2015 SAE AERO DESIGN

Advanced Class
SENIOR PROJECT I: FINAL DESIGN REPORT

Samuel Chen, ME
Cody DAmbrosio, ECE
Justin Gonzalez, ME
Philip Kraus, ME
Jonathan Wang, ME

Dr. Lisa Grega, ME

Dr. Orlando Hernandez, ECE

This page was left intentionally blank.

1|Page

Special thanks to our advisors Dr. Lisa Grega, ME, and Dr. Orlando Hernandez, ECE,
our pilot Keith Zimmerly, and the faculty and staff at The College of New Jersey.

2|Page

Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
I. System Design ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
A.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10

B.

Systems Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 11

C.

Design Philosophy ......................................................................................................................... 14

I.C.1. Modularity ................................................................................................................................ 14
I.C.2. Stability ..................................................................................................................................... 14

D.

Aircraft Weight .............................................................................................................................. 15

II. Project Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

III. Wing Design (Samuel Chen, ME) .............................................................................................................................. 19
A.

General Design Considerations .................................................................................................... 19

III.A.1 Design Constraints ................................................................................................................. 19
III.A.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................................................. 19

B.

Airfoil Selection ............................................................................................................................. 20

C.

Planform ......................................................................................................................................... 23
III.C.1 Aspect Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 23
III.C.2 Taper........................................................................................................................................ 24
III.C.3 Wing Sizing & Performance ................................................................................................... 25
III.C.4 Aileron Sizing .......................................................................................................................... 26

D.

Materials & Structure .................................................................................................................... 27

III.D.1 Modularity .............................................................................................................................. 27
III.D.2 Skin .......................................................................................................................................... 28
III.D.3 Ribs .......................................................................................................................................... 28
III.D.4 Spars ........................................................................................................................................ 30
III.D.5 Tail Receiver ........................................................................................................................... 31
III.D.6 Integrated Structure .............................................................................................................. 32

E.

Design Verification ........................................................................................................................ 33

III.E.1 Aerodynamic Verification ...................................................................................................... 33
III.E.2 Structural Verification............................................................................................................ 34

F.

Future Plans ................................................................................................................................... 35

III.F.1 Servo Sizing ............................................................................................................................. 35
3|Page

III.F.2 Construction ............................................................................................................................ 35

IV. Tail (Philip Kraus, ME) .................................................................................................................................................. 36
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 36
IV.A.1 Performance Criteria and Realistic Constraints................................................................... 36
IV.A.2 Design Constraints ................................................................................................................. 38
B. Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 39
IV.B.1 Tail Configuration ................................................................................................................... 39
IV.B.2 Airfoil Selection ...................................................................................................................... 43
IV.B.3 Tail Arm and Areas ................................................................................................................. 45
IV.B.4 Control Surfaces...................................................................................................................... 47
C. First Design Iteration ........................................................................................................................ 48
D. Finalized Design ................................................................................................................................ 49
E. Materials and Budget ........................................................................................................................ 50
F. Future Plans and Construction Schedule......................................................................................... 51
V. Fuselage Design (Justin Gonzalez, ME) .................................................................................................................... 52
A. General Fuselage Design ................................................................................................................... 52
V.A.1. Design Constraints .................................................................................................................. 53
B. Material Selection.............................................................................................................................. 53
C. Design ................................................................................................................................................. 55
D. Fuselage Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 61
V.D.1. Structural Analysis.................................................................................................................. 61
V.D.2. Aerodynamic Analysis ............................................................................................................ 64
V.D.3. Center of Gravity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 64
E.

Current and Future Plans ............................................................................................................. 66

VI. Engine (Jonathan Wang, ME) ..................................................................................................................................... 67

A. Restrictions: ....................................................................................................................................... 67
B. Engine Selection: ............................................................................................................................... 67
C. Testing: ............................................................................................................................................... 68
D. Accessories: ....................................................................................................................................... 69
VI.D.1 Engine Mount.......................................................................................................................... 69
VI.D.2 Fuel Tank................................................................................................................................. 70
VII. Landing Gear (Jonathan Wang, ME)....................................................................................................................... 71
A. Restrictions ........................................................................................................................................ 71
4|Page

B. Configuration ..................................................................................................................................... 71
C. Landing Gear Height.......................................................................................................................... 72
VII.C.1 Ground Clearance .................................................................................................................. 72
VII.C.2 Take-off Rotation ................................................................................................................... 73
VII.C.3 Ground Stability ..................................................................................................................... 73
D. Wheel Base ........................................................................................................................................ 73
E. Wheel Track ....................................................................................................................................... 74
F.

Main Landing Gear ........................................................................................................................ 76

VII.F.1 Attachment ............................................................................................................................. 76
VII.F.2 Design ..................................................................................................................................... 76

G.

Main Landing Gear Wheels ........................................................................................................... 79

H.

Nose Landing Gear ........................................................................................................................ 80

VII.H.1 Nose Strut .............................................................................................................................. 80
VII.H.2 Nose Wheel ............................................................................................................................ 80

VIII. Dropping Mechanism (Jonathan Wang, ME) .................................................................................................... 81

A. Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 81
B. Design ................................................................................................................................................. 81
VIII.B.1 Material Selection ................................................................................................................ 82
VIII.B.2 Construction ......................................................................................................................... 82
IX. Telemetry (Cody DAmbrosio, ECE) ........................................................................................................................ 83
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 83
B. Specifications ..................................................................................................................................... 83
IX.B.1 Telemetry Recording .............................................................................................................. 83
IX.B.2 First Person View.................................................................................................................... 84
IX.B.3 Cargo Dropping Device........................................................................................................... 84
C. Telemetry Recording......................................................................................................................... 84
IX.C.1 Goals of Design ........................................................................................................................ 84
IX.C.2 Choosing a Design ................................................................................................................... 84
IX.C.3 Designing the System.............................................................................................................. 86
IX.C.4 Current Progress ..................................................................................................................... 87
D. First Person Camera ......................................................................................................................... 87
VI.D.1 Goals of Design ....................................................................................................................... 87
IX.D.2 Choosing a Design................................................................................................................... 87
5|Page

IX.D.3 Current Progress .................................................................................................................... 88

E. Dropping Trigger ............................................................................................................................... 89
IX.E.1 Goals of Design ........................................................................................................................ 89
IX.E.2 Choosing a Design ................................................................................................................... 89
IX.E.3 Current Progress ..................................................................................................................... 90
F. Software ............................................................................................................................................. 91
IX.F.1 Goals of Design ........................................................................................................................ 91
IX.F.2 Creating the Software ............................................................................................................. 92
IX.F.3 Progressing and Testing ......................................................................................................... 96
G. Going Forward ................................................................................................................................... 97
IX.G.1 Continued Testing................................................................................................................... 97
IX.G.2 Future Challenges ................................................................................................................... 97
X. Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix A Overall Plane Dimensions ................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix B: Constants & Sample Wing Sizing Parameters............................................................................... 103
Appendix C: Tail Control Surface Relationships Provided by Sadraey......................................................... 104
Appendix D: Laser Cutting Sketch File (Not To Scale) ........................................................................................ 107
Appendix E: Fuselage Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix F: Telemetry Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 111
A.1. Arduino Transmitter Code .......................................................................................................... 111
A.2 Arduino Receiver Code ................................................................................................................. 113
A.3 Video Overlay Source Code .......................................................................................................... 114
Appendix G: Budget Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 119

