La Cumbancha 2.

0 – pájaro (Glider)
Valentina Córdoba L1 y Daniela Cuartas P2
Pontifical Bolivarian University

Alexandra K. De La Hoz E.3

Pontifical Bolivarian University

John A. Del Rio G. 4

Pontifical Bolivarian University

Danna Y. Giraldo O.5

Pontifical Bolivarian University

Sergio A. Toro A6
Pontifical Bolivarian University

This article presents a detail solution to a challenge proposed on Aerodynamics course’s

2019-10 with the goal of conceive, redesign, construct and operate a glider based on an
aerodynamic Da Vinci’s type glider model capable of carrying a dummy. The present
document intends to show all the design and construction process under certain
requirements given, such as, the payload it’s going to carry, the structure and the fulfillment
of the missions. In order to accomplish that it is necessary to carry out a complete analysis of
the, aerodynamic forces, the environmental conditions, stability and performance of the
glider, among others, which are presented on this article.

Nomenclature

AR = Aspect Ratio
Ac = Aerodynamic center
α = Angle of attack
αabs =Absolute angle
c = Chord
b = Wingspan
CL = Wing lift coefficient
CD = Airplane drag coefficient

1 Da Vinci's Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
valentina.cordoba@upb.edu.co, Valentina Córdoba L.
2 Da Vinci's Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
daniela.cuartasp@upb.edu.co, Daniela Cuartas P.
3 Da Vinci's Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
alexandra.de@upb.edu.co, Alexandra K. De La Hoz E.
4 Da Vinci’s Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
john.del@upb.edu.co John A. Del Rio G.
5 Da Vinci's Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
danna.giraldo@upb.edu.co, Danna Y. Giraldo. O.
6 Da Vinci's Glider Challenge “La Cumbancha 2.0 - pájaro”, Aeronautical Engineering Faculty,
sergio.toro@upb.edu.co, Sergio A. Toro A.
Cd,i = Wing induced drag
Cm_cg = Airplane moment about center of gravity coefficient
DT = Total drag Force
Fig = Figure
Lreq = Lift required
LT = Total lift Force
L/D = Lift to drag ratio efficiency
W = Weight
Hcg = Distance from leading edge to center of gravity
H = Height
it = Settled angle for horizontal stabilizer
m = meters
M1 = Mission 1
M2 = Mission 2
N = Newton
Re = Reynolds number
Seg = seconds
Vht = Horizontal Tail Volume
Xreport = Theoretical horizontal distance stablished in the written design report
Xflight = Horizontal distance taken during airplane flight
treport= Theoretical time stablished in the written design report
tflight = Time taken during the airplane flight
S = Wing area
W_empty=Empty weight of the airplane

I. Planning

A. Mission Analysis
The final flight score is based on two missions, each of them having different objectives by which
their requirements and qualification methods must be analyzed independently. However, the weight of the
aircraft must be considered, regardless of the mission, since it plays a determining role in the final score of
the flight. It seeks to be the reference weight or at least be very close to it in order to obtain the best
possible score on the flight which weighs 50% of the final qualification. But it is also necessary to ensure
that the integrity of the structure is not affected due to the intention of reducing the weight, because it must
be able to withstand the three attempts in each of the missions without considerable damage or that is easy
to repair.

• Mission one:
The principal objective of this mission is to get the higher distance and at the same time maintain
the agreement with the data presented throughout this report. In this mission the paid load (dummy) is not
considered, so the plane travels with its own weight. The flight of the plane is scored according to the area
where it lands on the playing field of the sports center, according to this, the score will be multiplied by a
factor: Z1 = 1.0 or Z2 = 2.0.

Fig 1. Mission 1 zones

 This mission will be qualified according to the following formula:

X flight −X report (1)

M 1= | X report |W empty
ZX

Based on the qualification parameters established on the formula, it is established that the distance
traveled by the aircraft is fundamental parameter design for this mission and that, in addition, this is within
an acceptable range of zone 1. The factor Z is considered a very sensitive factor because its value will
greatly change the final score of this mission, our goal is that Z is equal to 1 and therefore the M1 value is
minimum. To achieve this, it is important to have a good glide path; since the magnitude of the horizontal
distance will depend, largely, on the loss of height of the aircraft with respect to time.

