INDIA RES aren DRONE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE 2023 DESIGN REPORT DDC20230157 - VYOM TEAM MEMBERS 1. RAHUL KUMAR 2. RATHOD GURU GOVIND SINGH 3. KANAKAPUDI JAHNAVI 4, G. LAXMI DEEPAK 5, ANJALI KUMARI 6. AKASH KUMAR 7, SHYAM SRINIVAS 8. ADITYA KUMAR 9. S.SATHWIK 10. RAVI RAJ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PATNA Ashok Rajpath, Patna, Bihar-800005 Dr. NIMAI PADA MANDAL ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 15 APRIL 2023 Drone Development Challenge 2023 xCertifies Team} VYOM H_C20230157 SINOLOGY PATNA | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF T , NIMATPADA MANDAL nimai@nitp.ac.in Statement of Compliance As Faculty Advisor: ‘© I certify that the registered tcam members are enrolled in collegiate courses, © Lcertify that this team has de: constructed and/or modified the radio-controlled airplane with the intention to use this aircraft in the SAEISS Drone Development Challenge 2023 competition, without direct assistance from professional engineers, R/C model experts or pilots, oF related professionals, Report has original content written by members of this © L certify that this year’s De year’s team, + I certify that all reused contents have been properly referenced and is in compliance with the University’s plagiarism and reuse policies. (pret [oars Signature of Faculiy Advisor Date wl 3/04/2023 Signature of Team Capta Date Team Captain Information Team Captain Name RAHUL KUMAR Team Captain's Email kumarrahulkr076@gmail.com Team Captain's Mobile: 8529770108 Note: A signed scanned copy of the statement should be included in your Design Report as Page 2 Drone Development Challenge 2023TABLE OF CONTENT. S.No TOPIC Page No 1 DESIGN RESEARCH 3 WING DESIGN 3 1. Conceptual Design 3 2. Preliminary and Detail Design 3-12 FUSELAGE DESIGN 12 a) DESIGN PROCESS LAYOUT 13 b) PAYLOAD BAY 16 EMPENNAGE DESIGN 16 1) Tail Configuration 47 2) Horizontal Stabilizer 17 3) Vertical Stabilizer 18 4) Tail Assembly 19 CONTROL SURFACES DESIGN 19 a) Elevator Design 20 b) Rudder Design 20 ©) Aileron Design 20 ASSEMBLY 21 a) Wing And Fuselage 21 b) Empennage and Fuselage 22 c) Mass Distribution and CG Balancing 22 PAYLOAD FRACTION PREDICTION 23 8. MANUFACTURING 23 9. POWER PLANT AND ELECTRONICS 24 10 WEIGHT BUILDUP 29 u 2-D DRAWING 30 12 REFERENCES. 31DESIGN RESEARCH Throughout this time, the effective approach for our aircraft design was based on the need for eliminating the limit: ns like strength and an integral fixation of parts faced in our previous design (used in 2022) by implementing problem-solving through mathematical calculations and engineering optimization, Modifications are brought in the wing, fuselage and empennage. The objective of our team is to implement logical selections during conceptual design and extensive engineering/mathematical calculations during preliminary and detail design followed by test and evaluation, WING DESIGN 1. Conceptual Design ‘The wing may be considered as the most important component of an aircraft, since a fixed-wing aircraft is not able to fly without it. Since the wing geometry and its features influence all other aircraft components, we begin the detail design process with wing design. Wing Configuration Criteria Selected Parameters Advantages Number of Wings Monoplane Minimum empty weight Minimum take-off weight Wing Location High Wing High ground clearance Space for payload bay Wing Type Rectangular Most manufacturable Most maintainable Table. Selection of wing parameters during conceptual design. 