Vincent Antoniello, Alec Freytag, Owen Schiele, Brett Smith

27 November 2020
MECH 313 Project 2
Professor Madero

Project 2 - Redesign of a Fuselage

1) A brief discussion of your first pass design philosophy based on empirical drag
coefficients and fundamental knowledge about drag. Clearly state the drag force
you expect your redesigned fuselage to experience based on your analysis.

As a first pass philosophy, the geometry of the redesigned fuselage had to be as streamlined as
possible in order to minimize drag. Using some of the resources provided, the general geometry
that resulted in the smallest drag was a streamlined body containing a rounded leading edge that
converged to a point along its trailing edge. Empirical data described this type of body as having
a drag coefficient of 0.04. For our first design of the fuselage, we anticipated the largest diameter
(full-scale) to be 12 in. (0.3048 m) to incorporate the cylinder. Calculating the theoretical drag
force for this size fuselage with an empirical drag coefficient of 0.04 results in an expected force
of 0.196 N at full-scale and at the specified elevation (see Figure 1). This was only a rough force
estimate for the shape chosen, but further redesign and model iterations were created before
settling on a final model shape.

Figure 1:​ Force calculation for rough first design geometry

2) Similarity calculations. Show how you determined the scale of your model, ensuring
that similarity is achieved and that the blockage ratio is below the threshold.
 3) CFD results for the baseline fuselage and the redesigned fuselage, including all the
design iterations you went through.

For all of the CFD conducted, the results were obtained using a local mesh to allow for more
accurate flow simulation around the surfaces of the models. Based on prior labs, this seemed to
give more accurate values and thus was chosen for this project for better-simulated drag
estimates.

The baseline fuselage (cylinder) was tested in CFD for the full scale (12in diameter) at 5000ft
elevation and at 37ft/s. The results yielded a force of 4.704 N in the direction of the fluid flow,
shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: ​This figure shows the baseline fuselage (cylinder) CFD test.

The first model iteration created was such that the cylinder itself had a half-sphere on the front of
it as a nose and a conical tail as the trailing edge. The CFD results of this design at full-scale
(12in diameter) at 5000ft elevation and at 37ft/s yielded a drag force of 0.475 N in the direction
of the fluid flow, as seen in Figure 3. This was much less than that of the cylinder CFD results.
 Figure 3: ​The 1st design fuselage CFD test is shown here.

We decided that the first model could be more streamlined, so we created a new design that still
fully incorporated the cylinder, but the nose of the fuselage wasn't as blunt as the half-sphere of
the first model. This new design was run in CFD in order to be compared to the first model. This
second design led us closer to choosing the best performing design to create for the prototype. As
shown below in Figure 4, the model yielded a drag force of 0.389 N in the direction of fluid flow
at full-scale at 5000ft elevation and 37ft/s. This result supported the decision of the shape of the
second model over that of the first model for the creation of the prototype.

Figure 4: ​This image shows the 2nd design fuselage CFD test.
The general shape of the second model was again redesigned, this time in a more streamlined
fashion, and CFD was again conducted at full-scale at 5000ft elevation and 37ft/s. The results of
this design yielded a force of 0.290 N in the direction of fluid flow, seen in Figure 5. Once again,
this was better than the prior iteration. This model was chosen as the model that would be scaled
and created for wind tunnel testing. The cross-section of this full-scale final CAD model with
various radii can be seen below in Figure 6.

Figure 5: ​The 2nd design remodeled fuselage CFD test is shown in this Figure.

Figure 6: ​The full scale final CAD model with dimensions can be seen in this image.

After this final model design was chosen and similarity was calculated to determine the scale of
the model needed, CFD was run at the conditions of the wind tunnel. These conditions are
included in the similarity calculation. This analysis yielded a drag force of 0.271 N in the
direction of fluid flow, shown in Figure 7, which could be used later in the testing process to
compare to theoretical and experimental results.
 Figure 7:​ This figure shows the scaled model fuselage CFD test at wind tunnel conditions.

4) A table comparing the drag of the baseline fuselage design to your modified design
as calculated with empirical approaches, CFD, and the wind-tunnel tests. Briefly
discuss how well CFD predicted the drag reduction (the change from the original to
modified fuselage) found in wind-tunnel testing. ​Note: The wind tunnel test results
will be at model scale – you will need to either compare the change in drag coefficient
from the original to the redesigned fuselage or scale the wind tunnel results up to
prototype scale.

