The Design Development and Testing of A PDF

The Design, Development and Testing of a Tube
Launched UAV
Author:
Gursimrat Singh B AWA
Supervisor:
A.Prof. K.C. W ONG
(C) Gursimrat Singh Bawa, The University of Sydney, 2016.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of
Master of Professional Engineering (Aerospace)
at
School of Aerospace,Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies
University of Sydney
2016
i
Declaration of Authorship
I, Gursimrat Singh B AWA, declare that this thesis titled, “The Design,
Development and Testing of a Tube Launched UAV” and the work
presented in it are my own. I confirm that:
• I carried out the background research and analysed past work.
• I carried out the software analysis driving the design. I implemented

the constraint mapping code in Matlab. I ran stability and
aerodynamic analysis in XFLR5.
• I created all the included CAD drawings and figures in SolidWorks15.
• I built Mark 1 and The BAT from scratch.
• I spectated the flight tests in person, while a professional RC pilot flew

my airplanes. I then analysed the flight performancee.
• All conclusions drawn are original
Student
Signed:
Date:
Supervisor
Signed:
Date:
ii
Abstract
Motivated by the need of rapidly deployable and expendable UAVs, this
thesis discusses the design and feasibility of a flying wing UAV that could
fit and launch from a 100mm PVC Tube. Two prototypes were designed,
built and flight tested. The first prototype Mark 1 was manufactured to
analyse the flight performance of the designed flying wing configuration.
Designed as a static non-folding platform, the Mark 1 weighed 1.18 kg
with a 1.48m wingspan, 0.2m MAC and 20 degree leading edge sweep.
Flight testing of Mark 1 proved it to have exceptional handling qualities
and good stall behaviour. It was able to perform rolls, vertical climbs and
spin recovery. The second prototype was the intended proof of concept
-’The BAT’. The BAT was designed to eb 25% smaller than its predecessor.
A key innovation employed here was the span folding of the wing halves
over each other which efficiently occupied the space inside the tube and
resulted in a 40% larger lifting surface area. The halves are held in place by
strong pulling force of rare earth magnets. The deployment mechanism
employs torsion springs for opening and closing of the wings. This proved
to be a simple yet efficient method. The BAT was successfully contained in
a 100mm PVC tube and was tested for flight. The following thesis sections
detail the design considerations, manufacturing, software analysis, flight
testing and post flight analysis and recommendations of a tube launched
UAV.
iii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, A.Prof.K.C. Wong, for providing me the opportunity to
undertake this thesis. His lesson of ’learning from mistakes’, made me
realise that knowledge not only comes from what you did right, but also
from what you did wrong. Not only did this helped me work my way
through this thesis, but also nurtured me into a better engineer. Thank you
for equipping me with the resources to build the prototypes. Had it not
been for you, I would’ve never felt the joy of watching my first airplane
take-off and do a barrel-roll.
Next, I would like to thank Ben van Magill, for taking out time, braving the
rain and flying my prototypes. Your skills in RC flying are what helped me
witness those amazing rolls and spins.
To Prachi Sachdeva, I seriously don’t know, what I would’ve done without

you. Thank you for proof-reading my drafts and going all grammar nazi
on them. I, now know that this comma is wrongly placed. I also want to
thank you for waking me up at sharp 6 a.m for those two months, that
helped me reach the lab on time. I appreciate your support and
encouragement texts, that made me go on and on. Every time I fell, I was
low, you were there to pump me back up. I hope one day I could do the
same for you.
Last, but not the least,I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
man who made this all happen; my grandfather Mr.Surjeeet Singh Bawa.
Ever since I was a little boy, he emphasised on the importance of education.
He made his life aim to provide me with the best possible education and
sent me across continents to study Aerospace at Sydney. Thank you for
supporting me financially through all these years and encouraging me
over those facetime calls. Whatever I am today, is all because of you. I hope
one day I make you a proud grandparent.
iv
Contents
Declaration of Authorship i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Background Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Industrial Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
COYOTE : BAE Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CUTLASS : L-3 Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
HORUS : OTO Melara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SWITCHBLADE : Aerovironment Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 8
WASP : MIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SILENTEYES : Raytheon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
SKYLITE A : Rafael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Naval Research Laboratory Developments . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3 Developments at AeroMech, The University of Sydney 13
AUGENAUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
SLUAV : Alex Lautenschlager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.4 Sonobuoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Flying Wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1 Flying Wing Airfoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2 Sweep Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3 Washout Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.4 Lateral Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 Design Methodology 25
3.1 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Interpretation of RFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
v
3.1.2 Translating Mission Requirements to Prototype

Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Choice of Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3 Preliminary Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.1 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.2 Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.3 Propulsion System Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Constraint Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5 Deployment Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4 Aerodynamic Analysis 38
4.1 Coefficient of Lift Envelope calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Wing Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3.1 Control Surface Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.2 Winglet Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3.3 Wing Geometry Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4 Stability Analysis : XFLR5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5 Mark 1 46
5.1 Detailed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2 Weight and Balance Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.3 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3.1 Wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3.2 Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4 Flight Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.4.1 Glide Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.4.2 Powered Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5 Testing Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6 Mark 2 : ’The BAT’ 58

6.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.1.1 Wing Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2 CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.1 Pivot Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.3 LUG Design Iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.3.1 Lug Iteration 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3.2 Lug Iteration 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3.3 Lug Iteration 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.4 Deployment Actuator : Torsion Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.5 Wing Holding: Magnets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.6 Deployment Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.7 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
vi
6.7.1 Push Rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.8 Flight Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.8.1 Post Flight Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.8.2 Recommended Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7 Summary, Conclusions and Future Work 73

7.1 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1.1 Mark 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.1.2 Mark 2: The BAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A Matlab Scripts 78
B Airfoil Selection 81
C MS Excel Based Design Sheet 83
D CAD Drawings 85
Bibliography 94
vii
List of Figures
2.1 BAE Coyote, parachute module and the sonobuoy launch

containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Cutlass UAV stowed and deployed, (Right) Gimbal mounted
nose camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 OTO Melara’s HORUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Aerovironments Switchblade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Supershell Concept stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Raytheon’s SilentEyes UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Rafael’s Skylite A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 UAVs developed at the Naval Research Laboratory . . . . . . 14
2.9 Sydney University’s Augenaut UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.10 SLUAV developed by Alex Lautenschlager at Sydney
University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.11 2014-Advance Aircraft Design Team’s YAK developed at
Sydney University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.12 A fleet of US Navy, standard Class A Sonobuoys. . . . . . . . . 17
2.13 Flying Wing UAV configurations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.14 Types of flying wing aircrafts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.15 Forces acting on a Reflexed Airfoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.16 Comparison between a Reflexed airfoil and Symmetric Airfoil 21
2.17 Typical effect of sweep angle on lift distribution. . . . . . . . . 22
2.18 Wing Twist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Conceptual design sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2 OpenVSP Conceptual Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Preliminary Sizing parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4 Static Thrust bench test setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5 Constraint diagram for Tube Launched mission profile. . . . . 35
3.6 First stage of Tube Launch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7 Second stage of Tube Launch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.8 Third Launch Stage. Span-wise unfolding of wing halves. . . . 37
4.1 Lift Coefficient Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Pitching Moment Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Selected Airfoil MH70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
viii
4.4 Right wing folded positioning in the launch tube. . . . . . . . 42

4.5 Control surface size optimisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.6 Winglet Sizing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.7 Mark 1 setup in XFLR5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.8 Component arrangement in XFLR5 for Mark1 . . . . . . . . . 44
4.9 Pitching Moment dependency as a function of varying Static
Margin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.2 Hot Wire cutting of foam core. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.3 Butt Joining balsa strips to form sheets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.4 MH70 camber plotted on balsa blocks to sand leading edges. . 49
5.5 (Left) Curing trailing edges. (Right) Spackle applied to fill gaps. 49
5.6 Left wing covered in blue monokote film. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.7 Wings pivoted around an aluminium tube and held by screws. 50
5.8 Illustration showing lack of lug’s load bearing capacity. . . . . 51
5.9 Revised Spar and Lugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.10 Load bearing test of the revised lug. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.11 Mark 1 Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.12 Rear fuselage with sweep lock screw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.13 Misaligned wingtips with the airflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.14 Makeshift winglets attached to the wingtips. . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.15 Mark 1 CG balancing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.16 Mark 1 undergoing a Roll Manoeuvre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.17 Trim routine (Taken at 0.5 second intervals) . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.18 Mark 1 climbing vertically and recovering from a downward
spin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.19 Mark 1 low fly-pass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1 Fuselage dimensioning convention followed. . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.2 The BAT designed in SolidWorks15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.3 Exploded View of the BAT’s pivot assembly. . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.4 (Left) Lug 1 designed in SolidWorks 1 .(Right) Lug 1 3D
printed outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
printed outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
printed outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.7 Sourced set of Torsion Springs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.8 Resultant drag acting on wing centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.9 Rare earth magnet arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.10 The BAT’s deployment sequence testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.11 The BAT under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.12 3D push rod system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.13 The BAT’s bungee launch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ix
6.14 Spar failure close-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.15 Load path tracing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.16 Reinforced spar assembly (exploded view). . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.17 Reinforced spar section with spar caps and new locking bolt. . 72
7.1 Mark 1 before first launch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7.2 The BAT before first launch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B.1 Airfoil trade-off table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
C.1 Wing geometry parameters. Ones highlighted in red are to be

entered by the user. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C.2 Sweep calculations and dependencies on the static margin . . 84
C.3 Washout calculation using Pankin’s Method . . . . . . . . . . 84
x
List of Tables
3.1 Commercial Flying Wing study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2 Static thrust bench test readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 Lift comparison between normal and span-folded wing . . . . 41
5.1 Mark 1 build dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.2 Weight and Balance table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1 The BAT build dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.2 Selected torsion spring’s characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
xi
List of Abbreviations
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

SLUAV Sonobuoy Launched UAV
VLM Vortex Lattice Method
PVC PolyVinyl Chloride
CAD Computer Aided Design
NM Nautical Mile
KTS Knots
AGL Above Ground Level
RFP Request For Proposal
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
LiPO Lithium Polymer
CASA Civial Aviation Safety Authority
CG Centre of Gravity
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
PLA PolyLactic Acid
MPS Metres Per Second
W Watt
DC Direct Current
HP Horse Power
AR Aspect Ratio
xii
Dedicated to my Grandfather.
Thankyou Dadu for everything.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Aviation has come a long way since the first controlled flight by the Wright
Brothers over a century ago. Today, in the 21st century, the Aerospace
Industry is one of the most dominant and dynamic industries
encompassing general aviation aircraft, helicopters, military fighter
aircrafts, missiles, rockets, satellites and spacecrafts. Branched out of this
growing ecosystem, are the autonomous or unmanned vehicles commonly
known as ’drones’, ’UAVs’ or ’RPAs’ which are predicted to dominate the
Aerospace Industry in the next decade as testified by the exponential
growth in the technology, sensors, applications and their effectiveness.
1.1 Motivation
One of the key requirements today is the miniaturising of these UAVs, to
make them mobile enough to assist the military troops in reconnaissance of
hostile territory, or the emergency services to survey an affected area.
There is an urgent need to have platforms that could be easily transported
and deployed. In order to address this issue, in 2004, US Navy showed a
keen interest in rolling out a bid (RFP N04-T004) seeking a flight platform
that could fit into a standard class A sonobuoy tube, measuring 4.875
inches in diameter and 3 feet in length, and deployed from the P3 Orion
aircrafts and SH-60 Helicopters currently in service. This would enable
them to carry close range surveillance and reconnaissance without
endangering the larger and more expensive flight platforms in an hostile
environment. A similar bid was rolled out by The Royal Australian Navy
(RAN) to equip their highly expensive Seahawk and Seasprite helicopters
with similar expendable flight platforms. The vulnerability of current
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
aircrafts and helicopters to low altitude descent limited their use and
worked as the motivation to design and develop tube launched UAV
systems. The following years saw some of the major organisations come up
with their prototypes. These included the Wide Area surveillance Projectile
(WASP) by MIT, SilentEyes by Raytheon, the Switchblade from
AeroVironment-Inc. and the Coyote from BAE Systems.
Pivoting on military research and interest, UAVs are seeing recent
explorations into potential civil applications as well. Tube launched UAVs
can be extensively used to assist disaster management services, high scale
land surveying and meteorological applications. In Australiancontext, these
platforms could serve as an option for effective bushfire control, further
strengthening the last 80 years of Aerial Fire Fighting in the country [2].
Deployable and expendable BAE Systems, carried out the analysis of a
hurricane ‘Edouard’ by flying their Coyote UAV into it, thus getting access
to valuable data. The fact that these systems are cheap and expendable,
enables them to carry out an eclectic range of missions for the civil domain.
This thesis focuses on the design and development of a similar flying
platform which is expendable and could fit into a Sonobuoy tube and be
used in numerous civil applications.
1.2 Scope
For the purpose of this thesis, the scope, was limited to the design and
development of a platform intended solely for civilian applications. Hence,
a majority of the equipment employed for the construction of the
prototypes was hobby grade, and in-house construction tools/machines
available in the UAV Labarotary at The University of Sydney were used.
An MVP or Minimum Viable Product is a product, built using minimum
resources, primarily to gauge the feasibility of the design and its
associating features. A similar strategy was used in this thesis, where two
UAV platforms were prototyped over numerous design iterations, and
used sufficient resources that could help analyse the performance and
characteristics of such rapidly deployable unmanned vehicles.
This project builds upon the previous work done at The University of
Sydney, and serves as a continuation of that research.
The designs built and flown, were radio-controlled by a human pilot on the
ground and in line-of-sight.
Though the proposal demands significantly higher capabilities in terms of
endurance and payload (See Section 3.1), the prototypes built were designed
to operate on much smaller batteries and MTOW, as this thesis aims to prove
the feasibility of tube launched UAVs. However, provisions and analysis
have been made to add modularity to components such that they could be
scaled up in future research.
1.3 Objectives
The first objective of this thesis was to critically analyse the past designs,
and work from there towards building a flight ready platform. Extensive
background review was performed and steps were traced back and reverse
engineered at times, along with a re-run of certain analysis to manufacture
the first prototype (Mark 1) with certain fundamental design changes. The
flight performance results were then examined and used to develop the
design further.
The second objective was to ensure that the designed platform fits into a
tube and successfully launches out of one, to propel into a sustained flight.
A second prototype (Mark 2) was built, learning from mistakes during the
first prototypes’ build. This will serve the purpose of optimising the design
further and validate the capabilities of such UAVs which are foldable, rapidly
deployable and expendable.
1.4 Thesis Overview

