See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332401073

Conceptual Design of a QuadPlane Hybrid Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Conference Paper · November 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23090.84163

CITATIONS READS
3 6,747

1 author:

Alwin Wang
Monash University (Australia)
12 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Monash UAS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alwin Wang on 13 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Conceptual Design of a QuadPlane Hybrid Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle

Alwin R. Wang∗
Monash Unmanned Aerial Systems, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800

There are several competing concepts of multifunctional hybrid aircraft which combine
both vertical takeoff and landing and traditional fixed wing flight. Because of its relatively
simple layout and reduced risk of mechanical failure, a QuadPlane layout was selected an a
potential candidate for the 2018 Medical Express Challenge. Design work for such an aircraft
including aerodynamic estimates, propulsive efficiency and mass was conducted to produce
a viable design. Low Reynolds number solvers including XFLR5 and OpenVSP were used
in conjunction with drag build up methods outlined by Hoerner. The propulsion system and
overall mass were solved iteratively with a solution converging at 9.6kg with an estimated drag
of 9.7N with a range of 81km cruising at 25m/s. Detailed design work, prototyping and wind
tunnel testing is now being conducted by Monash Unmanned Aerial Systems to validate and
adjust this design.

Nomenclature
MTOM = Maximum Take Off Mass, kg
α = Angle of Attack, ◦
q = Dynamic Pressure, Pa
AR = Aspect Ratio
Re = Reynolds Number
b = Span, m
RW = Rotor Wing (quadcopter mode)
c̄ = Mean Aerodynamic Chord, m
S = Reference Area, m2
C = Battery Capacity, Ah
T = Thrust, N
CL = Coefficient of Lift
R = Range, m
CD = Coefficient of Drag
ρ = Air Density, kg/m3
D = Drag, N
UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
FW = Fixed Wing (plane mode)
V = Velocity, m/s
g = Acceleration due to Gravity, m/s2
V/STOL = Vertical and/or Short Take Off and
m = Mass, kg
Landing

I. Introduction
Monash Unmanned Aerial Systems (Monash UAS) is an undergraduate research team working to design, manufacture
and operate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with search and rescue capabilities. The team consists of a number of
students of different disciplines including Aerospace, Electrical, Mechanical, Mechatronics and Civil Engineering who
have conducted research towards the development of UAVs. Students are divided into three sections – Aerostructures,
Avionics and Flight Operations – and are supervised and guided by two University professors whose own research focus
on Fluid Mechanics and Autonomous Systems.
The primary focus for the team has been the international search and rescue UAV Challenge held in Kingaroy,
Queensland every two years. The next competition, the Medical Express task, will be held in September 2018 and focus
is on retrieving a blood sample from Outback Joe whose remote property has been cut off by flood waters1 . Competing
teams must autonomously takeoff, cruise approximately 30 km, locate and land near a target pattern printed by Joe before
repeating the sequence in reverse to return to base. As both the base and the remote landing site have limited potential
runways, vertical and/or short take off and landing (V/STOL) must be used. The entire mission must be completed in
one hour which necessitates teams researching hybrid aircraft capable of both V/STOL and efficient cruise2 .
∗ Design Lead, Monash UAS, Monash University, VIC 3800, and AIAA Student Member
 The major challenges encountered by Monash UAS include the design and construction of such a hybrid airframe,
detection of the landing pattern and fully autonomous mission capabilities. The research in this paper outlines the work
conducted creating a conceptual design for a QuadPlane that can be manufactured by the Monash UAS team.

II. Preliminary Layout

During the initial brainstorming phase of the design in the Monash UAS team, it was decided that a twin-boom
quadplane design would be pursued. This had a number of benefits including being a supported configuration in
Ardupilot3 reducing the workload from the Avionics section and no complex moving parts. These were the main reason
a more efficient design such as a tiltrotor was not chosen.

III. Design Requirements

As per the competition, the mission was divided into several sector. The first sector would be a vertical takeoff in
rotor wing to an altitude of 60m where the aircraft would transition into fixed wing mode. The aircraft would climb to
an altitude of 100m and cruise for 30km to reach the search site. There, it would fly a search pattern to locate Joe after
which it would transition back to rotor wing and land vertically. Once a blood sample was placed in the aircraft, it
would return to base repeating the journey in reverse1,2 .
Due to the time constraint of the mission, the cruising velocity of the aircraft was determined early on. It was
decided by the team that a speed of 25 m/s (90km/h) would allow sufficient time for ground preparations before the
aircraft was launched. Due to operating requirements, it was also decided that the take-off mass should not exceed 10kg.

