PURL SkyLion

Final Design Report

Supervising Professor: Dr. Eric Johnson

Instructor: Dr. Jack Langelaan

26 April, 2019

AERSP 402B - Detail Aircraft Design

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Authors:

Edouard Buisson
Chris Hapsias
Colton McMullen
Utsav Shah
Kartik Singhal
Nicholas Tabinsky
Ru Yang
 Executive Summary
The Pennsylvania State University UAS Research Lab (PURL) supports
interdisciplinary research in the fields of adaptive flight control, vision-based
control, and conducting realistic flight validation. The UAV presented in this paper
as the PSU SkyLion is a small UAV currently under development for the PURL.
The central idea for the project was to create an aircraft that was able to demonstrate
vision-based control, adaptive flight control, and conduct realistic flight validation.
As specified by the PURL, the vehicle must be capable of engine-out scenarios and
cargo delivery. The SkyLion is also required to handle these tasks while also being
able to provide sufficient volume and payload for equipment such as sensors,
cameras, and processors. It will be used by the lab for fault-tolerant flight control
system development and conducting tests involving engine-out scenarios and cargo
delivery. Once constructed, the SkyLion can also be made available to other
departments such as the architecture, meteorology, and geology departments in order
to help in a variety of tasks that could benefit students and faculty members. Such
mission tasks could range from analyzing a landscape from above using infrared
sensors, cameras and other sensors to simply carrying cargo to the other side of
campus hence it’s maximum flight time of forty minutes. This UAV will be created
with the purpose of serving the entire university while prioritizing the PURL’s
needs.

Due to the need for a small-scale UAV, it must and is expected to fulfill the Federal
Aviation Administration’s requirements that define it as a UAV. The vehicle will
operate under Part 107 of the FAA Regulations for a small unmanned air system,
and thus must have a take-off weight less than 55 pounds. The design of the SkyLion
features two engines supported by two booms, three landing gears, and an access
point to the interior of the UAV through its nose for convenient access to the
equipment and other cargo.

Looking back to the beginning of the project, the design of the UAV was based off
a scaled down version of the OV-10A Bronco. This comparison was chosen due to
the prototype design given by Dr. Johnson. For the purpose of conducting an
estimation in sizing and constraint calculations, the requirements tied to the SkyLion
were initially established using the specifications of the Electric Penguin B
unmanned aircraft platform as a reference. The Penguin B was chosen due to its
similar size, electric propulsion, and its short duration missions.