Chapter 2 of this thesis, documents the wide-ranging background review
conducted revolving around tube launched UAV designs across the globe,
spanning across both industry and academia. A detailed discussion
regarding flying wings performance is also included. Chapter 3, discusses
the design methodology used to execute this thesis. It starts with mapping
out the design requirements, followed by initial conceptual design phase,
which details the translation of mission requirements to design
requirements. The preliminary design phase follows next, which takes into
account the initial sizing, flight envelope calculations and performance
curve evaluations. This streamlined the selection of the propulsion and
electronic systems. Chapter 4 introduces aerodynamic analysis performed
to size the wing planform and geometry. XFLR Software based simulations
were performed to understand the flight mechanics and stability of the
platform. The next two chapters revolve around the design,
manufacturing, flight testing and analysis of the two prototypes built
during the course of this thesis. Chapter 5 introduces the static non-folding
Mark 1 platform, launched from a bungee assisted catapult , and Chapter 6
introduces the dynamic, spring loaded wing folding Mark 2 platform
launched from a 100mm(diameter) PVC tube under bungee tension.
Chapter 7 details a cost analysis of the components required in the
manufacturing of the prototypes, summarizes the work done and lists
recommendations for future research directions. Appendices have been
included that contain the materials property table and CAD designs of the
various components and assemblies charted out to design and build the
prototypes.
5
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Background Research

As discussed in the previous section, the idea to develop Sonobuoy Tube
Launched UAVs has been around for almost a decade now. However, the
research and development dates way back. Gundlach [9] is his book on
Innovation at the Naval Research Laboratory extensively details out
similar UAVs being conceptualised and built since 1987. The University of
Sydney has also showed a keen interest in the similar domain since 2002.
The following sections provide an insight into some of the major platforms
built across the world.
2.1.1 Industrial Developments

COYOTE : BAE Systems
Coyote UAV, developed by Advanced Ceramics Research under an Office

of Naval Research (ONR) Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
grant, has been one of the most successful sonobuoy tube launched UAV
aimed at intelligence,surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
Acquired by BAE Systems, United Kingdom in 2009 [6], Coyote is an
electric battery powered UAV that is capable of being deployed from patrol
aircrafts such as the US Navy P3-Orion aircraft or anti-submarine(ASW)
warfare helicopters such as the SH-60. It can attain dash speeds up to 85
knots while cruising at 60 knots while enduring in the air for 90 minutes at
altitudes up to 20000 feet, and weighs 12-14 lbs.
Less than a meter long, it fits its 4.82 feet long wings in a standard Class A
Sonobuoy. It allows a payload of 1.9 pounds, including either an
Chapter 2. Literature Review 6
electro-optical(EO) or Infrared (IR) camera, and a 2 watt S-band

transmission module capable of transferring full motion video up to 20
nautical miles (37 km). Deployed from a standard sonobuoy container, it
employs a parachute to slow down the jettison while helping it stabilise,
after which it unfolds its X-wings and is then propelled forward via an
electric pusher motor and carries out a fully autonomous pre-defined
mission.
F IGURE 2.1: BAE Coyote, parachute module and the

sonobuoy launch containers
Successfully deployed from a P3 Orion and tested for a 49 minute test

flight by National Oceanographic and Space Administration(NOAA); they
ran another test on September 15, 2014 when they deployed the Coyote
UAV into Hurricane Edouard over the North Atlantic Ocean to collect
temperature, wind and pressure data below the unsafe 3000 feet altitude
[19]. Later in April 2015, the US Navy’s Office of Naval Research tested the
BAE Coyote for a ’Swarm’ test, where they deployed 9 aircrafts that
demonstrated successful autonomous synchronous flight formations.
CUTLASS : L-3 Systems
Cutlass UAS, developed by the L-3 Unmanned Systems, USA is capable of

being launched from a 120mm or 150 mm CLT or Common Launch Tube
either from the air or a ground actuated system. Weighing at 12 lbs, it can
carry an additional 3lb payload and folds its 4.6 feet long wingspan via a
sliding wing deployment mechanism to maximise its wing length [24].
Apart from being capable of following a pre-defined route autonomously;
a key feature offered is the gimbal mounted steerable (+80/-120 degree
Azimuth range) low-light ball turret camera, that could be controlled from
a ground station for navigating the aircraft. The data transmission is a
standard 10 W analog 2.2-2.4 Ghz, with options of integrating other
frequency ranges. Its propulsion unit is a pusher electric motor capable of
driving it to cruise speeds of 55-65 Knots and dash speeds of 75 knots. All
powered by an electric KoKam Lipo battery, it offers endurance for more
than 40-60 minutes and ranges extending till 12 NM. Cutlass UAV is
estimated to cost approximately 20000 USD[27] .
F IGURE 2.2: Cutlass UAV stowed and deployed, (Right)

Gimbal mounted nose camera
On 4 June, 2009 L-3 Communications successfully demonstrated a ground

launch of the Cutlass UAV in Texas. The platform demonstrated capability
of being fired via a strong impulse from their Hellshot launcher and then
stabilise into horizontal flight by deploying its wings [18].
HORUS : OTO Melara
Made from composite materials, HORUS weighs 4.4 lbs and could be either
hand, catapult or tube-launched from a 120mm smooth barrel. Similar to its
counter-parts, HORUS is also capable of autonomous operation or ground
controlled. The key factor that separates HORUS from other platforms is
its canard configuration, where the main wing is located aft of the canard
wing. The main wing is swept forward that allows higher stability while
optimising for weight. Measuring 3.22 ft in length, it has a high wingspan
of 5.41 feet, that makes it hard to fit into a standard Class A sonobuoy tube,
however the Italian company OTO Melara promises successful launch for a
custom tube.
F IGURE 2.3: OTO Melara’s HORUS
Equipped with LiPo Batteries, and a tractor brushless motor , HORUS

promises a 31.10 knots cruise and dash speed of 58.31 knots while offering
a flight time of 1 hour. Regarding the avionics, it is fitted with a belly
camera that provides a real time imaging range of 5 Km , extending upto
10 Km without live transmission. Though not much information is
available on this Italian platform,[20] shows a successful launch from a
tank turret in 2012.
SWITCHBLADE : Aerovironment Inc.
Devised as a platform that the soldier could fit into his backpack,
Switchblade is fully scalable and can be launched either from ground or by
air. Equipped with Aerovironment’s state-of-the art Ground Control
System (GCS), it is for ISR missions as well as precision targeting.
Primarily a combat UAV, its small size and defence grade materials offer a
very small visual and thermal signature, making it extremely hard to
detect even at close ranges. Weighing 2.2 lbs and with a cruising speed of
55 knots and dash of 95 knots, it can circulate a 10 km range while staying
in air for 10 minutes which can be extended to 20-40 minutes, provided it is
not carrying any ammunition on board. Its slow speed and warhead
option, pretty much make Switchblade a small cruise missile. It can climb a
100 meter altitude in less than 20 seconds if ground launched and can hit a
target with 3.28ft radius accuracy at 34-44 meters per second . An
estimated cost per unit amounts to 40,000-50,000 USD [25]. Similar to
Coyote and Cutlass platforms, Switchblade also has a twin folding wing
configuration with a V-tail offering lateral stability.
F IGURE 2.4: Aerovironments Switchblade
Though Switchblade has been in production for a few years now, the most
recent test was executed on 17 April, 2015 where it was deployed from a
MV-22 Osprey at Twentynine Palms, California and it showcased successful
release and accurate target detection [13].
WASP : MIT
Several groups over two years became involved in the Wide Area
Surveillance Projectile or WASP at MIT(in partnership with Draper
Technology), to develop a projectile that could be cannon launched for
surveillance over an area of interest. The project was split into two designs
first seeking a high-G vehicle or HGV to test the vehicles structural and
mechanical strength upon launch, and the other seeking a Flight Test
Vehicle or FTV to demonstrate the flying qualities and aerodynamic
qualities. After numerous iterations, ’Supershell’ design was taken forward
to be devised into a fully integrated model and launched from a gun, which
had slots in its body through which the wings, tails and propeller blades
were deployed. The concept was to store the projectile in a 5 inch diameter
and two feet long Navy Gun, upon firing it would deploy 6 fins for a stable
ballistic flight, followed by a stabilising by parachute deployment and
ultimately the two foldable wings and twin tails would deploy
accompanied with motor powering on, giving a 10 minute powered fight

in addition to a 5 minute glide.
F IGURE 2.5: Supershell Concept stages
Each wing comprised of six airfoil sections linked by spring loaded hinges
that unfolded the whole wing, when the vehicle exited the shell. A
two-stroke engine was chosen as the propulsion unit, all enclosed in the
nose cone. Using spring loaded V-tails both longitudinal and lateral
stability were controlled. These have two movable control surfaces and
two fixed rudders for added lateral stability. Upon exiting the shell, it was
expected that the projectile would spin 5-10 RPM. The propulsion unit was
analysed to have a maximum deployment altitude of 7500ft. The team
successfully built a deployment system, calculated projectile trajectories
and its stability, and built a high performance parachute. The estimated
production cost per unit was calculated to be less than 30,000 USD.
Following a reliability tree plan, the team calculated a 32% system
reliability at its reduced capability, that dropped down to 13% at full
capability. The major reliability affecting factors were the engine starting,
wing deployment and release of chute cover. Though no actual testing was
done, WASP program brings a great insight into the development of
cannon launched UAVs [11].
SILENTEYES : Raytheon
One of the early tested modules, SilentEyes by Raytheon was successfully

launched from a MQ-9 Reaper via a pylon mounted canister at the
Edwards Airforce Base in 2014(May-June), in assistance with the U.S.
AirForce Aeronautical Systems Center and General Atomics Aeronautical
Systems Inc [26]. SilentEyes offers similar capabilities as discussed in the
earlier sections. Weighing 60 lbs and running 1.8 ft in length, each unit is
estimated to cost 15,000 USD.
F IGURE 2.6: Raytheon’s SilentEyes UAV
SKYLITE A : Rafael
With primary focus on Urban Terrain (MOUT) missions, Israeli Company

Rafael’s SkyLite A (formerly SkyLark) can be deployed from a 2Kg canister
from enclosed rooms, bunkers or narrow streets. Weighing at 13.27 lbs, the
reusable UAV has a full wing span of 4.92 ft and diameter of 4.72 feet that
inhibits its use in standard Class A sonobuoy tubes. Providing similar
missions and flying capabilities as the previously discussed platforms,
SkyLite A can endure for more than 90 minutes over a range of 10 km, at
altitude ranging from 500-20000 ft, at cruising velocities of 37-55 knots
while offering resistance to winds flowing at over 30 knots. A key
differentiating factor is that the SkyLite is designed to be reusable , hence
equipped with rechargeable batteries and an efficient on-board computer
that could bring it back to base, further equipped with a gimbal mounted
EO camera [28]. Unlike its counterparts, the Skylite A just has a single pair
of folding wings with an X configuration, twin tail. A recent advancement
to the SkyLite A, is the Skylite B that offers much more capability with
extended ranges and endurance. Rafael successfully demonstrated SykLite
A’s flight capabilities in February 2005 for a 30 minute autonomous
mission [21].
F IGURE 2.7: Rafael’s Skylite A
2.1.2 Naval Research Laboratory Developments

Gundlach and Foch have combined years of their experience at The Naval
Research Laboratory developing over a dozen UAVs for the US Navy in
[9]. The concept of deployable wings was first implemented in the 1987
Pendulus. The first attempt at fitting a UAV in a sonobuoy container,
Pendulus went through several iterations with successful prototypes
equipped with CG(Centre of Gravity) shifting, however was never sent
into production. In 1992, the Raptor UAV was devised that was deployed
from high altitudes at 60000-70000 feet, and the wings would deploy on
account of wing forcing them upwards while the aircraft was falling down
under gravity. This advancement shifted the focus on high Reynolds
Number Liebeck Airfoil that had 60% aft of the leading edge flat. The
funding was however cancelled on the Raptor later. In 1999, NRL devised
Emma UAV that had a twin propulsion system. Upon deployment, it
would work on a conventional fuel based engine while switching on to the
electric propulsion to glide at low speeds. The EMMA program paved way
for the ALICE program.Next up in 1999-2000, the lab designed Extender
UAV in order to demonstrate capability of being deployed from a P3 Orion
aircraft. However, this platform did not deploy from a Sonobuoy tube, but
its 10 ft wingspan would fold to contain it in a life raft container (32”x
32”x20”), with the deployment sequence controlled via an electronic timer.
Extender UAV has rigid tails that served as ’passive’ stabilisers that
provided a 2.3 hour endurance and a cruising speed of 39.10 knots. In-spite
of successful flight tests, the Extender program was shelved. From
1999-2002, the FINDER or Flight Inserted Detector Expendable for
Reconnaissance UAV was conceptualised that would be deployed from a
Predator UAV. With a high single wing configuration , that would pivot
around a central point on the fuselage, FINDER was primarily equipped
with sensors for chemical detection. It was later used for Advanced
Research primarily due to its promising endurance of 6.5 hours. In
2001-2005, the ALICE or Air Launched Integrated Countermeasure
Expendable Program was researched that employed a dual mode wing.
Upon deployment, it used its cruise wing to reach speeds of 250 knots,
later dropping down to 65 knots and opening up the staggered outer wing
for a 2.5 hour loiter mode while carrying a 25lb payload. Unfortunately, the
program did not go beyond the research stage. In 2004, DUSTER or
Deployable, Unmanned Systems for Targeting, Exploration and
Reconnaissance program was designed, that employed a configuration
similar to FINDER, but with an X-tail. The following years saw the ADLER
and ICE program in 2005 and DAVE program in 2006, all of which never
went into production phase, but paved the way for future developments in
folding wing UAVs. In 2009, the XFC or eXperimental Fuel Cell UAV was
developed, that was tube launched and its folding twin X-wings helped
endure it for 6 hours. Currently being used in submarine deployment
research, XFC is one of the most promising unconventional designs for
tube launched UAVs. The Naval Research Laboratory has been at the
paramount for researching and developing Naval UAVs for the last few
decades encompassing pretty much every feasible configuration that has
been worked upon, some of which are only limited to the scope of NRL
papers.
2.1.3 Developments at AeroMech, The University of

