R

Dawn Spencer

Middle Tennessee State University

Aero 1020-002

Professor Mosey

April 24, 2023

Introduction

This paper is an in-depth description of the construction, testing, and analysis of the

results of my balsa wood glider. I will describe the prototypes and their constructions,

specifically the wing shape, fuselage, and empennage, in terms learned in class and in research

for the first paper.

Prototype

Construction began with a rough sketch of the fuselage, empennage, and wing shape. I

then jumped straight into cutting pieces that fit within the 18 x 18 x 6-inch restriction. Each piece

was made one at a time and assembled as I went. I started with the fuselage and vertical

stabilizer. I decided that using one piece for the body of the glider would make the body stronger.

The wing was also cut to be a singular piece for durability. In the body, the wing is set into it so

that the top of the wing is flushed with the top of the fuselage. This was intended to reduce form

drag. Once the wing was glued to the glider, I cut the wings into a semi-elliptical configuration. I

used the cut pieces from the wings to from the horizontal stabilizers. I added a small square

connecting piece to help keep the pieces attached to the side of the empennage. This creates more

form drag but ensures that the horizontal stabilizers would remain attached after multiple test

flights. I knew that the wings and horizontal stabilizers alone would not keep the glider from

turning and falling so I needed to add a dihedral angle to the wings. To create this angle I rested

the glider’s wings on makeshift sawhorses, absorbed water into the center of the wings, and

placed a weight in the middle and let it rest. I repeated this process to correct an imbalance in the

angle. Once the angle was applied, I need to readjust the center of gravity because it was too far

aft. Two pieces of smaller wood helped bring the balance back underneath the wings. After
rounding the edges of the wings and horizontal stabilizers, initial construction was complete.

Description

The fuselage and empennage is one piece with the wing and horizontal stabilizers

attached with as little glue as possible. The front of the fuselage is slightly taller to make it

heavier and bring the center of gravity closer to the wings. It also has two thick wooden squares

attached to either side to further bring the center of gravity forward. The front then slopes down

into the wings which are set inside the fuselage to reduce form drag. The wings are semi

elliptical and thinner than the body. The tail rises into the vertical stabilizer that is the same width

as the fuselage. The horizontal stabilizers are curved inwards towards the tail and the same width

as the wings. Only the wings and horizontal stabilizers.

Flights Test Methods

To test the glider during construction, several informal tosses allowed for obvious flaws

to be revealed. The most obvious being that the center of gravity was too far back as the glider

kept leaning back and stalling. The resolve this issue two squares of wood were added as stated

during the section detailing construction. This seemed to resolve the issue with informal tests.

However after performing full distance tests, the problem persisted. Thinner additions along the

front were then added to bring the center of gravity even further forward. A second round of

formal tests concluded the changes worked and gave the glider an even flight.

Results
 test 1 dist. (ft) g ratio test 2 dist (ft) g ratio
throw 1 10'2 throw 1
2.03 15'5.5 3.09
throw 2 14'1.5 throw 2
2.82 18'9 3.75
throw 3 11'4 throw 3
2.27 17'0.5 3.41
throw 4 13'6 throw 4
2.37 17'9.5 3.56
throw 5 10'3.5 throw 5
2.06 27'9 5.55
throw 6 18' throw 6
3.6 15'3 3.05
throw 7 18'6 throw 7
3.7 21'2 4.23
throw 8 12'1 throw 8
2.42 18'2 3.63
throw 9 12'6 throw 9
2.5 27' 5.4
throw 10 13'8 throw 10
2.73 20'6 4.1
avg 13'4.3 avg
2.89 18'4 3.67

The first test showed obvious flaws in the glider’s center of gravity. On each test, the

glider always tilted up and stalled eventually. If the glider was thrown with a stronger downward

angle, the stall could be prolonged to reach a greater distance. The greatest distance I could

achieve in the first test was eighteen feet and six inches. The worst throw was the first throw at

ten feet and 2 inches because I wasn’t aware of the dramatic stalling of the glider yet. The

average throw went about thirteen feet and a little over 4 inches. The average glide ratio was

