FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS-BRAZIL

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
AERONAUTICAL STUDIES CENTER

SAE AERO DESIGN EAST 2004

DESIGN REPORT

TEAM CEA-UAV-Nº 17
DEMIAN SANTOS RESENDE
ELI DE SOUZA JUNIOR
QUINTINO ROMAGNA FILHO
LUIZ AUGUSTO TAVARES VARGAS
RAFAEL JOSÉ BARROS E SANTOS
THIAGO HENRIQUE LARA PINTO

FACULTY ADVISOR: CARLOS ALBERTO CIMINI JR.

BELO HORIZONTE, FEBRUARY, 2004

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 i
SUMMARY

The present report describes the project “Santos Dumont” Team CEA-UAV of the Mechanical

Engineering Department of UFMG for the participation in the competition SAE-Aero Design East 2004.

Initially, the philosophy of the project and the used methodology are explained, following initial

conception of the aircraft is described. Aerodynamics, stability and control, performance, and structural

analysis as well as dynamic tests are followed. In the aerodynamic analysis, the choices of the wing

airfoils used are explained and justified, and an evaluation of the drag and lift generated by each

component of the aircraft is made, resulting in the calculation of the drag polar curve. In the stability and

control analysis, the longitudinal stability, the position of the neutral points and maneuver, as well as the

deflections of the horizontal Tail, and the lateral and directional stability are evaluated. The performance

analysis involves the evaluation of the speeds reached by the aircraft, rate of climbing, takeoff and

landing run. In the structural calculations, all the active loads in the aircraft are analyzed, the more

important structural elements are sized and later the aircraft is rehearsed for more shipment critics’

conditions. Finally conclusions are drawn and the references are indicated.
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 ii
TABLE OF SYMBOLS
Symbols:
L –lift [lbf] Γ – Dihedral angle [º]
D – (drag) [lbf] iR – wing root incidence angle [º]
α –attack angle iT – wing tip incidence angle [º]
m – Pitching moment Λ – sweep angle [º]
λ – Taper Ratio M – Mach number
cR – root chord [in] (t/c) – Thickness
cT – root chord [in] ρ – air density [kg/m³]

c – mean aerodynamic chord ν – cinematic viscosity

AR – Aspect Ratio, V – Speed [mph, ft/s, knot]

b – Span [in, ft] h – Height, altitude density[m]

S – Wing reference area [in²] q – Dynamic pressure [Pa, kPa or Mpa]

Se – Exposed wing area (wet area) [in²] h0 – Wing aerodynamic center

SHT –Horizontal tail area [in²] hn – Neutral point fixed stick

SVT –Vertical tail area [in²] hm – Maneuver point fixed stick

CL – Lift Coefficient VHT – Volume coefficient horizontal tail

CD – Drag Coefficient
VVT – Volume coefficient vertical tail
e –Oswald factor
a, dcL/dα – Lift, alpha curve slope [/º ou /rad] a1, a2, a3 – aerodynamics coefficients for longitudinal
stability
ε – downwash angle
Lt – “Horizontal Tail arm
dε/dα – downwash
Lf – Fuselage Length
T –thrust [lbf]
W – Weight [lb]
Indices:
We –Empty weight [N]
i – induced
P – Power [W ou HP]
o – Parasite or bi-dimensional airfoil
PR – Required Power [W]
w – Wing
PD – Available Power [W]
HT – horizontal Tail
RoC – Rate of climbing [m/s ou ft/min]
VT –vertical tail
µ – Coefficient of friction, dynamic viscosity,
F – Fuselage
longitudinal stability factor
H – Propeller
ac – ground acceleration [m/s]
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 iii
SUMMARY

TABLE OF SYMBOLS ..................................................................................................................................... ii

1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2 - OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 4
3 – METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4
4 – PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5
5 – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS PROJECTS ................................................................................ 5
6 – AIRCRAFT CONCEPTION......................................................................................................................... 6
7 – GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................... 10
8 – AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS. ................................................................................................................... 11
9 – STABILITY AND CONTROL ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 14
10 – PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 16
12 – CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 22
13 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 23
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 4
1 - INTRODUCTION

Stimulated by the philosophy of the competition SAE-Aero Design, that sets the students of

engineering against commonly problems faced by the professionals of the aeronautical industry,

motivating the research and the development of new and alternative solutions, the team of the

Aeronautical Studies Center of UFMG presents this project for the competition SAE Aero Design

East 2004.