Sydney
AUGENAUT
After the inception of the idea of tube launched UAVs in 2002, in order to
address the RAN requirements, Augenaut UAV was the first conceptualised
design at The University of Sydney. Designed by the advanced design
team under the supervision of Dr. K. C. Wong in 2003, the platform was a
box-wing type biplane configuration[3]. The wings were devised to be
telescopic held together by a thin skin, with control provided by the
F IGURE 2.8: UAVs developed at the Naval Research

Laboratory
telescopic vertical tail. The fuselage was a keel type thin casing, and the
propulsion system comprised of an electrical pusher motor affixed with a
reverse pitch folding propeller. The concept was later taken forward by
Matt Cross for his undergraduate thesis, where he extensively analysed the
UAV model in a wing tunnel model, along with assessing the handling
qualities using the X-Plane Software. Limited to wind tunnel testing, the
concept was not flown as per the author’s knowledge. However, later in
2011, a thesis was undertaken by Rachel Lindsay, that looked into the
feasibility of folding wings in a tube [17].
F IGURE 2.9: Sydney University’s Augenaut UAV
SLUAV : Alex Lautenschlager
Next up in 2006, Alex Lautenschlager undertook his undergraduate

Aeronautical Engineering thesis that looked into the design, development
and testing of a Sonochute Launched UAV. One of the most promising

advancements at the university in the field, Alex conceptualised a Flying
Wing with a wingspan of 4.85 meter, a 60 NM range and a 75 knots cruise
speed using RC grade components and weighed 11 lbs. One of the
intriguing features of this design was the utilisation of span-wise folding of
the wings to increase the wing area by almost 40%, thus offering a higher
lift area. The wings folded into the tube around a pivot pin, and employed
a minimal fuselage, primarily to house the avionics and mount the pusher
brushless motor. After VLM (Vortex Lattice Method) based software testing
on TORNADO, extensive flight testing was performed using radio control
and catapult launch was executed. Regarding the testing, a good glide
capability was achieved in glide tests [16]. Though sufficient lateral and
longitudinal stability was demonstrated by the concept, the UAV suffered
from certain shortcomings that did not deem the platform “flight ready”.
F IGURE 2.10: SLUAV developed by Alex Lautenschlager at

Sydney University
Further in 2009, Haseeb Ahmed [1] looked into the structural design along
with Mansi Devasthalee [4] who analysed the aerodynamics of flying wing
SLUAV.
In [1], Ahmed establishes that the rotating wing deployment method about
a common pivot is the most feasbile concept for a flying wing
configuration, using torsional springs and further illustrates the
manufacturing and integration of components backed by FEA analysis.In
[4], Devasthalee concluded the replacing of the original MH60 airfoil, by
the de-cambered S2050 for better drag polar and gliding ratio along with a
favourable positive pitching moment, after analysing the MH60,S2050 and
HS250 aerofoils. However, the effect of sweep and input from the
structural analysis tipped the scales back in favour of the MH60 airfoil with
a tip chord downwash tip of -2.6 degree and an increased sweep of 30
degree. Another recommendation was to include a 2.56 inch high winglet
to provide lateral stability to the aircraft. Finally, control and stability
analysis showed that a 5 degree Elevon deflection would provide an angle
of attack range between 0 and +11 degree, while providing a 15 m/sec trim
speed and 22 m/sec glide speed. A key addition was the recommendation
to employ variable sweep to increase the overall efficiency.
YAK UAV Most recently in 2014, the Advanced Aircraft Design team
visited the project again and sought out the shortcomings in
Lautenschlager’s SLUAV . The team conceptualised and built a prototype
flat model and discussed their results in [5]. After analysing [16] they
concluded that there is a need to increase the sweep angle in order to offer
higher longitudinal stability, attach inflatable vertical tail to offer lateral
control and swap the pusher motor with a tractor to reduce the
complications in deployment. The analysis by the team substantiated that
these modifications would make Lautenschlager’s SLAUV capable of
reaching speed and range requirement. The flat plate prototype was then
flown outdoors, however, unreliable build resulted in inconclusive tests.
F IGURE 2.11: 2014-Advance Aircraft Design Team’s YAK

developed at Sydney University
2.1.4 Sonobuoys
A simple radio linked device that could be thrown out of aircraft in the
early 1940’s, Sonobuoy’s have come a long way since then and have
continued to revolutionize both aerial and naval warfare. A sonobuoy in

its simplest form, is an air-deployed sensor contained in an expendable
cylindrical tube, to detect submarines. It serves as a compact setting of
integrating several electronic components, that could be deployed from a
cruising aircraft. The force of water impact or battery activation, initiates
the jettisoning of these components where they separate into an
underwater acoustic sensor that emits radio frequencies to detect and
locate underwater vehicles. Apart from air-drop, other launch methods
could be spring, pneumatic or cartridge deployed. Deployed at speeds
over 120 feet per second, they are usually equipped with a
descent-retarding device such as a parachute that not only helps in
dropping speed, also but offers aerodynamic stability to reduce water
entry shock.
Broadly, it detects the submarines by listening to the sounds produced by
the machinery, propellers, door closing etc. (passive detection) or by
emitting a sound energy pulse or “ping” and listening to the returning
echo after bouncing off the submarine (active detection). With the
advancement of technology, several new models have been researched and
developed across the globe and been classified as Special Purpose
Sonobuoys that have eclectic applications rather than just submarine
detection. Further they are classified into subclasses according to their
dimensions.
F IGURE 2.12: A fleet of US Navy, standard Class A

Sonobuoys.
2.2 Flying Wings

Later in the report (Section 3.2.1), it would be established the motivation
behind the selection of a flying wing configuration for the mission would
be established. This section, provides a detailed insight regarding the
aerodynamics and flight mechanics of flying wing configurations, that help
gain fundamental understanding about factors driving the configuration.
Flying wings as the name suggests, are equipped with only one lifting
horizontal surface. The choice of parameters make this wing satisfy both
the trimming and lift functions, without the need of secondary horizontal
surfaces. For lateral stability, they are often equipped with vertical
stabilisers. These could be mounted in the form of a vertical tail towards
the aft end or in the form of winglets installed at the tip end of the main
wing. Often the fuselage is minimal, and blended into the wing, which
makes such configurations of keen interest where the designers are looking
to minimise the utilisation of space, structure and maybe resources. Lesser
components also make their assembly and transportation a relatively easier
process.
F IGURE 2.13: Flying Wing UAV configurations [8]
Control authority in flying wings is achieved through the use of Elevons.

Unlike conventional aircrafts, where elevators are used for pitch control
and ailerons for roll control. Elevons are installed at the trailing edges of
the flying wing, and serve the purpose of gaining control over both pitch
and roll. The presence of elevator on the lifting surface makes it capable of
altering the wing lift coefficient ([8], p.121). However, the lack of horizontal
tail is fulfilled by proper airfoil selection and sweep, taper and washout
combination.
2.2.1 Flying Wing Airfoils

Since the flying wing suffers from the lack of a horizontal stabilising surface,
it offers weak pitch damping and hence insufficient longitudinal stability
([14], p.275). The major governing factor in selecting a flying wing airfoil
is the pitching moment coefficient Cmo , unlike in its tailed counterparts,
primarily because the latter could be equipped with a larger moment arm
(tail) to offer more control over the pitching axis.
This section discusses the factors affecting the airfoil choice which in turn
regulates the control capability and longitudinal stability of the flying wing
aircraft. Airfoil selection is dependent on the fixed wing UAV type (see
Figure 2.14).
• Unswept Wings or Flying Planks : The only way to achieve

longitudinaly stability in flying planks is by using airfoils that have
an inherent positive pitching moment.
• Swept Wings : A range of airfoils can be used for swept wings, since
they can always be compensated by carefull selection of washout and
sweep [12]. [14] Suggests the use of airfoils with a Cmo near zero or
small values.
Reflex(ed) Airfoils ([14], pp.278-280)

The pitching moment generated by an airfoil is primarily dependent on the
amount of camber the airfoil has. A higher cambered airfoil offers a more
negative pitching moment. The distribution of camber also affects the
pitching moment in a way that, further aft its placement, larger its effect is
on Cmo . While cambered airfoils are quite popular today, their pitching
moments can be compensated by horizontal tails. However, tailless
aircrafts demand a lower pitching moment. In order for the aircraft to be
stable, the complete aircraft needs to generate a positive pitching moment
about its aerodynamic centre. Hence, in flying wings, the entire wing
needs to be at a positive pitching moment. This is achieved in two ways.
First, adding a washout to the tip of a swept wing, that pushes down the
F IGURE 2.14: Types of flying wing aircrafts.
leading edge of the tip airfoil, while lifting up the root. Second, is to
employ an airfoil with a positive pitching moment, as sweep and twist are
often limited by structural constraints. As a way into this, symmetrical
airfoils were often used on early tailless aircrafts. However, they were
associated with minimum drag at zero lift. In order to provide this positive
pitching moment, a negative camber could be used. This gave rise to the
development of Reflex Airfoils.
Figure 2.15 illustrates the camber distribution over a reflexed airfoil. A

positive camber towards the leading edge (cambered down) provides good
lift and drag characteristics and upward force, while the negative camber
towards the trailing edge (cambered up) offers control over the pitching
moment by providing a downward force, hence getting the name ’Reflex’
airfoils. The amount of this reflex is governed by the desired pitching
F IGURE 2.15: Forces acting on a Reflexed Airfoil.
moment. Physically, this reflex is provided in such airfoils by an upward

elevon deflection.
F IGURE 2.16: MH60; a common reflexed airfoil shows a

slight positive pitching moment(left) as compared to the zero
moment offered by the symmetric NACA0010 at zero alpha.
2.2.2 Sweep Effect

For the scope of this report, only backward sweep has been taken into
consideration. As pointed out earlier, flying wings offer weak pitch damping.
A large sweep thus helps in providing damping along the pitch axis, in fast
phugoid modes, thereby offering a higher pitch manoeuvrability. Also, a

larger sweep tends to shift the mass concentration further back. As a result,
the CG can now be shifted further forward. This contributes favourably to
a positive longitudinal stability ([14], p.286).
Elevator Effectiveness
In terms of pilot control and elevator effectiveness, they pretty much remain
un-changed in swept wings ([14], p.289). This happens because even though
a larger sweep causes a larger moment arm and high turning moment, it
also causes the wing to have a higher moment of inertia , thereby causing
the turns to execute slowly.
Other advantages of high sweep include the requirement of a much
smaller winglet pair, on account of a larger moment arm. However, high
sweeps are also associated with certain limitations. Firstly, structural and
constructional difficulties tend to arise. Sweep changes cause the
conversion of bending moments to torsional moments, that require
torsional stiffening of the wing. Often a ground clearance might be
required for winglets as well. Aerodynamically, stronger sweep tends to
have a higher effect on the lift distribution, and might make the stall
behaviour worse, since a higher sweep reduces the lift curve slope (see
Figure 2.17). Higher Cl values result in a large skid roll moment, and
winglets on strongly swept wings might lead to a dutch roll ([14], p.292).
F IGURE 2.17: Typical effect of sweep angle on lift distribution

([22], p.222).
2.2.3 Washout Effect

Washout or twist(negative), means that the wing tip is at a lower angle of
incidence than the wing root. Twist is of two types, namely aerodynamic twist
and geometric twist. The main differentiating factor between the two is the
airfoil profiles at the root and the tip. Aerodynamic twist involves different
airfoils ([22], p.233).
F IGURE 2.18: Wing twist [22].
An "optimum" washout is decided upon the basis of the designed Cl. This
optimum washout serves the primary purpose of altering lift distribution
to match a desired one, say forcing an elliptical distribution during neutral
elevators ([14] p.303). A larger washout reduces the local Cl at the wingtips
, thus improving the wingtip stall behaviour by causing the root to stall first.
This happens so , because since the elevons are placed towards the wingtips,
they are still safe from the stall progression from the root and might enable
the pilot to drive the aircraft out of the stall. However, a negative twist
causes the tip to push down, resulting in lift loss towards the tip, and hence
care must be taken while increasing the twist angles so as to prevent lift loss
at outer sections thus affecting aircraft performance and causing induced
drag build up.
2.2.4 Lateral Control