2. Preliminary and Detail Design ‘The preliminary and detail design phase is incorporated with the outcomes of calculation procedure. ‘Therefore, intensive care should be taken to ensure the accuracy of the calculations in preliminary design phase, In this phase, thirteen fundamental parameters are: (i) wing and winglet airfoil selection, (ii) aircraft maximum take-off weight (MTOW or WTO), (iii) wing reference area (Sref), (iv) wing G]loading, (v) wingspan, (vi) mean aerodynamic chord, (vii) taper ratio (A), (viii) aspect ratio (AR), (ix))root chord (Croot), (x) tip chord (Ctip), (xi) incidence angle (i), (xii) maximum AOA (amaxy), (xii) maximum aircraft velocity (Vmax). AIRFOIL SELECTION: Environmental Considerations When performing analysis and simulations, considerations of the environment in Chennai, India have been used since it is the location of the competition. Calculations and simulations have been assumed to be at sea level meaning the humidity is zero, pressure is 1 atmosphere, temperature is roughly around 25°C and the height at cruise is to be around 250 feet from sea level. Corresponding to these conditions the operating Reynolds number was found to be approximately 2,00,000 which is in the range of laminar flow and best suitable for our aircraft. Following the practical steps for selection of airfoil, various Ideal coefficient of lift during cruise has been calculated corresponding to the above assumed conditions. a) Cl max for our whole Aircraft calculated = 1.245 b) Cl max for Wing calculated = 1.311 ©) Cl max for Airfoil calculated = 1.457 A. Primary considerations while choosing an airfoil: 1. Above Cl max values are achieved earlier than the achievement of Maximum AOA in order to prevent stalling. Il. In case during flight if the calculated Cl values are achieved nearby Maximum AOA, then chances of stalling are very high. B, Secondary considerations while choosing an airfoil: I. Lowest (closest to zero; negative or positive) pitching moment coefficient (cm). Il, Cross-section is manufacturable Ill, Highest maximum lift coefficient (Clmax). IV. Highest lift-to-drag ratio ((CVCd) max),Following airfoils have been selected after research (Details of airfoils from UIUC airfoil data site): S.NO | AIRFOIL MAXIMUM THICKNESS MAXIMUM CAMBER 1 | NACA 4415 15% at 30.9% chord 4% at 40.2% chord 2 | NACA23012 2% at 29.8% chord 1.8% at 12.7% chord | $813 16% at 40.4% chord 2.3% at 54.4% chord 4 | £423 12.5% at 23.7% chord 9.5% at 41.4% chord 5 | $1223 12.1% at 19.8% chord 8.1% at 49% chord. 6 | E197 13.5% at 34.6% chord 2.8% at 43.7% chord 7 | CLARK Y 11.7% at 28% chord 3.4% at 42% chord 8 | MH 114 13% at 28.1% chord 6.4% at 50% chord 9 | FX 74-C15-140MOD 13.1% at 27.1% chord 9.7% at 41.6% chord Table. Comparison of different airfoils Filtering out the best suitable airfoil for our aircraft, considered the aspects as i. Lower speed aircrafts require the airfoil with good amount of thickness of cross section of an airfoil which also generates more lift. ji, Increasing Camber which is a strong function of airfoil also increases the lift. Hence thi airfoils with lesser Camber and lesser thickness are removed from doing further analysis. Therefore NACA 23012, $813, E197 and CLARK Y have been removed Airfoils taken under considerations are NACA 4415, £423, $1123, MH 114, [BMA Fig. FX 74 Airfoil Fig. $1123 Airfoil Fig. £423 Airfoil Fig. NACA 4415 AirfoilFig. MH 114 Airfoil (selected airfoil for our aircraft) TESTING AND RESULTS (XFLRS V6) Fig. Graph of Clvs Alpha for different airfoils. (b) Fig, (a)Graph of Cm vs Alpha (b) Graph of Cl/Cd vs Alpha for different airfoils. From the above obtained XFLRS analysis results, the following observations and conclusions were made: $1123, FX 74, B42: rfoils have higher lift characteristics but FX 74 and $1123 stalls sharply in some AOA regimes. Il, The trailing edge of $1223, FX 74, £423 airfoils is very thin and hence these are at risk of breaking down during manufacturing and during manoeuvres.Il NACA 4415 and MH 114 airfoils have good thickness at trailing edge which is good enough for manufacturing but MH 114 Airfoil has