Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aircraft Design Report: 2007/2008 AIAA Cessna/Raytheon Design/Build/Fly Competition
Aircraft Design Report: 2007/2008 AIAA Cessna/Raytheon Design/Build/Fly Competition
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1.1 Design Overview 3
1.2 System Performance 3
1.3 Design Development 4
2 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 4
2.1 Organization 5
2.2 Schedule and Planning 5
3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 6
3.1 Mission Requirements 6
3.2 Score Analysis 8
3.3 Aircraft Design Concepts 12
3.4 Configuration Selection 16
3.5 FOM Analysis Results 18
4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 19
4.1 Design Methodology 19
4.2 Trade Studies and Preliminary Optimization 20
4.3 Payload System 23
4.4 Propulsion System 26
4.5 Aerodynamics 28
4.6 Stability and Control 31
4.7 Estimated Performance 33
5 DETAIL DESIGN 35
5.1 Aircraft Dimensional Parameters 35
5.2 Aircraft Structural Characteristics and Capabilities 35
5.3 Sub-System Design, Selection, Integration, and Architecture 36
5.4 Weight and Balance 40
5.5 Rated Aircraft Cost 41
5.6 Aircraft and Mission Performance 41
5.7 Drawing Package 41
6 MANUFACTURING PLAN AND PROCESSES 46
6.1 Manufacturing Figures of Merit 46
6.2 Construction Method Selection 46
6.3 Construction Schedule 49
7 TESTING PLAN 49
7.1 Test Schedule 49
7.2 Sub-System Tests and Objectives 49
7.3 Flight Testing 51
8 PERFORMANCE RESULTS 53
8.1 Sub-System Evaluation 53
8.2 Demonstrated Aircraft Performance 57
9 REFERENCES 60
1 Executive Summary
This report describes the design process used by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Team Concrete to develop an aircraft capable of winning the 2008 AIAA Student Design/Build/Fly
Competition. The goal of the design was to maximize the total competition score, which is a combination
of the report score and three flight mission scores which make up the total flight score.
2 Management Summary
The 2008 MIT DBF program consists of two teams, Team Concrete and Team Cardinal, which
collaborate to avoid redundant costs and testing. Team Concrete is composed of eight undergraduates,
three of whom are juniors, and five seniors, thus meeting the AIAA Freshman-Sophomore-Junior
competition requirement. The team is led by a Program Manager and then split into three main groups:
Analysis, Design, and Manufacturing. The heads of each group and the program manager form an
executive board which collaborates to make major design decisions. Due to the small size of the team,
the group members are not necessarily assigned to only one group. The organization of the team is
shown in Figure 2.1.
Riley Schutt
Fabrication
Martin Holmes
Fabrication
2.1 Organization
The program manager is in charge of the executive board, which is responsible for recruiting new
members, identifying figures of merit, making final design and manufacturing decisions, and ensuring
efficient collaboration with Team Cardinal. Each member of the executive board is in charge of a group
with specific responsibilities.
The analysis group was responsible for creating design trades based on the identified FOMs. They
were also responsible for creating aerodynamic and mission models used to evaluate proposed aircraft
configurations. After deciding on the final architecture, the analysis group became responsible for
component and flight testing. The design group was responsible for providing aircraft configurations to
the analysis group; these configurations were then refined using feedback from the analysis group to
create the final detailed design. After delivering the detailed design to the manufacturing group, the
design group became responsible for the written report. The manufacturing group was responsible for
the production of the aircraft. Their success in building a flying prototype of the proposed configuration by
January 2008 greatly aided with moving forward in the final design process.
3 Conceptual Design
This section discusses the details of the conceptual design investigations for the MIT Team Concrete
aircraft. Initial design focused on identifying mission requirements from the competition rules and from a
detailed scoring analysis. Next, a morphological chart of possible aircraft configurations was used to
enumerate the complete design space. Several of the configurations in the design space were eliminated
based on the design team’s qualitative assessments. The remaining configurations were then carried into
a more detailed analysis based on FOM. These FOM were weighted to reflect importance to mission
performance and total flight score. The highest-scoring aircraft configuration, as described in Section 1,
was selected for preliminary design.
upright within the aircraft. The maximum payload dimensions and possible configurations are given in
Table 3.1. Note the variation in bottle dimensions, as the payload system must securely restrain every
combination of dimensions.
Ws is System weight and WBP is Payload Mission Battery Weight. System weight is defined as the weight
of all components of the aircraft minus the propulsion battery weight. RAC is only used in scoring the
Payload Mission. The missions are summarized in Table 3.3 below.
n L ⎛ ηρ h ⎞
DFS = = D ⎜⎜ − ⎟
l ⎝ g (Ws + WBD ) WBD ⎟⎠
(Eq. 3.4)
WBD
Though approximate, this equation allows preliminary analysis of the relations between variables. It
shows that to maximize DFS, the team needs to minimize system weight and battery weight while flying at
low altitude at maximum L/D. Since the altitude is independent of aircraft configuration and L/D is largely
dependent on the wetted area needed to enclose the payload for a given aircraft weight, the most
important design requirement from the DFS equation is to minimize system weight, with a secondary
requirement of minimizing drag for a given configuration, which is to be expected.