6|Page

List of Figures
FIGURE 1: COMPETITION FLIGHT SCORE, FS.................................................................................................................................................10
FIGURE 2: OVERALL AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS AND COMPONENTS HIERARCHY .................................................................................11
FIGURE 3: TELEMETRY REQUIREMENTS HIERARCHY ..................................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 4: TELEMETRY FUNCTIONS HIERARCHY ..........................................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 5: TELEMETRY COMPONENTS HIERARCHY ......................................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 6: EDITED FPV VIDEO SYSTEM SIMULATION .................................................................................................................................13
FIGURE 7: CARGO EXPULSION SYSTEM SIMULATION ...................................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 8: PROJECT GANTT CHART .................................................................................................................................................................18
FIGURE 9: HTTP://WWW.SKYBRARY.AERO/INDEX.PHP/FILE:AOA.JPG ..................................................................................................20
FIGURE 10: S-1223 AIRFOIL, SHOWING HIGH CAMBER OF THE LOWER SURFACE..................................................................................21
FIGURE 11: AH 79-100B AIRFOIL, SHOWING MORE MODERATE CAMBER OF THE LOWER SURFACE.................................................21
FIGURE 12: INDIVIDUAL PLANFORM AND THICKNESS TAPER OF A WING. .................................................................................................24
FIGURE 13: WING PLANFORM AND SIZING.....................................................................................................................................................26
FIGURE 14: CREDIT: HTTP://FACULTY.DWC.EDU/SADRAEY/AILERON%20DESIGN.PDF ...................................................................27
FIGURE 15: 3- VS. 2-PIECE WING. ...................................................................................................................................................................28
FIGURE 16: FALSE RIBS USED TO SUPPORT THE LEADING EDGE FORM. SPACING BETWEEN PRIMARY RIBS IS 6". .............................29
FIGURE 17: CENTER PLYWOOD WING RIB SHOWING THE TRUSS-STRUCTURE FORMED FROM THE CUTOUTS ....................................29
FIGURE 18: SCHEMATIC FOR TAIL RECEIVER. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES. .....................................................................................31
FIGURE 19: INTEGRATED WING (A), AND EXPLODED SECTIONS (B) ..........................................................................................................32
FIGURE 20: PATHLINES FROM THE SURFACE OF THE WING. NOTE THE NO-SLIP CONDITION OVER THE WING. .................................33
FIGURE 21: CFD VERIFICATION VS. HAND-CALCULATED LIFT CURVES. ....................................................................................................34
FIGURE 22: FEA STRESS ANALYSIS OF MAIN WING SPAR. ...........................................................................................................................34
FIGURE 23: PITCHING, ROLLING, AND YAWING MOMENTS ........................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 24: TYPICAL TAIL SECTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................40
FIGURE 25: WWII BOMBING PLANE UTILIZING THE TWIN TAIL DESIGN ..............................................................................................43
FIGURE 26: FX 76-100 AIRFOIL SECTION....................................................................................................................................................44
FIGURE 27: FIRST EMPENNAGE DESIGN ITERATION ...................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE 28: FINAL EMPENNAGE DESIGN ITERATION ...................................................................................................................................49
FIGURE 29: ANSYS TEST OF CARBON FIBER BOOM, RESULTING IN 0.57IN MAXIMUM DEFLECTION ..............................................50
FIGURE 30: LASER CUT TAIL AIRFOIL ............................................................................................................................................................51
FIGURE 31: CREO PARAMETRIC: STATIC PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY .................................................................................................................56
FIGURE 32: (LEFT TO RIGHT) LOW, MID, AND HIGH WING SETUP ..........................................................................................................56
FIGURE 33: CREO PARAMETRIC: INITIAL FUSELAGE DESIGN.....................................................................................................................57
FIGURE 34: CREO PARAMETRIC: FINAL FUSELAGE DESIGN .......................................................................................................................58
FIGURE 35: FUSELAGE LAYOUT .......................................................................................................................................................................59

7|Page

FIGURE 36: TELEMETRY BAY (REFER TO TABLE 21 FOR COLOR- CODED COMPONENTS) ....................................................................60
FIGURE 37: ANSYS VERIFICATION: SIDE PANEL - IN-FLIGHT ..................................................................................................................61
FIGURE 38: ANSYS VERIFICATION SIDE PANEL - 2X IMPACT LOADING - 100% OF LOAD ON REAR LANDING GEAR HOLE ........62
FIGURE 39: ANSYS VERIFICATION: SIDE PANEL - 2X IMPACT LOADING - 80% FRONT LANDING GEAR / 20% REAR LANDING
GEAR ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................62
FIGURE 40: CENTER OF GRAVITY (BLACK CROSSHAIR IN FIGURE) OF AIRCRAFT WITHOUT (LEFT) AND WITH (RIGHT) BALLAST
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................65
FIGURE 41: CENTER OF GRAVITY (BLACK CROSSHAIR IN FIGURE) OF AIRCRAFT WITHOUT EXPELLABLE CARGO...........................65
FIGURE 42: CURRENT FUSELAGE ....................................................................................................................................................................66
FIGURE 43: CURRENT CAST IRON BLOCKS ....................................................................................................................................................66
FIGURE 44: ENGINE TEST STAND. (A) ENGINE MOUNT, (B) JETT .46 BSE SIGNATURE ENGINE, (C) TETTRA BUBBLELESS FUEL
TANK, (D) FORCE METER.........................................................................................................................................................................68

FIGURE 45: STATIC FORCE CURVE FOR 10X6 PROPELLER. .........................................................................................................................69

FIGURE 46: LANDING GEAR CONFIGURATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................71
FIGURE 47: WHEEL BASE .................................................................................................................................................................................73
FIGURE 48: WHEEL TRACK ..............................................................................................................................................................................75
FIGURE 49: MAIN LANDING GEAR EQUIVALENT STRESS: 1/8" THICKNESS ...........................................................................................76
FIGURE 50: MAIN LANDING GEAR EQUIVALENT STRESS: 3/16" THICKNESS ........................................................................................77
FIGURE 51: MAIN LANDING GEAR EQUIVALENT STRESS: 3/16" THICKNESS WITH CUTOUTS ...........................................................77
FIGURE 52: MAIN LANDING GEAR TOTAL DEFORMATION: 3/16" THICKNESS WITH CUTOUTS ........................................................78
FIGURE 53: MAIN LANDING GEAR WHEEL DIMENSIONS ............................................................................................................................79
FIGURE 54: NOSE LANDING GEAR...................................................................................................................................................................80
FIGURE 55: DROP MECHANISM WITH PACKAGE...........................................................................................................................................81
FIGURE 56: LASER CUTOUTS FOR DROP MECHANISM ...................................................................................................................................82
FIGURE 57: BLOCK DIAGRAM OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................91
FIGURE 58: DESIRED SOFTWARE OUTPUT ....................................................................................................................................................92
FIGURE 59: PROJECTILE MOTION DIAGRAM .................................................................................................................................................94
FIGURE 60: CAMERA FOV MEASUREMENT ...................................................................................................................................................95
FIGURE 61: SIDE VIEW OF CAMERA SIGHT ....................................................................................................................................................96
FIGURE 62: OVERALL PLANE DIMENSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 102

8|Page

List of Tables
TABLE 1: WEIGHT BUDGET ..............................................................................................................................................................................15
TABLE 2: EXPANDED WEIGHT BUDGET - MODEL WEIGHT INCLUDED.....................................................................................................15
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SELECTED 2D AIRFOIL SECTIONS .........................................................................................................................22
TABLE 4: APPROXIMATE ELLIPTICAL LIFT DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VARIOUS PLANFORMS ..........................................................................24
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF OPTIMAL WING CONFIGURATION .........................................................................................................................25
TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF 2- AND 3-DIMENSIONAL WING PARAMETERS. ...............................................................................................26
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF AILERON DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................27
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF SKIN MATERIAL SELECTION ....................................................................................................................................28
TABLE 9: SPAR MATERIAL SELECTION PROPERTIES ...................................................................................................................................30
TABLE 10: SPAR SIZES AND QUANTITIES USED IN WING .............................................................................................................................30
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF ANSYS FEA VS. BEAM FLEXURE RESULTS ......................................................................................................35
TABLE 12: TAIL CONFIGURATION DECISION MATRIX .................................................................................................................................42
TABLE 13: AIRFOIL POSSIBILITIES..................................................................................................................................................................44
TABLE 14: POTENTIAL TAIL ARMS .................................................................................................................................................................45
TABLE 15: POTENTIAL TAIL DIMENSIONS AND ASPECT RATIOS...............................................................................................................46
TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF EMPENNAGE DIMENSIONS ...................................................................................................................................47
TABLE 17: MATERIALS AND APPROXIMATE BUDGET ..................................................................................................................................51
TABLE 18: FUSELAGE STRUCTURE - MATERIAL SELECTION ......................................................................................................................54
TABLE 19: ADHESIVE MATERIAL DENSITY ...................................................................................................................................................55
TABLE 20: PAYLOAD MATERIAL DENSITY.....................................................................................................................................................55
TABLE 21: TELEMETRY COMPONENTS...........................................................................................................................................................57
TABLE 22: BIRCH PLYWOOD STRENGTH PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................................63
TABLE 23: ENGINE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................67
TABLE 24: JETT BSE ENGINE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................68
TABLE 25: WHEEL CONFIGURATION DECISION MATRIX ............................................................................................................................72
TABLE 26: FIXED VS RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR ...................................................................................................................................72
TABLE 27: WHEEL BASE DIMENSIONS FOR STRAIGHT LANDING GEAR ...................................................................................................74
TABLE 28: WHEEL BASE DIMENSIONS FOR CANTERED LANDING GEAR .................................................................................................74
TABLE 7: NOSE LANDING GEAR MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS .........................................................................................................80
TABLE 30: TRAVEL COMPARISON ...................................................................................................................................................................99
TABLE 31: TRAVEL DECISION MATRIX ..........................................................................................................................................................99
TABLE 32: 2015 AERO DESIGN BUDGET ................................................................................................................................................... 100
TABLE 33: FUSELAGE EMPTY WEIGHT ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................... 108
TABLE 34: FUSELAGE COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 109
TABLE 35: FUSELAGE DRAG ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 110
TABLE 36: DEPLOYABLE PAYLOAD CALCULATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 110