Highest AOA, Highest C1/Cd and lowest drag which is best suitable for our high wing aircraft. Considering the above aspects, MH 114 is chosen as the best among other compared airfoils Fig. Cp distribution for MH114 at 0-degree AOA (Cruise angle). Fig, Cp distribution of MH114 at 13.4-degree AOA (Maximum AOA), WING LOADING: The wing loading of aircraft greatly influence the aircraft’s performance and manoeuvrability. Since the flight requires no aerobatic manoeuvres and cruise at moderate speed, a wing loading of 25 0z/ft? was taken as optimal (from the listed ranges in Table). Model Type Wing Loading (02/ft2) Aspect Ratio High speed and highly manoeuvrable 26-28 406 Moderate speed sport 16-26 6to8 Low speed trainer 12-16 8to 10 Slope Gliders 12-14 8to 10 Table. Preferred wing loadings of different model aircraft15? ITERATION: In first iteration, the MTOW of aircraft was taken as 1.5 kg or 3.307 Ib. Conclusions out of above Analysis are: Table. First iteration for wing dimensions Maximum Take-off. Weight (MTOW) 15 kg Empty Weight (WE) 0.9 kg Payload Weight (WP) 06 kg Wing Loading (W/Sref) 25 o7/ft* Wing reference area (Sref) 264.91 in? Aspect Ratio 7 Wingspan (b) 43.01 in MAC / chord length 6.144 in / 7.523 in Wing Planform shape Rectangular wing > Drag forves at the wing tips are high. > Larger wingtip Vortices. > Larger downwash towards the tips. > Liftcurveis insufficient for our aircraft other than all these factors the assumed MTOW is less which directly affects the Payload Fraction of our aircraft. All these conclusions led us to change the dimensions and bring some feasible solution, 24 ITERATION: (Reverse Engineering of Wing Dimensions) Fig, Lift distribution curve for rectangular wing. > Considerations: Dimensions of Carriage box as mentioned in rulebook of SAE DDC 2023 for feasibility in transportation and dimensions of Winglet to be implemented further, new Wing span b = 53.882 in. and Wing loading 25 0z/ft ? (both constant).ee Croot (in) iy ae areraohe MTOW (kg) | MAC (in) 1 | 7.087 | 308451] 9.25 25 15 5.787 2 | 7874 | 34255 25 16 6417 3 661 | 376.030 25 1.85 7 4 | 9842 | 429.350 25 24 8.031 5 | 1181 | 516151] 555 25 25 9,645 Table. At varying Croot, different parameters are measured as shown. > This iteration is done by keeping in mind the manufacturing feasibility of Root Chord, in order to have desired payload fraction along with Aspect Ratio. As our aircraft is designed for moderate speed, from the above calculated data the aircraft with Aspect Ratio 7.622 is best suitable which is within the range of moderate speed RC Aircraft. the highest Payload Fraction possible for our aircraft. 3rd ITERATION: And corresponding to the same AR, the MTOW is 1.85 kg which is depicting the best and Fig. Wing dimensions in second iteration (XFLRS) Taking taper ratio A = 0.6, Croot = 8.661 in. Ctip = 5.196 in, Tapering begins at 12.637 in. from the Croot. In third iteration, the wing planform includes a rectangular section for 0.321m semispan inboard, and an outboard tapered section for the next 0.363m semispan with winglets attached having dimensions taken from NASA technical note. wingtip vortices, ‘The wingtip devices like winglets improve wing efficiency by reducing induced drag due to 10After employing wingtip mounted winglets, some dimensions had been changed automatically. ‘The auto-modified data actually seems beneficial for aerodynamics. Fig. Wing in 3 Iteration (Above). y Fig, Lift, induced drag and downwash for rectangular Tapered wing with F winglet. r Wing reference area (Sref) | 0.242m? 8.392 Wing Loading (W/Sref) kg/m? Maximum Take-off weight (TOW) 1.85kg, Wingspan (b) 1.368m Aspect Ratio (AR) 7.721 Winglet Airfoil NACKOUIa Fig. Graph of Lift vs Y (span of wing) for finalised wing. Vmax 1m/s* Table. New parameters in final iteration. Due to incorporation of