Using the baseline parameters of a 2500 ft lap length, a 3 lb system weight and 100 points received
on the Payload Missions, TFS versus delivery battery weight and laps completed was plotted in order to
estimate the optimum battery weight. Stored battery energy was assumed to be proportional to battery
weight. Representative values for propulsive system efficiency and battery energy density were
estimated from propulsive systems of previous years at 0.6 and 65mWh/g respectively. Figure 3.1 shows
the effect of increasing delivery battery weight with respect to TFS.
The plot is discontinuous as only complete laps are counted in the scoring equation. Interestingly,
there is only a weak optimum at 2 laps. The peaks in TFS that occur as the battery weight is increased
all generate approximately the same TFS. There is no benefit to carrying extra battery energy to fly an
extra portion of a lap as the extra weight decreases the score, making it important to operate near the
peaks. However, a slight margin should be added because landing short of a completed lap produces the
lowest score. This highlights that the number of laps completed in five minutes is not important; the
important factor is selecting the battery to precisely complete a given number of laps.
Figure 3.2 – Payload Flight Score vs. System Weight and Loading Time
Figure 3.3 – Normalized TFS vs. System Weight, Payload Battery Weight, and Loading Time
3.3.1 Payload
The payload system is the critical element in the 2008 competition due to its impact on system weight
and loading time. The following design parameters for the payload structure were considered:
• Rigid vs. Conformal
Initial brainstorming resulted in several payload concepts, including racks, removable “quick-loaders”,
and various mechanical locking mechanisms. Ultimately, few of the concepts offered significant
advantages in terms of weight, simplicity or loading time over a fabric pocket design or a rigid box design.
A rigid design could potentially serve as the primary aircraft structure, though the requirement of an
additional payload restraining hatch in addition to an external fuselage hatch was considered an
unfavorable weight penalty. A “soft” fabric restraint system, closed with a draw-string, was ultimately
chosen for its low weight and ability to conform to the wide variety of payload dimensions.
• Loading Direction
Three options for the loading direction were considered: side loading, top loading, and bottom
loading. The side loading and bottom loading configurations potentially provide a weight advantage by
circumventing a complete overturning of the aircraft during the flip test, which would require additional
restraints. However, these systems required significantly higher loading times. The top loading
configuration best capitalizes on the normal top-down motion required to load a small RC aircraft and was
kept for further analysis.
• Payload Configuration
The five payload configurations could be arranged in many ways to maintain a near constant center
of gravity. Aircraft drag considerations (frontal area vs. wetted area) and the 4 ft x 5 ft planform
requirement (space limitation when trying to fair in the payload system) resulted in the three possible
configurations shown in Figure 3.4. The 2 x 7 configuration was ultimately selected due to its ability to be
primarily supported by one central spar running lengthwise between the pockets, unlike the other two
configurations which require multiple spars and thus increase system weight and complexity.
3.3.2 Wing
Typically, the simplicity and performance per weight of the monoplane would make it the frontrunner.
Despite this, the span and aspect ratio limitation from the 4 ft x 5 ft planform made a multi-wing aircraft an
attractive option. However, the tandem wing was eliminated because it provided few if any benefits
compared to the other multi-wing configurations while potentially adding weight (due to a larger section of
structural fuselage) and risk (due to stability and lift distribution issues). The N-plane, with N>2 wings,
was eliminated because of downwash and venturi interference, reduced wing efficiency, and doubts
about the team’s ability to construct sufficiently light wings to realize the benefits of lower wing loading.
The monoplane and biplane were retained for more detailed analysis, with the understanding that the bi-
plane would require the top wing to be hinged or split to facilitate the top loading payload system.
3.3.3 Fuselage
While the lifting fuselage could potentially reduce wing loading, it was eliminated because of the
difficulty of executing low-weight construction and excessive airfoil thickness due to payload height and
planform constraints. Conventional and blended fuselages were retained for more detailed analysis.
3.3.4 Empennage
The H-tail was initially considered to increase the effectiveness of the horizontal control surface
through endplate/winglet effects due to tail length limitations. It was eliminated due to the weight of
multiple vertical tail surfaces with extra control servos. The V-tail was not considered; the area required
to achieve control equivalent to a conventional tail resulted in no savings in system weight. The
conventional and tailless configurations were retained for more detailed analysis; the former for its low
risk and the latter for the possible weight advantage if combined with a reflexed wing airfoil.
