Professional Documents
Culture Documents
XFLR-5 Report PDF
XFLR-5 Report PDF
XFLR-5 Report PDF
Aditya Kotikalpudi, Brian Taylor, Claudia Moreno, Harald Pfifer, and Gary J. Balas
Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics
University of Minnesota
In order to estimate the aerodynamic stability derivatives and control derivatives of the BFF aircraft,
aerodynamic analysis was carried out using an open source software, XFLR-5 [7]. The analysis was
carried out using the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM). Since the analysis assumes inviscid flow, the total
drag estimate is not reliable. It can also carry out dynamic stability analysis, given the mass properties
(total mass, location of center of gravity, moments of inertia about X, Y, Z and XZ plane) which were
determined via inertia swings [2]. Inertia about XZ plane (Ixz ) was determined from inertia estimator
provided by XFLR-5. The stability and control derivatives extracted from the analyses were used to
construct a nonlinear simulation for the rigid body dynamics of the BFF vehicle.
The model constructed in XFLR-5 does not incorporate the landing skid, the GPS hood and the
motor mount. The modelling of control surfaces is close to the actual model, although it is not exact.
1
The deflections are simulated in a streamwise, rather than hingewise, sense. For comparison with
future flight data, the measured hingewise deflections can be converted to streamwise with equation
1.
2
Figure 4: Comparison of BFF airfoil with NACA 23010
An effort was made to match the given airfoil to a standard NACA airfoil. The closest match was the
NACA 23010 but it had a sharper leading edge compared to the extracted airfoil (Fig. 4). Also, NACA
0010 was tried as a substitute for the given airfoil, in an effort to reduce the manufacturing costs of
replicas of the aircraft. However the pitch stability characteristics could not be matched accurately,
and since absence of empennage results in sensitivity in pitch stability, it was decided that the original
airfoil extracted will be retained in all the future aircraft built based on the BFF aircraft’s design.
The XFLR-5 file (.wpa extension) containing all the analyzed airfoils and wing-body design described
above has been provided on the UAV lab’s website for users to download. It also has three pre-defined
analyses set up for aerodynamic, longitudinal and lateral stability analyses. Also, a text file containing
the coordinates of the airfoil is provided on the website.
3
Shown in Fig. 6 is the variation of trim elevator deflection with change in angle of attack. Trailing
edge downward deflection is considered positive.
Y = Aα2 + Bα + C (2)
where Y represents a derivative and α is the angle of attack in radians. The derivatives which vary
linearly have a zero value for A.
Table 6 lists the derivatives at the trim airspeed of 40 KEAS and an angle of attack of 3.5 degrees,
just as an example case. All derivatives are in rad−1 . The variation of all control derivatives except
Cmδe was found to be quite small and hence was averaged over the interval of α considered. Also,
the side force and sideslip derivatives (CY β , CY p , CY r , Clβ , Cnβ ) vary within a very small range due
to lack of a large vertical fin. Hence these values were averaged over the interval as well. All these
derivatives therefore have the values A and B to be zero. A more sophisticated analysis would be
required in order to accurately capture the variations of these derivatives.
CLδe derivative is calculated from the CZδe derivative which is actually the output from the analysis.
Z axis in XFLR-5 is not the body fixed axis. It refers to the stability Z axis of the aircraft, pointed
downward (i.e. opposite to direction of lift). Similarly, drag derivatives are calculated from the CX
derivatives where X axis is pointed along the velocity vector in absence of sideslip. All the coefficients
are calculated in stability axes.
4
Table 3: Mass Properties
Property Value
Total Weight 11.99 lb
C.G. Location 23.2585 inches (from nose)
Pitching moment of inertia 1245.83 lb − in2
Rolling moment of inertia 8529.45 lb − in2
Yawing moment of inertia 8118.42 lb − in2
Product of inertia Ixz (estimated) -0.296 lb − in2
5
Table 6: Aerodynamic Stability and Control Derivatives
Longitudinal lateral
CDα -0.1364 CY β -0.1324
CLα 4.539 CY p 0.0508
CLq 4.414 CY r 0.0391
Cmα -0.4166 Clβ -0.0165
Cmq -1.904 Clp -0.5613
CLδe 0.7645 Clr 0.054
CDδe 0.0066 Cnβ 0.0185
Cmδe -0.0933 Cnp -0.0325
Cnr -0.005625
CY δa -0.0044
Clδa 0.1765
Cnδa 0.0006
3. Control derivatives show a similar trend, where pitching moment coefficient derivative (with
respect to elevator, Cmδe ) is small, while lift coefficient derivative (CLδe ) and rolling moment
coefficient derivative (with respect to ailerons, Clδa ) are comparable to standard values.
Conclusion
The aerodynamic analysis carried out using XFLR-5, although basic in nature, provides a good starting
point for contructing a nonlinear model simulation. Although the drag model is inacurate, this
primarily affects the estimation of thrust requirements only and can be improved using flight data
from glide tests. Overall, the values of the aerodynamic derivatives obtained seem to be reasonable
and agree with the physics of flight dynamics. The data estimated through this analysis will be
updated after obtaining flight data from flight testing and carrying out system identification.
References
1. Brian Taylor, ‘BFF Center of Gravity Testing’
6
4. E. Seckel and J. J. Morris, ‘The Stability Derivatives of the Navion Aircraft Estimated by Various
Methods and Derived from Flight Test Data’
5. Burnett E., Atkinson, C., Beranek, J., Sibbitt, B., Holm-Hansen, B. and Nicolai, L., “NDOF
Simulation model for flight control development with flight test correlation,” AIAA Modeling
and Simulation Technologies Conference, Vol. 3, Toronto, Canada, 2010, pp. 7780-7794.
6. Brian Taylor, ‘BFF Laser Scan and Outer Mold Line’
7
Appendix A
Graphs here show the data used to generate the functions for stability and control derivatives, along
with the curve generated by the functions. Only those graphs are shown which have non-zero slopes
i.e. derivatives which were found to be constant across α are not shown. All the derivative values
along Y axis are in rad−1 .
8
9
10
11
12