Unmanned Air Vehile (UAV) Wing Design and Manufacture

Unmanned Ai r Vehi cl e ( UAV) W i ng Desi gn

and M anufact ur e
Submi t t ed by
Chong Shao Mi ng

Depar t ment of Mechani cal Engi neer i ng

I n par t i al f ul f i l l ment of t he r equi r ement s f or
Degr ee of Bachel or of Engi neer i ng
Nat i onal Uni ver si t y of Si ngapor e






Summar y
Thi s paper document s t h e devel op ment of a UAV w in g, encompassin g t h e ent i r e p rocess
f r om desi gn t o manu fact ur e, and f inal l y it s i mpl ement at ion on an ai r craf t . Begi nn in g w i t h
w in g d esign and anal ysis, r equ ir ement s ar e f i r st id ent i f i ed and rel at ed concep t s are
f or mulat ed. A l it er at ur e sur vey i s t hen condu ct ed t o est abl i sh f ocus f or anal ysis.
Anal ysi s i s conduct ed f o r t h e f our mai n desi gn par amet er s. Fi r st l y, ai r f oi l sel ect i on i s d ecid ed
u si ng 2D CFD anal ysi s. Ver i f i cat i on o f Xf oi l i s done by evaluat i ng i t s r esul t s w it h avai l abl e
w ind t unnel dat a. It i s subsequen t l y used t o ext end t he dat a l i br ar y t o i n cor po rat e a w id er
sel ect io n. Review i ng t he l if t and st abi li t y r equ ir ement s as w el l as st al l pat t er n s, GEM INI and
NACA0012 ar e t h e f i nal sel ect i on s f or w i ng and t ai l air f oi ls r espect i vel y. Li mi t at io ns of Xf oi l
n ecessi t at e t he u se of 3D CFD analysi s t ool , Fl uen t , on plan fo r m select i on. Ju st if i cat i on i s
f i r st est abl i sh ed f or t he choi ce o f k-omega (Sh ear St r ess Tr anspor t at i on) t ur bul en t mod el .
Aer odynamic dat a is t hen gener at ed f o r f ou r d if f er ent pl anfo rms w i t h di f f er ent
comb inat ions o f r ect angu lar and t aper ed sect i on . Th ei r dr ag coef f i ci en t s w er e f ound t o be
l o w er t han t he baseli ne. Ho wever , t h ey ar e not con vincin gl y si gn if i cant t o j u st if y t h ei r
sel ect io n over t he r ect angu l ar basel in e, w hi ch yiel ds pr act ical and aer od ynami c ben ef i t s. For
d i hed ral and t h e si zin g of con t r ol sur f aces, pr act i cal dat a on st abi l it y and cont ro l der i vat i ves
ar e d er ived f r om l i t er at u r e. Comput at i ons ar e sub sequent ly car r i ed out t o det er mine t he
d esign paramet er s.
To f abr i cat e t he w i ngs, a comput er numer ical cont r ol led syst em was develop ed. It
comp r i ses of t hr ee sect io ns. Th e mechan ical par t s w er e f abr icat ed f ro m scr at ch, w h il e t he
el ect r oni c component s and t he sof t war e w er e ob t ained f ro m cr edibl e sour ces. To opt i mi ze
t he p er fo rmance of t he syst em, mechani cal cal i br at io ns w er e f i r st car r i ed out . The sel ect i on


o f w i r e h eat and cut t i ng speed has si gn if i cant i mpl i cat i on s on t h e di men sional accuracy,
h ence, empi r ical t est s ar e condu ct ed t o der i ve t he opt i mum valu es. Finall y, t he accu racy
and p reci si on of t he syst em i s put t he t est t hr ou gh a det ai led i nspect i on o f f ab r i cat ed ai r fo il s
cr oss sect i on. The coo rd inat es w er e r egist er ed and anal yzed u sing Xf oi l t o yi el d
aer od ynami c dat a. Di f f er en ces w er e d eemed accept abl e.
Wi t h t h e est abl ished fabr icat i on pr ocess, pr ot o t ype air cr af t s w er e assembl ed sub sequent ly.
Ot h er t han demonst r at ing ai r w o r t hi ness, f li ght t est i s t h e most pr act i cal way t o ver if y t he
r esul t s f r om co mput at i onal anal ysi s. To achi eve t h i s, f l ight i n st r u ment s and a dat a st o rage
d evice ar e mount ed on t he air cr af t and f li gh t dat a w er e col l ect ed. Anal yses of t he r ecor ds
w er e car r ied out t o der i ve t he l i f t and gl id e r at i o. Deviat i on s f r om compu t at i onal analysi s
w er e j u st i f i ed and accoun t ed fo r .



Ack now l edgement s
The aut hor w i shes t o expr ess si ncer e appr eci at i on t o t h e super vi sor , Asso c Pr of Ger ar d Leng
f or hi s pat i en ce and gu idance t hr oughou t t he cour se o f pr oj ect . Hi s r ol e as a ment or w as
i n val uabl e. Gr at i t ud e is al so ext end ed t o t h e St af f and Techn ici ans of t he Dynamics Lab f or
t hei r admini st r at i ve and t echn i cal suppo r t . Special appr eciat i on al so go es t o M r Ant hony
Low , Pr esid en t of Rad io M odell er s Sin gapor e, fo r hi s kind assi st ance i n f l ight t est .



T abl e of Cont ent s
List of Figures . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. i
List of Tables . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . iii
List of Symbols. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .iv
I nt roduct ion . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 1
Backgr ound and Overvi ew ......................................................................................................... 1
Ob j ect i ves .................................................................................................................................... 1
Design and Analysis . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 2
M et hodo logy ............................................................................................................................... 2
Requ ir ement s and Paramet er s .................................................................................................. 3
M i ssio n Requi r emen t s ........................................................................................................... 3
Cat egor i zat i on o f Par amet er s ................................................................................................ 3
Cr i t i cal Per f o rmance par amet er s .......................................................................................... 4
Det er mini ng St abi l it y Requ ir ement s ..................................................................................... 5
Lit er at ur e Su rvey ........................................................................................................................ 5
Fi nd ings fo r Ai r f oi l .................................................................................................................. 5
Fi nd ings fo r Pl an fo r m ............................................................................................................. 6
Concept of Dih edr al................................................................................................................ 7
Cont ro l Su r f aces ..................................................................................................................... 8
Anal ysi s ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Airf oil Analysis and Select ion .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 9
Pl an fo r m Anal ysi s and Select ion ......................................................................................... 14
Di hedr al Analysi s and Co mput at i on .................................................................................... 18
Cont ro l Su r f aces Analysi s and Co mpu t at i on ...................................................................... 18
Fabricat ion . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 20
Impl ement in g CNC Sol ut i on ..................................................................................................... 20
M ot i vat i ons ........................................................................................................................... 20
Syst em Desi gn , M anuf act u r e and Assembl y ...................................................................... 21
Syst em Cal ib rat i on and Op t i mi zat i on ................................................................................. 22


Fabr i cat i on Pr eci si on Analysi s.................................................................................................. 23
M ot i vat i on and Pr ocedur es ................................................................................................. 23
Resu lt s ................................................................................................................................... 24
Fabr icat i on and Assembl y .................................................................................................... 26
Flight Test and Analysis . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 27
M o t i vat i on ................................................................................................................................. 27
Der i ving gl i de r at io ................................................................................................................... 27
Di agno si s o f pr el i minar y f li gh t s ............................................................................................... 28
Anal ysi s of f l i ght dat a ............................................................................................................... 28
Resu l t s and Eval uat ion ............................................................................................................. 29
Ver i f yi ng Lif t .......................................................................................................................... 30
Ver i f yi ng C
L
/ C
D
..................................................................................................................... 30
Reco mmendat i ons .................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusion .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 31
References .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 32
Appe ndices . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . a
Requ ir ement s and Paramet er s .................................................................................................. a
Fabr i cat i on – Design and Assemb l y ........................................................................................... b
Fabr icat i on – Cal ib rat i on and p r eci si on check...................................................................... c
Fabr icat i on – Cust omi sat ion and innovat i on i n desi gn ........................................................ d


i

Li st of Fi gur es
Fi gur e 1: Pr oj ect Over vi ew ............................................................................................................. 1
Fi gur e 2: M et hodol ogy ................................................................................................................... 2
Fi gur e 3: Di hedr al Ef f ect s ............................................................................................................... 7
Fi gur e 4: GEM INI (Cl vs al pha) ........................................................................................................ 9
Fi gur e 5: GEM INI (Cl vs Cd )............................................................................................................. 9
Fi gur e 6: Clar kY (Cl vs alpha) ........................................................................................................ 10
Fi gur e 7: Clar kY (Cl vs cd) ............................................................................................................. 10
Fi gur e 8: NACA64010 (Cl vs alpha) .............................................................................................. 10
Fi gur e 9: NACA64010 (Cl vs Cd) ................................................................................................... 10
Fi gur e 10: SD8020 (Cl vs alpha).................................................................................................... 10
Fi gur e 11: SD8020 (Cl vs Cd) ........................................................................................................ 10
Fi gur e 12: Compar ing Xf oi l dat a .................................................................................................. 11
Fi gur e 13: Compar ing act ual dat a ................................................................................................ 11
Fi gur e 14: Cl vs alpha f o r shor t l i st ed w in g ai r f oi l s ...................................................................... 12
Fi gur e 15: Cl/ Cd vs alpha f or shor t li st ed w i ng ai r fo il s ................................................................ 12
Fi gur e 16: Cl vs alpha f o r shor t l i st ed t ai l ai r f oi l s......................................................................... 13
Fi gur e 17: Cl / Cd vs alpha f or shor t l i st ed t ai l air f oi ls ................................................................. 13
Fi gur e 18: Compar ingTu rbul ence M od el s (Cl vs Cd ) .................................................................. 15
Fi gur e 19: Compar ingTu rbul ence M od el s (Cl vs al pha) ............................................................. 15
Fi gur e 20: Compar ing Var i ous For mulat i ons .............................................................................. 15
Fi gur e 21: Pr essur e Con t our f or Basel i ne ................................................................................... 16
Fi gur e 22: Combinat i on of Rect angu lar and Taper ed Sect i on ................................................... 16
Fi gur e 23: CL vs CD f o r var ious p lanf or ms .................................................................................. 16
Fi gur e 24: CL vs al pha f or var iou s plan fo r ms .............................................................................. 16
Fi gur e 25: CL / CD vs al pha f or var ious p lanf or ms ...................................................................... 17
Fi gur e 26: Flap Ef f ect i veness vs Su r f ace Rat i o ............................................................................ 20
Fi gur e 27: Per cen t age d eviat i on i n Cut ar ea vs Wi r e Cur r ent (f or var ious cu t t in g speeds) .... 23
Fi gur e 28: Compar i son bet ween Act ual and Fabr icat ed Coor dinat es f or GEM INI air fo i l ........ 24
Fi gur e 29: Compar i son bet ween Act ual and Fabr icat ed Coor dinat es f or NACA0012 ai r f oi l ... 24
i i

Fi gur e 30: Per cen t age d eviat i on i n d imension vs Posit i on (GEM INI) ........................................ 24
Fi gur e 31: Per cen t age d eviat i on i n d imension vs Posit i on (NACA0012)................................... 24
Fi gur e 32: Compar ing Cl vs al pha bet w een Or i ginal and Fabr i cat ed GEM INI .......................... 25
Fi gur e 33: Compar ing Cl vs Cd b et w een Or iginal and Fab r i cat ed GEM INI ............................... 25
Fi gur e 34: Compar ing Cl vs al pha bet w een Or i ginal and Fabr i cat ed NACA0012 ..................... 25
Fi gur e 35: Compar ing Cl vs Cd b et w een Or iginal and Fab r i cat ed NACA0012 .......................... 25
Fi gur e 36: Assembl y ...................................................................................................................... 26
Fi gur e 37: Unpo w er ed Gl i de ........................................................................................................ 27
Fi gur e 38: 3D Fl ight pat h on map ................................................................................................ 29
Fi gur e 39: Fli ght pat h - Al t it ud e h (m) vs Di st ance R (m) ........................................................... 29
Fi gur e 40: Assembl ed Uni t s ............................................................................................................ c
Fi gur e 41: Ind ivi dual mechani cal par t s.......................................................................................... c
Fi gur e 42: Solder ed PCB ................................................................................................................. c
Fi gur e 43: Ind ivi dual Elect roni c Par t s ............................................................................................ c
Fi gur e 44: Wi r e Jo in t ....................................................................................................................... c
Fi gur e 45: M arkin gs f or w i r e h ei ght .............................................................................................. c
Fi gur e 46: Spi r i t l evel f o r ho r i zont al al i gnment ............................................................................ c
Fi gur e 47: M arkin gs f or par al l el al i gnment ................................................................................... c
Fi gur e 48: Set -up fo r Fabr icat i on pr eci si on check ........................................................................ d
Fi gur e 49: Close-up vi ew t o acqui r e coor dinat es ......................................................................... d
Fi gur e 50: Flexi bi l i t y i n i n ad ju st i ng t ai l p osi t io n and angl e ......................................................... d
Fi gur e 52: Close-up vi ew on con t r ol hor ns and r od s.................................................................... d
Fi gur e 51: Sleeve cu t s t o house st r uct ur al r ein fo r cement s ......................................................... d


i i i

Li st of T abl es
Tab le 1: Desi gnat ed Obj ect i ves ...................................................................................................... 2
Tab le 2: Air cr af t Speci f i cat i ons ...................................................................................................... 3
Tab le 3: Classif i cat i on o f Par amet er s ............................................................................................ 3
Tab le 4: Lit er at ur e Sur vey Fi ndings f or Air f oi l .............................................................................. 6
Tab le 5: Lit er at ur e Sur vey Fi ndings f or Planf or m ......................................................................... 6
Tab le 6: Reco mmendat i on f or Ail er on .......................................................................................... 8
Tab le 7: Reco mmendat i ons f o r El evat or and Rudd er .................................................................. 8
Tab le 8: Sco pe of anal ysis............................................................................................................... 8
Tab le 9: Sel ect ed Dat a f or Wi ng ai r f oi l s ...................................................................................... 12
Tab le 10: Sel ect ed Dat a f or Tail ai r f oi l s ....................................................................................... 13
Tab le 11: Sho r t l ist o f Tu rbul ence M od el s f r om l i t er at u re ......................................................... 14
Tab le 12: Pl anf or m Cases ............................................................................................................. 16
Tab le 13: Fl uent r esul t s f o r var i ou s planfo r ms ........................................................................... 17
Tab le 14: Comput at ion r esu lt s f or var i ous con t r ol su r f aces...................................................... 20
Tab le 15: In novat i on i n mechan i cal desi gn ................................................................................. 21
Tab le 16: Fab r i cat ion Pr ocedu res and Ti me t aken ..................................................................... 26
Tab le 17: Di agn osis of Pr eli mi nar y Fl ight s .................................................................................. 28
Tab le 18: Sel ect ed Fli gh t dat a ...................................................................................................... 29
Tab le 19: Par amet er s f r om op t i mi zat i on ...................................................................................... a
Tab le 20: Br eakdow n of M echani cal Par t s.................................................................................... b
Tab le 21: Br eakdow n of El ect r oni c par t s ...................................................................................... b

i v

Li st of Symbol s
α Angle o f at t ack, d eg
AR Aspect rat i o -
b
2
S

b Span, m
[ Si dew ash , d eg
c Chor d, m
c̅ M ean chor d, m
C
d
Sect i onal dr ag coef f ici ent
C
Ð
Drag coef f i cient
C
I
6
c
Ail er o n Con t r ol Power , deg
-1

