ENME404 Aerodynamics and Ground Vehicle Dynamics

2/10/2016

Mark Houwers, 14201458

GLIDER REPORT
(TWO WONGS MAKE A WHITE)

1 SUMMARY 3 INITIAL DESIGN

The purpose of this assignment was to design and build a
hand-thrown glider to travel the furthest distance possible in a
straight line before hitting the ground. A S3021 profile aerofoil
was provided. The flight test was conducted in an indoor
basketball court with a maximum horizontal distance of 26.4 m
before hitting the opposite wall. The performance was
measured by the distance it covered before reaching the ground,
or the height at which it struck the opposite wall.
The goal of the design was to glide with as little loss of altitude
as possible. The horizontal distance covered in a straight line
before it reached the ground, or the height at which it struck the
wall some meters away would be measured. The methods used
to determine the glider’s preliminary characteristics prior to
testing and trimming are outlined below.
3.1 Assumptions
The physical properties assumed for the flight are listed in
Table 2 below.

Air: Density =1.2 kg/m3

Kinematic viscosity = 1.50e-5 m2/s
Tail plane: Laminar boundary layer both sides
Flat plate with zero pressure gradient
Fuselage: (as per tail plane)
Rectangle cross section normal to flow
Pitching moment about C.G negligible

3.2 Ideal Wing Loading

Figure 1: Final glider design for team 'Two Wongs make a White'. It's
funny because there were two Asians and a white man in the team. The ideal wing loading for the S3021 aerofoil is approximately
3 kg/m2 (Jermy, ENME404 Glider exercise notes, 2016). The
Preliminary theoretical calculations were used to obtain a glider mass of the glider required to achieve this was found by solving
design. The theoretical design required some trimming to adjust Equation 1 below.
for earlier assumptions and construction errors so that a suitable
flight path could be obtained. The glider’s final 25.5 m throw 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 × 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 [1]
performed similar to the theoretical prediction of 26.8 m, This yielded a mass of 0.324 kg. The aerofoil and balsa spar
however fell short of expectations from practice throws. provided weighed 0.035 kg so an additional 0.288 kg could be
added as required to achieve the ideal wing loading.
2 S3021 AEROFOIL
A S3021 profile aerofoil with the dimensions given in Table 1 3.3 Angle of Attack
below was provided.
Three different sources were used to obtain the polar data for
the S3021 wing at low Reynolds (<100,000). These were Xfoil,
Table 1: S3021 aerofoil properties. ENME404 Glider Exercise slides and Airfoiltools.com (see
Profile Selig 3021 Appendix A, B, C for the associated polars). Each source
0.9 m concluded a stall angle of approximately 8° geometric angle of
Span, b
attack with a corresponding lift coefficient of approximately
Chord, c 0.12 m
1.1. The plots of aerodynamic efficiency (lift to drag) indicated
Zero lift AOA -3 deg
by the vertical portion to the far left of the graphs that any angle
Stall AOA 8 deg
of attack with a lift coefficient (CL) between 0.2 and 0.9 would
Planform Rectangle yield the best efficiency (see Figure 2 overpage).
Material Goldfoam

1
 2. Tail volume ratio
3. Tail setting angle

3.4.1 Centre of Gravity

Figure 2: Optimum range from experimental L/D data for S3021 aerofoil
at low Reynolds number. (Jermy, ENME404 Glider exercise notes, 2016).
Accordingly, a 5° geometric angle of attack and corresponding
CL=0.8 was chosen. A lift coefficient in the upper end of the
range was chosen to allow for more lift to balance the
additional mass added to achieve the ideal wing loading. The
resulting Xfoil pressure distribution for this configuration is
shown in Figure 4 below.
In order to achieve static stability, the center of gravity should
be placed forward of the center of pressure (Lyon, 1942). Doing
this means that the glider will correct itself from disturbances.
For example, if the glider is forced nose down, the AOA
decreases so the nose down wing lift moment decreases and the
nose up tail plane moment increases thus restoring the glider to
level flight. Conversely, if the glider is forced nose up, the
increased AOA of the main wing increases the nose down
moment caused by the increased lift and the glider is again
restored to level flight.
The center of gravity was therefore chosen to be at the leading
edge of the main wing (0% chord). This is ahead of the
assumed center of pressure (25% chord). Using the layout from
Figure 5 below, Equation 1 was solved to determine the length
𝑥𝑁 required to achieve this. Ideal wing loading was assumed
with 𝑚𝑁 = 0.2 𝑘𝑔, 𝑚𝑤 = 0.035 𝑘𝑔, 𝑚𝑡 = 0.088 𝑘𝑔 along
with an maximum fuselage length of 0.91 m.