winglets, the induced and total drag and aerodynamic curves proclaim the improved efficiency. Moreover, the drag coefficient not only drops but also becomes negative, thus, indicating the usefulness of the toe angle in adding forward thrust to the wing. The winglets result in increased lift, reducing drag and nose down pitching moment (increase stability), making local lift coefficient elliptical (as required). uFig. Graph of Induced drag vs Y (Span of wing) for final wing Fig, Designed wing in SolidWorks along with Aluminium spars (for strength of wing) ANGLE OF INCIDENCE: For MH 114 airfoil, the angle of incidence is taken as 0° because 1. Found matching values of Calculated various Ideal coefficient of lift at cruise for our airfoil. Il, To reduce error related to incidence angle (while hand launching) without compromising coefficient of lift. FUSELAGE DESIGN ‘The fuselage of a typical RC aircraft is the main body structure that holds all the other components together: It is typically made of lightweight materials such as balsa wood, carbon fibre or foam to ensure that the overall weight of the aircraft is optimised. The fuselage is shaped in a streamlined manner to reduce air resistance ie drag, thereby improving the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft. The main function of the fuselage is to accommodate the payload. Generally, the length of the fuselage is 70-75% of the wingspan of the aircraft and its height is 10-15% of the fuselage length, The fuselage is structurally segmented into three sections: [2]a) DESIGN PROCESS LAYOUT: Identification of Payload and Operational Requirements Selection of Fuselage Configuration and internal arrangements [ termination tian gs rg Design Cargo Compartment Design Nose section + Design Rear section Design internal space for components inside the fuselage Lofting (Determination of Cross section and diameter at each station = [este cures {es EIRST ITERATION OF FUSELAGE DESIGN: In this first iteration of the fuselage, we’ve encountered several issues as mentioned below: 1. Improper attachment between wings and fuselage, 2. Lack of strength of the main body of the fuselage where the wings are attached. 3. Stringers used in the nose section of the fuselage are of irregular shape and complex which can’t be manufactured by Laser Cutting. Number of Bulkheads 15 Number of Formers 02 Thickness of each Bulkheads 08mm Total Length 846 mm Maximum Height 104 mm Maximum Width 104 mm Table: The specifications of the fuselage design in the first iteration. BFig: Fuselage design in first iteration (SOLIDWORKS). Validation Ease of manufacturability, especially in Nose section Adversity Increased overall weight of the aircraft Solution | by altering the appropriate dimensions of the wing section. Table. Brief Description Truss shape of fuselage. Fig, Fuselage designed in the second iteration, We have used square bulkheads joined by square reinforcements and truss build-up at the sides for the design of the fuselage as part of the iterative approach. Overall length of the 820 mm fuselage Maximum diameter of 107 mm, located at 164 mm from the nose tip the fuselage Number of Bulkheads 10 bulkhead, at 54 mm apart from each other Distribution of Bulkheads Centre bulkheads are at 220 mm apart from each other Aftregion —: 5 bulkheads are at 87 mm from each other Table. Truss structure design dimensional parameters. 14Problems raised after 2" iteration are: 1) Overall strength being so low that it cannot withstand the weight of other components during its flight operation. 