The final design of the SkyLion allows for 8 kg of payload and features a 4.27 m
wingspan with an aspect ratio of approximately 9.5 and a taper ratio of 0.6. The main
wing uses the SD7037 airfoil, a commonly used sailplane airfoil, and the horizontal
and vertical tails use the NACA 0012 airfoil. The horizontal tail has a 1.68 m span,
and the dual vertical tails have a 0.44 m span. The UAV is powered by a Li-Poly
battery and has a stall speed of 47 km/h, a cruise speed of 65 km/h, and an
approximate range of 40 km.
 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
AIRCRAFT MISSION ..................................................................................... 1
CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 1
COMPETITOR AIRCRAFT ............................................................................. 2
DESIGN CONCEPT ..................................................................................... 4
DESIGN CONCEPT ........................................................................................ 4
DESIGN PROCESS .......................................................................................... 5
Critical Assumption ................................................................................... 5
CG Limit .................................................................................................... 7
Fuselage .................................................................................................... 9
Tail .......................................................................................................... 10
FINAL DESIGN........................................................................................... 11
AIRFOIL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 11
DRAG ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 12
Drag Build-Up......................................................................................... 12
Power Analysis ........................................................................................ 13
Range Analysis ........................................................................................ 14
AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE ........................................................................ 14
Flight Envelope ....................................................................................... 14
Climb Performance ................................................................................. 15
Mission Analysis ...................................................................................... 16
CONTROL SURFACE SIZING....................................................................... 16
INTERNAL ARRANGEMENTS ...................................................................... 17
PRELIMINARY SPAR DESIGN ..................................................................... 19
WEIGHT AND COST ESTIMATION.............................................................. 21
COMPONENTS............................................................................................. 22
Sensors .................................................................................................... 22
Motor ....................................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 24
REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 25
 List of Figures
Figure 1 OV-10 Bronco ............................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 Dr. Johnson's SkyLion Model ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Penguin B .................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4 Three-View of SkyLion .............................................................................. 5
Figure 5 Constraint Diagram ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 Takeoff Weight vs L/D ............................................................................... 6
Figure 7 CG Limit ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8 CL = 0.6 distribution ................................................................................... 8
Figure 9 Wing Planform ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 10 Drag Polar (a) NACA 0012, (b) SD7037................................................ 11
Figure 11 Drag Contributors ................................................................................... 12
Figure 12 Power vs Airspeed .................................................................................. 13
Figure 13 V-N Diagram .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 14 Climb Performance ................................................................................. 16
Figure 15 Exploded view of Internal Arrangement................................................. 18
Figure 16 Top View of Internal Arrangement......................................................... 18
Figure 17 The bending moment along the span of one wing starting at root .......... 19
Figure 18 Each spare will be 2 ply T800S carbon fiber that is 1/16” thick. .......... 20
Figure 19 Overhead view of wing spar arrangement in wing ................................. 21

List of Tables
Table 1 Critical Requirements ................................................................................... 1
Table 2 Dimensions & Specifications ....................................................................... 4
Table 3 Taper Ratio Study......................................................................................... 9
Table 4 Parasite Drag Components ......................................................................... 13
Table 5 Control Surface Dimensions ...................................................................... 17

Nomenclature
𝛼 Angle of Attack
a Wing Lift Curve Slope
AR Aspect Ratio
𝑎𝑡 Tail Lift Curve Slope
b Span (m)
c Chord (m)
𝐶𝑑 Sectional Coefficient of Drag
𝐶𝐷 3-Dimensional Coefficient of Drag
𝐶𝐷𝑂 Parasite Drag Coefficient
CG Center of Gravity
𝐶𝑙 Sectional Coefficient of Lift
𝐶𝐿 3-Dimensional Coefficient of Lift
𝑒𝑜 Oswald’s Efficiency
ℎ𝑛 Neutral Point Location
ℎ𝑛𝑊𝐵 Wing-Body Neutral Point Location
𝐿⁄𝐷 Lift-to-Drag Ratio
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord
𝜌 Density (kg/m3)
Re Reynolds Number
VH Tail Volume
𝜉 Efficiency
 Introduction
Aircraft Mission
As the popularity of autonomous electric aircraft grows more and more research will
need to be conducted on these systems. Our task is to design a UAV capable of being
a general avionics test bed, having advanced flight controls, and possibly being able
to carry out autonomous cargo delivery experiments. The UAV must be able to carry
an ample payload for a variety of different sensors and cameras along with a fault
tolerant control system that can withstand engine out scenarios.

Critical Requirements
The requirements of the SkyLion were established by Dr. Johnson and are shown in
Table 1. The payload capacity of this test bed must allow for a wide range of sensors,
processors, cameras and communication equipment to be added to the aircraft for
the purpose of data collection and communication. It must also be able to withstand
autonomous cargo delivery experiments. As specified by Dr. Johnson of the PURL,
the target takeoff weight of this UAV is less than or equal to 55 lb. (24.95 kg.) which
is derived from FAA classification of group 2 unmanned aircrafts. The UAV must
include two electric motors, two propellers and to be powered by Li-Poly batteries.
These requirements set by Dr. Johnson and the FAA lead to the imposition of
constraints on the aircraft. Examples of such constraints would be the need for the
UAV to fit in the bed of an Isuzu truck with specific dimensions. Such constraints
led to limits of length and wingspan of the aircraft. This is why the wings for the
UAV will be detachable at the booms to fit this requirement.
Table 1 Critical Requirements