C
I
Sect i onal li f t coef f icient
C
I
o
Sl ope o f sect i onal l i f t cu r ve, d eg
-1

C
L
Li f t coef f i ci en t
C
L
o
Sl ope o f sect i onal l i f t cu r ve, d eg
-1

C
I
[
Sl ope o f r ol l in g moment coef f ici ent due t o sid esli p
C
m
u
Sl ope o f pi t ch in g moment coef f i ci ent , deg
-1
C
m
6c
El evat o r Cont ro l Po w er , d eg
-1

C
n
[
Sl ope o f yaw i ng mo ment co ef f i cent due t o sid esli p, deg
-1

C
n
6r
Rudder Con t r ol Pow er , deg
-1

o
u
Ail er o n def l ect i on , deg
o
c
El evat o r def l ect ion, d eg
o
¡
Rudder def l ect i on , deg
Ð Drag, N
e Down wash angl e, d eg
Γ Dih ed ral an gl e, deg
I Li f t , N
p Tai l ef f i ci en cy
Rc Reynolds Numb er

v

p Densi t y, kg/ m
3

o Si dew ash angle, d eg
S
u
Ail er o n sur f ace ar ea, m
2
S
c
El evat o r sur face area, m
2
S
¡
Rudder sur f ace ar ea, m
2
S
t
Hor izon t al t ai l sur face ar ea, m
2
S
¡
Ver t i cal t ai l sur f ace ar ea, m
2
¡ Fl ap ef f ect i veness
I
«
Fr eest r eam vel oci t y, m/ s
I
u
Ver t i cal t ai l vol ume r at i o -
I
¡
S
¡
Sb

I
H
Hor izon t al t ai l vol ume r at i o -
I
t
S
t
Sc̅

w Weight , N
X
cg
Dist ance of cent r e of gr avit y f r om w ing l ead ing edge, m
X
NP
Dist ance of neu t r al poi n t f r om w i ng l eadi ng edge, m

1

I nt r oduct i on
Back gr ound and Over vi ew
The i nt er est i n Unmanned Ai r Veh icl es has i ncr eased t r emendously o ver t he past decade
and a r ise i n i t s emp lo ymen t has been pr ed ict ed (1) f o r t he next t w en t y year s t o come.
St udi es have been car r i ed ou t on over al l asp ect s of UAV design, such as cost -ef f ect i veness
(2) and mul t i di scipl i nar y opt i mi zat i on (3).
Cur r ent ly, i n t he ar ea o f w i ng st udi es, majo r i t y of t he w or k ar e dedi cat ed t he assessment of
novel concep t s such as inf l at abl e and r et r act abl e w i ngs (4), (5). Thi s paper f ocu ses on t he
d evel opment of conven t i onal w in gs f or a Class 1 (as def i ned i n (1)) UAV. Th e ent i r e p rocess
w il l b e cover ed , f r om t he desi gn and anal ysis t o f abr i cat i on usi ng a comput er con t r ol l ed
syst em. Final l y, a f l ight evaluat ion was conduct ed t o ver if y t he desi gn . Hence, t hi s pr oj ect
encompasses a l ar ger i nt en t , w hi ch i s t o assembl e an act ual UAV w i t h missi on capabi l i t i es.
Col l abo rat i on w i t h t h r ee ot her t eam member s i s r equi r ed, each handl in g an aspect of t he
UAV. The di agr am bel ow depi ct s an overview .





Obj ect i ves
The p ro j ect can b e di vi ded in t o t hr ee mai n compon ent s namel y (1) Design and Analysi s, (2)
Fab r i cat i on and (3) Fl ight Test . Each component comp r i ses of designat ed obj ect ives t o be
f ul f i ll ed t o compl et e t he assignment .
Reference
Suppor t
Win g and Tai l
Par amet ers
Opt i mi zat i on
UAV wi t h capabi l it i es
Pro j ect Requi r ement s
Const rai nt
Propul sion
St r uct ur e
Est abl i sh obj ect ives
Fulf i ll Object i ves
Anal ysi s
r esul t s
Figure 1 : Project Overview
2


Desi gn and Anal ysi s
Met hodol ogy
Basical l y, t h e t ask o f desi gn i ng invol ves t h e manipul at ion of physi cal par amet er s t o al t er t he
aer od ynami cs. In t ur n, t hi s w i l l have di r ect i nf luence o ver t h e ai r craf t p er fo r mance and
st abi l i t y, and hence, i t s mi ssio n capab il i t ies.



The d esign pr ocess begin s w i t h i d ent i f ying t h e desi r ed per f or mance and st ab i li t y, as w el l as
t he var ious desi gn paramet er s t o fu lf i ll m issi on r equ ir ement s. Subsequen t l y, t hr ough
app li cat io n of f undament al t heor y and l i t er at u r e r eview s, a shor t l i st w i l l be gen er at ed f or
each par amet er . Sub sequent ly, a ser i es o f co mput at i onal anal yses w il l b e p er fo r med t o
j u st if y t he f i nal select i on. Wit h t h e paramet er s gener at ed , f ab r i cat i on o f t he w i ng pr o t o t ype
can t hen be car r i ed out .
Component s Desi gnat ed Ob j ect ives
(1) Desi gn and Anal ysi s - Desi gn ing sol ut ions (i .e. sel ect i o n of app ropr i at e
paramet er s) t o meet mi ssi on r equi r emen t s
- Just i f icat ion usin g compu t at i onal analysi s
(2) Fabr icat i on - Developmen t of a CNC so lu t i on t o enabl e r api d and
pr eci se p roduct i on o f 3D w ings
- Ver i f icat i on of equi pmen t r el iabi l it y and wor t hi ness
(3) Fl i ght Test and Anal ysi s - Demonst rat i on o f ai r wor t h in ess
- Eval uat i on of act ual f li ght d at a
Requi r ement s and
Paramet er s
Lit er at ur e
Sur vey
Anal ysi s Par amet er s f or
Fab r i cat i on
Ta ble 1 : Designa t ed Object ives
Figure 2: M et hodology
3

Requi r ement s and Par amet er s
Mi ssi on Requi r ements
The mi ssi on r equi r ement s o f t h e UAV gover n t h e desi gn o f w i ng. Th e t abl e belo w sho w s t he
gen er al speci f icat ions o f t he air cr af t model ed af t er t ypi cal UAVs avail abl e i n t he mar ket .

Speci f i cat ions
Designat ed Task sho r t r ange sur veil l ance
Payload Tot al ai rcraf t w ei gh t < 1kg w i t h Camera and dat a l ogger
Conf i gu rat i on Pusher , h igh-w i ng
Takeof f / r ecovery Hand launched t akeo f f and Bel l y assi st ed land in g
M aneuverabi l it y Tur ni ng r ad iu s of <1km
Range and Endur ance Range of < 4km r ad iu s base, 10 min s endur ance t i me
Alt i t u de and Cr ui sing Speed 2000f t ;13 – 15 m/ s

Cat egor i zat i on of Par amet er s
To i ni t i at e t h e desi gn pr ocess, t he physi cal paramet er s ar e f i r st i dent if i ed . Th er e ar e t w o
t ypes o f par amet er s, d imensional and d esi gn. Di mensi onal par amet er s basical l y r ef er t o
si zes of t he w in g and t ai l . They are r esol ved i n t he opt i mizat i on pr ocess, leavin g t h e desi gn
par amet er s t o be w o rked ou t . Ot h er opt i mi zed paramet er s not p er t ai ning t o w ing desi gn
can b e f ound in t he app end i x
.
Typ e Par amet er s Sp ecif i cat i on s
Dimensional (imposed by
opt im izat ion)
Chor d c = 1 71 mm, c
ht
= 9 5 mm, c
¡t
= 1 07 mm
Span b = 1 .2 m, b
ht
= 0.47 m, ℎ
¡t
= 0.15 m
Design Air f oi l To be det er mined
Pl anf or m
Dih ed ral
Cont r ol Sur faces
Ta ble 2 : Aircra ft Specifica t ions
Table 3: Cla ssifica t ion of Pa ramet ers
4

Cr i ti cal Per for mance p ar amet er s
Li ft for a i r cr a ft C
L
vs u
The r el at i onshi p bet w een t h e li f t co ef f i cient and i t s cor r espo nd in g angle o f at t ack i s t he
mo st essen t i al dat a f or w in g and t ail desi gn. It is pr imar i l y gover ned by t he air f oi l sel ect i on
and t he p lanf or m. Aerodynami c concept s have b een devel op ed t o li nk t he sect i onal C
l
o f a
2D ai r foi l t o 3D w i ngs of f i ni t e span using Li f t i ng li ne t heor y. It st at es t hat (6)
C
L
= C
I
o
AR
AR + 2
o
LLT has pr oven t o be r easonabl y accur at e f o r st r ai gh t w i ngs in regions bef or e st al l .
Ra nge a nd Endur a nce
C
L
vs C
Ð
and C
L
/ C
Ð

Ot h er t han d rag est i mat i on, t h e r elat i on sh ip b et w een dr ag an d li f t co ef f i cient i s cr u cial i n
d et er mini ng t he r ange and endur ance o f t he ai r cr af t . In per f or mance t er m s (7),
Range
R =
I
«
c
t
I
Ð
_
1
w
Jw
w
0
w
1
=
I
«
c
t
C
L
C
Ð
_
1
w
Jw
w
0
w
1

Endur ance
E =
1
c
t
C
L
C
Ð
ln
w
0
w
1

How ever , i t must be no t ed t hat f or radio cont r ol l ed f l ight r ange i s also l imi t ed by t he radi us
o f t h e si gnal st r engt h of t ransm it t er and t he endu rance cannot l ast beyond i t s b at t er y
dur at ion.
5

D eter mi ni ng St abi l i t y Requi r ement s
Fl ight st abi l it y i s a necessit y f or t yp ical ai rcraf t s. Condi t io ns f or st at i c st abi l it y, w hi ch i s t he
t endency o f t he pl at f or m t o r et u rn t o i t s i ni t ial p osi t ion af t er a di st u rbance (8), ar e shown
b el ow .
Longi t udi na l St a bi l i t y
Sl ope o f air cr af t p it ch i ng moment cur ve,
C
m
u
= C
m
u
w
+ C
m
u
t
+ C
m
u
]

Cont r ibut ion t o pi t chi ng moment f r om w ing and t ai l
C
m
u
w
= C
L
u
w
[
x
NP


x
cg

¸ ; C
m
u
t
= −pI
H
C
L
u
t
_1 −
Je
Jo
]
La t er a l St a bi l i t y
Sl ope o f air cr af t p it ch i ng moment cur ve,
C
n
[
= C
n
[
w]
+ C
n
[
u

Cont r ibut ion t o yaw in g moment f r o m ver t ical t ail,
C
n
[
u
= I
u
p
u
C
L
u
u
_1 +
Jo
J[
]
Sl ope o f air cr af t r ol l in g moment cur ve i s l ar gely dep enden t on t he d i hed ral,
C
I
µ
= −C
L
o
Γ.
2 ∫ c( y)
b/ 2
0
Jy
Sb

The cr i t er ia f or st at i c st ab il i t y is gi ven by
C
m
u
< 0 , C
n
[
> 0, C
I
[
< 0
Li t er at ur e Sur vey
Fi n di ngs for Air foi l
For con si derat i ons i nvol vi ng air f oi l sel ect i on , l i t er at ur e r evi ew yi el ds t he f ol l ow i ng.
6


Shape Key charact erist ics Applicat ions
Heavi l y
Camber ed
High L, l ow D, l ow C
M

Wi ngs on h igh endur an ce UAVs, RC
sai l planes
M oderat el y
Camber ed
High L, l ow D, moder at e C
M

Wi ngs on sho r t r ange UAVs, RC
spor t s plan e
Symmet r i cal M oder at e L, M od er at e D, l o w C
M

Hor i zont al and Ver t ical Tai l ,
Aer obat i cs
Empi r ical aer odynamic dat a is comp il ed i n (9) f or a sel ect ed number of air f oi ls i n each
cat egor y. For t he w i n g ai r f oi l sect i on , mod er at el y camber ed ai r f oi l i s h ighl y r eco mmended
f or t h e assi gn ed mi ssi on pr of i le (10). The t ail sect io ns (ho r i zont al and ver t i cal ), symmet r i cal
ai r f oi l s is t he onl y i nt ui t i ve opt ion as p ro vi si on s must be made f or l i f t t o be generat ed on
upp er and l ow er sur f ace.
Fi n di ngs for Pl anfor m
The p lanf or m o f a w i ng in f l uences t he l i f t di st r i bu t i on on i t , and t hu s t he f li ght p er fo r mance.
Fi ndings f ro m (7), (10) are summar i zed belo w .