2) Fuselage without any inclination due to which the fuselage experiences the “WING WAKE” Effect. THIRD ITERATION OF THE FUSELAGE DESIGN: After several hardships, we have reached to the conclusive iteration of the fuselage with the following specifications: > Length of the Fuselage = 72.5% of the Wingspan = 1.725*1.09 = 790mm > Diameter of the Fuselage = 13% of the Fuselage length = 0.13*790 = 103mm > Nose Cone = 20% of the Fuselage Length = 0.2*790 = 158mm ut Main Body = Wing Root Chord Length = 220mm v Rear Section: 40% of the Fuselage Length + Length of the Vertical Stabilizer = 0.4*790 + 96 = 412mm. ‘To address the problems in the previous iterations, 1) Used solid frames instead of Bulkheads, easier to manufacture and gives necessary strength to withstand the weight of the other components attached to the fuselage during the whole operation 2) Inclined the rear section of the fuselage with certain angle (22.5 degrees wart. the horizontal base of the fuselage) to prevent wing wake issue. Fig. Fuselage design in the third iteration 15b) DESIGN OF PAYLOAD BAY SECTION: Fig. Payload Bay design The payload bay dimensions are (5 in x 1.5 in x 1.5 in) Requirement of placement of payload bay in fuselage: Flexible Assembly and disassembly within a very short period of time and its placement should not vary the position of COG of aircraft greatly when it's in empty and fully loaded conditions. Soluti : In High wing configuration, the upper portion of the fuselage is left open for the attachment of the wings, less time-consuming and more flexible way of assembly. Position: Quarter part of root chord of wing (from leading edge) falls in the middle portion of payload bay section. Stability and fixation of Payload Bay: Placed two long rods along the fuselage length at its base. (Note: The distance of separation between these two longs rods is equal to the width of the payload bay with some necessary tolerance.) Fig: Placement of payload bay in fuselage EMPENNAGE DESIGN The Empennage also known as the tail or tail assembly, is a structure at the rear of an aircraft that provides stability during flight. It includes both the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The function of the empennage is to stabilize and control the pitch and yaw of a UAV. These include the horizontal empennage (consists of a fixed horizontal stabilizer and a rotatable elevator 16behind it) and the vertical empennage (consists of a fixed vertical stabilizer and a rotatable rudder behind it). 1) Tail Configuration: Categories Construction Flight Performance Theoretical Performance Total 100% 25 2.45 27 Table. Comparison between different tail configuration From the above table, Conventional tail design is the most common form. For many airplanes, the conventional arrangement provides adequate stability and control with the lowest structural weight, and it is easy to design and modify during the development process. 2)Horizontal Stabilizer: This is a structurally efficient arrangement as the horizontal stabilizer is fixed directly to the fuselage and therefore can introduce and distribute the resulting load directly into the fuselage structure. ll vv‘The Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient taken for our aircraft is 0.32, which is in the range of 0.3 + 0.6. Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient is the ratio of the horizontal tail geometries to the wing geometries. Aspect Ratio 36 Horizontal Tail Span 12.569 in Table: different parametric Horizontal tail moment arm 9,989 in values of Horizontal stabiliser. Mean Aerodynamic Chord 3.49 in Taper Ratio 06 3)Vertical Stabilizer: Root Chord 4.274 in The vertical stabilizer, often Tip Chord 2564in known as the tail fin or Planform Area 43.869 in? rudder, is a small fin mounted beneath the fuselage of an conventional layout, the vertical stabilizer is mounted at the end of the fuselage. On a canard surface, the vertical stabilizer is mounted on the forward fuselage. Macy aircraft to provide directional stability. On an aircraft with a “he Aspect Ratio 1.868 Vertical Tail Span 6.445 in Vertical Tail Moment Arm 9.39 in Mean Aerodynamic Chord 3.449 in Cop Ie ‘Taper Ratio 0.6 iT Root Chord 4.218 in Tip Chord 2.531 in Planform Area 22.23 in? Fig. Tail Parametric standards. The Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient of our aircraft is 0,022, which is in the range of 0.02 - 0.05. 