Aerospace 09 00208

aerospace
Article
Performance Analysis of Empennage Configurations on a
Surveillance and Monitoring Mission of a VTOL-Plane UAV
Using a Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation
Gesang Nugroho *, Galih Zuliardiansyah and Azhar Aulia Rasyiddin
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Yogyakarta 55284, Indonesia; galihzuliardiansyah@mail.ugm.ac.id (G.Z.); azhar.aulia@mail.ugm.ac.id (A.A.R.)
* Correspondence: gesangnugroho@ugm.ac.id
Abstract: A Vertical Take-Off and Landing-Plane (VTOL-Plane) is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

(UAV) that combines multirotor and fixed-wing configurations. It has a good cruise range compared
to a VTOL vehicle. Furthermore, it can take-off and land vertically. This technology is ideal for
surveillance/monitoring missions and transmitting data in real-time. This study discusses the design
of a VTOL-Plane with a preset Design Requirement Objectives (DRO), namely a Maximum Take-Off
Weight (MTOW) of 14 kg, a cruise speed of 23 m/s, and a cruising range of 6 h. To maximize the
performance, the empennage configurations on the VTOL-Plane varied, and then a Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation was carried out. The empennage configurations analyzed were a
U-shaped boom, an inverted U-shaped boom, an inverted V-tail boom, and a semi-inverted V-tail
boom. The interpreted performance related to the stalling angle, flight efficiency, stability, stall speed,

and maneuverability. The relative wind directions toward the longitudinal axis of the UAV, also
Citation: Nugroho, G.; called the sideslip angle, were varied. The CFD simulation results showed that the empennage
Zuliardiansyah, G.; Rasyiddin, A.A. configuration of the inverted U-shaped boom is suitable for a surveillance mission. This article also
Performance Analysis of Empennage optimized the final empennage design by adding a vertical fin to improve stability.
Configurations on a Surveillance and
Monitoring Mission of a VTOL-Plane Keywords: VTOL-Plane UAV; empennage configuration; computational fluid dynamics simulation
UAV Using a Computational Fluid
Dynamics Simulation. Aerospace 2022,
9, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/
aerospace9040208 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Lakshmi N Surveillance areas need technology that can monitor and transmit data in real-time.
Sankar Area managers should acquire information promptly and make choices swiftly before
Received: 11 February 2022
disasters or unlawful actions worsen. Drones are crewless aircraft of remarkably reduced
Accepted: 7 April 2022
dimensions, a low energy consumption, a low cost utilization, a minimal risk to human life,
Published: 11 April 2022
and a promising future for forestry applications [1]. Moreover, drones are also commonly
used for military needs [2]. In this case, the optimization of the drone design is important
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
for a surveillance mission.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and their applications are expanding
published maps and institutional affil-
as technology advances. A Vertical Take-Off and Landing-Plane (VTOL-Plane) is a drone
iations.
that combines fixed-wing and rotary-wing configurations, making it ideal for surveillance
missions [3]. A VTOL-Plane or quad plane is suitable for this mission since it can hover,
cruise efficiently in fixed-wing mode, and complete smooth transitions [4]. A VTOL-Plane
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
can take-off and land without a runway and has a high cruising range, making it ideal
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. for usage in rough terrain. Moreover, a VTOL-Plane with a different energy source, such
This article is an open access article as electricity for VTOL motors and gasoline for plane propulsion, could improve the
distributed under the terms and cruising range.
conditions of the Creative Commons The design of a VTOL-Plane Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) varies depending on
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the mission. Numerous designs are available, such as a TURAC VTOL tiltrotor and a
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ fixed-wing VTOL, each with its own concept. This research includes several innovations
4.0/). for overcoming various VTOL problems, such as thrust vectoring, transition flights, and
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9040208 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 2 of 32
mechanical transformation from VTOL to Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL)

flights [5]. Unfortunately, there is a complicated mechanism for the tiltrotor and a complex
control system, so it is not used as a design reference. The fixed-wing-VTOL design is
similar to the twin tail boom layout, but there are a few differences, such as the boom
structure for VTOL motors [6]. This concept is simple to grasp and can be further expanded.
There are many empennage geometry concepts for a twin tail boom VTOL-Plane. The
inverted U-shaped boom [7,8], U-shaped boom [9], inverted V-tail boom [10], semi-inverted
V-tail boom [11] are some of the most frequent empennage geometries. Furthermore, no
research has been undertaken to determine which empennage geometries work better on a
twin tail boom VTOL-Plane. As a result, this paper will discuss which empennage geome-
tries have an excellent performance, including the final empennage design optimization.
A UAV is designed in several processes [12], beginning with the conceptual design,
preliminary design [13], and detailed design [14–17]. A reliable UAV can be obtained
by following these references. The important parameters to comprehend are the stall
phenomenon, efficiency, stability, and maneuverability. However, a number of factors
could cause those main parameters to be disrupted. These issues could be caused by fluid
dynamics, which provide interference airflow between the wing and the fuselage, causing
the aircraft to become unstable and lose the amount of lift force. The sideslip angle, which
is formed by the relative wind directions and the aircraft’s direction, can affect the plane’s
stability. The sideslip angle is crucial to understand since it influences lateral and directional
stability [18–20]. The sideslip angle could induce a more obscure and complicated flight
safety [21]. Meanwhile, the VTOL-Plane needs a precise fly position to approach tough
terrain for landing. Before the UAV is tested to fly, further study of the empennage geometry
is required to confirm that the UAV design can eliminate the difficulties.
The overall design of the UAV is analyzed using the Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) approach [22]. The CFD method is applied because it is simple to implement and does
not require high costs as the wind tunnel method does. In addition, this simulation uses
the accurate turbulence model which is applied to provide accurate data [23]. Moreover,
the CFD simulation is very suitable for varying parameter variations, particularly the
sideslip angle.
Every empennage geometry has a different characteristic. The H-tail or U-shaped
boom empennage is the most efficient for the low-wing, mid-wing, and high-wing con-
figurations [24]. However, that study merely looked at the wing and the empennage, not
the rest of the aircraft parts. So, the analysis was less accurate regarding the aerodynamics
effect from the fuselage. In crosswind situations, the V-tail empennage is quietly stable [25].
They found that the V-tail has an advantage in having positive lateral stability at all tested
sideslip angles (up to 60◦ ) compared to conventional empennage configurations. Unfortu-
nately, the V-tail empennage layout is not compatible with a dual tail boom VTOL-Plane.
This study will invert the shape of the V-tail respecting the VTOL-Plane twin tail boom
configuration used in this research and analyze the aerodynamic performance.
The VTOL-Plane empennage configuration in this research used a twin tail boom
configuration. On the other hand, twin-tail boom design geometry is quite varied. As a
result, the empennage geometry was varied and analyzed using a Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) approach to estimate the aerodynamic performance in various wind
situations. This paper also discusses the optimization of the final empennage design for a
VTOL-Plane.
2. Research Methods
This study aimed to determine the best empennage performance for a VTOL-Plane
UAV, beginning with the creation of a VTOL-Plane with a specific DRO and variations in
the empennage geometry. In this research, the VTOL-Plane was designed to have a different
energy source to improve the cruise range. VTOL propulsion uses an electric source and
gasoline for fixed-wing propulsion. Therefore, this research merely chose the appropriate
brushless motor and battery source for the VTOL take-off and landing performance. CFD
priate brushless motor and battery source for the VTOL take-off and landing perfor
CFD modeling was also performed to evaluate the empennage configuration in a
of wind conditions. The best empennage configuration was chosen and evaluated
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 weaknesses, and the tail design was optimized to improve the final design
3 of 32 perform
2.1. Design Requirements and Objective

modeling was also performed to evaluate the empennage configuration in a variety of
The VTOL-Plane for surveillance is designed to fly at a low speed and wit
wind conditions. The best empennage configuration was chosen and evaluated for the
stability.
weaknesses,The
andCivil Aviation
the tail Safety
design was Regulation
optimized (CASR)
to improve the final[26], which
design governs UAV
performance.
tions, is also used to determine the requirements. The design requirements for the
2.1. Design
Plane must Requirements
be met inand Objective
order for the VTOL-Plane to be certified. Table 1 shows th
The VTOL-Plane for surveillance
and Figure 1 shows the mission profile is designed to VTOL-Plane.
of the fly at a low speed and with good
stability. The Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) [26], which governs UAV operations,
is also used to determine the requirements. The design requirements for the VTOL-Plane
Table 1. Design Requirements and Objective (DRO).
must be met in order for the VTOL-Plane to be certified. Table 1 shows the DRO, and
Figure 1 shows the mission profile of the VTOL-Plane.
No Requirement Value
Table11. Design Requirements andTake-off transition distance
Objective (DRO). 80 m
2 Landing transition distance 150 m
No Requirement Value
3 Cruising altitude 300 m
1 Take-off transition distance 80 m
4 2 Landing Cruising velocity
transition distance 150 m 23 m/
5 3 CruisingStall
altitude
speed 300 m 14 m/
4 Cruising velocity 23 m/s
6 5 StallLoad
speed weight 14 m/s 5.5 kg
7 6 Load weight
Flight time 5.5 kg 6h
7 Flight time 6h
8 8 RateRate
of climbof climb 5.5 m/s 5.5 m/
9 9 Maximum Take-Off
Maximum WeightWeight
Take-Off (MTOW) (MTOW) 14–15 kg 14–15 k
10 Wingspan 3m
10 Wingspan 3m
.
Figure 1. Mission Profile VTOL-Plane Surveillance. Note: 1—Ground test; 2—Engine start and
Figure
warm-up;1. Mission
3—VTOL Profile
take-off VTOL-Plane Surveillance.
preparation; 4—VTOL take-off;Note: 1—Ground
5—VTOL transitiontest; 2—Engine start a
to Fixed-wing;
warm-up; 3—VTOL take-off preparation; 4—VTOL take-off; 5—VTOL transition
6—Climb; 7—Cruise; 8—Loiter and cruise back; 9—Descent; 10—Fixed-wing transition to Fixed-w
to VTOL;
11—VTOL landing; 12—Engine shutdown and ground test.
6—Climb; 7—Cruise; 8—Loiter and cruise back; 9—Descent; 10—Fixed-wing transition to V
11—VTOL landing;
2.2. Conceptual Design12—Engine shutdown and ground test.
Several major elements were configured during this stage, including the wing, fuselage,
2.2. Conceptual
empennage, and Design
propulsion systems. The wing was designed to fulfill the mission’s
requirements; hence, the high wing configuration was used to provide the most lift force.
Several major elements were configured during this stage, including the win
To make the manufacturing process easier, the wing was designed without dihedral angles.
lage,Theempennage,
dimensionsand propulsion
of the systems.
fuselage adapted The wing was
the components designed
carried to fulfill
and designed to the m
requirements;
minimize drag. hence, the highsystem
The propulsion wingchosen
configuration was because
was a pusher used totheprovide
empennagethe most lif
configuration used was a twin tail boom and used an engine propulsion
To make the manufacturing process easier, the wing was designed without dihed system. It aims
to balance the moment at the Center of Gravity (CoG) because the load is placed before
gles.
the CoG.
The Ascend
ALTI dimensions
[7], ALTIof Transition
the fuselage adapted
[8], Great the[11],
Shark 330 components
and Sparrowcarried and desig
VTOL [27],
minimize
all of whichdrag. The propulsion
are similar to the DRO, were system chosen
chosen was a pusher
as comparison because
planes in theThe
this study. empenna
comparison planes
figuration used waswere aneeded
twin totail
solve several
boom andequations.
used an The empennage
engine configuration
propulsion system. It
was varied
balance to moment
the determine at thethe
bestCenter
performance. The following
of Gravity empennage
(CoG) because theconfigurations
load is placed bef
were used in the comparison:
CoG.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 4 of 32
• U-shaped boom [9];

