CEAS Aeronaut J (2011) 2:69–79

DOI 10.1007/s13272-011-0026-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Design and wind tunnel tests of a tiltwing UAV

J. Holsten • T. Ostermann • D. Moormann

Received: 3 April 2011 / Revised: 3 August 2011 / Accepted: 3 August 2011 / Published online: 24 August 2011
Ó Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. 2011

Abstract Within the EU and North Rhine-Westphalia AR Rotor area

funded research project AVIGLE, the Institute of Flight AV Fin area
System Dynamics develops a multi functional flight plat- AW Wing area
form in a tiltwing configuration. The different mission Ax,z Drag reference area
requirements as well as the specific requirements due to the CD Drag coefficient of the wing
tiltwing configuration influence the design process. Within CL Lift coefficient
each specification step, the impact on horizontal and vertical D Overall drag
flight, including transition states in between has to be con- DW Airfoil drag
sidered. Beside numerical flow analysis, extensive wind LT Lift of the tailplane
tunnel tests were conducted to confirm the calculated coef- LW Lift of the wing
ficients and derivatives and to gain data needed to build a six MW Pitching moment of the wing
degrees of freedom simulation for development of control- Pel,0 Electrical power during hovering
ling strategies in transition. Particular emphasis was put on T Thrust
the influence of the propeller induced slipstream on the V1 Freestream velocity
aerodynamic coefficients and the stability analysis during VW Velocity at the wing
transition phases between horizontal and vertical flight. VProp Propeller-induced slipstream
W Weight
Keywords Tiltwing  Aircraft design  Wind tunnel tests  X Forces in xf-direction
Transition phase  UAV Z Forces in zf-direction
b Wingspan
Abbreviations c Chord length
CFD Computational fluid dynamics co Outer chord
LTE Long-term evolution cr Root chord
UAV Unmanned aerial vehicle ll Mean wing chord
VTOL Vertical takeoff and landing rH Distance to tailplane
rV Distance to fin
List of symbols
u Horizontal velocity
AH Tailplane area
w Vertical velocity
AR Aspect ratio
x x-axis specified through index
This paper is based on a presentation at the German Aerospace y y-axis specified through index
Congress, September 27–29, 2011, Bremen, Germany. z z-axis specified through index
xR Distance to tilt axis in xf-direction
J. Holsten (&)  T. Ostermann  D. Moormann
zR Distance to tilt axis in zf-direction
Institute of Flight System Dynamics, RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen, Germany a Angle of attack
e-mail: holsten@fsd.rwth-aachen.de b Side slip angle