IV. Preliminary Sizing

Once the preliminary layout and design requirements were decided by the team, the individual design work outlined
in this paper began.
The first imperative was to determine an initial maximum takeoff weight. This was achieved by analysing past
aircraft to create mathematical estimates of weights as textbook correlations were not available.

A. Lifting Surfaces
The construction method for lifting surfaces at Monash UAS was a composite sandwich of fibreglass and foam.
Samples of foam were weighed and the average density was determined to be 42.0 kg/m3 (higher than provided
manufacturer data4 ). Dry fibreglass was also weighed and determined to be 0.19662 kg/m2 . When conducting layups,
the fibreglass was cured with epoxy resin in a one-to-one weight ratio. As such, the mass of lifting surfaces was
determined by a combination of its volume, V, and surface area, S A:

mest = 42.0 × V + 0.39324 × S A (1)

Past designs of typical low Reynolds number aerofoils and double panel taper ratios were considered. The surface area
was varied between 0.2 m2 and 1.0 m2 and a mass estimate for the main wing was determined as

mw,est = 0.39324 × (2.027 × Sw ) + 42.0 × (0.0779 × Sw )1.5 (2)

| {z } | {z }
surface area volume

Based on preliminary layout drawings and tail volume coefficients of general aviation single engine aircraft5 , similar
weight estimates were determined for the tail∗

Svt = 0.11293 × Sw and Sht = 0.18595 × Sw (3)

mvt,est = 0.39324 × (2.169 × 0.11293 × Sw ) + 42.0 × (0.13626 × 0.11293 × Sw ) 1.5
(4)
| {z } | {z }
surface area volume
mht,est = 0.39324 × (2.060 × 0.18595 × Sw ) + 42.0 × (0.09932 × 0.18595 × Sw )1.5 (5)
| {z } | {z }
surface area volume
∗ The values quoted here for the vertical tail are for both tails

2
B. Fuselage
As the typical payload mass for Monash UAS search and rescue drones was relatively small, the strength of the
fuselage structure required depended on the loads (force and torque) of the fixed wing propulsion and battery capacity
(weight). Again considering past designs, a rough empirical estimate was created that the fuselage weight would be half
the fixed wing thrust. Thus, the mass estimate was found as
Tfw
mfuse,est = = 0.05102Tfw (6)
2g
Additional mass would be required for providing attachment points and mounting surfaces for the payload. This was
estimated as 50% of the payload.
mmount,est = 0.5 × mpayload

C. Structure
The reinforcement structure of the quadplane was comprised of three main components: the booms, main spar in
the wing and reinforcement spar in the horizontal tail. Carbon fibre was chosen as the structural material and the density
determined as 1381.79709 kg/m3 by measuring available carbon fibre tubes.
The length of the booms was dictated by the separation between the wing and the tip of the rotor wing propellers.
As such, the mass of the booms was estimated to be proportional to the mean aerodynamic chord. The length of the
main spar was assumed to scale with the wing span and the length tail reinforcement (carbon pultrusion) determined
using the preliminary layout and tail volume coefficients.

mbooms,est = 22.756 (c̄w )3 (7)

mw spar,est = 0.0138 (bw ) 3
(8)
mhtspar,est = 0.056 (0.4091bw ) = 0.0038 (bw )
3 3
(9)

The mass required for joints, fasteners and fairings was estimated as 12% of the total weight.

mjoints,est = 0.12 × MTOM (10)

D. Batteries
The amount of on-board battery required was found by calculating the required battery capacity (Ah). The
assumptions made were the total efficiency of the fixed wing propulsion was 45%, an 8 cell power 3.7V LiPo system
was used and the on-board electronics drew four times USB power (5V, 2.1A) for the entire 60 min mission time. The
range was also increased to 80 km to factor in the search pattern and allow for a safety margin.
1
ncellsVcell × 3600C = 4 × k VTOL mghtr + 2 × DR + 4 × 3600IV
| {z } | {z } ηfw | {z }
battery VTOL
| {z } on-board
cruise
106, 560 × C = 26, 620.37 × m + 177, 777.78 × D + 151, 200 (11)

A typical charge density of 0.02 kg/Ah per cell was determined from commercially available lithium polymer batteries6 .
This meant that the mass of the battery can be found as

mbat,est = 0.03997 × MTOM + 0.26693 × D + 0.22703 (12)

