Solar Glider Challenge

“The Spruse Moose”

Valentina Córdoba L1 y Daniela Cuartas P2

Pontifical Bolivarian University

Paula M. Loaiza E3
Pontifical Bolivarian University

Mauricio Ramírez L4

Pontifical Bolivarian University

Camilo Ruiz V5
Pontifical Bolivarian University

Sergio A. Toro A6
Pontifical Bolivarian University

The present report intends to show in detail the process of design and construction of a
Solar Monoplane UAV of high efficiency, under certain established requirements such as, a
paid load to carry, in this case batteries, solar panels for the selected configuration and the
fulfillment of two different missions in the most optimal way to obtain the highest possible
score according to the qualification model.

I. Nomenclature
AR = Aspect Ratio
Ac = Aerodynamic Center
AoA = Angle of Attack
Bw = WingSpan
Cl_wing = Wing lift coefficient
CD = Airplane Drag coefficient

1
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, valentina.cordoba@upb.edu.co,
Valentina Córdoba L.
2
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, daniela.cuartasp@upb.edu.co,
Daniela Cuartas P.
3
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, paula.loaiza@upb.edu.co, Paula M.
Loaiza E.
4
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, mauricio.ramirezl@upb.edu.co,
Mauricio Ramírez L.
5
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, Camilo.ruizv@upb.edu.co, Camilo
Ruiz V.
6
Solar Glider Challenge “The Spruse Moose”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty, sergio.toro@upb.edu.co, Sergio A.
Toro A.
Cdi = Wing induced drag
C = Chord
D = Total Drag Force
L = Total lift Force
L/D = Lift to drag ratio efficency
MAW = Maximum airplane weight
Hcg = Distance from leading edge to Center of gravity
H = Height
it = Incidence Angle for Horizontal stabilizer
Re = Reynolds number
t = Time in air
T = Taper ratio
Vht = Horizontal Tail Volume

II. Introduction

The high-performance gliders of today have a heritage that dates back to man’s first attempts at flight.
History tends to move from the simple to the complex and aviation follows this premise. The first gliders
were created during the nineteenth century; those gliders were not very efficient because they could just
travel short distances and had low stability, so they were difficult to control in the air.

Over time, with help of technology, the gliders became better by making a lot of changes in their design
and materials, all to make sure they would improve their effective, and so, be more used and useful in the
industry.

Today’s gliders have a thin tapering body and very long narrow wings. This design allows them to stay
in the air for continuous hours, soaring on currents of rising warm air called thermals. A glider has no
engine of its own, so it needs help to take off. It may be towed into the air by a propeller-driven plane, or it
can be hoisted like a kite on a long cable. When the glider is airborne, the cable is released.

The principal problem with the gliders remains being their autonomy as they don’t have own propulsion
system and only create high amounts of lift forces using their aerodynamics forms. That’s why nowadays
the use of other alternatives is quite normal, for example transforming solar energy into electrical energy.
“The concept is quite simple; Solar panels, composed by solar cells covering, certain surface of wing or
other part of the airplane, the tail or even the fuselage, it retrieves energy from the sun in order to supply
power to the propulsion system and the control electronics, and charge the battery with the surplus of energy
because during the night as no more power comes from the solar panels, only the battery supplies the various
elements. (Siegwart, 2013)

In order for autonomous glider flights, through solar cells, to become a reality, the development and
evolution of their designs, their aerodynamic properties, energy storage thanks to the panels used was
fundamental. Throughout the years, the constant search for better, less polluting alternatives for obtaining
energy and with higher performance has reached an important point when implementing renewable energies
such as solar in study missions for all aviation field.

III. Planning

A. Mission Analysis
To reach the objective of the challenge, it is desired that the relation between the reference empty
weight and empty weight is 1 or the closest to it. Therefore, it is necessary to focus the design on a light
aircraft by optimizing the weight in low density materials, without sacrificing the structural integrity of
the airplane, and looking for the material to be able to withstand smooth impacts, and equally way the
total load of the batteries, the solar panels and the structural weight of the airplane.

There are two missions, each of them is analyzed separately, considering their requirements and
qualification methods.

• Mission 1:

Its main objective is to travel a great distance without considering the payload (batteries). The glide
path for this case should be as large as possible; since the less the loss of height is with respect to
time, the larger the horizontal travel can be. The following formula shows the parameters that will
be considered when qualifying.

From the established qualification parameters, it is determined that a fundamental design

parameter for this mission must be the amount of distance traveled by the airplane.
 Fig. 1 Designation of ZX zones.