Good roll manoeuvrability in tailless aircrafts can be achieved by having a
large aerodynamic roll moment and a small angular moment of inertia.
The latter is affected by the parts placed farthest from the root, due to
having the largest moment arm. These are the wingtips which are
suggested to be smaller and lighter to ensure aileron effectiveness ([14]
p.137). Since flying wings have elevons that perform the functions of both
the elevator and aileron, care must be taken that aileron deflections should
not produce unwanted disturbances about the longitudinal axis. This
could be achieved using differential elevons, where the upward deflection
is set to be higher than the lower, primarily by programming the
transmitter accordingly.
Adverse Yaw
While initiating a turn elevon movement on the outboard wing increases lift
on the wing, however, drag also builds up here, that tends to push the up-
moving aft (opposite to yawing direction). At the same time, the other end
of the wing suffering from low lift (hence low drag), tends to move back,
collectively resulting in the production of an adverse yaw.
Adverse Yaw is much worse in flying wings as compared to tailed aircrafts,
since the former suffer from low rudder efficiency (lack of vertical tail), that
in turn causes weak directional stability and yaw damping.
In order to combat these adverse yaw effects, swept back wings are made
nose-heavy. As a much forward CG causes the adverse yaw moment to be
smaller ([14], p.148). A heavier nose is countered by a higher elevator
deflection, which increases the tip washout, thereby dropping lift at the
wingtips and hence countering the negative effect.
Though taper effect affects flying wing performance as well, it was not
included in the study as the internal volume of the tube does not permit
iterations over taper values.
25
Chapter 3
Design Methodology
This section discusses the process flow behind the designing process.
Brainstorming, dissecting literature and past work and hand sketches
served as the commencing steps building up the conceptual design phase.
The past work done by [16],[4],[1],[5] served as a great assisting factor
during this step that helped fix focus on a ’flying wing’ configuration to
begin with. The preliminary design phase, aimed at first looking at past
designs with similar configurations, in order to gauge initial working size.
Next step was to look into the various performance curves that would
serve as the basis for the detailed design.
3.1 Design Requirements
3.1.1 Interpretation of RFP

• Launch: The UAV needs to fit into a standard cylindrical tube , 5
inches in diameter and 3 feet long. It has to be launched from this
tube at altitudes greater than 20000 feet AGL. It should be able to
sustain the ballistic loads of deployment while sustaining a steady
downfall to 75 kts after being deployed at 150-200 kts. A
descent-retarding device, such as a parachute may be used to slow
down the descent and stabilise the platform, after which the electrical
propulsion begins.
• Landing: The UAV is to be expendable/disposable, hence landing

and recovery is not of paramount importance. However, this should
ensure that the platform is cheap enough to be expendable, else there
needs to be an option to fly it back to base autonomously.
Chapter 3. Design Methodology 26
• Payload: The UAV should be able to carry standard RC hobby

components, a PixHawk autopilot module along with a gimbal
mounted camera and accompanying sensors, while weighing 2-5 kgs,
to ensure that adequate testing can be done within regulatory limits.
• Structural: A safety factor of 1.3 is to be employed at all times, while

sustaining a positive 9G and negative 6G structural load.
Recommended by [8].
• Speed: Cruise at 75 kts, Dash at 85 kts.
• Endurance: 60 Minutes
• Range: 60 NM
3.1.2 Translating Mission Requirements to Prototype

Design Requirements
This section details out the reasonable requirements that were further
translated from the RFP, which could be fulfilled using standard hobby
grade equipment and tools available at the UAV Laboratory at Sydney
University.
• Launch : The first prototype iteration is to be hand-launched or
bungee-launched over a catapult. The second prototype needs to be
launched from a standard 100mm PVC pipe.
• Recovery : It is imperative to recover the platform for further testing

and iterations. Hence, recovery methods such as belly landing to be
employed.
• Payload : The UAV needs to be equipped at minimum with an image

capturing payload (camera), with the capability to transmit live
footage. The payload module needs to be modular for variable
missions.
• Endurance : LiPo powered propulsion system capable of providing

sufficient power for platforms to stay in order to achieve a sustained
stable flight and demonstrate manoeuvrability. It was decided that a
time frame of 5-10 minutes would serve the purpose.
• MTOW and Range : Weight less than 2Kg, and ceiling altitude lower
than 300ft to qualify for the non-commercial small UAV category under
CASA 101 regulations, while maintaining line-of-sight operation.
• Other Requirements : The platform needs to be scalable. Usability

demands that the platform be able to serve civil applications with
minimal skill and tools. Another key requirement was to ensure that
the platform is low in cost in order to deem it expendable.
Remaining requirements are unchanged.
3.2 Conceptual Design

As seen from the literature review (Chapter 2), most of the platforms today
are based on a similar configuration of cantilevered wings.Usually, there
are two lifting surfaces,front ones than spin off from the top while the aft
ones spinning off from the bottom. Tail and rudder surfaces are present in
a majority of designs, to provide lateral control. Another key noticeable
component is the employment of a full length tubular fuselage and a
pusher configuration propelling system. All these elements were
considered during the brainstorming session. [9] Lists decades of research
that has exhaustively looked into several deployable wing platforms.
The main objectives were devised here, which included the platform to be
as light-weighted as possible for easy prototyping and testing. Another
reason to have light weight was to perform easy hand launches. Simple
frame and minimal fuselage would make construction less complicated
and would require less and simpler materials as well. Assembly needs to
be low on complexity and high on robustness to provide ease of
maintenance and repairs. As a way into this, multiple rough sketches were
drawn to visualise the planform and interaction of hinging mechanism.
3.2.1 Choice of Configuration

Since the focus of research at the Sydney University, has been flying wing
configuration, in order to take the research further a flying wing
configuration, was selected. In spite of numerous years of research, the
F IGURE 3.1: Conceptual design sketches
development of such flyable platforms is insufficient, inspite of numerous

years of research, and thus it was decided to build upon the research and
prototype designs revolving around such similar configuration.
A flying wing configuration also serves as the major solution for a light
weight option. Since, it has minimal or no fuselage, it cuts down the
weight, the material required and hence the complexity. As a result, it
provides a light weight, less expensive and more robust deployment
platform. Apart from structural advances, flying wing is associated with
numerous other advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of
aerodynamics and flight mechanics. Adapted from ([14], pp.26-27), some
of them are listed as follows:
Flying Wing Advantages:

• They are highly stable during circling. As a result, they are able to
maintain altitude with a constant bank angle even in turbulent
conditions. This serves as a great application when such
configurations for loitering missions such as bushfire control.
• Show good stall behaviour with low tendency to spin.
• They are expected to show best lift to drag ratio, on account of having
minimal frontal and wetted area [7].
Flying Wing Disadvantages:
• Limited range of permissible CG.
• Aileron deflections cause adverse yaw moments, which are hard to

compensate easily, due to lack in rudder efficiency.
• Rapid pitch oscillationsoccur on account of weak pitch damping and

small moment of inertia.
• They have weak directional stability, due to lack of moment arm on

rudders, since winglets usually serve the function.
Even though they have numerous associated limitations, flying wings

structural advantages dwarfs its counterparts, which is an important
consideration in the design scope of this thesis. After selecting the
configuration, models were drawn in OpenVSP (by NASA) to gather some
basic aerodynamic data.
F IGURE 3.2: Two designs were implemented in OpenVSP.

The left one is a conventional flying wing, while the right is
equipped with a tailboom and a vertical surface to provide
lateral stability.
The next step, was to gather performance data for the first prototype (Mark
1).
3.3 Preliminary Sizing

In order to assess the performance capability of the platform, the design
study commences by looking into past models primarily flying wings (in
some cases, ones with minimal fuselage). In order to gather data, the famous
IHS Jane’s All the Worlds Aircraft was selected as the starting point. The
following (Table 3.1), details some of the aircrafts and their corresponding
properties of interest.
TABLE 3.1: Commercial Flying Wing study

Aircraft(Company) Wing Span (m) MTOW (kg) Payload (kg) Range (NM) Endurance (mins) Cruise (mps)
Surveyor AV (IPCD) 2.44 6.00 0.50 1.60 90.00 32.00
ZALA 421-04 (ZALA Aero Group) 2.23 6.95 1.00 9.00 60.00 76.00
E-Swift EYE (Cyberflight Ltd) 1.50 2.20 0.30 12.00 60.00 25.00
Irkut-10 2.30 7.00 1.00 37.00 150.00 43.00
Sky Dot (Aurora Systems) 0.80 5.00 - 2.70 40.00 30.00
MicroB (Bluebird Aero Systems) 0.99 1.50 0.21 5.00 60.00 24.00
Trogon (Kadet Defense Systems) 1.22 2.25 0.50 5.40 45.00 40.00
Swinglet CAM (Sensefly) 0.80 0.50 - 0.60 30.00 20.00
Orbiter (Aeronautics Defense) 2.20 7.00 1.50 10.70 180.00 50.00
STRIX (Selex) 3.00 8.00 1.50 19.00 135.00 38.00
Skylite-B (Rafel) 2.40 6.50 1.50 90.00 43.00
Remoeye (Uconsystem Inc.) 2.72 6.50 1.50 90.00 38.00
I-LE (Skylark) 2.40 5.50 1.50 90.00 38.00
Bayraktar A 2.00 5.00 0.00 10.70 60.00 33.00
Puma (Aerovironment) 2.80 5.90 1.30 8.00 120.00 43.00
Average Values 1.99 5.05 0.95 10.14 86.67 38.20
It was established that the major project drivers would be - cost, since the
platform has to be expendable, and size, which would aim to put the
prototypes at the lightest possible weight meeting the performance
requirements. Hence, the parameters of interest are MTOW, wingspan
which decide the geometry, while range and endurance govern the
performance.
F IGURE 3.3: (Left) Range vs. Take-Off Weight helps in

deciding the payloads and materials. (Right) Endurance vs.
Wing Span helps in deducing the sizing of the lifting surfaces.
This survey helped deduce the design goals for the platform such as the
wingspan and the take-off weight. The wing span has to be as large as can
be contained in the tube, while the take-off weight is largely affected by the
chosen components.
3.3.1 Components
3.3.2 Control System

Receiver and Transmitter: A standard 6 channel receiver (OrangeRx by
Orange) was selected with the corresponding transmitter (DX9 by
Spektrum), used to perform Elevon mixing.
Servos: Servos need to be employed at two places. Firstly, for Elevon
deflection, a pair of standard 9g micro servo with plastic gears was
selected.
3.3.3 Propulsion System Selection

In ([14], p.362), a comparison has been charted out between tractor and
pusher motor based configurations. It lists, tractor propellers as offering a
higher efficiency as compared to their pusher counterparts, as the latter are
placed in the wake of the disturbed airflow from the aircraft components.
Further, tractors offer better rudder efficiency as the control surfaces fall in
their slipstream. Pusher propellers, on the other hand, seem to provide a
stabilizing affect around both, lateral and longitudinal axes.
In [16], concern was expressed over the pusher configuration employed.
Suffering from improper alignment of the thrust line, the motor mount
design was later iterated to fold on the wings while resting in the tube.
Taking into account the above listed factors, it was decided that the Mark 1
would be equipped with a tractor motor configuration. Even though it
offers a destabilizing affect for flying wings ([14], p.362), it makes the tube
based deployment significantly easier and gives more room to align the
thrust line with the CG, shall the need arise.
Using the basic rule of thumb, followed by the hobby enthusiasts, which
lists the requirement of 50W - 80W per pound for lightweight gliders, it was
deduced that approximately 212 watt rated brushless DC motor would be

required.
As a way into this, different motors and propellers were sourced and then
run for various combinations through a static thrust bench test, before
selecting the most appropriate combination. The observations from the
bench test are listed in Table 3.2.
The apparatus used to execute the tests is shown in Figure 3.4. The digital
thrust measurer from Turnigy was first calibrated to deduce the True
Thrust. A set of laboratory weights (25g each) were first measured on the
laboratory digital scale (accurate to 1g), and then measured on the thrust
measurer in increments of 25. The two weights were then plotted on a
scatter graph and a linear regression line was then plotted through them to
give the difference slope through them. It was calculated that the thrust
tester readings had to be multiplied by a factor of 1.237 to depict the true
thrust.
F IGURE 3.4: Static Thrust bench test setup. The shown

Turnigy thrust tester allows a range of motors to be mounted
and run at various speeds. Both thrust and power are
displayed on the screen. Shown is the thrust direction with
respect to the load cell.
TABLE 3.2: Static thrust bench test readings
Motor 28-26s, 1000 KV

3S LiPo 2.2 Ah
Propeller 9x6 10*4.5 10*4.7 10*6n 9*4.5e
Max. Thrust (g) 570 747 766 669 636
True Thrust (g) 705.32 924.34 947.85 827.82 786.99
Max. Current (A) 10.98 14.17 14.62 11.89 9.14
Min. Voltage (V) 11.59 11.59 11.3 11.44 11.3
Max Power (W) 128.9 164.2 169.4 137.8 104.5
4S LiPo 2.2 Ah
Propeller 9x6 10*4.5 10*4.7 10*6n 9*4.5e
Max. Thrust (g) 851 x x x 876
True Thrust (g) 1053.03 x x x 1083.96
Max. Current (A) 13.71 x x x 11.89
Min. Voltage (V) 14.53 x x x 14.38
Max Power (W) 199.2 x x x 174.4
Motor 35-36s 910V