• Mission two:
The principal objective is to travel the horizontal distance of the sports center, in this mission the
paid load (dummy) is considered, so it must be taken into account that the weight and balance of the
aircraft may vary. As in the previous mission, there will be two specific zones in which the plane can land,
according to this the mission score will be given, which can be multiplied by a factor: Z1 = 1.0 or Z2 =
2.0.

Fig 2. Mission 2 zones

This mission will be qualified according to the following formula:

t flight −t report (2)

M 2= | t report |
W empty
ZX

As in the previous mission, it is desired that the Z factor be minimum and consequently the M2
value. To achieve this, it is important that the plane lands at the opposite end of the sports center.
Likewise, it is necessary to have a good glide path and that the aircraft be stable due to the new added
weight with a small error range between the experimental data and the theoretical data.

In both missions the accuracy between the differences of the reported data and the real one must be
as close as possible to zero in order to try to get the highest grade. To ensure that the current flight time
and the distance correspond to those calculated in this document, all the parameters must be known in as
much detail as possible, since they are important factors in the qualification, in addition flight tests must be
carried out as a function of the differences based on the calculation model and the result obtained in order
to reduce this difference.

The final flight score will be calculated according to the following formula:
 Flight 60 %=(Functionality∗Flying quality )50 % + Aesthetics10 % (3)

The functionality part refers to the flight score, which is defined by the formula below, the variables
that affect it are the score obtained in both missions and the relation between the reference weight and the
empty weight of the aircraft, relation than will be critical. The flying quality factor will be given by the
judges according to the performance of gliding and control of the aircraft and can take a value of 0 to 1. It
represents a sensitive factor to consider in the design process.

W empty (4)
⟨ {
Flight score= 20+ 10 [ 1−( M 1empty + M 2W payload
) ] }⟩ ( ref

W empty )
The remaining 10% will depend on the aesthetics so it is also necessary to make and manufacture a
nice design to ensure a good grade in that.

To determine which parameters, affect the flight score to a greater extent, different iterations were
made in the different parameters established in the equation, and in this way, we could select those that
made the qualification vary the most.

B. Environment Analysis
The activity will take place inside the UPB sport center in Medellín, where the average temperature
is 23° during the months of May and June, and the density is approximately 1.204 kg/m 3, at an altitude of
1496 meters above sea level.

Since it is a closed installation, the wind and the disturbances due to the gusts are insignificant, but
it is important to highlight the possible obstacles that can be found. There are four speakers that hang from
the ceiling on the east side, and on the south side there are two more. These are hanging separately at
approximately 5 meters. In addition to the above, it is important to consider the height at which the glider
will be launched and the railing that is in the bleachers, because if the glider is not launched properly, it
could be an obstacle.

There are three distances of interest for the missions, the height, length and width, those are needed
in order to calculate if the glide will accomplish with the requirements, the measures are shown in the
following table.

Dimensions taken the middle of the field)

Length (until the middle of the field) 34.9 m
Height 13 m
Width 55.6 m
Table 1. UPB Sport Center Facility

C. Aircraft Throw Method Analysis

The aircraft must be launched with sufficient boost so that it can glide for as long as possible and at
an appropriate attack angle which allows it not to be on stall so fast that crashes with the floor nor with too
much force that can generate considerable damage to the structure. To achieve this, two methods of
launching were considered, a manual one that is a rudimentary method and another that is by means of a
catapult.

After analyzing both methods, it was decided to use the manual release, this is due to one of the
main objectives is to manufacture a light aircraft, so it does not need much force to propel itself. In addition,
since not too critical attack angles are sought, it is expected that these are between -2° and 2°, it is believed
that this is not just an optimal method but the most practical for mission.

As the manual method is going to be used, special care must be taken with the proper balance of the
aircraft, since it is wanted to achieve a good flight trajectory, also its necessary to avoid launching the glider
with very pronounced attack angles, as they can generate a negative effect in the mission, and above all it
has to be an special care about the grip point, since this will largely mark if the launch is successful or not.

D. Payload Arrangement Analysis

As already explained in section II. The glider must be able to meet the flight objectives of one of
the missions with the payload, therefore, it is pertinent to know the characteristics of the flight, helping to
determine how much it can affect the performance of the airplane, and likewise, make a greater approach
about the fuselage’s size and the lift that the wing must generate to counteract the weight of the glider. For
this case, it has an Iron Man Dummy as payload, its most important characteristics can be found in the
following table.