• Mission 2:

Its main objective is to travel in the shortest time possible, the distance between point A (at the
highest part of the upper east side of the facility), to a point B located in front, observing the sports
center horizontally, with batteries installed (payload).

For this mission the qualification method is as follows:

 Fig. 2 Designation of ZX zones.

Fig. 3 Designation of ZX zones.

For the missions described above, a good performance must be reached. This in order to exceed
the minimum requirements for each one, and thus meet the objectives satisfactorily. Based on the
known qualification methods, it is necessary to perform calculations for the aerodynamic forces
acting on the model, performance and stability.

The equation corresponding to the final qualification method for the flight component (60%),
shown below, must be considered:
B. Environment Analysis

The project will be carried out in the city of Medellín, which has an average temperature of 24 °,
with a density of 1,204 kg / m3, at an altitude of 1495 meters above sea level.

At the UPB sport center facility, a series of obstacles can be found. At the east side of the facility, 4
speakers are hanging from the ceiling, separated from each other approximately 5m. At the south side
of the facility, two of those same type of speakers are hanging separately at approximately the same
distance of 5m.

UPB Sport Center Facility Measurements:

In the sport center there are three distances that are fundamental to be measured for our missions, the length,
the height and the width because we need at least two of them for each mission, so we can calculate if our
glider will accomplish those distances.

Table 1. UPB Sport Center Facility Measurements.

Distances Measure (m)
Length (until the middle of the field) 34.9
Height 13
Width 55.6

C. Aircraft throw method analysis

In order for the missions to be successful, it is necessary to launch the aircraft with sufficient force, so
that the thrust is sufficient, and the aircraft can travel as far as possible. In order to accomplish that, two
different methods were evaluated. Hand launch which is a rudimentary method and catapult launch which
is commonly used in unmanned aircraft (UAV) and aeromodelling. After evaluated both, it was decided to
use the hand launch method, this is because the airplane is quite light, so it does not need a big boost, also
by this method it is possible to guarantee an AoA equal to 0 which is within the range desired, and also
with the control surfaces it is possible to get the desired angle for the mission.
D. Payload arrangement analysis

Table 2. Payload Configuration and weight

Panel weight Battery Total weight Minimum
Configuration No. Batteries No. Panel
[Kg] weight [Kg] [Kg] Sw [m^2]
1 5 11 119,9 765 0,8849 0,0264
2 4 19 207,1 612 0,8191 0,0456
3 3 27 294,3 459 0,7533 0,0648
4 2 35 381,5 0.306 0,6875 0,084
5 1 43 468,7 153 0,6217 0,1032

From the proposed allowed configurations, it is decided to make the model from configuration 4.

It must be considered that although it is desired to be the reference empty weight, achieved with
configurations 1, 2 and 3, this would entail having a very large wing area that must can generate enough
lift for this weight, and therefore, there must be a considerable increase in the structural strength of the
wing. With the configuration 4 that was selected, less weight is achieved for the second mission, and
thus, to achieve the reference weight can be reached through the search and use of low-density materials
and internal structural reinforcements.

For the analysis of the aerodynamic forces, the actual weight of batteries and panels is taken, and a
weight of structure and other functional components of the aircraft is also estimated. The weight data
are shown below.

Table 3. Total payload and structure weight on Airplane

Total Airplane Weight
Servo (3 units) [gr] 36
Battery (1 unit) [gr] 63
Panels (35 units) [gr] 350
Batteries configuration [gr] 304
Structure Supposed Weight [gr] 450
Controller [gr] 30
MAW [gr] 885

IV. Procedure

A. Airfoil Selection

According to the selected configuration, the estimated weight of the materials for the construction,
the design dimensions of the fuselage and the wing, the electronics necessary for the control of the
airplane, and considering a safety factor of 1.1, for additional weights that result difficult to conceive
at the time of design, an aerodynamic profile must be selected, which meets the minimum Lift to
 counteract the total weight of the airplane, which gives a high aerodynamic efficiency at low angles of
attack.

