DESIGN OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT AND REMOTE CONTROLLED PALNE

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted By

BHANU TEJA K 17UEAE0039

In partial fulfilment for the award of the completion

Of

UAV DESIGN

IN

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

VELTECH RANGARAJAN DR. SAGUNTHALA R&D INSTITUTE OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

NOVEMBER 2019
 Bonafide Certificate

This is to certify that the report work entitled “DESIGN OF

FIGHTERAIRCRAFT AND REMOTE CONTROLLED PALNE” in partial
fulfilment for the completion of UAV DESIGN in V semester, Aeronautical Engineering
of VelTech Dr. RR & Dr. SR Technical University, Chennai– 600062, is an authentic
work carried out by Bhanu Teja K (17UEAE0039) under guidance of Mr.V.VISHNU

Mr.R.Jaganraj Mr.V.VISHNU

Head of the Department, Assistant Professor,

Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering

Veltech Rangarajan DR. Sagunthala Veltech Rangarajan DR.Sagunthala

R&D Institute of Science & R&D Institute of Science

Technology, Avadi. Technology, Avadi.

Chennai – 600062 Chennai – 600062

 Certificate of Evaluation
University: Veltech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science &
Technology

Branch: Aeronautical Engineering

S. VTU REG.NO NAME PROJECT PROJECT

NO. NO. TITLE GUIDE
VISHNU V
DESIGN OF ASST.
FIGHTER PROFFESOR,
AIRCRAFT DEPT. OF
AND AERONAUTICAL
10019 17UEAE0039 BHANU TEJA K REMOTE ENGINEERING
CONTROLL
ED PLANE

The report work was submitted by the above students in partial fulfilment for the
completion of Technical Seminar-II in VI semester in Aeronautical Engineering of Vel
Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science & Technology was evaluated
and confirmed to be the report of the work done by the above students.

This project report was submitted for review held on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at

VelTech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science & Technology, AVADI.

Internal Examiner External Examiner

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr.
Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science & Technology for giving me this tremendous
opportunity.

I would like to express gratitude to Founder- President Prof Dr R Rangarajan B.E

(Elec.), B.E(Mech.) M.S (Auto), D.Sc. for giving me the opportunity to be the part
of this Institution.

I would like to acknowledge Founder-Vice President Dr.Sagunthala Rangarajan

(MBBS) for her support.

I would further like to express my gratitude to Chairperson and Managing Trustee

Dr.Rangarajan Mahalakshmi K.B.E (IE) M.B.A (UK) Ph.D.
I would also like to express my deepest thanks to Vice President Mr. K.V.D Kishore
Kumar.

I would further like to thank our Vice- Chancellor Dr. Prof. V. S.S KUMAR B.E
(EEE.),M.S (POWER SYSTEM ENGINEERING), Ph.D. (ANNA UNIVERSITY).

I would like to express my gratitude to our Registrar Mrs. N. S.Prema

I would like to thank Dr. A. T .Ravichandran Dean School of Mechanical for his Constant
support.

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. R. JAGANRAJ

Head of the Department (Aeronautical Department) for his valuable suggestions.

Finally I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. V.VISHNU

Asst. Professor for helping me throughout the seminar and sharing his valuable
knowledge.
 ABSTRACT

Through this project, we intend to design and conceptualize a FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

that can cater to wide range of needs. Fighter aircraft is a term describing an aircraft,
usually of smaller size, designed for military purpose and combat. The project involves
the design of a fighter jet that can carry heavy weapons, providing the amenities with
sophisticated care while incorporating the design specifications and performance
parameters of a fighter jet. The aircraft allows for better efficiency and reduced fuel
consumption and noise levels owing to a state of the art engine and design features.
COMPARATIVE DATA SHEETS:
 GENERAL CHARACTERSTICES;

s. Name of Crew Length Wing Wing Empty Loaded Max Aspect Power Power H
no the aircraft (m) span area weight weight takeoff ratio plant plant
(m) (m^2) (kg) (kg) weight E
(kg) Dry With
thrust( After I
KN) burner
G
thrust
(KN) H

(m)

1 Grumman 2 19.4 11.58 54.5 19838 27,700 33,720 2.5 61.4 123.7 4.88
f-14 tomcat

2 General 2 22.4 9.75 48.77 21400 37600 45300 1.95 79.6 112 5.22
dynamic f-
111f

3 Panavia 2 16.72 13.9 26.6 13890 28000 7.2 43.8 76.8 5.95
tornado

4 Sukhoi su- 1 19.02 11.02 34.5 12160 18400 3.5 76.4 109.8 5.12
17

5 Mig-23 1 16.7 13.97 34.16 9595 15700 18030 5.7 83.6 127 4.82
mcd
flogger-k

6 Dassault 1 15.30 8.40 25.00 7400 10900 16200 2.8 49.03 70.6 4.50
mirage f-1

7 MC donnell 2 19.2 11.7 49.2 13757 18825 28030 2.8 52.9 79.4 5.0
douglas f4
phantom ii

8 Sukhoi su- 2 22.5 10.34 55.2 22300 38040 43755 1.9 75 109.8 6.19
24

9 Vought 1 17.86 12.16 41.8 9915 14660 17590 3.5 73.4 131.2 4.98
xf8u-3
crusader-iii

10 English 1 16.8 10.6 44.01 14092 18638 20752 2.5 55.74 71.17 5.97
electric
lightning

11 Mikoyan- 1 11.26 9.63 22.6 3919 5350 6069 4.1 22.5 33.8 3.80
gurevich
mig-17F

12 Chengdu j- 1 14.885 8.32 24.88 5292 7540 9100 2.8 44.16 64.7 4.11
7MG
 PERFORMANCES;

Name of the Cruise Range(km) Service Thrust/weight Rate of Wing loading

aircraft speed(km/hr) ceiling(m) climb(m/s)
s.no (kg/m^2)

