Project Viento

A Report
submitted by
GROUP 5
as part of the course
AS 5220: STRUCTURAL DESIGN
DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS,
CHENNAI
27 AUGUST 2014
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, we would like to thank our Professors Mr. Joel George M and Mr. G Rajesh
for giving us an opportunity to do the course AS5210: Aerodynamic Design. They
provided us with invaluable information about systematic way of designing an air-
craft, which was very helpful in preparing our reports. We also thank our TAs for
giving us valuable guidance on the reports we prepared. All thanks to the references
especially Aircraft Design by Raymer and internet where we got enormous historical
data relating to aircraft that were similar to ours.
i
ii
ABSTRACT OF THE PROJECT
This can be in two paragraphs. First paragraph should start with an introduction
including the motivation behind selecting the mission requirements (as in why did
you choose the desired payload, endurance etc.) followed by a brief description of the
proposed aircraft.
Second paragraph can be on the work done so far in designing and fabrication of
the aircraft. Overall, abstract should be less than or equal to 2 pages.
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
ABSTRACT OF THE PROJECT iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS xi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 MISSION REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 CONFIGURATION CHOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 SUMMARY OF WORK DONE AS PART OF THE AERODYNAMIC
DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.1 Weight Estimate [Raymer (1990)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.2 Airfoil and Wing Geometry [Raymer (1990)] . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.3 Sizing of Fuselage, Tail and Control Surfaces [Raymer (1990)] 3
1.3.4 Three View of plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.5 Landing Gear Conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.6 Propeller Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.7 Propeller Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.8 Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.9 Improved Lift Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.10 Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.11 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.12 V-n Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.13 Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Bill of Materials with suggested Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Wing Design 11
v
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Lift Distribution - Schrenks Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Approximate Lift Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Shear Force Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3 Bending Moment Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Matlab Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Mission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Weight of RC plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 wing geometry parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Control surface parameters and tail parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 dimension and location of wheels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Propeller parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.7 C
L
for dierent ight segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.8 C
D
at dierent ight stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.9 stability parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.10 Performance parameters for dierent ight segments . . . . . . . . . 9
1.11 Bill of materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Mission prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Three View of plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 MA 11 83 Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Location of center of gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Drag polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 V-n diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Lift Distribution on the aircraft wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Lift Distribution on the aircraft wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Shear Force Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Bending Moment Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ix
x
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
2D Two dimensional
3D Three dimensional
Angle of attack
b Wing span
AR Aspect ratio
J Advance ratio
C
t
Thrust coecient
C
p
Power coecient
n Propeller eciency
C
s
Speed power coecient
TAF Total activity factor
CG Center of gravity
C
L
Lift coecient
C
D
Drag coecient
SM Stability margin
h
NP
Neutral point location
C
m
Coecient of moment
C
m
slope of C
m
vs curve
xi
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Aim of this project is to design a portable UAV which can carry highest payload
possible while simultaneously pursuing the lowest empty weight possible. It can also
transform itself for dierent mission specication, with an eective modular design.
In aerodynamic design of RC plane we followed many methods to get an idea of
weight, size, dimension and performance etc. of RC plane. We have also done the
stability analysis and calculated the parameters aecting the performance of plane.
1.1 MISSION REQUIREMENTS
Motivation for making this plane was to compete in SAE(Society of Automotive
Engineers) competition, but it can also serve many other purposes. As we started
designing this plane we set some mission requirement for our plane which are given
below:
Table 1.1: Mission Requirements
Cruise altitude 30 m
Cruise velocity 35 kmph
Ceiling 50 m
Range 120 m
Landing Distance 50 m
And mission prole for our plane:
Figure 1.1: Mission prole
1.2 CONFIGURATION CHOICE
We have chosen a biplane conguration for wing design and T-tail conguration for
tail design.Following are the salient features of the conguration considered:
Biplane conguration was chosen because it produces more lift compare to
monoplane so we can reduce our wingspan.It is also provide a strong structure
and it is easy to manufacture.
T-tail conguration for tail design is chosen because it allows clean airow for
better stability at low speed. It is also cause for high gliding performance.