Several important criteria shown below are considered:

• Airfoil with the maximum Clmax lift coefficient.
• Airfoil with the maximum lift coefficient on the glide path (angles between -2 to 5 °).
• Airfoil with the best relationship between Cl / Cd (Performance).
• αstall is presented at high angles of attack (α> 10 °).
• Airfoil with the Coefficient Moment that is the closest to zero (stability).[5]

From this, an analysis of 18 different airfoils is made, which comply with the minimum parameters
required, and which are selected based on the aerodynamic profiles that are mainly used in gliders
through the time and nowadays. Three of those are preselected as the profiles with the best aerodynamic
characteristics and the most appropriate for the proposed objectives. (data of the discarded airfoils are
shown in the appendix B section)

Table 4. Selection Matrix for three preselected airfoils

AIRFOIL SELECTION MATRIX
Airfoil Design Objetives Weight SL1 SAUTER5 SPICA

Clmax 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,08

Cl_alpha_zero 0,15 0,15 0,1 0,1

Cd_min 0,1 0,05 0,1 0,05

(Cl/Cd)max 0,2 0,18 0,2 0,08

Cm_min 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,08

𝛼stall_slope 0,25 0,15 0,2 0,12

Summation 100% 83% 80% 51%

With this selection matrix, the three different preselected profiles were evaluated, assigning a weight to
each "design objective", and with this it was possible to discard the SPICA profile, since, of the three
profiles, this is the one that has the lowest qualification.

B. Aerodynamics Forces Analysis

A low Reynolds number is used for this case considering an average velocity of 5m/s, a chord of 0.2m
and standard atmospheric viscous and density conditions

Re = 82000

Of the two profiles finally selected from the selection matrix, the characteristic curves are shown,
obtained through the XFRL5 software, which is based on Xfoil calculations method.
 Fig. 4 Three different preselected profiles’ graphs. (a) left graph Cl vs AoA (b) right graph Cd vs
AoA. Image taken from Xfoil calculation on XFLR5 software.

Fig. 5 Three different preselected profiles’ graphs. (a) left graph Cl/Cd vs AoA (b) right graph Cm vs
AoA. Image taken from Xfoil calculation on XFLR5 software.

From the previous graphs, it is decided to opt for the SL-1 profile which meets the minimum
requirements for the rest of the design and the respective calculations and analyzes are made with this
profile
 Using the XFLR5 software, the analysis of a finite rectangular wing configuration was performed,
with the SL1 airfoil. This configuration was selected because it allows an easy construction, and in
addition to this, the reduction in induced drag plays a fundamental role in achieving the best possible
performance.

Starting from a fixed value of Taper of (T = 1), the Aspect Ratio (AR) value is changed, modifying
the value of wingspan and the area of the wing platform.

C. Wing platform design and analysis

For the analysis and design of the wing, as first step is necessary to consider what type of wing
configuration would be convenient for the project, giving us a better performance and also that it could
be easily adapted to the requirements of the project. In addition, the wing configuration was analyzed
considering the complexity of construction. In order to find the best wing platform design as possible
some unmanned vehicles and experimental aircrafts were investigated [2], and also with the XFLR5
software some of those with different geometry were compared. 3D panel method where performed and
validated for the calculations (see appendix C). Finally, a rectangular configuration was selected.

For design of the wing platform, the Aspect Ratio must be considered. A higher AR value results in
a reduction in the vorticity in the wing. The main objective is that the Cl_wing vs AoA curve is as close
as possible to the profile curve; in addition, a high value of AR would represent a lower induced drag.

Limitations: a high AR value implies having a much more rigid structure. The chord would support
more forces and the wing would tend to generate a forward moment (yaw). For this reason, it is decided
to try different AR configurations, in order to analyze, and therefore, achieve the most optimal
configuration according to the below parameters. [3]

• A high AR value to increase the closeness to the profile curve.

• Not sacrificing structural integrity (not reaching a fragile and complex structure to build).
• The highest possible reduction of the Induced Drag.

Typical aspect ratio values for high-lift airplanes are between 20 to 40 [4]. But after analyzed
different AR configurations, a 16 AR was chosen. In order to accomplish that, a chord (c) of 15cm and
a wing span (b) of 2,4m. Data analyzed is shown below.

Three different AR values were evaluated; the curves for each AR are compared in the same graph
with the SL1 profile curve. It is shown that as the AR increases, the wing curve becomes closer to the
curve of the profile.
 Different Aspect Ratio Vs Airfoil Data
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8 SL Airfoil
0.6 Wing AR16
Cl

0.4 Wing AR9

0.2 Wing AR5.8
0
-10 -5 -0.2 0 5 10

-0.4
AoA

Fig. 6 Different Aspect Ratio vs Airfoil Data graphs. Data taken from XFLR5 3D panel Method.

Another important parameter is a lower Cdi. The graph below shows the relation between Cdi for each
AR vs AoA.

