ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

UCK432E – AIRCRAFT DESIGN

“The design of the UAV”

ASSOC. PROF. DR. GÖKHAN İNALHAN

110080039 İBRAHİM CANDEMİR

110080068 KIVANÇ ÖZIŞIK

110100008 GÖKÇE GÜLCÜLER

110100051 OLCAY SARI

110100055 SEDEF ÖZ

110110919 ERIC KISKOSGEI KIRWA

Mission Requirements and Design Solution
Requirements

The UAV should be designed with electrical motor and propeller. Besides, it should release
500 ml of water in the specified region at 20 meters of altitude.

Mission

The mission is to make as much as laps in 4 minutes. The route can be seen in the Figure 1.
Moreover, the aircraft will carry a camera as a payload.

Figure 1. Mission route

Grading

Grading comprise four parts which are flight grade (FG), weight grade (WG), report grade
(RG) and spilling water grade (SWG).

Flight Grade (FG)

Nmax and N refers max tour value and tour number of the group respectively.

N
FG= · 100
N max

Weight Grade (WG)

Wmin and W refers weight of the lightest RC UAV and weight of the RC UAV of the group
respectively.

W
WG= · 100
W min

Report Grade (RG)

Interim reports instead of homework and grading will be done out of 100.
Spilling Water Grade (SWG)

If the water will be spilled in the specified region. It will bring extra 15 points.

As an overall,

Grade=( FG ∙ 0.35 )+ ( WG∙ 0.20 )+ ( RG ∙0.30 )+ SWG

Most important design criteria was selected which was stability and control parameter. After
that, least weight, endurance, thrust, assembly time, manufacturability, cost optimization and
ground control parameters were considered respectively.

Other points to consider,

- To minimize assembly time, the water tank's door must open quickly and the aircraft
come together with as few movements a possible. 
- The box design must have a high strength skeletal structure with minimal skin to
reduce weight and ensure rigidity which is water tank.
This situation was addressed through design solutions that involve traditional aircraft
configuration concepts. Primary discussion focused on the interaction of the box and aircraft
together to reduce the assembly time for the entire system. 
Conceptual Design
Wing-Body Configurations
The wing-body configurations and their subsequent reasons for consideration were:
Monoplane – Due to its conventional nature and its past success in the contest, the
monoplane was chosen as the baseline configuration against which all other designs were
compared.
Biplane – To effectively package the plane in the boxes, a biplane of reduced span but equal
wing area was considered.
Canard Pusher – The canard’s horizontal stabilizer contributes to the overall lift of the
airplane and the motor’s location does not disturb the airflow over the wing.
Blended Wing Body – The BWB combines the fuselage with the lifting surfaces. It
eliminates the tail and reduces the overall wetted area, resulting in a very high L/D.
Joined Wing – The joined wing sweeps the main wing aft to join it to a forward-swept aft-
located wing. Placing the control surfaces on the aft wing eliminates the need for a tail to
stabilize and control the plane.
Figures of Merit
The configuration down select used five figures of merit (FOM) that were based upon
the best solutions to given mission requirements. Each FOM was given a weight based upon
its perceived importance to the total score for the competition. The FOM’s were:
Stability and Control (0.25) – Considering requested fluent payload, the airplane must be
stable and easily controllable so the pilot can effectively navigate the course, respond to flight
disturbances, and land in a controlled manner.
System Weight (0.23) – Minimizing system weight decreased the cost and complexity. It can
increase aircraft performance, decrease propulsion system size, and decrease assembly time as
well. Besides all others importance of lightness is already declared on project grading section.
L/D – Endurance (0.22) – The aircraft’s endurance was a major concern for the surveillance
and store release flights as at least four minutes were required.
Assembly Time (0.15) – Assembly time is the one of significant merits considering the given
time to build requested airplane.
Manufacturability (0.15) – A consideration of the skills, materials, and time needed to
properly construct and repair the design.