1 Grumman f-14 2485 2960 15,200 .92 229 508.25

tomcat

2 General 2655 6760 20100 0.61 131.5 771.96

dynamic f-111f

3 Panavia tornado 2400 3890 15240 0.55 76.7 707.95

4 Sukhoi su-17 1860 2300 14200 0.68 230 533.33

5 Mig-23 mcd 2445 2820 18500 0.88 240 434.18

flogger-k

6 Dassault mirage 2338 3300 20000 0.67 243 436

f-1

7 MC donnell 2370 2600 18300 0.86 210 416.48

douglas f4
phantom ii

8 Sukhoi su-24 1654 2775 11000 0.60 150 689.13

9 Vought xf8u-3 925 3290 19800 0.74 165 351

crusader-iii

10 English electric 2100 2040 16000 0.78 100 423.49

lightning

11 Mikoyan- 1145 2060 16600 0.63 65 236.72

gurevich mig-
17F

12 Chengdu j-7MG 2200 3290 17500 0.84 195 303.05

 PRELIMINARY GRAPHS OF VARIOUS
PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO VELOCITY
 1.

Cruise
Length (m)
speed(km/hr) Cruise speed Vs Length
2485 19.4
25
2655 22.4
2400 16.72 20
1860 19.02 length (m)
2445 16.7 15
2338 15.3 10
2370 19.2
1654 22.5 5
925 17.86
0
2100 16.8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 11.26 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 14.885

2.

Cruise
speed(km/hr)
Range (km) Cruise speed Vs Range
8000
2485 2960
7000
2655 6760
6000
2400 3890
RANGE(km)

5000
1860 2300
4000
2445 2820
3000
2338 3300
2000
2370 2600
1000
1654 2775
0
925 3290 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
2100 2040
CRUISE SPEED(km/hr)
1145 2060
2200 3290
3

Cruise
Service
speed(k
m/hr)
ceiling(m) Cruise speed Vs Service ceiling
2485 15,200 25,000
2655 20100
20,000
2400 15240
service ceiling (m)

1860 14200 15,000

2445 18500
2338 20000 10,000
2370 18300
1654 11000 5,000
925 19800
0
2100 16000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 16600 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 17500

Cruise
Thrust/w
speed(k
eight Cruise speed Vs Thrust/weight
m/hr)
1
2485 0.92
0.9
2655 0.61 0.8
2400 0.55 0.7
thrust/weight

1860 0.68 0.6

2445 0.88 0.5
2338 0.67 0.4
0.3
2370 0.86
0.2
1654 0.6 0.1
925 0.74 0
2100 0.78 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 0.63 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 0.84
5

Cruise Rate of
speed(km climb
/hr) (m/s)
Cruise speed Vs Rate of climb
2485 229 300
2655 131.5 250

rate ofclimb (m/s)

2400 76.7
200
1860 230
2445 240 150
2338 243
100
2370 210
1654 150 50
925 165 0
2100 100 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 65 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 195

Cruise
Wing
speed(km
/hr)
span (m) Cruise speed Vs Wing span
2485 11.58 16
2655 9.75 14
2400 13.9 12
wing span (m)

1860 11.02 10
2445 13.97 8
2338 8.4 6
2370 11.7
4
1654 10.34
2
925 12.16
0
2100 10.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 9.63
cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 8.32
7

Cruise Wing area

speed(km/h (m^2)
2485 54.5
Cruise speed Vs Wing area
2655 48.77 60
2400 26.6 50
1860 34.5

wing area (m^2)

40
2445 34.16
2338 25 30
2370 49.2
20
1654 55.2
925 41.8 10
2100 44.01 0
1145 22.6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
2200 24.88 cruise speed (km/hr)

Cruise
Empty
speed(k
m/hr)
weight (kg) Cruise speed Vs Emptycruise
weight
speed (km/hr)
2485 19838 25000
2655 21400
2400 13890 20000
empty weight (kg)

1860 12160
15000
2445 9595
2338 7400 10000
2370 13757
1654 22300 5000
925 9915
0
2100 14092
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 3919
cruise speed ( km/hr)
2200 5292
9

Cruise
Height
speed(km/
hr)
(m) cruise speed Vs height
2485 4.88 7
2655 5.22 6
2400 5.95 5
1860 5.12
height (m)

4
2445 4.82
2338 4.5 3
2370 5 2
1654 6.19 1
925 4.98
0
2100 5.97 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 3.8 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 4.11

10

Cruise
Dry
speed(k
thrust(KN)
Cruise speed Vs Dry thrust
m/hr)
90
2485 61.4
80
2655 79.6
70
2400 43.8
dry thrust (KN)

60
1860 76.4 50
2445 83.6 40
2338 49.03 30
2370 52.9 20
1654 75 10
925 73.4 0
2100 55.74 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 22.5 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 44.16
11

Cruise With After Cruise speed Vs With After burner

speed(km/ burner
hr) thrust (KN) thrust
140
2485 123.7 after burner thrust (KN)
120
2655 112 100
2400 76.8 80
1860 109.8 60
2445 127 40
2338 70.6 20
2370 79.4 0
1654 109.8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
925 131.2 cruise speed (km/hr)
2100 71.17
1145 33.8
2200 64.7