According to the new rules of the competition created by SAE, the team intended to develop a

design joining traditional concepts in aeronautical projects and modern techniques of engineering, in

order to present an aircraft with the proposed competitive profile. For such, it was developed a new

project of radio-controlled aircraft denominated “Santos Dumont” CEA-UAV (Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle), described in the sections that follow.

2 - OBJECTIVE

The present work has for objective to design a radio-controlled aircraft capable to lift the

largest possible load, taking off in a maximum distance of 200 feet, with minimum span of 120

inches. The aircraft should possess an optimized resistant structure, minimum of empty weight and

satisfactory aerodynamic performance.

3 – METHODOLOGY

The methodological development of this work is orientated in the following procedures:

• Presentation of the project requirements that determine the typical mission of the

aircraft.

• Comparative analysis of the projects that stood out in the last international

competitions.

• Conception of the aircraft: Aerodynamic characteristics should be observed, as well as

stability and control, performance and structural ones, in agreement with the new

regulation of the competition.

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 5
• Calculations of the characteristics of the aircraft: aerodynamics, stability, performance

and structure;

• Analysis of the results obtained in the calculations seeking improvements in the

conceived aircraft;

• Definition of a satisfactory configuration that will be used in the construction of the

prototype.

4 – PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

According to the regulation of the SAE Aero Design East 2004 Competition, each competitive

team should project, document, build and fly a radio-controlled aircraft able to lift the largest

possible payload. The aircraft should take-off in 200 feet, circulate the field at least once and land

inside the 400 feet-landing-area. The aircraft should use the O.S. 61 F.X. engine with AND-4010

Muffler (no altered), should use the fuel supplied in the competition, have a Cargo-Bay to hold a

block of 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches and have at least 120 inches of span.

5 – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS PROJECTS

According to Barros (2001) “any designer or project team, does not come from nothing, but

from the deep exam of the “state of the art”, that is, from every universe of existent aircrafts,

previous and current, in the category of those that the new project will begin.” The present work

follows that philosophy and it presents in the table 01 a list of teams that stood out in American SAE

Aero Design 2003 competitions, standing out the payload lifted.

Table 01- Teams that stood out in American SAE Aero Design 2003

Team-University Payload [lb]

Aero Ped-Cedarville University 23,00
Strikes Back-Ecole Polytechnique De Montreal 24,92
ACE-Ecole De Technologie Superieure 25,50
Mothra-University of Kansas-Lawrence 24,30
Ace of Harts-University of Wisconsin-Platteville 22,40
In agreement with the results obtained by the teams it was determined, the goal of 26,5 lb

payload seeking for a competitive aircraft.

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 6
6 – AIRCRAFT CONCEPTION

To reach the goal of 26,5 lb payload and to assist to the proposed objectives, the present work

decided to approach aspects of extreme importance, as: a) maximization of the wing area seeking the

largest lift, b) minimization of the empty weight, c) maximization of the relation Thrust/Weigh, d)

minimization of the wing loading W/S, and e) minimization of the takeoff distance.

In the initial choice of the external configuration of the aircraft, it was chosen the conventional

configuration-monoplane.

From the definition of the basic configuration of the aircraft, it will be defined the

configurations of the propulsion system, of the fuselage, of the landing gear, of the tails and of the

wings.

6.1- Configuration of the Propulsion System.

The choice of the engine to be used is limited by the project requirements for the O.S.61 FX

RC/ABC engine. After that it, is evaluated the best propeller to be used.

Through static tests using a bench that collects the traction through a dynamometer, the APC

13 x 4 propeller is chosen presenting larger value of static traction (13,73 lbf), among the others

propellers tested(APC 13 x 4 W,13 x 6 and 12,5 x 6).

For the position of the propulsion system the tractor configuration is chosen, because it

improves mass distribution in the group of the aircraft, favoring the balance.

6.2- Fuselage configuration.

The initial configuration of the fuselage is based on the minimum dimensions of the Cargo

Bay. Starting from this dimension other elements that compose the fuselage were disposed to

maintain the center of gravity in the Cargo-Bay center. After that stage, seeking for a light and

resistant structure, a truss structure was designed to assist to the final dimension and the disposition

of the components. This structure is composed of tubes of composite material (carbon fiber and

epoxy resin) tied with threads of carbon fiber also embedded in epoxy resin. The drawing of the

external cowl minimizes the accentuated corners reaching to a final result that is shown in the Figure
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 7
01 and in the plant - 02/05 and 03/05. The junction between fuselage and Tails is made through a

tail-boom of carbon fiber in epoxy resin.

Figure 01- Fuselage and Tails final design.

6.3- Tail Configuration.