Factor of Merit 0.2266 0.1533 0.22 0.2533 0.1466

Wing - Body Assembly Stability and

Weight Endurance Manufacturability Sum
Combination Time Control
Canard 0 0 0 1 0 0.2533
Bi-Planes -1 -1 1 1 -1 -0.0533
Flying Wing 0 0 1 -1 0 -0.033
Conventional 0 1 0 0 1 0.3
Blended Wing
1 -1 1 -1 -1 -0.1066
Body (BWB)

The down select, shown in Table, revealed that the conventional airplane received the highest
score.
Propulsion Configuration
Propulsion placement configurations are searched and five different configurations are
analysed such as tractor, pusher/puller, wing mounted.
Tractor Configuration (Pusher Configuration)

Tractor configuration is the most common one in propeller aircraft which motor and propeller
are located on centreline. Propeller is located in front of the wing.
Advantages
Air which coming front side is undisturbed. Ground clearance isn’t a topic during rotation at
T-O or flare before touch-down. Placing the fuselage behind the propeller lets for a reduced
stream tube inflow distortion and fewer asymmetric disc loading that would increase blade
stresses. There is fewer chance that the propeller suffers deface due to FOD, in particular
when the aircraft is moving. Propeller is not problem to extreme heat from the exhaust.
Disadvantages
If air is separated prior to reaching the propeller, this situation be a problem. And cabin noise
is increased by this configuration .It has a risk of ground-strike in a hard landing.
Pusher/puller configuration
In the pusher puller configuration, aircraft contains tractor propeller and pusher propellers.
There are several advantages and disadvantages of this configuration.
Advantages
Owing to mounting tractor and pusher propellers on the aircraft’s centreline, increased drag is
avoided. If one of the engine fails, aircraft accomplish its flight, as the thrust provided by the
remaining engine stays in the centreline. Contrarily, due to failure of one engine, a
conventional twin engine aircraft start to yaw in the failed engine direction. Because of
distortion, aircraft become uncontrollable below a certain speed.
Disadvantages
The rear engine operates in the disturbed air from the forward engine, which reduces its
efficiency to around 70% of the forward engine. In addition the rear engine can interfere with
the aircraft's rotation during take-off if installed in the tail, or they require additional
compromise to be made to ensure clearance. Due to these reasons mentioned above, this
configurations is commonly used in seaplanes.

Twin tractor configuration

In this configuration, two propeller engines are mounted to wings.
Advantages
The nacelle has many of the same advantages as the tractor configurations, but is more
efficient since the blockage of the nacelle is less than that of a fuselage.
Disadvantages
In contrast to single engine, it brings extra load to aircraft. As a result, it makes aircraft
heavier. Besides, due to twin engine, it is harder to control the aircraft.

Selection of Propeller Configuration

Selection of the propulsion configuration was based primarily on, light weight, landing gear
interference, efficient and powerful motor configurations.

Reliability is important category simply because failure of the propulsion system would result
in failure of the mission requirements. The tractor configuration was selected to be best suited
for the mission objectives based upon its weight, take-off performance, and simplicity.
The pusher configuration did not afford this necessary ground clearance for the landing gear,
so that option was discarded. The potential aerodynamic benefits of the wing-mounted
configuration were shown to be minor compared to the increased weight of two motors. Also,
the pull-push configuration increased the weight and complexity of the aircraft for no gain in
efficiency.

Thus, the tractor configuration yielded the largest benefit. The tractor configuration was
selected to be best suited for the mission objectives based upon its weight, take-off
performance, and simplicity.

Wing-
Score factor Tractor Pull-Push
Mounted

Weight 0.4 1.0 -1.0 -1.0

Landing Gear Configuration
Efficiency 0.6 0.5 0 0
Landing gear configurations
are searched Total such as tricycle,
1.0 0,7 -0.4 -0.4
Score
bicycle, and tail- dragger.
Tail dragger (conventional landing gear)