9|Page

I. System Design
A. Introduction
This years TCNJ Aero Design team will be competing in late April of 2015 at the SAE Aero
Design Advanced Class competition in Van Nuys, California. The primary goal of this competition
is to design and construct an airplane capable of delivering a 3lb humanitarian aid package from a
100ft altitude to a specified target on the ground. To accomplish this task, the aircraft must utilize a
telemetry system to measure, record, and display the altitude of the plane at the moment that the
humanitarian payload is released. The flight of each plane is scored by determining how accurate
the drop location was with relation to the center of the 50ft radius circular target area. This is the
first time in TCNJs senior project history that the Aero Design team will be competing in this
Advanced Class of the competition. As such, the team aims to set a high precedent for future teams,
as well as achieve the highest flight score at the competition. A detailed breakdown of the scoring
scheme can be seen below in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Competition Flight Score, FS

10 | P a g e

From simple analysis of these scoring relationships, the team has found that to receive the
highest score, it is critical that the finalized plane has an empty weight of 8lbs or less. This
optimizes the coefficient S2 seen above. Furthermore, the aircraft must be able to successfully carry
a static cargo weight of 15lbs, as was derived from the coefficient S3. Finally, S1 is maximized if the
humanitarian payload hits the center of the target area. This parameter must be achieved through
accurate payload drop prediction that will be determined from the telemetry components of the
design.
The team began designing the aircraft over the summer of 2014. What follows is an analysis and
description of the specific components that will be integrated into the finalized aircraft for the
competition. Note that the following design steps occurred simultaneously (as opposed to in the
order they appear) to create a coherent final product.

B. Systems Engineering

Figure 2: Overall Aircraft Requirements and Components Hierarchy

11 | P a g e

Figure 3: Telemetry Requirements Hierarchy

Figure 4: Telemetry Functions Hierarchy

Figure 5: Telemetry Components Hierarchy

12 | P a g e

Figure 6: Edited FPV Video System Simulation

13 | P a g e

Figure 7: Cargo Expulsion System Simulation

C. Design Philosophy
Throughout the design of this aircraft, the team made paramount the following two design
parameters when making decisions.

I.C.1. Modularity
Being that the competition was located across the country, the final product would have to
be one that could be easily shipped. Thus, because the plane would exceed standard shipping box
sizes as is, the team decided to design it with modularity in mind. This meant that various
components of the design would be able to be removed and re-attached with ease once at the
competition.

I.C.2. Stability
Since a major component of the flight score was an accurate drop of the payload, creating a
stable platform from which to release the package was critical. Therefore, the team decided early in
the design process that a twin-boom configuration would be beneficial to the overall design. This
creates an inherently larger moment of inertia, which decreases the chance that the plane will roll
over during flight. This concept is discussed in greater depth later in this report.

14 | P a g e

D. Aircraft Weight
As previously stated, the weight of the aircraft must not exceed 65 lbs. To help ensure the team
scores the maximum points in the empty weight category, the team developed a weight budget.
Each component, based upon the teams proposed plane configuration, previous TCNJ Aero Design
teams final weight of each component, and additional research, was given an ideal weight
percentage. The team then applied an ideal empty weight of 8.00 lbs., and the ideal weights for
each component were determined. Table 1 below shows the ideal weight of each component.
Table 1: Weight Budget

Component

Ideal %Empty

Ideal Weight (lbs)

Engine

13.5%

1.08

Wings

32.5%

2.60

Telemetry

9.4%

0.75

Tail & Booms

22.0%

1.75

Fuselage

17.5%

1.40

Main Land. Gear

4.0%

0.32

Front Land. Gear

1.3%

0.10

Total Empty Weight 100%

8.00

After each design iteration, the team referenced the weight budget, to ensure the aircrafts
weight was at or less than 8.00 lbs. As the teams design advanced, the components were split into
sub-categories and weights of the design were included, based upon the density of the materials,
which were input into Creo Parametric 1.0. This expanded weight budget is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Expanded Weight Budget - Model Weight Included

Item

Ideal %Empty Ideal Weight (lbs) Pro-E Weight (lbs)

Engine

12.50

1.00

1.250

Wings

32.50

2.60

2.186

Telemetry

9.38

0.75

0.726

Tail

6.25

0.50

0.338

Twin Booms

15.63

1.25

1.257

Fuselage

17.50

1.40

0.918

15 | P a g e

Main Landing Gear

4.00

0.32

0.357

Front Landing Gear

1.25

0.10

0.150

Drop Mechanism

1.00

0.08

0.034

Small Servos x5

0.209

Med/Large Servo x3

0.265

Tube Clamps x2

0.075

Leading Edges

0.11

Remaining

0.00

0.00

0.125

As shown in the table above, an estimation of servo sizing and number of servos was added
to the model budget. The servo weight was weighed using in-house servos which were used on
previous TCNJ Aero Design team aircrafts. In addition, as the teams wing/tail/boom progressed,
leading edge and tube clamp weight was added to the weight budget. The total model weight was
subtracted from 8.00 lbs. to determine the remaining weight. The team designed the aircraft Creo
Parametric model 1.0 to be below the 8.00 lbs., because the weight of glue was not included.
The weight of the static cargo was based upon maximizing the flight score, which was set to
15lbs. The team proposed that all of this weight be designed to fit within the fuselage; therefore, the
fuselage was designed to carry this weight.
SAE Aero Design rules state that the expellable cargo must weigh between 3.00 3.25 lbs. In
order to reduce stress and plane weight, this payload was designed to be as close to the minimum
allowable weight as possible.
These three weight categories of the aircraft, empty weight, static cargo weight, and
expellable cargo weight, were added together, to produce an optimal plane weight of 26 lbs.

16 | P a g e

II. Project Management

In order to complete the project in time for the competition, a schedule was created. At first
it was unknown whether the team would compete in the East or West competition, so a loose
schedule was created working backward from the East competition date. The schedule was
finalized after the budget was approved for traveling to the West competition.
The schedule was created to include 1 month of flight testing with another month of testing
the data acquisition system and algorithm before that. It was also important that all of the
materials were ordered before winter break so construction could be productive in the month off of
school. In order to do this, the design had to be finalized by the beginning of October. Most of the
preliminary design was done over the summer and integrated during the first month of school.
Currently the team is on schedule and has started construction. All of the materials are
ordered and the finalized design was completed in mid-September. The data acquisition system is
being tested and the algorithm for determining when to drop the load is written and has begun
testing. The engine being used for competition is broken-in and has begun testing.