3.3.6 Propulsion
A sample of commonly available electric motors showed a clear trend – the smaller motors
consistently had higher power density, as much as 250% difference over their larger cousins. Given the
importance of system weight in total flight score, this finding was used as the basis of eliminating both
tractor and pusher single motor configurations. Additionally, the twin pusher configuration was discarded
due to structural (wing thickness at trailing edge) and motor cooling considerations. Thus the twin tractor
configuration was retained for more detailed analysis.
Given the choice of twin motors, a decision had to be made regarding the use of a single or dual pack
(in parallel) battery configuration. A survey of available battery cells showed significant energy density
peaks around 1500 mAh and 2000 mAh, suggesting the use of a single pack would result in a lighter
propulsion system. However, a dual configuration would potentially require less current draw from each
pack, increasing effective capacity. Ultimately, the single pack configuration was selected to minimize
weight.
At this point each configuration was qualitatively assessed with particular emphasis on:
• System weight
• Loading time
• Manufacturability
• Design risk (i.e. lack of previous flight experience)
• Stability & controllability
These criteria were used to narrow the design space to the four configurations shown in Table 3.11.
horizontal CG variation of 0.5” and roughly triple the weight of the unloaded aircraft. A stability and
control FOM was qualitatively assigned to each configuration, based on the following factors:
• Robust longitudinal stability with CG variation
• Lateral and directional stability
• Ground handling
This FOM was assigned a weight factor of 10 because of the role of flight characteristics and ground
handling in preventing crashes. Table 3.14 shows each configuration’s assigned score:
3.4.4 Manufacturability
Manufacturability is defined as the feasibility and complexity of fabricating a concept. While the
quality of the aircraft design plays a large role in determining final performance, the execution of the
design also plays a significant role. As such, the team was concerned with choosing a competitive design
that was feasible to execute with a low system weight and without excessive time. A manufacturability
FOM was qualitatively assigned to each configuration, considering the following factors:
• Structural complexity
• The team’s prior experience in building techniques
• Required time and money
Table 3.15 shows how the FOM scores were assigned to the configurations. This FOM was assigned a
weight factor of 20 because of its influence on system weight and limited project time.
Table 3.15 – Manufacturability FOM Criteria
Assigned Score Configuration Characteristic
-1 Little or no prior experience in required fabrication techniques AND
Structurally complex design
0 Prior experience in required fabrication techniques OR
Structurally simple design
1 Prior experience in required fabrication techniques AND
Structurally simple design
Deployment Flight
Manufacturability
System Weight
Loading Time
Avg Payload
Flight Score
Total FOM
FOM
FOM
Weighting Factor 70 10 20 100
Configuration
Monoplane w/ Tail 2.8 45 10 45 135 1.42 1 1 129
Monoplane Tailless 2.7 40 10 45 130 1.37 -1 1 106
Biplane w/ Tail 3.2 35 20 30 95 1 1 0 80
Blended Wing Body 3.0 40 15 35 110 1.16 0 -1 71
4 Preliminary Design
Design Research
this system weight in preliminary analyses and set an internal goal of 10% improvement, giving 3.05 lbs.
as a target system weight.
Successful teams have traditionally undersized wing area based on site wind assumptions. The
recorded wind speed and temperature at the site location in Wichita, KA for each of the last 3 years
during the week of the competition was found at Wundergound.com and averaged over daylight hours in
order to identify an appropriate estimate for headwinds and air density [3]. Based on wind data, runway
altitude, and temperature, conservative estimates were found to be 10 mph and 95% of sea-level air
density, respectively. However, further research of past team reports and websites revealed that several
teams in the last five years had wasted take-off attempts during brief, unrecorded periods of calm wind.
Based on this knowledge, but recognizing that downsizing the wing may provide a competitive weight
advantage, the team made the decision to size the wing for a zero-wind 75 ft. take-off with no margin.
2
Additionally, a wing-loading of 2.5 lbs/ft was identified as a viable starting point for preliminary
optimization based on historical wing areas and predicted wind speeds.
The course was modeled using four distinct mission segment types – takeoff, climb, turning, and
cruise. No ground operations were modeled. The payload loading time is estimated from the aircraft
configuration and input separately. Additionally, landing ground roll was not modeled since both missions
are essentially completed in the air, with only a successful landing required to confirm score. All missions
are modeled using the throttle settings and lift coefficients shown in Table 4.1.
The uncertainties of this model are primarily related to accurate drag prediction and the actual
operation of the aircraft by a human operator. In actual flight, turns are often made at a less than ideal
radius and climb-out may be made at a non optimal point on the aircraft power curve. Additionally,
varying wind conditions or aircraft instability may result in unplanned side-slips, turns, or climbs, all of
which increase power consumption and are not modeled. Finally, the drag model of the aircraft in the
configuration file must be accurate for the total energy consumption to be correct. The preliminary drag
model is based on skin friction estimates with form-factors and has proven sufficient for initial sizing and
head-to-head comparisons of different designs. However, the team treated absolute energy consumption
estimates as lower-bounds and scheduled flight testing to validate model performance.
described in Section 4.4. The model was limited to 6 lbs maximum static thrust based on the weight
penalty for using motors capable of producing greater thrust.