Parameter Requirement

Weight 21.5 kg (FAA)

Flight Time (min) 20 minutes

Flight Time (max) 40 minutes

Take Off Distance (max) 94 m

Payload 3 kg

1
Competitor Aircraft
Looking back to our first attempt, the design of the UAV was based on a scaled
down version of the OV-10A Bronco as shown in Figure 1. This comparison was
chosen due to the prototype design given by Dr. Johnson shown in Figure 2. The
initial prototype given by Dr. Johnson was based of the Tundra Xpress, an
autonomous remote cargo delivery UAV by the Pennsylvania State UAV Research
Laboratory. For the purpose of conducting an estimation in sizing and constraint
calculations, the requirements tied to the SkyLion were initially established using
the specifications of the Electric Penguin B unmanned aircraft platform as a
reference. The Penguin B shown in Figure 3 was selected due to its similarly-sized
electric propulsion designed for short duration missions.

Figure 1 OV-10 Bronco

Figure 2 Dr. Johnson's SkyLion Model

2
Figure 3 Penguin B

3
 Design Concept
Design Concept
The SkyLion was designed to weigh under 55 lb. in order to comply with the FAA’s
classifications of a UAV. According to the Federal Drone Registration, the FAA
enforces all new drone owners to register each drone that is purchased weighing
between 0.55lbs to 55lbs. However, this will not be any issue as long as the criteria
for owning and operating a surveillance UAV are met by the Pennsylvania State
University. The specifications of the final SkyLion design are given in Table 2 and
the 3-View of the SkyLion based on the dimensions is shown in Figure 4.

Table 2 Dimensions & Specifications

Maximum Take-Off Weight 24.95 kg

Empty Weight 16.35 kg

Payload Weight 8.6 kg

Wing Span 4.27 m

Wing Area 1.92 m2

Aspect Ratio 9.5

Horizontal Tail Area 0.341 m2

Horizontal Tail Span 1.676 m

Vertical Tail Area (each) 0.899 m

Vertical Tail Span (each) 0.442 m

Propulsion System Dual Engine, Li-Poly Batteries (16000 mAh)

Stall Speed 46.8 km/hr

Cruise Speed 65 km/hr

Range 40 km

4
 Figure 4 Three-View of SkyLion

Design process
Critical Assumption
In order to generate preliminary constraint diagrams, it was necessary to begin
with assumed values of parasite drag coefficient and Oswald's efficiency. A
parasite drag coefficient of 0.03 and an Oswald's efficiency of 0.8 were assumed.
The finalized design revealed the Oswald's efficiency assumption to be fairly
accurate; wing analysis resulted in a parasite drag coefficient of 0.02 and an
Oswald's efficiency of 0.9.

The restriction imposed on the specification of SkyLion were defined by the

constraint diagram shown in Figure 5. This diagram is composed of various plots
of thrust-to-weight ratio with respect to wing loading for the aircraft in ground
roll, stall, and sustainable level turn scenarios, thus setting acceptable ranges for
thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, and L/D.

5
 Figure 5 Constraint Diagram

Figure 6 shows the variation of take-off weight with respect to L/D at ranges of
36, 40, and 44 kilometers. Because the upper limit of take-off weight was

Figure 6 Takeoff Weight vs L/D

6
predetermined, a minimum L/D is established for each range value. This diagram
constrains L/D to a minimum of 10 for a range of 44 kilometers.