Characteristics Measures
Length 0.3m
Width 0.09m
Thickness 0.04m
Weight 0.148kg
Table 2. Payload’s measures.

II. Procedure

A. Airfoil Selection
In order to be successful in the missions, it is necessary to establish an airfoil that covers the needs of
the project, it means to have into account the weight of all the elements that conform the glider and the
electronics necessary for the control system, besides the characterization of the payload, in this case, the
Iron Man dummy.

Knowing the parameters involved in the Lift, Drag and Moment equations, we can vary three of them;
velocity, reference area, and the respective coefficient. With the airfoil selection it is possible to find an airfoil
coefficient as an initial approximation to the glider design.

The selection of the profiles is made around an equilibrium of parameters based on operating
conditions, which is why the selection criteria considered are shown below:
a) High lift coefficients at low angles of attack.
b) High aerodynamic efficiency at low angles of attack.
c) Good characteristics at low speeds and low Reynolds numbers.
d) Angle of stall away from the operating conditions.
e) Low moment coefficients or close to zero.

With the established parameters, a search was made of airfoils that complied with these, in addition to
being bioinspired. To compare the characteristics of each of the profiles, the computational analysis
software XFLR5 was used, with which the graphs of C l vs α, Cl/Cd vs α and Cm vs α of 12 different profiles
with a Reynolds number of 90000 were obtained. (these graphs are shown in the appendix B)

With the selection matrix, three profiles stand out, the S1223, the SL1, and the EPPLER 61. The three
profiles have a good lift coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency for low angles of attack, but the EPPLER
61 and S1223 are very thin profiles, so the use of these is not viable, and it was decided to use the SL1,
which although it has a lower lift coefficient compared with S1223 does not generate a negative moment as
high as the first two, likewise the higher moment coefficient that generates this is compensated with a
horizontal stabilizer.

GOE GOE GOE RAF RG S122 USA AG DAE

E 61 173 SL 1 176 394 34 15 3 27 16 31
Cl 0.541 0.545 0.685 0.544 0.576 0.472 0.087 1.171 0.158 0.101 0.381
(α= 0) 2.674 2.689 3.207 2.688 2.806 2.422 1.000 5.000 1.262 1.053 2.086
20% 0.535 0.538 0.641 0.538 0.561 0.484 0.200 1.000 0.252 0.211 0.417
 Cd 0.017 0.023 0.020 0.034 0.025 0.019 0.015 0.024 0.029 0.011 0.044
4.057 2.912 3.527 1.000 2.498 3.594 4.394 2.837 1.784 5.000 1.784
20% 0.811 0.582 0.705 0.200 0.500 0.719 0.879 0.567 0.357 1.000 0.357
Cm -0.011 -0.069 -0.10 -0-16 -0.112 -0.079 -0.033 -0.26 -0.040 -0.030 -0.124
(α= 0) 5.000 4.090 3.553 2.553 3.429 3.938 5.000 1.000 4.546 4.695 3.244
20% 1.000 0.818 0.711 0.511 0.686 0.788 1.000 0.200 0.909 0.939 0.649
Mediu
Manufacture m Easy Easy Hard Hard Hard Hard Easy Easy Hard Easy
  3.000 5.000 5.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 5.000 1.000 5.000
40% 1.200 2.000 2.000 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 2.000 2.000 0.400 2.000
TOTAL 3.546 3.938 4.057 1.648 2.147 2.391 2.479 3.767 3.518 2.550 3.423
Table 3. Selection matrix

B. Aerodynamic Forces Analysis

Fig 3. Aircraft’s diagram forces.

To perform the calculation and analysis of the aerodynamic forces, it is necessary to find the
necessary lift to support the total weight of the plane for the different cases and some factors that directly
affect these. To do that, the next equation is necessary.

1 (5)
L= ρ ∞ V 2 S C L
2

To use the equation correctly you must have most of the data present there, which is affirmative. To
begin with, is known the two weights of the aircraft (empty and with payload) so we can infer how much
lift will be necessary for the aircraft to fly straight and level for each mission. Also, it is known the density
of Medellín, and operation velocity is established based on previous reports, an operating speed of
approximately 6-7 m/s was chosen. Then, it is necessary to find an area of the wing and a lift coefficient
that allow the equality between the terms right and left of the equation, reason why by means of XFLR5 and
the validation present in appendix A, is necessary to look for a relation that allows to obtain a coherent area
with respect to the C L provided by the previously chosen profile and the designed finite wing. (the graphs
of forces coefficients are shown in the appendix C)

Empty Payload
Lreq [N] Lreq [N]
9.9081 11.3796

Table 4. Lift required for airplane weight in two configurations.