3S LiPo 2.2 Ah
Propeller 9x6 10*4.5 10*4.7 10*6n 9*4.5e
Max. Thrust (g) 703 856 862 771 650
True Thrust (g) 869.89 1059.21 1066.64 954.04 804.31
Max. Current (A) 10.98 13.71 14.62 11.89 10
Min. Voltage (V) 10.86 10.86 10.71 10.86 10.86
Max Power (W) 120.7 150.8 158 129.1 165.8
4S LiPo 2.2 Ah
Propeller 9x6 10*4.5 10*4.7 10*6n 9*4.5e
Max. Thrust (g) 970 1150 1177 1050 1020
True Thrust (g) 1200.28 1423.01 1456.42 1299.27 1262.15
Max. Current (A) 15.99 19.18 20.09 16.45 15.99
Min. Voltage (V) 13.64 13.35 13.35 13.64 13.64
Max Power (W) 222.9 258.9 271.2 226.8 222.9
NB: In some cases, the motor was over heating, thus resulting in
inconclusive readings. ’x’ indicates those readings.
NB: 10x6n is a Masters Propeller, while the rest are all APC.
The weight of the aircraft was estimated around to be 1.2-1.5 kgs. It was
decided that thrust required for flight testing needed to be approximately
60-70% of the take-off weight. In order to save weight on the aircraft, the
smaller 28-26s Brushless DC motor would be used in the initial flight testing
(Section 5), to give enough thrust on a 4 cell LiPo battery to provide a flight
time of 4-5 minutes, to assess the flight capability of Mark 1.
For Mark 2, the same motor would be used only with a folding propeller
to safely launch from the tube. The selected propeller is a Aero-Naut 9x5"
Folding propeller with a 38mm spinner and a 42mm yoke. The static bench
test gave a thrust of 651 g with this propeller on a 4s 1.3Ah LiPo.
ESC: For the selected 28-26s Brushless DC Motor, the recommended ESC is
25-30A. For flight testing, a 30A ESC was chosen.
3.4 Constraint Mapping

A constraint diagram plots the thrust-to-weight ratio with weight-to-wing
area. On these axes are then plotted different flight conditions, which then
allow to predict initial size estimations of the aircraft.
For this tube launched UAV, selected curves were stall, cruise, high g turn
and endurance. The following are the constraint equations for an electric
propeller driven aircraft (adapted from [15], p.39):
Turn:
HP 1 S n2 W
= [0.5ρV 3 CDo ( ) + 2K ( )] (3.1)
W 550ηp W ρV S
Endurance:
3 1
HP 4 1 K 4 2W 2
= CDo 4 ( ) ( ) (3.2)
W 550ηp 3 ρS
Cruise:
3 1
HP 2 1 K 4 2W 2
= CDo 4 ( ) ( ) (3.3)
W 550ηp 3 ρS
Stall:
W ρCLmax Vs 2
= (3.4)
S 2
Assumed Parameters on the basis of historical data (Section 3.3).
ηp 0.75
ρ 1.225 kg/m3
V 15m/s
n 3.8
C do 0.053
AR 7.5
e 0.8
1
K πARe
Clmax 1.3
These equations and parameters were then plotted(Figure 3.5) using a
MATLAB script (See Appendix A).
F IGURE 3.5: Constraint diagram for Tube Launched mission

profile. ’x’ shows the Mark 1 sizing criteria, in the permissible
design space.
The MARK 1 was initially sized at a 1.48m span and a 0.2m chord (AR
7.4), with weight estimations set to amount to 1kg with the selected 28-26s
Brushless DC Motor.
3.5 Deployment Mechanism

The reliability of deployment varies inversely with the number of moving
parts (latches, hinges etc.)[8]. As compared to telescoping wings, pivots
and hinges in a rigid system have proved to be more reliable and easier to
operate [9].
The deployment mechanism was designed to be a two fold process. The first
was the opening of wings under spring force and locking at a set sweep (20
degree), once launching out of the tube.
F IGURE 3.6: First stage of Tube Launch - UAV pushing out of

the tube.
The most favourable , simple yet reliable mechanism to unfold the wings
is the use of Torsion Springs. One arm of the spring is recessed into the
fuselage, while the other arm is connected to the wing spar, that rotates
about a pivot point. The unwinding of this arm results in a torsion force
that helps wings unfold upon launch (see Figure 3.7).
The second deployment mechanism was the wing halves over each other.
This innovative idea was aimed to utilise the empty space in the tube. As
a result, a 40% higher wing area was achieved. Analysis showed that the
deployment force was enough to open the span folds upon launch. These
halves will then be held in place by rare earth magnets.
F IGURE 3.7: Second stage of Tube Launch - Wings unfolding

and locking in at a set sweep.
F IGURE 3.8: Third Launch Stage. Span-wise unfolding of

wing halves.
The following sections look into analysing the performance of the

preliminary design using VLM software, which is then followed by
detailed design discussions and prototype manufacturing.
38
Chapter 4
Aerodynamic Analysis
4.1 Coefficient of Lift Envelope calculations

Determining the CL for the mission profile helped determine the necessary
lift required, based upon the preliminary sizing. Constraint analysis and
component selection helped determine the wing loading, initial weights and
wing area. These values were then plugged into the Lift Equation, to get the
Cruise CL
L
CL = = 0.0894 (4.1)
0.5ρV 2 S
where,
W = 14.7N (at 1.5kg MTOW)
S = 1.48 ∗ 0.2 = 0.298m2
V = 30m/s
4.2 Airfoil Selection

The first step to analyse an airfoil, was to chart out the flight conditions and
hence the Reynolds number regime it would be operating in.
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa s) 1.983e − 5

Air Density (kg /m3 ) 1.225
Chord Length (m) 0.2
Cruise Velocity (m/s) 30
Chapter 4. Aerodynamic Analysis 39
This put the Mark 1 Reynolds Number at:
ρV l
Re = ≈ 3.5e5 (4.2)
µ
NB: Mark 2 was designed to be around 25% smaller as compared to the

Mark 1. Hence, the chord was reduced to 0.15m , which brought down the
Reynolds number to approximately 2.5e5.
Section 2.2.1 discusses the importance of moment coefficient and camber
distribution, while selecting airfoils for a flying wing type aircraft. Keeping
those concepts in mind, a range of flying wing airfoils(from popular
Martin Hepperle, NACA and Eppler series) were studied using XFLR5,
and ultimately the MH70 airfoil was deemed suitable. XFLR5 utilises VLM
for lift computations and 2D airfoil analysis are based on the XFoil Code by
MIT. A trade off study between the airfoils is included in Appendix B.
The following plots show the Lift Coefficient and Pitching Moment
dependency on the angle of attack for the top 5 airfoils selected.
F IGURE 4.1: Lift Coefficient Comparison
As evident from the above Figure 4.1, MH70 shows the highest CL , while
meeting the constraint requirements. A higher overall lift ensures high
payload carrying capacity by the wing.
F IGURE 4.2: Pitching Moment Comparison
Figure 4.2 illustrates the desired CM curve traced by MH70 airfoil. The slight
positive pitching moment makes it favourable to balance around the pitch
axis, without the need of secondary horizontal surfaces.
F IGURE 4.3: Selected Airfoil MH70.
4.3 Wing Geometry

An MS EXCEL sheet was devised to iterate the wing geometry for both the
prototypes. Main sections of this design sheet are included in the Appendix
C.
2.2.2 explains the importance of sweep in flying wings. Static stability in

flying wings can be obtained by either of the following combinations[10].
First is to employ a large sweep and twist with an airfoil having a zero CMac ,
and second to put in a smaller sweep and no twist with an airfoil offering
a slight positive CMac . Due to space restrictions inside the tube, the latter
option was chosen with a 20 degree Sweep. Twist calculations (see Figure
C.3), showed that geometry selection required a very small negative twist.
Since, it also complicates the construction, it was set to 0.
([14], p.423) Suggest a sweep between 18◦ and 26◦ for MH60 airfoil as an
optimal solution. Figure C.2 lists the considered sweeps, out of which 20
degree was suitable for the permissible CG limits.
Regarding Taper, it was set to 1, due to space restrictions in the tube, while
retaining a higher wing area.
As pointed out earlier, a span folding mechanism was employed to contain
a larger wing area in the tube. XFLR5 was used to calculate lift distributions
over the no folding and the span folding wing. The results are tabulated as
follows:
TABLE 4.1: Lift comparison between normal and span-folded
wing
NO Fold Span Fold

Span (m) 1.48 1.48
Chord (m) 0.12 0.2
Area (m2 ) 0.1776 0.296
CL 0.384 0.349
CD 0.012 0.012
Lift Force (N) 37.59437 56.94633
It can, thus, be noticed that a 51.4% more lift force can be generated by
employing a larger chord length.
Figure 4.4 shows the placement of the folded wing in the launch tube. In
order to streamline the launch mechanism, the trailing part folds on top
over the leading part in the right wing, while it folds down in the case of
the left wing.
F IGURE 4.4: Right wing folded positioning in the launch tube.
4.3.1 Control Surface Sizing

([14] p.40) suggests the elevon chord to be optimum at 25% of the wing chord,
based upon the following plots.
F IGURE 4.5: Control surface size optimisation. The markings

show the suggested optimal chord size (Adapted from [14]
p.39)
The dcl /dη and dcm /dη terms show the dependency of change in the lift
and moment coefficients as a function of the elevon deflection angle η. The
largest pitching moment is observed for a 25% elevon, that correspondingly
requires minimum deflection angle. The span was chosen to be 45% of the
wing span. Later in the development of Mark 2, this would be increased to
50% to gain more control authority.
4.3.2 Winglet Sizing

Similar sized flying wings were studied to size the winglets, rather than
designing from scratch. However, care was taken while fixing the span so
that it could be contained in the tube. Since the winglet was manufactured
from 5mm Depron, during analysis they were installed with NACA0005
airfoil profile.
The sized winglet is shown in Figure 4.6.
F IGURE 4.6: Winglet Sizing (all dimensions in mm).
4.3.3 Wing Geometry Summary

Mark 1 was sized as follows:
Wing Span (m) 1.48
Root Chord (m) 0.2
Tip Chord (m) 0.2
Taper Ratio 1
Quater Chord Sweep (deg) 20
Aspect Ratio 7.4
Airfoil MH70
Elevon Chord (m) 0.05
Elevon Span (m) 0.296
4.4 Stability Analysis : XFLR5

XFLR5 in conjunction with the MS Excel design sheet was used to get the
initial stability estimates. The wing geometry was set up as shown in Figure
4.7.
F IGURE 4.7: Mark 1 setup in XFLR5.
The component masses (Table 5.2) were then added at their respective
positions. Changing these masses, helped change the CG location.
F IGURE 4.8: Component arrangement in XFLR5 for Mark1
The set-up was then run at a range of α at 30mps. The following graph
shows the static margin iteration. Using the MS Excel sheet the geometrical
neutral point was calculated which was then plugged into XFLR5. The wing
can be seen to balance about this point (red dotted line). Further, different
CG locations were tested to increase the static margin as shown. The CG
location was then fixed at 12% for the flight tests.
F IGURE 4.9: Pitching Moment dependency as a function of

varying Static Margin.
46
Chapter 5
Mark 1
5.1 Detailed Design

The dimensional parameters for Mark1 can be seen in Table 6.1.
TABLE 5.1: Mark 1 build dimensions.
Wing Winglet
Span (m) 1.334 Height (m) 0.16
Root Chord (m) 0.196 Root Chord (m) 0.15
Tip Chord (m) 0.196 Tip Chord (m) 0.06
Area(m2̂) 0.261464
Quarter Chord Sweep (deg) 20 Elevons
M.A.C (m) 0.196 Chord (m) 0.05
AR 7.4 Span (m) 0.298
Taper Ratio 1 Area (m2 ) 0.0149
Airfoil MH70
Front Fuselage Rear Fuselage

Length (m) 0.15 Length (m) 0.15
Breadth (m) 0.080 Breadth (m) 0.080
Height (m) 0.12 Height (m) 0.12
5.2 Weight and Balance Table

The following data was tabulated by weighing the components and
measuring their positions. The motor mount was set as the datum.
Chapter 5. Mark 1 47
TABLE 5.2: Weight and Balance table
Component Weight (g) X_cg (mm) Moment (kg-m)
Electronics
Propeller 20 -70 -0.0014
Motor 62 -60 -0.00372
LiPo 183 750 0.13725
ESC 37 120 0.00444
R/X 11 120 0.00132
Servo L 10 435 0.00435
Servo R 10 435 0.00435
Lead 52 160 0.00832
Structure
Pivot 112 235 0.02632
Fuselage 150 145 0.02175
Wing L 258 435 0.11223
Wing R 275 435 0.119625
Total 1180 0.434835
5.3 Manufacturing
5.3.1 Wings
Wing manufacturing was a three fold process which started with the hot
wire cutting of light weight EPP foam core. This was achieved using the
automated hot wire CNC machine at the UAV laboratory, at Sydney
University.
F IGURE 5.2: Hot Wire cutting of foam core.
The maximum span limit of the foam cutter was 500mm. As a result, two
equal halves of 335mm were cut individually and then later joined by hot
glue (Figure 5.2, right).