CG Limit

Figure 7 CG Limit
Figure 7 shows the limits for the center of gravity on board the aircraft which
were determined by the stability and trim equations in conjunction with the
UAV’s tail volume coefficient. Originally the aircraft’s tail was much smaller
than the current configuration. The size of the tail was increased to allow for
a larger margin for the limits of the center of gravity. The aircrafts tail volume
coefficient was increased from 0.25 to 0.5. In order to increase the tail volume
coefficient either the distance from the aerodynamic center of the wing to the
aerodynamic center of the tail had to be extended or the total area of the tail
had to be increased. Shown in Equation 1.

VH = St ∗ lt ∗ S ∗ C (1)

Due to sizing constraints set upon the vehicle the distance between the main
wing and the tail could not be increased so the total area of the tail had to be
increased. Increasing the size of the tail led to the current tail volume

7
coefficient of 0.5. This line is displayed in Figure 7 in green. A tail area of
0.185 m^2 and a moment arm of 1.7 m were selected. Additionally, Equation
2 was used to calculate a neutral point location of approximately 0.48% MAC.
The resulting forward CG limit is located at -0.1% MAC, and the resulting aft
CG limit is located at 0.75% MAC. Having a large margin for the center of
gravity limits is adventitious to the wide array of missions the SkyLion may
face. Having the forward and aft limits for the center of gravity be set widely
apart allows the consumer to have more freedom with what payload they want
and where they may want it located with-in the aircraft. This is important
when considering that the consumer may want sensors in certain positions or
even a combination of transportable items and a specific sensor configuration.

𝑡 a
h𝑛 = h𝑛𝑤𝑏 + a∗VH (2)

Wing Planform
A constant-cord wing (Hershey) with a rectangular planform atop the fuselage
originally was to be used as a place holder to better understand how to operate
the Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) system. Once the team had reached a steady
foundation of how to operate the AVL system the planform of the wing could
be tweaked to return desirable numbers. The geometry of the wing planform
was selected to be in a constant chord tapered configuration with a taper ratio
of 0.6. This was found to be most efficient in reducing the induced drag from
the study shown in Table 3, resulting in the lowest parasite drag coefficient
(0.044), with an accompanying Oswald’s efficiency of 0.816 in cruise
conditions. The lift distribution of the tapered wing is shown in Figure 8
Additionally, the wing starts tapering where the wing interfaces with the
booms which can be seen in the Figure 9.

Figure 8 CL = 0.6 distribution

8
 Table 3 Taper Ratio Study

Figure 9 Wing Planform

Fuselage
The current fuselage design of the SkyLion has changed significantly since the last
report. The changes included reduction of length of the fuselage to reduce the empty
space inside it and then moving the fuselage forward to keep the aircraft stable. The
fuselage’ length was reduced from 7.5ft. to 6ft. The fuselage was initially designed
as a pod but the design has now changed to a rounded rectangle to better
accommodate the payload. The fuselage holds flight control computers, sensors, the
main autopilot module, and batteries to power the flight control equipment. In

9
addition, the fuselage has an 8.6 kg payload to hold additional batteries for powering
the motors.

Tail
The aircraft is operating with a twin boom high tail configuration as initially
designed with the doubled tail volume coefficient. It was originally very slender
because of the nature of electric powered UAV’s. Allowing the Center of gravity
margins to be very small, the UAV does not have to account for the weight of liquid
fuel that is being burned off and jostled around during flight. Though this allowed
the aircraft to weigh less, the team still decided to go with a larger horizontal tail due
to the previous tail design not resembling with other modern UAV’s. Now the
aircraft has a very large distance between the forward and aft center of gravity limits.
With this large range it allows the consumer to outfit the UAV with several different
sensors in various different configurations making it a very versatile vehicle capable
of many different missions. Increasing the total width of the tail made the aircraft
more aesthetically pleasing and resembled other flying aircraft as well, making it
even more marketable.

10
 Final Design
Airfoil Analysis
Analysis for airfoil was conducted in order to characterize the lift and drag behavior
of the UAV. In order to begin this analysis, several low Re airfoils were selected for
analysis. It was calculated that the UAV would operate at a Re of approximately
500,000, as shown below.