Each aircraft geometry was run through a simulated mission, and the wing area, span, sweep, and
planform orientation were iterated in 1 in2, 1 in, 0.5 degree, and 0.5 degree increments, respectively, until
total flight score was maximized. Taper ratios and tail sweep were set to be dependent on planform
constraints. The preliminary optimized aircraft takes advantage of the planform diagonal to increase wing
span and total aircraft length, as shown in Figure 4.2. From this initial optimization, further refinement of
the wing, airfoils, structure, and propulsion system was performed with component-specific design tools.
Figure 4.2 – Preliminary Aircraft Parameters and Planform View (dimensions in inches)
All possible variations in CG due to variation in payload weights were calculated for use in aircraft
stability calculations. Figure 4.5 shows the optimized layouts. These configurations have a maximum CG
shift of .42 in from front to back and .09 in from side to side. The act of constraining the bricks to the four
specific brick pockets aids in minimizing CG shifting while decreasing loading complexity between the
different payload configurations.
Fuselage manufacturability tests were performed concurrently with the preliminary fuselage
computational design. Manufacturing research early in the design process highlighted the possibility of
using vacuum-formed Depron foam as a fairing material. The team built a male plug of the preliminary
fuselage design and performed numerous fabrication trials with varying thicknesses of Depron and other
varieties of polystyrene foam. Figure 4.7 shows initial shaping of a foam nose section over a male mold.
Additionally, research showed that the highest power to weight ratio JustGoFly motor, the 500SH, was
designed for high RPM applications in R/C helicopters. Thrust output was below the 3 lbs per motor
produced by the other motors in the 500 series and a suitable gearbox for the 500SH was not available
for testing. Finally, the 500T motor was only able to produce 2.5 lbs of thrust while drawing 36 amps at
12 volts. Two parallel motors pulling 36 amps each would be beyond the safe amperage range for the 40
amp safety fuse, so testing of the 500T was not carried out for higher voltages.
4.4.2 Propeller
The main FOMs for propeller selection were:
• Takeoff Thrust: Due to the heavy payloads and moderate wing loading, a large amount of thrust
is needed to meet the 75 ft takeoff distance requirement.
• Cruise efficiency: Low efficiency due to improper matching of the propeller to motor speed
increases battery size, which increases RAC and limits Delivery Mission performance.
The weighting of each FOM is dependent on which mission is being considered due to the difference in
total aircraft weight between the Delivery and Payload mission. Propellers were selected independently
for each mission.
Delivery Mission Propeller Selection
The Delivery Mission requires that the aircraft fly with the smallest battery pack possible and with the
number of laps closely matched to the capacity of the chosen battery pack. To minimize the battery
weight, a pack with the fewest cells would be optimal. The mission takeoff model calculated 1.0 lb of
static thrust was needed for takeoff at 24 ft/s, with 0.75 lbs needed for cruise at 30 ft/s. Propellers were
then tested for maximum thrust at these two speeds at a range of voltages. The minimum voltage that
provided the required thrust was 6.0 volts. The optimum propeller size was found to be in the 10 to 12 in
range with a very high pitch. This is due to the low RPM of the motor requiring a higher pitch from the
prop to provide necessary thrust.
Of the 6.0 volt runs, the APC 11x10 and 12x12 passed the minimum average thrust requirement.
Both propellers drew approximately 7 amps while providing the same thrust and were retained for
extensive testing with selected battery packs during detailed design.
Payload Mission Propeller Selection
The Payload Mission requires maximizing low speed thrust to meet the 75 ft takeoff requirement. The
takeoff model determined that 6 lbs of static thrust was needed at takeoff due to the higher takeoff weight.
Large, low pitch props would be needed to provide the necessary low speed thrust.
The full range of APC propellers were considered for the delivery mission, though focus was
concentrated on the 10 in to 12 in propellers. It was found that the recommended 11x5.5 propeller for the
JustGoFly 500XT motor operating at 14.4 volts performed best, providing 3.1 lbs of static thrust. The
slightly higher pitch 12x6 propeller performed similarly, but drew 21 amps at approximately 270 watts.
These values were experimentally found to be below, but near, the burn out limit of the 500XT motor.
Both propellers were retained for further flight testing. Section 8.1 discusses propulsion system testing
and verification using simulated wind-tunnel mission flight profiles.
4.4.3 Batteries
The primary mission model predicted an average electric power consumption of 360 watts at a cruise
speed of 48 fps, resulting in lap times just over one minute. The delivery mission would be completed at
a slower cruise speed of 28 fps and average power draw of 70 watts, requiring approximately 85 sec. per
lap. Batteries of candidate sizes were compared by their energy densities, as shown in Figure 4.7.