Advantages
The tailwheel has less parasitic drag than a nose wheel owing to its smaller size. Tailwheels
are less expensive than nose wheel. If any failure happens in tailwheel while landing, the
aircraft damage will be minimal. Moreover, there is increased propeller clearance on
tailwheel.
Disadvantages
Conventional geared aircraft are much more susceptible to ground looping. Tailwheel aircraft
generally suffer from poorer forward visibility on the ground, compared to nose wheel
aircraft. Tailwheel aircraft are more difficult to taxi during high wind conditions, due to the
higher angle of attack on the wings which can then develop more lift on one side, making
control difficult or impossible.
Tricycle configuration
Advantages
On the ground, it has a visibility advantage. Tricycle gear aircraft are easier to land because
the attitude required to land on the main gear is the same as that required in the flare, and they
are less vulnerable to crosswinds.
Disadvantages
Tricycle aircraft can be susceptible to wheel-barrowing. 
Bicycle configuration
This configuration contains two main gear along the centreline of the aircraft, one forward
and one aft of the centre of gravity.

Advantages
It is lower weight and drag than either the tail dragger or tricycle arrangements.
Disadvantages
This configuration is very demanding on the pilot who must maintain a very level attitude
during take-off and landing while carefully managing airspeed.

Score Factor Tricycle Bicycle Tail Dragger

Drag 0.2 0 1 0
Weight 0.4 0 1 1
Stability 0.3 0 -1 0
Durabilit 0.1 0 0 1
y
Total 0 0.3 0.5
Optimum landing gear configuration has been selected with considering take-off, landing and
taxi mission requirements. And we attached importance to minimizing weight and drag. Three
configurations were compared on table.
FOMs effected to efficiency of landing gear. Durability is last importance because of the
vibrations caused during the Taxi Mission. Weight and drag are very important for selecting
of best situation as a reduction in both would yield a greater overall score. After arrangements
of score table, tail dragger was chosen because it has strong ground handling and stability
characteristics as well as the ability to set the aircraft close to its stall angle in order to achieve
CL,max .

Tail Configuration

According to the mission, firefighter aircrafts and aeroplanes from AIAA Design Build and
Fly projects were investigated. Over 25 aircrafts, results were compared with the chart from
“Raymer’s Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach”. Some of the pictures are given at the
end of this section. Tail types of 25 aeroplanes related to the project mission:

19 2 0 2

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 1
As seen, most of the aircrafts had Conventional Tail. Each case were investigated to find out
the reason why

1. Conventional Tail: Due to its direct mounting feature of vertical and horizontal tail to
the boom, it is structurally sound. Vertical tail’s efficiency is large with the
interference to the horizontal tail, well fits with increasing aspect ratio. Ideal for
mounting to boom and fuselage.
 2. U or H tail: High horizontal tail effectiveness due to placement of vertical tail. It is
often used with propeller aircraft to have lesser yawing moment because of propellers
slipstream on the vertical tail. However it requires complex control linkages.
3. V - Tail: Good combination of horizontal and vertical tail functions. Flight becomes
more stable by reducing the controllability in combined yaw and pitch movements.
4. T – Tail: Structurally problematic. High effectiveness of vertical tail and removal of
downwash of horizontal tail during climb.
5. Cruciform: It has good control features in stall. But prop wash advantage is lost.

As a result, conventional tail was chosen due to its dominant advantage on weight, structural
stability, ease of manufacture and prop wash placement. It is both structurally and
aerodynamically sound. Other tails did not have any important advantage over conventional
tail for this mission.

To find the best solution, a methodical approach was used. Each concept category had its own
criteria for selection.

Preliminary Design

Several design parameters mentioned before will be used in preliminary design part.
According to chart used in mission requirements and design solution part, weight, stability
and control and endurance are the most important parameters. Hence, the RC UAV will be
designed appropriately to this parameters. In this part, weight estimation, airfoil/wing
selection, ……………………….

Weight Estimation

Historical trends were used in each part of weight estimation. RC aircraft were analysed
which carries 0.5 kilogram weight. Weight estimation was calculated based on homebuilt-
composite type's empty weight fraction parameters.
 A, C and K (fixed sweep) were chosen as 0.99, -0.09 and 1 respectively.

Explanation of the symbols used in formula:

1. Payload weight (Wp): The payload is what the airplane is mentioned to carry water
tank and camera.

2. Fuel weight (Wf): Radio-controlled aircraft have been used. Thus, it

is unnecessary parameter and fuel does not exist. Hence, in further calculations, Wf
values was used for battery weight.