Prof ile Advant ages Disadvant ages
El l ip t i cal
1. Low est i nduced d rag
2. St all s evenl y acro ss spans
1. Di f f i cu lt t o f ab r i cat e
Rect angul ar
1. Const ant Re r educes r i sk of t i p st al l
2. Easy t o f ab r i cat e
1. Hi gh er i nduced dr ag
2. Hi gh er b end ing moment s
Taper ed
1. Low er i ndu ced dr ag t han r ect angular
p l anf or m
2. Smal l er b end ing moment
1. Ri sk of t i p st al l

Combi ned
Rect . &
t aper ed
1. Appr oach advant ages o f el l i pt i cal
2. Easier t o f abr icat e
1. Hazar ds of t i p st al l
r emai n s
Table 4: Lit era ture Survey Findings f or Airfoil
Table 5: Lit era t ure Survey Findings for Pla nform
7


Desp it e t he advant ages of el li pt i cal pl an fo rm, t h is opt io n is el imi nat ed du e t o compl exi t i es
i nvol ved in i t s pr oduct i on. Hen ce, onl y t he f easi bi l it y of in t r odu cing t ap er w i l l b e exp lor ed.
Her e, t he op t i mum planf or m sel ect i on i s a compr omi se bet w een st r uct ur al and l ow er dr ag
b enef i t o f smal l ì and aer odynami c l if t b enef i t o f l ar ge ì (7). Thi s pr ompt s t he i nvest igat ion
o f a combi ned r ect an gul ar and t aper ed p lanf or m.
Planf or m o f t ai l sect i ons ar e of secondar y concer ns. Th ei r pr i mar y ro le i s t o pr ovid e st ab il i t y
i n t he UAV and t hi s has been r esol ved in t he opt imi zat io n pr ocess t hr ou gh t he all ocat i on of
d imensions. Hor i zont al t ai l w i l l adop t a r ect angu lar pr of i le. Ver t i cal t ai l w i l l adopt a t aper ed
r at i o of 0.8. To maxi mi ze r udd er ar ea, sw eepback w il l al so be i nt r oduced such t hat t r ai li ng
edges al i gn ver t i cal ly.
Concept of Di hedr al
Dih edr al is know n t o br ing ab out r ol l in g st ab il i t y. A di hedral angl e of I can br i ng about
st abi l izi ng ef f ect s by al t er in g t he r esul t ant o (posi t i ve Ao w i l l l ead t o hi gh er l if t ) w hen
si desli p occur s. Given t hat t he si desl i p and dihedral angl es ar e smal l,


∆o =
I
n
u
=
I
s
sinΓ
I
P
≈ [. Γ
The chan ge i n angle o f at t ack w i l l i n t u r n al t er t he l i f t o n bot h si des of t he w ing, hence
r esul t i ng in a r est or in g momen t . Recommendat i ons f ro m (10) yield an an gl e of 2 degr ees.
Figure 3: Dihedra l Ef f ect s
8

Cont r ol Sur faces
Ther e ar e t wo mai n aspect s t o t he desi gn o f cont r o l su r f aces, i .e. t heir p osit i on and si ze.
Var ying t hem w i l l give di f f er ent degr ees of con t r ol eff ect iveness in t er ms of rol l , p it ch and
yaw . Fi ndi n gs f ro m (10) yiel d pr el imi nary gui del in es f or t h e var ious su r f aces.

Type of aileron St r i p ai l er on
S
a
/ S 0.051 t o 0.
c / b 0.18c f r om t r ai l in g edge / 0.3b

Elevat or Rudder
S
e
/ S 0.3 t o 0.35 S
r
/ S 0.3 t o 0.5

Anal ysi s
Scope
Fro m t he pr evi ou s sect i on, t he t asks f or t he var i ous par amet er s can now b e al l ocat ed

Tasks
Ai r f oi l Select i on w i t h in t he moderat ely camber ed cat egor y
Pl an fo r m Select i on of t h e best comb inat io n of r ect angular and t ap er
Di hedral Ver i f yi ng t he angl e f r om l i t er at u r e w it h t heo ret i cal analysi s
Cont r ol Su r f aces Ver i f yi ng t he sizes f r om l it er at ur e w i t h t heor et ical analysis

Anal ysi s w i l l be f ocused on Wi ng. Fo r t ai l sect i ons, t he scop e of t hi s pr oj ect onl y r equi r es
t hem t o f ul f il l t he f un ct i on of pi t ch and yaw con t r ol , as w ell as t o main t ain f l i ght st abi l i t y.
Table 6: Recommenda t ion for Aileron
Table 7: Recommenda t ions for Eleva t or and Rudder
Table 8: Scope of a na lysis
9

Ai r foi l Anal ysi s and Sel ect i on
Va li da t i ng Xfoi l
Back gr oun d and Mot i v at i on
Xf o il is an i nt eract i ve pr ogram f or t he design and anal ysi s o f subsoni c i so lat ed ai r f oi l s. It is
w i del y r ecei ved as a cr edi bl e t ool (11), (12) f or anal ysi s of ai r f oi l by coupl in g vi scou s and
i nvi sci d f or mulat i ons. The main purp ose of val i dat i ng Xf oi l is t o ext end t he l i mit ed l i br ar y of
air f oi l dat a i n t h e most ef f i cient manner . Avail ab l e l i t er at ur e (9) onl y have dat a o f a f ew
air f oi ls and ar e l imi t ed t o Re at i nt er val s o f 5 × 10
5
. Besi des t h is, i ncor por at i ng a w i der
r an ge ai r f o il w i ll imp ro ve t he cr edi bi li t y of t he f i nal sel ect i on. Fi nall y, gi ven Xf oi l ’ s r el at i vely
shor t comput at i on t i me, aer od ynami c dat a can b e gener at ed qui ckly acr oss di f f er ent air f oi ls.
Execut i on and Eval uat i on
Dat a f r om avail abl e l i t er at u re w i l l be compi l ed and compar ed w i t h t he pl ot s f r om Xf oi l
under t he same Re. Thi s i s car r i ed out f or 4 di f f er en t air f o il s at Rc = 10
5
w here r eal dat a is
avail ab le f r om (9). Th ey are Clark Y, GEM INI, NACA64-A-10 and SD8020.
Da t a a ccur acy








Figure 4 : GEM INI (Cl vs a lpha ) Figure 5 : GEM INI (Cl vs Cd)
10


















Fro m t he graphs, i t i s ob ser ved t hat t he sl ope o f t he li f t cu r ves generat ed by Xf oi l is f ai r ly
accur at e. The hi ghest d eviat i on bel ongs t o Cl ar k Y, w it h a percen t age of 4.91%. Besi des t hi s,
t he st all pat t er ns f or t he w i ng cand idat es ar e w ell app ro xi mat ed t oo. Wit h excep t i on s t o
NACA0009 It can be seen also t hat viscous f or mu lat io ns ar e w el l documen t ed i n Xf oi l ’ s
codes as dr ag est imat i on s ar e accurat e at val ues befor e st all .

Figure 6 : Cla rkY (Cl vs a lpha ) Figure 7: Cla rkY ( Cl vs cd)
Figure 8 : NACA64010 ( Cl vs a lpha ) Figure 9: NACA64010 (Cl vs Cd)
Figure 11 : SD8020 (Cl vs Cd) Figure 10: SD8020 ( Cl vs a lpha )
11

Da t a t r ends
To f ur t her j u st if y t he use of Xf oi l t o co mpar e and con t r ast dat a of di f f er en t ai r f oi l s, t h e
t r end s f o r t h e l if t cur ves ar e examined . It i s ob ser ved t hat in t er ms of st al l angl es, ( C
L
)
mux
,
and ( C
L
)
u=0
, t he o rd er i s t he same f or bot h t he act ual and Xf oi l dat a.







Appl yi ng Li ft i ng Li ne T heor y t o det er mi ne pr el i mi na r y l i ft cr i t er i a
Wi t h Xf o i l pr oven t o be a cr ed ibl e dat a generat or , dat a is gen er at ed f or 8 air f oi ls, d oub li ng
t he si ze of dat a at hand. To begin , t he r equ i r ed l i f t co ef f i ci ent f or t he f i ni t e w i n g has t o be
d et er min ed. Fo r a 1 kg UAV cru isi ng at a sp eed of 15m/ s,
C
L
=
w
1
2
pI
2
S
=
9 .81
0.5 × 1.2 25 × 15
2
× 0 .2 04
= 0.349
Usi ng Li f t i ng Lin e Theor y ear li er , as w el l as i nt r oduci ng a fact or of 1.1, t he min i mum
sect i onal C
I
w as can be d et er mined
C
I
= C
I
o
o = 1.1 × C
L
AR + 2
AR
= 0 .4 94
Det er mi ni ng st a bi l i t y r equi r ement s
For St abi l it y, t h e min i mum cr it er i a is C
m
u
< −0.017 as i mpo sed by t he opt imi zat io n pr ocess
C
m
u
= C
L
u
w
[
x
NP


x
cg

¸ −pI
H
C
L
u
t
_1 −
Je
Jo
]
Figure 12: Compa ring Xfoil da t a Figure 13 : Compa ring a ctua l da ta
12

Subst it ut in g val ues f r om opt i mi zat i on, t h e mi ni mum t ai l l if t sl ope,
C
L
u
t
=
1
_1 −
2C
L
u
w
ARn
_pI
H
jC
L
u
w
[
x
NP


x
cg

¸ + C
m
u
[
C
L
u
t
=
1
_1 −
2 C
L
u
w
7.018n
_0.687
jC
L
u
w
( 0.157) + 0.01 7[
Wh ere C
L
u
w
w il l be r esol ved af t er select i on of w ing ai r f o il
Result s a nd Eva lua t i on
Wi ng – Li f t Cr i t er i a an d St al l Pat t er n






Table 9: Sel ect ed Da ta for W ing a irfoils
Clar k Y E197 GEM INI NACA 2415
M ax C
I
1.38 1.15 1.14 1.22
M ax C
I
/ C
d
68 68 62 60
C
I
@ o=5
o
0 .82 0 .76 0. 8 0 .75
C
I
/ C
d
@ o=5
o
68 55 55 54
St all angl e 11 13 14 14
St all pat t er n
Rel at ivel y
Sharp
Gent le over
r ange of 4
degr ees
Gent le over
range of 5
degrees
Rel at ivel y
Shar p

Figure 14 : Cl vs a lpha for short list ed w ing a irfoils Figure 15 : Cl/ Cd vs a lpha for short list ed w ing a irfoils
13

All of t he air f oi l f ul f i l l s t h e mi ni mum sect ional C
l
. Compar i ng al l aspect s, GEM INI ai r f oi l gi ves
t he b est over al l r esul t . E197 co mes clo se how ever it l o ses out sl i ght l y over t he st al l pat t er n,
w h ich i s cr ucial f or shor t range RC f li gh t .
C
d
f o ll o w s a near ly ver t i cal t r end, const an t dr ag f or var ying w in g load ings wh ich w i ll ai d i n
t he design of pr opul sion syst em (13).
T ai l – St abi l i t y Cr i t er i a






Table 10 : Sel ect ed Da t a for Ta il a irfoils
NACA64A-010 SD8020 NACA009 NACA0012
M ax C
I
0.7 0.92 0.84 1
M ax C
I
/ C
d
35 45 42 45
C
I
@ o=5
o
0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0 .6
C
I
o
@ o=5
o
0. 08 0. 08 0. 08 0 .08
C
I
/ C
d
@ o=5
o
35 45 42 45
St al l angl e 6 10 10 10
St al l p at t ern
M od er at el y
gent le
M oderat el y
Shar p
M od er at el y
Shar p
M oder at el y
Sharp

Wi t h GEM INI sel ect ed as w in g ai r f o il and app lyi ng t he Lif t in g Li ne t heor y,
C
L
u
w
= C
I
u
w
AR
AR + 2
= 0.0 747 ×
7
9
= 0.058 1 Jcg
-1

Figure 16: Cl vs a lpha for short list ed t a il a irfoils Figure 17: Cl / Cd vs a lpha for short list ed t a il a irfoils
14

∴ C
L
u
t
> 0.0123 Jcg
-1

For al l t he t ai l air f oi ls select ed , t hey ar e abl e t o f u l f i l l t he st abi li t y cr i t er i a above. SD8020 and
NACA0012 bot h pr esent t hemselves t o be f easi bl e opt i ons f or t ai l air f oi l. NACA0012 i s
sel ect ed.
Pl anfor m Analysi s and Sel ecti on
M ot i va t i on
The sel ect i on of t he p lanf or m r equi r es anal ysi s on t he 3D pr of il e o f t he w i ng. Th e t heo r et i cal
f or mulat i on of LLT i s i nsu f f i ci en t as i t assumes an i nvisci d mod el . On t h e ot her hand ,
al t hough Xf oi l accoun t s f or vi scous ef f ect s, it is o nl y l i mi t ed t o 2D ai r f o il . The CFD so f t war e
Fl uen t pr ovid es t he solut i on t o t hi s p robl em. The w ing model w i l l be cr eat ed i n So li dw or ks
and t r ansf err ed t o Gambi t f or mesh ing.
T ur bul ence model a na l ysis
The cu r r en t f l ow pr obl em belongs t o t he l ow Re cat egor y. Findi ngs f r om (14) have
sho r t l ist ed 3 sui t abl e t u rbul ence model s, w hi ch w i ll be assessed i n t hi s sect i on .
Table 11 : Short list of Turbulence M odels from lit era t ure
Key Feat ur es
Spalar t -Al mar as Sol ves f or eddy vi scosit y
K-Omega (st andard ) Cal cu lat es speci f i c t ur bul en ce d issi pat ion rat e
K-Omega (Shear St r ess Tr an spor t at i on) Accoun t f or t r anspor t o f t ur bul en t shear st r ess

Pl ot t i ng t he coef f i ci en t s o f l i f t and d rag at var i ous angles o f at t ack yi el d t he f ol low i ng




15







Fro m t he graph, it can b e obser ved t h at t he st andard ver si on of k-omega mod el d oes not
agr ee w i t h t he o t her t w o especial ly i n t er ms of dr ag est i mat io n. Eli mi nat i ng i t l eaves t he
Spal ar t -Almaras model and t he modi f i ed K-omega mod el . Th e lat t er emer ged a bet t er
opt ion as i t i s abl e t o model f l o w separ at ion at h igh o w i t h a d ecli ne i n l i f t coef f i ci en t un li ke
t he st r ai ght l i ne t r end i n SA.
Fur t her Just i fi ca t i ons
To f ur t h er j ust i f y t he sel ect i on, r esul t s f r om 2D anal ysi s and Lif t in g Li ne Theor y ar e
compar ed w i t h t he SST mod el . A si gni f i cant d i scr epancy can be observed b et w een f or t h e
LLT model du e t o i t s i nab il i t y t o accoun t f or visco us ef f ect .