123
70
f Rudder deflection
g Elevator deflection
gMotor Motor efficiency factor
gProp Propeller efficiency factor
j Slipstream flap deflection
n Aileron deflection
q Density
r Incidence angle of the wing
f Coordinate system along aircraft axis
k Coordinate system along flight path
1 Introduction
The AVIGLE Project was initiated within the second call
of the North-Rhine-Westphalia Hightech.NRW challenge in
2009 and is funded by the EU and the Ministry of Inno-
vation Science and Research of the state of North Rhine-
Westphalia. AVIGLE is a loose acronym consisting of the
words avionic, agile, vehicle and flexible.
The aim of the project is to develop an avionic digital
service platform fulfilling different missions in a coordi-
nated swarm of unnamed aerial vehicles (UAVs). One
scenario considered is to gain input data for a 3D-virtual
reality application. Another scenario is building dynamical
ad-hoc on demand radio networks to provide additional
mobile radio communication capabilities. Further infor-
mation on the different missions and systems included is
given in [1].
Within this project, the Institute of Flight System
Dynamics leads the work package for the development of
the flight platform. Design requirements are an agile but
precise maneuverability in all flight states and environ-
ments, flight velocities from hovering to fast forward flight,
as well as a high efficiency and endurance. These
requirements led to the selection of a tiltwing configura-
tion. Key platform parameters are a maximum takeoff
weight of 10 kg allowing to carry a payload of 1.5 kg for an
endurance of 60 min while not exceeding the maximum
allowed lateral dimension of 2 m.
In this paper, the development of the flight platform as a
tiltwing configuration is described. A tiltwing is an aircraft
which can rotate its wings including the propulsion system
around the lateral axis and hence is able to takeoff and land
vertically as well as to hover. The propulsion system is, in
contrast to a tiltrotor, rigidly mounted on the wings.
Tiltwing systems which have been developed in the past
are, e.g. the Vertol 76 VZ-2, the Hiller X-18, the LTV XC-
142 and the Canadair CL-84. Design purposes were
amongst others military applications and research of ver-
tical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and technologies. Diffi-
culties of these developments, e.g. low speed stability and
123
J. Holsten et al.
control, as described in [2–4], were considered during the
design process. Further analysis was done by Mckinney [5]
on tiltwing configurations regarding their performance and
control aspects. Especially the horizontal control during
hovering and transition, which was also analyzed by [6–8],
proved difficult. Extensive modeling was done during the
design of the described tiltwing to include these effects and
ensure a stable transition. Furthermore, the large overlap
between propeller and wing influences the aerodynamic
coefficients [9] and is considered.
An overview of the design requirements is given in
Sect. 2. Following that the design process is described in
Sect. 3. In Sect. 3.2, the main wing is specified using
numerical methods and qualitative results of basic wind
tunnel tests in which the influence of a large rotor on
different airfoil and wing designs was analyzed. In
Sect. 3.3, the tailplane specification using empirical
methods as well as numerical methods is described. A
stability analysis for vertical and forward flight then led to
the positioning of center of gravity and the axis of rota-
tion of the tilting wing. Furthermore, first results of the
validation of this configuration identifying a 1:2 subscale
model of the tiltwing UAV in wind tunnel tests are pre-
sented in Sect. 4. First flight tests with the full sized
model are planned for June 2011.
2 Requirements
In the first project phase, the design requirements led to the
design decision of a tiltwing. General requirements for the
flight platform are a high endurance, VTOL capabilities,
flight velocities from hovering to fast forward, modular
payloads of up to 1.5 kg and additionally compact outer
dimensions.
Due to the different scenarios and use cases considered
within the project, the operating range varies from B5 km
for detailed picture acquisition and local network coverage
to 45 km for gaining an automated overview in larger
emergency scenarios. An endurance of 60 min in horizontal
flight is aimed for.
Different configurations considered were a conventional
aircraft, a conventional helicopter as well as a coaxial
helicopter, a multicopter and two hybrid configurations, a
tailsitter and a tiltwing. The tiltwing was chosen over a
tiltrotor due to better vertical flight capabilities and maxi-
mum dimension constraints. The conventional aircraft was
not considered due to the hovering requirement.
Between the helicopter configurations, the tailsitter and
the tiltwing different parameters such as control, transition,
hovering capabilities, horizontal flight, energy efficiency,
mechanical complexity, emergency procedures, payload
volume, as well as potential danger through an open rotor
Design and wind tunnel tests 71

Table 1 Basic flight platform parameters motor and rotor efficiency factors gMotor = 0.8, gProp =
Parameter Values
0.7. Using the power required for hovering
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Configuration VTOL W3
Pel;0 ¼ gProp  gMotor  ; ð1Þ
Type High wing 2 q AR
Height above ground 0–300 m
the hovering time as well as the energy density of lithium-
Maximum velocity 40 m/s
polymer accumulators the weight of needed accumulators
Design speed 15 m/s
could be estimated. Along with the maximum payload
Wing span 2m
weight and estimates for the structure and motor weight
Maximum takeoff weight 10 kg
feasible combinations of maximum takeoff weight, hov-
Payload 1.5 kg
ering time and propeller diameter were obtained. The
Endurance 60 min
maximum propeller diameter is limited by the maximum
Maximum range 45 km
lateral dimension of 2 m. To achieve the maximum
endurance given in Table 1, a mission with 80% horizontal
flight at design speed is considered also ensuring the
were considered and compared. The tailsitter has disad- maximum range required. The power required for hori-
vantages in transition control, emergency procedure and zontal flight was estimated using the drag coefficients
payload volume/handling, since a similar orientation of the described in the following sections.
payload camera in all flight states was favored. Due to its A two-bladed propeller was specifically designed from
advantages with respect to the energy efficiency in forward Schuebeler Composites to accommodate the different
flight, a tiltwing configuration was selected. A more requirements on the propulsion system for hovering and
detailed insight into the design decision including further forward flight. Main focus is on optimizing it for the design
requirements is given by Ostermann et al. [10]. Basic speed in horizontal flight while still ensuring enough power
parameters of the AVIGLE tiltwing UAV are summarized to rise vertically. For this reason, the propellers are
in Table 1. equipped with variable blade pitch, which also allows au-
Within the specification of the tiltwing, a design air- toration in case of engine failure.
speed of 15 m/s in horizontal flight configuration was A CFD analysis confirmed the performance of the pro-
selected as a tradeoff between mission requirements from peller design in the different flight states. To reduce aero-
the payloads and endurance, range. Additionally, it had to dynamic forces and moments during hovering induced by
be ensured that all flight states including hovering, VTOL the slipstream of the propellers, the angle between pro-
and the transition between hovering and horizontal flight pulsion system and wing was set to an angle ensuring zero
remain possible. lift a0 = -4.5°. The propellers are counter rotating to
level the motor moments.