Power Density
Energy Comparison
Density Comparison
90.0
80.0 77.1
73.6 73.4
69.9
mWh per gram
70.0 65.4
62.9
59.6 60.0
60.0
47.9
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
P
P
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
U
U
15
40
0A
50
00
10
00
0A
A
P1
0F
1
P1
P2
E1
E2
65
IB
0
B
17
5
G
G
IT
IT
P1
19
C
EL
EL
R
B
R
H
C
4.5 Aerodynamics
Building on the baseline geometry established in section 4.1, aerodynamic optimization focused on
the selection and design of airfoils to improve cruise and take-off performance and evaluation of the entire
wing-tail system using vortex-lattice methods to optimize lift-distribution and predict stability.
CL’s would be offset by higher cruise drag and the need for added propulsion battery weight. As
determined by the initial wing optimization, the SD7043 airfoil, with a maximum CL of 1.5, provided the
highest performance of the Selig-Donovan, NACA, MIT-designed, and Douglas LA-series in the airfoil
database. Using the SD7043 performance as a starting point, the team redesigned two series of new
airfoils with maximum L/D at CL~.8 and a max CL of 1.5 based on interpolation of the LA203 and an
internally designed, BA10 airfoil. The XFOIL drag polar of the resulting airfoils, the BAFT2 and SOFT500,
are shown below in Figure 4.11, along with the SD7043 used in preliminary optimization.
Winglets were considered to increase the span efficiency and decrease cruise drag. A separate AVL
analysis determined that a 0.03 - 0.05 increase in span efficiency was possible. However, the two inch
reduction in span, increased weight, and skin friction from the additional surfaces outweighed the benefit.
4.5.4 Empennage
Initial tail surfaces were sized within the mission model to meet static stability requirements based on
tail volume coefficients outlined below [6]. In later refinement of the preliminary design, tail surface areas
were adjusted using AVL to satisfy minimum trim drag conditions.
Horizontal Stabilizer
The horizontal tail volume coefficient (Vh) is a measure of horizontal stabilizer effectiveness, and is
defined by Equation 4.1. For sufficient pitch authority, Vh > 0.30 is required.
S h lh
Vh ≡ (Eq. 4.1)
Sc
Wing area and chord (S and c) are given by the wing geometry, and the tail moment arm (lh) is restricted
by the planform geometry. Using these parameters, Equation 4.1 can be solved for Sh to give an
approximate horizontal stabilizer area of 0.9 ft2.
Vertical Stabilizer
Like Vh, the vertical tail volume coefficient (Vv) characterizes the effectiveness of the vertical
stabilizer, and is defined by Equation 4.2. For sufficient yaw damping, a Vv > 0.02 is necessary.
S v lv
Vv ≡ (Eq. 4.2)
Sb
Again, lv, S, and b are specified by the wing and tail boom geometry, and using these parameters
Equation 4.2 can be solved for Sv to give a vertical stabilizer area. Test cases were run in AVL at both
cruise and takeoff conditions. In both cases, the aircraft exhibited positive spiral stability, requiring no
adjustment to the vertical stabilizer area of 0.58 ft2 given by Equation 4.2.
20
15
10
5
0
-11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 -5 1
-10
-15
-20
The aircraft’s neutral point varies, so test cases were run in AVL to assure that the possible CG locations
produced acceptable SM throughout the flight profile. The SM was found to vary from 5.2% at maximum
flight speed to 18% at takeoff, which are within acceptable bounds.
2.5
C 0.8
L
2
1.5 0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0 0.2
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26
Velocity [fps] C
D
Figure 4.13 – Vehicle Lift and Drag Characteristics
5 Detail Design
This section documents the final design specifications for the MIT Team Concrete aircraft.
reinforcements and used for subsequent versions. A nylon drawstring and polycarbonate locking cleat
sufficiently restrain all payload configurations while inverted. Kevlar tow is used to tie the payload system
to the A-frames, preventing swaying and excessive movement of the system.
the aircraft (85% rear and 15% front) to allow for proper balance and rotation at takeoff. The main gear
was constructed from bent sheet aluminum with piano wire cross-bracing. It is attached to balsa wood
reinforcements in the wing with nylon bolts.
5.3.4 Wing
Aerodynamic surfaces are of mold-less composite construction. The wing is designed to withstand a
fully loaded 10g turn, obtainable in RC aircraft flight with sudden stick movements or strong wind gusts.
Foam wing cores were cut with a CNC foam cutter and then reinforced with a tapered 2 in root-width
unidirectional carbon fiber spar caps and a single layer of 0.7 oz/sq yard fiberglass oriented at ±45 deg for
torsional stiffness. Balsa hard points and additional bi-directional carbon-fiber skins are located at
attachment points for the payload structure and landing gear.