E. Propulsion System
The fixed wing propulsion system comprised of a single electric motor, propeller and electronic speed controller
(ESC). As a first estimate, the mass of the fixed wing propulsion was estimated using commercially available parts7 .

mfw,est = 0.064 × Tfw (13)

3
For the rotatory wing system, the thrust required for hover was one quarter of the mass. However, as thrust is varied to
create a net torque for yaw, the required thrust-to-weight ratio was two. An estimate was also made for a single electric
motor, propeller and ESC as 0.016 (approx. one quarter of the fixed wing estimate)7 .

mrw,est = 0.016 × 4 × 2 × MTOM

mrw,est = 0.128 × MTOM (14)

The length of wire required was determined to be an insignificant amount in a first-pass analysis. The length was
proportional to the distance from the fuselage to the quad motor. Similar to the length of the boom, this was estimated
to be proportional to the chord of the wing.
mwire,est = 0.8 × c̄w (15)

F. Payload
There were two separate fixed payloads of interest, the flight control system from the Flight Ops section and the
on-board computing for avionics.
The flight control system comprised of the Pixhawk 2 flight controller (300g), power cube (80g), control surface
servos (90g), GPS (40g) and pitot tube (20g)8 .

mflops = 0.530 kg

The avionics system was considered as the payload of the aircraft. This consisted of an on-board computer and camera
(280g), telemetry (40g) and antennas (80g)8 .

mpayload = 0.400 kg

Estimate Equation Mass (kg) Percentage

Wing 0.05102 × MTOM + 0.01479 × MTOM1.5 0.9173 9.66%
Vertical Tail (two) 0.00616 × MTOM + 0.0013 × MTOM1.5 0.0965 1.02%
Horizontal Tail 0.00964 × MTOM + 0.00171 × MTOM1.5 0.1415 1.49%
Fuselage 0.05 × MTOM 0.4749 5.00%
Mounting 0.2 0.2000 2.11%
Booms (two) 0.01626 × MTOM1.5 0.4759 5.01%
Wing Spar 0.00505 × MTOM1.5 0.1479 1.56%
Horizontal Tail Spar 0.00139 × MTOM1.5 0.0407 0.43%
Joints 0.12 × MTOM 0.9497 10.00%
Batteries 0.22703 + 0.30156 × MTOM 3.0910 32.55%
Fixed Wing Propulsion 0.06272 × MTOM 0.5957 6.27%
Rotary Wing Propulsion 0.128 × MTOM 1.2156 12.80%
Wiring 0.07152 × MTOM0.5 0.2204 2.32%
Flight Operations 0.53 0.5300 5.58%
Avionics Payload 0.4 0.4000 4.21%
1.35703 + 0.07152 × MTOM0.5
MTOM 9.4971 100.00%
+ 0.72911 × MTOM + 0.0405 × MTOM1.5
Table 1 MTOM Weight Correlations

4
G. Maximum Take Off Mass Estimate
For some of these equations, there was an additional dependence on wing parameters. These were be removed by
using
r
g × MTOM Sw p
Sw = W

c̄w = bw = Sw × ARw (16)
S
ARw

In order to determine the wing loading, the predetermined cruise speed was used. Considering typical low Reynolds
number aerofoils9,10 have a maximum lift-on-drag at CL = 0.4. Thus, the wing loading could be found as a function of
MTOM  
W 1 1
= ρV 2 CL = × 1.225 × 252 × 0.4 = 153.13 MPa (17)
S 2 2
In addition, considering past aircraft it was decided that an aspect ratio of 8 would be chosen. The reason behind that
was that any higher aspects ratios would be structurally and the
wing thickness would not be enough for wiring. For the
L T
= 0.1.


fixed wing propulsion, a target D of 10 was chosen. So, W
Thus, the equation for MTOM can be found. The piece-wise equation and solution is shown in Table 1 on the
preceding page. The additional wing, battery and propulsion parameters from the estimated MTOM are shown in
Table 2.