12

Cruise Wing
speed(km loading(k Cruise speed Vs Wing loading
/hr) g/m^2)
2485 508.25 900
2655 771.96 800
wing loading (kg/m^2)

700
2400 707.95
600
1860 533.33
500
2445 434.18
400
2338 436
300
2370 416.48
200
1654 689.13 100
925 351 0
2100 423.49 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1145 236.72 cruise speed (km/hr)
2200 303.05
RETRIVED DATA FROM GRAPH
1 LENGTH 17.67(m)

2 HEIGHT 5.045(m)

3 ASPECT RATIO 3.44

4 WING AREA 38.449(m2)

5 WING SPAN 10.95(m)

6 EMPTY WEIGHT 12796.5(kg)

7 LOADED WEIGHT 19349(kg)

8 RANGE 3173.75(km)

9 TAKEOFF WEIGHT 23966(kg)

10 SEVICE CEILING 16870(m)

11 T/W 0.73

12 WING LOADING 484.295(kg/m2)

13 CRUISE SPEED 2048.08

14 Rate of climb 169.6(m/s)

15 Dry thrust 59.79(kN)

16 After burner thrust 92.4975(kN)

Weight estimation
The common choice to subdivide and categorize the weight components of an airplane is:

1. CREW WEIGHT W crew-it comprises the people necessary to operate the plane in flight. For our
design the crew is 2

2. PAYLOAD WEIGHT WP-The payload is what the airplane intended to carry.in our design payload
is missiles.

3. FUEL WEIGHT Wf-is the weight of the fuel in the fuel tanks which decreases with time during
flight.

4.EMPTY WEIGHT We-is weight of everything else –the structure ,engines ,avionics ,landing gear
,seats and anything else that is not crew, payload or fuel.

The designs take-off weight WO is the weight of the airplane at the instant it
begins its mission. Hence it can be shown that,

W0 = Wcrew + WP + Wf + We
The crew and payload weight are both known since they are given in design
requirement.The only unknowns are the fuel weight and empty weight. However, they are both depend
on the total aircraft weight.

To simplify the calculation, both fuel and empty weight can be expressed as
fraction of the total take-off weight (i.e) (Wf/W0) and (We/ W0).

Thus above eqn becomes

W0 = Wcrew + WP + (Wf/W0) W0 + (We/ W0) W0.

This can be solved for W0 as follows:

W0- (Wf/W0) W0 - (We/ W0) W0= Wcrew + WP

Wcrew + WP
W0 = Wf
1−( )− (We/ W0)
W0

Now we can be determine if (Wf/W0) and (We/ W0).can be estimated.

AIRFOIL SELECTION:

Airfoil nomenclature:
Chord length (c) – length from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing cross section that is
parallel to the vertical axis of symmetry.

Mean camber line – line halfway between the upper and lower surfaces.

Leading edge (LE) – is the front most point on the mean camber line. trailing edge (TE) – Is the most
rearward point on mean camber line.

Camber – maximum distance between the mean camber line and chord line, measured perpendicular
to the chord line

Un camber – the airfoil is symmetric above and below the chord line.

Thickness – distance between upper surface and lower surface measured perpendicular to the mean
camber line
 Family Advantages Disadvantages Applications
4-Digit 1. Good stall characteristics 1. Low maximum lift coefficient 1. General aviation
2. Horizontal tails
2. Small center of pressure movement 2. Relatively high drag
across large speed range Symmetrical:
3. High pitching moment
3. Roughness has little effect 3. Supersonic jets
4. Helicopter blades
5. Shrouds
6. Missile/rocket fins
5-Digit 1. Higher maximum lift coefficient 1. Poor stall behavior 1. General aviation
2. Piston-powered bombers,
transports
2. Low pitching moment 2. Relatively high drag
3. Commuters
4. Business jets
3. Roughness has little effect
16-Series 1. Avoids low pressure peaks 1. Relatively low lift 1. Aircraft propellers
2. Ship propellers
2. Low drag at high speed
6-Series 1. High maximum lift coefficient 1. High drag outside of the 1. Piston-powered fighters
optimum range of operating 2. Business jets
conditions 3. Jet trainers
2. Very low drag over a small range of
4. Supersonic jets
operating conditions
2. High pitching moment
3. Optimized for high speed
3. Poor stall behavior

4. Very susceptible to roughness

7-Series 1. Very low drag over a small range of 1. Reduced maximum lift Seldom used
operating conditions coefficient

2. Low pitching moment 2. High drag outside of the

optimum range of operating
conditions

3. Poor stall behavior

4. Very susceptible to roughness

8-Series Unknown Unknown Very seldom used
WING SELECTION:

INTRODUCTION

After the final weight estimation of the aircraft, the primary component of the aircraft to be
designed is the wing. The wing weight and its lifting capability are in general, a function of the aerofoil
section that is used in the wing structure. The first setup towards designed the wing is the thickness
estimation. The thickness of the wing, in turn depends on the critical Mach number of the aerofoil or
rather, the drag divergence Mach number corresponding to the wing section.

The critical Mach number can well be delayed by the use of an appropriate sweep-back angle
to the wing structure. The nature choice of the standard series is the 65 series which is designed
specifically for use in high-speed.

WING GEOMETRY DESIGN

 The geometry of the wing is a function for four parameter, namely the Wing loading (w/s),
Aspect ratio (b2/s), Taper ratio (ʎ) and the sweepback angle at quarter chord (Ʌqc)
 The take-off weight that was estimated in the previous analysis is used to find the wing area S
(from W/S). The value of S also enables to calculate the wingspan b (using the Aspect ratio).
The root chord can now be found using the equation.