1.3 SUMMARY OF WORK DONE AS PART OF THE AERODYNAMIC
DESIGN
1.3.1 Weight Estimate [Raymer (1990)]
In rst weight estimation we used the historical data of RC plane with similar mission
requirement and prole to get weight of our RC plane. In second weight estimation
we used powerplant weight to calculate weight. Result of rst and second weight
estimation are given below.
2
Table 1.2: Weight of RC plane
rst weight estimation 1489 g
second weight estimation 1586.19 g
1.3.2 Airfoil and Wing Geometry [Raymer (1990)]
We selected S1223 airfoil based on our mission requirement after comparison between
many airfoils data. From the historical data of biplane we have chosen no stagger
(stagger matters for pilot visibility and ours is UAV)for our plane and we have xed
the following parameters of wing geometry for our biplane from historical data:
Taper ratio 0.45
Aspect ratio 6
Gap ratio 1
Dihedral angle 2
o
Table 1.3: wing geometry parameters
1.3.3 Sizing of Fuselage, Tail and Control Surfaces [Raymer (1990)]
In sizing process we have calculated the dimension of fuselage, tail and control surfaces
for our design and requirement. Which is given below:
Fuselage length: 659 mm
component Chord Area
Aileron 28.6 mm 48.72 cm
2
Elevator 20.67 mm 48.9 cm
2
Rudder 19 mm 21.49 cm
2
Control surface parameters
Horizontal tail Vertical tail
L
HT
39.58 cm L
V T
39.58 cm
S
HT
173 cm
2
S
V T
79 cm
2
AR 4 AR 1.5
Cr
HT
9.07 cm Cr
V T
8.67 cm
Ct
HT
4.08 cm Ct
V T
3.9 cm
b
HT
26.3 cm h
V T
12.57 cm
Tail parameters
Table 1.4: Control surface parameters and tail parameters
3
1.3.4 Three View of plane
Three view of plane has been drawn using autocad software after having complete
idea of dimension of our plane.
Figure 1.2: Three View of plane
1.3.5 Landing Gear Conguration
Tail dragger conguration has been selected for landing gear conguration because it
has many advantage and disadvantage doesnt matter for RC plane.
We have followed the conventional tail dagger conguration and have calculated
the diameter of wheels. We have also calculated the location of landing gear wheels
from nose and the strut length of landing gear which is given below:
strut length: 6.60 cm
4
wheels Diameter Width Location (from nose)
Main wheel 4.56 cm 0.31 cm 21.55 cm
Tail wheel 3.8 cm 0.23 cm 60.90 cm
Table 1.5: dimension and location of wheels
1.3.6 Propeller Selection
We have calculated the diameter of three bladed propeller from empirical relation,
then we have calculated pitch and we have selected a 3-bladed 11 x 8 propeller which
has approximately same characteristics.
A fuselage-mounted tractor conguration is chosen, where the propeller is in front
of the attachment point. This conguration is allowed for smaller tail area and more
stability.
Figure 1.3: MA 11 83 Blade
1.3.7 Propeller Performance
Performance parameters has been calculated to nd the ecient operating conditions
for propeller. We have used empirical relation and power eciency vs advance ratio
graph to calculate these parameters which has been tabulated below:
5
Parameters symbols values
Advance ratio J 0.55 < J < 0.65
Thrust coecient C
t
0.148
Power coecient C
p
0.1023
Propeller eciency n 0.8
Speed power coecient C
s
0.868
Total activity factor TAF 468.51
Table 1.6: Propeller parameters
1.3.8 Center of Gravity
Center of gravity is very important for performance and stability analysis. We have
found it using component method. In component method we calculate CG of dierent
components of airplane before calculating the CG of plane.
The center of gravity of RC plane was found to be at 0.3015 meters from the nose
and at a height of 0.0014 meters from the nose.
Figure 1.4: Location of center of gravity
6
1.3.9 Improved Lift Characteristics
In this we have calculated the lift coecient C
L
at dierent ight segment using basic
lift and weight relationship for dierent segment. We have also calculated C
Lmax
and

Lmax
using empirical relations. C
L
for dierent segment is given below:
Take o 1.706
Climb 1.275
Cruise 0.998
Landing 1.489
Table 1.7: C
L
for dierent ight segment
Also C
Lmax
and
Lmax
are 1.845, 8.68
o
respectively.