Estimate Value Estimate Value

Wing Area 0.6078 m2 Battery Capacity 19.31 ≈ 20 Ah
Mean Aero. Chord 0.2755 m Fixed Wing Thrust (Cruise) 9.3064 N
Span 2.2049 m Rotor Wing Thrust (Hover) 23.2661 N
Drag 9.3064 N Rotor Wing Thrust (Max) 46.5322 N
Table 2 Wing, Battery and Propulsion Parameters

V. Aerodynamic Analysis

A. Wing Design
Following the wing parameters show in Table 2 from the weight estimate, a wing was be designed. For simplicity
of construction, the inboard section of the wing between the fuselage and the boom would be constant chord and the
outboard sections tapered. This added an additional constraint to maximising aerodynamic efficiency.
The location of the booms was determined by size of the propellers required. For the required fixed wing thrust a
18.5” (469.9 mm) propeller was required and the rotor wing thrust a 15.5” (393.7 mm) propeller was required. As such,
a boom separation distance of 900 mm was determined suitable. Checking the horizontal tail, this distance corresponded
to a horizontal chord length of 125 mm and maximum thickness of 17 mm which was structurally possible.
The final wind design is shown in Figure 1 on page 7. The Oswald efficiency factor was found as 0.993 and the lift
on drag was 33.182 using XFLR511 . This was with 2◦ of washout and modified tip airfoil to ensure the wing tips stalled
after the chord. Detailed information on the wing is shown in Table 3 on the following page.

B. Aerodynamic Estimate for the Wing and Tail

Once the wing was finalised, the horizontal and vertical tail could be found with the assitance of Open Vehicle
Sketch Pad (OpenVSP)12 . Since the boom separation distance was fixed at 900 mm, the horizontal tail span was also
fixed at 900 mm. As the horizontal tail should sit outside of the propwash from the plane propeller, it was required to
have a minimum vertical distance of 240 mm above the wing. Using typical tail-volume coefficients, the sizing for
the tail could now be completed. Low Reynolds number airfoils were also chosen for a cruise CL = 0.4 and sufficient
thickness for wiring channels and structural reinforcement. This is summarised in Table 3 on the next page. The centre

5
of gravity (CG) was also chosen from the aerodynamic estimate as close to the centre of pressure (CP) as possible. This
is seen in Figure 1 on the following page.
The estimated root stall and tip stall values of the wing were determined in XFLR511 as 2D airfoils. As the root
stalls before the tip, the maximum angle of attack is taken to be 9 − 2.6 = 6.4. Allowing for a 10% de-rating due to
inaccuracies in a linear solver predicting flow separation, the maximum CL of the aircraft was determined as 0.83. This
corresponds to a stall speed of 17.54 m/s. The transition velocity is taken as 1.2 times higher than the stall speed which
gives 21.05 m/s. This is clearly a large transition speed and flaps may be required to reduce this speed.

Property Wing Horizontal Tail Vertical Tail (one)

Area 0.6050 m2 0.1125 m2 0.0342 m2
Span/Semi Span 2.20 m 0.90 m 0.21 m
Aspect Ratio 8.00 7.20 1.33
Taper Ratio 0.5012 1.0000 0.6410
Mean Aero. Chord 0.2823 m 0.1250 m 0.1600 m
Root Airfoil S2062 8% E485 12.5% NACA0012
Root Chord 0.3225 m 0.1250 m 0.1950 m
Root Max. Thickness 0.0258 m 0.0156 m 0.0234 m
Est. Root Stall α = 9, CL = 1.1 α = 13, CL = 1.14 α = 10, CL = 0.99
Tip Airfoil SG2062 8% Low Camber E485 12.5% NACA0012
Tip Chord 0.170 m ↑ 0.1250 m
Tip Max. Thickness 0.0258 m Same as root 0.0150 m
Est. Tip Stall α = 8.6, CL = 0.93 ↓ α = 9, CL = 0.86
Incidence Angle 3.580 1.920 0
Tip Washout −2 0 0
AC to CG −0.0694 m 0.7863 m 0.7288 m
AC to Wing AC 0m 0.8556 m 0.7981 m
Tail Volume N/A 0.5636 m 0.0410 m
Table 3 Wing and Tail Design

The two term drag polar5 can also be estimated by running a linear regression of CL2 on CD as shown in Equation 18.
Using the estimated drag to correct the XFLR5 prediction, the regression was run and had a goodness of fit R2 = 0.99998.
CD = CD,0 + KCL2 (18)
CD,0 = 0.03731 and K = 0.03938
This corresponds to a whole aircraft maximum lift-on-drag of 13.0. As this was higher than the estimate from the
correlations, the design moved to the next stage as the maximum lift-on-drag was only expected to decrease.