17 | P a g e

Figure 8: Project Gantt Chart

18 | P a g e

III. Wing Design (Samuel Chen, ME)

A. General Design Considerations
III.A.1 Design Constraints
Although there were no design constraints for the wing explicitly stated in the SAE
competition rules, the design of the wing was constrained primarily with respect to the weight.
From the weight budget in Table 1, the total weight of the wing, including the structure, skin, and
adhesive, and tail interface, should not exceed 2.60 lbs. Additionally, the design of the wing should
adhere to the overall modularity of the aircraft design, able to be easily broken into components
and reassembled.

III.A.2 Design Parameters

The driving factor in the design of the wing is the amount of lift generated. As the target
weight of the plane including all components and payload is 26.0 lbs., the wing was designed to lift
26.5 lbs., or 102% of the expected weight, at cruise speed. Given this requirement, the goal was to
design a wing with a small planform area to minimize the weight, but also exhibit good low-speed
flight characteristics, manufacturability, aerodynamic efficiency, and modularity.
In reality however, these are conflicting requirements. A small wing, while ideal to minimize
the weight of the wing, results in poor low-speed flight characteristics due to the reduced wing
area. Moreover, the minimum required flight speed of the small-winged aircraft is increased
relative to an aircraft with a larger wing area unless the 2-dimensional (2D) lift coefficient of the
airfoil section is very high. However, a high 2D lift coefficient will result in more induced drag (a 3dimensional wing effect which will be discussed in a later section), reducing the aerodynamic
efficiency of the aircraft. Additionally, these sections are characterized by having greater thickness
and camber, resulting in a wing that is difficult to manufacture. Thus, the challenge was to balance
these conflicting requirements while achieving the necessary amount of lift.

19 | P a g e

B. Airfoil Selection
Airfoil selection is often the first step in designing a wing. For the aircraft, three
aerodynamic airfoil parameters were identified and used in comparison: the lift Coefficient, drag
Coefficient, and lift-to-drag ratio. The relationship between these coefficients and the aerodynamic
forces for a 2D or infinite-span wing are shown below in Equations 1, 2, and 3:
CL,2D = L gc/ ( V2 c)

(Equation 1)

CD,2D = D gc / ( V2 c)

(Equation 2)

L/D = CL/CD

(Equation 3)

where CL,2D and CD,2D are the 2D lift and drag coefficients respectively, L and D are the lift and
drag force per unit span, L/D is the lift-to-drag ratio, is the air density, V is the relative speed, c is
the airfoil chord, and gc is the gravitational constant. The L/D is a direct measure of aerodynamic
efficiency, and the lift and drag coefficients are a function of the angle of attack , depicted in Figure
9.

Figure 9: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/File:AoA.jpg

The maximum CL is achieved at the maximum , corresponding to the stall angle, although the CL
corresponding to the maximum L/D (most efficient) is typically lower than this value. Note that the
coefficient of lift, drag, and L/D, are also dependent on the Reynolds number of the flow, defined in
Equation 4 below:

(Equation 4)

20 | P a g e

where is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid medium, in this case air. However, the
coefficient of lift and drag can be assumed to be reasonably constant for Reynolds numbers with the
same order of magnitude. Unlike previous teams, physical parameters such as airfoil thinness and
flatness were also valued, as they aid in manufacturability. Previous teams had selected the Selig S1223 airfoil section, due to its excellent 2D lift coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio. However, the high
lift coefficient and camber resulted in wings that had high induced drag (reducing the aerodynamic
efficiency) and were difficult to manufacture. This can be seen in Figure 10 and Figure 11 below,
comparing the S-1223 airfoil section to one of more moderate camber.

Figure 10: S-1223 Airfoil, showing high camber of the lower surface.

Figure 11: AH 79-100B Airfoil, showing more moderate camber of the lower surface.

To optimize the performance of the wing, a reevaluation of the airfoil selection was
performed. Using a typical chord length and velocity of 1 ft. and 30 mph respectively, the Reynolds
number was calculated to be 2.6x105 using Equation 4. From the airfoil database listed in Reference
1 and the VisualFoil software suite, several airfoils sections, including the S-1223, the S-1210, the E385, and the AH 79-100B were selected on the basis of maximum lift coefficient, maximum lift-todrag ratio, and manufacturability, summarized in Table 3 on the following page. The thickness,
camber, and flatness are measured in terms of percentage of the overall chord. In general, an airfoil
that has less thickness and camber and greater flatness is more easily manufactured. However,
selection of the optimal airfoil is also dependent on other 3-dimensional wing parameters, which
are discussed in the following section. Thus, 3D wing performance calculations (shown in the
following section) were performed with each of the selected airfoils in Table 3 to iteratively
determine the optimal overall wing configuration, and hence the airfoil. Ultimately, the AH 79-100B
airfoil resulted in an overall wing configuration with superior aerodynamic efficiency and
manufacturability, justified in the following sections.

21 | P a g e

Table 3: Summary of Selected 2D Airfoil Sections

Airfoil

Camber
%
7.2

Flat %

(CL)max

S-1210

Thick
%
11.9

(L/D)max

(L/D)max

(L/D)max CL

Stall

2.248

(CL)max

9.0

34.2

109.91

5.5

1.908

9.0

S-1223

12.1

8.7

S-4022

11.3

4.4

17.6

2.425

8.0

125.35

5.0

2.131

8.0

83.8

1.599

8.0

94.29

4.5

1.311

8.0

E-385

8.4

E216

10.4

5.7

78.2

1.491

7.0

126.16

5.0

1.354

7.0

5.2

77.0

1.805

8.5

110.85

3.5

1.354

8.5

E-395

12.3

5.3

69.9

1.589

8.0

106.89

5.0

1.409

8.0

MH 115

11.1

5.6

84.7

1.725

10.0

107.01

4.5

1.366

7.0

AH 79-100B

10.0

6.4

55.2

1.706

7.0

79.93

4.0

1.424

7.0

FX 63-120

12.0

5.3

85.8

1.963

9.0

87.43

2.0

1.165

9.0

FX 63-137
FX 60-126

13.6
12.6

6.0
3.6

66.5
52.8

2.037
1.491

11.5
10.0

97.89
145.52

2.0
5.0

1.319
1.149

12.0
10.0

22 | P a g e

C. Planform
III.C.1 Aspect Ratio
An important parameter in the determination of 3D wing performance is the aspect ratio
(AR) or fineness of the wing, defined for straight wings in Equation 5 below:
AR = Span2/Areawing

(Equation 5)

A 2D wing section is equivalent to the case of an infinite-span wing. In reality though, no wing is
infinite in span and thus 3D effects must be considered. Most notably, these 3D effects are
manifested in wing-tip vortices that form due to the pressure difference between the upper and
lower surface of the wing. In addition to increasing the effective drag of the wing (known as
induced drag), these vortices reduce the lift generated by the wing when compared to the infinite
span case. The new 3D lift and drag relationships are defined below:
CL,3D = L gc/ ( V2 S)

(Equation 6)

CD,total = CD,2D + CD, induced

(Equation 7)

CD,total = Dtotal gc/ ( V2 S)

(Equation 8)

where L and Dtotal are the lift and drag generated by wing, respectively, and S is the planform
area of the wing, including the fuselage. The 3D lift coefficient and the induced drag coefficient,
CD,induced, are calculated using Equations 9 and 10 below:

CL,3D = CL,=0 +
CD,induced =

2
,2

+2

(Equation 9)

(Equation 10)

where CL,=0 is the lift coefficient at an angle of attack = 0, CL, is the slope of the lift
coefficient with respect to , AR is the aspect ratio of the wing, and e is the elliptical lift distribution
(defined below). CL, can be calculated from Thin-Airfoil theory, and is assumed to be 2. From
Equation 7 and Equation 10, it is thus plausible that the total drag of a wing depends more on the
2D lift coefficient than the 2D drag coefficient.

23 | P a g e

III.C.2 Taper
While not directly used in the calculation of 3D wing performance, the taper ratio of the
aircraft wing affects the elliptical lift distribution, e. From aerodynamic theory, an elliptical lift
distribution results in the highest possible 3D lift and lowest induced drag. As a truly elliptical wing
is very difficult to construct, it can be approximated using a combination of taper in thickness and
planform, illustrated in Figure 12. Furthermore, a taper ratio can be defined as:
Taper Ratio = ctip / croot

(Equation 11)

where ctip and croot are the chord lengths of the tip and root respectively. For a fully tapered
wing (tapered in both planform and thickness), the elliptical lift distribution is estimated to be 0.95,
summarized in Table 4 below.