• Inverted U-shaped boom [7,8];
• Inverted V-tail boom [10];
• Semi-inverted V-tail boom [11].
2.3. Preliminary Design

In the preliminary design stage, performance sizing such as take-off weight, empty
weight, fuel weight, power loading, and wing loading were calculated to determine the
requirements of the VTOL-Plane. The comparative plane data was used as a reference in
this calculation using the equations given by [13]:
1. Fuel fraction, these equations are shown in Table 2:
Table 2. Fuel fraction [13].
Phase Fuel Fraction

Engine Start and Warm-up 0.998
VTOL take-off preparation 0.998
VTOL transition to fixed-wing 0.998
Climb 0.995
η L Wa
Cruise Rcr = 375 c pp ln (1)
cr D cr We

L
ln W
1 ηp
Loiter Eltr = 375 Vltr c D
a (2)
ltr p ltr ltr We

L
ln W
η
Cruise back Rcr = 375 c pp D We
a (3)
cr cr
Descent 0.995
Landing, taxi, dan shutdown 0.995
where:
Wa
We = Fuel fraction
Rcr = Cruising range (miles)
Eltr = Loiter time (hours)
η p = Propeller efficiency
c p = Specific fuel consumption (lbs/hp/hr)
L
D = Lift to drag ratio
Vltr = Loiter velocity (miles per hour)
2. Mission fuel fraction (Mff ):

Mf f = Mf f1 Mf f2 . . . Mf fn (4)
where:
Mff = Mission fuel fraction
3. Total fuel (WF ):

WF = 1 − M f f WTO + M f res WTO (5)
where:
WF = Total fuel weight (kg)
WTO = Take-off weight (kg)
Mfres = The ratio of reserve fuel weight to total fuel weight
4. Empty weight (WE ) and take-off weight (WTO ):
log10 WTO = a + b log10 WE (6)

Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 5 of 32
where:
WE = Empty weight (kg)
5. Regression constant a and b:
Y = a + bX + = (7)

n ∑ XY − ∑ X ∑ Y
b= 2 (8)
n ∑ X2 − ∑ X

∑ Y − b ∑ X
a= (9)
n
where:
Y = Predicted value
X = Independent variable
= = Residual value
a = Regression constant a
b = Regression constant b
n = Number of comparison planes
6. Stall speed performance:

W 1
= × ρ × vs 2 × CLmaxS (10)
S s 2
where:

W
S = Stall speed wing loading (lb/ft2 )
s
ρ = Air density (slug/ ft2 )
vs = Stall speed (ft/s)
CLmaxS = Stall speed lift coefficient
7. Take-off performance (VTOL to fixed-wing transition):
In this research, the the VTOL to fixed-wing transition performance was calculated
using the conventional take-off performance equation. This calculation estimates the wing
loading and power loading value.
TOP23 × σ × CLmaxTO

W
= (11)
P TO W
S TO
where: q
TOP = −273 + (7.45 × 104 ) + (67.11 × STO ) (12)
where:

W
= Take-off power loading (lb/hp)
P TO
W
S = Take-off wing loading (lb/ft2 )
TO
TOP23 = Take-off parameter
σ = the ratio of the density of air at the take-off altitude to the density of air at sea level
CLmaxTO = Take-off lift coefficient
STO = Take-off distance (ft)
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 6 of 32
8. Climb performance:
After a successful transition flight mode between the VTOL and fixed-wing, the aircraft
continues the mission to climb until the cruise and loiter altitude. The equation below
shows the fixed-wing climb performance calculation.
" #1
4
27
19 × η p × 3
256×c D0TOup × π × AR1×e

W TO
= Fclimb !1  (13)
P

CL r 4
W 19RC 27
S +  33,000 × 3 
CL 256×c D0TOup × 1
π × AR×e TO
where:

W
= Climb power loading (lb/hp)
P CL
W
S = Climb wing loading (lb/ft2 )
CL
Fclimb = Thrust used for climb (%)
RC = rate of climb (ft/min)
CD0TOup = zero lift drag coefficient of the airplane drag polar at take-off with fixed gear
AR = wing aspect ratio
eTO = Take-off Oswald’s efficiency factor
9. Cruise performance:
A VTOL-Plane has the advantage of covering the weaknesses of a rotary-wing cruise
range. A VTOL-Plane can cruise with fixed-wing configurations. Therefore, a VTOL-Plane
has a long cruise range. In addition, the index power used in this research refers to a
fixed-gear configuration.

W W Fcr
= (14)
P CR S CR σ × I power 3
where:

W
P = Cruise power loading (lb/hp)
CR
W
S = Cruise wing loading (lb/ft2 )
CR
Fcr = Thrust used for cruise (%)
Ipower 3 = index power, power coefficient needed according to landing gear configurations
10. Landing performance (fixed-wing to VTOL transition)
Even so, for the VTOL-transition, this study calculated the fixed-wing to VTOL transi-
tion performance using the conventional landing performance equation and the fixed-wing
landing performance equation used to find the wing loading parameter.

W 1.689 W
= × ρ × CLmaxL × VA2 × TO (15)
S L 2 × 1.15 WL
where:

W
S = Landing wing loading (lb/ft2 )
L
WL = Landing weight (lb)
CLmaxL = Landing lift coefficient
VA = Landing velocity (ft/s)
Calculations using the above equation yield a sizing performance curve that can
determine wing loading (W/S) and power loading (W/P). The analysis using the above
equations can also estimate the aircraft weight and the weight of the required fuel. The
performance curve is depicted in Figure 2. The performance curve was the reference used
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 7 of 32
to pick the design point resulting in the wing loading and power loading values. The grey
color delineates the eliminated area used to pick the design point. The design point was
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 33
picked by considering the optimum wing area and power needed. The estimated data
during the preliminary design stage are summarized in Table 3.
Figure 2.2.Performance
Figure Performancesizing
sizing chart.
chart.
Table 3. Performance sizing.

Table 3. Performance sizing.
VTOL-Plane Surveillance Sizing
VTOL-Plane Surveillance Sizing
Wing loading (W/S) 3 lb/ft2 2= 14.7 kg/m22
Wing loading (W/S) 3 lb/ft = 14.7 kg/m
PowerPower
loading (W/P)
loading (W/P) 15.4
15.4lb/hp
lb/hp==77 kg/hp
kg/hp
CLmaxTO
CLmaxTO 1.4
1.4
CLmaxL 1.3
CLmaxL 1.3
CLmaxS 1.3
CLmaxSWTO 1.3
14 kg
WTO WE 145.8kg
kg
WE W F 2 kg
5.8 kg
WF 2 kg
2.4. Detailed Design
The next
2.4. Detailed step was to design the wing, empennage, fuselage, and VTOL arm sizes
Design
based on the calculations that were obtained at the preliminary design stage. Furthermore,
The next step was to design the wing, empennage, fuselage, and VTOL arm sizes
the 3D design was created solely for the CFD simulation. The technical drawings for
based on the calculations
manufacturing purposes that were
are not obtained
discussed in at theresearch.
this preliminary design stage. Furthermore,
the 3D design was created solely for the CFD simulation. The technical drawings for man-
ufacturing purposes
2.4.1. Wing Detailedare not discussed in this research.
Design
The equations used to design the wing are quoted from [14].
2.4.1. Wing Detailed Design
TO W
The equations used to design the wing
s = are
quoted from [14]. (16)
W
S
WTO
s=
AR =  W 
b2
(17)(16)
s 
 S 
2 s
Cr = × (18)
1 + λ 2b
b
AR = (17)
s
2 s
Cr = × (18)
s = Wing area (m2)
b = Wing span (m)
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208
Ct = Tip chord (m) 8 of 32
Cr = Root chord (m)
There are several essential parameters in wing design, such as aspect ratio (AR), tap
ratio (λ), sweep angle ( Λ ), and wing Ct = λ × Cr (iw). Giving a sweep angle on
incidence (19)the wing
ineffective
where: because the aircraft has a low speed. According to [16], giving a sweep an
tos an
= Wing area with
aircraft (m2 ) a speed below Mach 0.3 does not have a significant effect. The swe
angle does
b = Wing reduce
span (m) drag, but the complexity of the manufacturing is not commensur
with
Ct =the
Tip impact.
chord (m)In addition, this research predetermined the wingspan (3 m) in the DR
Cr = Root
stage, chord
so this (m) the calculation easier. This study designed a wing with a smaller
mad
chordThere
lengtharethan
several
theessential parameters
root chord in winglateral
to improve design,control
such as aspect ratio (AR),
and stability taper
[16]. Several c
ratio (λ), sweep angle (Λ), and wing incidence (i ). Giving a sweep angle on
culations were taken to consider the best value of the taper ratio and to provide a go
w the wing is
ineffective because the aircraft has a low speed. According to [16], giving a sweep angle to
wing planform. Table 4 shows the results of the wing design calculations using Equati
an aircraft with a speed below Mach 0.3 does not have a significant effect. The sweep angle
(16)
doestoreduce
Equation
drag,(19).
but the complexity of the manufacturing is not commensurate with the
impact. In addition, this research predetermined the wingspan (3 m) in the DRO stage, so
Table 4. Wing
this mad design calculation.
the calculation easier. This study designed a wing with a smaller tip chord length
than the root chord to improve lateral control and stability [16]. Several calculations were
taken to consider the best value of the taperWing
ratioDesign
and to provide a good wing planform.
s
Table 4 shows the results 0.95 m(16)–(19).
of the wing design calculations using Equations 2
AR 9.47
Table 4. Wing design calculation.
λ 0.28
iw Wing Design 0°
Λs 0.95 m2 0°
bAR 9.47
3m
λ 0.28
Criw 0◦0.35 m
CtΛ 0◦0.25 m
b 3m
Cr 0.35 m
Based on TableCt3, the required coefficient of lift (CL)0.25
wasm 1.4. In this design, the
lected airfoil was NACA 4412. From [28], NACA 4412 was used because it had a CL of
to prevent
Based interference
on Table 3, the between the wingofand
required coefficient the
lift (C fuselage.
L ) was In addition,
1.4. In this design, the the wing was d
selected
signed
airfoil to
washave
NACAno wing incidence
4412. From because
[28], NACA thewas
4412 NACAused 4412
becausehadit a zero
had a Clift
L ofwhen
1.6 to the Ang
prevent interference between the wing and the fuselage. In addition, the wing
of Attack (AoA) was −4°. In addition, the wing was given a twist angle of −4° to redu was designed
to have no wing incidence because the NACA 4412 had a zero lift when the Angle of Attack
the stall effect at the wingtip. Due to the relatively large size of the chord tip, the win
(AoA) was −4◦ . In addition, the wing was given a twist angle of −4◦ to reduce the stall
were additionally given basic winglets to lessen the vortex. Figure 3 shows the wing pla
effect at the wingtip. Due to the relatively large size of the chord tip, the wings were
form.
additionally given basic winglets to lessen the vortex. Figure 3 shows the wing planform.
(a)
(b)
Figure
Figure3.
3. Wing design,(a)(a)
Wing design, wing
wing planform
planform andtwist
and (b) (b) angle
twistprojection.
angle projection.
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 9 of 32
2.4.2. Detailed Design of the Empennage