The dimensioning and the choice of the tails configuration is a stage of great importance during

the conception of an aircraft, because this choice affects the stability and horizontal and the

directional control of the aircraft.

The adopted configuration is the conventional one, with the difference that the horizontal tail is

put behind the vertical tail reducing the points of aerodynamic interference (see plant-04/05 and

Figure 01). Another detail is that the horizontal Tail is an all-movable type in order to reduce the drag

of trim and to increase the control efficiency.

For the initial definition of their dimensions it was taken into account the concept of volume

coefficient (Raymer, 1999) of horizontal and vertical Tail being respectively:

LHT ⋅ ST L ⋅S
VH = , VV = VT VT
c ⋅S b⋅S

Typical values of coefficient of tail volume used in aircrafts of last competitions vary between

0,30 and 0,50 for VH and between 0,022 and 0,07 for VV . For this project, it was used initially

VH = 0,33 and VV = 0, 024 .

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 8
Arbitrating a value for LHT = 47,8in and for LVT = 45, 66in :

V ⋅ c ⋅S V ⋅b ⋅ S
S HT = = 209, 25in 2 , SVT = V = 153, 23in 2
LHT LVT

Defined the areas of the tails, we reach the final dimensions with typical values of aspect ratio

(Lennon, 1996). With: ARHT = 3,39 e ARVT = 1, 76 :

bHT = ARHT ⋅ S HT = 26, 7in , bVT = ARVT ⋅ SVT = 16, 7in

The plan form of the horizontal tail was chosen as being rectangular to facilitate the

construction in the traditional way (ribs) with central spar in carbon fiber tube.

Symmetrical airfoils were adopted for the two Tails, being Eppler 297 for the horizontal Tail

and NACA 64006 for the vertical, since they present good aerodynamic performance in low

Reynolds number and appropriate CL to maintain the balance of the aircraft.

6.4- Landing gear configuration

Due to the need of a straight takeoff run and totally controlled, it was chosen fixed tricycle

configuration.

The distance among axes of the front auxiliary gear and the main landing gear was chosen

according to Raymer (1999) which suggests that the active load in the front auxiliary gear should not

exceed 16% of the total takeoff load. Considering this, a 13,7 in distance was defined between the

main landing gear and the front auxiliary gear.

The main landing gear was built in composite material (carbon fiber and epoxy resin). For the

front auxiliary gear a steel spring was used. The wheels were made in aluminum.

6.5- Wing Configuration.

Seeking to ally constructive easiness (the ribs of the rectangular part are similar) and soft stall

characteristics, the plan form of the wings was defined as straight-tapered. This plan form provides a

lift distribution very close to the elliptic wing distribution, which according to Raymer (1999)

mentioning Prandtl, decrease the induced drag.

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 9
For the definition of the other geometric parameters of the wing it was written a computer

program using the programming language MATLAB, with the objective to foresee and optimize

some of the wing characteristics. Such a program follows the routine shown in the Figure 02 and

described below:

• Data acquisition: the basic characteristics of the aircraft are supplied, as the airfoil to be

used, span, wing type, root and tip chord and the payload to be considered.

• Calculation of the Aircraft Drag Polar: Starting from the entrance information, the program

calculates the drag polar of the aircraft using the method described in NASA-TN D6800 (1972).

• Takeoff run: Starting from the polar of the aircraft, the program solves the equations that

govern the takeoff run (sums of forces), and it calculates the aircraft distances and takeoff speed.

• Lift distribution and loads: The program calculates the lift distribution and presents

aerodynamic loads in the wing in the moment of the takeoff, based on the speed and geometry of the

wing by using Multhopp method.

• Wing spar sizing: With the loads that act in the wing calculated, the program sizes the wing

spar, optimizing the dimensions in order to maintain the tension level closest to the acceptable

tension possible.

• Calculation of the wing weight: With the dimensions of the Spar, the program calculates

the total weight of the wing, which is added in the total weight of the aircraft, and then the program

redoes (loop) the calculations.

This loop is made repeatedly, until the greatest configuration of wing which allows the take off

run with the largest possible payload is reached.

Regarding the acquisition data it is necessary to mention some considerations:

It was analyzed 20 different types of geometric configurations of wing and the wing-span

analyzed is between 120 and 142 inches. The minimum taper ratio used was of 0,6 seeking to

minimize the tendency of tip stall (Simons,1999). The airfoils used were Selig 1223 and Eppler 423.
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 10
The choice of these airfoils is justified in the section 8. The initial weight of the fuselage was

estimated in 5,51 lb based on aircrafts of previous competitions.