According to the information above it is possible to determine a mean aerodynamic chord which is
used, together with the velocity, to determine the aircraft’s Reynolds number of operations. So, the XFLR5
software was used at a Reynolds of 90000 considering attack angles between -3° and 3°, but the ideal
angles that the lift can counteract the weight of the airplane are between 0° and 3°. The data obtained are
shown in the following table.

α [deg] CL CD CL/CD CM
-3 0.376 0.005 57.317 0.111
-2 0.471 0.007 58.281 0.086
-1 0.568 0.009 55.984 0.061
0 0.665 0.011 52.447 0.035
1 0.761 0.014 48.642 0.009
2 0.858 0.017 44.989 -0.016
3 0.954 0.021 41.649 -0.043

Table 5. CD, CL, CL/CD and CM in function of angle of attack.

Since the aircraft hasn’t any propulsion system the, the velocity needed can’t be high so it can be
achieved with the force of the launch and taking advantage of the potential energy because of the height at
which the glider is launched. Since it is not possible to ensure a unique velocity because of the throw
method selected, different necessary speeds have been calculated at the angles of attack set before in the
different configurations.
The required velocity of each AoA is achieved by the elevator control system installed in the glider.

Empty Payload
α Velocity [m/s] Velocity [m/s]
-2 8.79 9.39
-1 8.01 8.56
0 7.40 7.91
1 6.92 7.39
2 6.52 6.96
3 6.18 6.60

Table 6. Necessary speed for each α.

C. Stability
It is known that to ensure longitudinal static stability in the aircraft it is necessary to meet some
requirements like moment coefficient that must be greater than zero when the lift is neutral, and the
slope of the Cm_cg vs αabs’s graph must be negative. To accomplish this, it was necessary to add to the
design a horizontal stabilizer, to counteract the negative moment about aerodynamic center of the
wing-body combination.

For the stability calculations the excel computational tool was used, certain parameters were
established, for example, the geometrical characteristics of the wing and was defined that the distance
between the aerodynamic centers of the wing and the stabilizer would be 0.7 m, the tail area is 0.04
m2 , also the required tail volume was established, which is 0.679, the angle of attack was assumed 0°
and the stabilizer incidence angle is -2°. Based on the above, the rest of the necessary parameters to
ensure the stability of the aircraft were established, these are shown in the following table. Also, the
Cm_cg vs αabs’s graph were made, this graph evidences the stability according to the geometric and
aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft.

αreq 6.36°
 CL 0.64382
Lreq (empty) 9.908 N
Vreq@αeq (empty) 7.4 m/s
Lreq (payload) 11.379 N
Vreq@αreq (payload) 7.9 m/s
Table 7. Characteristics to ensure stability

Fig 4. Cm,cg vs αabs

D. Wing Platform Design and Analysis

For the design of the wing, it is pertinent to consider some aspects such as, bio-inspiration and the
inspiration in the Da Vinci prototype, also, it must be able to produce the necessary lift to keep the glider in
a straight and level flight, besides to have a degree of resistance such that, support the landings and at the
same time be light.

For the above, two wing platforms are considered to arrive at a similar design, which are:

 Bat wing: This type of wing is constituted by light and flexible limbs for a better use of the kinetic
energy during the flight ("Anatomía de los Murciélagos - Murciélagos Información y Características",
2019), in addition, its shape has a big similarity with the first ornithopter designed by Da Vinci.
 Albatross wing: This type of wing is the one that stands out the most among the birds, the wingspan that
it has, can generate enough lift for long-range gliders (Tiempo, 2019).

When comparing the two wing platforms exposed above, it is evident that the wing of the bat has
sharper features in the leading edge, while the trailing edge, consists of the union of the arc-shaped
extremities, at the other hand the wing of the albatross has a slightly more arched shape in the leading edge
than the wing of the bat and the trailing edge has a much less abrupt shape, adding that it is longer.