1.3.10 Drag
Parasite drag, Lift-dependent drag, Skin friction drag, Flat-plate skin friction coe-
cient and component form factors, miscellaneous drag coecient, leakage and protu-
berance drag were considered for the drag coecient calculation.
There are two method to calculate parasite drag C
d0
: Equivalent skin friction
method and Component build up method. By following these method we got C
d0
= 0.04311. Then we have found the lift dependent drag. From parasite and lift
dependent drag we have plotted the drag polar diagram and have calculated C
D
at
dierent ight segment.
Stage C
D
Take o 0.1790
Climb 0.1198
Cruise 0.0989
Landing 0.1071
Table 1.8: C
D
at dierent ight stage
7
Figure 1.5: Drag polar
1.3.11 Stability
Stability and performance analysis is very important to make a plane y. In this
we have discuss the parameters which aect stability by aecting neutral point and
stability margin. We have also calculated those point location by using moment
equilibrium and aerodynamics relations.
h
NP
2.9916
h
CG
2.7585
SM 0.2331
C
m
-1.3892
Table 1.9: stability parameters
1.3.12 V-n Diagram
V-n diagram is a type of ight envelope which limits the manoeuvre boundaries for
a given aircraft. This envelope demonstrate the variations of airspeed versus load
8
factor.
Figure 1.6: V-n diagram
1.3.13 Performance Evaluation
We have calculated the performance parameter for dierent ight segment which has
been given below:
Table 1.10: Performance parameters for dierent ight segments
Cruise
V
cruise
13.9 m/s
T/W 0.1284
W/S 118.085 N/m
2
Velocity for minimum thrust 15.673 m/s
Minimum thrust 1.939 N
Velocity for minimum power 11.91 m/s
Minimum power 26.67 W
Maximum range 29.45 km(if in automated UAV mode)
Maximum power 35.7 min(depending on battery)
Climbing
Best climb angle 13.56
o
Velocity 11.74 m/s
Drag 2.1749 N
Rate of climb 2.754 m/s
Gliding
Velocity for minimum sink rate 11.91 m/s
Minimum sink rate 3.845 m/s
9
Landing
Ground roll 60.989 m
Flare distance 27.741 m
Approach distance 20.987 m
Total landing distance 109.717 m
Level turn
Maximum turn rate 1.539 rad/s
Turn rate for loiter 1.408 rad/s
1.4 BILL OF MATERIALS WITH SUGGESTED VENDORS
Table 1.11 gives the details of the materials required for fabrication and their price.
Table 1.11: Bill of materials.
Components Price(Rs.)
Motor 1000
Battery 5000
Balsa wood 5000
Aluminium 1000
ESC(electronic speed controller) 1000
Transmitter and receiver 16500
Servo motors 4800
Propellers 500
Miscellaneous 2000
Total 20,300(without transmitter and receiver)
10
CHAPTER 2
Wing Design
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we try to nd an approximate solution to the load distribution on
the wing. Using the load distribution, we calculate the very important Shear Force
Diagram (SFD) and the Bending Moment Diagrams (BMD).
We end with a conceptual design of the wing structure based on historical choices
made in wing construction.
2.2 LIFT DISTRIBUTION - SCHRENKS METHOD
To design any structure, it is important to nd the loads which act on the body. In
case of the wings of an aircraft, the important loads are the weight of the aircraft and
the lift distribution on the wings.
Unlike innite wings, nite wings have an uneven lift distribution. Delving into
some basic aerodynamics of nite wings, we can nd that the lift distribution on
an elliptical wing planform is also elliptical. But, as is our case, trapezoidal (and
rectangular) wings do not follow this method.
To overcome this problem, we use the method suggested by O.Schrenk in his
NACA paper, which provides a way to calculate the approximate Lift distribution on
the wings. The exact method can be found in the paper and various other resources
(which have been referenced in the references [Schrenk (1940)]).
This method is commonly used to determine overall span-wise lift distribution,
especially at the preliminary design stage for low sweep and moderate to high aspect
ratio wings on FW aircraft. The method states that the resultant load distribution is
an arithmetic mean of:
1. A load distribution representing the actual planform shape
2. An elliptical distribution of the same span and area
An elliptical distribution is presented in gure below, here the semi-span wing area
= area of Elliptic quadrant = S/2.