Figure 12: Individual planform and thickness taper of a wing.

Table 4: Approximate elliptical lift distributions for various planforms

Planform

Taper

Elliptical Lift Dist. e

Elliptical

Elliptical

1.00

Fully Tapered

Planform AND Thickness

0.95

Semi Tapered

Planform OR Thickness

0.90

From Equations 9 and 10 above, it can be seen that lift increases and drag decreases as the elliptical
lift distribution approaches unity. Taking manufacturability into consideration, it was decided to
utilize a fully tapered wing configuration.

24 | P a g e

III.C.3 Wing Sizing & Performance

Assuming a fully tapered wing with a taper ratio of 0.5, the aspect ratio was varied from 7.5
to 8.0 to maintain a wing span not exceeding 10 ft., due to modular size concerns. Using Equations 6
through 10 and rearranging for lift and drag forces, iterative aerodynamic calculations were then
performed on multiple test cases for each of the airfoil sections in Table 3, varying aspect ratio,
cruise speed, and wing area. Sample results for the best cases can be found in Appendix B, as well as
values for the constants used. The air density and viscosity were determined from weather
statistics for Van Nuys, CA in the month of April (the expected competition location and date). As
mentioned previously, a configuration utilizing the AH 79-100B airfoil was selected based on a
combination of aerodynamic efficiency and robust flight characteristics (3D lift-to-drag ratio,
sufficient wing area, and airfoil thinness/flatness), summarized in Table 5 and Figure 13 below. The
lift coefficient used corresponded to the maximum 2D L/D ratio, and the overall L/D ratio of the
wing was used as a metric of aerodynamic efficiency.
Table 5: Summary of Optimal Wing Configuration
Wing Parameter

Value

Airfoil Section

AH 79-100B

AR

7.98

Taper Ratio

0.5

()

4.0

CL,3D

1.2946

Cruise Speed (mph)

29.2

Wing Area (ft2)

10.15

Wing Span (ft)

9.00

Mean Chord (ft)

1.13

Lift @ Cruise Speed (lbf)

26.5

Drag @ Cruise Speed (lbf)

2.2

Zero-lift Drag1 (lbf)

0.9

Est. Total Drag @ Cruise (lbf)

3.1

Zero-lift drag is the sum of drag from the fuselage, tail, and miscellaneous components, discussed in their
respective sections.
1

25 | P a g e

Area = 10.15 ft

Span = 9.0 ft.

Figure 13: Wing planform and sizing

As mentioned previously, an airfoil section with a high 2-dimensional L/D ratio may not
result in a wing with the optimal overall L/D ratio. This is largely caused by the effect of 3dimensional wing phenomena, such as induced drag at the wing tips, and can be seen from the
sample results in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional wing parameters.
Inputs

Outputs

Airfoil

(L/D)2D

Aspect Ratio

Taper Ratio

Area (ft2)

Cruise (ft/s)

(L/D)3D

S-1223

125.25

8.0

0.5

10.12

39.34

8.1

AH 79-100B

79.93

8.0

0.5

10.15

42.68

12.0

III.C.4 Aileron Sizing

In addition to producing lift, the wing is also responsible for providing roll control via the
ailerons. Roll control is used for both bank turning, in conjunction with the elevator, and for lateral
stability and maneuverability of the aircraft. The latter is more critical to the design of this aircraft,
as the flight path is expected to consist of mostly flat turns. From Figure 14, the primary parameters
used in the design of the ailerons are the average aileron chord Ca, the aileron area Sa, the span of
the aileron ba, the maximum deflection , the inboard and outboard distances to the aileron, bai and
bao respectively. Using an iterative process to minimize the size of the ailerons (while still retaining
acceptable roll authority), the final dimensions are shown in Table 7 below. Note that ideal values
are taken from existing aircraft, and were used as a reference for aileron sizing. Although the
inboard distance is less than conventional values, this is compensated for with a longer span and
chord. The inboard aileron distance was limited by the structural rib placement and taper angle,
necessitating these dimensions.

26 | P a g e

Figure 14: Credit: http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Aileron%20Design.pdf

Table 7: Summary of Aileron Design Parameters

Dimension (ea.)

Value

Span

17.875 in

ba / bwing

0.2 0.3

0.331

Chord (average)

4.172 in

Ca / Cwing

0.15 - 0.25

0.308

Area

0.518 ft2

Sa / Swing

0.05 0.10

0.102

Inboard Distance

24.136 in

bai / bwing

0.6 0.8

0.447

Outboard Distance 42.011 in

bao / bwing

0.76 0.92

0.778

25

20 to 30

25

Max. Deflection

25

Relative Value Ideal (Relative) Actual (Relative)

D. Materials & Structure

III.D.1 Modularity
With an expected wing span of 9 ft., two and three-piece wing designs were considered to
satisfy the size and modularity requirements of the overall aircraft design, as shown in Figure 15
below. Two-piece wings have been utilized in the past several TCNJ Aero Design teams but
experienced problems due to the inherently high stress concentrations at the juncture of the two
wings, leading to catastrophic structural failure in one case. A three-piece wing design offers
several advantages over a two-piece wing, including greater modularity and wing stiffness, due to a
shorter cantilever arm in the outer wing section when compared to a two-piece wing of equivalent
span. A slight weight penalty is incurred by utilizing a three-piece wing due to the increased
number of connections (3 vs. 2), but can be offset by a potentially lighter construction.

27 | P a g e

Figure 15: 3- vs. 2-piece wing.

III.D.2 Skin
The ideal material for the aircraft skin covering is one that is lightweight, has high tensile
strength, and is easy to apply. Two of the most common materials used as the skin of model aircraft
are Monokote and Ultracote. Additionally, Solartex was also considered due to its excellent tensile
strength and ease of application, although it is significantly heavier than both Ultracote and
Monokote. Their respective properties are shown in Table 8 below. The tensile strengths were
found to be comparable for Ultracote and Monokote, and were determined to be more than
sufficient for all three materials. The primary difference between Monokote and Ultracote is the
ease of application, with Ultracote being slightly easier to apply but also weighing more than
Monokote. It was decided to utilize Monokote, as the potential weight savings were valued over the
slight increase in ease of application.
Table 8: Summary of skin material selection

Material
Ultracote
Monokote
Solartex

Typical Weight
0.30 oz/sq.ft
0.20 oz/sq.ft
0.33 oz/sq.ft

Tensile Strength
25,000 psi
25,000 psi
> 25,000 psi

Application
Moderate
Difficult
Easy

III.D.3 Ribs
For the wing ribs, only wood and wood composite materials were considered as the
manufacturability of the complex curves and weight concerns prohibited materials such as carbon
fiber or metals, and the relatively long span of the wing prohibits a foam construction. Specifically,
two types of wood were considered: light balsa and birch plywood. As birch plywood is 5-6 times
denser than balsa but also proportionally stronger and stiffer, it was decided to utilize both
materials in the construction of the wing ribs. With a twin-boom configuration, the wing
experiences a higher loading relative to a more conventional design, as it must also accommodate
28 | P a g e

the weight and aerodynamic loading of the fuselage and tail. Thus, plywood was chosen for the
structurally critical ribs, with 0.250 plywood providing exceptional rigidity in the root and tip
locations for each of the three wing sections. 0.125 plywood was utilized in the center wing
section, where the wing is integrated into the fuselage and tail. 0.125 balsa was utilized within the
tip sections in locations that did not have to support the aileron, providing crucial weight savings.

Primary
Ribs

False Ribs

Figure 16: False ribs used to support the leading edge form. Spacing between primary ribs is 6".

Using an iterative process, an optimal rib spacing of 6 was determined to satisfy weight
and structural requirements. However, as the ribs support and shape the skin to form the wing,
false ribs made of balsa were also incorporated in between each of the primary ribs in the leading
edge section of the wing, shown in Figure 16 above. Due to the fully-tapered wing planform, the ribs
in the outer wing sections are successively smaller in scale towards the tip. A Computer
Numerically Controlled (CNC) machine was used to cut all the ribs, as well as the cutouts shown in
Figure 17 below.

