 31: Propulsion Bay - Controls Diagram

68
Appendix A

Figure 2: Updated Gantt Chart

69
Figure 2.1: Original Gantt Chart

70
 Table 11: Risk Matrix
Likelihood Consequence
Mitigation Risk Score
Title Description Type Owner (1-Low, 5 - (1-Low, 5 - Mitigation Plan
High) High) Method (25 max)
Battery and The required battery Schedule Controls/ Dual sourcing Contact other
motor or motor is currently Prop battery suppliers for
supplier out of stock and may potentially expedited
2 5 10
schedule not be available shipping.
when needed for
flight test.
Pilot The UAS pilot Operationa Team Early training Provide early and
experience acquired by this l Manager enhanced pilot
project may not training based on
2 4 8
have the necessary preliminary design of
skills and experience UAS.
for a UAS of this size
UAS lost The UAS Technical Controls Check Determine the
communicatio communications weather and weather for test
n during test system may be include both flight to ensure no
flight affected by nearby an RC communication is
thunderstorms. 2 3 receiver and lost due to poor 6
telemetry weather. Install
modem for backup coms for real
two options UAS
of control.
GPS Pixhawk GPS may Technical Controls Check Determine the
disconnects lose GPS signal due weather and weather for test
from satellite to poor weather include flight. Ensure GPS
1 5 Multi-satellit
has connected to at 5
e lock, least 6 satellites
Multi-GPS before launch, Install
backup GPS
Non-VTOL If battery is Technical Structure Landing gear Build landing gear to
Landing discharged, the UAS protect camera or
will have to perform design fuselage to
1 4 4
a natural landing protect camera
which may cause
damage to camera
Tip Stall A larger taper for the Technical Aerodyn- Design Confirm minimal, if
wing results in a max amics analysis in any, tip stall for
lift near the tip of 2 4 XFLR glider build after 8
the wing creating tip running XFLR analysis
stall
Stability Correct cg Technical Aerodyn- Stability Scaled weight model
placement for amics analysis in for the glider as well
appropriate static 2 5 XFLR as running XFLR 10
margin (range analysis
10%-15%)

71
References
[1] “The Online Materials Information Resource,” ​MatWeb​ Available:
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=ab96a4c0655c4018a8785ac4031b92
78&ckck=1

[2] Glider Test Flight Video link: ​https://youtu.be/88RyG0t7cwc

72