Before calculating
2.4.2. Detailed Design of thethe empennage geometry design, the position of the VTOL
Empennage
must be defined.
Before Moreover,
calculating the geometry
the empennage position design,
of the the
VTOL motors
position of theagainst the CoG can
VTOL motors
must be defined.
the stability ofMoreover, the positionThe
the VTOL-Plane. of the VTOLrange
angle motorsshould
against the
be CoG can affect
between 30° and 60
the stability of the VTOL-Plane. The angle range should be between 30◦ and 60◦ . The
VTOL motors are mounted on the VTOL arm. The position of the VTOL motor is de
VTOL motors are mounted on the VTOL arm. The position of the VTOL motor is depicted
schematically
schematically in Figure
in Figure 4. 4.
Position
Figure4. 4.
Figure of the
Position ofVTOL motors.
the VTOL motors.
The tail geometry can be developed after the VTOL arm/boom position is known. The
The
equation tailtogeometry
used can be developed
design the empennage is given byafter
[15]. the VTOL arm/boom position is k
The equation used to design the empennage is given by [15].
l V SV
VV = (20)
S×b l S
VV = V V
l h Sh S ×b
Vh = (21)
S×c
lS
VhSh= h h
SV-tail = SV + (22)
where:
S ×c
Vv = Vertical tail volume coefficient SV −tail = SV + Sh
Vh = Horizontal tail volume coefficient
Lv = Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% vertical empennage MAC (m)
where:
Lh = Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% horizontal empennage MAC (m)
SVv v==Vertical
Vertical
tailtail
areavolume
(m2 ) coefficient
V h = Horizontal tail volume
Sh = Horizontal tail area (m ) 2 coefficient
SLV-tail
v = Distance of(m
= V-tail area 25%
2 ) wing MAC to 25% vertical empennage MAC (m)
Lh = Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% horizontal empennage MAC (m)

Sv = Vertical tail area (m2)
Sh = Horizontal tail area (m2)
SV-tail = V-tail area (m2)
NACA 0006 was used for the empennage airfoil. It has a zero CL at 0° AoA [28]
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 10 of 32
NACA 0006 was used for the empennage airfoil. It has a zero CL at 0◦ AoA [28].
Table 5 displays the results of the tail geometry calculations, based on the calculations using
the above equation.
Table 5. Empennage design.
Empennage General Design

Vertical tail volume coefficient (Vv) 0.04
Horizontal tail volume coefficient (Vh ) 0.6
Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% vertical empennage MAC (Lv) 1.1 m
Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% vertical horizontal MAC (Lh ) 1.12 m
Tail incidence (α) 0◦
U-shaped boom configuration
Dihedral angle (Γ) 0◦
Vertical stabilizer root chord (Crvertical ) 0.28 m
Vertical stabilizer tip chord (Ctvertical ) 0.22 m
Vertical stabilizer span (bvertical ) 0.22 m
Horizontal stabilizer root chord (Crhorizontal ) 0.18 m
Horizontal stabilizer tip chord (Cthorizontal ) 0.18 m
Horizontal stabilizer span (bhorizontal ) 0.96 m
Inverted U-shaped boom configuration
Vertical stabilizer root chord (Crvertical ) 0.28 m
Vertical stabilizer tip chord (Ctvertical ) 0.22 m
Vertical stabilizer span (bvertical ) 0.22 m
Inverted V-tail boom configuration
V-tail stabilizer root chord (Crv-tail ) 0.30 m
V-tail stabilizer tip chord (Ctv-tail ) 0.22 m
V-tail stabilizer span (bv-tail ) 0.55 m
Semi-inverted V-tail boom configuration
V-tail stabilizer root chord (Crv-tail ) 0.30 m
V-tail stabilizer tip chord (Ctv-tail ) 0.22 m
V-tail stabilizer span (bv-tail ) 0.55 m
2.4.3. Fuselage Detailed Design

The fuselage was 1.3 m in length to fulfill all payload dimensions. It had a cylindrical
shape with a longitudinal axis that varied in diameter. Table 6 shows the payload placed
on the fuselage, and Figure 5 shows the payload’s position on the fuselage.
After calculating all the sizes, the next step was to create a three-dimensional design.
The three-dimensional design was created using the Autodesk Inventor 2021 software. The
geometry was later used for the CFD simulation by ANSYS 20.1 software (ANSYS Inc.,
Canonsburg, PA, United States). Figure 6 shows the three-dimensional geometry of the
VTOL-Plane.
Aerospace
Aerospace 9,9,x 208
2022,
2022, FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 3212 of 33
Table 6. Payload dimension on the fuselage.

Servo CDI 1 40.5 20.3 38
Remote receiver 1 47.3 24.9
Dimension (mm) 14.3
Components Quantity
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Fuel tank 1 Length 220 Width 125 Height 125 12 of
BatteryEngine
for VTOL 2 1 169 120 65 52.5 39 110
Battery for System
Airspeed 1 1 138 92 43 14 41 14
UBEC-10A 2 43.1 32.3 12.5
CDI 1 40 20 18
PDB andServo CDI
Autopilot 1 1 120 40.5100 20.3 12 38
Surveillance
Telemetry Camera 1 1 40 71 20 55 33.6
Remote
Servo CDI
receiver 1
1 40.5
47.320.3 24.9 10
38
14.3
RemoteFuel tank
receiver 1 1 47.3 22024.9 125 14.3 125
FuelEngine
tank 1 1 220 120 125 52.5 125 110
Engine 1 120 52.5 110
Airspeed
Airspeed 1 1 92 92 14 14 14 14
CDI CDI 1 1 40 40 20 20 18 18
Surveillance Camera 1 71 55
Surveillance Camera 1 71 55 33.6 33.6
Figure 5. Payload position on the fuselage.
After calculating all the sizes, the next step was to create a three-dimensional design.
The three-dimensional design was created using the Autodesk Inventor 2021 software.
The geometry was later used for the CFD simulation by ANSYS 20.1 software (ANSYS
Inc, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, United States). Figure 6 shows the three-dimensional ge-
ometry of the VTOL-Plane.
Figure
Figure 5.5.Payload
Payload position
position on fuselage.
on the the fuselage.
After calculating all the sizes, the next step was to create a three-dimensional desig
The three-dimensional design was created using the Autodesk Inventor 2021 softwa
The geometry was later used for the CFD simulation by ANSYS 20.1 software (ANS
Inc, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, United States). Figure 6 shows the three-dimensional g
ometry of the VTOL-Plane.
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Three-dimensional
Three-dimensional geometry
geometryof the VTOL-Plane,
of the with variations
VTOL-Plane, in empennage
with variations configura-
in empennage configu-
tions: (a) U-shaped boom, (b) inverted U-shaped boom, (c) inverted V-tail boom, (d) semi-inverted
rations: (a) U-shaped boom, (b) inverted U-shaped boom, (c) inverted V-tail boom, (d) semi-inverted
V-tail boom.
V-tail boom.
2.5. CFD Simulation
2.5. CFD Simulation
The next step was to run a CFD simulation on all the VTOL-Plane design variations.
The next step
The parameters was to
sought runthe
from a CFD
CFD simulation
simulation on
wereall the
the coefficient
VTOL-Plane design
of lift (CL ),variations.
the
The parameters sought from the CFD simulation were the coefficient of lift (CL), the coef-
ficient of drag (CD), the coefficient of moment pitch (CP), the coefficient of moment roll
Figure
(C 6. Three-dimensional geometry of the VTOL-Plane, with variations in empennage config
r), the coefficient of moment yaw (Cy), the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D), the stall speed, and the
rations: (a) U-shaped
maneuverability. Theboom, (b) inverted
following U-shaped
steps are boom,performing
used when (c) inverted V-tail boom, (d) semi-inver
CFD simulations.
V-tail boom.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 12 of 32
coefficient
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW of drag (CD ), the coefficient of moment pitch (CP ), the coefficient of moment
13 ofroll
33
(Cr ), the coefficient of moment yaw (Cy ), the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D), the stall speed, and the
maneuverability. The following steps are used when performing CFD simulations.
2.5.1.
2.5.1. Simulation
SimulationParameters
Parameters
To
To determine
determine thethe performance
performance of of aa VTOL-Plane,
VTOL-Plane, itit is
is necessary
necessary to tocreate
create aasimulation
simulation
parameter
parameter before running a CFD simulation. In this study, the VTOL-Plane wassimulated
before running a CFD simulation. In this study, the VTOL-Plane was simulated
with
with variations
variations inin sideslip
sideslip angles.
angles. The
TheVTOL-Plane
VTOL-Planedisplays
displaysitsitscharacteristics
characteristicswhenwhen deal-
dealing
ing
with headwinds and crosswinds. The sideslip angle variations used were 0 , 15 , andand
with headwinds and crosswinds. The sideslip angle variations used were
◦ 0°,
◦ 15°, 30◦ .
30°. The AoA also varied ◦
from 0° ◦to 21°. The wind speed in the simulation
The AoA also varied from 0 to 21 . The wind speed in the simulation was 23 m/s (cruise was 23 m/s
(cruise
speed).speed).
The airThe air density
density used refers
used refers to thetoair
thedensity
air density at cruise
at cruise altitude
altitude (300(300 m above
m above sea
sea level),
level), 1.155
1.155 kg/m 3 [29].
kg/m 3 [29].
2.5.2. Simulation
2.5.2. SimulationSetup
Setup
In some
In some instances,
instances, the thefluid
fluid domain
domain used
used for
for aircraft
aircraft CFD
CFD simulations
simulations only
only uses
uses half
half
of the
of the plane
plane [30].
[30]. ItIt aims
aims toto reduce
reduce the the computational
computational processing
processing time.
time. This
This fluid
fluid domain
domain
isis only
onlyapplicable
applicablefor forheadwind
headwindsituations.
situations. Crosswind
Crosswind conditions
conditions cause
cause the the
rightright
and and
left
left sides of the airplane to be unequal when the wind direction changes
sides of the airplane to be unequal when the wind direction changes to a crosswind; there- to a crosswind;
therefore
fore a complete
a complete fluid domain
fluid domain is necessary.
is necessary.
The meshing process is
The meshing process is completed bycompleted bydetermining
determiningthe theglobal
globalmesh
meshsizesizeofof800
800mm.
mm.
For the
For the simulation
simulationresults
results toto be
be accurate,
accurate, additional
additional mesh
mesh features
features were
were performed,
performed, suchsuch
as body
as bodysizing
sizingof
of160
160mm, mm,facefacesizing
sizingof of10
10mm,
mm,andandinflation
inflationofofthe
thefirst
firstlayer
layerof of0.1
0.1mm.
mm.
Orthogonal quality and skewness statistics are important to validate
Orthogonal quality and skewness statistics are important to validate the mesh result. The the mesh result. The
average value of the orthogonal quality in this mesh was 0.78, and
average value of the orthogonal quality in this mesh was 0.78, and the skewness statistic the skewness statistic
was 0.21.
was 0.21. The
The mesh
mesh quality
quality inin this
this study
study was
was considered
consideredgood
goodandandacceptable
acceptable[31].
[31].Figure
Figure7
shows the results of the mesh in
7 shows the results of the mesh in this study. this study.
(a)
(b)
Figure
Figure7.
7.Mesh
Meshresult:
result:(a)
(a)VTOL-Plane
VTOL-Planemesh
meshvisualization
visualizationand
and(b)
(b) mesh
mesh quality.
quality.
In this study, a turbulent SST k-Omega model was applied. The standard k-Omega
model and the k-epsilon model were combined in this model. The standard k-Omega tur-
bulent model has the advantage of stable and accurate calculations in the area near the
wall, while the k-epsilon model has the benefits of free streamflow [32]. The simulation
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 13 of 32
In this study, a turbulent SST k-Omega model was applied. The standard k-Omega
model and the k-epsilon model were combined in this model. The standard k-Omega
turbulent model has the advantage of stable and accurate calculations in the area near the
wall, while the k-epsilon model has the benefits of free streamflow [32]. The simulation
was performed under steady-state conditions, which is the general setup of a CFD sim-
ulation that uses incompressible fluid and steady-state simulation. The incompressible
flow was selected because the simulation’s Mach number was less than 0.36. This study’s
convergence criteria were 10−3 , and the calculations were completed for 1000 iterations.
3. Results
3.1. Aerodynamic Parameters
As previously explained, several aerodynamic coefficients such as CL , CD , CP , Cr , Cy ,
L/D, stall speed, and maneuverability were analyzed. The data for several forces obtained,
such as lift, drag, pitch moments, roll moments, and yaw moments on the plane, were
acquired from the CFD simulation results. The following equations were used to obtain the
aerodynamic coefficient value based on [20].
FL
CL = (23)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A
FD
CD = (24)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A
MP
CP = (25)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A × C
Mr
Cr = (26)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A × C
My
Cy = (27)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A × C
CL
L/D = (28)
CD
where:
CL = Coefficient of lift
CD = Coefficient of drag
CP = Coefficient of pitch
Cr = Coefficient of roll
Cy = Coefficient of yaw
FL = Lift force (N)
FD = Drag force (N)
MP = Pitch moment (Nm)
Mr = Roll moment (Nm)
My = Yaw moment (Nm)
V = Aircraft velocity (m/s)
A = Cross-sectional area (m2 )
C = Mean aerodynamic chord (m)
Reference [33] describes the resultant force which can be parsed to determine the
maneuverability. Equations (29)–(31) were used to calculate the turning radius of the plane.
Good maneuverability occurs when the aircraft can have a small turning radius without
stalling. Figure 8 shows the free body diagram of the aircraft.
∑F = m×a (29)
m × v2
FL × sin θ = (30)
r
m × v2
FL × sin θ =
r
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208
FL × cos θ ≥ m × g 14 of 32
where: FL × cos θ ≥ m × g (31)