5.25
Figure 17: Center plywood wing rib showing the truss-structure formed from the cutouts (to reduce weight), as well as the
two spar holes. The blue line shows the location of the center of lift for the AH 79-100B airfoil at = 4.

29 | P a g e

III.D.4 Spars
For the wing spars, three materials were considered: Sitka Spruce, Aluminum 6061-T6, and
Carbon Composite/Carbon Fiber. From Table 9 below, it is apparent that carbon composite offers
significant advantages with respect to strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratio. Due to
manufacturability concerns, the use of carbon composite was limited to spar sections, where
straight lengths and standard outer dimensions facilitate ease of fabrication.
Table 9: Spar Material Selection Properties
Material
Sitka Spruce
Aluminum 6061-T6
Carbon Composite

Spec. Strength (Tensile Str./Density)

120
214
2400

Spec. Modulus (Elastic Mod/Density)

25
26
100

Hollow circular carbon composite tubes ranging from 0.730 to 0.254 were used as wing
spars, with each wing section containing a primary spar and smaller secondary spar, as shown in
Figure 16

above. This data is summarized in Table 10 below. Circular tubes were selected over

rectangular tubes due to the standard outer/inner diameters commercially available. As the center
of lift for the AH 79-100B airfoil at = 4 is approximately 42% of the chord, the primary spar is
designed to bear 67% of the aerodynamic load while the secondary spar designed to bear the
remaining 33% and counteract any moment produced by the wing. From Figure 17 above, this is
achieved by orienting the spars so the center of lift is located roughly 33% aft of the primary spar.
For the center wing section, the primary and secondary spars are located 5.25 from each other.
Table 10: Spar sizes and quantities used in Wing
Wing Section

0.730 OD

0.625 OD

0.500 OD

0.254 OD

Center

1 x 36 (Primary)

--

1 x48 (Secondary)

--

2 x Outer

--

1 x 48 (Primary)

--

1 x 36 (Secondary)

30 | P a g e

III.D.5 Tail Receiver

The interface with the tail booms are achieved through two specially designed receivers,
fabricated from Al 6061-T6 tubes with an outer diameter of 1.0 and an inner diameter of 0.5. Al
6061-T6 was chosen for its ease of manufacturing and moderately high strength-to-weight ratio.
Aerospace grade Al 2024 was also considered for its excellent strength-to-weight ratio, but was not
viable due to its brittleness. These are integrated into the spar structure of the center wing section,
and the design is shown in Figure 18 below. Through the use re-usable high-torque hose clamps,
the tail can be easily assembled and dissembled from the wing-fuselage structure.

Figure 18: Schematic for tail receiver. All dimensions are in inches.

31 | P a g e

III.D.6 Integrated Structure

The final wing structure is shown in Figure 19 below. Integration with the fuselage and tail,
as well as overall aircraft dimensions can be found in Appendix A. The length of each section is 3 ft.,
achieving a total span of 9 ft. when assembled. The wings sections are integrated through a system
of interlocking spars. The primary spars of the outer wing sections (0.625 OD) insert into the
hollow primary spars of the center section (0.730 OD) to a depth of 12. Similarly, the secondary
spar of the center section (0.500 OD) inserts into the outer wing sections to a depth of 6 on both
sides. Note that the ailerons are located in outer wing sections and the aluminum tail receivers are
located in the center section.

(a)

(b)
Figure 19: Integrated wing (a), and exploded sections (b). Wing span is 9 ft. overall, and each section is 3 ft. long when
assembled.

32 | P a g e

E. Design Verification
III.E.1 Aerodynamic Verification
ANSYS Fluent Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software was used to validate the lift and
drag forces predicted using the equations from the previous sections, as well as visualize the
airflow around the wing. A plot of the pathlines generated from the wing surface is shown in Figure
20 below. From the same simulation, the resolved viscous and pressure forces acting on the wing
normal and parallel to the flow (the lift and drag respectively) were also determined, assuming air
density and constants from Appendix B and cruise airflow conditions calculated in the previous
section. ANSYS Fluent reported both lower lift and drag values from those determined previously.

Figure 20: Pathlines from the surface of the wing. Note the no-slip condition over the wing.

This trend is summarized in the plot of lift vs. relative speed for the lift coefficients
determined by hand and by ANSYS Fluent CFD software. This is shown in Figure 21 below. The
lower lift coefficient determined by Fluent necessitates a higher cruise speed, at 31.2 mph vs. 29.2
mph. This discrepancy is most likely due to the simplifying assumptions made when calculating the
wing parameters manually (i.e. elliptical lift distribution, planform taper). Thus, one would expect
the CFD results to be more indicative of real values. It is also important to note that the lower drag
value predicted by Fluent results in a more efficient wing.

33 | P a g e

Figure 21: CFD verification vs. hand-calculated lift curves.

III.E.2 Structural Verification

Similarly, ANSYS FEA software was also used to determine the expected stress and
deflection the wing spars in each section would experience. These validated results calculated using
beam flexure formulas. Note that a quasi-static loading equivalent to the expected gross weight of
the aircraft, distributed evenly among the three wing sections, was applied for each case. Figure 22
below shows the stress analysis results for the primary spar in the center section, with a safety
factor for level flight (without dynamic loading) around 9.5.

MAIN SPAR 0.715OD/0.625ID

Carbon Fiber Composite Tube

Calculated Max Stress = 10.9 ksi

FEA Max Stress = 12.6 ksi

Yield Stress Carbon Fiber = ~120 ksi

Safety Factor (Static Flight) = ~9.5

Figure 22: FEA stress analysis of main wing spar.

34 | P a g e

The results for deflection and stress are tabulated in Table 11 below. Note that the
discrepancies are caused by the isotropic assumptions used in the beam flexure formulas, while
ANSYS FEA software is able to more accurately model the effects of the non-isotropic properties of
carbon fiber composite.
Table 11: Summary of ANSYS FEA vs. Beam Flexure Results
CF Yield Stress = 120 ksi
Center Section
Tip Sections
Calculated Stress (ksi)
10.93 (S.F. 11.0) 12.54 (S.F. 9.6)
FEA Stress (ksi)
12.61 (S.F. 9.5) 13.27* (S.F. 9.0)
Calculated Max. Deflection (in)
0.255
0.897
FEA Max. Deflection (in)
0.311*
0.937*

F. Future Plans
III.F.1 Servo Sizing
The final step in the design process is the sizing and selection of the servomotors to actuate
the ailerons. The estimated force and torque required will be calculated so a servomotor can be
selected with the goal of minimizing the weight of the component.

III.F.2 Construction
Construction on the wing is already well underway. It is expected that wing construction
and integration with the rest of the aircraft can be completed by the end of winter break (end of
January). As of this report, all structural wing components have been received and all wing ribs
have been cut from the stock material. A dry fit of the wing has already been performed to ensure
the correct dimensions.

35 | P a g e

IV. Tail (Philip Kraus, ME)

A. Introduction
The tail section of this years Aero Design plane is comprised of the horizontal stabilizer, the
vertical stabilizer, and the booms that integrate the control surfaces with the remainder of the
aircraft. Henceforth, these three components will be referred to in unity as the empennage. This
area of the airplane has historically been shown to be the most flexible when it comes to its design.
In this, it is meant that the empennage of an aircraft is usually designed around the wings, and not
the other way around. This meant that for this years design, adaptability was very important.
Detailed below are the steps that were taken to achieve an efficient and effective tail section for the
2015 aircraft.

IV.A.1 Performance Criteria and Realistic Constraints

To begin, it was essential to delineate clear goals for the empennage assembly throughout
both design and construction. This required a firm understanding of the function of a tail in an
airplane. The stabilizing fins on a plane serve the primary purpose of control of the aircraft during
flight in the pitching and yawing directions (see Figure 23). Much as a rudder helps to steer a boat
in the water, by deflecting the control surfaces (elevators and rudders) of the plane, a lifting force is
generated that, in turn, creates a moment about the center of gravity. This lifting force adheres to
the same physics as is described in the Wing summary of the report. The effectiveness with which
the tail can control the plane during flight, then, was a factor to be considered with high value
during the design of this airplane.