Figure 02- Matlab Program Routine.

As a result of the program we have the configuration of the wing defined; such configuration is

shown in the plant 05/05 and 01/05 and in the table 02 with additional relevant data of the aircraft.

7 – GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRCRAFT

The following table lists the main characteristics of the aircraft:

Table 02 - Summary of the characteristics of the aircraft

Wing Horizontal Tail
Plan form Straight -Taper Plan form, Type Rectangular, All moving
Span [in] 141,73 Span [in] 26,7
Area [in²] 2053,75 Area [in²] 209,25
Aspect Ratio 9,78 Aspect Ratio 3,39
Taper Ratio 0,6 Taper Ratio 1
Root Chord [in] 15,75 Root Chord [in] 7,9
Tip Chord [m] 9,44 Tip Chord [m] 7,9
Swept at ¼ chord [º] 0 Swept at ¼ chord [º] 0
Wing incidence angle [º] 6 incidence angle [º] 0
Dihedral angle [º] 0 Dihedral angle [º] 0
Wing Airfoil Eppler 423 Airfoil Eppler 297
Ailerons Vertical Tail
Area [in²] 89,28 Plan form, Type Taper
Aileron area/wing area 8% Span [in] 16,7
Max. Deflections Angle 20º up, 10º down Area [in²] 153,23
Thin Aspect Ratio 1,73
Area [in²] 82,5098 Taper Ratio 0,58
Thin area/Vertical Tail area 53 % Root Chord [in] 13,2
Max. Deflections Angle 20º right, 20º left Tip Chord [m] 7,3
Airfoil Naca 64006
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 11
General Characteristics
Length [in] 72,3
Center of Gravity (h) 22%<h<26% m.a.c.
Empty Weight 8,81 lb
Engine O.S 0.61 FX ABC
Max. Power 1342 @ 16000 rpm (1,8 HP)
Material Aluminum, balsa, Carbon Fiber, Freijo

8 – AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS.

The aerodynamic analysis of the present project is of great importance, since it fits directly the

main objective of the competition, which is carrying the largest possible load.

The first stage involves the choice of the aerodynamic wing airfoils used. Two airfoils were

considered, based on the analysis of aircrafts that stood out in the world competitions (comparative

technique). This analysis suggested two specific airfoils: Selig 1223 and Eppler 423. For the choice

among them, it was adopted as primordial criterion the maximum value of the lift coefficient of each

one. Comparing the Selig 1223 airfoil with the Eppler 423 airfoil, it was verified that the second one

has the advantage of propitiating a smaller drag for the same lift in the estimated Reynolds number

values for this project, (about 300000, based on the mean aerodynamic chord, density and viscosity

of the air at sea level and a speed of flight of about 35 m.p.h.). It also presents characteristics of

softer stall. The final definition came through the program described previously in the section 6.5.

The curves of CL x α of the airfoils obtained through Selig,1995 are shown in the Figure 03.

The procedure adopted in the calculation of the complete aircraft was suggested by the article

NASA TN-D 6800, mentioned and explained in a simplified way by Pullin (1979), with additional

considerations from Hoerner (1965). In a first moment, the parameter dCL dα was calculated for

the wing through Multhopp method which is described in larger details in Pope (1951). Basically the

method consists of dividing the wing in several sections and calculating the aerodynamics

characteristics of each section and the influence of those characteristics among them.

As result it was obtained the lift distribution along the span of the wing for each value of of the

angle of attack given, consequently we had the curve CL x alpha for the three-dimensional wing and
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 12
its induced drag. It was also obtained the angle of stall of the wing through the method described by

Roskam (1985) as we can see in the Figure 03.

2,5
2,0

1,8
2,0
1,6

1,4
1,5
1,2

1,0 α=12,75º wing stall

CL
1,0
α=11,00º
CL

0,8
S1223 CL max Section Profile
0,5 Eppler 423 0,6

0,4

0,0 0,2

0,0
-0,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Semi-Span[in]
α [º]

Figure 03 - CLx α α and Wing Lift Distribution.

After that, the contribution of the fuselage was calculated, being calculated in the sequence, the

lift of the wing-fuselage group, through considerations of the mutual interference between wing and

fuselage.

Then the calculation of the contribution of the horizontal tail was done for the lift. In that way,

the curve of lift of the aircraft will be represented by the sum of the lift generated by the wing, the

fuselage and the horizontal tail.