VI. Component Sizing

A. Propulsion System
The major components that required individual sizing were the motors, propellers and battery as these were only
available in discrete sizes6,7 . In order to meeting the requirements in Table 2 on the preceding page, the fixed wing (plane)
and rotary wing (quad) systems were determined. The plane system would be comprised of a Hacker A60-7XS V2
28-Pole Motor (480 g) motor and CAM Carbon-Plastic 18.5x10.0 Blades (45 g). The quad system would be comprised
of four KDE4012XF-400 Brushless Motors (145 g each) and four KDE-CF155-DP Blades, 15.5" X 5.3 (46.8 g each)

6
 Fig. 1 XFLR5 Aircraft Analysis

B. Wing Sizing
The size of the wing was also revisited as the heavy assumption the aspect ratio of 8 should be chosen early in the
design. Figure 2 on the next page shows the effect of varying the wing aspect ratio of the wing taper ratio. For a fixed
taper ratio, it was found that the root chord thickness would be too small to be structurally sound or thick enough for
wiring channels and bays for control surface servos. Increasing the aspect ratio would also not reduce the minimum
boom width apart as this was fixed by the clearance between the FW and RW propellers. As such, it was decided that
the aspect ratio would not be increased despite the potential aerodynamic improvement.

C. Structural Analysis
From Table 1 on page 4 it was seen that the target mass of the two booms was 475.9 g and the target mass of the
fuselage structure was 474.9 g.
Using available carbon fibre tube purchased by Monash UAS, the average density was found as 1.3947 g/cm3 . This
corresponded to a carbon fibre wrap tube of outer diameter 25 mm, wall thickness 3 mm and length 1.5 m. From a
separate analysis using ANSYS, this was determined possible structurally possible14 .
Using available 2 mm carbon fibre plate also purchased by Monash UAS, the average area density was found as
0.3176 g/cm2 (or 1.5879 g/cm3 , mildly heavier than the tube). This corresponded to 0.15 m2 of carbon fibre plate.
Alternatively if 3 mm plywood was used, this corresponded to 0.24 m2 . While both of these estimates appeared low, this
excluded joints and mounting for on-board components and deemed sufficient to proceed to the detailed model.

D. Detailed Model
A detailed model was created in OpenVSP12,13 with accurate masses assigned to the components. This is shown in
Figure 3a on the next page.

7
 (a) Root Chord Thickness (b) Boom Width Apart

Fig. 2 Aspect Ratio Analysis

(a) OpenVSP Model (b) Monash UAS Prototype

Fig. 3 Comparison of Models

VII. Stability

A. Mass Properties
The centre of gravity was determined in OpenVSP12,13 and used to determine the static stability, shown in Table 3a
on the following page. A static margin of 10% is acceptable5 and should allow for manoeuvrability while still being
stable. The moments of inertia shown in Table 3b on the next page were also determined in order to calculate the
dynamic stability.

B. Trim and Stability

The aerodynamic derivatives were calculated in XFLR5 and used to solve the linearised longitudinal and lateral
stability equations presented in Ref. 15 by Nelson. The results are shown in Table 5 on the following page.

8
 (a) Mass Properties (b) Moments of Inertia

Centre of Gravity From Leading Edge Moment of OpenVSP Value

Inertia
CGx 14.94 cm
CGy 0.00 cm Ixx 0.7879 kg m2
CGz −4.37 cm Iyy 0.6330 kg m2
Izz 1.3837 kg m2
Static Stability From Leading Edge
Ixy 0.0053 kg m2
XCG 0.149 m (47.13%)
Ixz 0.0291 kg m2
XCP,α=0 0.152 m (47.13%)
Iyz 0.0012 kg m2
XNP 0.187 m (57.98%)
80 slices used in Open VSP
SM 11.78%

Table 4 Mass Properties

Longitudinal Eigenvalue Lateral Eigenvalue

Short Period −8.9188 ± 8.5935i Roll Subsidence −16.1845
Phugoid −0.0086 ± 0.3974i Dutch Roll −1.1205 ± 6.8665i
Spiral 0.0569
Table 5 Dynamic Stability

While the aircraft is not stable in spiral mode, the time to double amplitude is quite long, 12.19 s. Thus, no correction
to the vertical stabilisers was made as this Pixhawk autopilot should be able to correct for small perturbations and any
increase in surface area of the vertical stabilisers would incur a drag penalty.

VIII. Validation

A. Drag
From Table 2 on page 5 it was found that the target drag was 9.3064 N. Compared to a separated analysis this turned
out to be an underestimate. The analytical drag build up predicted 9.7069 N which was later adjusted to 10.4222 N
using wind tunnel experimental data16 .