Table 1: ​This table shows the drag force comparisons between calculations, CFD and the wind
tunnel test. (*see Figure 15, **see Figure 16)

Baseline Fuselage Modified Fuselage Modified Fuselage

(Cylinder) (N) (Tested)/Scale (N) (Full-Scale
Fuselage) (N)

Empirical 4.410 0.207 0.196

Approach

CFD 4.706 0.271 0.290

Wind Tunnel 4.359 0.560 ± 0.007 * 0.536 ± 0.007 **

Overall, the CFD did not do a great job of predicting the drag reduction from the baseline
fuselage to the modified fuselage. The CFD did in fact predict values that were relatively similar
to the drag reduction values found through the empirical approach. However, when comparing
the reduction in the wind tunnel to the reduction from the CFD, the difference is quite
substantial. This in part is due to the construction of the model fuselage. While the CFD
modeled a completely smooth fuselage, the model tested in the wind tunnel was not completely
smooth. The imperfections on the model tested in the wind tunnel played a significant role in
increasing the drag on the fuselage. Due to this increased drag, the drag reduction in the wind
tunnel was much less than the drag reduction found through CFD modeling.

5) A brief discussion of your results. For example: Were you successful? How do you
know? If not, how would you modify your design for better results? If so, could you
improve the design more? In what ways? Should a different test approach be used
in the future? Would you recommend a different fabrication approach? What have
you learned?

Compared to other tested products, our design was fairly successful. Our fuselage achieved a
relatively low drag coefficient. However, the drag force recorded was higher than we were
expecting, as shown in Table 2. If we were to modify our design in the future, there are a few
changes we would make. First, our model’s largest diameter ended up being 0.16” larger than we
were expecting. This was mainly due to manufacturing tolerances not taken into account as well
as the additions made to smooth the surface of our model. In the future, we would account for
these errors in our similarity calculations, thus adjusting the wind tunnel parameters accordingly.
Next, we would use a different material other than spackling paste to smooth the outside of our
model. Although the paste did its job to smooth the surface and create a nice looking model,
almost nothing was able to stick to it. In the end, we used spray adhesive and the shrink wrap
provided to put the finishing smooth layer on our model. This functioned well but was not
perfect, with many creases and bumps due to the difficulty in applying the shrink wrap with
spray adhesive. In the future, we would use a different product, such as Bondo, to smooth the
surface and fill in the bumps and cracks. Overall, we were able to create the prototype using only
wood, foam, spackle, the plastic film, and adhesives. Images taken of the prototype during the
building process are provided in Figures 8-13 of the Appendix.

Overall, the process of this project taught us a great deal about fluid dynamics and how certain
design aspects must be taken into account to create the least amount of drag on an object. In
doing so, the principles of boundary layers, as well as external flows, were made more clear to us
because we had a physical interpretation of what we were analyzing. CFD was also useful for
this reason but was solely used as a theoretical comparison to the physical model. Additionally,
we had the goal in mind to create a fuselage with the lowest drag, so we had to implement steps
from the engineering design process to narrow down and find a fuselage design that provided us
with this result.

Table 2: ​This table shows the actual testing results received in the wind tunnel.
Appendix:

Table 3: ​Calculations and information needed for testing

Prototype Diameter (in.) 12.40

Model Diameter (in.) 5.57 (actual after production)

Wind Tunnel Velocity (m/s) 24.3(with 5.41in diameter)

Contraction Pressure (in. Water) 1.59 (with 5.41in diameter)

Figure 8: ​Cutting of foam model

 Figure 9: ​Construction of foam model

Figure 10: ​Numbered foam and wood layers after sanding

Figure 11: ​Prototype covered in spackle to fill in cracks (sanded again afterwards)

Figures 12/13: ​Prototype covered in plastic film (top and bottom view)
Figure 14: ​Model in the wind tunnel on testing day
Figure 15:​ Uncertainty analysis for scale model drag force recorded, due to both velocity
uncertainty and sensor uncertainty
Figure 16:​ Uncertainty analysis for full scale drag force using ratio from the model drag force
and uncertainty