POSITION OF WING

The location of the wing in the fuselage (along the vertical axis) is very important. Each
configuration (Low, High and mid) has its own advantages but in this design, the mid wing

Mid Wing
In general, features of the mid-wing configuration (Figure 5.3-b, and Figure 5.4-4) stand
somewhat between features of high-wing configuration and features of low-wing configuration. The
major difference lies in the necessity to cut the wing spar in two half in order to save the space
inside the fuselage. However, another alternative is not to cut the wing spar and letting it to pass
through the fuselage; which leads to an occupied space of the fuselage. Both alternatives carry a
few disadvantages. Other than those features that can be easily derived from two previous sections,
some new features of a mid-wing configuration are as follows:

1. The aircraft structure is heavier, due to the necessity of reinforcing wing root at the
intersection with the fuselage.
2. The mid wing is more expensive compared with high and low-wing configurations.
3. The mid wing is more attractive compared with two other configurations.
 4. The mid wing is aerodynamically streamliner compared with two other configurations.
5. The strut is usually not used to reinforce the wing structure.
6. The pilot can get into the cockpit using the wing as a step in a small GA aircraft.
7. The mid-wing has less interference drag than low-wing and high-wing.

The Significance of Lift and Load Distributions

The distribution of wing non-dimensional lift (i.e. lift coefficient; C L) per unit span along the
wing is referred to as lift distribution. Each unit area of the wing along the span is producing a
specific amount of lift. The total lift is equal to the summation of these individual lifts. The lift
distribution goes to zero at the tips, because there is a pressure equalization from the bottom to
the top of the wing precisely at y = -b/2 and +b/2. Hence no lift is generated at these two points.
In addition, the variation of “lift coefficient times sectional chord (C .CL)” along span is referred
to as the “load distribution”. Both lift distribution and load distribution are of great importance
in the wing design process. The major application of lift distribution is in aerodynamic
calculation, while the primary application of the load distribution is in wing structural design as
well as controllability analysis.

In the past (1930s), it was thought that for an elliptic lift distribution, the chord must vary
elliptically along the span. The direct result of such logic was that the wing planform must be
elliptical. For this reason, several aircraft wing planforms such as Supermarine Spitfire (Figure),
a famous British World War II fighter were made elliptic. But, today, we know that there are
various parameters that make the lift distribution elliptic, thus, there is no need for the wing
planform to be planform.

The type of both lift distribution and load distribution are very important in wing design;
and will influence the aircraft performance, airworthiness, stability, control, and cost. Ideally
both lift distribution and load distribution are preferred to be elliptical. For the above mentioned
reasons, the elliptical lift distribution and the elliptical load distribution are ideal and are the design
objectives in the wing design process. An elliptical lift distribution is sketched in figure, where
a front view of the wing is illustrated. The horizontal axis in figure is y/s where y is the location
is y-axis, and s denotes the semispan (s = b/2). In this figure, no high lift device
(e.g. flap) is deflected and the effect of the fuselage is ignored. The elliptical lift distribution and

elliptical load distribution have the following desirable properties:

1. If the wing tends to stall (CLmax), the wing root is stalled before the wing tip (CLroot = CLmax
while CLtip < CLmax). In a conventional aircraft, the flaps are located inboard, while the
ailerons are installed outboard of the wing. In such a situation, ailerons are active, since the
flow over the wing outboard section is healthy. This is of greater importance for spin
recovery (which often happens after stall); since the aileron (in addition to rudder)
application are very critical to stop the autorotation. Thus, the elliptical lift distribution
provision guarantees the flight safety in the event of stall (see figure).
 2. The bending moment at the wing root is a function of load distribution. If the load
distribution is concentrated near to the root, the bending moment is considerably less that when
it is concentrated near the tip. The center of an elliptical load distribution is closer to the
wing root, thus it leads to a lower bending moment, which results in a less bending stress and

a less stress concentration at wing root (see figure ). This means a lighter wing spar and lighter

CL

Front view y/s

-b/2 +b/2

3. The center of gravity of each wing section (left or right) for an elliptical load distribution is
closer to the fuselage center line. This means a lower wing mass moment of inertia about x-
axis which is an advantage in the lateral control. Basically, an aircraft rolls faster when the
aircraft mass moment of inertia is smaller.
4. The downwash is constant over the span for an elliptical lift distribution [4]. This will
influence the horizontal tail effective angle of attack.
5. For an elliptical lift distribution, the induced angle of attack is also constant along the span.
6. The variation of lift over the span for an elliptical lift distribution is steady (gradually
increasing from tip (zero) to the root (maximum)). This will simplify the wing spar(s) design.