Regarding the drag, the following types were considered:

• parasite drag of the wing, horizontal and vertical tails and fuselage;

• induced drag of the wing and of the horizontal tail;

• drag proportionate for the landing gear and for the air collected for the engine;

• drag of the exposed parts of the engine and its muffler.

The method of calculation of the several coefficients of drag listed previously follows the

method described in TND 6800 and Pullin (1979), which considers semi-empiric methods for the

evaluation of those parameters. In the cases of the landing gear and engine, it was used the equations
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 13
proposed by Hoerner (1965) based in the exposed area (lateral views and frontal). Such distributions

of coefficient of drag can be seen in the Figure 04.

Figure 04 - Drag of the aircraft in function of the attack angle and distribution of the I drag for a=0º
As final and more important result of the aerodynamic calculation, we have the two following

curves, usually denominated drag polar of lift and speed polar of the aircraft, shown in the Figure 05.

Concluding the aerodynamic analysis, it is listed the following notable parameters of the

aircraft, obtained from the calculation: maximum lift coefficient: CL max =1,43 , stall angle of the

aircraft: 6,75º, maximum efficiency of the aircraft (maxim relationship CL/CD): 12,40 @ 28,43

m.p.h. .
1,8 V[mph]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1,6
-2
1,4
L/Dmax=12,40 @ 28,43mph
-4
W=35,28lbf
1,2
CL

-6
VY[mph]

1,0

-8
0,8

0,6 -10

0,4 -12
0,075 0,100 0,125 0,150 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
V[knot]
CD α[º] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 05 – Drag and Speed Polar of aircraft, and CL x α

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 14
9 – STABILITY AND CONTROL ANALYSIS

The analysis of stability and control of the aircraft is necessary to evaluate its capacity to

maintain the flight balanced and return to the balance when gusts pertubations, maneuvers, variations

of the position of the center of gravity or any other disturbances happen. This stability can be static or

dynamic, and it is usually evaluated in relation to the three axes of the aircraft, resulting in three

types of different stability: lateral stability, directional stability and longitudinal stability.

Firstly, the longitudinal static stability is evaluated. The calculation procedure is based on the

evaluation of aerodynamic coefficients, as suggested by Etkin and Reid (1996). As acquisition data,

the geometric characteristics and aerodynamics of the aircraft are used, listed in table 1, and the

following parameters considered for the even flight:

Table 03 - Flight parameters.

Parameters Value
Flight Speed 34,17 m.p.h.
Sound Speed [m/s] 761,22 m.p.h.
Mach number 0,05
Air density 1,225 kg/m^3
Dynamic Viscosity [10-5 kg/m.s] 1,78
Reynolds number[105] 300
The aerodynamic coefficients were then obtained, starting from the data shown previously on

the polar curves of the airfoils and on graphs from Etkin(1996). The values that are not explicit in the

graphs were obtained by interpolation , direct linear extrapolation and from functions that relates the

parameters, when available. The calculation of the aerodynamic coefficients results in the following

values:

Wing
a(airfoil) [/rad] 4,44 a(wb) [/rad] 3,84
m.a.c.[in] 14,74 α0w [º] -19,5
Lt [in] 45,66 α0f [º] 0
L [in] 72,3 α0wb [rad] -18,01
a(wing) [/rad] 3,84
Horizontal Tail
a(airfoil) [/rad] 6,12 a10 3,54
a1 3,54 a2 -
a3 -
Table 04 - Results of the calculation of the aerodynamic coefficients for analysis of longitudinal stability
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 15
After calculating the aerodynamic coefficients, the analysis of longitudinal stability of the

aircraft is accomplished, this results in the evaluation of the neutral points and the maneuver points.

The calculation of these notable points is described bellow.

The neutral point stick fixed is given by the following formula:

V ⎛ dc L ⎞ ⎛ dε ⎞
hn = h0 + ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ + (∆hn )b ; substituting the values in the previous formula, is
a ⎝ dα ⎠ asa ⎝ dα ⎠

obtained that the neutral point stick fixed is located at 55,8% of the mean aerodynamic chord

(m.a.c.).

The maneuver point stick fixed is given for:

V ⎛ dc L ⎞
hm = hn + ⋅⎜ ⎟ where the longitudinal factor of stability (µ) it is given by:
2 ⋅ µ ⎝ dα ⎠ asa

W
µ= , and Lt the “arm” of the horizontal tail, approximately equal to the distance
g ⋅ ρ ⋅ S ⋅ Lt

between ¼ of the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing and ¼ of the mean aerodynamic chord of the

horizontal tail.