36 | P a g e

Figure 23: Pitching, Rolling, and Yawing Moments

Stability of the aircraft is another key function of the tail. This concept can again be
paralleled to a boat in water. If the boat is easy to roll over, it is considered unstable. Similarly, if a
plane is easily disturbed during flight in a way that causes sporadic behavior, it is an unstable
design. Since the primary goal of the overall plane was to drop a payload onto a specified target,
creating a stable platform from which to release the payload was critical to success. A smooth
approach to the target area would in turn allow for an ideal dropping environment. Thus, the next
goal for the empennage was high stability.
Since the competition for the Aero Design series would be located across the country in
California, getting the teams plane to the airfield was an obvious and very important factor.
Because of this, the group decided early on that making a modular aircraft would be extremely
beneficial. This would allow for ease of shipping, because the plane could be taken apart to fit into
smaller boxes or compartments, as well as ease of repair for similar reasons. Therefore, making the
tail a modular component was added to the list of design criteria.
Finally, in designing the tail of the aircraft it was quickly realized that feasibility was of vast
importance to the plane. Many possibilities existed for potential empennage positions and sizes, but
to be truly successful the teams plane would have to be easily manufactured as well. This relates to
the idea of complex simplicity. Many aerodynamic, economic, and material factors would come to
37 | P a g e

influence the tail design, making the finalized product a highly complex one. However, the team
realized that to be realistic, the design should leave room for accidental errors in manufacturing,
unexpected impacts or forces affecting the structure of the plane, and time-related pressure placed
on construction. Because of this, a simple design was preferred to a complex design. Understanding
this phenomenon, the team added manufacturability and feasibility to the list of the tail design
constraints.
To summarize, the above discussion was simplified to the proceeding list of goals for the tail
section of the airplane:

High stability

Reliable control and maneuverability

Modularity

Feasible manufacturability

This list was held paramount throughout the following design and analysis that led to the
completed design of this years aircraft.

IV.A.2 Design Constraints

In terms of constraints placed on the aircrafts tail by the competition, there existed none
directly. For the Advanced Class of the competition, there was no size restriction placed on aircraft,
meaning the empennage could technically be as long or as short as was necessary. Realistically, the
team understood that this was impractical, and that an efficient size of the section would have to be
determined during the design phase.
Furthermore, as determined by the scoring scheme dictated by the competition (see
Introduction), the planes maximum weight could be no more than 12lbs, but no less than 8lbs.
While this stipulation did not directly target the tail, the design would have to accommodate this
weight limit. Therefore, as seen in the Aircraft Weight section, a design constraint placed on the
empennage was that its weight could not exceed 1.75lbs total. Exceeding this weight would
adversely impact critical components of the finalized aircraft, such as center of gravity, due to the
long moment arm of the design.
Finally, because the team had a set dollar value associated with their budget, it was crucial
that the tail sections be cost efficient. This was the last design constraint placed on the empennage,
which meant that the least amount of material necessary would have to be chosen while still
38 | P a g e

maintaining structural stability of the design. This would also have to account for any possible error
that could occur during construction that would result in material or economic loss.

B. Preliminary Analysis
IV.B.1 Tail Configuration
The team was now prepared to begin formulating design concepts for the empennage
section of the plane. At this point, the basic shape and layout was considered. Seen in Figure 24 are
historically common tail designs that were candidates for this aircraft. Each arrangement was
analyzed in detail so that an accurate understanding of each potential design could emerge. It
should also be noted that at this point it was decided that a twin-boom layout would be used,
meaning that two supporting sections would emerge from the sides of the aircraft to support the
tail stabilizers instead of one centrally located member. This was chosen because of the nature of
the competition: dropping the payload on a target below required high stability and an area
sufficiently clear of obstructions. Thus, to keep the release of the payload unaffected by the
structure of the tail, the locations of the twin booms would create a free and open space behind the
dropping mechanism. Also, having two booms instead of one generates a larger moment of inertia
for the plane that would counteract any rolling that could occur during flight, making for the stable
release platform that was desired. After performing this analysis and that seen in the proceeding
pages, a decision matrix was generated (see Table 12) to provide a clear depiction of the ideal tail
selection for the aircraft.

39 | P a g e

Boom

Figure 24: Typical Tail Sections

The first possibility, the Traditional or Standard Tail, offered the benefit of having a
multitude of information already available regarding its design and behavior since it is one of the
most common commercial empennage layouts. This design relies on a single vertical stabilizer for
production of yawing moments, and a horizontal stabilizer located at its base to produce pitch.
Because of the plethora of information available on this structure, the traditional tail scores well in
the Design and Construction categories of the decision matrix. It also is known for having decent
stability in both the lateral and longitudinal directions. However, it suffers from being an inherently
-heavier design than other possibilities, mainly because of the structure required to support the
larger control areas. This also leads to an overall larger drag coefficient, as is reflected in the matrix.
The next design considered was a slight variation of the traditional tail, known as the T-Tail,
named for its shape. As seen in Figure 24, this design operates on the same principles as the
Traditional Tail, yet relocates the horizontal stabilizer to the upper section of the empennage.
Aircraft typically employ this design to remove the control surface from the wake and turbulent air
generated behind the wing and propeller. Because of this aspect, though, the design of the
empennage becomes more complicated. Construction, however, is just as simple as the traditional

40 | P a g e

tail would be, as are the size and drag factors. The location difference of the horizontal stabilizer,
though, does improve the lateral stability, as can be seen in the decision matrix.
The H-Tail (Twin Tail) was the next configuration that was researched. Traditionally, this
layout lends itself to a twin-boom design, mainly because of the necessity for two vertical stabilizers
instead of one. This allows for these surfaces to be located on each boom, and the horizontal
stabilizer to span the distance between them, resulting in a sound design. Therefore, the H-Tail
scored highly in the Design and Construction sections of the analysis. Also, because of the wider
layout of the empennage and subsequent larger moment of inertia, both the lateral and longitudinal
stability of an aircraft with this tail design are inherently better than those of a more traditional
style. Where this design suffers, though, is in the Size and Drag categories. This is mainly due to the
necessity of more surfaces than other tail designs, as well as more supporting structures required
to hold the tail in place during flight. Because of this, the H-Tail scored the lowest of all of the tail
configurations in these two sections.
Finally, both the V-Tail and Inverted V-Tail were analyzed. Because of their inherent
similarities, they scored similarly in the decision matrix. Both require more complex math and
physics relationships to be solved and accounted for, which is mainly due to the angled surfaces
accounting for both the pitch and yaw of the airplane. Construction also becomes very challenging
for these tail designs for the same reason: the tolerances associated with an angled tail surface are
much higher than they would be for a horizontal or vertical section. Where these tail configurations
excelled, though, is in their Size and Drag categories. V-Tails inherently produce less drag during
flight because of the decreased surface area required to achieve desired performance criteria. For
the same reason, the size of V-Tails can be much smaller than on aircraft in which the empennage is
composed of strictly horizontal and vertical areas. Therefore, both V-Tail designs scored the highest
in the Weight and Drag sections of the matrix.
With these factors in mind, the results were tabulated in a decision matrix, seen below in
Table 12. The weights for this matrix were chosen with respect to the goals defined previously for
the tail section of the aircraft. Design and Construction are both highly important to the success of
the plane at competition, and thus comprise of 55% of the total score of the tail design. Stability, as
discussed earlier, was also critical. For this reason it receives a total of 30% of the final score.
Because there was no strict limit to the weight of the tail, its category is worth the second to least of
the sections, at 10%. Finally, since empennage drag on an aircraft is typically minimal when

41 | P a g e

compared to the other components (wings, fuselage, etc.), the Realistic Drag Effects category is
weighted at the lowest of the sections, comprising 5% of the total tail score.