Figure 18 : Compa ringTurbulence M odels (Cl vs Cd) Figure 19: Compa ringTurbulence M odels ( Cl vs a lpha )
Figure 20 : Compa ring Va rious Formula t ions
16










In addi t i on , t he pr essu r e cont ou r pl ot o f SST di sp lays a r eali st i c di st r i but ion, w her e l osses
can b e obser ved at t he w in g t i p s due t o t he t r ai li ng vor t ex.
Result s a nd Discussi on
Wi t h t he b est k-omega mod el sel ect ed, dat a is gen er at ed f or 4 di f f er ent permu t at i on s of
r ect angu l ar and t aper pl anf orm.
Table 12 : Pla nform Cases
Case 1 2 3 4
y
ì
0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75
ì 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75

Resu l t s





y
ì
Figure 21: Pressure Cont our for Ba seline
Figure 22: Combina t ion of Rect a ngula r
a nd Tapered Sect ion
Figure 23: CL vs CD f or va rious pla nforms Figure 24: CL vs a lpha for va rious pla nforms
17







Table 13 : Fluent result s for va rious planforms
Basel in e 1 2 3 4
M ax C
L

0.9177 0.9780 0.9482 0. 9551 0.9473
M ax C
L
/ C
Ð

5.5702 5.7109 5.7330 5. 7382 5.6803
C
Ð
min

0.0488 0.0502 0.0495 0. 0485 0.0487
C
L
@ o=5
o

0.3637 0.3881 0.3851 0. 3817 0.3766
I @ o=5
o
(N)
10.225 9.547 10.150 10. 060 10.257
C
L
/ C
Ð
@ o=5
o

5.2599 5.4538 5.4801 5. 5051 5.4631

Ver i f i cat i on for Li f t
To calcul at e l if t ,
I =
1
2
pI
2
S. C
L

For baseli n e, t he l if t at 15 m/ s at 5
o
L = 10.225 N. Thi s f u r t her ver i f i es t hat t he ai r f oi l
sel ect i on p ro vides su f f i ci en t l if t f or t he ai r craf t of 1 kg (9.81 N).
Ev al uat i on – Dr ag Reduct i on vs Pr act i cal i t y
The r esul t s f r om var i ous comb i nat i ons do no t exhi bi t dat a t r end s per t ai ning t o var iat i on s i n
t ap er r at i o and t he span of t he r ect angu lar sect i on. Th e in t ent i s t o obt ain t he per mut at i o n
Figure 25: CL / CD vs a lpha for va rious pla nforms
18

w hi ch best app r oxi mat es an el li pt i c pl an fo r m, w hi ch i s best appr oxi mat ed i n case 3. Thi s
comb inat ion gi ves t he l ow est dr ag coef f ici ent and t he hi ghest gl id e r at io C
I
/ C
d
at t r i m f l i ght .
On t he ot her hand, combi nat i ons whi ch d eviat es f r om ell i pt i cal planf or m i .e. shor t er
r ect angul ar sect i ons at y
ì
= 0.5, t he C
Ð
min
i s h igher .
Alt hough case 3 appear s t o be t he b est op t i on , t he r ect an gu lar planf orm i s p r ef er r ed. Fi r st ly,
t he savings on C
Ð
min
i s r at h er i nsi gni f i can t (0.6147% r educt i on), w it h a penalt y on i t s l if t d ue
t o i t s r educed sur face ar ea. In addi t i on , t he r isk of incu r r ing t i p st all i s hi gh er f or a t ap er ed
p l anf or m, w h ich w i l l lead t o l oss of ai ler on con t r ol . Fi nall y, w i t h i t s ease of f ab r i cat i on ,
r ect angul ar p l anf or m pr esent s i t sel f as t he most p ract ical opt i on.
D i hedr al An al ysi s and Computati on
For a r ect angul ar w i ng, t h e ear l i er f or mulat i on f or r ol l st abi l i t y d ue t o si desl i p becomes,
C
I
µ
= −
C
L
o
Γ
b

Γ = −
C
I
µ
C
L
o
b
Fro m (15) and (16), t he val ue o f -0.125 i s ob t ained f or C
I
µ
f o r Cl ass 1 UAVs. Th is w il l gi ve a
d i hed ral an gl e o f 1 .6 36
°
. Avai l abl e i nst r umen t f o r measu rement i s on ly accur at e up t o
± 1
°
f or fabr icat i on. As such, t he di hed ral of 2
°
w il l be adopt ed .
Cont r ol Sur faces Analysi s and Compu tati on
Concept s a nd For mul a t i ons
To quant if y t er ms f or analysi s, t h e f l ap ef f ect i veness paramet er (8) i s f i r st i nt r oduced .
General ly, i t can be exp r essed as t he chan ge i n angl e of at t ack due t o t he sur f ace def l ect ion,
¡ =
Jo
Jo

19

For each cont ro l su r f ace, i.e. ai l er on, elevat or and r udd er , t her e i s a r equi r ed con t r ol pow er
w hi ch w i l l govern t hei r r esp ect ive ef f ect iveness par amet er . Fr om (8),
Ail er o n Con t r ol Power (f o r r ol li n g), appl yi ng st r i p i nt egr at i on f or a r ect angul ar w ing,
C
I
6
c
=
2 C
L
o
w
¡
u
Sb
_ cy Jy
¡
2
¡
1

∴ ¡
u
=
C
I
6
o
Sb
C
L
o
w
c( y
2
2
−y
1
2
)

El evat o r Cont ro l Po w er (f or pi t ching),
C
m
6c
= −pI
H
JC
L
t
Jo
c
= −pI
H
JC
L
t
Jo
t
Jo
t
Jo
c
= −pI
H
C
L
o
t
¡
c

∴ ¡
c
= −
C
m
6c
pI
H
C
L
o
t

Rudder Con t r ol Pow er (fo r yaw ing),
C
n
6r
= −pI
¡
JC
L
¡
Jo
¡
= −pI
v
JC
L
¡
Jo
¡
Jo
¡
Jo
¡
= −pI
v
C
L
o
¡
¡
¡

∴ ¡
¡
= −
C
n
6r
pI
v
C
L
o
¡

Computa t i on w i t h da t a fr om li t er a t ur e
Typ ical val u es of con t r ol pow er f or air cr af t s si mi lar t o Class 1 UAVs can b e obt ain ed f rom
empi r ical f i ndin gs i n (15) and (16). Values of  can be comput ed t hen . Fi nal ly, t he cont ro l
sur f ace ar ea can b e d er ived f ro m t he r el at ionsh ip b et w een t he sur face r at ios and ¡ as
sho wn belo w (8).
20


Figure 26 : Fla p Eff ect iveness vs Surf a ce Ra t io
Table 14 : Comput a t ion result s for va rious cont rol surfa ces
Ai l er ons El evat or Rudder
Cont r ol Power 0.181 -1.9 -0.12
¡ 0.1794 0.5366 0.6676
S
cont¡oI su¡]ucc
S ⁄ 0.05 0.33 0.45

The val ues of t h e r at i os fall w el l w it hi n t he guidel i nes st at ed ear li er i n li t er at ur e su r veys, and
h ence t hey w i ll be empl oyed in f abr icat i on.
Fabr i cat i on
I mpl ement i ng CNC Sol ut i on
Moti vati ons
To meet t h e f ab r icat io n r equi r emen t s, t h e pr ocess mu st i nvol ve a Co mpu t er Numer i cal
Cont r ol (CNC) met hod. In st ead of adop t i ng t he met hod of ar ranging 2D pr ecisi on cu t s i n t o
w in gspan , t he d esi gn of a 3D foam cu t t er is pr oposed . Desp it e t he uncer t aint i es i n r el i abi l it y,
t he advan t ages ar e numerous.
1. Of f er s pr eci si on an d accur acy i n shap in g comp lex geomet r i es compar ed t o manual
mean s of ar rangin g 2D sect i on s
2. Capab le o f r apid p rot ot yp ing, hence al lo w ing ext ensive t est s t o be car r ied out
21

3. Al lo w s f lexi bi l i t y i n r e-conf igur at ion of w in g f or d if f er ent missi on p ro f i l e
4. DIY mach in e co st s on l y a f r act ion (<10%) of t hose availabl e commer ci al l y
System Desi gn, Manu fact ur e and Assembly
M echa ni ca l
The br eakdown o f indi vi dual par t s can be f ound in t he append ix. The key charact er ist i c i s
t hat t he t w o end s of t he cut t i ng w i r e ar e each capab l e o f t wo degr ees o f movemen t i .e.
al ong ver t i cal p ost s i n z-d ir ect i on and along hor izon t al car r iage. Thi s gr ant s t h e abi l i t y t o cut
w in gs w i t h t aper and geomet r ic t w i st .
The mechani cal par t s ar e assemb led f r om scr at ch w i t h par t s modi f i ed f r om scr ap s t o
mi n imi ze cost . M ost par t s r equ ir e cut t i ng t o l engt h as w el l d r i l l in g of hol es t o f i t f ast ener s.
Ther e i s also i nno vat i on i n d esi gni ng conn ect o r s and adap t o r s by mod i f ying M 6 l ong nut s.
Table 15 : I nnova t ion in mecha nica l design

A. M ot or Coupl er
1. Dr i ll i ng t o r emove i nner t hr eads
2. Dr i ll i ng and t app i ng t o hou se shaf t lo cks

B. L b racket Conn ect o r
1. Tu rn in g and t apping t o ob t ai n ou t er
t hr ead s

Elect r oni cs
Br eak dow n of par t s and f unct i ons
The el ect r oni c component s ar e r esponsib l e f or r egul at ing t h e pr eci se mot i on. Th ey ar e
pur chased f r om a cr edi bl e DIY CNC r et ail er . Al t hou gh elect r oni c par t s const it ut e t h e bu lk o f
t he cost , t h e capab i li t ies and advan t ages of f er ed made it a f easib le p ro cur ement . Ext ensi ve
sol der i ng is r equi r ed t o assemb l e t h e PCB f r om it s l oo se component s as w el l as t o j oi n w i r es
22

f r om PCB t o mo t or s. To en sur e no er ro r s i n ci r cui t r y, vo lt age t est s car r ied out using
mu l it met er .
Soft w a r e
Resear ch has f ound several CNC sof t w ar es. GM FC i s j ust i f i ed t o be t he best opt i on. It i s
easil y avail ab le onl i ne f or f r ee, w it h good r evi ew s award ed. Besi des t hi s, t her e w i l l no t be
any compat ib il i t y issu es as GM FC wor ks seaml essl y w i t h FoamPr o PCB.
System Cal i br at i on and Op ti mi zat i on
Synchr oni zi ng Soft w a r e w i t h Elect r oni cs
In pr el i minar y t est i ng, i t w as ensur ed t hat i np ut s i nt o t he PC r esul t s i n a cor r ect
cor r espond ing r espon se f ro m t he mot or .
Ca r r i a ge Posi t i oni ng a nd Ali gnment
The posit i oning and ali gnmen t of carr i ages i s i mpor t ant t o ensur e pr eci sio n i n cut t in g. Fi r st l y,
u si ng a spi r it level , t he ent i r e set up i s cali br at ed t o t h e l evel po si t io n. M arkin gs w er e al so
p l aced at appr opr i at e locat i ons f acil i t at e t he par al l el ali gnmen t of car r iages and t he
posit i onin g of w i r e t o t he hor i zon . It i s no t ed t hat marki ngs ar e accur at e up t o 1 mm.
Opt i mi za t i on of Cut t i ng
Mot i vat i on and Pr oced ur es
Bef or e pr oceed ing t o t he accur acy t est s, it i s n ecessar y t o det er mi ne t he conf i gur at i on f or
opt im um w i r e per f or mance. A smoot h cut dep end s on t h e cu t t in g sp eed as w ir e heat
(cont ro l led by var ying cur r ent magn it ude).
Issues w i t h Under est imat i on Issues w i t h Over est imat i on
Wi r e heat Unabl e t o mel t f oam w it hout cont act Excessi ve ker f r adiu s
Cut t i ng Speed Pr olonged heat i ng Insuf f icient heat l ead i ng t o cont act

23

As such, in vest igat i ons ar e conduct ed on t h ese t w o f act o r s, cu r r en t set t i ngs and cu t t i ng
speed. Tr ial cut s ar e car r ied out on scrap foam pi eces of equal w id t h o f 2 cm, t hr ou gh a
same r ect angular p ro f i l e of 50.0 mm x 40.0 mm. Su bsequ en t l y, deviat ions i n t h e cu t ar ea
ar e t abul at ed in graphs bel ow . Di men si on s ar e measur ed usin g ver ni er cal i per s w i t h
accur acy of ± 0 .1mm
Resu l t s

Figure 27 : Percent age devia t ion in Cut a rea vs W ire Current (for va rious cut t ing speeds)
Cut s ar e car r ied out f o r 4 di f f er en t cu r r en t set t i ngs at 4 di f f er en t speeds. At t he cu t t i ng
speed of 1.25m/ s and cur r en t ou t put o f 1.2 A, t h e devi at ion is t h e least among t he t r ends,
h ence est abl i sh in g i t sel f at t he op t i mum point .
Fabr i cat i on Pr eci si on Anal ysi s
Moti vati on an d Pr ocedur es
Wi t h t h e syst em cal ib rat ed and opt i mized , t he r el i abi l it y can now be t est ed. To demonst rat e
t he p r eci si on of t he f oam cut t er , in vest igat ions have t o be car r ied out on t he shap e of t he
ai r f oi l . Sampl es cut sect i on s of t he w i ng and t ai l ar e f abr i cat ed and t heir coo rd inat es ar e
p l ot t ed out u si ng mi cr oscope magni f i er and a X-Y t ab le. The accur acy of t he X-Y t ab le i s
± 0.001mm. Th e set -up i s sho w i n t he appendi x.
24

Resul t s
Devi a t i ons fr om i nput
Dat a coo rd inat es obt ained (i n gr een) ar e scaled t o t he cho rd l en gt h and t hey ar e co mpar ed
w i t h t h e or iginal coor di nat e pl ot (r ed ) whi ch was upl oaded t o t he f oam cut t er .

Figure 28: Compa rison betw een Actua l and Fabrica t ed Coordina tes f or GEM INI a irfoil

Figure 29: Compa rison betw een Actua l and Fabrica t ed Coordinat es f or NACA0012 a irfoil







Thr ough vi sual obser vat ion, one can har dl y ob ser ve any di f f er ence. As such, graphs ar e
p lo t t ed t o di sp lay t he percent age deviat i ons. It i s show n t hat t h e l ead ing and t r ai l in g ed ges
have t h e hi ghest di scr epanci es due t o t he compl i cat i on s i n fabr icat i on.
Figure 31: Percent age devia t ion in dimension vs
Posit ion (NACA0012 )
Figure 30 : Percent a ge devia t ion in dimension vs
Posit ion (GEM INI)
25

CFD ver i fi ca t i on
For an ai r f oi l , t h e most pr act i cal f o r m of p r eci si on check i s t o evaluat e t he aer odynamic
r esul t s r at her t han t he di mensional di f f er ences. Th is cal l s f or Xfoi l anal ysi s t o be car r i ed out
on t h e coord i nat es of f ab r i cat ed sampl es.