Substituting the values, the maneuver point stick fixed it is placed at 63% of the mean

aerodynamic chord. For the aircraft to be stable longitudinally, it is necessary that all of the neutral

points are behind the “margin” of CG, so that the effect generated by a disturbance in the angle of

attack of the aircraft is compensated by a contrary aerodynamic moment.

The “margin” of the center of gravity is evaluated in the structural calculation (described in the

next section) as being between 24% and 26% of the m.a.c.. The disposition of the appraised notable

points is verified in relation to the variation of the center of gravity of the aircraft.

It is concluded that the aircraft is stable longitudinally, presenting a margin of minimum

stability of 27% (hn-h0, max) for the maximum payload.

The calculation procedure of the directional stability follows the methodology proposed by

Etkin and Reid (1996). The aircraft and flight characteristics and the aerodynamic coefficients are
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 16
calculated for the directional static stability. Possessing the necessary data, the evaluation of the

directional stability proceeds.

Initially, it is determined the Yawing Moment Derivative due to Sideslip (Cηβ). The

calculation is made based on the evaluation of the contributions of several portions of the aircraft.

Such contributions are shown in the Figure 06:

0,040 0,1

0,0
0,030

-0,1
0,020

-0,1

0,010
-0,2

0,000
-0,2

-0,010 -0,3

-0,3
-0,020
Wing Vertical Tail Horizontal Tail Diehdral Total
Wing Fuselage Vertical Tail Proppeler Total

Rolling
Yawing Moment derivative

Figure 06 – Directional and Lateral Stability

Joining the contributions, it is obtained that Cηβ is 0,010 rad-1.

As condition for static directional stability, it is necessary the Cηβ to be positive. Therefore, it is

verified that the aircraft is stable directionally.

For the lateral stability the calculation procedure follows the methodology proposed by ESDU

(1981). Through this method it is calculated the contributions of the wing, of the fin, of the stabilizer and

of the dihedral. To the aircraft to be considered stable, the Coefficient of Moment of Rolling of the

airplane should be negative. The results of the influence of each component can be seen in the Figure 06,

where it is observed that the total moment is sidelong negative being -0,24, the aircraft is stable.

10 – PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

The performance analysis reflects the choices done in the conception of the aircraft and the results

of the aerodynamic analysis. For the performance analysis the evaluation of the following parameters

should be understood: determination of the typical mission, takeoff run, rate of climbing after the
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 17
takeoff, maximum speed in level flight, landing, slowing down after the landing and maximum weight

of takeoff in function of atmospheric conditions (weigh x altitude-pressure). These parameters will be

described and shown later.

The typical mission of the aircraft is determined in function of the regulation of the competition

dictated previously in Section 4.

The takeoff run, is evaluated considering the engine working with maximum power calculating for

each instant the lift, drag, thrust, acceleration and speed values according to the value of the speed

calculated in the previous instant (balance of forces). The departure value for the speed is zero, the

initial thrust is the static value produced by the propulsion group (evaluated experimentally) a

coefficient of friction of the asphalt floor (µ)is admitted of 0,05 and the CL and CD are those obtained in

the aerodynamic calculations for the angle of attack of the fuselage equal zero. From this, it is obtained

the first relation between maximum weight of takeoff and the distance traveled in the runway area for a

same air density. Such procedure was implemented in MATLAB language being described previously in

the Section 6.4.

It should be pointed out that in the present calculation the ground effect was considered on the lift

and drag of the aircraft, using the methods suggested by Hoerner (1965) and Raymer (1999)

respectively, which relate the height of the wing in relation to the ground with the span in order to obtain

a new dCL / dα value and CD.

V[mph] V[knot]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
6 1,2

Vvmph-Rate of Climb at Pmax

5 Available Power
1,0
Required Power

4 0,8
VV[mph]

P[hp]

3 0,6

2
0,4

1
0,2

0 20,0 22,5 25,0 27,5 30,0 32,5 35,0 37,5 40,0 42,5 45,0
VS0 V[mph]
V[knot] VS0=26,23mph Vmax=39,70mph
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Figure:07 - Takeoff Distance and rate of climbing

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 18
For the climbing performance, the aircraft will be evaluated without considering the ground effect.

The calculation is simplified, neglecting the variation of the ground air density with respect to the flight

altitude air density(maximum of 650 feet above reference). The reference altitude is the one of the city

of Deland (about 50 feet in relation to the medium level of the sea). The values of rate of climb,

calculated from the extra of power of the engine (relation among the available and required power) for

different payloads, are shown in the first graph of the figure 07.