mwhere:
= Mass (kg)
am = Mass
= Acceleration
(kg) (m/s2)
ra = Acceleration
= Turn radius
(m/s2 ) (m)
gr = Turn radius (m)(m/s2)
= Gravity 2
g = Gravity (m/s )
Figure 8.8.Free
Figure Freebody diagram
body of the aircraft.
diagram of the aircraft.
3.2. Lift, Drag, and Stall Phenomena
3.2. Lift, Drag,
Before and the
analyzing Stall Phenomena
aerodynamic coefficients further, several aerodynamic phenom-
ena can be predicted from the CFD simulation results. The pressure contour and streamline
Before
can depict theanalyzing
lift, drag, and the aerodynamic
stall phenomena. Accordingcoefficients
to thefurther, severalifaerodyna
pressure contour, the
ena can atbethepredicted
pressure bottom of the from
plane the CFD than
is greater simulation results.
the pressure Thethepressure
at the top, aircraft hascontour
a lift.can
line As is well known,
depict the drag,
the lift, greater andthe angle
stallofphenomena.
attack, the moreAccording
the lift produced,
to thebutpressu
the greater the drag force developed. Because the propulsion system has to work harder
the pressure
against the dragat theasbottom
force of the
the drag force planethe
increases, is greater
VTOL-Planethan the pressure
becomes inefficient. at the top
has aFurthermore,
lift. As is well known,
a larger AoA might the greater
produce flow the angle of attack,
separation the more
on the wing, resultingthe lift p
in stalling. The stall phenomenon can be approximated
the greater the drag force developed. Because the propulsion system has to when comparing the VTOL-
Plane streamline between a low and high AoA. Figure 9 shows the pressure contour and
against
streamline theof drag force as the
the VTOL-Plane dragboom
U-shaped forcefromincreases,
the CFD the VTOL-Plane
simulation becomes i
results under
Furthermore,
headwind a larger
conditions. Figure AoAthe
9a shows might
liftingproduce
phenomenon, flow separation
where the bottomon the wing
of the
VTOL-Plane has a bigger pressure than the top of the VTOL-Plane.
stalling. The stall phenomenon can be approximated when comparing the The greater AoA makes
the VTOL-Planes have a bigger drag. It is represented as the different pressure contour
streamline
between AoAbetween0◦ and AoA a low and high
12◦ , which AoA.
explains the Figure 9 shows the
drag phenomenon. pressure
Figure 9b showscontou
line of the VTOL-Plane
the streamline comparison at U-shaped
AoA 0◦ and AoA boom 21◦ .from the CFD
The different simulation
airflow between AoA results
0◦ und
(steady flow) Figure
and AoA9a ◦
21 shows
(separation
conditions. the flow)
lifting affects the performance
phenomenon, of thethe
where aircraft. The of the
bottom
flow separation on the VTOL-Plane causes a loss of lift. This phenomenon is also known as
has a bigger pressure than the top of the VTOL-Plane. The greater AoA mak
the stall phenomenon. Several data from the CFD simulation were calculated to find the
Planes have a bigger
stall phenomena drag. It
more accurately is represented
presented as angle.
as the critical the different pressure contour b
0° and AoA 12°, which explains the drag phenomenon. Figure 9b shows th
comparison at AoA 0° and AoA 21°. The different airflow between AoA 0°
and AoA 21° (separation flow) affects the performance of the aircraft. The flo
on the VTOL-Plane causes a loss of lift. This phenomenon is also known as
nomenon. Several data from the CFD simulation were calculated to find the s
ena more accurately presented as the critical angle.
Aerospace
Aerospace2022,
2022,9,9,x208
FOR PEER REVIEW 16 ofof3233
15
(a)
(b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9.Lift,
Lift,drag,
drag, and
and stall
stall phenomena, (a) lifting
phenomena, (a) lifting and
and drag
drag phenomena
phenomenaand
and(b)
(b)stall
stallphenomenon.
phenomenon.
3.3. Lift,
3.3. Lift, Critical
Critical angle,
Angle,Efficiency,
Efficiency, and
and Stall
Stall Performance
This study
This study analyzed the performance of the the lifting
lifting force,
force, flight
flightefficiency,
efficiency,and
andstall
stall
speed for
speed for each empennage configuration.
configuration. The The CCLL used
used Equation
Equation (23)(23)to
torepresent
representthe
thelift
lift
performance. In
performance. In addition,
addition,the
thecritical angle
critical angleof each variation
of each of theofVTOL-Plane
variation designdesign
the VTOL-Plane from
the Cthe
from L wasCL also
wasobtained. The critical
also obtained. angle angle
The critical showsshows
the stall
thephenomena, which occurs
stall phenomena, which when
occurs
the lift coefficient reaches a peak value and drops off as the angle of attack
when the lift coefficient reaches a peak value and drops off as the angle of attack increases increases [17].
Figure 10 shows a graph of the C vs. AoA under headwind
[17]. Figure 10 shows a graph of Lthe CL vs. AoA under headwind conditions. conditions.
Figure 10 depicts the crucial angle and CL parameters of each empennage design.
A VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had the lowest
critical angle, which was 12◦ . In contrast, the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped boom
empennage configuration had the highest critical angle at 18◦ . The critical angle for the
other empennage design was 15◦ .
Aerospace 2022,
Aerospace 2022,9,9,x208
FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 32 17 of 3
Figure10.
Figure 10.CC vs.AoA
L Lvs. AoA headwind
headwind conditions.
conditions.
The average
Figure critical angle
10 depicts the of the VTOL-Plane
crucial angle and C was at AoA 15◦ from the headwind con-
L parameters of each empennage design. A
◦ ◦
dition. In this study, AoA 0 to AoA 15 were simulated under crosswind conditions. These
VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had the lowest criti
conditions resulted in less lift generated than the headwind conditions at the same angle of
cal angle, which was 12°. In contrast, the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped boom
attack. Furthermore, the AoA parameter limitation in this CFD simulation lessened the
empennage configuration
computational burden. Figurehad the highest
11 shows criticalofangle
the coefficient at 18°.
lift under The critical
crosswind angle for the
conditions.
other empennage
Figure design was
11 demonstrates that15°.
the CL value did not differ significantly under cross-
wind The average
conditions. critical in
However, angle
someofsituations,
the VTOL-Plane was at with
the VTOL-Plane AoAa15° from the
U-shaped headwind
boom
empennage
condition. In configuration
this study, had AoAa 0°
good CL compared
to AoA 15° weretosimulated
other states. Figure
under 11a showsconditions
crosswind a
VTOL-Plane
These conditionswith a resulted
U-shapedin boom
lessempennage configuration
lift generated with a higher
than the headwind CL at 0◦ AoA
conditions at the same
and
angle15◦ofAoA, andFurthermore,
attack. in Figure 11b, thethe AoA
aircraft had a higher
parameter CL at AoA
limitation 10◦ than
in this CFDthe other
simulation less
design variations. The Inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had a good CL value
ened the computational burden. Figure 11 shows the coefficient of lift under crosswind
at a 60◦ sideslip angle. Because there was no discernible difference in the CL values, a
conditions.
VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom empennage design can be considered to have a good
lift performance during a crosswind.
An analysis of the drag force on the VTOL-Plane was required. The more drag an
airplane generates, the less efficient it is. The lower efficiency affects the fuel consumption of
the aircraft. The data obtained from the CFD simulation was calculated using Equation (24)
to obtain the CD value. After that, the L/D value was calculated using Equation (28). The
higher the L/D value, the more efficient the aircraft. Figure 12 shows the L/D ratio of the
VTOL-Plane design variation.
From Figure 12a, the VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom tail configuration had
a good efficiency in headwind conditions at every angle of attack. According to the
previous section, the value of the CL does not differ significantly unless the critical angle
is approached. The U-shaped boom configuration had a bigger L/D value than the other
configurations due to the small CD value.
In the crosswind conditions depicted in Figure 12b,c the VTOL-Plane with an inverted
U-shaped boom empennage configuration had a poor efficiency at a low AoA (0–5◦ )
(a)
compared to the other configurations. When the AoA was above 5◦ , this empennage
configuration had an L/D value close to the other tail configurations.
Meanwhile, the VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom and semi-inverted V-tail
boom empennage configurations had a good efficiency when the AoA was below 5◦ .
Still, its efficiency was not as good as the other empennage configurations when the AoA
was more than 5◦ . Overall, the VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom configuration had a
relatively good efficiency at a low and high angle of attack.
The next performance that needed to be analyzed was stall speed. The stall speed refers
to the VTOL-Planes transitioning from the rotary-wing to fixed-wing mode. Additionally,
the operator can utilize this data to adjust the stall speed of the flight controller during flight
(b)
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 17 of 32
Figure 10. CL vs. AoA headwind conditions.
tests.Figure 10 depicts
Using Equation the crucial
(23), where the valueangle
of theand CL parameters
lift force in the equationof is each
replacedempennage
by
the value of the weight of the aircraft (137 N), the stall
VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration hadspeed value was obtained. Figure 13 the lo
shows the stall speed vs. AoA graphs.
cal angle, which was
In the headwind 12°. Inshown
conditions contrast,
in Figurethe13a,
VTOL-Plane
all variationswith
of thean inverted U-sha
VTOL-Plane
empennage
design had a stallconfiguration
speed approaching hadDRO theathighest
an angle of critical
attack ofangle
12 . Inat
◦ 18°. The
addition, critical an
the stall
speed in each design variation
other empennage design was 15°. did not have a significant difference. As a result, all design
variations for the stall speed parameter were deemed to have the same performance.
The average critical angle of the VTOL-Plane was at AoA 15° from the
From the data presented in Figure 13b, when the sideslip angle was 15◦ , the VTOL-
condition. In this
Plane stall speed wasstudy,
already AoA 0° to
at 13 m/s AoA
at 15 ◦ AoA.15°Thewere simulated
increased sideslipunder crosswind
angle caused
These conditions
the decrease resulted
in CL . However, the in lessthe
higher liftsideslip
generated
angle, the than thethe
higher headwind
stall speed. conditions
Based a
on Equation (23), as the
angle of attack. Furthermore, C L value drops, the stall speed rises. Figure 13c shows
the AoA parameter limitation in this CFD simu that every
empennage geometry had the same trend from Figure 13b, but it had a different stall speed
ened
value the computational
according to the decrease burden.
in the CLFigure 11 shows
value. Overall, the coefficient
the U-shaped boom tail of lift under
design
conditions.
had a lower stall speed at a low angle of attack.
(a)
(b)
◦ and (b) 30◦ .
Figure 11.Coefficient
Figure 11. Coefficientof liftof
vs.lift vs.sideslip
AoA, AoA, angle:
sideslip angle:
(a) 15 (a) 15° and (b) 30°.
An analysis of the drag force on the VTOL-Plane was required. The more drag an
airplane generates, the less efficient it is. The lower efficiency affects the fuel consumption
of the aircraft. The data obtained from the CFD simulation was calculated using Equation
(24) to obtain the CD value. After that, the L/D value was calculated using Equation (28).
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 The higher the L/D value, the more efficient the aircraft. Figure 12 shows the18L/D of 32 ratio of
the VTOL-Plane design variation.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure
Figure 12. L/D
L/D vs.
vs.AoA,
AoA,sideslip
sideslip angle:
angle: 0◦ , 0°,
(a) (a) 15◦ ,15°,
(b) (b) andand ◦ . 30°.
(c) 30(c)
From Figure 12a, the VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom tail configuration had a
good efficiency in headwind conditions at every angle of attack. According to the previous
section, the value of the CL does not differ significantly unless the critical angle is ap-
proached. The U-shaped boom configuration had a bigger L/D value than the other con-
figurations due to the small CD value.
In the crosswind conditions depicted in Figures 12b,c the VTOL-Plane with an in-
verted U-shaped boom empennage configuration had a poor efficiency at a low AoA (0–
The next performance that needed to be analyzed was stall speed. The stall speed
refers to the VTOL-Planes transitioning from the rotary-wing to fixed-wing mode. Addi
tionally, the operator can utilize this data to adjust the stall speed of the flight controlle
during flight tests. Using Equation (23), where the value of the lift force in the equation i
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 19 of 32 was ob
replaced by the value of the weight of the aircraft (137 N), the stall speed value
tained. Figure 13 shows the stall speed vs. AoA graphs.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 13. Stall
Figure 13. Stallspeed
speedvs.vs. AoA,
AoA, sideslip
sideslip (a) 0◦(a)
angle:
angle: ◦ , and (c) 30◦ .
0°,15(b)
, (b) 15°, and (c) 30°.
In the headwind conditions shown in Figure 13a, all variations of the VTOL-Plan
design had a stall speed approaching DRO at an angle of attack of 12°. In addition, th
stall speed in each design variation did not have a significant difference. As a result, a
design variations for the stall speed parameter were deemed to have the same perfor
mance.
From the data presented in Figure 13b, when the sideslip angle was 15°, the VTOL
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 20 of 32
3.4. Stability Performance