Taking as reference the above, in order to have a resistant wing and with good aerodynamic
characteristics it was decided to use some parameters of both types of wing for the wing platform, they
were:
 Considerable span as the wing of the albatross
 Soft or arched leading edge shape such as albatross wing
 The termination of the wing tips is less sharp, such as the wing of the bat
 The wing is like the wing of Da Vinci's ornithopter, in this case it looks like the trailing edge of
the bat's wing

For the validation of the analysis made, and the selection of the final wing dimensions, the XFLR5
software was used, some parameters were set like the average velocity, the density and the chord, so a
Reynolds number of 90000 was used, also the weight was supposed based on the materials density. With all
that information the design and dimensions obtained are showed next.

Wingspan 2.2 m
Area 0.446 m2
Wing load 1.794 kg/m
 Root chord 0.250 m
Aspect ratio 12.915
Table 8. Wing’s characteristics

Fig 5. Proposed wing plat form.

E. Glide Flight Path Range and Time Estimation

According to the flight evaluation criteria, mission 1 has relevance in the range parameter, in other words,
the distance that the glider can travel without payload. Using the coefficients of Cl and Cd at different
angles of attack [-3, 3] (these data are presented in table 6) the angles that assure stability in the glider are
chosen, which are -1°, 0°, 1°; theoretically the calculated range is found in the following table.

For mission 2, the most important parameter is the gliding time, in this case the payload weight must be
considered. Calculations were made with the same coefficients and angles of attack used before. like the
range, the results of the theoretical and experimental endurance are found in table 6 and 7 respectively.

Mission 1 Mission 2
α [degree] Range[m] Gliding time[seg] Range[m] Gliding time[seg]
-3 21,954 17,782 20,385 19,057
-2 25,209 22,601 23,409 24,221
-1 26,740 26,002 24,830 27,866
0 27,141 28,271 25,203 30,298
1 26,627 29,184 24,725 31,277
2 25,881 29,420 24,032 31,529
3 25,247 29,845 23,443 31,984
Average 26,836 27,819 24,919 29,813
Table 9. Theoretical performance characteristics for each angle.

Mission 1 Mission 2
Characteristic Parameter Range Gliding time
Magnitude 26.836 meters 29,813 seconds
Table 10. Theorical performance characteristic.

F. Re-design and similarities between the proposed aircraft and the Da Vinci’s design

As mentioned before, the geometry of the bat was the basis for the construction of this project, this
also was one of the pillars for the original Da Vinci’s ornithopters, however, by aerodynamic and structural
effects rigid structures composed of airfoils and spars were used. Also, the horizontal stabilizer on Da
Vinci’s design was changed for a smaller one inclined at a fixed angle.
 The fuselage has several changes respect to the original design which was composed of one several
rectangular rigid structures supported by means of cables and other type of supports that were
interconnected to the wings. The fuselage design proposed for this project consist of a single piece where
the payload and controls are going to be placed and at the end it has some supports that lead to the rear
stabilizer.

Another change that is going to be made between both gliders is the use of electronics for better
control of aerodynamic forces, this is ones of the most relevant change because in its time the ornithopter
could not fly by the limited stability that it possessed, contrary to what is being proposed here, since it can
be controlled remotely.

G. Materials Analysis
As stated before in mission analysis, the aim is to make the structure of the aircraft as light as
possible in order to be the reference weight or at least very close to it. Therefore, an important part of the
design process is choosing materials that are lighter than conventional ones. Another important aspect to
keep in mind is that although the material, especially the wing, must be as light as possible, it must also be
strong enough to withstand all the launches that will be made without suffering major structural damage
and make it easy to repair between attempts. With these criteria the following materials were selected:
a) Expanded polypropylene: This material is a mixture of isocyanate and polyol, this combination
allows to stretch and crush it, maintaining its integrity, that is, it has a good resistance, its density
is 50 kg / m3, which is considerably low.
It can be obtained in several presentations, but it is wanted to be used in foam, it comes in liquid
state and after its application it expands and becomes foam. Therefore, it is necessary to build a
mold with the shape of the wing that complicates the manufacturing process.
b) Carbon fiber: Has a good weight resistance ratio, this polymer is obtained from another polymer
called polyacrylonitrile. It is wanted to be used to give strength and rigidity to the wings. Its
density is 1.750 kg / m3.
c) Balsa wood: It is the most used material in the aeromodelling. It has a good weight resistance
ratio; its density is 150 kg / m3.
d) Expanded polystyrene: It is a rigid foam characterized by being a thermoplastic of low density
and high physical-mechanical resistance in relation to its weight. Its density varies depending on
its use, but it is manufactured under the apparent densities of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40 kg / m3.