3 Design 3.2 Wing design

3.1 Propulsion Traditionally, a wing is designed based on the minimum

The propulsion system of the AVIGLE tiltwing is designed
in cooperation with Schuebeler Composites, Paderborn,
Germany.
First different propulsion systems and energy sources
were evaluated. Systems considered were, e.g. a turboshaft
engine, a piston engine and an electric engine. While the
energy density of fossil fuels used in combustion engines is
much higher than that of lithium-polymer accumulators, an
electric motor has advantages regarding noise emission,
heat emission, reliability and vibration and was thus
selected.
For a first propeller dimensioning, the vertical flight
states were considered and the energy consumption was
estimated using momentum theory and assumptions for the
velocity or the maximum runway length allowed. Since the
tiltwing configuration is able to fly at speeds lower than its
aerodynamic stall and to start vertically, a different design
approach was selected. An optimization regarding energy
efficiency for the design speed of 15 m/s was regarded. The
outer dimensions of the wing were bounded by the
requirement of compact outer dimensions to fly through
narrow corridors, e.g. gateways and narrow streets. This
requirement led to a maximum wingspan of bmax = 2 m.
Due to the height of the fuselage and possible landing gear,
the chord length was bounded by cmax = 0.4 m to ensure
enough ground clearance in tilted position of the wings
[10].
The design process of the wing was iterative. Starting
with an airfoil analysis using the analysis tool for airfoils

123
72
XFLR5 [11] providing lifting line theory and vortex lattice
methods, three airfoil types were selected. Subsequently,
the wing area was modified and a stability analysis per-
formed before the final airfoil was selected.
Simultaneously, preliminary wind tunnel tests to eval-
uate the effect of the large propeller, covering 78% of the
wing, on the aerodynamic coefficients were carried out.
Different parameters such as distance of the propeller to the
wing, leading edge sweep and airfoil were varied with
thrust settings. The wingspan was limited by the wind
tunnel to 1 m and the experiments were scaled accordingly.
In Fig. 1, lift coefficients for three different thrust levels
and one without thrust are depicted. In the measurements,
the propeller pitch was kept constant and the thrust was
controlled over the rotation speed. As a result, the total lift
coefficient increases with the propeller thrust. The slope of
the lift coefficient though is slightly reduced, whereas the
stall conditions are pushed towards higher angles of attack.
These effects can be explained by the acceleration of the
freestream by the propeller induced slipstream and the
deflection of the incident flow to lower angles of attack by
the slipstream. The effects were most pronounced without
leading edge sweep and the shortest distance between
propeller and leading edge.
For the airfoil design, different airfoils were analyzed
for a 2 9 0.4 m rectangular wing in XFLR5. Different flap
angles were investigated to ensure high performance in
trimmed conditions. Design parameters were the lift to drag
ratio CL/CD, zero lift angle, camber, thickness and the
pitching moment at zero lift angle. The pitching moment at
zero lift angle for example is relevant for trimming during
hovering and vertical flight. All relevant combinations
were calculated for a freestream velocity of V? = 15 m/s
(design speed) and V? = 40 m/s (maximum speed) to
1.2
T = 210 N
T = 160 N
1 T = 100 N
w/o thrust
0.8
0.6
C
0.4
0.2
0 static margin of 5% was aimed for as a compromise
−0.2
−5 0 5 10 15 20
α [°]
Fig. 1 Lift coefficient for different thrust levels for a rectangular
NACA 0012 wing
123
J. Holsten et al.
account for the corresponding Reynolds’ numbers. All
airfoils were investigated concerning their stall character-
istic and maximum lift behavior at these Reynolds num-
bers. The NACA 6412, SG 6050, Clark Y and GOE 398
proved most suitable and were further analyzed for dif-
ferent wing dimensions and overall configurations. After
this analysis, the GOE 398 proved most suitable for the
desired application.
Due to the design requirements of a purely aerodynamic
flight at V = 15 m/s with maximum weight of 10 kg, an
optimization regarding wing dimensions and aspect ratio
was performed. Since the wingspan is limited to 2 m, an
decrease of the outer chord also reduces the wing area.
Therefore, the reduction of the induced drag, by increasing
the aspect ratio through decreasing the outer chord, was
limited by the required lift. Calculations showed that an
outer chord of co = 0.3 m still ensures a purely aerody-
namic flight at V = 15 m/s with a wing area of
AW = 0.707 m2, and satisfactory values for the aspect ratio
AR = 5.7 and wing loading W/AW = 138.755 N/m2.
Without leading edge sweep, this leads to a trailing edge
sweep of -6.1°. An overview of the final specification is
given in Fig. 2.
3.3 Tailplane design and stability analysis
The tailplane and fin design as well as the dimensioning of
the lever arms and the center of gravity was done regarding
design aspects for horizontal flight as well as for transition
and vertical flight. Due to the tiltwing approach, a high
wing configuration was chosen. To reduce propeller slip-
stream interferences, this led to a T-shaped empennage.
For horizontal flight, a first dimensioning using empir-
ical data for the tailplane volume VH defined as
AH rH
VH ¼   0:75 ð2Þ
AW ll
and for the fin volume VV defined analog as
AV r V
VV ¼   0:095 ð3Þ
AW b=2
was done. Important parameters influencing these factors
are the horizontal and vertical lever arm rH, rV, mean
chord length ll and accordingly the wing span b as well as
the according areas AH and AV. An increase of the tailplane
volume increases the longitudinal stability [12]. Different
combinations were analyzed using vortex lattice method. A
between stability and maneuverability. For this configura-
tion, the GOE 398 was selected as tailplane airfoil since it
provides the required forces.
Tilting the wing influences the center of gravity in
xf-dimension since the wing itself as well as the motors are
Design and wind tunnel tests 73