Second step was to sheet these foam cores with balsa. Balsa sheeting acts
as a stiffening skin that takes the shear loads across the wing. As a result
of high stiffening, it eliminated the use of conventional full span spars was
eliminated through the wing.
F IGURE 5.3: Butt Joining balsa strips to form sheets.
One metre long balsa strips (and 3-4 inches wide) were sourced and joined
together using CA glue. Figure 5.3, shows the diagonal cuts to butt join the
balsa strips, in order to increase the contact area, thereby ensuring a higher
joint strength.
Leading edges were hand sanded from 20mm wide balsa blocks, by tracing
the MH70 camber. Apart from providing a smooth contour for incoming
airflow, these balsa leading edges act as secondary spars, which further help
in stiffening the wing.
After installing the servo and the lug attachment in the foam core, the balsa
sheets were affixed to the foam cores using spray adhesive, and were left
overnight under the weight of sand bags.
The gaps between the leading edge and balsa skin, were filled with light
weight spackle, and were then sanded down till the wing surface felt
smooth to touch.
After removing the elevons, the final step was to cover the wing with
monokote film. This film serves the purpose of protecting the balsa skin from
moisture, and also helps take shear loads from the balsa skin.
The elevons were then aligned with the servo and hinged to the main wing
using uni-directional fibre tape.
F IGURE 5.4: MH70 camber plotted on balsa blocks to sand

leading edges.
F IGURE 5.5: (Left) Curing trailing edges. (Right) Spackle

applied to fill gaps.
The wings were then pivoted around an aluminium tube, with holes drilled
into it. Through these holes bolts were aligned, that locked the wing lug in
place.
Setback : Lug Failure
As can be seen in Figure 5.8, the wing is not aligned horizontally, but has
some angle of incidence to it. This misalignment would prove fatal during
flight, and makes the wing more prone to load disturbances as well.
Solution
F IGURE 5.6: Left wing covered in blue monokote film.
F IGURE 5.7: Wings pivoted around an aluminium tube and

held by screws.
Clearly evident from the above figure, the wing droops at the point of
contact between the lug and the pivot bolts. Hence, there was a need to
re-iterate the lug attachment, to transmit the wing loads uniformly across
the pivot.
The solution was to imitate a spar web, that would transfer the loads from the
wing spar to the lug attachment, and then concentrate it around the pivot
pin.
F IGURE 5.8: Illustration showing lack of lug’s load bearing

capacity.
In order to achieve this a balsa section was used to act as an I-beam,

connecting the lug spar on the top surface to the new wooden spar on the
lower surface. Figure 5.9 shows the new spar and lug employed to provide
added strength.
F IGURE 5.9: (Left) Bottom surface spar section to be recessed

in the slit cut on the wing surface. (Right) Bottom surface lug
extensions with collinear holes drilled to transfer the bearing
loads to the pivot pin.
In order to test the load bearing capacity, the new lug section was recessed
into a vice, and a point load was applied towards the wing tip. Figure 5.10
shows that the revised lug attachment is able to handle the loads now, and
can be installed on the aircraft.
5.3.2 Fuselage
The fuselage design was split into two sections; the rear section holds the
pivot assembly , and the front section holds the payload and the
F IGURE 5.10: Load bearing test of the revised lug.
propulsion system. Using this approach, the front fuselage is made

completely modular, with an eclectic choice of payload variation.
F IGURE 5.11: Mark 1 Fuselage
Figure 5.12 illustrates the construction of the rear fuselage. The fuselage
section was made from plywood sections, and supported at the edges using
balsa blocks. Also shown is the ’sweep screw’, that helps lock the wing at a
20 degree angle with the horizontal.
For the Pivot, a 3/8 inch bolt was used, and the lugs rotated about
standard ball bearings.
Upon pivoting the wings, it was noticed that the wingtips to be installed
will not be parallel to the incoming airflow, but would instead be at an
angle (Figure 5.13). This would severely affect the handling qualities of the
aircraft, and hence needed fixing. Instead of cutting the wing to match the
sweep angle, it was decided to build make-shift wingtips that could be
glued onto the wing tips.
Figure 5.13, shows the wing extensions built. These can be differentiated by
the balsa skin surface. The winglets were manufactured from 5mm Depron,
and are attached as shown in the figure.
F IGURE 5.12: Rear fuselage with sweep lock screw.
F IGURE 5.13: Misaligned wingtips with the airflow.
F IGURE 5.14: Makeshift winglets attached to the wingtips.

Figure 5.15, shows the completed Mark 1 build being balanced on point
supports to check the CG location.
F IGURE 5.15: Mark 1 CG balancing.
5.4 Flight Testing

Maiden Flight Test
Date: April 29, 2016
Location: Bow Bowing Park, Minto , NSW.
Time : 9:30 am
Temperature : 19.6 degree Celsius
Wind : NNW at 6km/hr
Gust : 9km/hr
5.4.1 Glide Tests

In order to check the CG location and trimming, a range of glide tests were
first performed on the Mark1. Hobby enthusiasts place a rule of thumb
on the bungee tension to launch a UAV at 5 times the take-off weight. A
spring balance was used to measure the bungee tension. Thus, the first test
was performed at 6kg tension. However, this resulted in significantly less
power, and the tension was then doubled to 12kg for the next test. Over the
next three tests, the tension was further increased to 14kg.
Glide tests showed that there was very little control authority over the
pitching axis. This was because, the static margin set in the lab was at
around 12%. Adding ballast weights near the wingtips helped bring the
static margin down to 5%. The aircraft was trimmed out over 5 glide tests,
after which the propeller was attached to undertake powered flights.
5.4.2 Powered Test

Roll
In order to check lateral control and manoeuvrability, a roll was performed.
Figure 5.16, shows the snapshots separated 3-5 frames apart. The aircraft
was able to fully sustain the complete roll manoeuvre and head back to
steady flight, hence testifying to good handling qualities.
F IGURE 5.16: Mark 1 undergoing a Roll Manoeuvre
Trim
Figure 5.17 shows the perfectly trimmed out aircraft during the flight. It can
be observed that the pilot gives a roll input, and the aircraft returns back
to its initial state in less than a second, and continues to maintain straight
heading.
F IGURE 5.17: Trim routine (Taken at 0.5 second intervals)

Stall Recovery
In order to assess the stall behaviour, Mark 1 was put into a vertical climb.
It showed pretty good stall behaviour, with none of the wings dropping.
It was then led to follow a glide down in a spiral. Figure 5.18, shows that
it was easily able to recover from the spin, thus further testifying to good
handling qualities.
F IGURE 5.18: Mark 1 climbing vertically and recovering from

a downward spin.
5.5 Testing Summary
F IGURE 5.19: Mark 1 low fly-pass.
From the above figures it can definitely be concluded that Mark 1 is flight
ready. The main aim of building and flying Mark 1 was to analyse the
wing geometry and aerodynamic considerations. A steady stable flight
path could be easily followed. Along with good trimming, Mark 1 was
able to sustain roll manoeuvres and show excellent stall behaviour. The
pilot concluded that Mark 1 showed good handling qualities once it was
trimmed out. The location of CG at approximately 5% static margin and
elevon sizing worked perfectly in conjunction, to offer high control
authority.
The only concern expressed by the pilot was the lack of propulsive power,
since Mark 1 was being operated continuously at full throttle, and lasted
about 3 minutes of flying time on a 4 cell 1.3Ah LiPo battery.
With the static model of the designed tube launched UAV i.e. Mark 1
proving to be successful, the dynamic model or the Mark 2 prototype was
then built and flown. The discussions regarding Mark 2 are covered in the
following sections.
58
Chapter 6
Mark 2 : ’The BAT’
After the Mark 1 was flown to analyse the flight characteristics, the second
prototype was built as a proof-of-concept for the selected configuration
and understanding the folding wing mechanism. The BAT unlike its
predecessor, a dynamic UAV system where the wings pivot about a pin,
and fold under spring tension and fit into a standard 100mm PVC pipe.
The BAT was designed to be modular so that different lifting surfaces and
payloads could be integrated in the future. The following sections discuss
the design measures, manufacturing and field flight testing of the BAT.
6.1 Design
6.1.1 Wing Sizing

Since the available tube launcher was a make-shift 100mm PVC pipe, the
BAT had to be resized as compared to the Mark 1, which was designed to
fit in a 127mm Sonobuoy tube. As a way into this, the BAT was designed to
be 25% smaller than its predecessor, while maintaining the wing geometry
and aspect ratio.
Elevon Sizing
During the flight testing of the Mark 1, the pilot though satisfied with the
handling qualities, expressed the need to have a higher control authority. In
order to address this issue, the elevons on the BAT were increased in span
to 50% from the earlier 40%. The chord length was left unchanged at 25%.
Using the MS EXCEL based design sheet (See Appendix C), the following
wing geometry parameters were selected :
Chapter 6. Mark 2 : ’The BAT’ 59
TABLE 6.1: The BAT build dimensions.
Wing Winglet
Span (m) 1.11 Height (m) 0.112
Root Chord (m) 0.150 Root Chord (m) 0.112
Tip Chord (m) 0.150 Tip Chord (m) 0.045
Area(m2̂) 0.1665
Quarter Chord Sweep (deg) 20 Elevons
M.A.C (m) 0.150 Chord (m) 0.0375
AR 7.4 Span (m) 0.275
Taper Ratio 1 Area (m2̂) 0.0103
Airfoil MH70
Front Fuselage Rear Fuselage

Length (m) 0.150 Length (m) 0.150
Breadth (m) 0.065 Breadth (m) 0.065
Height (m) 0.090 Height (m) 0.090
F IGURE 6.1: Fuselage dimensioning convention followed.

Shown is the rear fuselage, with the pivot pin hole visible.
NB : The electronics remained the same. Only the propeller selected was an
equivalent foldable one for the BAT.
Other considerations taken in the BAT’s design were the incorporation of
3D printing techniques to reduce the overall weight, streamline fuselage
to minimise drag and increase prop-wash span on the wings and utilise a
lighter yet reliable pivot pin.
6.2 CAD
A CAD model was built in Solidworks 2015 that helped size the
components to precise measurements, hence ensuring the BAT fits neatly
into the tube. Using advanced assembly features, limits could be set on the
pivot mechanism, and thereby be checked for accurate spring placement
and visualising of the movement of the dynamics wing parts.
F IGURE 6.2: The BAT designed in SolidWorks15.
6.2.1 Pivot Assembly

The pivot assembly is probably the most important part of the BAT’s
configuration. Both the wings are fixed here, and fold and deploy from the
pivot point. Apart from driving the wing folding mechanism, the pivot
shaft(co-centric to both wing lugs) helps in transferring the structural loads
to the wing. The pivot shaft was a stainless steel road threaded near the
tips. Figure 6.3 illustrates the exploded view, depicting how all
components are arranged together.
As seen in figure 6.3, the wings are recessed into plastic lugs(Section 6.3)
and through these lugs, passes a pivot pin. As noticed in the manufacture
of Mark 1(See Section 5.3.1), the lugs need to be purely co-centric for the
bearing loads to efficiently pass through. In order to address this, the pivot
F IGURE 6.3: Exploded View of the BAT’s pivot assembly.

Shown is the rear fuselage, where the pivot mechanism is
housed.
pin rotates about standard skate-board ball bearings, pressure fit into the lugs.
Use of these bearings also ensures an error-free deployment mechanism.
Finally, a pair of torsion springs, as shown, are installed at the pivot pin’s
extremities, with one arm recessing into the fuselage, and the other into the
lug, about which the spring winds and unwinds.
The following sections discuss how these components were manufactured
to bring the BAT together.
6.3 LUG Design Iteration

It was decided to employ 3D Printing techniques to ’print’ the plastic lugs,
which will be attached to the wings. These served the purpose of
modularity and ease of assembly. With the pivot mechanism being
independent of the wing design, a range of wing and spar combinations
could be tested, thereby making the mechanism scalable as well as
modular. 3D Printing offered numerous advantages over conventional

building. Firstly, it helped in rapid prototyping of the conceptualised
designs. As a result, several iterations could be performed in a lesser time
frame thus ensuring a viable output. Secondly, the end-products had
cavities that house the bearings and spring arms, which otherwise
would’ve been hard to drill into the wood. Also, this ensured that the
components were housed within millimeter accuracy. Thirdly, the 3D
Printed lugs were not only strong and durable, but were quite light
weighted as compared to timber lugs. The lugs were printed using PLA
Plastic.
The final lug employed on the lug went through three iterations.
6.3.1 Lug Iteration 1

A two part lug was first developed, that would’ve been bolted on the wing
spar from top and bottom. A two part lug was conceptualised to ensure
that the ball bearing be placed exactly in the centre plane of the spar.
However, not accounting for shrinking tolerances of the plastic, the printed
lug was not large enough to house the ball bearings and would’ve had to
be drilled through. Drilling would disturb the 3D Printed layers, and
would could’ve caused structural weakness at those points. Figure 6.4
shows the CAD design of the lug and the actual printed part.
F IGURE 6.4: (Left) Lug 1 designed in SolidWorks 1

.(Right) Lug 1 3D printed outputs

The motivation that drove the design of lug 2 was governed by two factors.
First, it required more 3D Printing resources, since two parts had to be
printed for each lug that required a longer print time and calibration
process. The second was to provide additional support to the wing spar by
providing side walls at the location is was housed. Hence, it was decided
to iterate the lug 2 in a way that all of it could be printed at once while still
being structurally sound.

Though Lug 2 seemed promising in terms of both, fitting of the

components and offering high structural strength, it missed the provision
for incorporating a locking mechanism. Since the BAT had a 20 degree
leading edge sweep, there had to be a mechanism that would ’lock’ it in
that sweep. Initial estimates were based on the fact that the spring would
not ’unwind’ in the opposite direction, hence a locking mechanism would
not be needed. However, during initial fold tests, it was noticed that the
springs had some play in them, which led to rapid fluctuations of the
sweep angle, and therefore the design could not rely upon the spring’s
elasticity. This was not acceptable for generating a stable and sustained
flight. Hence, Lug 3 was iterated to be equipped with a locking
mechanism.

Initial brainstorming ideas regarding the locking mechanism of the wings
revolved around developing a one-way latch mechanism, similar to a
climbing carabiner. However, the space inside the rear fuselage was
severely limited and couldn’t install something on similar lines. Therefore,
a simple yet effective method was devised that employed magnets which
would hold the wing in place. A pair of magnets was employed, one
installed in the Lug and other connected to the fuselage plate, through a
small strut that aligns the wings perfectly at 20 degrees sweep. Rare earth
magnets , each capable of pulling 3.2kg weight were employed in lug 3.