Cdi Vs AoA For differents AR

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
Cdi

AR16
0.03
AR9
0.02
AR5.8
0.01
0
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0
AoA

Fig. 7 Different Aspect Ratio Cdi Values vs AoA. Data taken from XFLR5 3D panel Method.

With the above parameters, the aircraft is designed to fly at an average speed of 5.5m / s and between a
range of AoA of -3 to 3 degrees.

Table 5. Lift required for Maximum Airplane Weight.

Lift Force required [N] Cl_wing required

8,68185 0,803540192
 The table 4 gives the necessary lift coefficient to carry out the airplane in the air. According to the
above data, the aircraft will glide as long as this speed is maintained for mission 1 and 2.

The Drag and L/D efficiency is shown below as a function of AoA.

Table 6. CD and CL in function of AoA.

AoA [deg] CD CL CL/CD

-3 0,024712 0,315428 12,7641632
-2 0,02526 0,423137 16,7512668
-1 0,027023 0,51984 19,2369463
0 0,029756 0,609137 20,4710647
1 0,032548 0,690995 21,2300295
2 0,035112 0,777083 22,1315505
3 0,038475 0,86277 22,4241715

It is desired that the aircraft maintain the pertinent AoA range of -3 to 3.

E. Stability

For the longitudinal stability, the parameters Lt, Vht and Ac shown below were set.

Table 7. Fixed parameters for stability calculus.

Lt[m] Vht Ac position[cm]
0,822 0,93 5

With the above data, from the calculations, the center of gravity and angle of incidence of the stabilizer
are found for the appropriate values to ensure stability during the flight. According to this, the following
data is obtained and its represented in the following picture.

Fig. 8 Required parameters for longitudinal stability

 Table 8. Required Parameters for longitudinal stability
Hcg[cm] it[deg]
5,82 3

F. Perfomance

For aircraft performance, the respective range and endurance calculations are performed for each
mission. It is assumed that the flight is symmetrical.

In mission 1, the paid load is less, so the weight of the aircraft decreases, increasing the range of
operation as consequence. The data obtained for these conditions are shown in the table below.

Table 9. Perfomance Range and Endurance for each mission

Mission 1 Mission 2
AoA Range[m] Endurance[s] Range[m] Endurance[s]
-3 21,954 19,567 21,954 17,161
-2 25,209 24,869 25,209 21,812
-1 26,740 28,611 26,740 25,094
0 27,141 31,109 27,141 27,284
1 26,627 32,113 26,627 28,165
2 25,881 32,372 25,881 28,393
3 25,247 32,840 25,247 28,802

According to the previous results, it is estimated that the aircraft will glide at angles between -3 to -1
degrees. The theoretical data estimated for the real flight are:

t_theo = 8 seg

X_theo=32 metros
 V. Test

A test was made in the wind tunnel with a finite wing, which had a span of 40 cm and a
chord length (c) of 18 cm. This was carried out to make a verification of the data of XFLR5
software from which the theoretical data for the design of the aircraft was taken.

Fig 9. Wind tunnel test (a) Front view (b) Lateral view.

CL_XFLR5 CL_WindTunnelTest

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Fig 10. Cl with XFLR5 and wind tunnel test data vs AoA.

According to the data shown in the graph, it can be concluded that data obtained from XFLR5 is
valid, and can be used for the design process, considering an error of 10 % approximately.

VI. Conclusion
 From the analysis made from the calculations, made throughout the process, it can be
determined that the designed model complies with the fundamental parameters, proposed from
the beginning, to achieve both missions satisfactorily, where an attempt was made to reach the
most optimal point, both theoretical and practical.

In order to reach this desired optimal point, several parameters were considered; the most
important of these was the weight. From there the design of the airplane departed; the lightest
possible model was sought in order to achieve the highest qualification in both missions, the
aerodynamic profile that generated the maximum sustentation with respect to the weight at low
angles of attack (loss at high attack angles <10º), an efficient performance as well as stability
throughout the flight in both missions.

Because the calculations for lateral stability were not made, a dihedral angle was added to the
wing, intuitively and in order to guarantee that at the moment when some disturbance affects the
model (laterally), this angle will be able to generate a greater force on the side of the wing that
is lower, forcing it to return to its equilibrium position.

Another important consideration at the time of design was to take the horizontal stabilizer as
a flat plate; this in order to arrive at the similarity of a symmetrical profile.

To achieve the lightest model, low density materials were searched, but with high resistance,
easy to work with when manufacturing the airplane, and easy to access in general.