There are three types of stability in an aircraft: longitudinal, lateral, and directional
stability. The CP in this study represented longitudinal stability. Furthermore, this study
also analyzed the lateral and directional stability caused by the crosswind. The Cr and
Cy values were analyzed to find the lateral and directional stability. Unlike the headwind
conditions, the right and left sides of the aircraft have different pressure contours
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 ofin
33
the crosswind condition. Because of these discrepancies, the plane tends to roll or yaw.
Figure 14 shows the pressure contour against changes in the sideslip angle.
◦ ◦ ◦
Figure 14.Pressure
Figure14. Pressurecontour
contouron
on15
15°AoA,
AoA,sideslip
sideslipangle:
angle:(a)
(a)15
15° and
and (b)
(b) 30
30°..
The CP value was analyzed to find the longitudinal stability of the aircraft. The moment
The CP value was analyzed to find the longitudinal stability of the aircraft. The mo-
aerodynamics value on the CoG was used to find out the CP value using Equation (25).
ment aerodynamics value on the CoG was used to find out the CP value using Equation
Figure 15 shows a graph of the coefficient of moment vs. AoA during crosswind.
(25). Figure 15 shows a graph of the coefficient of moment vs. AoA during crosswind.
Figure 15a shows that the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped boom empennage
configuration had a good longitudinal stability under headwind conditions. At 0◦ AoA,
the aircraft had a CP value close to 0, so the VTOL-Plane will not tend to pitch up or down
while cruising [17], then the aircraft can reach longitudinal stability. The worst longitudinal
stability was found in the VTOL-Plane with inverted V-tail boom and semi-inverted V-tail
boom configurations. The graph shows that a positive CP value between 0◦ and 9◦ AoA
caused the airplane to pitch up, necessitating an elevator to maintain longitudinal stability.
Compared to other design modifications, the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped
boom empennage arrangement offered good longitudinal stability in crosswind conditions,
as shown in Figure 15b,c. According to the previous explanation, aircraft have a lower lift
force under crosswind conditions than in headwind conditions. Aircraft will gain a higher
AoA to produce more lift. An inverted U-shaped boom had a zero Cp value when the AoA
was more than 0◦ . While the aircraft cruises in crosswind conditions, the aircraft will reach
longitudinal stability. In contrast to other design variations, it had a negative coefficient of
moment value, such as the VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom and U-shaped boom
empennage configurations. This (a) can cause the plane to pitch down, requiring the elevator
to work hard to generate a counter-moment while cruising.
Figure 14. Pressure contour on 15° AoA, sideslip angle: (a) 15° and (b) 30°.
The CP value was analyzed to find the longitudinal stability of the aircraft. The mo-
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 21 of 32
ment aerodynamics value on the CoG was used to find out the CP value using Equation
(25). Figure 15 shows a graph of the coefficient of moment vs. AoA during crosswind.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure
Figure 15. CPP vs.
15. C vs. AoA,
AoA,sideslip
sideslipangle:
angle: 0◦ ,0°,
(a)(a) 15◦15°,
(b)(b) , andand ◦.
(c)
(c) 30 30°.
The aircraft’s stability is affected by the vortex generated by the crosswind. Figure 16
Figure 15a shows that the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped boom empennage
shows the vortex of the VTOL-Plane. Each plane had different vortex characteristics. The
configuration had a good longitudinal stability under headwind conditions. At 0° AoA,
wind is deflected downward by trailing vortices, resulting in a downwash. An aircraft’s
the aircraft had a CP value close to 0, so the VTOL-Plane will not tend to pitch up or down
while cruising [17], then the aircraft can reach longitudinal stability. The worst longitudi-
nal stability was found in the VTOL-Plane with inverted V-tail boom and semi-inverted
V-tail boom configurations. The graph shows that a positive CP value between 0° and 9°
AoA caused the airplane to pitch up, necessitating an elevator to maintain longitudinal
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 22 of 32
lift force is reduced as a result of this. From Figure 16, each VTOL-Plane generated a
non-identical vortex between the right and left sides of the aircraft. It caused the aircraft to
lift force,
lose so the
lift force, so aircraft tended
the aircraft to roll
tended andand
to roll yawyaw during crosswind.
during TheThe
crosswind. CFD simulation
CFD can
simulation
calculate
can calculatethethe
moment
momentrelated to to
related thethe
crosswind
crosswind effect. CrCand
effect. Cy values were carried out to
r and Cy values were carried out
analyze
to analyze the lateral
the lateraland
anddirectional
directionalstability
stabilityofofthe
theaircraft.
aircraft.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure16.
Figure 16. Vortex
Vortex of
of the
the aircraft
aircraft on
on aa sideslip
sideslipangle
angleofof30°
30◦and
andAoA
AoAofof
5°;5◦(a) U-shaped
; (a) boom,
U-shaped (b)
boom,
Inverted U-shaped boom, (c) inverted V-tail boom, and (d) semi-inverted V-tail boom.
(b) Inverted U-shaped boom, (c) inverted V-tail boom, and (d) semi-inverted V-tail boom.
TheCCr rvalue
The valueinfluences
influenceslateral
lateralstability.
stability.Equation
Equation(26)
(26)can
canfind
findout
outthe
theCCr rvalue.
value.The
The
smaller the C value, the more the aircraft can maintain its position in the crosswind
smaller the Cr value, the more the aircraft can maintain its position in the crosswind
r con-
ditions without
conditions withoutthethe
occurrence of the
occurrence roll.
of the Figure
roll. 17 17
Figure presents a graph
presents of of
a graph Cr Cvs. AoA.
r vs. AoA.
The graph of the coefficient of the roll moment presented in Figure 17 shows that
the VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had a minor Cr
compared to the other design variations. This means the empennage design could reduce
the roll moment caused by the crosswind. Therefore, its lateral stability was better than
other design variations. The U-shaped boom empennage configuration had the worst
lateral stability because it had a higher Cr value than the other designs.
The ability of an airplane to retain its position on the yaw axis is known as directional
stability. This study analyzed the ability of the empennage to reduce the yaw moment
caused by crosswind. The difference in pressure contour between the right and left sides
of the aircraft during crosswind conditions causes a tendency to yaw. The smaller the Cy
value, the better the directional stability in crosswind conditions. Directional stability, as
opposed to longitudinal and lateral stability, is easier to control. Equation (27) was used to
find the Cy value. Figure 18 shows Cy vs. AoA in crosswind conditions.
Figure 18 shows that the VTOL-Plane aircraft with an inverted V-tail boom empen-
nage configuration had a good (a)directional stability. The low Cy value indicates that the
empennage eliminated an excessive yaw moment caused by the crosswind. As a result,
the inverted V-tail boom was deemed to have the best directional stability compared to
the other design variations. The worst directional stability among the four designs was
the VTOL-Plane with a semi-inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration. The value of
the Cy that was too large meant that the directional stability was not as good as the other
design variations.
Figure 16. Vortex of the aircraft on a sideslip angle of 30° and AoA of 5°; (a) U-shaped boom, (b)
Inverted U-shaped boom, (c) inverted V-tail boom, and (d) semi-inverted V-tail boom.
The Cr value influences lateral stability. Equation (26) can find out the Cr value. The
Aerospace
Aerospace 2022, 9, x9,FOR
2022, 208 PEER REVIEW
smaller 23 of 32 24con-
the Cr value, the more the aircraft can maintain its position in the crosswind of 33
ditions without the occurrence of the roll. Figure 17 presents a graph of Cr vs. AoA.
(a)
(b)
Figure 17. Cr vs. AoA, sideslip angle: (a) 15° and (b) 30°.