While this iteration proved sufficiently effective for prototyping stages in

the lab, it failed in the field during the glide tests. The reason for this was
the fact that the magnets are hard to pull apart, because of the great force
involved, but they could slide over each other with ease. And with the
wings as large moment arms, the slide was even easier. The side magnet was
not employed during the flight tests, but it might be able to serve as a viable
option in future research.
6.4 Deployment Actuator : Torsion Spring

Torsion springs serve as an effective, reliable and a less expensive option
for deploying such folding wings, as compared to pneumatic or electric
actuators [16]. The springs used in the BAT were sourced from hand
clamps, since manufacturers require orders running into hundreds for
desired configurations. The remaining components were sized around
these springs (Figure 6.7).
F IGURE 6.7: Sourced set of Torsion Springs.
The selected spring had the following characteristics:
TABLE 6.2: Selected torsion spring’s characteristics
Type Right Hand Coil

Wire Material Hardened spring steel
Wire Diameter (mm) 2.62
Inner Diameter (mm) 7.28
Outer Diameter 12.53
Pitch (mm) 2.87
Height (mm) 10.75
No.of active coils 4
Arm length (mm) 34.34
Gap between coils (mm) 0
Spring force calculations

The above parameters were measured using a set of vernier callipers and
were then inserted into a torsion spring calculator available at [23]. This
rated the given spring at a maximum torque of 1687.217N.mm at maximum
deflection of 26.64Degree, at a rate of 63.239N.mm/Deg.
Torque acting on the wing was calculated using the drag equation with the
CD set to 0.0446, which is the highest value from the MH70 drag polar at
the BAT’s operating Reynolds number. This gave the drag force to be equal
to 2.0047N for the entire wing. Assuming a distributed load, each wing
undergoes approximately 1N of drag force exerted at the span centre at
275mm.
The torque generated at the pivot pin is F.x.Cos20, which amounts to
307.28N.mm. At a safety factor of 4, it amounts to 1229.12N.mm, which
places the choice of spring selection within safe limits and working range.
F IGURE 6.8: Resultant drag acting on wing centre. The wing

half is placed at 277mm and the lug extends to 50mm at the
pivot point. Hence, placing moment arm at 327mm.
6.5 Wing Holding: Magnets

A highly innovative and effective mechanism to hold the span folded
wings in place was developed by ([16], pp.58-65). This mechanism
employed the use of rare earth magnets. Each wing half is held together by
a pair of 7 magnets, each capable of pulling a force of 1.8kg as tested in the
lab. The wing halves were then hinged using fibre tape that served as a
light weight option and ensured aligned travel of the halves upon
deployment. The arrangement can be seen in Figure 6.9.
F IGURE 6.9: Rare earth magnet arrangement for the left wing.
The chosen magnet was an 8mm by 4mm.
6.6 Deployment Sequence

Figure 6.10 shows frame split-ups of the deployment sequence. The wing
halves are pulled out of the PVC tube and immediately lock into place with
span unfolding in less than a second.
F IGURE 6.10: The BAT’s deployment sequence testing.
6.7 Manufacturing
The wings were built using the same processes as employed in the Mark
1’s construction. The following figures show the BAT’s components under
construction and the final assembled UAV.
At the end with electronics added, the BAT weighed 861 grams.
6.7.1 Push Rods

The servos were installed in a way that they do not hinder the span folding
wings, since the trailing parts of the wings were not thick enough to flush
fit the servos. As a result, the right servo was installed on the lower wing
surface and left servo was installed on the upper wing surface.
It was also not possible to use conventional straight push rods, since the
space in front of the elevons was again limited to house the servo in line.
F IGURE 6.11: The BAT under construction. Progressing from

left towards right. The Rear fuselage can be seen to house the
torsion springs and the 3D Printed lugs as discussed in the
earlier sections.
As a result, the servos were placed adjacent to the elevons. In order to get
optimum movement, the servos were to be working along all three axes, as
opposed to conventional two axes(front and back). The 3 dimensional push
rod designed can be seen in Figure 6.12. The push rods were made out of
hardened spring wire, since conventional push rod wire wire flexing under
elevon movement load.
F IGURE 6.12: 3D push rod system to drive servo horns placed

adjacent to the elevons.
6.8 Flight Testing

Glide test under bungee tension
Date: May 28, 2016
Location: Bow Bowing Park, Minto , NSW.
Time : 12:30 pm
Temperature : 10 degree Celsius
Wind : W at 11km/hr
F IGURE 6.13: The BAT’s bungee launch. Frame-by-frame

snapshots.
Upon the launch, the BAT’s wing snapped in a split second, before it could
be airborne. With heavy damage sustained to the platform, no further tests
could be performed. Inspection into flight failure and possible fix are
discussed in the following sections.
6.8.1 Post Flight Analysis

Evident from Figure 6.14, and the projectile push of the wings, it can be
noticed that the balsa spars failed to take on the flight loads upon launch.
In Figure 6.13 it can be seen that a large pitching up moment was
generated upon launch, probably because of the hook placement. As a
result, the wings, being the moment arms around the pivot point
underwent a high rotational force, since they were still on the catapult
rails, while the fuselage had pitched up. Another major force upon launch
was the drag force acting on the wings as the bungee was released.
F IGURE 6.14: (Left) Close-up inspection of the failed balsa

spar. (Right) Stress concentration induced by the locking bolt
on the balsa’s surface.
F IGURE 6.15: Load path tracing. Also can be seen the point of
spar failure, that needs to be reinforced.
Figure 6.15 shows the load path progressing across the BAT. The lugs were
designed to absorb the drag loads from the pivot and transfer them safely
on to the wing. However, the stress concentrations resulted in a high shear
amount across the circular bolt section. Balsa wood, known to be weak
in taking tensile force ripped at this point. As a result, flight loads were
not transferred fully to the wings, but got concentrated around this point,
thereby causing the failure.
6.8.2 Recommended Solution

The solution for preventing the spar failure is a two-fold approach. Firstly,
the spar material needs to be changed. Balsa wood proved to be a weake
option, and is recommended to be replaced by a stronger alternative.

Recommended options are carbon fibre, which would be a light weight
alternate, and timber. Secondly, an alternate mechanism needs to be
devised to attach the spar to the lug, instead of bolting them together. This
would be quite effective in preventing the occurrence of high stress
concentration locations. A simple solution for this is to epoxy the spar to
the lugs’ inner surface. However, before this step, the spar face needs to be
reinforced. This solution is recommended for all spar materials. A suitable
option would be to use thin ply wood or aluminium sheets that are more
capable of taking tensile forces around stress concentrations.
The spar also needs to be reinforced where it meets the wing surface near
the root, since the root undergoes maximum lift force, which gradually
decreases as we progress towards the tip, assuming an elliptical lift
distribution. As a way into this, spar caps as built for the Mark 1, need to
be built, that glue to the spar blocks’ upper and lower surfaces, and recess
into the top and bottom surfaces of the wing root respectively. CAD design
for the recommended solution can be seen in Figure 6.16.
F IGURE 6.16: Reinforced spar (exploded view).
This solution serves both the advantages as discussed earlier. The bolt
here, goes only through the 3D printed parts, rather than the balsa (or any
other alternative material), hence eliminating the possibility of developing
high stress concentration areas. The extended spar caps, on the other hand,
recess 5mm into the top and bottom surfaces of the wing root, thereby
strengthening the root section of the wing to safely propagate loads
towards the tip. The new reinforced spar section is shown in Figure 6.17.
F IGURE 6.17: Reinforced spar section with spar caps and new
locking bolt.
73
Chapter 7
Summary, Conclusions and Future

Work
7.1 Summary and Conclusions

An in-depth desk research was performed into numerous tube launched
UAV designs across academia and industry. Critical analysis of these
designs helped dissect the problem statement, and understand the various
constraints that limit the development of such rapidly deployable systems.
Tube launched UAVs have been a keen area of interest for the AeroMech
department at Sydney University since 2002. A lot of research and ideas
have been exchanged since then. This thesis serves as a continuation of
that work. In order to address the objectives outlined in Chapter 1, two
prototypes were designed, constructed and flight tested, namely Mark 1
and Mark 2 (The BAT).
Initial sizing and performance of the UAV was based upon the available
components, manufacturing techniques and CASA regulations. A key
configuration parameter that repeated in a majority of the researched
models was twin wing surfaces where one acted as the primary lifting
surface and the other as the control surface, pivoted about a long fuselage.
However, for this design a flying wing configuration was considered with
a single set of wings pivoted about a central shaft and loaded under spring
tension. Numerous successful tests proved that torsion springs were an
effective and simple solution. A key innovation employed in the design
was the span-folding wings, held together by rare earth magnets, that
permitted to efficiently utilise the space in the tube, generating a 40%
Chapter 7. Summary, Conclusions and Future Work 74
larger lifting area. The magnets proved to be efficient in holding the wing
halves together during the glide tests.
A static thrust bench test was performed to select the optimum motor and
propeller configuration for the prototypes. The aim was to use a light
weight option that would be capable of providing a thrust equal 70% of
MTOW. A 28-26s, 1000kv Brushless DC motor with a 9" by 4.5" tractor
propeller was selected, that provided a static thrust of 876 grams.
The fuselage was designed to be completely modular. This was done by
dividing the fuselage into two parts. The rear fuselage held the pivoting
mechanism while the front fuselage held the electronics, propulsion system
and the payload. The front fuselage was bolted onto the rear, and could be
swapped for a desired combination of payload and propulsion system.
Aerodynamic analysis were performed to select the most suitable airfoil for
a flying wing configuration. MH70 airfoil was selected from 11 flying wing
airfoils by analysing the lift, drag and moment polars generated from the
X-Foil based software XFLR5. XFLR5 was also used to perform a stability
analysis of the platforms and choose an appropriate static margin, hence
CG location. A static margin of 5% was deemed optimal during flight
testing. In order to iterate wing geometry parameters for an optimum
option (primarily the sweep), an MS EXCEL sheet was created that helped
streamline the parameter selection and analysis.
7.1.1 Mark 1
The Mark 1 was built to understand UAV construction techniques and
analyse flight characteristics of the designed platforms. With a wing span
of 1.48m, MAC at 0.2m and 20 degree leading edge sweep, the Mark 1
weighed at 1.18kg with the standard electronics on board. The
manufacturing of Mark 1’s wings involved hot-wire cutting of foam cut
wings, followed by balsa sheeting and monokote covering. Maiden flight
tests of Mark 1 resulted in exceptional handling qualities and stall behaviour. It
was able to sustain full roll manoeuvres and vertical climbs and recover
from a downward spin as well. The pilot judged the Mark 1 to have good
trimming behaviour and good handling qualities. The choice of hobby grade
electronics and propulsion system coupled with balsa and foam
manufacturing, puts Mark 1 costs below A$500. Accounting for sensing

payloads and autopilot based telemetry, the cost of Mark 1 is still
significantly lower than the current tube launched UAVs, thereby making
it quite an expendable option. Mark 1 completely addresses the first
objective of this thesis, which involved critical analysis of past designs and
building of a flyable prototype.
F IGURE 7.1: Mark 1 before first launch.
7.1.2 Mark 2: The BAT

The BAT was designed to be the proof-of-concept model for the
conceptualised design. Unlike its predecessor, it was a dynamic platform
where the wings could fold and unfold under spring loading. The BAT
was designed to be 25% smaller than the Mark 1, in order to fit it in the
launch tube, which was a standard 100mm PVC pipe. With the aid of 3D
printing, several prototypes for the wing lugs were manufactured, that
helped make the pivoting mechanism modular and easy to assemble.
Upon completion, the BAT could be easily stored in the PVC tube, which
pays testimony to the fact that the CAD designed components were sized
perfectly. This also partially fulfills the second objective of this thesis, i.e.
’to be stored and launched from a tube’. At the end of the build, the BAT
weighed 861 grams with electronics on board.
The BAT, however, was not able to perform a flight test due to a fatal
structural failure sustained during bungee launch. Failure analysis
concluded that the cause of the spar failure was the introduction of high
stress concentrations at the balsa spar and lug connection. Balsa wood, quite
weak in tension, was not able to sustain the heavy drag force and pitching
moment and ripped from the point of contact with the bolt.
A solution was devised to address the failure that involved swapping balsa
with a more structurally sound option such as carbon fibre rods or timber
blocks. Also, a new spar design iteration was performed that aimed at
reinforcing the existing balsa spars by eliminating the need to bolt it and
providing added strength at the wing root, by webbing of loads, to ensure
safe load path propagation from the wing root to the tip.
F IGURE 7.2: The BAT before first launch.
7.2 Future Work