Compar i ng t he gr aphs f or GEM INI, t he f abr i cat ed samp le has a hi gh er l i f t cur ve sl op e,
b ef or e exper iencing an ear l i er bu t gent ler st al l . Th is cou ld b e at t r ibut ed t o t he onset of
separ at i on as a r esul t o f t he bl un t t r ail i ng edge. Ho wever , appl yi ng t he same analysi s ear li er ,
t he l i f t r equi r emen t i s met as t he C
l
at crui se o =5
o
i s t h e same. Low er dr ag i s also ob served.
Figure 32: Compa ring Cl vs a lpha bet w een Origina l
a nd Fabrica t ed GEM INI
Figure 33 : Compa ring Cl vs Cd bet w een Origina l a nd
Fa brica t ed GEM I NI
Figure 34: Compa ring Cl vs a lpha bet w een Origina l
a nd Fabrica t ed NACA0012
Figure 35 : Compa ring Cl vs Cd bet w een Origina l a nd
Fa brica t ed NACA0012
26

For NACA0012, t her e are har dl y an y obser vabl e di f f er ences fo r bo t h l i f t and drag cu r ves. As
t he ef f ect s on aerodynami cs ar e not si gn i f i cant ly cr it i cal , t h e fabr icat i on pr ecisi on i s deemed
accept ab le.
Fabr i cat i on and Assembl y
Pr ocedur es
Wi t h t he syst em opt imi zed and i t s p r eci si on ver if i ed, t h e way i s paved fo r f abr i cat i on. The
p ro ced ur es ar e l i st ed belo w . To demonst r at e t he capab il i t y o f r api d pr ot ot ypin g, t he t ime
t aken f or each st ep i s t abu l at ed as w el l. A set of w in gs and t ai l can b e r eady f o r assembl y i n
l ess t han 100 mi nu t es.
Table 16 : Fabrica t ion Procedures a nd Time t a ken
St eps Ti me t aken (mi ns)
1 Cut t i ng o f co r e sect i ons of Win g and t ail 20
2 Cut t i ng o f cont ro l sur faces and jo in in g t o cor e sect i ons 40
3 At t aching cont ro l hor ns and r ods 40

Assembl y
The manuf act u red set is f i nall y assembl ed in t o an ai rcr af t . To faci l it at e t he pr ocess, sever al
modi f i cat ions ar e i nt r odu ced. Sl eeve cu t s cust omi zed t o house skelet al suppo r t . The
i nnovat i ve t ail desi gn also al l ow s f l exi bi li t y i n adj ust ment s of posi t i on and angl e.





Figure 36: Assembly
27

Fl i ght T est and Anal ysi s
Mot i vat i on
The best t est amen t fo r t h e w ing desi gn i s t o demonst rat e i t s ai r wo r t hiness. Fl i ght al so
p ro vi des t he most pr act i cal mean t o ver i f y r esu lt s f r om co mput at i onal anal ysis. By
equ ipping t he UAV w it h a f l i gh t inst r umen t s and dat a logger , i nf or mat i on on f l i gh t can be
col l ect ed. The air cr af t i s i nst al led w i t h a GPS t r acker , w hi ch w il l r ecor d i t s al t i t ude as w el l as
l at i t ude-lon gi t ude. Th e ai r sp eed is al so col lect ed by mean s of a pi t o t t ube. Eval uat i on can
t hen be car r i ed out by compar i ng t h e r esul t s w i t h t h e ones f ro m ear li er anal ysis.
Der i vi ng gl i de r at i o
The gli de r at i o p resent s it sel f as a credibl e indi cat o r f o r evaluat i on t o be mad e. Besi d es
b eing a r ep r esent at ive f i gur e for range and endu rance, i t can also be easil y der i ved. For an
unpow er ed f l i ght ,

Figure 37 : Unpow ered Glide
w =
I
cos0
=
Ð
sin0

C
L
C
Ð
=
I
Ð
=
1
ton0
=
R


Wi t h t h e al t it ud e (h ) and gr ound di st ance (R) r eco rd ed, t h e gl i de r at i o can be det er mi ned.
28

Di agn osi s of pr el i mi nar y fl i ght s
Pr i or t o t he f i nal f l i gh t t est s, sever al un successf ul p ro t o t ypes w er e bui l t . Al t h ough t he mai n
i ssu e li es i n t he l ack of ski l l i n f l yi ng RC models, t her e w er e ot her f undament al pr ob l ems
w hi ch w er e add r essed befo r e a successf ul model w as const r uct ed .
Table 17 : Diagnosis of Prelimina ry Flight s
Pr ob lems Rect i f i cat ions
Pr ot ot ype 1 - Excessi ve cr oss sect i onal ar ea
l eadi ng t o unnecessary drag
- Weakn ess i n t ail boom
- Rep laced Fusel age w i t h a small er
one
Pr ot ot ype 2 - Di sco ver ed t he l ack o f t hr ust - Rep laced pr opell er w i t h a l arger one
Pr ot ot ype 3 - Weakn ess i n hor i zont al st r uct u r e - Rep laced al umi nium r ods w it h
car bon f i br e r ods

Anal ysi s of fl i ght dat a
Wi t h t h e issu es r esol ved, successfu l f li ght s w er e car r i ed ou t and t h e dat a wer e col l ect ed i n
one of t hem. Coord i nat es o f t h e f l i ght pat h w il l b e p lo t t ed on a map (Googl e Ear t h).
Rep r esen t at i ve f l i ght pr of il es f o r cr ui se and gl id e w i ll be examin ed. Th e f l i gh t angl e of at t ack
o i s d et er min ed by con si der i ng t he i n-bu il t i ncid ence of 5
o
and f li gh t pat h w i t h r esp ect t o
t he h or izon . Wit h t h is r ef er ence angl e, compar i son s can t hen be mad e w it h t heo r et i cal
analysi s r esul t s.
29

Resul t s an d Eval uat i on

Figure 38 : 3 D Flight pa t h on map


Figure 39 : Flight pa t h - Alt it ude h (m) vs Dist a nce R ( m)
Table 18 : Sel ect ed Flight da t a
Pr of il e / Sect o r Power ed Cr ui se Theor y Unpow er ed Gl i de Theor y
o 5
o
5
o
14
o
14
o

Aver age speed I 15.4 15 13 15
C
L
0.331 0.3637 - -
C
L
/ C
Ð
- - 3.97 4.549
30


Ver i fyi ng Li ft
By demonst rat i ng t hat ai r cr af t coul d cli mb, t h e l if t cr i t er io n i s met . To fu r t her ver i f y,
C
L
can be i nf er r ed f ro m a st r aight and l evel f l i gh t (at t he d esignat ed cr ui se speed and
o), where L=W.
C
L
@cruisc =
I
1
2
pI
2
S
=
w
1
2
pI
2
S
=
9,81
1
2
× 1,225 × 1 5.4
2
× 0.204
= 0 .3 31
It can b e obser ved t hat t he l if t coef f ici ent in r eal f l ight i s o nl y sl i gh t l y l esser (9%). Th is coul d
b e at t r i bu t ed t o i nt er f er ence f r om t he air cr af t body.
Ver i fyi ng CL/ CD
Wi t h dat a i np ut f r om t h e gl i de sect i on,
C
L
C
Ð
@gliJc =
∆R
∆ℎ
=
6 6 −38
70 2.4 −591.3
= 3.97
Compar ing t h e f l i ght t est r esul t and t he t heor et ical valu e, a 12.7% devi at ion is o bser ved .
Thi s i s expect ed as it onl y r epr esen t s t he gl id e rat i o of t h e w ing and not t h e ent i r e ai r craf t .
Addi t ional dr ag con t r i but i ons f r om ot her co mpon en t s w il l r esul t i n a l ow er gli de r at i o.
Recommendat i ons
Thi s f l i ght t est al so hi ghl i gh t s ar eas w her e i mpro vement s can be i mp lement ed . To conduct
an accu rat e measur emen t of aer od ynami c f o rces, a wi nd t un nel anal ysis can b e emp lo yed .
How ever , d et ai l ed co st -ben ef it anal ysis must be car r i ed out t o en su r e i t s co st -ef f ect i veness.
In t er ms of mat er ial usage, ot her t ypes of f oam can be expl or ed t o seek a st r onger and
l i gh t er opt i on. Again, i t s cost -ef f ect i veness must be w ei ghed. Sub sequent ly, sh eet ing can
al so b e used t o st r engt hen t he w i ng as w ell t o ensur e a smoot her ai r f l ow .
31

Concl usi on
The desi gnat ed ob j ect i ves f or each sect i on w er e met . Th i s comp let es t h e ent i r e w i ng
d evel opment , f r o m d esi gn and anal ysi s, t o t he op t imi zat i on and evaluat i on o f f abr icat i on
p ro cess, and f in al ly t o i t s i mpl emen t at i on on a act ual UAV wh er e f l i gh t anal ysi s i s per f or med.
Wi t h a comp r ehen si ve cover age on t h e fundament als o f a convent i onal w i ng desi gn and
manu fact ur e, t hi s pr oj ect i s pr ovid es an excel lent pl at f or m f or fu r t her st udi es t o be
conduct ed. As demon st rat ed, t he capabi l i t y o f r api d pr ot ot yp in g en courages ext ensive t est s
t o be conduct ed . Co upl ed w i t h an est abl i shed design pr ocess, t hi s gr an t s t he abi li t y t o
cust o mize w ings t o p er fo r m opt i mal l y f o r di f f er ent mi ssi ons. M o r e desi gn par amet er s e.g.
geomet r i c t w ist can be int r oduced. Ext er nal f eat ur es w h ich augmen t aerodynami cs e.g.
w in gl et s can al so be t est ed by mount i ng t hem on t he basel i ne.

32

Refer ences
1. De fense, US Depart me nt of. Unmanned Syst ems Roadmap 2007–2032. 2007.
2. Hypot hesis about cost -ef f ect i ve unmanned of f ensi ve air pl ane vehi cl es. Chiesa, Sergio, et
al. 2000, Ai r cr af t Desi gn .
3. M uli t di scipl inar y Opt i misat i on of Unmanned Aeri al Vehi cl es (UAV) Usi ng M ult i-Cri t er i a
Evolut i onar y Al gori t hms. Gonzalez, Luiz. F., et al. s.l . : 6t h Wor ld Congr ess of St r uct u ral and
M u lt i -cr i t er ia Evo lut i onar y Al go r i t hms, 2005.
4. Inf l at abl e and Ri gi dizable Wi ngs f or Unmanned Aer i al Vehicle. Cadogan, David, Graham,
W illiam and Smit h, Tim. s.l . : AIAA, 2003. 2003-6630.
5. Desi gn, devel opment and t est ing of a mor phi ng aspect r at i o w i ng usi ng an i nf l at abl e
t el escopic spar. Blondeau, Julie , Richeson, Just in and Pines, Darryll J. s.l . : AIAA, 2003. 2003-
1718.
6. Bert in, John J. Aerodynami cs f or Engi neer s. 1997.
7. Ande rson, John D. Ai rcraf t Per f or mance and Desi gn. 1998.
8. Ne lson, Robert C. Fli ght St abi li t y and Aut omat ic Cont rol . 1998.
9. Selig, M ichael S. , e t al. Summary of Low -Speed Ai rf oi l Dat a Vol ume 1. 1995.
10. St int on, Darroll. The Desi gn of an Ai rplane. 2001.
11. M ul t i -obj ect ive evol ut ionary opt imi zat ion of subsoni c ai r f oil s by met a-model l ing and
evolut i on cont r ol . Angelo, S D and M inisci, E. s.l . : Pr oceedin gs o f t he Inst i t u t i on of
M echani cal Engin eer s, Par t G: Jou rnal o f Aer o space Engi neer ing, 2007, Vo l . 221.
12. The aer odynamic shape opt i mizat i on of ai r f oi l s usi ng unconst r ai ned t r ust r egion met hods.
Lee, Jaehun, Jung, Kyungjin and Kw on, Jang Hyuk. s.l . : Engineer ing Opt imi zat ion, 2009 , Vo l.
41.
13. Ai rcraf t Desi gn: A Concept ual Approach. Raymer, D. 2006, AIAA.
14. Cat alano, Piet ro and Amat o, M arce llo. An eval uat ion of RANS t ur bulence model l ing f or
aer odynami c appl icat ions . s.l . : Aer ospace Sci ence and Technol ogy, 2003.
15. Rapid Fl ight Test Pr ot ot ypi ng Syst em and t he Fleet of UAVs and M AVs at t he Naval
Post graduat e School . Kamine r, Isaac I ., et al. s.l . : AIAA, 2000.
33

16. UAV st abi li t y deri vat i ves est i mat ion f or hardw ar e-i n-t he-loop simulat i on of Piccol o
aut opil ot by qual i t at i ve f l i ght t est i ng. Garcia, Est e ban Gonzalez and Becke r, Jon. s.l . :
Aer odr eams, 2000.
17. W eick, Fred E. and Jone s, Robert T. Resume and anal ysi s of NACA lat eral cont r ol
r esearch. s.l . : NASA, 1937.

a

Appendi ces
Requi r ement s and Par amet er s
Table 19 : Pa ram et ers f rom opt im izat ion
Di men si on Par amet er s Per f o rmance Par amet er s
w i ng asp ect r at i o 7 w ei ght 10.8 N
ho r i zont al t ail aspect r at i o 5 angle o f at t ack 5 degr ee
ver t i cal t ai l aspect r at i o 2 vel ocit y 14.8 m/ s
f uselage d i amet er 0.10 m w i n g load ing 5.4 kg/ m
2

f uselage l engt h 0.26 m C
m0
0.086
CG d ist ance f r om w i ng
l ead i ng edge
0.05 m C
mal ph a
-0.982
w i ng l eading edge di st ance
f r om f uselage t i p
0.09 m st at i c mar gi n 15.70%
CG t o t ai l di st ance 0.68 m
t ai l i ncid ent angl e -0.6


b

Fabr i cat i on – Desi gn and Assembl y
Table 20 : Breakdow n of M echa nica l Pa rt s
Sect ion Component Sect ion Compone nt
Y axi s car r iage
Ver t i cal squar e st and
M o t or
Housin g
L Br acket Fr ont M oun t (X)
Dr aw er sli de L Br acket Rear M ount (X)
X axi s car r iage
L bar L Br acket End Plat e (X)
Dr aw er sli de
Act uat or /
Conn ect or s /
Adap t o r s
Thr eaded r od
Th r ead ed r od M o t o r Coupl er
Wooden base L br acket Connect or
X Housin g
L bar Thr eaded Lon g Nut
Ho r i zo nt al plat e L f l at Br acket
Ver t i cal plat e
Cut t er
Nichr ome w i r e
Ten si on in g devi ce