Regarding the maximum speed in level flight, it can be evaluated graphically, being considered a

representation of the required power and the available power in function of the speed. The intersection

among the two curves (required and available power) represented in the second of Figure 07 graph gives

the maximum speed in level flight equal to 39,70 m.p.h.:

Finally, the maximum payload of the aircraft is evaluated in the takeoff as function of the altitude

density using the same procedure for the takeoff run, keeping a density value and increasing the mass

until the aircraft can not take off before the 200 feet of runway area, then the density value is changed

and the process is repeated.

The results are shown by the payload prediction graph versus altitude density presented in the end

of this report, the aircraft out the maximum payload lifted at sea level will be 29,78 lb.

11 – STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The structural analysis of the considered aircraft will be divided in three parts: evaluation of the

distribution of masses (weigh and balance), prediction of loads and analysis of active loads and

resistance of the involved materials.

11.1 – Distribution of masses (weigh and balance)

The starting point for the analysis of weight and balance of the aircraft is the direct determination

or for predicting the mass of each one of the aircraft components .

After evaluating the mass of each one of the aircraft components, it can be followed the

determination of the center of gravity of the empty aircraft. For so much, the moment of each one of the
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 19
components in relation to a point of reference (datum) is calculated. In the present case, the datum will

be adopted as being the tip of the spinner of the engine.

With those values, it is obtained that the empty aircraft weighs 4kg and her CG in this condition is

located to 24% of the mean aerodynamic chord.

The evaluation of the variation of the position of the center of gravity of the aircraft (margin of

CG) in function of the variation of the load (weigh) and of the fuel of the aircraft then can be calculated.

The results show a variation of CG from 24% to 26% to the mean aerodynamic chord.

11.2 – V-n diagram and active Loads

The estimate of the active loads of the aircraft will be based on the norm PART-23. When the

results are unreal or no representative, it will be made coherent estimates. At first, the speeds and load

factors are calculated to build the diagram V-n of the aircraft shown in figure 08.:

It is convenient to emphasize that the load factors limit (+2,5 and -1) were adopted following

Roskan (1985), having as reference the load values adopted for aircraft of the type Medium Transport by

the fact of the typical mission of this aircraft to resemble to the typical mission of the aircraft of this

project.

V[mph]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

2,5 2,5
Maneuvering Diagram
Gust Diagram
2,0 2,0

knot
16,50
1,5 Gust 1,5
knot
Gust 8,25
Load Factor[n]

1,0
Gust 8,25
V-n Diagram 1,0
knot
Gust
16,50
0,5 knot 0,5

VS2=33,21knot
0,0 0,0
VS1=22,57knot VC=VA=31,86knot VD=44,28knot

-0,5 -0,5

-1,0 -1,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
V[knot]
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 20
Fig.:08 V-n diagram

11.3 – Analysis of the active loads and resistance of the employed materials

Made the swinging and plan the diagram V-n of the aircraft, the calculation of the active loads in

the several components is done. The analysis will be made based on concepts of resistance of the

materials, complemented by specific considerations of the norms PART-23 and suggestions obtained in

Bruhn (1976).

The first part to be analyzed is the wing. For distribution of the loads along the span, the procedure

of Multhopp is used, according to Pope(1951).

Through the distributions of loads several calculations were made using the procedure presented in

ALVARENGA(1941) similar to the method described in Newell(1938) and finite elements simulations

using Von Misses Criterion for the dimensioning of the structure were made as well, reaching the final

dimension of the wing spar( showed in plan 05/05) that is made in box type with freijo wood( similar to

Spruce):

The results of those simulations and rehearsals are evidenced bellow:

Wing:

Component Material Breaking Load Tension MPa) Maximum tension(Mpa) Security margin
Bottom spar cap freijó 50 35 1,43
Top Spar Cap freijó 50 32 1,56
Leading edge freijó 50 26 1,92
Ribs, Torsion
balsa 12 5 2,4
box
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 21
Fig.: 09-Finite Element Analysis in ANSYS.

200
Shear [lbf]
Bending moment[lbfxft]
150

100

50

0
Central wing Panel Tests 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Semi-Spam[ft]

Fig.:10: Wing test Fig.:11 Loads on wing

After the analysis of the wings, the study of the active loads in the fuselage was followed. For that

the main active loads were calculated. Such loads generated compression, traction and shear loads in the

group.

In order to simplify the solution of the analysis, the fuselage was also simulated in finite elements

(ANSYS) and the applied active loads. The following illustration presents the obtained results.

The calculations made considered the load caused by the Tails, wings, landing gear and inertia.