Fig. 2 Outer dimensions of the designed tiltwing

shifted along the xf-axis. During transition, a horizontal q 2

LW ¼ C L V AW ; ð5Þ
trimming at all airspeeds shall be possible. To achieve this, 2 W
a small distance xR and zR between center of gravity and the q 2
MW ¼ Cm VW AW ll ; ð6Þ
rotation point is advantageous to keep the resulting pitch- 2
ing moment small. q
Dx ¼ CD;x u2 Ax ; ð7Þ
During hovering and transition, the propellers produce 2
sufficient slipstream to use the ailerons as flaps for pitch q 2
Dz ¼ CD;z w Az ; ð8Þ
and yaw control in these flight states. In the following, 2
these additional control devices are called slipstream flaps. where AW is the area of the wing, Ax,z the drag area of the
The relevant requirement for the size of the slipstream flaps complete tiltwing and VW the resulting velocity at the
was balancing the pitching moment during hovering and wing. It is calculated as a superposition of the airspeed
transition in contrast to the conventional use as ailerons. components u and w and the propeller induced slipstream
An overview of the acting forces and geometric data such Vprop estimated using the momentum theory:
as the incidence angle r between the fuselage and the wing sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
is given in Fig. 3. T=2
Vprop ¼ 2 ; ð9Þ
To determine the slipstream flap size and the point of 2 q A2R
rotation, an extensive modeling of the balance of forces
and moments was done for hovering and transition flight with T being the total thrust of both propellers combined
using aerodynamic coefficients obtained by computation and AR the rotor disc area. The coefficients were computed
and the momentum theory to estimate the propeller slip- with XFLR5 for different Reynolds’ numbers, angles of
stream. Forces acting in xf- and zf-direction are the cor- attack and flap positions.
responding components of the thrust T, lift of the wing The overall acting longitudinal forces X, Z and the
LW, lift of the tailplane LT, airfoil drag of the wing DW pitching moment M could be determined through variation
and overall drag D. The forces are calculated using of the incidence angle of the wing r, the thrust setting
aerodynamic coefficients as given in the following T, horizontal and vertical velocity u, w and the flap
equations deflections.
q 2 The combinations where X, Z, M = 0 represent trim-
DW ¼ CD VW AW ; ð4Þ med transition states building a corridor over the forward
2

123
74 J. Holsten et al.

T
LT
ι
Lw
Vw
Dw
zR M0
Dz D σ xf
DX M
V∞
w
u
W xR
zf

Fig. 3 Forces acting in tilted position

The required control device dimensions and the

respective hinge moments for all flight states were deter-
120 mined considering trimming during all flight states and
100 dimensioning maneuvers according to [13]. The hinge
80
moments were estimated using Etkin [14]. To determine
the coefficients of two different sized slipstream flaps for
T [N]