The first recommended step is to fix the wing spar, and conduct powered
flight tests. Evident from the flight characteristics of Mark 1, the BAT should
perform with similar capabilities. The next step would be to launch the BAT
from the sourced PVC Tube under bungee tension by running the launch
hook through a slit cut on the tube’s lower surface.
Airplanes designs can be optimised almost indefinitely for every
component and geometry selection. In order to optimise the airframe,
future researchers are recommended to conduct wind tunnel tests to
gather aerodynamic data and reduce drag build-up. A full FEA of the
configuration is recommended. Key things to look into with respect to the
structural analysis would be the force concentrations about the pivot point
and load propagations during the deployment sequence. In order to do
this, the BAT could be analysed at three different sweep positions (zero, 10
degrees and 20 degrees) that mimic the unfolding sequence, while being
introduced to the various flight loads.
Future researches proficient in Arduino based coding are recommended to
look into building a PixHawk autopilot system for the BAT. This would
help gather telemetry data which could then be used to further optimise
the performance of the UAV. Integration with autopilots also open the
platform to broad possibilities and applications.
Finally, equipped with an autopilot, a vertical drop from a high altitude
can be performed on the BAT. Successful jettisoning from the
tube(probably under compressed air pressure), will ensure extended
capabilities, thereby making the BAT an expendable, less expensive and
optimal solution for remote sensing and surveillance.
78
Appendix A
Matlab Scripts
ConstraintMapping.m
1 %%%% Constraint Mapping
%%%% Author : Gursimrat BAWA
3 %%%% Jan 2016-(Updated :May 2016)
%%%% Design and Development of a Sonobuoy Tube Launched UAV
5 %%
clc
7 clear all
close all
9
% Parameters
11 eta_p = 0.7; % Propulsive Efficiency
rho = 1.225; % Air Density at Sea Level. (kg/m
^3)
13 V = 12; % Cruise Velocity (m/s)
Cdo = 0.035; % Zero Drag Coefficient
15 n = 3.8; % Load Factor limit
S = 0.5; % Wing Area (m^2) (Average of
Industry Designs)
17 AR = 7.5; % Aspect Ratio
e = 0.8; % Oswald Factor
19 K = 1/pi/AR/e;
Clmax = 1.3;
21 Vloit = 15; % Loiter Velocity(m/s)
23 %Axes
P2W = linspace(0,50); % W/N
Appendix A. Matlab Scripts 79
25 WonS = linspace(0,20); %kg/m2
27 %For Curves
MTOW = linspace(1,20); %N
29 %Maximum Turn Load
P2W_turn = (1/550/eta_p)*(0.5*rho*V^3*Cdo*(S./MTOW)+ 2*K*n
^2.*MTOW/rho/V/S);
31 P2W_turn = P2W_turn*745.7 ; % W/N
%Endurance
33 P2W_endur = (4/550/eta_p)*Cdo^0.25*(K/3)^0.75*(2.*MTOW/rho/S
).^0.5;
P2W_endur = P2W_endur*745.7; % W/N
35 %Cruise
P2W_cruise = (2/550/eta_p)*Cdo^0.25*(K/3)^0.75*(2.*MTOW/rho/
S).^0.5;
37 P2W_cruise = P2W_cruise*745.7; % W/N
%Stall
39 for i=1:length(P2W)
WonS_stall(i) = (0.5*rho*Clmax*V^2)/9.8; %kg/m2
41 end
43 %%
%Plotting
45 plot(WonS, P2W_turn,’k-’)
hold on
47 plot(WonS, P2W_endur,’k--’)
hold on
49 plot(WonS, P2W_cruise,’k:’)
hold on
51 plot(WonS_stall, P2W,’k-.’)
hold on
53 %%
%Design Point from EXCEL Sheet
55 WonS_dp = 1.18/0.298;
PonW_dp = 212/1.2/9.8;
57 plot(WonS_dp,PonW_dp,’kX’);
%%
Appendix A. Matlab Scripts 80
59 % Graph Info
title(’Constraint Analysis’)
61 legend(’Turn’,’Endurance’,’Cruise’,’Stall’,’Mark1’)
ylabel(’Power to Weight (W/N)’);
63 xlabel(’Weight to Span (kg/m^2)’);
65 %%--xx--%%
81
Appendix B
Airfoil Selection
Appendix B. Airfoil Selection
F IGURE B.1: Airfoil trade-off table.

82
83
Appendix C
MS Excel Based Design Sheet
F IGURE C.1: Wing geometry parameters. Ones highlighted in

red are to be entered by the user.
Appendix C. MS Excel Based Design Sheet 84
F IGURE C.2: Sweep calculations and dependencies on the

static margin
F IGURE C.3: Washout calculation using Pankin’s Method

85
Appendix D
CAD Drawings
4 3 2 1
75.49 74.51
F F
E E
549.56 Wing Span
D D
150 Wing Chord
C C
5
.9
45
0
.1
60
Drawn By : Gursimrat Singh Bawa
The BAT : Right Wing
Material:
A
Unless specified
Foam core with
all dimensions Scale : 1:5
are in mm Balsa sheeting
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
F 64.53 85.47 F
E E
550 Wing Span

D D
150 Wing Chord

C C
20
16.03
The BAT : Left Wing
Material :
A
Unless specified
all dimensions Scale : 1:5 Foam core with
are in mm Balsa sheeting
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
65
F F
151.02
E E
40
D D
otor
C 28-26s M C
mount
3 x4 to
The BAT: Front Fuselage (Modular)

A
Unless specified
all dimensions Scale: 1:2
Material:
are in mm PLA Plastic
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
F 70.17 F
4.58
E E
150
13
12
15
D D
4
C C
65
70.17
The BAT : Rear Fuselage

A
Unless specified
all dimensions Material :
Scale : 1:2 PLA Plastic
are in mm
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
F 23 F
15.55
ng
o usi
gH
13 rin
R2
a
Be
20
03
6
10.
34.16
E 6.75 Pivot Hole E
27.8
3
85
69.45
R5
R5
23
20
35.29
lt
D Bo D
ck
Lo
ar so
r
0 Sp es
3.5 29 rec
rm
n ga
pri
0S
3.5
to place bearing
10 Spar midway
8
C C
12
LUG 3
A
Unless specified Material:
all dimensions Scale : 1:1 PLA Plastic
are in mm (3D Printed)
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
10
x
4
F Slo F
ts 50
fo
r R 2.
m
Di
ot
ffe
or
re
s
nt
6 For Motor shaft
42.50
14
45
E E
.1
4
35
50
40
5
D D
R2
C C
4
3D Printed Motor Mount

A
Unless specified
Material :
are in mm PLA Plastic
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
F F
M5 Threaded
E E
80
10
D D
C C
5
6.35
Threaded Pivot Pin

A
Unless specified
Material:
are in mm
Stainless Steel
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
10
F F
100.12
E E
4
30
40
D D
10
C C
10
110
Spar Cap for reinforcement

A
Unless specified
are in mm
4 3 2 1
94
Bibliography
[1] Haseeb Ahmed. “STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF

TUBE LAUNCH UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE”. Thesis. July 2009.
[2] Joshua Brookes-Allen. “The application of UAVs for use in Bushfire
Control”. Thesis. The University of Sydney, p. 10. 98 pp.
[3] Matthew Cross. Maritime Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ‘Augenaut’. Report.
The University of Sydney, 2004.
[4] Mansi Devasthalee. “Aerodynamic Analysis of Sonochute Launched
UAV”. Masters. 2009.
[5] Daniel Dinh, Timotheos Moisiadis, and Brandon Brown. Tube
Launched UAV. Report. The University of Sydney, 2014.
[6] UAV Global. BAE Systems/Sensintel Coyote.
[7] Team Golfstream. AIAA Design, Build, Fly. Design Report. Purdue
University, p. 14.
[8] J. Gundlach. Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive
Approach. AIAA education series. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 2014. ISBN : 9781624102615. URL :
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0123oAEACAAJ.
[9] J. Gundlach and R.J. Foch. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Innovation at the
Naval Research Laboratory. Library of Flight. American Institute of
Aeronautics & Astronautics, 2014. ISBN: 9781624102592. URL:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sn78oAEACAAJ.
[10] Gokhan Inalhan Hakki Karakas Emre Koyuncu, ed. ITU Tailess UAV
Design. Springer Science.
[11] Cory RA Hallam. “MIT/DRAPER Technology Development
Partnership Program: systems, aerodeceleration, and structural
design of a high-G, rapid response, deployable autonomous aerial
surveillance vehicle”. PhD. 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
[12] Martin Happerle. Airfoils for Tailless Airplanes: Design and Selection.
URL : http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/nf_1.htm.
[13] Bryant Jordan. Marines Fire Switchblade Drone From Osprey in Test.
Electronic Article. 17 April 2015. URL :
http : / / defensetech . org / 2015 / 04 / 17 / marines - fire -
switchblade-drone-from-osprey-in-test/.
[14] Michael Wohlfahrt Karl Nickel. Tailless Aircraft in Theory and Practice.
English. Trans. fromGerman by Capt. E.M.Brown RN. First. AIAA
Education Series. AIAA, 1994.
[15] Giuseooe Landolfo. “Aerodynamic and Structural Desisng of a Small
Nonplanar Wing UAV”. Masters Thesis. University of Dayton.
Chap. 4, pp. 39–42. 147 pp. URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
rws_etd/document/get/dayton1262089704/inline.
[16] Alex Lautenschlager. “Design and Construction of a Sonochute
Launched UAV”. Thesis. 2006.
[17] RACHEL LINDSAY. “AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
FEASIBILITY OF ROLLING WINGS IN THE DESIGN OF A TUBE
LAUNCHED MINIATURE AERIAL VEHICLE”. Thesis. 2011.
[18] Gary Mortimer. SEA CORP Successfully Launches Ground-Based
Compressed Carriage UAV. URL :
http : / / www . suasnews . com / 2009 / 07 / 6278 / sea - corp -
successfully - launches - ground - based - compressed -
carriage-uav/.
[19] NOAA releases unmanned aircraft inside Hurricane Edouard. URL: http:
/ / research . noaa . gov / News / NewsArchive / LatestNews /
TabId / 684 / ArtMID / 1768 / ArticleID / 10761 / NOAA -
releases - unmanned - aircraft - inside - Hurricane -
Edouard.aspx.
[20] Oto-Melara Horus UAV. YouTube Inc., 2012. URL : https : / / www .
youtube.com/watch?v=2tvEKZ0cMH8.
[21] Rafael. Skylark UAV Makes its First Flight. Press Release. 17 February
2004. URL: http : / / www . rafael . co . il / Marketing / 427 -
1287-en/Marketing.aspx.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 96
[22] Mohammad Sadraey. “Wing Design”. In: ed. by

Daniel Webster College.
[23] The Spring Store. Torsional Springs Calculator. URL :
http : / / www . thespringstore . com / spring -
calculator/torsional-springs-calculator.html.
[24] L-3 Unmanned Systems. Cutlass Tube-Launched Small UAS. 2015. URL:
http://www2.l-3com.com/uas/products/r_cutlass.htm.
[25] Robert Tilford. “U.S.M.C. orders “Switchblade” UAV drones that
function as mini-cruise missiles”. In: (25 May 2012). URL:
http : / / www . examiner . com / article / u - s - m - c - orders -
switchblade - uav - drones - that - function - as - mini -
cruise-missiles.
[26] AZ Tuscon. “Raytheon Tests SilentEyes Micro UAV At Edwards
AFB”. In: SpaceDaily.com (4 August 2004). URL :
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-04zz.html.
[27] Defense Update. L3 Geneva Aerospace to Deliver Expeditionary UAV to
SOCOM. 2009. URL: http://defense-update.com/products/
e/euas_sure_socom_l3_240909.html.
[28] Defense Update. “Skylite Miniature Aerial vehicle, RAFAEL (Israel)”.
In: (31 November 2005). URL: http : / / defense - update . com /
products/s/skylark2-uav.htm.

The Design Development and Testing of A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Design Development and Testing of A PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Design Development and Testing of A PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Design, Development and Testing of a Tube

(C) Gursimrat Singh Bawa, The University of Sydney, 2016.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

School of Aerospace,Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering

• I carried out the background research and analysed past work.

• I carried out the software analysis driving the design. I implemented

• I created all the included CAD drawings and figures in SolidWorks15.

• I built Mark 1 and The BAT from scratch.

• I spectated the flight tests in person, while a professional RC pilot flew

• All conclusions drawn are original

To Prachi Sachdeva, I seriously don’t know, what I would’ve done without

3.1.2 Translating Mission Requirements to Prototype

6 Mark 2 : ’The BAT’ 58

6.7.1 Push Rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7 Summary, Conclusions and Future Work 73

C MS Excel Based Design Sheet 83

2.1 BAE Coyote, parachute module and the sonobuoy launch

3.1 Conceptual design sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Lift Coefficient Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.4 Right wing folded positioning in the launch tube. . . . . . . . 42

5.2 Hot Wire cutting of foam core. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.1 Fuselage dimensioning convention followed. . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.14 Spar failure close-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

7.1 Mark 1 before first launch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

B.1 Airfoil trade-off table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

C.1 Wing geometry parameters. Ones highlighted in red are to be

3.1 Commercial Flying Wing study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.1 Lift comparison between normal and span-folded wing . . . . 41

5.1 Mark 1 build dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.1 The BAT build dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

1.4 Thesis Overview

2.1 Background Research

2.1.1 Industrial Developments

Coyote UAV, developed by Advanced Ceramics Research under an Office

electro-optical(EO) or Infrared (IR) camera, and a 2 watt S-band

F IGURE 2.1: BAE Coyote, parachute module and the

Successfully deployed from a P3 Orion and tested for a 49 minute test

CUTLASS : L-3 Systems

Cutlass UAS, developed by the L-3 Unmanned Systems, USA is capable of

F IGURE 2.2: Cutlass UAV stowed and deployed, (Right)

On 4 June, 2009 L-3 Communications successfully demonstrated a ground

HORUS : OTO Melara

F IGURE 2.3: OTO Melara’s HORUS

Equipped with LiPo Batteries, and a tractor brushless motor , HORUS

SWITCHBLADE : Aerovironment Inc.

F IGURE 2.4: Aerovironments Switchblade

accompanied with motor powering on, giving a 10 minute powered fight

F IGURE 2.5: Supershell Concept stages

One of the early tested modules, SilentEyes by Raytheon was successfully

F IGURE 2.6: Raytheon’s SilentEyes UAV

With primary focus on Urban Terrain (MOUT) missions, Israeli Company

F IGURE 2.7: Rafael’s Skylite A

2.1.2 Naval Research Laboratory Developments

2.1.3 Developments at AeroMech, The University of

F IGURE 2.8: UAVs developed at the Naval Research

F IGURE 2.9: Sydney University’s Augenaut UAV