The graph of the coefficient of the roll moment presented in Figure 17 shows that the
VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had a minor Cr com-
pared to the other design variations. This means the empennage design could reduce the
roll moment caused by the crosswind. Therefore, its lateral stability was better than other
design variations. The U-shaped boom empennage configuration had the worst lateral
stability because it had a higher Cr value than the other designs.
(b)
opposed to longitudinal and lateral stability, is easier to control. Equation (27) was used
Figure
find17.
Figure
to theCrCvs.
vs. AoA,sideslip
AoA,
y value. sideslip
Figure angle:
angle:
18 shows 15◦15°
(a)(a) y and
and
C (b)◦ .30°.
(b)AoA
vs. 30 in crosswind conditions.
The graph of the coefficient of the roll moment presented in Figure 17 shows that the
VTOL-Plane with an inverted V-tail boom empennage configuration had a minor Cr com-
pared to the other design variations. This means the empennage design could reduce the
roll moment caused by the crosswind. Therefore, its lateral stability was better than other
design variations. The U-shaped boom empennage configuration had the worst lateral
stability because it had a higher Cr value than the other designs.
opposed to longitudinal and lateral stability, is easier to control. Equation (27) was used
to find the Cy value. Figure 18 shows Cy vs. AoA in crosswind conditions.
(a)
Figure 18. Cont.
Aerospace 2022,
Aerospace 9, x9,FOR
2022, 208 PEER REVIEW 24 of 32 25 of 33
(b)
Figure 18. Cy vs. AoA, sideslip angle: (a) 15° and (b) 30°.
Figure 18 shows that the VTOL-Plane aircraft with an inverted V-tail boom empen-
nage configuration had a good (b) directional stability. The low Cy value indicates that the
empennage
Figure
Figure 18. eliminated
18. Cy vs.
vs. AoA,
AoA,sideslipan angle:
sideslip excessive
angle: 15◦yaw
(a) (a) 15°
andandmoment
(b) (b)
30 ◦ . 30°.caused by the crosswind. As a result,
the inverted V-tail boom was deemed to have the best directional stability compared to
3.5. Maneuverability Performance
Figure
the other 18 shows
design that theThe
variations. VTOL-Plane aircraft stability
worst directional with an inverted
among the V-tail
fourboomdesignsempen-
was
nage The ability
configuration
the VTOL-Plane of an
with airplane
had to maneuver
a good directional
a semi-inverted is known
V-tailstability. as maneuverability. When
The low Cconfiguration.
boom empennage the
y value indicates
plane
Thethat the
value
turns, the distribution of lift to the plane is different, adjusting the bank angle of the plane.
empennage
of the Cy thateliminated
was too large an meant
excessive thatyaw moment caused
the directional bywas
stability the not
crosswind.
as good as Asthe
a result,
other
A large bank angle results in a smaller turn radius and a decrease in the lift forces. In
design
the variations.
theinverted
surveillanceV-tail boommaneuverability
mission, was deemed tois have not the themain
bestpriority
directional
in thestability
design, so compared
the to
the other design
maximum bank anglevariations.
analyzed The worst
in this directional
study was 40 . stability
◦ Equationsamong
(30) andthe four
(31) are designs
used was
3.5.
the Maneuverability
VTOL-Plane
determine the turn withPerformance
a semi-inverted
radius. Figure 19 shows V-tail boomofempennage
a graph the turn radius configuration.
vs. AoA under The value
ofheadwind
theThe
Cy that wasoftoo
conditions.
ability an large
airplanemeant that the directional
to maneuver is known stability was not as good
as maneuverability. When asthe
theplane
other
design Figure 19 shows
variations. that the VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom tail configuration
turns, the distribution of lift to the plane is different, adjusting the bank angle of the plane. delivers
Aexcellent
large bankmaneuverability. The aircraft can turn with a turning radius of 27.9 m at a bank
angle results
◦ and in a smaller turn radius and a decrease in the lift forces. In the
angle
3.5. of 40
Maneuverability 15◦ . In addition, this empennage configuration has a turning radius
AoAPerformance
surveillance mission, maneuverability is not the main priority in the design, so the maxi-
that tends to be stable against AoA, the same as the VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped
mum
boom bank
The angleofanalyzed
ability
configuration. anTheairplanein this studywithwas
to maneuver
VTOL-Plane is40°.
known
an inverted Equation (30)boom
and Equation
as maneuverability.
U-shaped (31)at
When
configuration are plane
the used
determine
turns,
a banktheangle theofturn◦
distribution
20 and radius.lift Figure
ofAoA ◦
to
3 ,the 19 other
on plane
the shows a graph
is different,
hand, does of the
haveturn
adjusting
not the radius
bank
a lift, vs. other
angle
although AoA
of theunder
plane.
headwind
Adesign conditions.
large variations
bank angle results in a smaller turn radius and a decrease in the lift forces. In the
have.
surveillance mission, maneuverability is not the main priority in the design, so the maxi-
mum bank angle analyzed in this study was 40°. Equation (30) and Equation (31) are used
determine the turn radius. Figure 19 shows a graph of the turn radius vs. AoA under
headwind conditions.
(a)
Figure 19. Cont.
(a)
Aerospace 2022,
Aerospace 9, x9,FOR
2022, 208 PEER REVIEW 25 of 32 26 of 33
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 19. Maneuverability
Figure 19. Maneuverabilityvs.vs.
AoAAoA
on on headwind
headwind conditions,
conditions, bank bank
angle:angle:
(a) 10◦(a)
, (b)10°,
20◦ ,(b) 20°,
(c) 30 ◦ , (c) 30°,
and
and (d)
(d) 40°.
◦
40 .
This study
Figure also showed
19 shows thatVTOL-Plane
that the the VTOL-Plane
withwith inverted V-tail
a U-shaped boomboom and semi-
tail configuration de-
inverted V-tail boom configurations did not have a good maneuverability. The turning
livers excellent maneuverability. The aircraft can turn with a turning radius of 27.9 m at a
radius increases as the plane approaches the critical angle. When the AoA surpassed
bank angle of 40° and AoA 15°. In addition, this empennage configuration has a turning
radius that tends to be stable against AoA, the same as the VTOL-Plane with an inverted
U-shaped boom configuration. The VTOL-Plane with an inverted U-shaped boom config-
uration at a bank angle of 20° and AoA 3°, on the other hand, does not have a lift, although
This study also showed that the VTOL-Plane with inverted V-tail boom and semi-
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 inverted V-tail boom configurations did not have a good maneuverability. The 26 ofturning
32
radius increases as the plane approaches the critical angle. When the AoA surpassed the
critical angle, the VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom tail arrangement and an inverted
the critical
U-shaped boom angle, the VTOL-Plane
maintained with radius.
the turning a U-shapedAs aboom
result,tail
in arrangement
a headwind,and an in- and
U-shaped
verted U-shaped boom maintained the turning radius. As a result,
inverted U-shaped boom empennage configurations offered good agility in headwind in a headwind, U-
shaped and inverted U-shaped boom empennage configurations offered good agility in
condition.
headwind condition.
Based on the data obtained previously, the decrease in the coefficient of lift and the
Based on the data obtained previously, the decrease in the coefficient of lift and the
increase
increaseininthe
thecrosswind anglecaused
crosswind angle caused a reduction
a reduction in theinturning
the turning ability
ability of of theThe
the aircraft. aircraft.
Thedecline
decline
in the turning ability of the aircraft is caused by the aircraft not having lift when lift
in the turning ability of the aircraft is caused by the aircraft not having
when the aircraft
the aircraft turns. turns. The
The CFD CFD simulation
simulation results
results revealed thatrevealed that
the aircraft the aircraft
needed needed a
a high angle
of angle
high attack of
when turning
attack whento turning
prevent losing lift in losing
to prevent crosswind conditions.
lift in crosswind Figure 20 showsFigure
conditions. the 20
maneuverability performance by the aircraft under crosswind conditions.
shows the maneuverability performance by the aircraft under crosswind conditions.
(a)
(b)
Figure 20. Cont.