Figure 5: Calculation of center of mass.

−𝑚𝑁 ∙ 𝑥𝑁 + 𝑚𝑤 ∙ 𝑥𝑤 +𝑚𝑡 ∙ 𝑥𝑡 = 0 [1]

Figure 3: Xfoil S3021 pressure distribution at 5deg AOA.
Table 2: Main wing properties. A length of 𝑥𝑁 = 0.3 𝑚 was found.
AOA 5 deg
3.4.2 Tail Volume Ratio
CL 0.8
CD 0.023 A typical tail volume ratio for a sailplane is 0.5 (Jermy,
CM -0.059 ENME404 Aircraft Stability, 2016). This was used in Equation
2 below to solve for 𝑆𝑡 assuming a distance to CoG of 𝐿𝑡 =
0.65 (0.91m fuselage – 0.3m wing offset from nose + 0.04m
3.4 Longitudinal Stability contingency).
𝐿 ∙𝑆
𝑉𝐻 = 𝑡 𝑡 [2]
The requirements for longitudinal static stability are 𝑐∙𝑆
summarized in Figure 5 below. The resulting tail plane area was 𝑆𝑡 = 0.01 𝑚2 . A typical aspect
ratio of 5 was applied to the tail plane (Stanford University,
1999). This yielded a chord and span of 𝑐 = 0.045 𝑚 and
𝑏 = 0.0225 𝑚 respectively.
The second and third criterion for longitudinal stability as
Figure 4: Criteria for longitudinal stability (Jermy, ENME404 Aircraft
Stability, 2016).
outlined in Figure 4 earlier needed to be checked. These were
𝜕𝜀
As such, longitudinal stability is set by: 𝑉𝐻 𝑎𝑡 (1 − ) > 𝑎(ℎ − ℎ𝑎𝑐,𝑤𝑏 ) [3]
𝜕𝛼
1. Location of CoG relative to CoP

2
Here, 0.055 > -0.024 so criterion 2 met. And, 𝑆𝑡,𝑣 = 0.6 × 0.01 = 0.006 𝑚2
𝑉𝐻 𝑎𝑡 (𝑖𝑡 + 𝜀0 ) ≥ |𝐶𝑀,𝑎𝑐,𝑤𝑏 | [4] 3.7 Drag
Third criterion met if 𝑖𝑡 > 1.07°. So choose 𝑖𝑡 = 2°. Lift to drag ratio is the most important factor influencing
efficient glider design (Jermy, ENME404 Glider Slides, 2016).
3.4.3 Tail Setting Angle Therefore, in an attempt to reduce the surface drag induced
The tail setting angle required to make the glider longitudinally from the rough polystyrene aerofoil profile, the main wing was
stable was found by solving Equation 5 below for 𝛼𝑒 . wrapped in adhesive dura-seal film.
𝑎
𝐶𝑀,𝑎𝑐,𝑤𝑏 + 𝑎𝛼𝑒 [(ℎ − ℎ𝑎𝑐,𝑤𝑏 ) − 𝑉𝐻 𝑡 ] + 𝑉𝐻 𝑎𝑡 (𝑖𝑡 ) = 0 [5] 3.8 Preliminary Design Parameters
𝑎

Solving for the geometric trim angle of attack gives 𝛼𝑒 = 1.0°. The design parameters as built from then initial theoretical
The first criterion requires.. approach are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Parameters of the glider from the preliminary theoretical design
𝛼𝑎(𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑) < 𝛼𝑒 < 𝛼𝑎(𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙) stage.
Here -3°<1.0°<8° so first criterion meet. Wing Loading 3.00 kg/m2
Wing AOA 5 deg
3.5 Lateral Stability Wing offset 0.3 m (from nose)
The lateral stability was obtained by placing the center of Position CoG 0%
gravity below the center of pressure as shown in Figure 6 Tailplane profile Flat plate
below. This was achieved by raising the wing above the Tailplane offset 0.65m
fuselage using a small balsa block. Tailplane area 0.01 m2
Tailplane setting angle 2 deg (geometric)
CL/CD 15.2