CL CL
CLmax CLmax

0 0
root tip root tip
 a. Non-elliptical (tip stalls before the root) b. Elliptical (root stalls before the tip)

Total lift generated by a half wing Total lift generated by a half wing
.
C CL
C .C L

Bending moment arm

0 0 Bending moment arm

root tip root tip

a. Non-elliptical (load is farther from root) b. Elliptical (load is closer to root)

The reader may have noticed that if the contribution of the fuselage is added to the wing lift
distribution, the distribution may not be elliptical; due to negligible fuselage lift contribution.
This is true, and more realistic, since in a conventional aircraft, the wing is attached to the fuselage.
What we examined here in this section is an ideal case, and the reader may modify the lift
distribution by considering the fuselage contribution. Figure 5.35 depicts the fuselage contribution
to a low wing configuration. Similar case may be made for the effect of flap of lift distribution
when deflected. Figure 5.36 illustrates the flap contribution to the wing lift distribution. In
principle, the goal in the wing design is to obtain an elliptical wing distribution without considering
the contributions of fuselage, flap, or other components.
 Lift

Fuselage

Low wing

Lift

Wing

Flap Flap

In Section 5.15, a mathematical technique will be introduced to determine the lift and load
distribution along the wing.
SELECTED WING:
SWEEP-BACK WING:

SweepAngle
Consider the top view of an aircraft. The angle between a constant percentage chord line along
the semispan of the wing and the lateral axis perpendicular to the fuselage centerline (y-axis) is
called leading edge sweep (LE). The angle between the wing leading edge and the y-axis of the
aircraft is called leading edge sweep (LE). Similarly, the angle between the wing trailing edge and
the longitudinal axis (y-axis) of the aircraft is called trailing edge sweep ( TE). In the same fashion,
the angle between the wing quarter chord line and the y-axis of the aircraft is called quarter chord
sweep (C/4). And finally, the angle between the wing 50 percent chord line and
the y-axis of the aircraft is 50 percent chord sweep (C/2).
 If the angle is greater than zero (i.e. wing is inclined toward tail), it is called aft sweep or
simply sweep; otherwise it is referred to as forward sweep. Figure 5.37 shows five wings with
various sweep angles. Figure 5.37a illustrates a wing without sweep, while figures 5.37b through
5.37d show four swept wing. The leading edge sweep is depicted in the wing of figure 5.37b, while
trailing edge sweep is shown in the wing of figure 5.37e. In addition, the quarter chord sweep is
illustrated in the wing of figure 5.37d, and the 50 percent chord sweep is illustrated in the wing
of figure 5.37c. Most high-speed airplanes designed since the middle 1940s – such as North
American F-86 Saber - have swept wings. On sweptback tapered wing, typical of almost all high
speed aircraft, the leading edge has more sweep than the trailing edge.
With reference to the definition of sweep angle, a particular wing may have aft leading
edge sweep, while it has forward trailing edge sweep. Among four types of sweep angles, the
quarter chord sweep and leading edge sweep are the most important ones. The subsonic lift due
angle of attack normally acts at the quarter chord. In addition, the crest is usually close to the
quarter chord. The discussion in this section regarding the characteristics (advantages and
disadvantages) of sweep angle is mostly about leading edge sweep angle, unless otherwise
stated. Basically, a wing is being swept for the following five design goals:
1. Improving the wing aerodynamic features (lift, drag, pitching moment) at transonic,
supersonic and hypersonic speeds by delaying the compressibility effects.
2. Adjusting the aircraft center of gravity.
3. Improving static lateral stability.
4. Impacting longitudinal and directional stability.
5. Increasing pilot view (especially for fighter pilots).
DESIGN OF REMOTE CONTROLLED PLANE
ABSTRACT
This report represents design of regular class radio controlled aircraft which stands by the
requirements of IAAA Aircraft build competition 2019, the main concern of our team was to make an
aircraft with unique design after evaluating several aircraft configurations maintaining appreciable
structural integrity and matching the needed motor propeller package. So we developed a model of
high, straight tapered wing with H-tail to obtain stable, structurally sound remote controlled aircraft
with optimized aerodynamic performance and payload capacity, which can be easily mend in
circumstances of crash landing. We have made a comparative analysis of both rectangular and tapered
wing and made a straight tapered wing giving high aerodynamic performance at low altitudes. The
configuration was chosen based on their advantages and by considering the stability parameters. To
ensure the required aerodynamic forces are met and to distribute the landing impact loads better
through the airframe. To reduce the unnecessary weight, structure of wing and fuselage section were
examined.
1. INTRODUCTION
This document describes the final design produced by the TEAM ANIKITOS of VelTech Institute for
participation in the 2019 IAAA INDIA Aircraft Build Competition. This competition provides an
opportunity for student teams to gain real world engineering experience through collaborative design.
In this particular event, the design objective is to develop a remote-controlled aircraft to takeoff,
maneuver, and land predictably while carrying as much payload as possible. Along the way, students
learn important lessons in aerodynamic and structural design, team organization, time management,
cost and budgeting, and manufacturing.

An Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone is an aircraft without a human pilot
aboard. These aircrafts are broadly classified into three categories, namely: Fixed wing, Rotary wing
and flapping wing UAVs. They are also classified on the basis of size, range and endurance. IAAA
India competition 2019 restricted for designing only fixed wing aircraft. Under the fixed wing
category, we have Micro, Mini, Medium and Large UAVs; Close-range UAVs, Short range UAVs,
Mid-range UAVs and Endurance UAVs; MALE and HALE. UAVs have wide ranged applications in
the industrial, public and military sectors. Mapping and surveying, inspection and monitoring, aerial
imaging, precision agriculture are some of the most important applications.

1.1. DESIGN GENESIS

The of goal of our team is to design a H-tail aircraft it will have high performance at lower altitude
and to increase the applications H-tail configurations in UAV’s. it is characterized by one horizontal
tail in between two vertical tails.

The advantages of H-tail are as follows:-

1. At high angle of attack, the vertical tail is not influenced by turbulent flow coming from

fuselage.

2. The vertical tail end plate effect improves the aerodynamic performance of horizontal tail.

3. The H-tail allows the twin vertical span to be shorter.

4. The H-tail allows the fuselage to be shorter, since tail can be installed in the boom.

The model would be fabricated out of low-density balsa wood.