𝜌∗𝑉∗𝐿
𝑅𝑒 = (3)
𝜇

Using a speed of 22.4 m/s, a chord length of 0.3 m, and sea level kinematic viscosity
of air, an approximate Re of 400,000 was calculated. Multiple low Re airfoils were
then considered for analysis, including a variety of Selig and NACA airfoils and the
NASA Langley GA(w)-1 and GA(w)-2. After reviewing the publicly available data
for these options and conducting two-dimensional airfoil analysis in XFOIL, it was
revealed that the SD7037 was more aerodynamically efficient and as a result was
chosen as the main wing airfoil. This airfoil was specifically designed for aircraft
operating at Reynolds numbers similar to that of the SkyLion. Its best L/D is 12 at

Figure 10 Drag Polar (a) NACA 0012, (b) SD7037

a lift coefficient of 0.5 and it is capable of flying at a maximum lift coefficient of

1.2. The SD7037 airfoil is asymmetric and relatively slender, and it is used
commonly amongst sailplanes and UAVs.

11
A symmetric airfoil was chosen for the horizontal tail due its simple geometry and
ease of manufacturing. The NACA0012 was also chosen as the airfoil for the vertical
and horizontal tail. It was calculated that the tail of the SkyLion operates at a Re of
approximately 100,000, meaning that the NACA0012 will not have optimal
performance; it was, however, considered desirable for its simplicity.

Drag Analysis
Drag Build-Up
After the wing and tail airfoils were selected and planforms were designed, the
drag behavior of the entire vehicle was characterized in the form of a drag build-

Figure 11 Drag Contributors

up, and the L/D behavior of the vehicle was also analyzed. Figure 11 shows the
drag build-up and L/D with respect to airspeed of the SkyLion with landing gear.
This figure shows that the UAV is cruising at about 65km/hr with a maximum
L/D of 19 and the total minimum drag at the cruising speed is about 12 N. The
parasite drag contributes largely to the total drag because of the landing gear and
the assumption of other external components areas contributing to drag show in
Table 4.

12
 Table 4 Parasite Drag Components

Components Sref (m2) CD f (m2)

Front Strut 1.937957 0.0001 0.0002

Font Tire 1.937957 0.0003 0.0005

F Rear Strut 1.937957 0.0001 0.0002

F Rear Tire 1.937957 0.0141 0.0273

R Rear Strut 1.937957 0.0001 0.0002

R Rear Tire 1.937957 0.0141 0.0273

Power Analysis
The power required for mid-flight cruise was calculated at the sea level density
as the SkyLion can only fly at the maximum altitude of 121 m. The plot for the
power required vs airspeed can be seen in Figure 12 along with the L/D vs
airspeed graph. It can be depicted that the minimum power required by the
SkyLion to fly at sea level density is about 0.2kW at the speed of 50km/hr. For
SkyLion to fly at the cruise speed of 65km/hr, the minimum power required is
0.24kW which can be fulfilled by the 1.065kW motor selected for the SkyLion.

Figure 12 Power vs Airspeed

13
 Range Analysis
The equation of range is given by

𝑒 𝐿 𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦
𝑅= ∗ ∗𝜉∗ , (4)
𝑔 𝐷 𝑊𝑇𝑂

where e is the energy density of the battery and 𝜉 is the efficiency of the battery.
Given the two 16,000 mAh batteries chosen the range of the aircraft was
calculated to be roughly 40 km. This estimated ranged does take into account the
takeoff distance of 96 m and landing distance. The calculated range is satisfactory
and is in the spectrum of the assumption of a target range of 50 km.

