1. Group 13 Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Stephen McNulty
Richard-Marc Hernandez
Jessica Pisano
Yoosuk Kee
Chi Yan
Project Advisor: Siva Thangam

2. Overview Objectives Schedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis
Wing
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
Goals

3. Objectives
Competition Specs are finally posted for the 2004 competition
The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design West competition
To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing in January
To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputation
For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and construction of airplanes

4. Design Specifications
Minimum allowed wingspan
120 inches
Takeoff limit
200 feet
Landing Distance
400 feet
Minimum cargo area
6 in x 5 in x 4 in
Engine
unmodified FX O.S. 2 stroke motor
0.61 cubic inches
1.9 hp
E-4010 muffler

5. Design Specs Comparison
Design Specifications:
This Year (2004)
Previous Year (2003)
Wing Span
Minimum 10 ft
Maximum 6 ft
Wing Chord
No restriction
Maximum 1 ft
Cargo Volume
Minimum 120 in3
Minimum 300 in3
Maximum Takeoff Distance
200 ft
Maximum Landing Distance
400 ft
Engine
.61 FX-OS
.61 FX-OS or
K&B .61 R/C ABC
Battery
Minimum 500 mAh

6. Schedule

7. Journal/Progress Researched airfoil computer analysis software
Calculations
Stereo-lithography Lab
Final Design
Landing Gear models and analysis
Fuselage Design and Calculations
Tail Design
Wing Design

8. Rules for Wing
16.1 Fixed Wing Aircraft Type Requirements and Restrictions
Only fixed-wing designs are allowed to compete. Dirigibles, lighter-than-air craft, gyrocopters or helicopters are not allowed to compete, but are welcome to demonstrate their capability's hors-concurs.
©2003 SAE International Aero Design East & West Rules
20. REGULAR CLASS - WINGSPAN LIMITATIONS
The minimum wing span may not be smaller than 305 cm (120 inches). The wing span is defined as the maximum overall width of the aircraft. Aircraft with a maximum overall width less than 305 cm (120 inches) shall be disqualified from the event.
20.1 Not Meeting the Minimum wingspan
Aircraft not meeting the minimum wingspan limitation will be disqualified from the contest. If schedule permits, at the discretion of the contest director, the team may perform demonstration flights during the contest.

9. Airfoil Airfoil selection Year 2000: E 211 Year 2001: E 423
Year 2002: OAF 102
Research: E 214
Research: S 1223
Important Factor
E122
E214
E423
OAF102
S1223 Cl 5 1 2 3 Cd 4
Construction
Overall 50 30 33 38

10. CL&CD vs. AoA

11. Wing Calculation
Coefficient of Drag
Form Factor
Drag Force
Lift Force

12. Wing Calculations Wing: Re (S1223) 326529 Swet [in^2] 3016.6402
Re (S1223)
326529
Swet [in^2]
Wing Span [in]
120
Wing Chord [in] 12
Sref [in^2]
1440
Clmax
2.3648
Cf (turbulent)
Cf (laminar)
t/c
0.121
x/c
0.2 FF
Cdmin (turb)
Cdmin (laminar)

13. Wing Angle Flat Wing Advantages: Easy to construct
Load distribution is equally spread out the wing
Disadvantages:
Not as stable as dihedral wings
Dihedral Wing
Helps stabilize aircraft motion from side to side
Helps stabilize aircraft motion when turning
Harder to construct
Stress concentration at wing roots

14. Wing Shape Wing Efficiency Stall Characteristic Construct. Overall
Rectangular Wing
Advantages:
Greater aileron control
East to construct
Disadvantages:
Not efficient in terms of stall and drag
Tapered Wing
Decrease drag / Increase lift
Harder to construct
Not as efficient in terms of stall and drag
Elliptical Wing
Minimum drag
Most efficient compared to rect. and tapered
Hardest to construct
Wing
Efficiency
Stall
Characteristic
Construct.
Overall
Importance 4 5 65
Rectangular 56
Tapered 52
Elliptical 2 48

15. Control Surface Affect

16. Wing Construction Balsa Wood Risers Bass Wood Spars Dowel Leading Edge
Balsa Wood Trailing Edge
Honer Plate

17. Rib Design

18. Wing Design

19. Wing

20. Wing Stress Analysis
Max stress = psi

21. Fuselage Guidelines 16.5 Payload 16.5.1 Payload and Payload Support
The payload must consist of a support assembly and plates.
21. CARGO BAY/MINIMUM CARGO VOLUME
Regular Class aircraft shall be capable of carrying and fully enclosing a rectangular block measuring 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches. During technical inspection, compliance with this rule shall be tested by inserting a block with these dimensions into the aircraft. This block must be easily inserted and removed without application of excess force during insertion or extraction, and the aircraft must be structurally airworthy with the block installed. When the aircraft is ready to fly, the bay must be fully enclosed. The cargo bay must be shown clearly in the design plans, with dimensions included.
Note: The block does not guarantee enough area for your required weight.
21.1 Undersized Cargo Bay – Penalty
Planes that are unable to fit the 6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches block into their cargo bay will not be eligible to fly.
22. REQUIRED ENGINE
Regular Class aircraft must be powered by a single, unmodified O.S. .61FX with E-4010 Muffler. No muffler extensions or headers that fit between the engine cylinder and the muffler may be used. Muffler baffles must be installed, and must be unmodified from the factory installed configuration. No fuel pumps are allowed.
While the engine may not be modified from its stock configuration, two specific components may be installed on the engine for convenience and/or safety purposes:
· Remote needle valves, including needle valves that may be adjusted in flight are allowed.
· Tubes that redirect the exhaust flow may be affixed to the exhaust pipe.
Note: engine tear-down and inspection may be performed by the competition officials at any time during the competition.

22. Fuselage Calculation Dimension: 4in x 5in x 25 in Coefficient of Drag
Form Factor
Drag Force

23. Fuselage Design and Calculations
length 25 in
width 5
planforrm area
151
in^2
wetted area
605
fuselage/boom
density
slugs/ft^3
coefficient of viscosity
3.677E-07
slugs/ft-sec
Velocity (flight speed) 51
ft/sec
Re (turbulent)
l/d
Form factor
1.4925 Cf
Cd min (turbulent)

24. Fuselage Construction
Wire frame
Pros:
Very Strong and sturdy
Affordable
Cons:
Heavy
Difficult to construct
Cast Molding
Pros:
Very accurate shape
Aerodynamic advantages
Strong frame
No assembly required
Cons:
unaffordable
Difficult to design a mold
No spare parts
Panels
Pros:
Lightweight
Easy to construct
Easy to assemble
Affordable
Cons:
Not very strong

25. Fuselage Design Panels Wireframe Cast Mold 5 3 4 2 90 82 71 59 1
Importance
Panels
Wire frame
Cast Mold
Construction 5 3 4
Weight
Cost 2
Strength
Total 90 82 71 59
Ranking 1
Panels
Wireframe
Cast Mold

26. Selection Engine Engine Cargo Bay Cargo Bay Panel Fuselage
Fuel Tank
Battery
Radio Receiver
Fuel Tank
Battery
Radio Receiver
Engine
Engine
Cargo Bay
Cargo Bay
Panel Fuselage
Final design
Panel Fuselage
Previous design

27. Fuselage

28. Fuselage Fuselage cover Fuselage base Payload
Battery/ Receiver /Fuel tank
Engine: O.S. .61FX
Prop/ Nose

29. Boom Design and Calculations
Tail Boom: Re
length boom 48 in
length fuselage 25
length fuselage/boom 73
Swet 28
in^2
Sref 14
Cf (turbulent)
Cd min (turbulent)

30. Tail Boom 1 spar 2 spars 3 spars 3 or more panels 4 5 3 65 55 56 57 51
Importance
1 spar
2 spars
3 spars
3 or more panels
Construction 4 5
Weight 3
Strength
Total 65 55 56 57 51
Ranking 2 1

31. Selection
Three Spar
Truss design

32. Tail Calculation Coefficient of lift = 0 Coefficient of drag = 0.01
Lift Force
Drag Force (H)
Drag Force (V)

33. Tail Design and Calculations
Tail stabilizer does not provide lift to plane.
Symmetrical airfoil is needed for vertical tail.
Horizontal tail:
Vertical Tail:
Re (NACA 0012)
Re (NACA0012)
chord (MAC) 7 in
9.8
Swet
in^2
189
Wing Span 40
Tail height 24
Sref
280
235.2
Clmax
Cf (laminar)
t/c
0.12
x/c
0.287 FF
Cdmin (laminar)

34. Tail Matrix 5 4 3 65 57 52 47 48 1 2 Importance Conventional Tail
T-Tail
H-Tail
Triple Tail
V-Tail
Construction 5 4 3
Surface Area/ Drag
Control/ Stability
Total 65 57 52 47 48
Ranking 1 2

35. Tail Vertical Tail Stabilizer Horizontal Tail Stabilizer 13.5 inches
controls the horizontal movement of plane
keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side
Horizontal Tail Stabilizer
36 inches
controls vertical movement of plane
prevents an up-and-down motion of the nose

36. Tail Design
Rib Design

37. Landing Gear
Importance Factor
Bent Rod Nose
Bent Rod Tail
Solid Nose
Solid Tail
Without Rod
Steerability 3 5 4
Impact 2
Construction
Total 50 37 33 39 41
With Rod
3.5
4.5
44.5
40.5 44 46

38. Landing Gear Analysis SolidWorks models Top fixed
Deflection Analysis
Stress Analysis
Deformation Analysis
Top fixed
Force applied to bottom of legs
Force applied = 45lbs
Force = Weight of plane

39. Landing Gear Design 1 & 2 Analysis
Main Landing Gear
Modified Truss Design
Modified for Lighter Weight
Aluminum
Max Deflection 1.890e-4 in
Stress Max 2.651e+2 Psi
Standard Main Landing Gear
Aluminum
Max Deflection in
Stress Max 6.162e3 Psi

40. Landing Gear Design 3 & 4 Analysis
Main Landing Gear
Truss Design
Aluminum
Stress Max 6.783e+2 Psi
Max Deflection 1.841e-3 in
Main Landing Gear
Modified Truss Design
Aluminum
Max Deflection 1.342e-3 in
Stress Max 5.332e+2 Psi

41. Final Landing Gear Design Analysis
Main Landing Gear with Rod
Aluminum
Max Deflection in
Stress Max Psi
Last years final design

42. Landing Gear Configuration
Tail Dragger
Tricycle
Not decided until Spring
Perform testing on which is more efficient

43. Landing Gear Construction
Aluminum
Tie Rod

44. Take-Off Distance Take off Velocity Mass of plane
Initial Coefficient of Lift
Initial Coefficient of Drag

45. Take-Off Distance K constant Take-off Drag Static Thrust
Force balance at take-off

46. Take-Off Distance Take-Off Distance Equation Separation of Variables
Final Take-Off Distance

47. Landing Run Distance Differential Equation of Motion
Landing ground runway
Coefficients A and B
Stall Velocity

48. Landing Run Distance Touchdown Velocity
Coefficient of Lift and drag at
Coefficient B
Landing Distance

49. Computer Aided Drawing of Design:
ME 423 Senior Design, Fall Project Number 13 Team members: R. Hernandez, Y. Kee, S. McNulty, J. Pisano, C. Yan Advisor: Professor Siva Thangam Title: Creation of a Heavy Lift Radio-Controlled Cargo Plane
Objectives:
Design Results:
Design Approach:
Computer Aided Drawing of Design:
Design Specifications:
Design a high performance heavy lift R/C cargo plane whose purpose is to carry the most weight possible
Enter manufactured design into 2004 SAE Aero Design West Competition in Fort Worth, TX
S1223 airfoil
balsa wood risers construction of stabilizers and wings
Rectangular wing planform
Horner plates (winglets) for improved flight characteristics
Unitized body fuselage
Dihedral Wing
Technology
Utilization of the latest airfoil simulations, composite materials, to obtain the lightest design that creates the most lift
Maximum lift
Selection of airfoil and wing shape
Light materials
Drag reduction
Wingspan: 10ft
Engine: FX OS 2 stroke motor
0.61 cubic inches 1.9 hp
Minimum Cargo Area: 120 in3
Cargo Weight: 35 pounds
Empty Plane Weight: 10 pounds
Plane Length: 7.5ft
Plane Height: 1 ft

50. Final Design

51. Final Design

52. Goals Intercession Next Semester Compete in June Make a budget
Complete construction early
Test Landing Gear Configuration
Test Plane design and modify if necessary
Compete in June

53. Summary Objectives Schedule/Progress Design Concepts and Analysis
Airfoil
Fuselage
Tail
Landing Gear
Goals

54. Gracias
Thank You
Merci