5.3.5 Empennage
For the tail boom, the aircraft uses the main structural spar mentioned earlier. The carbon fiber tube
is epoxy-bonded to the A-frame structure mounted in the wing. The tail surfaces are then bonded to the
carbon tube with a fiberglass reinforcement strip. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers and control
surfaces are constructed from CNC hot-wire cut foam cores with 0.7 oz/sq yd fiberglass skins.
through the wing to the avionics and batteries stored within the fuselage. The aeroshell is then attached
with foam-safe cyanoacrylate and hinge tape.
Bottles Bricks Total Weight [lbs] Xcg [in from L.E.] Zcg [in from top of wing] SM [%]
14 0 10.71 4.22 4.75 9.33
10 1 10.51 3.94 4.52 12.14
7 2 10.81 4.22 4.28 9.30
3 3 10.61 3.96 4.06 11.93
0 4 10.91 4.35 3.81 7.96
5.5 Rated Aircraft Cost
This year, RAC is based on the aircraft’s system weight and payload mission battery weight.
RAC = System Weight * Payload Battery Weight = 3 . 02 lbs ∗ 0 . 69 lbs (Eq. 5.1)
24.00
D D
3.48 7.30
5.88 11.83
C C
48
.00
.00
60
57.30
7.75
17.25 4.27
B B
11.00
13.00
27.81
DRAWN BY RC 7 Jan
3-VIEW
TEAM
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
SIZE REV
ALL DIMENSIONS
B
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
MIT DBF. ANY REPRODUCTION IN
PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE CONCRETE GIVEN IN INCHES 1
DRAWING PACKAGE
WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MIT DBF IS
PROHIBITED. SHEET 1 OF 4
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
D D
6.10
31.75
R1
00
.00
.
R1
C C
0.25
10.00
46.00
SCALE 1:15
A-FRAME SUBYSTEM
SCALE 1:5 4.75
B
0.58
B
10.47 13.97
69.00
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
AIAA DESIGN/BUILD/FLY 2008
A
STRUCTURAL
A TITLE:
INITIALS DATE
0.50
DRAWN BY RC 7 Jan
ARRANGEMENT
TEAM
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
SIZE REV
ALL DIMENSIONS
B
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
D
D 7
2
B
C 1 C
3
6
3 2
5 4
DETAIL A
SCALE 1 : 5
B
A B
4
CONTROLLER
RECEIVER
25 AMP
JR R921 1
DRAWN BY RC 7 JAN
LAYOUT
TEAM
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
SIZE REV
ALL DIMENSIONS
B
5 RECEIVER BATTERY KAM 160 1/3AAA 1 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
D D
14 BOTTLES 0 BOTTLES
0 BRICKS 4 BRICKS
7 LBS 7.2 LBS
C C
10 BOTTLES
9.44
1 BRICK
6.8 LBS
SCALE 1:10
10.00
SCALE 1:5
4.50
B 7 BOTTLES 4.50 B
2 BRICKS
7.1 LBS
32.00
DRAWN BY RC 7 JAN
ACCOMODATION
TEAM
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
SIZE REV
ALL DIMENSIONS
B
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
MIT DBF. ANY REPRODUCTION IN
PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE CONCRETE GIVEN IN INCHES 1
DRAWING PACKAGE
WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MIT DBF IS
PROHIBITED. SHEET 4 OF 4
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
MIT DBF 2008: Team Concrete
6.2.1.1 A-Frames
The final A-frame construction method was foam core/carbon fiber sandwich. The FOM analysis is
shown in Table 6.1.
• Plywood – Triangular plates would be cut from aircraft grade plywood using a CNC waterjet. This
would require minimal manufacturing time; however, achieving the required rigidity may
necessitate using thicker plywood, negating any weight reduction benefits.
• Aluminum – The plates would be cut from sheet aluminum using a waterjet. The aluminum offers
superior strength and durability; however, it also carries a large weight penalty.
• Foam with Carbon – The plates would consist of high density foam laminated between sheets of
unidirectional carbon cloth and bidirectional reinforcements at stress concentrations. This
method offers both high strength and low weight, yet it requires more time to manufacture the
part. Despite the increased manufacturing time, this construction method was selected due to the
reduced weight of the finished part.
6.2.1.2 Aeroshell
The aeroshell encompasses 14 ft2 of surface area and thus presented a large weight risk area. From
the beginning of the design process much consideration was given to the aeroshell and a significant
amount of experiment and manufacturing time was spent on this component. The final construction
method was formed polystyrene foam.
• Molded Balsa – Wet balsa wood would be molded around a male fuselage plug and allowed to
dry. Even though thin balsa sheets could be used, as strength is not an issue, initial estimates
indicated it would weigh too much to be a viable option to meet our weigh target.
• Carbon Fiber / Kevlar – A positive mold would be made on the foam cutter, hand-shaped to a
smooth finish and cut in half. Female molds would be made from each half. These female molds
would be used to lay-up composite shells, which would be bonded together over the aircraft
frame. While the team is most familiar with this technique, it was determined to exceed the
budgeted weight and given past experience, it would not have been strong enough to hold shape.