Aircraft Performance
Flight Envelope
Aircraft operations are expected to meet a range of maximum and minimum
requirements which are based on the flight envelope of the aircraft. The flight
envelope is a graph of speed versus load factor where speed is determined by
the aircraft's handling performance and desired cruise operation and, the load
factor is set as the limiting design requirements for the vehicle. In Figure 13,
the area bounded by the solid portion of the VN curve, and the load limit and

Figure 13 V-N Diagram

14
the stall speed; any flight within the bounded area is considered normal flight
and possesses no risk to the flight vehicle. Although FAA Part 23 is not
applicable to this aircraft, it has been designed to meet the structural
requirements of Part 23 so it can handle a broad range of weather conditions
and gusts at random speeds. Each gust speed is categorized into three speeds;
dive airspeed (±25fps), cruise airspeed (±50 fps), and rough airspeed (±66
fps). For the SkyLion, having a lower wing loading allows for both the 50 and
66 fps gusts to just stall the vehicle without dealing any structure damage, the
25-fps gust however will deliver the vehicle to the maximum load factor at
the lowest possible speed.

Climb Performance
Aircraft along with the flight envelope is expected to meet the climb
performance requirements. This requirement is mainly based on the speed and
power of the SkyLion with respect to the altitude and air density. An increase
in altitude will decrease the air density, thus resulting in a decrease in the
propeller and wing efficiency. Varying amount of power available over the
power required causes an excess power which affects the climb performance.
The aircraft reaches its absolute ceiling when the power required and the
power available are same at a specific altitude allowing the aircraft to sustain
level flight. Aircraft is also expected to meet the operational altitude where
the vertical speed is reduced to 100ft/min or else the aircraft will stall. The
climb performance for SkyLion, shown in Figure 14 indicates that the
absolute ceiling altitude is at 12.5 km and the operational altitude is at 1 km.
Thus, the SkyLion can only operate under the operational altitude and
between the minimum and maximum velocity range.

15
 Figure 14 Climb Performance

Mission Analysis
The mission analysis covers the various stages of the aircraft starting from
taxi to take-off to cruise to landing and back to taxiing. The current motor
selected is the KDE3510XF-380 which is a 1065 W motor and the batteries
selected are two 16000 mAh LiPo batteries and one extra battery as a backup.
The estimated range of the UAV was 50 km. This was acquired by analyzing
the range versus velocity diagram. However, when using the above
configuration, the total range of the UAV will be 40 km. The calculated take-
off distance using this configuration will be 96 meters with a climb rate of
6.09 m/s to cover the distance of 1km. This climb rate was calculated based
on the high motor power.

Control Surface Sizing

Aircraft flight control surfaces are aerodynamic devices that allow pilot to adjust and
control the aircraft’s altitude. Control surfaces deflects the airflow around the aircraft
and stabilizes the aircraft by rotating it about its center of gravity. The main control
surfaces are rudder, ailerons and rudders and can be controlled by the servos for
UAV. The size of the control surface depends on the assumptions of conditions the

16
UAV can handle. The assumption made to size the control surfaces of the SkyLion
is seeing out scenario.

The engine out scenario is assumption of failing one of the engines during flight
which can create a yawing moment about the CG of UAV and changes the
directional trim of the UAV. To neutralize and overpower this affect, SkyLion’s
control surfaces are sized accordingly with an assumption of approaching landing
speed.

As it is known, the rudder and elevator are both displacement control device and
aileron are a rate-controlled device, some assumptions like maximum rudder
deflection of 20, maximum aileron and elevator deflection of 15°, and roll rate of
90°/sec were made to design the control surface. It was also assumed that the
crosswind SkyLion needs to handle is 10 km/hr or 6 mph while approaching landing.

Table 5 Control Surface Dimensions

The control surface sizing was calculated using the stability and maneuver equations
for each surface separately. The resulting dimensions of the control surface are
shown in the Table 5.