3. Empty weight (We): This is weight of everything else the structure engines electronic
equipment landing gear and anything else that is not payload. 

4. Gross weight (W0): The sum of these weights is the total weight of the airplane.
Gross weight is equal to total weight.

We
= A W C0 K vs
W0

W crew +W payload
W 0=
W W
1− f − e
W0 W0

Wf
=0.178
W0
Wf/Wo values found from historical data.

W crew =0

W p =0.5 kg

W0 first guess W0 calculated

3 1,024
2 1,546
1,773 1,921
1,847 1,769
1,808 1,844
1,826 1,808
1,817 1,826
1,821 1,817
1,819 1,821
1,820 1,819
1,820 1,820

From the iteration Wo was found as 1.82 kg. This value was multiplied by 1.2. Because of the
possible manufacturing defects. Hence, the result becomes,

W 0 =2.2 kg

Airfoil/Wing Selection

Cruise velocity is defined as 20 m/s with the aid of historical data. According to weight
estimation, total weight of aircraft was found as 2.2 kg. Hence, the further calculations of lift
were done for the wing which can carry the 2.2 kg weight. For the lift calculations, lift
coefficient and wing area should be determined first. Hence, historical data searched again
and appropriate aspect ratio and wing span were found as 6.79 and 1.43 respectively. From
the equation [AR=b2/S], chord length is defined as 21 cm. Thus, wing area values was found
as 0.3 m2. The found values are tabulated.

Vcruise [m/s] 20

Aspect ratio 6.79

Wing span [m] 1.43

Chord length [m] 0.21

 Wing area [m2] 0.3

During the cruise flight, weight is equal to lift at zero angle of attack. Hence,

1
W =L= ρ V 2 (S wing +S tail )C L =21.68 N
2

From this equation, only the Swing value was considered, required CL was found as 0.2985. At
20 ̊ C ρ=1.2 kg/m3, from this value Reynold’s number was calculated as,

V ∙c
ℜ= =270004.9
γ

Owing to calculated values, proper airfoil type which is NACA 2411 has been selected. The
properties of NACA 2411 is tabulated.

Property Ratio Chord

tmax 0.11 0.3
camber 0.2 0.4

For the value of 270004.9 of Reynolds number, Cl-Cd, Cl-α, Cm-α, Cl-xtrtop, Cp-x and Cl/Cd-α
graphics can be seen in the figure below. Graphics were plotted in XFLR5 program.
 Cl-Cd

Cl-α, Cl-xtrtop, Cm-α and Cl/Cd-α

Cp-x
In order to strengthen the wing, one wooden horizontal spar which goes through maximum
camber and maximum thickness was designed.

Horizontal Tail

The same airfoil was chosen for horizontal tail which is NACA 2411. According to
competitor study, Cl was calculated as 0.271. In order to provide required lift during the cruise
flight, Stail is calculated as 0.0338. Due to historical trend, aspect ratio was selected as 3.4.
According to these values, the table given below is created.

Cl from airfoil [m2] 0.271

stail [m] 0.0338
ctail [m] 0.1
btail [m] 0.34
AR 3.4

In order to calculated the distance of horizontal tail to centre of gravity of aircraft,

longitudinal stability calculation must be done.

c m =c m + c L
cg ac w w ( xć − xć )−η V
cg ac
H c L +c m
t cg f

Cmaw @ α=0 -0.059 xcg/c 0.377

CLw 0.271 xac/c 0.437
CLt 0.271 Cmcg (selected) -0.15
η 1 VH 0.276
Cmcgf 0 lH [m] 0.52

According to historical trend, Cmcg was selected as -0.15 to provide necessary longitudinal
stability. Owing the selected value of Cmcg, lH was found as 0.52 m.

Vertical Tail

Aspect ratio and volume coefficient were selected from historical trends.

Taper ratio 0.8 Cmean [mm] 189.777

croot [mm] 210 Svt [m2] 0.075
ctip [mm] 168 Lvt [mm] 515.69
Vvt 0.09 bvt 396.045