• Foam – This method takes advantage of an available heat/vacuum former and consists of
forming thin sheets of low density foam around positive molds of the nose and tail cone of the
aeroshell. Initial tests showed that this method would be difficult for the large center sections.
However, the estimated weight savings of 4 oz over a composite fairing were determined to be
worth the additional manufacturing time. This was scheduled as the pacing item in our
manufacturing schedule.
6.2.2 Wing
The projected weight of the wing comprises over 20% of the total airframe weight. Therefore, special
attention must be paid to the wing construction method, in efforts to attain the lowest possible system
weight. The final method was foam core with a unidirectional carbon fiber spar cap.
• Balsa built-up – The wings would consist of a balsa framework of ribs and spars covered with a
Monokote skin. This method offers the greatest weight savings, however it would require the
longest manufacturing time since it is unfamiliar to the team and requires a large number of small
parts. Additionally the structure would be more susceptible to damage and difficult to repair.
• Foam core – A foam core would be cut into an airfoil shape, then covered in fiberglass and
vacuum-bagged. This fiberglass skin adds strength to the core without a significant weight
penalty. To achieve the necessary stiffness loading, several layers of glass would have to be
added, which puts this technique out of our weight target.
• Molded – Pure composite construction, using female molds to create a top and bottom skin that
are then joined together. The resulting wing is very strong and relatively light-weight, but this
construction method involves mold tooling which significant time for team members to build.
• Foam core with carbon strip – Similar to foam core method with the addition of a unidirectional
carbon fiber strip to the upper and lower wing surfaces. While this improves bending strength, it
also complicates the manufacturing process. However, several team members are experienced
in this manufacturing process, which will reduce manufacturing time, allowing for the rapid
fabrication of replacement and/or spare parts. For these reasons foam core with carbon spar cap
construction was selected for the wings.
6.2.3 Tail
The final construction method for the tail surfaces was glassed foam to minimize system weight.
• Balsa slab – The tail surfaces would be cut from sheets of balsa then tangent-sanded to an airfoil
shape. Though easy to build, the necessary thickness required for the span of the tail would
increases the weight significantly.
• Glassed Foam – Foam cores would be cut on the foam cutter to the desired profile, covered with
light fiberglass, and vacuum-bagged. This method was chosen for to its improved strength to
weight ratio.
7 Testing Plan
Propulsive and structural testing began during preliminary design and continued throughout detailed
design in order to ensure that physical capabilities matched expected performance. After completion of
the prototype aircraft, the test program expanded to include flight and wind-tunnel tests.
to verify the performance (power and efficiency) of the chosen APC 11X5.5 and APC 11X10 propellers
and JustGoFly 500XT motor over the velocity range of the aircraft. The team measured the thrust, motor
power, voltage drop, current draw, and RPM at a range of airspeeds from 0 to 80 ft/s.
Item Description 9
Airframe
C.G. position Verify proper C.G. location
Control surfaces Check for control surface slop; verify proper deflection direction
Landing gear Verify wheel collars are secure and front gear deflection
Propulsion
Propulsion Battery Verify propulsion pack voltage
Receiver Battery Verify receiver pack voltage
Propellers Visually inspect for cracks or damage; verify prop nuts secure
Failsafe Cycle transmitter power; check for proper failsafe actuation
Fuse Insert fuse and check operation
Field/Miscellaneous
Range Check Perform range check
Transmitter Verify TX voltage: >9.6v
Flight line Clear flight line, prepare for taxi/takeoff
Lift and Drag Verify CFD lift and drag predictions Feb. 26th
Aeroshell
Yarn tuft flow visualization of aeroshell separation Feb. 26th
Separation
Propulsion Obtain propulsion data throughout aircraft velocity range. Feb. 29th
8 Performance Results
preliminary testing, thus meeting one of the team’s major design drivers. After full payload flight testing
and flip testing the team felt confident that no stability problems would be encountered during the
competition.
8.1.3 Fuselage
The CFD separation estimations were validated by wind tunnel tests of a separate fuselage model.
The flow characteristics from the CFD matched quite well with the results in the wind tunnel. The team’s
wind tunnel testing is documented in Section 8.2. Figure 8.1 shows separation in both models at 6
degrees angle of attack with separation beginning near the bottom of the aeroshell and moving upwards.
8.1.4 Empennage
The tail surfaces were evaluated based on aircraft controllability by the pilot. As built, the aircraft
requires two degrees of trim at payload cruise conditions and has sufficient pitch authority for rotation and
climb out. No issues with spiral stability or Dutch roll were encountered during the simulated missions,
matching the vortex-lattice predictions and viscous stability corrections made during detailed design, as
documented in Section 4.6.
8.1.5 Propulsion
The propulsion system was evaluated based on its final weight and flight performance. The results of
these tests are shown in Figures 8.2 – 8.6. Figure 8.2 plots both the available power from the motors and
the required power over the operational velocity range, based on wind tunnel and motor testing data.