Internal Arrangements
SkyLion’s payload is placed in a container inside the fuselage along with the
batteries and sensors. The container is mounted on a railing as indicated in the Figure
15 and can be accessed through an opening located at the front of the UAV. This is
done in order to easily access the payload when the aircraft is stationary. Figure 16
shows a proportional drawing in order to obtain the best available space. In terms of
payload, SkyLion will have three batteries out of which one battery is for backup
power. The payload is aligned very carefully keeping the CG and the neutral point
in mind. The sensors will also be placed in the same container. SkyLion will have
two cameras, the first camera will be mounted in the front and the second will be
mounted at the bottom. SkyLion is capable of handling the engine out scenario
because of the extra battery which will act as a backup power. In case of an

17
emergency during cruise due to wiring issues, SkyLion can be used as a glider and
can land safely.

Figure 15 Exploded view of Internal Arrangement

Figure 16 Top View of Internal Arrangement

18
Preliminary Spar Design
The wing spar for the SkyLion’s main wing was chosen to be a square wing box,
which would run the length of the wing in two different sized sections. To calculate
the proper size of the wing box, both the shear and bending moment was found using
shear and moment diagrams, which were based on the elliptical lift distribution of
the wing. The elliptical distribution is based on the section lift coefficient from AVL;

Figure 17 The bending moment along the span of one wing starting
at root
the maximum for both shear and moment are at the root of the wing.

The maximum shear force is 78 N, but there is a rise in shear force at the middle of
the wing due to the added weight of the boom and engine; the maximum bending
moment is 70 Nm. The material being used for the spar is T800S carbon fiber, the

19
 Figure 18 Each spare will be 2 ply T800S
carbon fiber that is 1/16” thick.
tensile strength is 477 ksi (3290 MPa) and compressive strength of 216 ksi (1490
MPa); and will be filled with EPS foam to act as the shear web for the spar.

The size of wing spar that is needed to handle the maximum forces on the wing are
a size that is not mass produced, therefore the wing spar for the straight section will
have a 1.5” square opening for the foam, and a 1” square opening for the wing spar
of the tapered section. Using the stress Equation 5, the stress of the wing spar placed
at maximum thickness of wing was calculated. It resulted to be 183 ksi which is
slight lower than the compressive strength of 216 ksi and provides the accurate
dimensions of the wing spar while fulfilling the of max stress to be equal to or less
than the yield strength of the material of wing spar.

𝑀∗𝑧
𝜎= (5)
𝐼

By using a wing spar that is larger than necessary, SkyLion will be able to handle
loads higher than expected and will increase the ease of handling. The connection
for the two wing spars will be an opening on both ends of the 1.5” square spar to
slide into and a pin to lock into place, shown below in Figure 19.

20
 Figure 19 Overhead view of wing spar arrangement in wing

Weight and Cost Estimation

Materials Cost ($) Weight (kg)
AS4 Carbon Fiber and Epoxy 1,180.44 6.448
EPS Foam 250.00 7.14
T-800 Carbon Fiber Square 538.50 1.54
Tube (Spar)
Motor 118.95 0.215 (each)
Propeller 165.95 0.018 per blade
Raspberry Pi 3 B+ 38.10 0.059
Motherboard
Current Sensors 10.09 0.04
Internal Measurement Unit 37.58 0.176
GPS 39.49 0.09
Temperature and Humidity 8.11 0.09
sensor
Accelerometer/Gyroscope 26.00 0.017
LiDar 2,000.00 (estimate) 0.680
Infared sensor 4,862.15 0.160
Angle of Attack sensor 625.00 0.057
Sideslip sensor 32.99 0.50
Flight Controller 45.00 0.009
LiPo Battery 249.99 0.640 (each)
Servos 17.89 0.060
Servo linkage 9.89 0.018
Lt345R Camera 1,200.00 0.140
MvBlueFox-IGC Camera 399.99 0.080
Manufacturing and Labor 20,000.00 NA
Cost
Total Cost 31,856.11 19.764

21
It was determined that the majority of the body would be made out of carbon fiber
as it is a strong lightweight material that will fit in the budget of the project. The
foam was presumed to be light and cheap as it could be easily cut to fit any desired
shape for the wing. It should be noted that a majority of the cheaper sensors used
were also acquired with Raspberry Pi in mind. Manufacturing and labor cost were
estimated using in class equations.