Component Material Breaking Load Tension MPa) Maximum tension(Mpa) Security margin
Fuselage Tubes Carbon Fiber 900 84 10,7
Tail Boom Fiber Glass 400 378 1,05

Fig.: 12 – Results of the finite element analysis (3 axes) for maximum load.
For the landing gear, the analysis of the loads was made based on norms PART-23 too, being

considered the conditions of level landing in the three wheels (main and front landing gear), even
Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 22
landing in the main landing gear and landing in only one of the wheels of the main landing gear. The

results are shown in the following table for the condition of project load (payload of 26,45lb).

After calculating the active loads, a simulation in finite elements and a load tests are done, which

the results are presented below.

Component Material Breaking Load Tension MPa) Maximum tension(Mpa) Security margin
Main landing gear Carbon fiber 900 97,3 9,25

It is verified, finally, that the whole aircraft supported the active loads well, being taken into

account the most critical conditions found in the operation.

12 – CONCLUSIONS

Through the analysis of the obtained results, we concluded that the present project surpassed the

stipulated goal of creating an aircraft capable to lift 26,5 lb of active load, fitting the competitive

patterns and reaching the payload value equal to 29,27 lb. In other words, 9% more than the stipulated

goal.

We believe that this project is a great opportunity to verify and check the acquired aeronautical

knowledge in the area of Aeronautical Engineering, once it makes the students of Engineering face

problems that "simulate" real situations of an engineer’s routine, demanding from these students

autonomy in taking decisions as well as the ability to work in team sharing efforts, doubts and also the

successes.

Besides of that, favoring the practice in aeronautical projects, illustrating, more than any period in

classroom, the several stages of a real project and the interaction among them, and highlighting

commitment solutions that are always necessary.

Team CEA-UAV n°17 – SAE Aero Design East 2004 23
13 – REFERENCES

ALVARENGA, E.M., Boletim n29IPT, Sao Paulo,

December,1941
BARROS, C.P. Desenvolvimento do projeto de uma
aeronave leve motorizada de alto desempenho. Belo
Horizonte, MG: Escola de Engenharia, UFMG, 2001.
410p.
PULLIN, D. Aerodinâmica do avião – Desempenho.
Belo Horizonte, MG: CEA-EEUFMG, 1979. 119p.
POPE, a.-Basic Wing and Airfoil Theory, first edition,
New York, Mac GRAW-HILL,1951
SIMONS,M.,Model aircraft aerodynamics, fourth
edition, Nexus,Great Britain,1999.

BRUHN, E.F. Analysis and design of flight vehicle
structures. Indianapolis, USA: Jacobs Publishing, Inc.,
1973. 895p.
FAR-Part23-Subpart C-Structures, Federal Aviation
Regulations, September 1999.
ETKIN, B. & REID, L.D. Dynamics of flight – stability
and control. New Yorque, USA: John Willey & Sons.,
1996. 382p.
ESDU (Engineering Science Data Unit)81014, Aircraft
06.01.01, 83006, 85010– Contribuition of wing
plantaform to derivate of yawing moment and side force
due to roll rate at subsonic speeds. 1981.
HOERNER, S.F. Fluid dynamic drag. London, England:
published by author, 1965. 370p.
LENNON, A. RC Model Aircraft Design, USA, Model
Airplane News, 1996. 135p.
SELIG, M., GULIELMO, J.J., BROEREN, A.P. e
GIGUERE, P. "Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data",
SoarTech Publications, Virginia Beach, Vol. 1, 1995,
ISBN 0964674718
RAYMER, D.P. Aircraft Design - a conceptual
approach. Reston, USA: AIAA Educational Series, 1999.
923p.
ROSKAN,, J .Airplane Design, Parts I,II,II,V, Roskam
Aviation Engineering, Kansas,1985.
TOENBEEK, E. Synthesis of subsonic airplane design.
Delft, 1982. 598p.
YANCEY,B./Wolowics,C., NASA TND-
6800.Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of Light
twin-Engine Proppeler –driven airplane, Whashigton
,D.C., USA June, 1972.

McCORMICK, B.W. Aerodynamics, aeronautics and

flight mechanics. New Yorque, Estados Unidos: John
Willey & Sons., 1995. 652p. .
NEWELL,J.S. and Niles, A., Airplane Structures.1938
 TEAM CEA UAV- UFMG

PAYLOAD PREDICTION
30
28
25
23
20
18
15
13
10

Payload Weight,W [lb]

8
5
3
0

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000

Density Altitude, h [ft]

W = -0,0009h[ft] + 28,783 Team nº17