1.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

UAV type :- fixed wing H-tail glider

Role of UAV :- Payload

Payload :- up to 1.2 kg

Gross weight :- up to 3.7 kg

1.3. BUDGET AND TIME CONSTRAINTS
Any plan group would be required to work with a restricted measure of assets and time. These could
direct different parts of the plan procedure. For example, innovations which could prompt spiraling
spending plan might be retired. Additionally, if there should be an occurrence of exceptionally focused
markets, the capacity to prepare the UAV in the endorsed time allotment is extremely significant. The
plan group must guarantee that cost and time over-runs are limited to the degree conceivable.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
The conceptual design forms the initial stage of the design process. In spite of the fact that there are
numerous UAV’s, each having its own special features, one can find common features underlying
most of them. The different model of UAV as per the required parameters can be found by deep
survey; so that the overview of existing model can be helpful in deciding the final model design and
configuration.

2.1 Reference Study

S.No NAME OF WING MTOW PAY- CRUSING ENDURANCE

THE SPAN(m) LOAD(Kg)

(Kg) SPEED(m/s) (min)
MODEL

1 Desert 2.438 5.35 1.7 44.70 90

Hawk

2 TheTempest 3.22 9.06 1.9 22.35 120-240

3 EWG-E3 3.5 11.5 1.5 16.66 70

4 BayraktarA 1.6 3.5 1.4 19.44 60

5 BayraktarB 1.9 4.5 1.6 15.27 60

6 DVF 2000 3 10 1.1 17-27 120

7 MFD 1.8 5.5 1.5 38.88 90-150

NIMBUS

Table 1: SURVEY OF EXISTING MODELS

2.2 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF PRODUCT DATA

Cruising speed vs Payload MTOW vs Payload

2
500
1.5 400
300
1
200
0.5 100
0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 5 10 15

Cruising Speed vs Wing Span

4 Cruising speed vs Payload
500
3 400
2 300

1 200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Taking into consideration the data acquired for weight estimation and design calculation, graphs were
plotted between the important parameters of the existing products. After 31nalysing the obtained
graphs, the desired values were estimated from the most clustered area of the graph, without forgetting
the set constraints.

3. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology adapted of the development of the UAV. The
philosophy of this team throughout the design process has centered on developing sound
fundamental concepts to satisfy competition requirements.

After a satisfactory output, the final model is fabricated and tested. Required changes are made
and the model is finalized.
3.1 Flow Chart

Fig 1: Methodology of Flow Chart

4. AIRFOIL SELECTION
 Expecting the speed of the aircraft would be low (i.e.30-40 mph) and the wing chord

dimensions would not exceed the order of 18.371cm the Reynolds number would be

approximately 200,000.

 Standard airfoils operating at such low Reynolds number do not generate enough lift

coefficient. Therefore we have considered flat bottom cambered airfoil rather than standard

airfoils.
 Fig 2: showing comparisons between flat bottom airfoil and symmetrical airfoil

SNO AIRFOILS SPECIFICATIONS

1 SG6042 Maximum thickness 10% at

33.5% chord.

Maximum camber 3.3% at

51.5% chord.

2 SPICA 11.73% smoothed Maximum thickness

11.73% at 30% chord.

Maximum camber 4.7% at

35% chord
 3 SC1010 Maximum thickness 10% at

32% chord.

Maximum camber 2.8% at

% chord

TABLE 2: LIST OF SELECTED CAMBERED AIRFOIL

4.1 COMPARISION TABLE FOR AIRFOIL SELECTION

S.NO AIRFOILS AOA Cl Cd

1 SG6042 10 1.3775 0.0198

2 SPICA11.73% 10 1.4024 0.0157

smoothed

3 SC1010 10 1.2520 0.0874

TABLE 3: CL & CD OF THE AIRFOILS

TABLE CONCLUSION:- From the table we came to conclusion that the SPICA 11.73%
smoothed is most appropriate airfoil.

Fig 3: Selected Airfoil

5. WEIGHT ESTIMATION
 CREW WEIGHT:- The crew comprises the people necessary to operate the airplane in flight.

e.g., Pilot, Co-pilot, Airhostess etc. As our model doesn’t have any crew, the crew weight is

zero.

i.e. Wc= 0
  PAYLOAD WEIGHT:- The payload is what the airplane is mentioned to transport

passengers, baggage, freight etc. (Military use the payload includes bombs, rockets and other

disposable ordnance). But in our case aircraft is carrying some weight of 1000-1200 grams.

i.e. Wp =800grams

 FUEL WEIGHT:- This is the weight of the fuel in the fuel tanks. As our aircraft is operates

through battery power the battery weight is considered as fuel weight.

i.e. Wf= 400 grams

 EMPTY WEIGHT:-This is weight of everything else-the structure (with all accessory

equipment), electronic equipment, fixed equipment and anything else that is not crew, payload

or fuel.

i.e. We =1100 grams

 GROSS WEIGHT:- The sum of these weights is the total weight of the airplane. Gross weight

or total weight varies through the flight because fuel is being consumed. But as we are using

battery to operate the aircraft fuel weight doesn’t varies through the flight.

i.e. W0 = Wc+Wp+Wf+We
W0 = 800+400+1100
W0 = 2300grams
empty weight payload fuel weight

42%

58%

Fig 4: Weight Estimation

STRUCTURAL WEIGHT :

Structure weight is the combined weight of wing fuselage and empennage of the UAV and usually 32
% of gross

STRUCTURAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION:

SL. NO PARTICULARS WEIGHT

1 Wing 180 grams

2 Fuselage + Payload Cabin 400 grams

3 Left Vertical Tail 20 grams

4 Right Vertical Tail 20 grams

5 Horizontal Tail 50 grams

6 Landing Gear 300 grams

TABLE 4: STRUCTURAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION

Wing Fuselage + Payload Cabin Left Vertical Tail

Right Vertical Tail Horizontal Tail Landing Gear

200 180

60
20
20
400

Fig 5: Structural Weight Estimation

ELECTRONICS WEIGHT

Electronic components plays a vital role in the working of UAV. The combined weight of all the
electronic components contribute to the electronic weight.