F. Manufacturing Process
For the manufacture of the wing of the glider, expanded polystyrene was chosen. The cut was made
with different airfoil molds, since in each section the chord was varied, one was placed on each side of the
respective section and sanded until the desired shape was obtained, then they were joined with epoxy resin.
Later, a hole was made to locate a fiberglass beam in the lower part to reinforce the wing, which was
manufactured empirically, by means of a mold where the respective cloth was placed and impregnated with
epoxy resin, also It was filled with expanded polystyrene. Finally, the trailing edge and some sections of the
leading edge were reinforced with fiberglass.

The fuselage was made with expanded polystyrene, worked with a saw and sandpaper, and then it
was lined with a layer of fiberglass cloth with epoxy resin. From the back of this, with epoxy resin, different
carbon fiber bars were joined.
For the construction of the horizontal stabilizer, a mold was used to draw this component in the
expanded polystyrene and sand it until the desired thickness was obtained and it was attempted to resemble
it in a symmetrical profile.

The glider has a control system, for the implementation of it the control surfaces must be considered.
In the case of the ailerons, a part of the trailing edge was cut close to the wing tips, and in the case of the
horizontal stabilizer, a cut was made at the trailing edge of the entire wingspan of the stabilizer.
To achieve the movement of these surfaces, wires and servos were installed, which are connected to
the batteries and to a remote control.
 Fig 6. Glider finished.

III. Experimental Testing

A. Wind Tunnel Test

A wind tunnel test was performed with a delta wing with an area of 0.08 m2 to test the performance
of flexible elements presented in the milestone.
By having high angles of attack, these increase the deflection of the air creating higher pressure
gradients, obtaining a reverse flow and subsequently causing stall. By placing these elements is to prevent
detachment and thus avoid stall. For this, a delta wing was used to which acetate was placed in the
following way:

Fig 7. Delta wing with flexible elements.

The use of these flexible elements has several advantages, but the ones that are relevant for this
project are to delay stall of the glider and be functional at flights at low speeds. To verify this information,
lift and drag data was taken in the wind tunnel with the different angles of attack
Finally, the corresponding graphs were made to observe if the stall angle increased or decreased, as
well as how this affected the drag, and thus determine if they will be used. The graphs obtained were the
following:
 1.4000 0.6000
1.2000
0.5000
1.0000
0.8000 0.4000
0.6000 0.3000
0.4000
0.2000 0.2000

0.0000 0.1000
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2000
0.0000
-0.4000 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
α α

Flexible elements Flexible elements

half flexible element half flexible element
clean wing clean wing
Fig 8. Cl vs α and Cd vs α graphs.

B. Flight Test
To carry out the flight tests, it was necessary to do a shorter vertical distance than the established on
the flight activities' general rules, because the second grandstands of the sports center was restricted. To
simulate mission 1, the plane was launched from the highest possible place in the lateral ends of the
coliseum, trying that the glide trajectory was along the field of the coliseum, doing this the plane managed
to fly over more than half of the field and fall desired zone according to the parameters previously
established. With mission 2, a launch was made from grandstand to grandstand, with which it was evident
that the plane could fly the entire horizontal distance of the coliseum and land safely. An image of the tests
carried out is shown below.

Fig 9. Flight test Mission 1.

In section II.E table 7, extremely high range and endurance values were estimated. In order to
corroborate this data, the flight tests were carried out, therefore the following values are reported:

Mission 1 Mission 2
Characteristic Parameter Range Gliding time
Magnitude 30 meters 4 seconds
Table 8. Experimental performance characteristic
 IV. Result Analysis

Carrying out an analysis of the selection of the airfoil is a fundamental part for the success of the
missions, since not only should the aerodynamic characteristics of the profile be considered, but also how it
was to be manufactured. This allowed to arrive at an appropriate selection, where a balance of
characteristics to obtain desired results, combined with a good design and material selection, area criteria of
vital importance to achieve the objective of the project, since it can be guaranteed that the aircraft, besides
being efficient, will support all the loads for which it was designed, having a high tolerance to damage,
without having to have a high structural weight.