Area :
S
2
=
1
4
[(

2
)(2a)(b)]
a =
4S
b
For an ellipse:
y
2
(
b
2
)
2
+
c
2
y
a
2
= 1
c
y
= (
4S
b
)

(1 (
2y
b
)
2
)
To convert into a load distribution, we put W
y
(N/m) in place of C
y
and put L (N)
in place of S.
w
y
= (
4L
b
)

(1 (
2y
b
)
2
)
Figure 2.1: Lift Distribution on the aircraft wing
2.2.1 Approximate Lift Distribution
The following diagram shows the approximate lift distribution on the aircraft wing
which was found using Schrenks method:
12
Figure 2.2: Lift Distribution on the aircraft wing
2.2.2 Shear Force Diagram
The following diagram shows the Shear Force Diagram found using lift distribution
obtained by Schrenks method:
Figure 2.3: Shear Force Diagram
2.2.3 Bending Moment Diagram
The following diagram shows the Bending Diagram found using lift distribution ob-
tained by Schrenks method:
13
Figure 2.4: Bending Moment Diagram
2.3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The following characteristics of the wing have been provisionally decided as suggested:
1. Type of Wing - Our plane is a biplane and the wings will be supported using
struts between the wings. Therefore it is a kind of braced cantilever wing.
2. Covering - Since we are trying to build a light plane, we have decided on our
wings to be fabric covered.
3. Skin type - Again due to considerations of weight, it is better to choose the
Stressed Skin construction technique.
4. Assembly - We would need more information to decide on this. But considering
the size of the plane, it is better to have lesser sections. Hence we think that a
2-peice wing assembly would be better
5. Root joint - Both wings have a dihedral angle. This makes a continuous
attachment dicult. Hence a wing box will be necessary to attach the wings
to the fuselage.
14
2.4 MATLAB CODE
This is the Matlab code used to generate the results shown above:
clc;
clear all;
%Schrenk's Method
%Wing Dimensions (in mm)
c root = 143.5;
c tip = 64.5;
b = 628;
%Maximum Loading Case
n=2.16;
V=15.126;
W=1.6
*
9.8;
%Wing profile
x=0:0.0001:(b/2);
y=-((0.1257961783439490445859872611465)
*
x - (c root/2));
hold on
plot(x,y);
%Wing Area and Equivalent Ellipse
area=0.5
*
(c root+c tip)
*
(b/2);
S=2
*
area
*
((10(-3))2);
a=2
*
area/(pi
*
(b/2)); %a for ellipse
z=(2
*
a/b)
*
sqrt(((b/2)2)-(x.2));%ellipse
c ell = a
*
sqrt(1-((2
*
y/b).2));
mean = (y+z)./2; %schrenk's method
plot(x,z,'g');%plotting Ellipse
plot(x,mean,'r');%plotting Schrenk's representative lift distribution
hold off
C L = n
*
W/(0.5
*
1.225
*
V
*
V
*
S);
L=n
*
W;
w y = (2
*
L)/(pi
*
b)
*
sqrt(1-((2
*
x/b).2)); %Actual Lift Distribution
15
SF total = trapz(x,w y); %Reaction at Root
%Shear Force Diagram
i=1;
for span = 0.1:0.1:b/2
store=0:0.1:span;
w y2 = (2
*
L)/(pi
*
b)
*
sqrt(1-((2
*
store/b).2));
SF x(i)=SF total - trapz(store,w y2);
i=i+1;
end
span=0.1:0.1:b/2;
figure
plot(span,SF x);%Shear Force Diagram
%Bending Moment Diagram
i=1;
j=1;
dx=0.001;
for span = 0.0:0.1:b/2
b y=0;
for store=b/2:-0.001:span
b y = b y + (dx/1000)
*
(2
*
L)/(pi
*
b)
*
sqrt(1-((2
*
store/b).2))
*
(store-span);
end
BM x(i)=(b y);
i=i+1;
end
span=0.0:0.1:b/2;
figure
plot(span,BM x);%Bending Moment Diagram
16
REFERENCES
1. Raymer, X. Y., Design. ABC Press, 1990, 1 edition.
2. Schrenk, O., A simple approximation method to obtain the spanwise lift distribution.
NACA, 1940.
17
18