4 TRIMMING THE GLIDER

The glider was tested indoors to ensure it flew correctly.
Several assumptions had been made and so actual performance
would differ. The biggest difference from the theoretical values
was the main wing profile. Whilst wrapping the wing with
Figure 6: How to achieve roll stability with position of center of gravity adhesive film, a heat gun was used in an attempt to shrink wrap
relative to center of pressure (Jermy, ENME404 Aircraft Stability, 2016). it on as the film was not sticking well to the polystyrene. The
The wing was placed 40mm above the fuselage giving a 2.22e -3 heating resulted in the wing bending upwards in a dihedral
Nm/° restoring moment. No dihedral was used as obtaining manner, however unsymmetrical (see Figure 7 below).
accurate angles and rigid connections were deemed too Consequently, the effective planform area was reduced and the
difficult. pressure distribution on the wing had changed and become
imbalanced.
3.6 Directional Stability
The directional (or yaw) stability is achieved through the use of
a vertical stabilizer. No control surfaces are required as a
straight flight path is desired. An inverted tail plane was
chosen. Traditionally, aircraft have the vertical stabilizer above
the fuselage of the plane for the purposes of ground clearance
when landing (Scholz, 2013). Clearance was not an issue for
the purposes of this flight so an inverted tail was used. With this
Figure 7: Final design after successful testing using a larger vertical
design a larger vertical surface, and hence more directional stabilizer to balance the accidental dihedral.
stability, could be obtained without the instabilities that would
be created if it were in the traditional position (Brasseur, 2014). A larger vertical stabilizer was added to attempt to balance the
This also had the added bonus of lowering the center of gravity instabilities. An additional 30 g was added to the nose to
to add to the lateral stability. maintain the center of gravity changed from adding mass to the
tail.
Research suggested that the vertical stabilizer should be
approximately 60% the size of the horizontal stabilizer (Huber,
2003). This would make the required area:

3
5 PREDICTED PERFORMANCE flight performance of the glider was close to the 26.8 m
The refined design parameters after successful testing are given predicted. However, this result was achieved with a different
in Table 4 below. These were calculated using the stability flight path to the theoretical model.
spreadsheet provided.
Table 4: Final design characteristics prior to flight competition.
8 REFERENCES
Wing loading 3.064 kg/m2 Brasseur, E. (2014, October 12). Basics of Toy Glider Physics.
Speed 7.913 m/s Retrieved 10 2, 2016, from 4P8:
CL/CD 15.0 http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/glider_physics.html
Glide angle 3.84° Huber, F. (2003, 01 05). Wing to Tail Size. Retrieved 09 22,
Position of CoG 1% 2016, from RC Universe:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-gliders-
sailplanes-slope-soaring-112/16643-wing-tail-
5.1 Flight Path size.html
Jermy, M. (2016). ENME404 Aircraft Stability. Christchurch:
The throw of the glider is an influencing factor in the
University of Canterbury.
performance. Figure 8 below illustrates the various results that
Jermy, M. (2016). ENME404 drag, lift & moment slides.
can be obtained from the initial throw.
Christchurch: University of Canterbury.
Jermy, M. (2016). ENME404 Glider exercise notes.
Christchurch: University of Canterbury.
Jermy, M. (2016). ENME404 Glider Slides. Christchurch:
University of Canterbury.
Lyon, H. (1942). A Theoretical Analysis of Longitudinal
Dynamic Stability in Gliding Flight. London:
Aeronautical Research Committee.
NASA. (2015, May 5). Inclination Effects on Lift. Retrieved 09
22, 2016, from Glenn Research Center:
Figure 8: Variation of possible flight paths (Seeds2Learn, 2000).
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-
5.2 Distance Prediction 12/airplane/incline.html
Scholz. (2013). Aircraft Design: Empennage General Design.
A prediction for the distance the glider will fly, as per the University of Hamburg.
design, is given below. A launch height of 1.8 m in still air at Seeds2Learn. (2000, June). Glide Tips. Retrieved 09 22, 2016,
sea level and 20°C is assumed. from Seeds2Learn:
𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 http://www.seeds2learn.com/June00.html
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
tan(𝑔𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒) Stanford University. (1999). Tail Design and Sizing. California:
1.8 Stanford University.
𝐷= Williamson, G. A. (2012). Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data.
tan(3.84°)
𝐷 = 26.8 𝑚 Illinois: Department of Aerospace Engineering,
The predicted distance assuming a design glide path is 26.8 m. University of Illinois.
More distance can be obtained with a successful overthrow as
illustrated in Figure 8 earlier.

6 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
The competition glider performance is given in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Competition performance of glider.

Throw 1 Throw 2 Throw 3

14.9 25.5 25.5

7 CONCLUSION
The theoretical design approach was able to be used to
construct a glider to within a suitable stability range. Physical
flight testing and trimming was required to correct some
construction and assumption inaccuracies. The actual 25.5 m

4
9 APPENDIX A- ENME 404 POLARS 10 APPENDIX B- XFOIL POLARS

1.2
1
0.8

CL
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20
AOA

Xfoil Aerodynamic Efficiency

1.5

CL
0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
CD

11 APPENDIX C- AIRFOILTOOLS.COM POLARS