It was specified in the analysis of the missions, that one of the main objectives was to achieve being the
reference weight, however, this is a factor that cannot be controlled during the process, and fulfilling it
implies limiting other factors that can be controlled , for example, to ensure that it is a rugged aircraft
capable of supporting its own weight and that of payload, in addition to obtaining a consistent result in tests
and experimental data.

To perform the calculation and analysis of the aerodynamic forces, the XFLR5 software was of great
help, since it made this process easier, allowing to determine faster and with less margin of error the proper
shape and dimensions of the wing. Also allowed to easily establish the forces of sustentation required for
each of the missions with their respective velocities and attack angles.

The stability calculations were of great help to obtain longitudinal stability, since it allowed to
determine at what angle the horizontal stabilizer should be and where the center of gravity would be
located.

The results obtained in the wind tunnel were not enough to determine if the flexible elements would
be beneficial or not for the development of the missions; its main objective was to increase the stall angle or
delay the aircraft to stall, but the graphs obtained from experimental tests do not show much variation with
respect to this value, which can be evidenced is an increase in the lift coefficient , and consequently an
increase in the drag coefficient. The increase in lift is considerable, since it went from having a coefficient
of 0.1741 to 0.3161 with 0° angles, only with the implementation of these elements, however, the drag
coefficient increased, this started with a value of 0.0020, and ended with a value equal to 0.0432 with the
same angle of attack, that is, almost double the increase. Therefore, the implementation of these elements
was not viable.
V. Technical Conclusions

b 2.2 m
S 0.446 m2
Wing load 1.794 kg/m
Croot 0.250 m
AR 12.915
Table 9. Aircraft’s characteristics

Mission 1 Mission 2
Characteristic Parameter Range Gliding time
Magnitude 40 meters 5.5 seconds
Table 10. Experimental performance characteristic
Fig. 10. Glider’s isometric view.

Fig 11. Glider’s views.

 VI. References

(2019). Retrieved from

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/faa-
h-8083-13a.pdf
Anatomía de los Murciélagos - Murciélagos Información y Características. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.batworlds.com/es/anatomia-de-los-murcielagos
Tiempo, C. (2019). Albatros, criaturas del aire en la Antártida. Retrieved from
https://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-15290618
Anderson, J. (2012). Introduction to Flight. New York: McGraw Hill.

Schaller, F. (2019). Aeroflexible Aerodynamics. Retrieved from

http://felixschaller.com/index.php/carousels-layout/three-columns/46-aeroflexible-aerodynamics.

Cummunier, D., Flores Salinas, M., Carranza Moyao, O., & Botez, R. (2015). Aero Structural
Modeling of a Wing Using CATIA V5 And XFLR5 Software And Experimental Validation Using
The Price-Païdoussis Wing Tunnel [Ebook]. Montreal. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280757155_Aero_Structural_Modeling_of_a_Wing_Usin
g_CATIA_V5_And_XFLR5_Software_And_Experimental_Validation_Using_The_Price-
Paidoussis_Wing_Tunnel
 APPENDIX

a) XFLR 5 validation

The XFLR5 validation is based on the comparison of experimental data (Cummunier, Flores
Salinas, Carranza Moyao & Botez, 2015). On the article they used a NACA 0012 airfoil, with 0,275 meters
and 0,305 meter of chord and wingspan, respectively. The experimental data taken were lift at different
angle of attack and velocities, this information is shown below:

Fig 12. Experimental data (Cummunier, Flores Salinas, Carranza Moyao & Botez, 2015)
The same conditions were simulated under XFLR5 Software, but the data that was plotted was only
the lift at different angles of attack at a single speed, the graph is shown below:

Fig 10. XFLR5 data.

The obtained results give a margin of error of 5% for the calculation under this method.

b) Airfoil discard information.

 Fig 13. graphs of Cl vs α, Cd vs α, Cl/Cd vs α and Cm vs α of 12 different profiles with a Reynolds
number of 90000.

c) Graphics wing-tail combination

Fig 14. graphs of CL vs α, CD vs α, CL/CD vs α and Cm vs α of 12 wing-tail combination with a Reynolds

number of 90000.

d) Turnintin report

Fig 15. Turninin report.