18Fig. Vertical stabiliser Horizontal and Vertical Tails Fig. Horizontal tail Fig. Vertical tail 4)Tail Assembly: Attachment of Vertical Tail with Horizontal Tail: Firstly, we made horizontal stabilizer with a rectangular cut in such a way that vertical stabilizer can be inserted into it. As shown in the below figure. CONTROL SURFACES The Elevator and Rudder are both movable surfaces fixed to the trailing edge of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers respectively. Both stabilizers are fitted with a primary control surface; © Anelevator to control pitch on the horizontal stabilizer. o And a rudder to control yaw on the vertical stabilizer. 19a) ELEVATOR DESIGN: Table. Dimensional parametric values of Elevator Parameters Value Elevator Span 12.569 in Width 2.327 in Elevator Area 29.245 in? Fig. Elevator Maximum up Deflection 35° Elevators are hinged surfaces on the trailing Maximum down = edges of the horizontal stabilisers of some 35) Deflection aircraft, which control an aircraft’s pitch. b) RUDDER DESIGN: The rudder is a primary Flight control surface which controls rotation about the vertical axis of an Aircraft. This movement is referred to as ‘Yaw’. The rudder is a movable surface that is mounted on the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer or fin. Fig. Rudder Rudder Deflection 35° c) AILERONS DESIGN: Ailerons control roll about the longitudinal axis. The ailerons are attached to the outboard trailing edge of each wing and move in the opposite direction from each other, The initial dimensions were taken from the book Aircraft design by Mohammad H Sadraey in which the 20aileron chord ratio was taken 0.25. Ailerons have inboard position having ratio 0.7 and calculate chord by area ratio of 0.05. Design Parameter Dimensions Inboard Position 0.3823 m 0.5189 m 0.0403 m £30 degrees Fig. Assembly configuration of wing and tail with fuselage. a) WING AND FUSELAGE: A cut is given near top end of fuselage in the shape of airfoil (of wing) as we have gone for high wing configuration and a locking mechanism is adopted for fixing the wing strongly with fuselage. Locking mechanism: Locking mechanism is adopted in order to have strong fixing or attachment between wing and fuselage which is the most important aspects which contributes in flight operation. Fig. Locking Mechanism of wing and fuselage |# Itlooks like a rectangular system in which Two short rectangular spars are attached to the long spars of wing which is perpendicular as shown in figure. + And similarly parallel to these short spars, two more short rectangular spars are attached with the fuselage system. + Finally, the system of these pair of short spars will be fixed while loading and unloading by use of screw and bolt system proving the stronger attachment of wing with fuselage. b) EMPENNAGE AND FUSELAGE: Fuselage consists of a rectangular slot, and empennage has a Clearance [extra rectangular part] that should be inserted Properly at the rear end of the Fuselage. With help of adhesive material, the fixed attachment of Tail with the Fuselage will be done Fig. Extended part for attachment c) MASS DISTRIBUTION AND CG BALANCING: For the longitudinal stability of the aircraft, a positive static margin has to be maintained and thus, the CG must be positioned ahead of the neutral point or within the first 35 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord (from the wings leading edge). Reference for location of components taken is the leading edge of propeller. According to this reference