B. Weight
A prototype was constructed by the Monash UAS team for wind tunnel testing and it was used to determine actual
mass of the components required. The mass correlation predicted 9.4964 kg, the detailed OpenVSP model predicted
9.5946 kg and the prototype weighed 10.2375 kg.
While most of the estimates were roughly correct, the major component group that was incorrect was the on-board
systems. Due to potential signal interference, shielded wire was required greatly increasing the mass required. Once an
alternative wiring solution is determined, it is expected that the weight should decrease. However, it was discovered that
the tail was not structurally rigid during wind tunnel testing so future work and additional mass will be required.

IX. Conclusion
A correlation was determined in order to determine the expected mass (9.4964 kg) of a quadplane hybrid aircraft
capable of completing the 2018 UAV Challenge: Medical Express. Based on this mass, components were selected and a
detailed model in OpenVSP created with a mass of 9.5946 kg. During this process, assumptions about the aspect ratio,
lift-to-drag ratio and drag were made which were validated. It was found the propeller clearance and chord thickness

9
prevented any increase in aspect ratio. Both the weight and drag were underestimated by approximately 10% but future
prototypes should resolve these differences.These results will aid the Monash UAS in their preparation to compete in the
UAV Challenge.

Acknowledgements
A. R. Wang thanks Professor Hugh Blackburn and Dr Hoam Chung of Monash University, academic supervisors of
the Monash Unmanned Aerial Systems Team for their help and support throughout the project. Acknowledgements also
go out to the entire Monash Unmanned Aerial Systems Team for the work carried out throughout the year.

References
[1] UAV Technical Committee, “UAV Challenge: Medical Express”, UAV Challenge [online], URL:
https://uavchallenge.org/medical-express/ [cited 20 October 2017].
[2] UAV Technical Committee, “UAV Challenge: Medical Express 2018 Competition Rules”, UAV Challenge
[online database], URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5JgqjkRDqw8bDl5Q1p6Mzd3TlU/view [cited 20 October
2017].
[3] ArduPilot, “QuadPlane Support”, Ardupilot Dev Team [online database], URL: http://ardupilot.org/plane/docs/
quadplane-support.html [cited 20 October 2017].
[4] Solid Solutions Group, “Technical Data Sheet Styrofoam SM”, Solid Solutions [online database], URL:
https://www.solidsolutions.com.au/product_document/tds_fs_blue_styrofoam_sheeting3~3.pdf [cited 21 October 2017].
[5] Raymer, D. P., and American Institute of Aeronautics Astronautics, Aircraft Design : A Conceptual Approach,
4th ed, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Va. London, 2006, pp. 76, 110, 262-263.
[6] HobbyKing, “All Lithium Batteries”, Hobbyking, [online]. URL: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/batteries/lipo-
batteries-all-brands.html [cited 22 October 2017].
[7] HobbyKing, “Electric Motors”, Hobbyking, [online]. URL: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/power-systems-
1/electric-motors.html [cited 22 October 2017].
[8] HobbyKing, “Flight Controllers & Accessories”, Hobbyking, [online]. URL: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/drones/
flight-controllers.html [cited 22 October 2017].
[9] Selig, M. S., Lyon, C. A., Giguere, P., Ninham, C. P. and Guglielmo, J. J., Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data,
Vol. 2, SoarTech Publications, Virginia, 1996, pp. 25, 26, 44, 50 – 53, 218, 236.
[10] Selig, M. S., “Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design”, Low Reynolds Numbr Aerodynamics on Aircraft including
applications in Emerging UAV Technology, VKI Lecture Series, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 2003, pp. 12-13.
[11] XFLR5, Analysis of foils and wings operating at low Reynolds numbers, Software Package, Ver. 6.39, Deperrois
A., Paris, 2017.
[12] OpenVSP, Open Vehicle Sketch Pad, Software Package, Ver. 3.13.3, NASA Open Source Agreement.
[13] Hahn, A., “Vehicle Sketch Pad: A Parametric Geometry Modeler for Conceptual Aircraft Design”, AIAA
Paper 2010-657, 2010.
[14] Wang, A. R. and Chadwick, M., “Analysis of Composite Load-Bearing Structures in a QuadPlane Hybrid
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Using ANSYS”, AIAA Student Region VII Conference, AIAA, University of Sydney, Sydney,
2017 (not yet published).
[15] Nelson, R. C. Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed, McGraw Hill, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp 126-127,
160-161.
[16] Wang, A. R., “Estimation of Drag for a QuadPlane Hybrid Unmanned Aerial Vehicle”, AIAA Student Region
VII Conference, AIAA, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2017, pp. 5-11 (submitted for publication).

10
 (a) Drag Summary

(b) Mass Summary

Fig. 4 Validation of Results

11

View publication stats