SL.NO PARTICULARS WEIGHT (in grams)

1 Electronic Speed Controller 90

2 Propeller + Motor 300

3 Servo (5) 45

4 Wires 10

5 Receiver 45

TABLE 5: ELECTRONIC WEIGHT ESTIMATION

Electronic Speed Controller Propeller + Motor Servo (5) Wires Receiver

17% 17%

2%
8%

56%

Fig 6: Electronic Weight Estimation

6. WING SELECTION
 The wing selection was carried out in a conceptual manner and then the detailed design
calculations were made. The items discussed were about the planform of the wing, number of
wings, type and configuration.

First up was the wing planform configuration.

6.1. WING CONFIGURATION

Straight Tapered

Wing with straight tapered is structurally and aerodynamically more stable than the rectangular
wing. And moreover it is easier to make than the elliptical wing.

Fig 7: Straight Tapered Wing

Advantages
 Increase Lift per surface area than the Tapered wing

 Reduced Wing Tip Vortices at low speeds

 Efficient operational performance at lower altitudes with high speeds

Dihedral Angle

Having the positive dihedral angle tends to creates the moment that returns the plane to level
flight, increasing the stability.

6.2 WING PLACEMENT:

The adjacent topic in discussion was the Placement of the wing on the fuselage.The wing may
be a high wing, mid or low.

High Wing

A high wing is more stable compared to mid or low wing as it lifts the load from above. Also,
a high wing will be suitable when it comes to carrying the glider across places by dismantling
and ease in attaching to the fuselage.
 Fig 8: High Wing

OUR SELECTION: For our glider we have selected the wing configuration of straight tapered with
high wing placement.

7. FUSELAGE SELECTION
The fuselage is an aircraft’s main body section. It holds crew, passengers, andcargo. For UAV
fuselage holds the powerplant and the payload. The most common fuselage design for RC
gliders is a rectangular cross section. Opting for a rectangular cross section would be much
easy in construction. Opting the circular cross section, the pressure loads are resisted by the
tension, rather than by bending loads in non-circular sections have stress concentrations. In
case of circular design, the flow will not be separate under small angle of attack and in slideslip.

A rectangular cross section will need, four sides and by using a circular cross section the four
sides is limited to only two. Hence reducing in weight.

Fig 9: Comparison of Circular &

Rectangular Fuselage

For our glider we have selected thecircular fuselage which is easy to make and less in weight
than the rectangular shape.

8. CALCULATION
Formula used –

1. Wing loading = W/S

2. Span b = √ (AR×S)
 3. Chord root length Cr = 2S/ (b × (1+λ))

4. Taper ratio λ = Ct/Cr

1
5. Mean Aerodynamic Centre𝑦̅= ∗ 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑑
4

2 (1+𝜆+𝜆2)
6. Length of Mean Aerodynamic Chord 𝑐̅ = 3 𝐶𝑟 (1+𝜆)

8.1 WING CALCULATION:

Estimated Weight – 3.625 kg

From reference
𝑤
Wing loading = 5.593 g/in2
𝑠

3625/S = 5.593

S = 648.17 in2

Wing Span:

Assumed Aspect Ratio = 5.19

Therefore:- b = √(AR*S)

b = √(5.19*648.17)

Wing Span b = 58 in

Tapper Ratio:

Consider the Tapper Ratio λ = 0.8

Root Chord

Cr = 2S / ( λ+1)*b

= (2*648.17) / (0.8+1)*58

Cr = 12.42 in

Root Tip

Ct = λ*Cr

Ct = 0.8*12.42

Ct = 9.93 in
Mean chord length

Cm =(Cr+Ct)/2

=(12.42+9.93)/2

Cm =11.175 in

Mean Aerodynamic Centre

𝟏
̅ = ∗ 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉
𝒚 𝟒

1
= 4 ∗ 11.175

̅= 2.794 in
𝒚

Alieron Area

aA= 25% of wing area [ “a = Area”, A = Aileron’’ ]

aA= 162.04in2

Alieron chord

cA = 25% of chord [ “c = Chord’’ ]

cA = 2.48 in

8.2 FUSELAGE CALCULATION

Fuselage length

bF=75% of wing length [ “ b= Length ,F = Fuselage’’ ]

= 0.75 * 58

bF= 43.5 in

Nose Length

bN= 20% of fuselage length [ “N = Nose” ]

= 0.20*43.5

bN= 8.7 in

Tail Length
 bT= 40% of fuselage length [ “T = Tail” ]

= 0.40*43.5

bT= 17.4 in

Fuselage Height

hF= 10-15% of fuselage length [ “h = Height, F = Fuselage”]

= 0.15*43.5

hF = 6.53 in

8.3 HORIZONTAL STABILIZER CALCULATION

Horizontal Stabilizer Area

aHT = 30% of wing area

aHT = 648.17 *0.3[ “a = Area, HT = Horizontal Tail” ]

aHT = 194.45 in2

Standard Aspect Ratio Rectangular Tail varies from 1 to3 and we considered “3”