2.89. glide ratio is found by dividing the distance traveled by the height it started at. For the tests,

the height is considered five feet. The second test proved the changes made after the first test

made noticeable improvements to the glider’s center of gravity. Rather than stalling around

thirteen feet, the glider traveled much farther before either hitting the ground or drifting to the

right. The average distance traveled increased to eighteen feet and four inches and the glide ratio

increased to 3.67. The glide ratio improving was the most important part of developing the glider

because if the glide ratio improves as high as possible then the glider will perform better during

the competition.

Discussion

This project has helped me visualize the effects of what we’ve learned in class regarding

wing design and lift. The initial design process should have been longer to better plan the center
of gravity, however, that may have proved an over complicated process as the wood was not of

equal mass throughout the pieces. I completely skipped the use of modelling clay to cut costs and

weight, but it may have proven useful as a counterbalance with minimal surface area. If I were to

make another glider, I would use modeling clay to perfect the center of gravity underneath the

center of lift. Using thicker balsa wood for the fuselage was a good idea and it proved to hold up

well except for the vertical stabilizer which needed to be repaired during testing. Testing also

would have been better if it was done indoors. The first round of tests was outside and the slight

wind may have led to faster stalls. This is not certain but to eliminate the possibility the tests

should’ve been in a closed space. The aspect ratio could have likely also been increased by

shrinking the width of the wings. The wings were a little wide and didn’t reach optimal glider

ratios of above ten. All of these changes would lead to an optimal glider.

Description of Fuselage

The fuselage is a thicker denser balsa wood that is more durable than the material of the

wings and horizontal stabilizers. The front starts at a point and slopes into a teller head and then

slopes back down into the wings. On either side of the front, two pieces of wood fit the form of

the fuselage to add weight as a substitute for modelling clay. These four pieces were added to

provide a counterbalance for the empennage and bring the center of gravity under the center of

lift. The fuselage and tail of the empennage are apart of the same piece and go from forward tip

to aft. Minimal glue is found on the surface of the fuselage to reduce skin drag and weight

imbalance.

Description of Wing

The wings of the glider are made from one piece that was trimmed after assembly to a

semi-elliptical shape. This shape gives enough lift to glide with a low aspect ratio while also
cutting drag with the elliptical shape. The airfoil resembles a symmetrical design save for the

underside of the leading edge. The top of the leading edge and underside of the trailing edge are

both rounded to reduce drag. The rounded trailing edge is intended to assist in reducing stalls.

The wings are not swept because the glider is not a high-speed flier and retaining lift is more

important than reducing drag. Not having a sweep ensures the glider is capturing as much lift as

possible. The width of the wing is two inches, giving each wing an estimated 4.5 aspect ratio.

This aspect ratio is not optimal for gliders that prefer to have a much larger aspect ratio.

However, the smaller aspect ratio will keep the glider stable since it is light weight and

vulnerable to changes in air currents. The wings are mounted on top of the fuselage with a slight

dihedral angle. This was intended to grant the glider the ability to keep itself flying straight and

not spin about its longitudinal axis. The angle of Incident is zero as the wings remain level with

the fuselage. I was not confident in my ability to accurately change to angle of incident to

something more desirable without drastically affecting the balance of the glider.

Description of Empennage

The empennage of the glider is the same height and width as the fuselage until the

vertical stabilizer in which it transitions to in a near sixty degree angle. The vertical stabilizer is

not rounded and is the same width as the fuselage and tail. The horizontal empennage is made

from the converted trimmings of the wings. This creates a unique inward curve starting on the

tail and expanding to their very end of the empennage. The effectiveness of the horizontal

stabilizers is in question but it provides the needed counter lift the keep the craft in a level glide

to the ground. The vertical stabilizer is shorter than the horizontal stabilizers. This may be

causing issues with fish-tailing towards the end of flight when the glider slows down near the
ground.