Aerospace 2022, 2022,
Aerospace 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9, 208 28 of 33
27 of 32
(c)
(d)
Figure 20.20.
Figure Maneuverability
Maneuverability in crosswindconditions,
in crosswind conditions, bank
bank angle:
angle: (a)
(a) 10 ◦ , 10°,
(b) 20(b) 20°,(c)
◦ , (c) 30°,(d)
30◦ , and and40◦(d)
. 40°.
Accordingtotothe theCFD
CFD simulation ◦
According simulationresults,
results,thetheVTOL-Plane
VTOL-Plane needed
neededa greater than 5than
a greater 5°
angle
angle of of attacktotocomplete
attack complete thethe maneuver
maneuverinincrosswind
crosswind conditions.
conditions.Its purpose is to protect
Its purpose is to protect
thethe plane
plane fromstalling.
from stalling. Figure
Figure 2020 shows
showsthatthateach
◦
eachVTOL-Plane
VTOL-Plane
◦
design variation
design had the
variation had the
smallest turning radius with a bank angle of 40 with AoA 15 in crosswind conditions. The
smallest turning radius with a bank angle of 40° with AoA 15° in crosswind conditions.
largest radius occurred when the aircraft turned with a bank angle of 10◦ with an AoA of
The10largest radiusthe
◦ . The greater occurred
sideslip when
angle, the aircraftthe
the greater turned
turningwith a bank
radius. anglethe
Overall, of VTOL-Plane
10° with an AoA
of with
10°. Thea U-shaped boom tail configuration had the smallest turning radius among the
greater the sideslip angle, the greater the turning radius. Overall, VTOL-
other
Plane withwhich
designs, a U-shaped
was 28.7boom
m. tail configuration had the smallest turning radius among
other designs,
A steadywhich was 28.7
turn radius m. the sideslip angle and maintained altitude are the main
against
criteria
A steadyto consider the maneuverability
turn radius in crosswind
against the sideslip angleconditions. Figure 20
and maintained shows are
altitude thatthe
the main
inverted
criteria U-shapedthe
to consider boom configuration had
maneuverability a bad maneuverability
in crosswind conditions.due to the
Figure 20bigger
shows turn
that the
radius in almost every condition and the lack of lift force at a 30 ◦ bank angle at 10◦ AoA.
inverted U-shaped boom configuration had a bad maneuverability due to the bigger turn
Meanwhile, the other configurations still generated lift in that condition.
radius in almost every condition and the lack of lift force at a 30° bank angle at 10° AoA.
Meanwhile, the other configurations still generated lift in that condition.
Figure 20 indicates that the inverted U-shaped boom empennage configuration was
able to maneuver with a smaller turn radius in several crosswind conditions. A higher
sideslip angle caused a bigger turn radius for the inverted U-shaped boom than the other
configurations. As previously mentioned, maneuverability is not the most crucial factor
PEER REVIEW 29 of 33
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 28 of 32
to consider. However, this information is required to configure the flight parameter in the
Figure 20 indicates that the inverted U-shaped boom empennage configuration was
flight controller. able to maneuver with a smaller turn radius in several crosswind conditions. A higher
sideslip angle caused a bigger turn radius for the inverted U-shaped boom than the other
3.6. configurations. As previously mentioned, maneuverability is not the most crucial factor
Design Optimization
to consider. However, this information is required to configure the flight parameter in the
The study aimed to controller.
flight figure out which empennage designs performed best in head-
wind and crosswind conditions. In general, the inverted U-shaped boom outperformed
3.6. Design Optimization
the other designs in terms of aerodynamics, albeit it only offered advantages in particular
The study aimed to figure out which empennage designs performed best in headwind
situations. In longitudinal stability, this configuration had a zero CP in crosswind condi-
and crosswind conditions. In general, the inverted U-shaped boom outperformed the other
tions at AoA 3°. Meanwhile,
designs in antermsincrease in the sideslip
of aerodynamics, angle
albeit it only caused
offered a decrease
advantages in the
in particular CL
situations.
value. When the CL value decreases, the aircraft will gain greaterP AoA to maximize theAoA
In longitudinal stability, this configuration had a zero C in crosswind conditions at
3◦ . Meanwhile, an increase in the sideslip angle caused a decrease in the CL value. When
lift. So, these situations will help the stability of the VTOL-Plane in crosswind conditions
the CL value decreases, the aircraft will gain greater AoA to maximize the lift. So, these
while cruising. situations will help the stability of the VTOL-Plane in crosswind conditions while cruising.
The inverted U-shaped boom configuration
The inverted maintained
U-shaped boom configuration a short turning
maintained radius
a short turning when
radius when it
passed the stalling angle in headwind condition. Nevertheless,
it passed the stalling angle in headwind condition. Nevertheless, in crosswind conditions, in crosswind conditions,
this configuration had a poor maneuverability. In addition, maneuverability is not an
this configuration had a poor maneuverability. In addition, maneuverability is not an im-
important factor for a surveillance mission. The maneuverability performance data could
portant factor for a surveillance
be used to limit mission.
the banking The maneuverability
angle of the aircraft intoperformance
the flight controller.data could be
used to limit the bankingAangle of themission’s
surveillance aircraft most
into crucial
the flight controller.
parameters are stability and efficiency. The
inverted U-shaped boom was stable, but it was
A surveillance mission’s most crucial parameters are stability and efficiency. less efficient. This mission Theprioritizes
in-
stability over efficiency, according to the safety factor. The efficiency of an aircraft could
verted U-shaped boom was stable,
be improved but it was
by reducing less efficient.
its weight. This
The lighter it mission
is, the lessprioritizes stabil-
power it takes. Briefly,
ity over efficiency, according
manufacturing to methods
the safety impactfactor. The
aircraft efficiency of an aircraft could be
efficiency.
improved by reducing itsInweight.short, an inverted
The lighter U-shaped
it is,boom can bepower
the less considered suitable
it takes. for the surveillance
Briefly, manu-
mission. This empennage needs an optimization to utilize the aerodynamics performance.
facturing methods impact aircraft efficiency.
In fact, an inverted U-shaped boom is weak in lateral and directional stability according
In short, an inverted U-shaped
to crosswind boomTocan
conditions. be considered
optimize the design, asuitable
ventral finfor was the surveillance
added to increase the
mission. This empennage needs an
aerodynamics optimization
stability [16]. to utilize the aerodynamics performance.
In fact, an inverted U-shaped Figure boom
21 shows is the
weakventral fin added
in lateral and at the bottom of the
directional verticalaccording
stability stabilizer. The
performance was evaluated using a CFD simulation, particularly for lateral and directional
to crosswind conditions. To optimize the design, a ventral fin was added to increase the
stability. According to the simulation results, adding a ventral fin improved lateral stability.
aerodynamics stability On [16].
the other hand, directional stability decreased. Figure 22 shows the simulation result
Figure 21 shows the ventral
regarding lateral fin
and added
directionalatstability
the bottom of theconditions.
in crosswind vertical stabilizer. The
performance was evaluated using a CFD simulation, particularlyinfor
Figure 22a depicts the effectiveness of the ventral fin decreasing
lateralthe androlldirec-
coefficient
value in relation to crosswind conditions. So, the ventral fin could increase the lateral
tional stability. According
stabilityto
of the simulation
the aircraft. results,adding
Unfortunately, adding the a ventral
ventral fin onfintheimproved lateral
twin tail boom configu-
stability. On the other hand,
rations diddirectional
not improve the stability decreased.
directional Figure
stability. Figure 22b 22delineates
shows the simula-yaw
an increased
tion result regardingcoefficient
lateral and value because of crosswind
directional stabilityconditions.
in crosswind The directional
conditions. stability decreased, but
directional stability is easier to control than lateral stability.
Figure 21. Ventral fin added to improve aerodynamics performance.
Figure 21. Ventral fin added to improve aerodynamics performance.