AR = 3

Horizontal tail span

bH= √(AR*S) [ “b = Span of HT” ]

bHT = √(3*194.45) = 24.15in

Horizontal root chord length

cHT = 2S / ( λ+1)*b [ “c = Chord of H’’ ]

= 2(194.45)/(2*24.15)

cHT = 8.05 in

Horizontal tip chord length

ctHT= λ*chord root length [ “ct = Tip Chord’’ ]

= 1*8.05

ctHT = 8.05 in
Elevator area

aE= 20% of Horizontal stabilizer area [ “a = Area, E = Elevator” ]

= 194.45* 0.20

aE = 38.89 in2

8.4 VERTICAL STABILIZER CALCULATION

Vertical Stabilizer Area

aVT = 40% of Horizontal Stabilizer area [ “a = Area, VT = Vertical Tail” ]

=194.45*0.40
aVT = 77.78 in2

As we are using H-tail it has two vertical tail. So surface area of each tail is

 77.78/2

aVT1 = 38.89 in2 [ “aVT1= aVT2” ]

From the reference of horizontal Stabilizer Aspect ratio = 1.3, considering the same for Vertical
Stabilizer

Vertical tail span

bVT = √(AR*S)

= √(1.3*38.89)

bVT = 7.11in

Vertical root chord length

cVT = 2S / ( λ+1)*b

= 2*38.89/(1.3+1)*7.11

cVT = 5.47in
 Rudder chord = 15% of Vertical Stabilizer chord

= 0.15*5.47= 0.82 in
S.No Parts Name Dimension

1 Wing Wing loading 5.593g/in2

Wing surface area 648.17in2

Aspect ratio 5.19

Taper ratio 0.8

Wing span 58in

Chord root length 12.42in

Chord tip length 9.93in

Mean aerodynamic centre 2.794in

2 Fuselage Fuselage length 43.5in

Nose length 8.7in

Tail length 17.4in

Fuselage height 6.53in

3 Horizontal Stabilizer Surface area 194.45in2

Aspect ratio 3

Span 24.15in

Root chord length 8.05in

Tip chord length 8.05in

4 Vertical Stabilizer Surface area 77.78in2

Aspect ratio 1.3

Span 7.11

Root chord length 5.47

Tip chord length 5.47

5 Aileron Aileron area 2.4in

Aileron length 10in

6 Elevator Elevator area 38.89in2

7 Rudder Rudder area 7.09 in2

TABLE 8: PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

9.SELECTION OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS

S.No Components Specifications

1 Motor: Avionic PRO Motor: C3536

C3536 KV1500 brushless KV1500
motor
Weight: 116grams

Battery :3-4s

ESC : 50 Amps

2 ESC: Skywalker 2-4s 50a Continuous current:- 50A

UBEC Brushless ESC
Supporter voltage:- 3-4s

Weight: 43g

Size: 65*25*12 mm
 3 Servo: Tower Pro SG90 - Operating Voltage: 4.8V-6.0V
9gms Mini/Micro Servo
Weight: 9g
Motor

4 Orange 4200mAh 6S Capacity: 4200mAh

35C/70C Li-Po
Weight : 400 grams

TABLE 9: SPECIFICATIONS OF ELECTRONICS

10.SELECTION OF MATERIALS
The major requirements of the UAVs with respect to physical and mechanical properties must
fulfill are:

 resistance to buckling, high ultimate tensile strength, less inflammable, high strength to weight

ratio, low thermal gradient, resistance to noise and vibration, resistance against deteriorative

fuels and chemicals, ease of shape ability, fastening and joining, high fatigue.

Reasons for selecting Balsa Wood:

 Balsa wood is light weight and strong material, but splinters and requires a lot of maintenance

and less durability.

11. CONCLUSION
For the purposes of this project; a high-winged plane with significant measure of wingspan in
contrast with the length of the fuselage was taken. There was some consideration of the model for
more prominent lift and the ability to hover in mid-air. Because of the numerous factors that must be
customized for UAV stability, it was chosen to remain with a plane structure for simplicity of
programming and decreased expense.

Assumptions in some calculations were made after considering all the related aspects and references
required for that. There is no ideal design as such as continuous changes, improvements and
innovations serve to make the design as ideal as possible, while always looking to achieve optimum
performance and payload carrying capacity.

It was a great experience to learn and adapt for our group worked with energy and devotion towards
accomplishing the objective. By and large the experience picked up while progressing in the direction
of this challenge turned out to be useful and productive and allowed us a chance to have a more
profound investigate the field of aero design and avionics.
PAYLOAD FRACTIONS:

For a cruise condition the lift equals the weight. The lift is dependent upon few of the parameters, like
velocity, coefficient of lift and the surface area of the wing. The surface area is constant throughout the
flight. If the Cl and the velocity is constant then, only the density plays the roll in change in lift as well as
density altitude. The payload fraction and the density altitude curve are given below.

PF = (-0.0000068)*(D.A) + 0.862

Fig 10: payload prediction factor Vs D.A

REFERENCES
1. Daniel Raymer (1989). Aircraft Design.

2. https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/dvf-2000-shortrange-mini-uav/

3. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32805298547.html

4. https://www.rmus.com/products/uasusa-tempest-fixed-wing-drone-package-for-ag-and-

inspection

5. http://rcduniya.com/product/avionic-pro-c3536-kv1500-brushless-motor

6. Aircraft performance and design by John D. Anderson, Jr