Components

Sensors
SkyLion uses multiple sensors for different flight test experiments. Some of
the major required sensors are as follows:

• Infrared: The infrared sensor will help further analyzing the terrain by
analyzing the surrounding and measuring the heat emitted by objects and
detecting motion. This will help increase the mission accuracy by working
with all the sensors. This infrared sensor has a low weight of about 160 g. This
sensor will be able to work with the digital camera, thermal sensing and has
multiple outputs. The precision of this sensor is +- 3 degree Celsius which
will be suitable for the drone.

• LiDAR: The payload will consist of a Light Detection and Ranging in order
to help with the mission of performing terrain analysis. This LiDAR sensor is
meant to be fully autonomous and adapt to any drone with its high-end
components. The accuracy of this sensor is 5 cm and it weighs 1.6 kg. It has
1.5hr autonomy which gives the UAV enough time to perform its mission.
The LiDAR sensor is also equipped with live in-flight monitoring software.

• Cameras: The front camera is lightweight, robust and requires very little
space to mount. It has 8 M pixels of on-board memory and can operate to
provide a very high frame rate in order to give superior pictures during the
mission. The camera mounted at the bottom of UAV will be Sony Pregius
which provides fast frame rates at 120 fps at full resolution of 2064 X 1544.
Sony Pregius provides with color and mono solutions at 3.2 megapixels and
this camera is able to perform at very minimal noise with its advanced
technology.

• IMU sensors for various obstacle avoidance experiment

22
• Includes GPS, Pitot Tube Sensor, Barometer, AOA, Temperature & Humid
Sensor
• Current Sensor & 6 Axis Gyroscope

Motor
• KDE Direct Multi-Rotor Brushless motor
• Small & compact weighing 215 grams & a diameter of 46.5 mm
• Maximum Power of 1065+ Watts
• Produces thrust of 50.90 Newtons per motor

23
 Conclusion
The SkyLion is a conceptual UAV design which is under development for the PURL.
This lab supports interdisciplinary research in the fields of adaptive flight control,
vision-based control, and conducting realistic flight validation. The test bed outlined
in this report is used for the purpose of fault-tolerant flight control system
development. The SkyLion will be used for vehicle dynamics testing, cargo delivery
experiments, and flight control system development. The design of this UAV places
an emphasis on aerodynamic efficiency, lightness, and modularity, allowing the
PURL freedom to add or remove components based on their testing requirements,
and the aircraft will be outfitted with a variety of sensors for data collection.

SkyLion will operate under Part 107 of the FAA Regulations for a small unmanned
air system, and have a take-off weight less than 55 pounds. The design of the
SkyLion features two engines supported by two booms, three landing gears, and an
access point to the interior of the SkyLion through its nose for convenient access to
the equipment and other cargo. The final design of the SkyLion allows for 8 kg of
payload and features a 4.27 m wingspan with an aspect ratio of approximately 9.5
and a taper ratio of 0.6. The SkyLion is powered by two Li-Poly battery of 1065
Watts which has a stall speed of 47 km/h, a cruise speed of 65 km/h, and an
approximate range of 40 km. This allows the PURL to test the sensors or perform
the required task defined by the project

24
 References
[1] http://www.srmuniv.ac.in/sites/default/files/downloads/
Aircraft_ctrl_Systems.pdf
[2] “Penguin B UAV,” UAV Factory – Unmanned Platforms and Subsystems
Available: http://www.uavfactory.com/product/46
[3] “Penguin B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV),” Airforce Technology
Available: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/penguin-b-
unmanned-aerial-vehicle/
[4] Morelli, P., Static stability and control of sailplanes, Torino: Levrotto & Bella,
1976.

25