the below table is made. (Data from SolidWorks) Component Mass Location(mm) X - Axis Battery 85 gm 119.77 Brushless motor 65 gm 34.53 Electronic Speed Controller 23 gm 122.41 Wing 321 gm 307.05 Fuselage 369 gm 389 2Fuselage Bay 10 gm 309.44 Propeller 14.gm 98 Tail 40 gm 837.5 Receiver 10 gm 189.18 Table, List of the weights of different components making up the aircraft. Position of CG from leading edge of wing = 37.62 mm, Mean Aero Dynamic chord= 179.6 mm Static Stability Margin = (CG/MAC) *100, On calculating, Static Stability Margin = 20.96 % PAYLOAD FRACTION PREDICTION: Payload fraction = Payload weight/Empty weight of aircraft = (778.3gm/1071.7gm) = 0.726. Therefore, predicted PAYLOAD FRACTION is 0.726. Manufacturing: a) Major materials used Materials are chosen by considering the factors like minimum Cost of material and manufacturing, ease of manufacturing, High strength and Lower weight. Material used Applied at Purpose To minimise overall weight, Balsa wood Wing, Fuselage, Tail High strength to weight Ratio of Balsa ‘Aluminium spars Structural strength for wing, Attachment of Wing section, fuselage wing with Fuselage Pine wood Wing section Structural integrity of wing b) Implementation Plan: Made a prototype of our aircraft to get an idea regarding Fabrication and the challenges faced during manufacturing. Carried out in the following ways as shown in the below table. 23‘SL. no Configuration Description Attachment of Tail with no inclination with fuselage. Attachment of inclined Tail with fuselage, to prevent formation of wing wake. Table. Various prototype Description. The choice of a 2200kv motor and 10x4.5 propeller was made based on the aircraft's requirements. The 2200kv motor is lightweight, powerful, and efficient, with a maximum power output of 300W, providing the necessary thrust for the aircraft. It can operate at high RPM without overheating, ensuring sustained flight. PROPELLER SELECTION ‘The 10x4.5 propeller was selected for its efficient performance and ability to produce a high thrust-to-weight ratio, The propeller is made of lightweight materials and has a high pitch angle, allowing it to produce more thrust with fewer revolutions per minute. This reduces the motor's load, resulting in more efficient operation. Justification: The 2200kv motor and 10x4.5 propeller were chosen based on several factors, including 24weight, efficiency, and performance. The lightweight and powerful 2200kv motor is ideal for a small aircraft, with the ability to provide the necessary thrust while operating efficiently. Its high RPM capacity without overheating is also essential for sustained flight. ‘The 10x4.5 propeller’s efficient performance and high thrust-to-weight ratio were crucial for the aircraft's requirements. Its lightweight design and high pitch angle allow for more efficient operation, reducing the motor's load while still providing the necessary thrust. FORCE CALCULATION Lift force, F Lap xc, xVEXA Drag force, txpxCyxV2xA z AtV=11m/s, A (wing planform area) = 0.22055864m?, p=1.225kg/m*2, MTOW= 1850g (From XFLRS) Angle of cL cp Fi(g) Fo(g) Ta(g) Ta/W attack 2 1.03942 | 0.01348 | 1731.9589 | 22.46137 | 87.16507 | 0.05033 1.25247 0.01441 | 2086.9587 | 24.01101 | 153.33951 | 0.07347 1.44031_| 0.01617 _| 2399.9517 | 26.94363 | 220.73943 | 0.09197 8 158485 | 0.01912 _| 2640.7950 | 31.85912 | 289.88602 | 0.10977 10 1.68045 | 0.02414 | 280.0908 | 40.2386 | 362.16756 | 0.12934 12 1.73399 | 0.03324 | 2889,3032 | 55.38696 | 440.85526 | 0.15258 13.4 1.74667_| 0.04356 | 2910.4316 | _72.58291 | 502.24352 | 0.17257 The maximum thrust required was thus found to be 1200g.RPM Thrust 8000 801g 8500 909 g 9000 1025 g 9500 1149.g 9700 1200 g Table. RPM and thrust Fig, Graph of RPM vs Thrust & Absolute Power MOTOR SELECTION 1) On the basis of kv rating we have taken 2200 kv