Table 21 : Breakdow n of Elect ronic pa rt s
Component Specificat ions Funct ions
Cont r ol l er / d r i ver Un i pol ar ch opp er Conn ect s t o PC via parall el po r t
St epper M ot or s 2.1A, 200 S/ R Pr eci si on con t r ol of t he lead scr ew
Po wer suppl ies 12, 14 VDC Suppl y power t o el ect r oni c par t s and
t i mer modul e on PCB
Var iab le pow er supp ly 30V,7A Suppl y heat t o cu t t er






c
















Fabr i cat i on – Cal i br at i on and pr eci si on check







Figure 40 : Assembled Unit s
Figure 42 : Soldered PCB

Figure 44: W ire Joint
Figure 43: I ndividua l
Elect ronic Pa rt s
Figure 45 : M a rkings for w ire height Figure 46 : Spirit level for horizont a l
a lignment
Figure 47: M a rkings for pa ra llel
a lignment
Figure 41: Individua l mechanica l pa rt s
d


















Fabr i cat i on – Cust omi zati on an d i nn ovati on i n desi gn





Coor dinat es di sp lay
Vi deo Out pu t
M agni f i er
Sampl e Cu t
X-Y t ab le
Figure 48: Set -up for Fa brica t ion precision check
Figure 49: Close-up view on coordinat es a cquisit ion
Figure 50 : Sleeve cut s t o house
st ructura l reinforcement s
Figure 52 : Close-up view on cont rol
horns a nd rods
Figure 51 : Flexibilit y in in a djust ing
t a il posit ion and angle

Summary
This paper documents the development of a UAV wing, encompassing the entire process from design to manufacture, and finally its implementation on an aircraft. Beginning with wing design and analysis, requirements are first identified and related concepts are formulated. A literature survey is then conducted to establish focus for analysis. Analysis is conducted for the four main design parameters. Firstly, airfoil selection is decided using 2D CFD analysis. Verification of Xfoil is done by evaluating its results with available wind tunnel data. It is subsequently used to extend the data library to incorporate a wider selection. Reviewing the lift and stability requirements as well as stall patterns, GEMINI and NACA0012 are the final selections for wing and tail airfoils respectively. Limitations of Xfoil necessitate the use of 3D CFD analysis tool, Fluent, on planform selection. Justification is first established for the choice of k-omega (Shear Stress Transportation) turbulent model. Aerodynamic data is then generated for four different planforms with different combinations of rectangular and tapered section. Their drag coefficients were found to be lower than the baseline. However, they are not convincingly significant to justify their selection over the rectangular baseline, which yields practical and aerodynamic benefits. For dihedral and the sizing of control surfaces, practical data on stability and control derivatives are derived from literature. Computations are subsequently carried out to determine the design parameters. To fabricate the wings, a computer numerical controlled system was developed. It comprises of three sections. The mechanical parts were fabricated from scratch, while the electronic components and the software were obtained from credible sources. To optimize the performance of the system, mechanical calibrations were first carried out. The selection

of wire heat and cutting speed has significant implications on the dimensional accuracy, hence, empirical tests are conducted to derive the optimum values. Finally, the accuracy and precision of the system is put the test through a detailed inspection of fabricated airfoils cross section. The coordinates were registered and analyzed using Xfoil to yield aerodynamic data. Differences were deemed acceptable. With the established fabrication process, prototype aircrafts were assembled subsequently. Other than demonstrating air worthiness, flight test is the most practical way to verify the results from computational analysis. To achieve this, flight instruments and a data storage device are mounted on the aircraft and flight data were collected. Analyses of the records were carried out to derive the lift and glide ratio. Deviations from computational analysis were justified and accounted for.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to the supervisor, Assoc Prof Gerard Leng for his patience and guidance throughout the course of project. His role as a mentor was invaluable. Gratitude is also extended to the Staff and Technicians of the Dynamics Lab for their administrative and technical support. Special appreciation also goes to Mr Anthony Low, President of Radio Modellers Singapore, for his kind assistance in flight test.

................................................................................................................. 1 Objectives ............ 7 Control Surfaces ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Requirements and Parameters .......................................................................... 18 Control Surfaces Analysis and Computation .................................... 20 Implementing CNC Solution ..................................................... 21 System Calibration and Optimization ........................................................................................................................ 9 Planform Analysis and Selection ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Motivations .............................. 5 Findings for Airfoil ..................................................................................................................... 18 Fabrication ....... i List of Tables................................................................................................................. 8 Airfoil Analysis and Selection .......................................................................................................... 3 Mission Requirements ................................. 5 Literature Survey ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Determining Stability Requirements............................Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................... 1 Background and Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Scope ..........................................14 Dihedral Analysis and Computation ................................................................................ 6 Concept of Dihedral............3 Critical Performance parameters ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Design and Analysis ............................................... 3 Categorization of Parameters.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology...........................................iv Introduction .......... 8 Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5 Findings for Planform ..........................................................................20 System Design....................................................................................................................................................... 22 ............................................................................. iii List of Symbols............................................................................................................................. Manufacture and Assembly .................

.............................................................................................. a Requirements and Parameters ............................b Fabrication – Calibration and precision check......................................................................................d ............................................... 29 Verifying Lift ...................................... 24 Fabrication and Assembly ............................................................. 27 Motivation ......................................... 23 Motivation and Procedures ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Recommendations ............... 31 References................................................... 27 Diagnosis of preliminary flights ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. c Fabrication – Customisation and innovation in design....................................................................................................................................................................Fabrication Precision Analysis.......................................................................... a Fabrication – Design and Assembly ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Conclusion .............. 23 Results ...................................................................................................... 28 Results and Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Analysis of flight data ................................................................................. 26 Flight Test and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 32 Appendices.......................... 27 Deriving glide ratio .................................................30 Verifying CL/CD ............................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 18: ComparingTurbulence Models (Cl vs Cd) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 25: CL / CD vs alpha for various planforms.............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 15: Cl/Cd vs alpha for shortlisted wing airfoils ..................................................................................................................15 Figure 20: Comparing Various Formulations ..... 24 i ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 26: Flap Effectiveness vs Surface Ratio ............................... 9 Figure 6: ClarkY (Cl vs alpha) ..................... 7 Figure 4: GEMINI (Cl vs alpha)..................................... 10 Figure 11: SD8020 (Cl vs Cd) ..................................................List of Figures Figure 1: Project Overview ................................................................................10 Figure 9: NACA64010 (Cl vs Cd) ..................................... 15 Figure 21: Pressure Contour for Baseline ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 17: Cl / Cd vs alpha for shortlisted tail airfoils.............. 16 Figure 24: CL vs alpha for various planforms ........... 16 Figure 22: Combination of Rectangular and Tapered Section .................................. 1 Figure 2: Methodology ................................... 9 Figure 5: GEMINI (Cl vs Cd)........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 13: Comparing actual data...................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Dihedral Effects ..................................................... 10 Figure 8: NACA64010 (Cl vs alpha) .................................................. 20 Figure 27: Percentage deviation in Cut area vs Wire Current (for various cutting speeds) . 10 Figure 12: Comparing Xfoil data .................................................................. 24 Figure 29: Comparison between Actual and Fabricated Coordinates for NACA0012 airfoil.............................................. 10 Figure 10: SD8020 (Cl vs alpha)..... 23 Figure 28: Comparison between Actual and Fabricated Coordinates for GEMINI airfoil...........................................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 16: Cl vs alpha for shortlisted tail airfoils.. 10 Figure 7: ClarkY (Cl vs cd) ........... 15 Figure 19: ComparingTurbulence Models (Cl vs alpha) ......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 14: Cl vs alpha for shortlisted wing airfoils.......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 23: CL vs CD for various planforms .....................................

...........Altitude h (m) vs Distance R (m) ............................................................................................................................................... c Figure 46: Spirit level for horizontal alignment .............. c Figure 45: Markings for wire height ................... 26 Figure 37: Unpowered Glide ....................................... 24 Figure 31: Percentage deviation in dimension vs Position (NACA0012)....................................................................... c Figure 41: Individual mechanical parts............................29 Figure 40: Assembled Units.....................................................................................................................25 Figure 36: Assembly .......d Figure 50: Flexibility in in adjusting tail position and angle .................................................................................................................................................................. c Figure 48: Set-up for Fabrication precision check .......................d ii .............................................................. c Figure 44: Wire Joint..........................................................Figure 30: Percentage deviation in dimension vs Position (GEMINI).................... c Figure 42: Soldered PCB ..........................d Figure 51: Sleeve cuts to house structural reinforcements ..................................................................d Figure 52: Close-up view on control horns and rods.................................. 27 Figure 38: 3D Flight path on map ...........................................................................................................................d Figure 49: Close-up view to acquire coordinates .................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 35: Comparing Cl vs Cd between Original and Fabricated NACA0012 ......25 Figure 34: Comparing Cl vs alpha between Original and Fabricated NACA0012 ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 32: Comparing Cl vs alpha between Original and Fabricated GEMINI ..................................25 Figure 33: Comparing Cl vs Cd between Original and Fabricated GEMINI ..................................................................................................................................... c Figure 47: Markings for parallel alignment .............. c Figure 43: Individual Electronic Parts .........................................................................................................29 Figure 39: Flight path ................................................................

..................................................................... 29 Table 19: Parameters from optimization ............................................................................................................................................................................ a Table 20: Breakdown of Mechanical Parts................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 18: Selected Flight data .........................................13 Table 11: Shortlist of Turbulence Models from literature ...........................................................b Table 21: Breakdown of Electronic parts .............. 17 Table 14: Computation results for various control surfaces............................................................................................................................b iii .................................................................................................... 16 Table 13: Fluent results for various planforms ...................... 12 Table 10: Selected Data for Tail airfoils......3 Table 4: Literature Survey Findings for Airfoil .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Aircraft Specifications ........................................................... 6 Table 5: Literature Survey Findings for Planform ......... 21 Table 16: Fabrication Procedures and Time taken ...................................................................................................................................................14 Table 12: Planform Cases .........................................................................8 Table 7: Recommendations for Elevator and Rudder ......... 3 Table 3: Classification of Parameters ........... 20 Table 15: Innovation in mechanical design .............................. 8 Table 9: Selected Data for Wing airfoils ..................................................................................List of Tables Table 1: Designated Objectives................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 8: Scope of analysis.................................................. 6 Table 6: Recommendation for Aileron ............................................................... 26 Table 17: Diagnosis of Preliminary Flights .....

deg Aspect ratio Span. N Downwash angle. deg Lift. deg-1 Aileron deflection. deg-1 Rudder Control Power. deg Rudder deflection. deg-1 Slope of yawing moment coefficent due to sideslip. deg-1 Lift coefficient Slope of sectional lift curve. deg-1 Sectional lift coefficient Slope of sectional lift curve. deg Elevator deflection. deg-1 Elevator Control Power. m ̅ Mean chord. deg Drag. m Sidewash. deg-1 Slope of rolling moment coefficient due to sideslip Slope of pitching moment coefficient. m Sectional drag coefficient Drag coefficient Aileron Control Power. deg Chord. deg Γ Dihedral angle.List of Symbols α Angle of attack. N Tail efficiency Reynolds Number iv .

m Distance of neutral point from wing leading edge. m2 Flap effectiveness Freestream velocity. m v . m2 Horizontal tail surface area. m/s Vertical tail volume ratio Horizontal tail volume ratio ̅ Weight. m2 Elevator surface area. deg Aileron surface area.Density. m2 Vertical tail surface area. N Distance of centre of gravity from wing leading edge. kg/m3 Sidewash angle. m2 Rudder surface area.

this project encompasses a larger intent. majority of the work are dedicated the assessment of novel concepts such as inflatable and retractable wings (4).Introduction Background and Overview The interest in Unmanned Air Vehicles has increased tremendously over the past decade and a rise in its employment has been predicted (1) for the next twenty years to come. Finally. a flight evaluation was conducted to verify the design. Currently. in the area of wing studies. Collaboration with three other team members is required. such as cost-effectiveness (2) and multidisciplinary optimization (3). Project Requirements Constraint Reference Support Establish objectives Wing and Tail Fulfill Objectives UAV with capabilities Figure 1: Project Overview Parameters Optimization Propulsion Analysis results Structure Objectives The project can be divided into three main components namely (1) Design and Analysis. from the design and analysis to fabrication using a computer controlled system. The entire process will be covered. (5). 1 . which is to assemble an actual UAV with mission capabilities. (2) Fabrication and (3) Flight Test. Hence. each handling an aspect of the UAV. Each component comprises of designated objectives to be fulfilled to complete the assignment. The diagram below depicts an overview. This paper focuses on the development of conventional wings for a Class 1 (as defined in (1)) UAV. Studies have been carried out on overall aspects of UAV design.

Table 1: Designated Objectives Components (1) Design and Analysis Designated Objectives  Designing solutions (i. Requirements and Parameters Figure 2: Methodology Literature Survey Analysis Parameters for Fabrication The design process begins with identifying the desired performance and stability. its mission capabilities. a series of computational analyses will be performed to justify the final selection. Subsequently. 2 . In turn. the task of designing involves the manipulation of physical parameters to alter the aerodynamics. selection of appropriate parameters) to meet mission requirements  Justification using computational analysis (2) Fabrication  Development of a CNC solution to enable rapid and precise production of 3D wings  Verification of equipment reliability and worthiness (3) Flight Test and Analysis  Demonstration of airworthiness  Evaluation of actual flight data Design and Analysis Methodology Basically. through application of fundamental theory and literature reviews. With the parameters generated. a shortlist will be generated for each parameter. fabrication of the wing prototype can then be carried out. and hence. this will have direct influence over the aircraft performance and stability.e. Subsequently. as well as the various design parameters to fulfill mission requirements.