This plot showed that the APC 11x5.5 could provide the necessary thrust to overcome the drag of the
airplane with a 45% margin at cruise velocity. The graph begins at 22 ft/s, the predicted stall speed, and
closes at 72 ft/s, representing the threshold of the operational window.
180
160
140
120
Power (watts)
100
80
60
40
Available Power
20
Required Power
0
.2
.6
.0
.4
.0
.4
.8
.2
.6
.0
.4
.8
52
57
61
66
70
22
26
30
35
39
44
48
Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 8.2 – Power vs. Velocity plots for APC 11X5.5 (14.4 Volts)
Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show a payload mission profile of a single 500XT with an APC 11x5.5
running on a 14.4 volt power supply. This data allowed final battery sizing for the payload mission,
which resulted in requirements for a 13 cell pack to maintain voltage under current draw instead of
the 12 cells predicted in Section 4.7. Power and energy consumption for the payload mission were
measured, as shown in Figure 8.4. This data showed that the motor could stay within an acceptable
current range throughout a payload mission and that 1200 mAh of capacity was sufficient, giving the
original Elite 1500 a 25% margin for wind conditions, piloting factors, and reductions in pack capacity
due to the large current draw.
30 0.9
0.8
Current [A] / Voltage [V]
25
0.7
20 0.6
Efficiency
0.5
15
0.4
10 0.3
Voltage
0.2
5 Current
Motor Efficiency 0.1
0 0
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
150.00
Time [sec]
350 700
300 600
250 500
Energy [mAH]
Power [W]
200 400
150 300
100 200
Power
50 100
Energy Consumption
0 0
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
150.00
Time [sec]
A simulated delivery mission using the APC 11x10 and a 6 volt power supply is shown in Figures
8.4 and 8.5. The results showed that a 5 cell battery pack could be used and the previously selected
GP 1100 would have over a 50% margin. While it’s important to have margin for unexpected flight
perturbations, delivery battery options are being reconsidered to minimize battery weight.
10 0.9
9 0.8
Current [A] / Voltage [V]
8 0.7
7 0.6
Efficiency
6
0.5
5
0.4
4
3 0.3
Voltage
2 0.2
Current
1 Motor Efficiency 0.1
0 0
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
150.00
160.00
170.00
180.00
190.00
200.00
Time [sec]
50 400
45 350
40
300
Energy [mAH]
35
Power [W]
30 250
25 200
20 150
15
Power 100
10
5 Energy Consumption 50
0 0
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
150.00
160.00
170.00
180.00
190.00
200.00
Time [sec]
Overall, the flight testing resulted in a greater understanding of the aircraft flight characteristics. The
only issue encountered was due to aeroshell integration and subsequent recalculation of the neutral
point. The updated AVL model was then utilized to verify CG location during future wind tunnel and full
flight tests.
Powered wind tunnel testing was needed to verify flight performance and flow characteristics. This
applies most directly to the aeroshell and the area where the wing and aeroshell integrate. Figure 8.8
shows a close up of the yarn tuft visualization technique used to analyze this region. A small amount of
separation resulted in the decision to develop fiber glass fillets between the aeroshell and wing to mitigate
flow separation.
The wind tunnel data verifies the accuracy of initial lift and drag estimates from section 4.7.1. At
cruise conditions for the payload mission, 1.9 lbs of drag were predicted and the wind tunnel testing
produced 1.67 lbs of drag. This represents a 13% overestimate on drag. At cruise conditions for the
delivery mission, 0.75 lbs of drag were estimated and the wind tunnel model produced 0.88 lbs,
representing a 17% underestimate. These small variations are strong improvements over past years’
attempts at the difficult job of drag prediction, did not require any significant changes to the current
design, and will be taken into account when conducting further analysis.
The wind tunnel results, combined with flight test data, validated the models and assumptions the
team had used throughout the design process. The wind tunnel testing also helped the team to
understand that aeroshell integration would need to be an area of focus in the future due to its
tendency to greatly increase weight and drag.
Further flight testing will continue in parallel with initial construction of the competition aircraft.
Once completed, the competition aircraft will undergo light ground and flight testing before being
transported to Wichita, KS for the fly-off on 18-20 April.
9 References
[1] Drela, Mark. “XFOIL Subsonic Airfoil Development System.” 12 Feb 2008.
<http://web.mit.edu-/drela/Public/web/xfoil/>.
[2] Drela, Mark and H. Youngren. “Athena Vortex Lattice Program.” 28 Feb 2007.
<http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/>
[3] “Wichita, KS.” Weather Underground. Nov 2007 <http://www.wunderground.com/-
US/KS/Wichita.html>.
[4] Raymer, Daniel. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 4th Ed. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2006.
[5] UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Oct. 2007 <http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-
selig/ads/coord_database.html>
[6] Drela, Mark, Class Notes. Unpublished. 2007.