Aerospace 2022,
Aerospace 9, 9,
2022, x 208
FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 32 30 of
(a)
(b)
Figure22.
Figure 22.Stability
Stability optimization,
optimization, (a) Lateral
(a) Lateral stability
stability and (b)and (b) Directional
Directional stability. stability.
To improve
Figure 22athe lateral
depicts thestability, the proper
effectiveness control
of the surface
ventral and
fin in actuator providing
decreasing the roll coefficie
counter moment toward aerodynamic moments can overcome this stability [34]. In addition,
value in relation to crosswind conditions. So, the ventral fin could increase the lateral st
the aircraft requires a flight test to find a good tuning. It would take a risky flight test if
bility
the of the
aircraft aircraft.
design Unfortunately,
did not meet the stabilityadding the ventral
requirements. fin on
A CFD the twincan
simulation tail boom config
analyze
rations did not improve the directional stability. Figure 22b delineates an
the stability of the aircraft so that it can select the best design with the best stability. increased
An ya
coefficient
analysis suchvalue
as thisbecause of crosswind
can decrease the risk ofconditions. The
a crash due to thedirectional
aerodynamic stability decreased, b
performance
directional
during stability
a flight test. is easier to control than lateral stability.
To improve the lateral stability, the proper control surface and actuator providin
4. Discussion
counter moment toward aerodynamic moments can overcome this stability [34]. In add
tion,This
the research obtained several data about the performance of a VTOL-Plane with dif-
aircraft requires a flight test to find a good tuning. It would take a risky flight te
ferent empennage configurations. The inverted U-shaped boom empennage configuration
if the aircraft design did not meet the stability requirements. A CFD simulation can an
had the highest critical angle at 18◦ . Meanwhile, the other empennage configurations had
lyze
an the stability
average of theofaircraft
critical angle so thatthe
15◦ . Moreover, it can selectboom
U-shaped the best design with
configuration hadthe
the best
best stabilit
An analysis
flight such
efficiency, as this can
represented decrease
by the theinrisk
L/D value of a crash
headwind due to theconditions.
and crosswind aerodynamic
In perfo
mance during
crosswind a flight
conditions, thetest.
U-shaped boom empennage configuration had an L/D value that
tended to be stable compared to the other design variations with only a specific AoA advan-
tage. Following [24], they also concluded that the U-shaped boom / H-tail configuration
4. Discussion
had the best efficiency compared to the other empennage configurations.
This research obtained several data about the performance of a VTOL-Plane with d
ferent empennage configurations. The inverted U-shaped boom empennage configuratio
had the highest critical angle at 18°. Meanwhile, the other empennage configurations ha
an average critical angle of 15°. Moreover, the U-shaped boom configuration had the be
flight efficiency, represented by the L/D value in headwind and crosswind conditions.
crosswind conditions, the U-shaped boom empennage configuration had an L/D valu
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 30 of 32
Stability is essential for every aircraft. In headwind conditions, the inverted U-shaped
boom empennage configuration had a better longitudinal stability than the other designs.
That empennage configuration has a CP close to 0 when AoA was 0◦ . When the condition
changes to crosswind, the aircraft will gain more AoA due to lose lift force. The inverted U-
shaped boom had a zero Cp value when the AoA was more than 0 in crosswind conditions.
This means the aircraft tended to consistently maintain the longitudinal stability even when
the wind direction changes.
Crosswind conditions generate a non-identical vortex on the aircraft between the right
and left side. It has an effect on the lateral and directional stability of the aircraft [18–21].
The inverted V-tail boom had a good lateral and directional stability. Following [25], they
also discovered that the V-tail had an advantage in lateral stability in crosswind conditions.
Unfortunately, maneuverability is not as crucial as efficiency and stability for a surveil-
lance or monitoring mission. Nevertheless, the maneuverability analysis gives data on
what flight parameters must be avoided. The U-shaped boom and inverted U-shaped boom
configurations had relatively good maneuverability in headwind conditions. When the
aircraft passes the critical angle, the aircraft can maintain a short turning radius. Meanwhile,
the VTOL-Plane with inverted V-tail boom and semi-inverted V-tail boom configurations
could not hold a short turning radius when passing the critical angle.
A VTOL-Plane needs more lift in crosswind conditions by increasing the AoA in
several bank angles and slip angles. The greater the sideslip angle, the greater the risk of
stalling. As well as the bank angle, the larger banking angle of the VTOL-Plane causes a
loss of lift. The simulation results showed that the greater the sideslip angle, the greater the
turning radius. The VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom empennage configuration had the
smallest turning radius of 28.7 m.
In headwind conditions, there was no significant difference in the stall speed between
the variations of the VTOL-Plane design. Different from the crosswind conditions, the
VTOL-Plane with a U-shaped boom empennage configuration had a lower stall speed than
the other configurations.
In short, an inverted U-shaped boom had a suitable aerodynamic performance for
a surveillance mission. The inverted U-shaped boom had excellent longitudinal stability
and a bigger critical angle than the other configurations. In addition, this empennage
configuration also had good maneuverability. Stability is an essential factor for surveillance
missions. In fact, this configuration had an infirmity in lateral and directional stability.
The ventral fin was added to improve the stability [16]. The simulation results showed
that the ventral fin improved the lateral stability but decreased the directional stability.
Furthermore, directional stability is easier to control than lateral stability, which is why the
aircraft needs proper controls to improve the lateral stability.
This variations in the VTOL-Plane design should be manufactured and tested for data
validation in actual conditions. Several parameters such as maximum AoA, bank angle,
and stall speed on this research can minimize the risk of a crash.
5. Conclusions
Overall, this study examined empennage configurations in relation to aerodynamic
performance. Furthermore, CFD methods were used to simulate all empennage configu-
rations in both headwind and crosswind circumstances. The simulation data were used
to analyze the aerodynamic coefficients. In general, the inverted U-shaped boom is ideal
for surveillance missions. This configuration has a strong longitudinal stability, a larger
critical angle, and is easy to maneuver. A ventral fin was also added to improve lateral
and directional stability. As a result, lateral stability improved while directional stability
improved. Despite this, directional stability is more manageable than lateral stability. Every
aspect of stability could be increased with proper control, such as a control surface and
good tuning.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 31 of 32
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.N., G.Z. and A.A.R.; methodology, G.Z.; software, G.Z.;
validation, G.N., G.Z. and A.A.R.; formal analysis, G.Z.; investigation, G.Z.; data curation, G.Z. and
A.A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, G.Z.; writing—review and editing, G.N., G.Z. and A.A.R.;
visualization, G.Z.; funding acquisition, G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), grant number:
PRJ-102/LPDP/2019.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Department of Mechanical and Indus-
trial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada and Lembaga Pengelola Dana
Pendidikan (LPDP).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Banu, T.P.; Borlea, G.F.; Banu, C. The Use of Drone in Forestry. Environ. Sci. Eng. B 2016, 5, 557–562.
2. Miller, C.R. Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Diversification Opportunities; Mississippi Defense Diversification Initiative—
Technical Report; United States Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment: Arlington, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 4–7.
[CrossRef]
3. Jo, D.; Kwon, T. Development of Autonomous VTOL UAV for Wide Area Surveillance. World J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 7, 227–239.
[CrossRef]
4. Atkins, E.M.; Mathur, A. Design, modelling and hybrid control of a quadplane. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum,
Virtual Event, 11–15 and 19–21 January 2021; p. 0374. [CrossRef]
5. Aktas, Y.O.; Ozdemir, U.; Dereli, Y.; Tarhan, A.F.; Cetin, A.; Vuruskan, A.; Yuksek, B.; Cengiz, H.; Basdemir, S.; Ucar, M.; et al.
Rapid Prototyping of a Fixed-Wing VTOL UAV for Design Testing. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2016, 84, 639–664. [CrossRef]
6. Tyan, M.; Nguyen, N.V.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.W. Comprehensive Preliminary Sizing/Resizing Method for a Fixed Wing—VTOL Electric
UAV. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2017, 71, 30–41. [CrossRef]
7. ALTI Ascend. Available online: https://www.ssass.co.za/alti-ascend (accessed on 12 October 2021).
8. ALTI Transition. Available online: https://www.ssass.co.za/alti-transition (accessed on 12 October 2021).
9. Gu, H.; Lyu, X.; Li, Z.; Shen, S.; Zhang, F. Development and experimental verification of a hybrid vertical take-off and landing
(VTOL) Unamnned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(ICUAS), Miami, FL, USA, 13–16 June 2017; pp. 160–169. [CrossRef]
10. Out of the Black: SLT VTOL UAV. Available online: https://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/out-of-the-black-slt-vtol-uav
(accessed on 17 March 2022).
11. Foxtech Great Shark 330 VTOL. Available online: https://www.foxtechfpv.com/foxtech-great-shark-330-vtol.html (accessed on
13 October 2021).
12. Austin, R. Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAV Design, Development, and Deployment, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2010; pp. 17–20.
13. Roskam, J. Airplane Design Part 1: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, 1st ed.; Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation: Ottawa,
KS, USA, 1985; pp. 89–190.
14. Roskam, J.; Lan, C.T.E. Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance, 1st ed.; DARcorporation: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1997; pp. 95–107.
15. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 6th ed.; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.: Reston, VA,
USA, 2018; pp. 158–161.
16. Sadraey, M.H. Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013;
pp. 203–325.
17. Anderson, J.D. Aircraft Performance and Design, 1st ed.; WCB/McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 46–60.
18. Abbas, Y.K. Effect of Sideslip Angle on The Balance of Aircraft Moments Through Steady—State Spin. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol.
2017, 8, 627–633.
19. Cho, H.; Han, C. Effect of Sideslip Angle on The Aerodynamic Characteristic of a Following Aircraft in Close Formation Flight.
J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2015, 29, 3691–3698. [CrossRef]
20. Clancy, L.J. Aerodynamics, 1st ed.; Gulab Vazirani for Arnold-Heinemann Publishers: New Delhi, India, 1975; pp. 55–561.
21. Hansen, J.L.; Cobleigh, B.R. Induced moment effect of formation flight using two F/A-18 aircraft. In Proceedings of the American
Institute of Aeronautics AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, CA, USA, 5–8 August 2002;
pp. 1–18.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 32 of 32
22. Gu, X.; Ciampa, P.D.; Nagel, B. An automated CFD analysis workflow in overall aircraft design applications. CEAS Aeronaut. J.
2018, 9, 3–13. [CrossRef]
23. Phillips, D.A.; Soligo, M.J. Will CFD ever Replace Wind Tunnels for Building Wind Simulations. Int. J. High Rise Build. 2019, 8,
107–116. [CrossRef]
24. Das, S.B.; Rajiv, R.; Menon, R.; Deodhar, R. Analysis and Simulation of Different Empennage Configurations for an Aircraft. Adv.
Trends Mech. Aerosp. Eng. 2021, 2316, 6–8. [CrossRef]
25. Musa, N.A.; Mansor, S.; Ali, A.; Omar, W.Z.W.; Latif, A.A.; Perumal, K. Effects of Aircraft Tail Configurations on Sensitivity to
Yaw Disturbances. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 629, 199–201.
26. Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 107. Available online: https://terra-drone.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
CASR-Part-107.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2021).
27. UAV Sparrow VTOL. Available online: https://www.armour.gr/catalogues/pdf/UAV-SPARROW-VTOL.pdf (accessed on 14
October 2021).
28. Gudmunsson, S. General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures, 1st ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Waltham, MA, USA,
2014; p. 269.
29. Air-Density and Specific Volume vs. Altitude. Available online: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-
volume-d_195.html (accessed on 16 October 2021).
30. Wibowo, S.B.; Sutrisno, I.; Rohmat, T.A. Study of Mesh Independence on The Computational Model of The Roll-up Vortex
Phenomenon on Fighter and Delta Wing Models. Int. J. Fluid Mech. Res. 2019, 46, 427–439. [CrossRef]
31. Mesh Quality & Advance Topics. Available online: https://featips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Mesh-Intro_16.0_L07_
Mesh_Quality_and_Advanced_Topics.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
32. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide; Release 19.2.; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 1179–1254.
33. Hibbeler, R.C. Engineering Mechanics Dynamics, 12th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 298–302.
34. Etkin, B. Dynamics of Flight Stability and Control, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 33–37.

Aerospace 09 00208

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerospace 09 00208

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aerospace

Abstract: A Vertical Take-Off and Landing-Plane (VTOL-Plane) is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Aerospace 2022, 9, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9040208 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

mechanical transformation from VTOL to Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL)

2.1. Design Requirements and Objective

• U-shaped boom [9];

2.3. Preliminary Design

Table 2. Fuel fraction [13].

Phase Fuel Fraction

log10 WTO = a + b log10 WE (6)

Table 3. Performance sizing.

Aerospace 2022, 9, 208 9 of 32

2.4.2. Detailed Design of the Empennage

Lh = Distance of 25% wing MAC to 25% horizontal empennage MAC (m)

Table 5. Empennage design.

Empennage General Design

2.4.3. Fuselage Detailed Design

Table 6. Payload dimension on the fuselage.

Figure 5. Payload position on the fuselage.

where: FL × cos θ ≥ m × g (31)

the VTOL-Plane design variation.

Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 33

Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 3

3.4. Stability Performance

Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 33

Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 33

Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 33

Figure 20. Cont.

Figure 21. Ventral fin added to improve aerodynamics performance.

Figure 21. Ventral fin added to improve aerodynamics performance.

You might also like