. = 95 = 0. They are resolved in the optimization process.13 – 15 m/s Categorization of Parameters To initiate the design process.47 . Other optimized parameters not pertaining to wing design can be found in the appendix . leaving the design parameters to be worked out.2 .ℎ = 107 = 0. 10 mins endurance time 2000ft . There are two types of parameters. Table 2: Aircraft Specifications Specifications Designated Task Payload Configuration Takeoff/recovery Maneuverability Range and Endurance Altitude and Cruising Speed short range surveillance Total aircraft weight < 1kg with Camera and data logger Pusher. . the physical parameters are first identified. dimensional and design. Dimensional parameters basically refer to sizes of the wing and tail.15 Dimensional (imposed by Chord optimization) Design Span Airfoil Planform Dihedral Control Surfaces To be determined 3 . high-wing Hand launched takeoff and Belly assisted landing Turning radius of <1km Range of < 4km radius base. The table below shows the general specifications of the aircraft modeled after typical UAVs available in the market.Requirements and Parameters Mission Requirements The mission requirements of the UAV govern the design of wing. Type Table 3: Classification of Parameters Parameters Specifications = 171 = 1.

the relationship between drag and lift coefficient is crucial in determining the range and endurance of the aircraft. It states that (6) = +2 LLT has proven to be reasonably accurate for straight wings in regions before stall .Critical Performance parameters Lift for aircraft vs The relationship between the lift coefficient and its corresponding angle of attack is the most essential data for wing and tail design. Range and Endurance vs and / Other than drag estimation. it must be noted that for radio controlled flight range is also limited by the radius of the signal strength of transmitter and the endurance cannot last beyond its battery duration. 4 . Range = Endurance = 1 1 = 1 However. It is primarily governed by the airfoil selection and the planform. Aerodynamic concepts have been developed to link the sectional Cl of a 2D airfoil to 3D wings of finite span using Lifting line theory. In performance terms (7).

= + + Contribution to pitching moment from wing and tail = ̅ Lateral Stability Slope of aircraft pitching moment curve. ( ) > 0. = + − ̅ . 2∫ / =− The criteria for static stability is given by < 0. are shown below. = 1+ Slope of aircraft rolling moment curve is largely dependent on the dihedral. literature review yields the following. Longitudinal Stability Slope of aircraft pitching moment curve. which is the tendency of the platform to return to its initial position after a disturbance (8). <0 Literature Survey Findings for Airfoil For considerations involving airfoil selection. Γ. 5 . Conditions for static stability. =− 1− Contribution to yawing moment from vertical tail.Determining Stability Requirements Flight stability is a necessity for typical aircrafts.

& tapered 1. low D. Difficult to fabricate 1. moderately cambered airfoil is highly recommended for the assigned mission profile (10). Table 5: Literature Survey Findings for Planform Profile Elliptical Advantages 1. Stalls evenly across spans 1. Risk of tip stall Rectangular Tapered planform 2. low D. low CM Applications Wings on high endurance UAVs. symmetrical airfoils is the only intuitive option as provisions must be made for lift to be generated on upper and lower surface. The tail sections (horizontal and vertical). Higher bending moments 1. Approach advantages of elliptical 2. Lowest induced drag 2. Findings for Planform The planform of a wing influences the lift distribution on it. Lower induced drag than rectangular Disadvantages 1. Hazards of tip stall remains 6 . and thus the flight performance. Aerobatics High L. For the wing airfoil section. Easy to fabricate 1. moderate CM Moderate L. RC sailplanes Wings on short range UAVs. (10) are summarized below.Table 4: Literature Survey Findings for Airfoil Shape Heavily Cambered Moderately Cambered Symmetrical Key characteristics High L. Smaller bending moment Combined Rect. Constant Re reduces risk of tip stall 2. Higher induced drag 2. RC sports plane Horizontal and Vertical Tail. low CM Empirical aerodynamic data is compiled in (9) for a selected number of airfoils in each category. Findings from (7). Moderate D. Easier to fabricate 1.

only the feasibility of introducing taper will be explored. Here. Their primary role is to provide stability in the UAV and this has been resolved in the optimization process through the allocation of dimensions.Despite the advantages of elliptical planform.Γ The change in angle of attack will in turn alter the lift on both sides of the wing. 7 .8. hence resulting in a restoring moment. Vertical tail will adopt a tapered ratio of 0. the optimum planform selection is a compromise between structural and lower drag benefit of small  and aerodynamic lift benefit of large (7)This prompts the investigation of a combined rectangular and tapered planform. Given that the sideslip and dihedral angles are small. Concept of Dihedral Dihedral is known to bring about rolling stability. To maximize rudder area. Planform of tail sections are of secondary concerns. Recommendations from (10) yield an angle of 2 degrees. sweepback will also be introduced such that trailing edges align vertically. Hence. Horizontal tail will adopt a rectangular profile. this option is eliminated due to complexities involved in its production. A dihedral angle of  can bring about stabilizing effects by altering the resultant (positive will lead to higher lift) when sideslip occurs. Figure 3: Dihedral Effects ∆ = = Γ ≈ .

Findings from (10) yield preliminary guidelines for the various surfaces. Varying them will give different degrees of control effectiveness in terms of roll. their position and size.3 to 0. i.Control Surfaces There are two main aspects to the design of control surfaces.e. For tail sections. Table 6: Recommendation for Aileron Type of aileron / c/b Strip aileron 0.5 Analysis Scope From the previous section. the scope of this project only requires them to fulfill the function of pitch and yaw control. as well as to maintain flight stability.35 Rudder / 0. 8 .18c from trailing edge / 0.051 to 0. the tasks for the various parameters can now be allocated Table 8: Scope of analysis Tasks Airfoil Planform Dihedral Control Surfaces Selection within the moderately cambered category Selection of the best combination of rectangular and taper Verifying the angle from literature with theoretical analysis Verifying the sizes from literature with theoretical analysis Analysis will be focused on Wing.3 to 0.3b Table 7: Recommendations for Elevator and Rudder Elevator / 0. 0. pitch and yaw.

Data accuracy Figure 4: GEMINI (Cl vs alpha) Figure 5: GEMINI (Cl vs Cd) 9 . Besides this. Execution and Evaluation Data from available literature will be compiled and compared with the plots from Xfoil under the same Re. This is carried out for 4 different airfoils at = 10 where real data is available from (9). The main purpose of validating Xfoil is to extend the limited library of airfoil data in the most efficient manner. GEMINI.Airfoil Analysis and Selection Validating Xfoil Background and Motivation Xfoil is an interactive program for the design and analysis of subsonic isolated airfoils. given Xfoil’s relatively short computation time. It is widely received as a credible tool (11). incorporating a wider range airfoil will improve the credibility of the final selection. (12) for analysis of airfoil by coupling viscous and inviscid formulations. aerodynamic data can be generated quickly across different airfoils. Available literature (9) only have data of a few airfoils and are limited to Re at intervals of 5 × 10 . Finally. They are Clark Y. NACA64-A-10 and SD8020.

it is observed that the slope of the lift curves generated by Xfoil is fairly accurate. with a percentage of 4. With exceptions to NACA0009 It can be seen also that viscous formulations are well documented in Xfoil’s codes as drag estimations are accurate at values before stall. The highest deviation belongs to Clark Y. the stall patterns for the wing candidates are well approximated too. 10 . Besides this.Figure 6: ClarkY (Cl vs alpha) Figure 7: ClarkY (Cl vs cd) Figure 8: NACA64010 (Cl vs alpha) Figure 9: NACA64010 (Cl vs Cd) Figure 10: SD8020 (Cl vs alpha) Figure 11: SD8020 (Cl vs Cd) From the graphs.91%.

doubling the size of data at hand.204 1 2 Using Lifting Line Theory earlier. ) . It is observed that in terms of stall angles.1.017 as imposed by the optimization process − ̅ − 1− 11 .81 = 0. the minimum criteria is = ̅ < −0. To begin.225 × 15 × 0.1 × +2 = 0. the trends for the lift curves are examined. as well as introducing a factor of 1. the minimum sectional was can be determined = = 1.Data trends To further justify the use of Xfoil to compare and contrast data of different airfoils.349 0. For a 1 kg UAV cruising at a speed of 15m/s. data is generated for 8 airfoils. the required lift coefficient for the finite wing has to be determined.5 × 1. = = 9.494 Determining stability requirements For Stability. Figure 13: Comparing actual data Figure 12: Comparing Xfoil data Applying Lifting Line Theory to determine preliminary lift criteria With Xfoil proven to be a credible data generator. the order is the same for both the actual and Xfoil data. ( and ( ) .

017 0.75 54 14 Relatively Sharp @ =5o / @ =5o Stall angle 12 .8 55 14 Gentle over range of 5 degrees NACA 2415 1.018 (0. the minimum tail lift slope.687 Where will be resolved after selection of wing airfoil Results and Evaluation Wing – Lift Criteria and Stall Pattern Figure 14: Cl vs alpha for shortlisted wing airfoils Table 9: Selected Data for Wing airfoils Figure 15: Cl/Cd vs alpha for shortlisted wing airfoils Clark Y Max Max / 1.15 68 0.Substituting values from optimization.38 68 0.76 55 13 Gentle over range of 4 degrees GEMINI 1.22 60 0.82 68 11 Relatively Stall pattern Sharp E197 1. = 1− 1 2 ̅ − ̅ + = 1 2 1− 7.14 62 0.157) + 0.

7 35 0.92 45 0. constant drag for varying wing loadings which will aid in the design of propulsion system (13).08 45 10 Moderately Sharp NACA009 0. Tail – Stability Criteria Figure 16: Cl vs alpha for shortlisted tail airfoils Table 10: Selected Data for Tail airfoils Figure 17: Cl / Cd vs alpha for shortlisted tail airfoils NACA64A-010 Max Max / 0. Cd follows a nearly vertical trend. GEMINI airfoil gives the best overall result. which is crucial for short range RC flight.08 42 10 Moderately Sharp NACA0012 1 45 0. E197 comes close however it loses out slightly over the stall pattern.6 0.84 42 0. = = 0.6 0.0581 9 +2 13 .08 35 6 Moderately gentle SD8020 0.6 0.0747 × 7 = 0.6 0.08 45 10 Moderately Sharp @ =5o @ =5o / @ =5o Stall angle Stall pattern With GEMINI selected as wing airfoil and applying the Lifting Line theory.All of the airfoil fulfills the minimum sectional Cl. Comparing all aspects.

On the other hand.∴ > 0. SD8020 and NACA0012 both present themselves to be feasible options for tail airfoil. which will be assessed in this section. Table 11: Shortlist of Turbulence Models from literature Key Features Spalart-Almaras K-Omega (standard) K-Omega (Shear Stress Transportation) Solves for eddy viscosity Calculates specific turbulence dissipation rate Account for transport of turbulent shear stress Plotting the coefficients of lift and drag at various angles of attack yield the following 14 . Turbulence model analysis The current flow problem belongs to the low Re category. The CFD software Fluent provides the solution to this problem. they are able to fulfill the stability criteria above. The wing model will be created in Solidworks and transferred to Gambit for meshing. The theoretical formulation of LLT is insufficient as it assumes an inviscid model. Planform Analysis and Selection Motivation The selection of the planform requires analysis on the 3D profile of the wing.0123 For all the tail airfoils selected. it is only limited to 2D airfoil. NACA0012 is selected. although Xfoil accounts for viscous effects. Findings from (14) have shortlisted 3 suitable turbulence models.

results from 2D analysis and Lifting Line Theory are compared with the SST model. A significant discrepancy can be observed between for the LLT model due to its inability to account for viscous effect. The latter emerged a better option as it is able to model flow separation at high with a decline in lift coefficient unlike the straight line trend in SA. Figure 20: Comparing Various Formulations 15 . it can be observed that the standard version of k-omega model does not agree with the other two especially in terms of drag estimation. Further Justifications To further justify the selection. Eliminating it leaves the Spalart-Almaras model and the modified K-omega model.Figure 19: ComparingTurbulence Models (Cl vs alpha) Figure 18: ComparingTurbulence Models (Cl vs Cd) From the graph.

Table 12: Planform Cases Case y  1 0. data is generated for 4 different permutations of rectangular and taper planform.Figure 21: Pressure Contour for Baseline In addition.5 2 0.75 3 0. Results and Discussion With the best k-omega model selected.5 4 0. where losses can be observed at the wing tips due to the trailing vortex.5 0.75 0. the pressure contour plot of SST displays a realistic distribution.75 0.75 Figure 22: Combination of Rectangular and Tapered Section y Results Figure 24: CL vs alpha for various planforms Figure 23: CL vs CD for various planforms 16 .5 0.

the lift at 15 m/s at 5o L = 10.0502 0.3851 10. For baseline.9177 5.Figure 25: CL / CD vs alpha for various planforms Table 13: Fluent results for various planforms Baseline Max Max / 0.150 5.3817 10. This further verifies that the airfoil selection provides sufficient lift for the aircraft of 1 kg (9.5702 0.81 N).3766 10.3637 10.9482 5.9473 5.0485 0.060 5.9780 5.225 N.9551 5.5051 4 0.7330 0.0495 0.547 5.4631 Verification for Lift To calculate lift.0488 @ =5o @ =5o (N) / @ =5o 0.4801 3 0.257 5.2599 1 0.0487 0.225 5.7109 0.7382 0.6803 0.3881 9. = 1 2 . Evaluation – Drag Reduction vs Practicality The results from various combinations do not exhibit data trends pertaining to variations in taper ratio and the span of the rectangular section.4538 2 0. The intent is to obtain the permutation 17 .

which is best approximated in case 3. the flap effectiveness parameter (8) is first introduced. the rectangular planform is preferred. Firstly. the savings on is rather insignificant (0. the value of -0. combinations which deviates from elliptical planform i. Finally.6147% reduction). As such. shorter rectangular sections at y the is higher. the dihedral of 2° will be adopted.125 is obtained for for Class 1 UAVs.which best approximates an elliptic planform. Control Surfaces Analysis and Computation Concepts and Formulations To quantify terms for analysis. it can be expressed as the change in angle of attack due to the surface deflection. =− Γ Γ=− From (15) and (16). In addition. On the other hand. This will give a dihedral angle of 1. Although case 3 appears to be the best option. Available instrument for measurement is only accurate up to ±1°for fabrication. which will lead to loss of aileron control. the earlier formulation for roll stability due to sideslip becomes. rectangular planform presents itself as the most practical option. the risk of incurring tip stall is higher for a tapered planform. Dihedral Analysis and Computation For a rectangular wing. Generally. This combination gives the lowest drag coefficient and the highest glide ratio / at trim flight. = 18 .e. with its ease of fabrication. with a penalty on its lift due to its reduced surface area.636°.

Values of  can be computed then. Aileron Control Power (for rolling). applying strip integration for a rectangular wing. From (8). the control surface area can be derived from the relationship between the surface ratios and as shown below (8). 19 . =− =− =− =− ∴ =− Computation with data from literature Typical values of control power for aircrafts similar to Class 1 UAVs can be obtained from empirical findings in (15) and (16).e.For each control surface. elevator and rudder. there is a required control power which will govern their respective effectiveness parameter. Finally. = 2 ∴ Elevator Control Power (for pitching). =− = ( − ) =− =− ∴ Rudder Control Power (for yawing). aileron. i.