Configuration 4 was selected because, despite not providing the lowest payload weight and
panels among all the others, it would ultimately result in a decrease in fuselage and wing
measurements, which would lead to a saving in the final weight.

References

[1] Siegwart, R, Journal article: Design of Solar Powered Airplanes for Continuous Flight, 2013

[2] Frati, S. Journal article: The Glider

[3] Mohammad, H, Sadraey, Book: Aircraft Design, 2013

[4] Roskam, J, Book: Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance

[5] Aerodynamics for engineers students fifth edition cap 5 pag 305

[6] Aero structural of a wing Using CATIA V5 and XFLR5 software and experimental validation using
Price païdoussis wing tunnel
 VII.

Appendix

A. Construction process

First, a mold of the selected airfoil was cut to be able to cut the expanded polypropylene
of each of the wings. After, the expanded polypropylene was cut with a wire, so that the
material will be uniform throughout the section of the wing.

Fig. 11 Cut process for the wings.

Fig. 12 Wings made of expanded polypropylene.

 To give it more rigidity and resistance to the structure, a carbon fiber bar was added. To
add it to the structure, a perforation was made from the tip of the wing to the root of the
wing and was stuck with epoxy resin, it was also reinforced with fiber tape.

Fig. 13 Wing reinforced with carbon fiber bar and fiber tape.

Later, a cut was made in the section of the wing that had a dihedral angle, in the same way that the
wings were cut, these sections were added to the wings with epoxy resin, and the union was reinforced
with fiber tape and covered with white vinyl paper.

The aircraft has a control system, for its installation it was necessary to cut each of the control
surfaces. For the ailerons, a section of each of the wings was cut, and replaced by a balsa wood surface,
and joined with fiber tape.
To have control of the surfaces, electric servos were installed in the lower part of the wing, as well
as a mechanism to achieve movement, as shown in the following figure:
 Fig. 14 Ailerons control system.

Fig. 15 Finished wings.

For the construction of the fuselage, balsa wood was used inside to obtain part of the structure, and
it was covered with plast foam. This has enough space to accommodate the control part of the glider and
the payload (batteries).
All these mentioned elements are adhered with velcro paper inside the fuselage to avoid they move
when the glider is launched and, consequently, they disequilibrium the aircraft.
 Fig. 16 Fuselage.

The vertical stabilizer was manufactured in plast foam. The horizontal stabilizer also has a control
system, but a difference of the wings, the electric servo is located inside the fuselage, like the mechanism
that allows the movement of it. Balsa wood was used for the control surface and the horizontal stabilizer.

Fig. 17 Glider empennage.

The wings were joined with the fuselage with rubbers, so that they could remove and put the wings
to rearrange the elements inside the fuselage according to the missions established in the previous
sections.
 Fig. 18 The Spruse Moose.

Finally, the solar panels were stuck in the upper surface with double face tape, with 17 solar panels
at each side of the wings, and one in the fuselage nose, having a total of 35 solar panels.

Fig. 19 Wings with solar panels.

The complete airplane is shown below:

 Fig. 20 Finished aircraft.

B. Airfoil Discarted Graphs

The following graphs were performed at a Re=82000,

Fig. 21 Discarted profiles’ graphs (a) Right graph Cl vs Aoa (b) Left graph Cd vs Aoa.
Fig. 22 Discarted profiles’ graphs (a) Right graph Cl vs Aoa (b) Left graph Cd vs Aoa.
Fig. 23 Discarted profiles’ graphs (a) Right graph Cl vs Aoa (b) Left graph Cd vs Aoa.
 Fig. 24 Discarted profiles’ graphs (a) Right graph Cl vs AoA (b) Left graph Cd vs AoA.

C. XFLR5 Validation Software

The validation consist in the comparison of experimental data taken from the article “Aero
Structural of a Wing Using Catia V5 and XFRL5 software and experimental validation using the
Price païdoussis wing tunnel”. The airfoil used for this validation was NACA0012, with 0,275m
of chord (c) and 0,305m of wing span (s).The experimental data is shown below.

Fig. 25 Variation of the lift force with the angle of attack and four speeds between 20 m/s and 35
m/s. Taken from Aero Structural of a wing using CATIA V5 and XFLR5 software and
experimental and validation using païdoussis wing tunnel.

The same conditions are simulated under XFLR5 Software and the given results are shown below.
 Fig 26. Validation for XFLR5.

The obtained results give us a error magen of 5% for calculus under this method
PLANES