60
steering during hovering, the chosen wing and airfoil were
40
built in an 1:2 ratio and mounted on an six-component
20
balance. Different thrust levels representing propeller
0
15
induced slipstreams of V = [5, 10, 15, 20, 23] m/s were
10
80
100 set and the deflection angle of the slipstream flaps was
5
40
60 varied. The final control device sizes are depicted in Fig. 2.
0
u [m/s] 20
−5 0
σ [°]
3.4 Fuselage design
Fig. 4 Needed thrust T for trimmed flight states during transition
over forward velocity u and incidence angle r The fuselage was designed with a focus on aerodynamic
aspects and an easy integration of the different payloads.
Two different payload types, an RGB camera and a mobile
velocity u, the incidence angle r and the thrust T. Since network basis station module based on the new long-term
discrete values of u, r and T were used for calculation an evolution (LTE) standard, had to be regarded. The size of
interval of X; Z; M  e ^ X; Z; M    was accepted as the payload compartment was specified according to the
trimmed condition. Figure 4 illustrates the corridor with a size of the LTE module. The camera can be mounted on
margin chosen for visualization of e ¼ 10 N; 10 Nm: three different directions depending on the mission.
Further parameters influencing the corridor depicted in Regarding the payload it had to be ensured that in no
Fig. 4 are the geometric distances depicted in Fig. 3. flight state the wing obscures the image of the camera.
Especially, the position of the tilt axis xR and zR was varied Furthermore, an easy integration and change of payloads
to enable trimming the pitching moment at low airspeeds should be ensured. This led to an rectangular-shaped
with the slipstream flaps. Out of these calculations and fuselage in contrast to an oval one. For autonomous
constructive considerations, the tilt axis was set at behavior and collision avoidance alternatively a radar
approximately 50% of the wing root chord. The calcula- sensor or a 3D-time of flight (ToF) camera will be on
tions also showed the adaptability of the previously board. Beside standard sensor equipment, such as e.g. GPS,
described aerodynamic components and gave a first esti- IMU, an additional embedded PC for communication and
mate for the slipstream flap size specified in Fig. 2. mission planning is integrated. All components were

123
Design and wind tunnel tests 75

(a)
Fig. 6 Wind tunnel model
AVIGLE Flightplatform (Hardware)

Antenna 1
Magneto-
GPS
Temp.- Air Data
RC Modul
Landing The wind tunnel used is a closed circuit tunnel with an
LTE UE WiFi meter Sensor boom Altimeter
Antenna 2 open measurement area of 1.5 m diameter. To avoid
communication sensors
effects, such as e.g. turbulence interactions, the maximum
size measurable is limited to 1 m. This size was determined
USB

I2C

USART

2 x I2C
2 x A/D
A/D

PPM

USART
direct

? Radar CAN
in earlier measurements of the open test section of the used
Flight Control Board
Embedded PC Ethernet
ToF
Camera
RS485
(NC+FC)
IMU wind tunnel.
RS232 RS232 Due to the size of the wind tunnel, a 1:2 scaled model of
Ethernet

2x PWM
6x PWM
2x PWM

sense & avoid

2x A/D
6x A/D
2x A/D

the tiltwing specified in Fig. 2 was used. To ensure Rey-

PWM
PWM
PWM
USB

A/D
A/D
A/D

A/D

nolds similarity, the measurement velocity was doubled.

LTE RGB Additional Servo
Propulsion
Camera Impeller Tiltmechanism The different flight phases, horizontal flight, vertical flight
SMA

Battery Battery
Power
Supply
Servo
Servos
Rudders
Blade pitch
control
and transition were measured separately using a balance
Patch-Antenna
payload engine/steering with strain gauges to measure forces and moments in all
three dimensions. Transition and horizontal flight condi-
(b)
tions were measured with and without thrust. For a thor-
Fig. 5 Components to be regarded within fuselage design. a Placing ough investigation, different control factors of the sub scale
within fuselage. b Architecture of hardware components model such as thrust, control devices, incidence angle of
the wing, engine pod and elevator were designed as
positioned according to their requirements and in consid- adjustable elements.
eration of the overall center of gravity. An overview of all Beside the scaling of the model, the propulsion system
components and their integration into the fuselage is given including propellers and motor had to be scaled as well.
in Fig. 5a and b. For correct measurement of the slipstream flap coefficients
and derivates, the propeller size was scaled with the model
in an 1:2 ratio. This also ensures the same overlap between
4 Design verification in wind tunnel tests wing and propellers in the scaled model as in the original
model. Scaling the propeller size geometrically and dou-
For verification of the design, extensive wind tunnel tests bling the slipstream velocity to ensure Reynolds’ similarity
of the tiltwing in all relevant flight states were conducted leads to the same amount of thrust for the scaled and ori-
and compared with computed data in XFLR5 and Digital ginal model when applying momentum theory [16]. This
DATCOM [15]. In XFLR5, vortex lattice method was allows to use the same propulsion system for horizontal,
used. XFLR5 provides two versions of the vortex lattice vertical and transition measurements. Especially in transi-
method. In the first method, each horseshoe vortex over the tion, the thrust and scaling of the slipstream velocity are
chord extends to infinity. In the second, method only the important to accurately reproduce the overlap between
trailing vortices extend to infinity. Since the two methods forces due to propulsion and due to aerodynamic effects.
produce very similar results, the first method is used for Figure 6 and Table 2 illustrate the measurement setup and
validation. The obtained aerodynamic coefficients are used varied parameters.
in a six degrees of freedom simulation model for design of For a first validation, the aerodynamic coefficients as
the flight control system. given in Eqs. 4–8 were measured without a propulsion