1.6676 0.45 The values of the ratios fall well within the guidelines stated earlier in literature surveys.1794 ⁄ 0. the process must involve a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) method. Fabrication Implementing CNC Solution Motivations To meet the fabrication requirements. the design of a 3D foam cutter is proposed.33 Rudder -0. hence allowing extensive tests to be carried out 20 .5366 0.12 0. and hence they will be employed in fabrication.05 Elevator -1. Capable of rapid prototyping. Despite the uncertainties in reliability. the advantages are numerous. Instead of adopting the method of arranging 2D precision cuts into wingspan.181 0.Figure 26: Flap Effectiveness vs Surface Ratio Table 14: Computation results for various control surfaces Ailerons Control Power 0.9 0. Offers precision and accuracy in shaping complex geometries compared to manual means of arranging 2D sections 2.

along vertical posts in z-direction and along horizontal carriage. Turning and tapping to obtain outer threads B. DIY machine costs only a fraction (<10%) of those available commercially System Design. L bracket Connector Electronics Breakdown of parts and functions The electronic components are responsible for regulating the precise motion. This grants the ability to cut wings with taper and geometric twist. Motor Coupler 1. Table 15: Innovation in mechanical design A. The key characteristic is that the two ends of the cutting wire are each capable of two degrees of movement i. Although electronic parts constitute the bulk of the cost. Allows flexibility in re-configuration of wing for different mission profile 4.e. Drilling to remove inner threads 2. Drilling and tapping to house shaft locks 1.3. Most parts require cutting to length as well drilling of holes to fit fasteners. Manufacture and Assembly Mechanical The breakdown of individual parts can be found in the appendix. the capabilities and advantages offered made it a feasible procurement. The mechanical parts are assembled from scratch with parts modified from scraps to minimize cost. There is also innovation in designing connectors and adaptors by modifying M6 long nuts. They are purchased from a credible DIY CNC retailer. Extensive soldering is required to assemble the PCB from its loose components as well as to join wires 21 .

Carriage Positioning and Alignment The positioning and alignment of carriages is important to ensure precision in cutting. It is noted that markings are accurate up to 1 mm. Software Research has found several CNC softwares. Besides this. Issues with Underestimation Wire heat Cutting Speed Issues with Overestimation Unable to melt foam without contact Excessive kerf radius Prolonged heating Insufficient heat leading to contact 22 . A smooth cut depends on the cutting speed as wire heat (controlled by varying current magnitude). there will not be any compatibility issues as GMFC works seamlessly with FoamPro PCB. GMFC is justified to be the best option. with good reviews awarded. voltage tests carried out using mulitmeter. To ensure no errors in circuitry. it was ensured that inputs into the PC results in a correct corresponding response from the motor. Firstly. using a spirit level.from PCB to motors. Markings were also placed at appropriate locations facilitate the parallel alignment of carriages and the positioning of wire to the horizon. Optimization of Cutting Motivation and Procedures Before proceeding to the accuracy tests. the entire setup is calibrated to the level position. It is easily available online for free. it is necessary to determine the configuration for optimum wire performance. System Calibration and Optimization Synchronizing Software with Electronics In preliminary testing.

At the cutting speed of 1. Fabrication Precision Analysis Motivation and Procedures With the system calibrated and optimized.As such. current settings and cutting speed. The accuracy of the X-Y table is ±0. investigations are conducted on these two factors. To demonstrate the precision of the foam cutter. The set-up is show in the appendix. the reliability can now be tested. 23 .0 mm. Trial cuts are carried out on scrap foam pieces of equal width of 2 cm. Dimensions are measured using vernier calipers with accuracy of ±0.001 .25m/s and current output of 1.2 A. hence establishing itself at the optimum point.0 mm x 40. investigations have to be carried out on the shape of the airfoil. through a same rectangular profile of 50. Subsequently.1 Results Figure 27: Percentage deviation in Cut area vs Wire Current (for various cutting speeds) Cuts are carried out for 4 different current settings at 4 different speeds. Samples cut sections of the wing and tail are fabricated and their coordinates are plotted out using microscope magnifier and a X-Y table. deviations in the cut area are tabulated in graphs below. the deviation is the least among the trends.

It is shown that the leading and trailing edges have the highest discrepancies due to the complications in fabrication. 24 . graphs are plotted to display the percentage deviations. one can hardly observe any difference. Figure 28: Comparison between Actual and Fabricated Coordinates for GEMINI airfoil Figure 29: Comparison between Actual and Fabricated Coordinates for NACA0012 airfoil Figure 30: Percentage deviation in dimension vs Position (GEMINI) Figure 31: Percentage deviation in dimension vs Position (NACA0012) Through visual observation.Results Deviations from input Data coordinates obtained (in green) are scaled to the chord length and they are compared with the original coordinate plot (red) which was uploaded to the foam cutter. As such.

CFD verification For an airfoil. 25 . the lift requirement is met as the Cl at cruise =5o is the same. Figure 32: Comparing Cl vs alpha between Original and Fabricated GEMINI Figure 33: Comparing Cl vs Cd between Original and Fabricated GEMINI Figure 34: Comparing Cl vs alpha between Original and Fabricated NACA0012 Figure 35: Comparing Cl vs Cd between Original and Fabricated NACA0012 Comparing the graphs for GEMINI. Lower drag is also observed. before experiencing an earlier but gentler stall. the most practical form of precision check is to evaluate the aerodynamic results rather than the dimensional differences. the fabricated sample has a higher lift curve slope. However. This could be attributed to the onset of separation as a result of the blunt trailing edge. This calls for Xfoil analysis to be carried out on the coordinates of fabricated samples. applying the same analysis earlier.

To facilitate the process. To demonstrate the capability of rapid prototyping. A set of wings and tail can be ready for assembly in less than 100 minutes.For NACA0012. The innovative tail design also allows flexibility in adjustments of position and angle. The procedures are listed below. As the effects on aerodynamics are not significantly critical. the fabrication precision is deemed acceptable. the time taken for each step is tabulated as well. there are hardly any observable differences for both lift and drag curves. Figure 36: Assembly 26 . Fabrication and Assembly Procedures With the system optimized and its precision verified. the way is paved for fabrication. several modifications are introduced. Table 16: Fabrication Procedures and Time taken Steps 1 2 3 Cutting of core sections of Wing and tail Cutting of control surfaces and joining to core sections Attaching control horns and rods Time taken (mins) 20 40 40 Assembly The manufactured set is finally assembled into an aircraft. Sleeve cuts customized to house skeletal support.

it can also be easily derived. Flight also provides the most practical mean to verify results from computational analysis. Besides being a representative figure for range and endurance. which will record its altitude as well as latitude-longitude. information on flight can be collected. The aircraft is installed with a GPS tracker. For an unpowered flight. Deriving glide ratio The glide ratio presents itself as a credible indicator for evaluation to be made. Figure 37: Unpowered Glide = = = = 1 = ℎ With the altitude (h) and ground distance (R) recorded. 27 .Flight Test and Analysis Motivation The best testament for the wing design is to demonstrate its airworthiness. By equipping the UAV with a flight instruments and data logger. the glide ratio can be determined. Evaluation can then be carried out by comparing the results with the ones from earlier analysis. The air speed is also collected by means of a pitot tube.

Although the main issue lies in the lack of skill in flying RC models. Coordinates of the flight path will be plotted on a map (Google Earth). comparisons can then be made with theoretical analysis results.Diagnosis of preliminary flights Prior to the final flight tests. Table 17: Diagnosis of Preliminary Flights Problems Prototype 1  Excessive cross sectional area leading to unnecessary drag  Weakness in tail boom Prototype 2 Prototype 3  Discovered the lack of thrust  Weakness in horizontal structure Rectifications  Replaced Fuselage with a smaller one  Replaced propeller with a larger one  Replaced aluminium rods with carbon fibre rods Analysis of flight data With the issues resolved. there were other fundamental problems which were addressed before a successful model was constructed. With this reference angle. Representative flight profiles for cruise and glide will be examined. several unsuccessful prototypes were built. successful flights were carried out and the data were collected in one of them. The flight angle of attack is determined by considering the in-built incidence of 5o and flight path with respect to the horizon. 28 .

Results and Evaluation Figure 38: 3D Flight path on map Figure 39: Flight path .3637 - Unpowered Glide 14o 13 3.97 Theory 14o 15 4.549 / - 29 .4 0.Altitude h (m) vs Distance R (m) Table 18: Selected Flight data Profile / Sector  Average speed Powered Cruise 5o 15.331 Theory 5o 15 0.

30 . Subsequently. To conduct an accurate measurement of aerodynamic forces.3 @ = Comparing the flight test result and the theoretical value.7% deviation is observed. However. other types of foam can be explored to seek a stronger and lighter option. ∆ 66 − 38 = = 3.Verifying Lift By demonstrating that aircraft could climb. Again. can be inferred from a straight and level flight (at the designated cruise speed and where L=W. Verifying CL/CD With data input from the glide section.97 ∆ℎ 702. the lift criterion is met. a 12. a wind tunnel analysis can be employed. Recommendations This flight test also highlights areas where improvements can be implemented. sheeting can also be used to strengthen the wing as well to ensure a smoother air flow.204 2 @ = 1 2 = 1 2 = It can be observed that the lift coefficient in real flight is only slightly lesser (9%). detailed cost-benefit analysis must be carried out to ensure its cost-effectiveness.81 = 0. 9.4 − 591. Additional drag contributions from other components will result in a lower glide ratio.331 1 × 1. To further verify. This is expected as it only represents the glide ratio of the wing and not the entire aircraft.225 × 15. This could be attributed to interference from the aircraft body.4 × 0. In terms of material usage. its cost-effectiveness must be weighed.

winglets can also be tested by mounting them on the baseline.g. With a comprehensive coverage on the fundamentals of a conventional wing design and manufacture. and finally to its implementation on a actual UAV where flight analysis is performed. from design and analysis. this project is provides an excellent platform for further studies to be conducted. External features which augment aerodynamics e. This completes the entire wing development. this grants the ability to customize wings to perform optimally for different missions. As demonstrated. to the optimization and evaluation of fabrication process. Coupled with an established design process.g. More design parameters e. the capability of rapid prototyping encourages extensive tests to be conducted. geometric twist can be introduced.Conclusion The designated objectives for each section were met. 31 .

Jung.l. 32 . Flight Stability and Automatic Control. Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data Volume 1. Luiz. Angelo. Sergio. Vol. Rapid Flight Test Prototyping System and the Fleet of UAVs and MAVs at the Naval Postgraduate School.l.l. 1997. Gonzalez. Multi-objective evolutionary optimization of subsonic airfoils by meta-modelling and evolution control. The Design of an Airplane. Jaehun. 11. 10. : 6th World Congress of Structural and Multi-criteria Evolutionary Algorithms. William and Smith.References 1. s. s. : AIAA. John J. E. Richeson. 5. 7. Design. 2003-6630. s. 2007. : AIAA. Justin and Pines. Aircraft Design. Raymer. 6. 14. Chiesa. Tim. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Catalano. Anderson. 12. s. 2003. Lee. Selig. Julie. Kaminer. Michael S. Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007–2032. 2000. 2003. An evaluation of RANS turbulence modelling for aerodynamic applications . : Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. S D and Minisci. : Engineering Optimization. Kyungjin and Kwon. 2006. et al. The aerodynamic shape optimization of airfoils using unconstrained trust region methods. 2009 . Marcello. 1998. Inflatable and Rigidizable Wings for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Vol.l. Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. 1995. et al. 4. et al. 2007. Bertin.l. Nelson. Hypothesis about cost-effective unmanned offensive airplane vehicles. Graham. s. 2005. AIAA.l.. Darryll J.. Mulitdisciplinary Optimisation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Using Multi-Criteria Evolutionary Algorithms. et al. : AIAA. 9.. Stinton. 2001. Aerodynamics for Engineers. 2. Darroll.l. John D. : Aerospace Science and Technology. 20031718. Robert C. 15. 3. Isaac I. s. 2003. Pietro and Amato. US Department of. Jang Hyuk. Blondeau. David. Defense. Aircraft Performance and Design. 2000. Cadogan. D. 1998. F. 221. 13. s. 41. 8. development and testing of a morphing aspect ratio wing using an inflatable telescopic spar.

Fred E. Garcia. s. 33 .l. Esteban Gonzalez and Becker. : NASA.l.16. UAV stability derivatives estimation for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of Piccolo autopilot by qualitative flight testing. Weick. 2000. Robert T. 1937. s. 17. Jon. and Jones. Resume and analysis of NACA lateral control research. : Aerodreams.

982 0.05 m Performance Parameters weight angle of attack velocity wing loading Cm0 Cmalpha 10.10 m 0.086 -0.4 kg/m2 0.68 m -0.26 m 0.6 static margin 15.8 m/s 5.8 N 5 degree 14.70% a .09 m 0.Appendices Requirements and Parameters Table 19: Parameters from optimization Dimension Parameters wing aspect ratio horizontal tail aspect ratio vertical tail aspect ratio fuselage diameter fuselage length CG distance from wing leading edge wing leading edge distance from fuselage tip CG to tail distance tail incident angle 7 5 2 0.

7A Supply heat to cutter b . 200 S/R 12.Fabrication – Design and Assembly Table 20: Breakdown of Mechanical Parts Section Y axis carriage Component Vertical square stand Drawer slide L bar Section Motor Housing Component L Bracket Front Mount (X) L Bracket Rear Mount (X) L Bracket End Plate (X) Threaded rod X axis carriage Drawer slide Threaded rod Wooden base L bar Actuator Connectors Adaptors / Motor Coupler / L bracket Connector Threaded Long Nut L flat Bracket X Housing Horizontal plate Vertical plate Cutter Nichrome wire Tensioning device Table 21: Breakdown of Electronic parts Component Controller/driver Stepper Motors Power supplies Specifications Unipolar chopper 2. 14 VDC Functions Connects to PC via parallel port Precision control of the lead screw Supply power to electronic parts and timer module on PCB Variable power supply 30V.1A.

Figure 41: Individual mechanical parts Figure 40: Assembled Units Figure 43: Individual Electronic Parts Figure 42: Soldered PCB Figure 44: Wire Joint Fabrication – Calibration and precision check Figure 47: Markings for parallel alignment Figure 46: Spirit level for horizontal alignment Figure 45: Markings for wire height c .

Magnifier Coordinates display Sample Cut Video Output X-Y table Figure 48: Set-up for Fabrication precision check Figure 49: Close-up view on coordinates acquisition Fabrication – Customization and innovation in design Figure 50: Sleeve cuts to house structural reinforcements Figure 52: Close-up view on control horns and rods Figure 51: Flexibility in in adjusting tail position and angle d .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful