1. April 28, 20051 Summary Project Presentation Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason Tang Joe Taylor Tyler Wilhelm AAE 451: Team 2

2. April 28, 20052 Overview Aircraft Overview Aerodynamics Dynamics & Controls Structures Propulsion Construction Troubleshooting Flight Testing Cost & Weight Economic Plan Lessons Learned As Designed vs. As Built

3. April 28, 20053 Walkaround

4. April 28, 20054 5.24 ft 3.00 ft Aircraft 3-View Mission Requirements 15 min. endurance Take-off distance ≤ 60 ft. V stall ≤ 15 ft/s V loiter ≤ 25 ft/s 35 ft. turn radius Weight1.96 lbs Wingspan5.24 ft Length3.00 ft Height1.50 ft Aspect Ratio5.24 Cruise Speed23 ft/s Max Thrust1.00 lb

5. April 28, 20055 Constraint Diagram Design Space Design Point Wing Loading:  0.376 lbf/ft2 Power Loading:  32.74 lbf/hp LiPoly Weight: 1.97lb f Wing Area: 5.24 ft 2 Power: 0.060 hp Takeoff

6. April 28, 20056 Airfoil Selections Wing: Wortmann FX63-137 Wortmann FX 63-137: M.S.Selig,J.F.Donovan and D.B.Fraser,"AIRFOIL AT LOW SPEEDS – Wind Tunnel Canard  NACA 0012 3 ° incidence Volume for Gyro and Battery Vertical Tails  Flat Plate Non-Lifting Surface No Volume Needed

7. April 28, 20057 Mathematical Model From Prandtl’s Classical Lifting-Line Theory Re=147,820 Root: 1 o Tip: -7 o

8. April 28, 20058 Mathematical Model Re=147,820

9. April 28, 20059 Mathematical Model C Mo calculated using Roskam Vol. VI and C Mα calculated from flatearth.m

10. April 28, 200510 L/D MAX L/D MAX =10.75 α L/Dmax =0.60 o Re=147,820

11. April 28, 200511 Canard, Tail & Control Surface Sizing Class 1 SizingClass 2 Sizing Canard Area S ht 1.43 ft 2 1.36 ft 2 Vertical Tail Area S vt (each) 0.92 ft 2 0.91 ft 2 Span (ft)Chord (ft)Area (ft 2 ) Aileron (each) 1.400.200.28 Elevator 1.000.33 Rudder (each) 0.750.580.44

12. April 28, 200512 Theoretical Static Margin X cg = 1.70 ft X np = 1.85 ft Static Margin = 14.80%

13. April 28, 200513 C L Max Trimmed Maximum C L (x ref = x cg ) α CL Max α = 0 o Trim Diagram

14. April 28, 200514 Outer Panel Dihedral Wing EVD: 3.36 deg outer panel dihedral Canard EVD: -3.72 deg outer panel dihedral Dihedral Angle

15. April 28, 200515 Block Diagram H e (s) q(s)/  e (s) H (s)K  Pilot Input Elevator Servo Aircraft  e (s ) q(s) + _ Pitch Rate Gyro Feedback Gain

16. April 28, 200516 Aircraft TF / Natural Frequency and Damping Ratio Aircraft Transfer Function (Flat Earth Predator) Undamped Natural Frequency (Short Period) Damping Ratio (Short Period)

17. April 28, 200517 Gain Calculation, k Gain Calculation: - Flat Earth Predator - SISOTOOL k = 0.0857 - Root Locus Plot For k = 0 For k = 0.0857

18. April 28, 200518 Root Locus

19. April 28, 200519 Gyro and Servo Selection Futaba GYA350 gyro  Weight: 0.92 ounces  Remote gain function JR S241 sub micro servos  Weight: 0.32 ounces  Torque: 17 oz/in

20. April 28, 200520 Material Properties Density (lb f /ft 3 )Young’s Modulus (ksi)Yield Stress (psi) Balsa116251725 Spruce3415008600 EPS Foam1.5320-36072.5 EPP Foam1.310004000 Epoxy0.0625 lb/ft 2 50014500 Ultrakote0.0156 lb/ft 2 N/A Values from Fall ’04 AAE 451 projects and http://www.matweb.com

21. April 28, 200521 Structural Geometry Primarily EPP Foam Balsa fuselage structures

22. April 28, 200522 Wing – Fuselage Attachment

23. April 28, 200523 Fuselage Structure Formers  Outer Fuselage (each): Three - 1” radius  Main Fuselage: Five - 2” radius Stringers  Outer Fuselage (each): Six – 1/8” x 1/8” x 7”  One – 1/4” x 1/8” x 7” One – 3/4” x 1/2” x 36” (for landing gear mounts)  Main Fuselage: Eight – 1/4” x 1/4” x 20”

24. April 28, 200524 V-n Diagram Level Flight Turning Flight Max Load Factor V dive ~ 50% higher than V cruise n max =2.7778-g @ V loiter = 25 ft/sec Typical limit load factors for general aviation (n positive = 3.0-g, n negative = -1.5-g) from Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach p.407

25. April 28, 200525 Bending Worst case simplification  Cantilevered beam  Negligible weight, outer fuselage mass/support  Elliptical load distribution

26. April 28, 200526 Analysis Maximum wing load:  1.97 lbs of lift, elliptical loading, load factor of 2.77 yields 5.45 lbs Maximum bending moment (at root):  3.623 ft-lbs Maximum torsional moment (from C m ):  0.194 ft-lbs

27. April 28, 200527 Results Maximum wing stress: 361.80 psi Maximum tip deflection: 0.16 in. Maximum rotation: 0.13 degrees

28. April 28, 200528 Moments and Products of Inertia Balsa Components: Volume = 86.51099 (+/- 0.00014) cubic inches Volume Centroid = 4.025129,2e-007,1.06559 (+/- 8.6e-006,2.2e- 006,1.2e-005) Volume Moments: Volume Moments of Inertia about World Coordinate Axes Ix: 3479.97 (+/- 0.0035) Iy: 9483.726 (+/- 0.014) Iz: 11292.75 (+/- 0.012) Volume Moments of Inertia about Centroid Coordinate Axes Ix: 3381.738 (+/- 0.011) Iy: 7983.872 (+/- 0.045) Iz: 9891.13 (+/- 0.035) Foam Components: Volume = 1048.1777 (+/- 0.00012) cubic inches Volume Centroid = 2.468645,1.1e-005,0.7137613 (+/- 3.5e- 006,2.7e-006,2.4e-006) Volume Moments: Volume Moments of Inertia about World Coordinate Axes Ix: 222524.954 (+/- 0.0066) Iy: 98029.872 (+/- 0.043) Iz: 317314.68 (+/- 0.042) Volume Moments of Inertia about Centroid Coordinate Axes Ix: 221990.954 (+/- 0.017) Iy: 91108.06 (+/- 0.11) Iz: 310926.87 (+/- 0.097) Calculated from CAD Model Multiply by material density to determine Mass MOI

29. April 28, 200529 Propeller Selection

30. April 28, 200530 Motor & Battery Selection ComponentsProp 2 Code Calculates near 900mAh necessary to fly mission Fails to include component energy requirements Components need approximately 150mAh across our mission 1050mAh battery necessary Kokam 1200mAh battery chosen on grounds of weight & preferred vendors

31. April 28, 200531 Unique Aspects of the Design Twin Boom Design EPP Foam Robust Interchangeable Landing Gear Brushless Motor 3-Bladed Prop Alternative

32. April 28, 200532 Construction Balsa Components  Cut from 1/8 th inch sheet  CNC machined using 2 axis milling  Assembled using CA glue

33. April 28, 200533 Construction Vertical Tails  Constructed from 1/8 th inch balsa sheet  Fiber glassed for increased stiffness  Removable, mounted to principle stringer

34. April 28, 200534 Construction Foam & balsa sections bonded with epoxy Foam wing sections cut on mitres, achieving dihedral, bonded together with epoxy

35. April 28, 200535 Construction Main fuselage bonded to wings with epoxy UltraKote applied Hardware mounted

36. April 28, 200536 Troubleshooting Landing Gear  Z-bend wire mounted to plywood  Change from skis to wheels

37. April 28, 200537 Troubleshooting Vertical Tails  Fishing line to secure the rotation of vertical tails

38. April 28, 200538 Troubleshooting Wing  Balsa Spar inserted in the inner wing  Aluminum spar (arrow shafts) inserted in the entire wing

39. April 28, 200539 Flight Testing: Day 1 Sunday, April 17th Pickett Park:  Glide Testing CG too far forward

40. April 28, 200540 Flight Testing: Day 2 Monday, April 18th: McAllister Park  “Flight Testing” CG too far forward ?!?! Insufficient Power Repairs Necessary

41. April 28, 200541 Flight Testing: Day 3 Tuesday, April 19 th Mollenkopf Athletic Center: “Flight Testing” CG still too far forward? Elevator chord too short? More Power? FLIGHT Testing Static Longitudinal Instability CG WAY too far aft Elevator chord too long Still in need of more testing Pictures courtesy of WLFI TV

42. April 28, 200542 Weight Estimation

43. April 28, 200543 Weight Comparison

44. April 28, 200544 Cost Estimation

45. April 28, 200545 Cost Comparison

46. April 28, 200546 Total Person-Hours (as of Week 9 - 3/21/05):1700 hours Total Person-Hours (as of Week 15 - 4/27/05):3325 hours Economic Plan Estimated Total Person-Hours at Project Completion:3500 hours

47. April 28, 200547 Lessons Learned Pilot Availability Underpowered Motor / Batteries CNC Issues Aerodynamic Center / Center of Gravity Weight Issues

48. April 28, 200548 Lessons Learned Skis vs. Wheels EPP Foam vs. Balsa Construction Material Property Availability Airfoil Selection Communication is Key

49. April 28, 200549 Aircraft Comparison Each Aileron = 0.35 ft 2 (+0.10 ft 2 )Elevator = 0.38 ft 2 (+0.05 ft 2 ) Each Rudder = 0.10 ft 2 (-0.32 ft 2 )Wing = 6.0 ft 2 (+0.76 ft 2 )

50. April 28, 200550 Longitudinal Static Instability Calculated X cg = 1.70 ft Actual X cg = 1.90 ft Calculated X ac = 1.85 ft Intended static margin  15% Static margin at flight time  -5%

51. April 28, 200551 Aircraft Comparison

52. April 28, 200552 Constraint Diagram Revisited Design Space Current Design Point Weight:  3.13 lb f Wing Area  6 ft 2 Power:  0.01 hp Wing Loading:  0.52 lb f /ft 2 Power Loading:  20.64 lb f /hp Desired Design Point Takeoff

53. April 28, 200553 Summary Aircraft Overview Aerodynamics Dynamics & Controls Structures Propulsion Construction Troubleshooting Flight Testing Cost & Weight Economic Plan Lessons Learned As Designed vs. As Built

54. April 28, 200554 Questions?

55. April 28, 200555 Appendix

56. April 28, 200556 SELIG – WORTMANN COMPARISON Selig 1210: M.S.Selig,J.J.Guglielmo,A.P.Broeren and P.Giguere,"Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Volume 1 – Wind Tunnel Data Wortmann FX 63-137: M.S.Selig,J.F.Donovan and D.B.Fraser,"AIRFOIL AT LOW SPEEDS – Wind Tunnel Airfoil Selection: Wing

57. April 28, 200557 Airfoil Selection: Canard NACA 0012

58. April 28, 200558 Wing Twist Distribution Root: 1 o Tip: -7 o

59. April 28, 200559 Mathematical Model Prandtl’s Classical Lifting Line Theory  Elliptical Loading Parasite Drag – Component Buildup Method

60. April 28, 200560 Turning Conditions

61. April 28, 200561 L/D Mathematical Model * Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach p.493

62. April 28, 200562 L/D MAX L/D MAX Velocity Loiter Straight:  V L/Dmax = 21.97 ft/s Loiter Turn:  V L/Dmax = 23.12 ft/s Re=147,820

63. April 28, 200563 Effect of Control Surface Deflection: Lift Roskam,Jan, Airplane Design PartVI: Prelimenary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust, and Power Characteristics, 2000

64. April 28, 200564 Effect of Control Surface Deflection: Pitching Moment Roskam,Jan, Airplane Design PartVI: Prelimenary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust, and Power Characteristics, 2000

65. April 28, 200565 Desired Static Margin Static Margin (Raymer)  Typical Fighter Jet: 0-5%  Typical Transport Aircraft = 5-10%  Model aircraft usually more stable Goal: Static Margin = 15%

66. April 28, 200566 Dihedral Angle EVD of the wing and canard: Wing EVD: Canard EVD:

67. April 28, 200567 Root Locus

68. April 28, 200568 Landing Gear Wire mounting  Rigid  Lightweight  Inexpensive  Easy to construct Interchangeable Smooth takeoff and landing on AstroTurf ® Pictures courtesy of http://www.dubro.com

69. April 28, 200569 Location  Front gear by canard  Back gear by wing Configuration  Wire strut attached to stringer in outer fuselage with mounting bracket  Interchangeable with wheels, skis, and floats attached to mounting blocks Gear Configuration Pictures courtesy of http://www.dubro.com Fuselage Attachment Wheel/Ski/Float Attachment

70. April 28, 200570 Constraints Twisting: less than one degree of twist Bending: bending stress less than EPP foam yield stress (w/ safety factor of 2)

71. April 28, 200571 Prandtl & Goldstein

72. April 28, 200572 Propeller Efficiency and Advance Ratio Operation Range  J = 0.35 - 0.45

73. April 28, 200573 Thrust Coefficient and Advance Ratio

74. April 28, 200574 Propeller Efficiency and Advance Ratio

75. April 28, 200575 Component Trade Study Graupner Speed 500 60% too powerful, unreliable data Each “Tier” represents a battery / motor combination More selection with Li & Brushless Connectors for brushed motors and Li batteries are not compatible. It would not be wise to have a Li & brushed combination. Our Aircraft needs to weigh less than 32 oz www.hobby-lobby.com www.balsapr.com Our Aircraft

76. April 28, 200576 Thrust, Power, and Endurance Airspeed Amps “Sedate” Mission 15min Airspeed Amps “Trainer” Mission 23min

77. April 28, 200577 Tail Sizing (Class 1) Constants  c HT = 0.50  c VT = 0.05  C w = 1 ft  S w = 5.24 ft  L HT = 1.83 ft  L VT = 0.75 ft Horizontal tail (canard)  Area = 1.432 ft 2 Vertical tail  Area = 0.915 ft 2 (each)

78. April 28, 200578 Tail Sizing (Class 2) Vertical Tail  Plot C nβ versus S vt  S vt = 0.912 ft 2

79. April 28, 200579 Tail Sizing (Class 2) Horizontal Tail  Plot X cg and X ac versus S ht  S ht = 1.36 ft 2