123
76 J. Holsten et al.

Table 2 Control device deflections and parameters set during the 1.8
XFLR5
wind tunnel tests Wind tunnel
1.6
DATCOM
Horizontal Transition Vertical
1.4
V [m/s] 30 [10; 30] 0 1.2
r [°] 0 [0; 90] [85; 100]
1
a [°] [-5; 20] [-2; 12] 0

CL
0.8
b [°] [-20; 20] 0 0
j [°] [-6; 6] [-20; 20] [-20; 20] 0.6
g [°] [-20; 20] [-20; 20] 0 0.4
n [°] [-20; 20] [-20; 20] [-20; 20]
0.2
f [°] [-20; 20] 0 0
0
−0.2
−5 0 5 10 15 20
system. The values thus obtained were then compared to α
the computed data mentioned above, XFLR5 and Digital (a)
DATCOM. Figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate the lift and drag
0.4
coefficient as well as the influence of the control devices XFLR5
and the roll coefficient. Wind tunnel
0.35 DATCOM
Due to the software constraints, the computed results
comprise the fuselage only as a cylinder. The engine pod, 0.3
spinner and landing gear seen in Fig. 6 are not considered
0.25
in the computation. The landing gear is expected to
CD

influence the overall drag but not the lift. The spinner and
engine pod disrupt the wing and the flow over the wing
area behind the engine pod. This is assumed to reduce the
lift and increase the drag compared to the computed
results. These expected results can be seen in Fig. 7a
and b. The measured lift in Fig. 7a is smaller than com-
puted. The drag in Fig. 7b is significantly increased owing
to the landing gear, engine pod, and not cylindrical
shaped fuselage.
The effect of an elevator deflection on the pitching
moment coefficient and the flaps on the lift coefficient is
shown in Fig. 8. The effect of the flaps matches well with
the with DATCOM computed data. The effect of the ele-
vator pitch measured is smaller than computed, although
the slope for small angles matches well. The trend of the
computed data does not correspond well to the fact that the
tailplane airfoil is not symmetrical and, therefore, positive
and negative deflection should differ in their effect, which
can be seen in the measurements in Fig. 8a. The achieved
pitching moment still satisfies the dimensioning criteria.
The lateral forces and moments correspond better with
the computed data. Figure 9a and b illustrates the roll side
slip angle derivative and the change in roll moment due to
aileron deflection. The differences between the computed
and the measured data are marginal and can be explained
by real effects in the measurements.
Beside the comparison with computed data, the mea-
surements were conducted with different levels of thrust to
account for the large overlap of propeller area and wing.
For horizontal flight, three different thrust levels were set
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
−5 0 5 10 15 20
α
(b)
Fig. 7 Lift (a) and drag (b) coefficient of the wind tunnel measure-
ments compared with computed data
and all measurements were repeated once to ensure
reproducibility. In addition to these measurements, a ref-
erence measurement without propellers was conducted.
Figure 10a depicts the difference in lift coefficient for all
four cases at zero angle of attack and its change due to
slipstream flap deflection. The different thrust levels were
set to compensate for the drag and to generate a small
acceleration and deceleration in xf-direction.
As can be seen, the different thrust settings lead to
differences in lift, which confirm the results described in
Sect. 3.2 and can be explained by the acceleration of the
free stream through the propeller. It was expected that this
effect also influences the flap efficiency, thus changing the
slope of the curves. This effect cannot be seen in the
depicted measurements. A flap deflection leads to almost
the same amount of change in lift.