motor, it indicates that for every volt it generates 2200 RPM. Maximum rpm generated is 5 X 2200 = 11000 RPM. 2) On the basis of Maximum current, our requirement is 20A. So, in terms of current rating the chosen ESC is of 30A. * Motors weight: In micro category weight of every component counts. So, we went for a light weight motor weight which is 60 gm. Assuming the maximum weight of RC plane to be approximately 1850 gm then according [2 | to thumb rule thrust to weight ratio is 1.Calculations: Thrust by motor, Formula: (Motor efficiency x Propeller efficiency x motor Kv2x propeller Diameter 4 x pitch speed/1000x60) 5x20x0.7x0.1x(4.5x2.54x (0.01) *2/0.01=1.93 kg thrust which is satisfying the need of our aircraft. BATTERY SELECTION Selected 1000 mAh battery which means 1 amp can be drawn for an hour. On the basis of “C” rating maximum current drawn is 1 X 40 that is 40 amp. Which is double that of our motor requirements. Flight time consideration, (mAh of battery x efficiency)/ (discharge) x 60 = (1x60x0.8)/20 = 2.4 minutes ESC SELECTION It is selected on the requirements of motor: 30 A is taken which is 50 percent more than motor requirements which holds the maximum capacity. The major factor to be considered which powers servo and receiver which is around 4V-5V, SERVO SIZING On considering the size category mini and micro, we went for mini servos which are heavier provide more torque and speed. Current AND Voltage Volts represent under how much volt servo can operate at stall. (4.8V - 6.6V). Such that it can sustain 3 kgfem torque. Current drawn must be less than battery current rating, The Servo we have is drawing half of the overall current. 7All the electrical and electronic components used are as listed below: Serial number Name of component Specifications Quantity Li-Po Battery Model -Orange 1000mAh 3S 40C/80C (11.1V) Lithium Polymer Battery Pack Weight: 85 gm Dimensions: 17 x 34 x 72(mm) Brushless Motor Model- A2212 6T 2200KV Brushless Motor Weight: 65 gm OXR Transmitter Receiver Model - FS-TH9X 2.4GHz 9CH Upgrade Transmitter Weight: 67 gm Channels ~ 9 Channel Model — FS-IA10B Receiver Weight: 10 gm Length: 27.5 mm Weight: 10 gm Servo motor Model- Tower-Pro MG90S Mini Digital Servo Motor (180° Rotation)-Standard Quality Weight: 13 x 4 = 52 gm Electronic Speed Controller Model — ESC 30-amp 30A Brushless Motor Speed Controller, Weight: 23 gm Dimensions: 24 x 9 x 23 (mm) Propeller Model- Orange HD Propellers 1045(10X4.5) Carbon Fibre Black 1CW+1CCW-1pair Weight: 14 gm. 28WEIGHT BUILDUP Parts Components Weight(gm) 1. Balsa Wood 85 2, Aluminium Spar 20 3. Glue a , — % Pull Pall control system S 5. Pine wood Dowel 6 6. Skin Coat 1 1. Balsa Wood 278 2, Aluminium Spar 934 2 FUSELAGE 3. Glue 20 4. Nut Bolt system 20 5. Skin Coat 1 1. Balsa Wood 10 3 FUSELAGE BAY —_ 2 3. Skin Coat i" 1. Balsa Wood ao 2, Glue a ‘ EMPENNAGE 3. Pulk-Pull control system 5 % Skin Coat 1 1. Servos (x4) 52 2, Battery 85 3. Receiver 10 5 ELECTRONICS 4. ESC 2B 5. Motor (and Shunt Plug) = 6. Propeller = 6 | TOTAL EMPTY WEIGHT 1071.7 Gram [=]l & Ss 2 £ 8 JOU “1339S 81 -sWOS SOASISP ‘AN00ZZ 19TLZZV THGOW ¥OLOW Vv sro wnou vulva ADO10NHDaL sen series 4O S1NLUSNI TWNOILYN ee, aoten wosto AMO law WOIA aiva lawn 4sloezoz3aq oe NVdS ONIM MGIA SIaIaWOST MGIA dOL poojdod ym 9°0'9: PDO|AD yNOUJIm D°O'D: l cf £ v S$ 9 Z 8REFERENCES: TEXT BOOKS: 4 Lennon, A,, "Basics of R/C Model Aircraft design: Practical Techniques for Building * Better Models", Air Age media, September 1996, ISBN-13: 978-0911295405 % Simmons, M., "Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, Fourth Edition," (Chris Lloyd Sales & Sadraey, M. H. (2012), Aircraft design: ‘A system engineering approach. John Wiley & Sons. LINKS: http://what-when-how.com/flight/tail-designs/ ://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=sc20714-il Es