123
Design and wind tunnel tests 77

0.5 0
XFLR5 DATCOM
0.4 Wind tunnel Wind tunnel
DATCOM −0.05
0.3
0.2 −0.1

0.1 −0.15
Δ Cm

C lβ
0
−0.2
−0.1
−0.2 −0.25
−0.3
−0.3
−0.4
−0.5 −0.35
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 −5 0 5 10 15 20
η α
(a) (a)
0.15
0.25 XFLR5
XFLR5 Wind tunnel
0.2 Wind tunnel 0.1 DATCOM
DATCOM
0.15
0.05
0.1
0.05 0
Δ Cl
Δ CL

0
−0.05
−0.05
−0.1 −0.1

−0.15
−0.15
−0.2
−0.2
−0.25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
κ ξ
(b) (b)
Fig. 8 Change in pitch and lift coefficient of the wind tunnel Fig. 9 a Illustrates the roll side slip angle derivative. b The change in
measurements compared with computed data due to elevator deflec- roll moment due to aileron deflection
tion g (a) and symmetrical aileron deflection j (b)

To validate the steering efficiency and capability in
vertical flight, different thrust settings and control device
deflections were set without free stream. Different inci-
dence angles of r = [85;90;95]° were set. Due to the
incidence angle of the propulsion system of i ¼ 4:5 an
incidence angle of r = 85° with the according thrust cor-
responds to hovering. Figure 11 illustrates the effect of the
different control devices. For longitudinal control a sym-
metrical aileron deflection j, as illustrated in Fig. 10b, can
be used to accelerate in xf-direction and to trim the pitching
moment. Lateral control is obtained by the ailerons
(Fig. 11a) and a difference in thrust between the two
engines (Fig. 11b). The difference in thrust was set by
adjusting the thrust controller signals while measuring
without flap deflection. Afterwards, all signals and
flap deflections were set and the acting forces measured.
During the vertical measurements, the motors and thrust
controllers operated in full throttle which led to a high heat
development resulting in a variation between the thrust
setting measured beforehand and the thrust achieved during
the actual measurements. This imprecise setting of the
thrust is one explanation for the asymmetric slope in
Fig. 11b. Further measurements using a different motor
and thrust controller combination are necessary to validate
this assumption. It is expected that the actual slope is
entirely symmetrical.
Relevant combinations of incidence angle r and free
stream velocity were selected from the corridor for stable
transition, introduced in Sect. 3.3 The combinations are
depicted in Fig. 12 on the x- and y-axis. For each combi-
nation, different levels of thrust were controlled to repro-
duce the trimmed conditions where X & 0 and Z &
-100N. As the calculated results visualized in Fig. 4 show,
the thrust was increased with increasing incidence angle,

123
78 J. Holsten et al.

0.45 3
w/o propulsion σ = 85°
X<0N
0.4 X≈0N 2
X>0N
0.35 1

N [Nm]
0.3 0
CL

0.25 −1

0.2 −2

0.15
−3

0.1
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −4
κ −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
(a) ξ [°]
(a)
10
σ = 85° 4
8 σ = 85°
6 3
4
2
2
X [N]

0 1
L [Nm]

−2
0
−4
−6 −1
−8
−2
−10
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
κ [°] −3
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
(b) Δ T [%]
Fig. 10 Change in lift coefficient for different thrust settings (a) in
(b)
horizontal flight and additional longitudinal force X during hovering
Fig. 11 Additional yaw moment (a) and roll moment (b) due to the
due to symmetrical slipstream flap deflection (b)
corresponding steering control in vertical flight

while the free stream velocity was reduced. In contrast to
the horizontal measurements, actual forces and not the
coefficients were considered in transition measurements
since the influence of the propulsion on the aerodynamic
coefficients cannot be neglected. Especially lift, drag and
control device efficiency are influenced by the incidence
angle and the thrust level. Figure 12 shows the results for
horizontal and vertical forces for the different measurement
points. Even though the thrust was controlled to set Z &
-100 N and X & 0 variations from these values can be
seen in Fig. 12.
The variations result from different angles of attack set
and also illustrate the effectiveness of the different control
device deflections, especially the slipstream flap deflection.
The control device deflections set are given in Table 2.
Despite some variation, the results confirm the existence of
a corridor of trim conditions during transition as calculated
in Sect. 3.3
5 Conclusion and future work
In this paper, the development and wind tunnel tests of a
tiltwing platform for multiple purposes has been described.
The complete process including wing, tailplane, control
device and geometry design as well as fuselage design was
illustrated. The design point of the tiltwing configuration
was set to V? = 15 m/s in horizontal flight. The main
challenge in design—supported by extensive numerical
flow analysis and wind tunnel tests—was the consideration
of transition states. A calculation determining trim points
in the longitudinal motion during transition between

123
Design and wind tunnel tests 79

funded by the German Ministry for Innovation, Science and Research

40 in North Rhine-Westphalia and the EU. AVIGLE is conducted in
30 cooperation with several industrial and academic partners. We thank
50 all project partners for their work and contributions to the AVIGLE
20 project.
10
X [N]

0
0 References
−10
1. Rohde, S., Goddemeier, N., Wietfeld, C., Steinicke, F., Hinrichs,
−50 −20 K., Ostermann, T., Holsten, J., Moormann, D.: AVIGLE: a sys-
30 tem of systems Avionic Digital Service Platform based on micro
100 −30 unmanned aerial vehicles. In: IEEE International Conference
20
10 50 −40
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Instanbul, Turkey (2010)
2. Pegg, R.J.: Summary of Flight-Test Results of the VZ-2 Tilt-
V [m/s] 0 0 σ [°] Wing Aircraft. Technical Report on NASA TN D-989, NASA
(1962)
(a) 3. Ransone, R.: XC-142A V/STOL Transport Tri-Service Limited
Category 1 Evaluation. Technical report on air force flight test
center EDWARDS AFB, CA (1966)
−20 4. Fay, C.B.: A cursory analysis of the VTOL tilt-wing performance
and control problems. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 107, 102–146 (1963)
0
−40 5. McKinney, M.O., Kirby, R.H., Newsom, W.A.: Aerodynamic
factors to be considered in the design of tilt-wing V/STOL air-
−50
Z [N]

−60 planes. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 107, 221–248 (1963)

−100 −80
−100
−150
−120
−200
30
100 −140
20
10 50 −160
V [m/s] 0 0 σ [°]
(b)
Fig. 12 Resulting forces during the transition measurements for
different incidence angles of the wing r and free stream velocities
u matching stable transition points according to Fig. 4
horizontal and vertical flight was described. A 1:2 scaled
model of the tiltwing was built and evaluated in wind
tunnel tests for all relevant flight states. The effects of all
control devices were analyzed in horizontal and vertical
flight. A variation of the incidence angle, thrust and free
stream velocity furthermore confirmed the existence of
trim points during the transition. The horizontal measure-
ments show good compliance with previously computed
data. The vertical measurements prove the steering capa-
bilities during hovering. Measurements and computation of
specific coefficients and derivatives will be used to build a
six degrees of freedom simulation and will be used to
develop control strategies for the flight conditions.
Acknowledgments Our work has been conducted within the AVI-
GLE project, which is part of the Hightech.NRW research program
6. Hargraves, C.: An analytical study of the longitudinal dynamics
of a tilt-wing vtol. Princeton University, New Jersey (1961)
7. Stapleford, R., Wolkovitch, J., Magdaleno, R., Shortwell, C.,
Johnson, W.: An analytical study of v/stol handling qualities in
hover and transition. Technical report on systems technologyinc.,
Hawthorne, CA (1965)
8. Williams, J.L.: Extraction of longitudinal aerodynamic coeffi-
cients from forward-flight conditions of a tilt wing v/stol airplane.
Technical Report on NASA TN D-7114, NASA (1972)
9. Straeter, B.: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Propeller-Fluegel-
Interferenz = A contribution to propeller wing interference
problems. Dissertation, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt (1976)
10. Ostermann, T., Holsten, J., Moormann, D.: Entwicklung eines
autonom operierenden Tiltwing-UAV fuer den Einsatz in sel-
bstorganisierenden Drohnenschwaermen = Development of an
Autonomous Tiltwing UAV for the Operation in Self-organized
Drone Swarms. In: Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2010
: Hamburg, 31.8.–02.09.2010; Tagungsband - Ausgewaehlte
Manuskripte, DGLR, Bonn (2010)
11. Andre Deperrois, XFLR5—Analysis of foils and wings operating
at low Reynolds numbers http://xflr5.sourceforge.net/xflr5.htm
12. Mueller, F., Thomas, D.: Flugzeugentwurf Entwurfssystematik,
Aerodynamik, Flugmechanik und Auslegungsparameter fuer
kleinere Flugzeuge =Airplane design for small aircraft. Luft-
fahrtverlag TFT (2003)
13. USAF MIL-1797-A, Military Standard, Flying Qualities of
Piloted Vehicles (1990)
14. Etkin, B.: Dynamics of Flight, Stability and Control. Wiley, New
Jersey (1995)
15. Williams, J.E., Vukelich, S.R.: The USAF Stability and Control
Digital DATCOM, Volume I, Users Manual. McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics Company, St Louis, Missouri 63166, affdl-tr-76-
45 edn.http://www.holycows.net/datcom/USAF_DATCOM_UM
(1976)
16. Johnson, W.: Helicopter Theory, Princeton University Press,
Princeton (1980)

123