Table 12: Tail Configuration Decision Matrix

0.3

Lateral
Stability
0.15

Longitudinal
Stability
0.15

Size /
Weight
0.1

Realistic
Drag
0.05

Total
Score
1

1
1
1
0.8
0.8

0.9
1
1
0.8
0.8

0.9
0.9
1
1
0.9

0.7
0.7
0.6
1
1

0.8
0.8
0.7
1
1

0.88
0.845
0.945
0.81
0.82

Tail Configuration

Design

Construction

Weights Assigned:

0.25

Traditional
T Tail
H Tail
V Tail
Inverted V Tail

0.8
0.6
1
0.6
0.7

As seen in this matrix, the H-Tail configuration received the highest combined score of
0.945. This design satisfied the requirements, goals, and constraints that were set for the
empennage most effectively, and was chosen because of this. In doing further research into this
configuration once it was chosen, the team discovered that the design was in fact used in many
bomber-type aircraft from World War II (see Figure 25). These airplanes employed the H-Tail to
accomplish the task of releasing a bomb on to a target from the sky from a stable platform, which is
much the same goal that was assigned in this Aero Design competition. Thus, the choice of the HTail was further validated through historical empirical data.

42 | P a g e

Figure 25: WWII Bombing Plane Utilizing the Twin Tail Design

IV.B.2 Airfoil Selection

The next priority for the team was to select the proper airfoil for the tail sections. As
opposed to the goal of an airfoil in the wing section, a tail airfoil is not used to generate lift during
static flight conditions. Instead, the tail should only be producing lift when the aircraft is
maneuvering. Therefore, a symmetric airfoil should be chosen for the stabilizing surfaces, since
symmetric objects will not generate lift in steady conditions. With this in mind, the following table
of potential airfoil sections was generated from an online database of airfoils. All are symmetric,
with the variability occurring in thickness and maximum lift and drag coefficients.

43 | P a g e

Table 13: Airfoil Possibilities

Name

Thickness

Camber

(%)

Lift

Lift-to-

Stall Angle

Drag

Coefficient

Drag

(Deg.)

Coefficient

EH 0.0/9.0

0.627

37.7

4.5

0.0166

EH 1.0/9.0

0.709

41.3

5.5

0.0172

FX 76-100

10.1

0.861

43.1

6.5

0.0200

NACA 0011

11

0.923

43.6

0.0212

EPPLER 472

12.1

0.999

47

0.0213

GOE 459

12.7

0.972

43.1

6.5

0.0226

RAF 27

9.8

0.806

35.2

4.5

0.0229

FX 76-120

12.1

0.963

41.9

0.0230

J5012 12%

12

0.939

39.8

7.5

0.0236

N-12

10.5

0.2

0.879

30.7

0.0286

RAF 30

12.6

0.967

33.3

4.5

0.0290

RAF 30 MOD

7.6

0.696

20.2

0.0345

As seen in Table 13, there were many factors to consider when choosing the correct airfoil
for the tail sections. The team had to ensure that the section was thick enough to house necessary
components like servomotors, but also wanted to choose an efficient and low-drag shape. Thus, the
FX 76-100 Airfoil was chosen, since it offered a compromise between thickness (10.1%) and drag
(0.02) that was acceptable for the teams priorities. This section would be used for both the
horizontal and vertical fins to ensure uniformity of design. The shape of the foil can be seen in
Figure 26.

Figure 26: FX 76-100 Airfoil Section

44 | P a g e

IV.B.3 Tail Arm and Areas

After selecting the appropriate airfoil section, the next step in the empennage design was
determining the optimal tail length. Since the tail surfaces roles are to generate moments about the
aircrafts center of gravity, the tail arm is clearly a critical component of a planes design. In general,
longer arms decrease the size of the tail needed, but add the potential for bending or flexing of the
system during flight. Shorter tails require larger tail surface areas, but can be made rigid much
more easily. Choosing the correct tail length becomes an optimization problem, and one that is
highlighted by Sadraey (2013) in his aircraft design text. In this, he relates the tail arm length to
other components of the aircraft such as the wing area (Sw) and chord (MAC), fuselage diameter
(Df) and shape (K), and a parameter known as the tail volume coefficient (VH). This last value must
be chosen by the designer, and essentially describes how large the tail surfaces will be. Aircraft that
are designed for transportation should have larger volume coefficients, but those designed for
maneuverability and speed should have lower values. Thus, using Sadraeys relation ( 1 ) and a list
of potential volume coefficients, Table 14 of potential tail arms (l) was compiled.
4

(1)

Table 14: Potential Tail Arms

Vh

Opt. Tail Arm (ft)

0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8

4.471
4.689
4.897
5.097
5.290
5.475
5.655

Using this table, it was seen that as the tail volume coefficient increases, the optimal tail arm
length also increases. After performing basic research into volume coefficients, and taking Sadraeys
advice on sizing, a horizontal volume coefficient of 0.6 was chosen to provide a stable yet efficient
tail size. As seen in the table, this related to an ideal tail arm of approximately 4.9ft. After brief
research of possible materials and stock sizes, this value was slightly shortened to 4.5ft.
From this value, the actual horizontal tail area (SH) could be computed using Sadraeys area
and volume coefficient relationship seen in ( 2 ).
45 | P a g e

 =
=

(2)

0.6 1.278 10.15

4.5
1.53 2

Furthermore, to find the actual possible dimensions of this area in terms of span (b) and
chord length (MACH), the second area relationship shown in ( 3 ) was used. This generated Table 15,
from which an ideal tail size was determined. To do this, the team prioritized an efficient aspect
ratio (AR), which relates the span to the chord length of the surface. High aspect ratios result in
very large but thin tails, whereas small aspect ratios create the opposite. To design a stable tail,
typical aspect ratios range from about 3 to 6. Therefore, using Table 15, the horizontal dimensions
were finalized.
(3)

Table 15: Potential Tail Dimensions and Aspect Ratios

bh (ft) MACh (ft) (in)

2.25
2.33
2.5
2.66
2.75
3

0.678
0.655
0.610
0.574
0.555
0.509

8.1
7.9
7.3
6.9
6.7
6.1

AR
3.32
3.56
4.10
4.64
4.96
5.90

The team chose a span of 2.5ft, with a chord length of 7.3in. This yielded an aspect ratio of
4.1, which is acceptable for the given tail parameters. Using very similar relationships as described
above for the horizontal tail section, the vertical area was also determined. The only difference with
this design was the existence of two vertical fins instead of one singular stabilizer (see Figure 24). A
vertical span of 8in per fin was calculated, with a chord length of 7.3in used again for uniformity.
The results of the preceding analyses have been tabulated in Table 16 for clarity. Furthermore, note
that the airfoil spacing along the length of the fins was decided to be no more than 3in. This was
based on previous teams experiences, as well as recommendations from the teams pilot.
46 | P a g e

Table 16: Summary of Empennage Dimensions

Component

Dimension

Tail Arm

4.5ft

Horizontal Area

1.53ft2

Horizontal Span

30in

Horizontal Chord

7.3in

Vertical Area

0.4ft2/fin

Vertical Span

8in

Vertical Chord

7.3in

IV.B.4 Control Surfaces

The last step in preliminary design of the aircrafts tail was choosing the appropriate chord
lengths of the elevator and rudders to provide effective lift potential during takeoff and in-flight
maneuvers. Again with reference to Sadraey, the following relationships in ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) were used
to determine the tail lift required as well as what he described as angle of attack effectiveness
( ). It essentially is a moment balance about the aircrafts center of gravity, where (xmg-xn) is the
moment arm of component n. A schematic can be seen in Appendix B. Using a similar process as
was described in the Wing section on aileron analysis, this effectiveness was calculated and then
compared to his figure 12.12 (Sadraey 659). An iterative method generated with Excel was utilized.

( ) + + ( ) ( ) + ( ) ( )

(4)

2
= ( + )

2
(5)

From Sadraeys chart, the effectiveness of the tail during takeoff correlated to a control
surface chord ratio of approximately 30%. To include a slight factor of safety in the design, this was
rounded up to 35%, which resulted in a chord length for the control surfaces of 2.56in. Again for
uniformity purposes, this chord length was chosen for both the rudders and the elevator. For a

47 | P a g e

complete list of the relationships and calculations used throughout this control surface sizing
process, see Appendix B.

C. First Design Iteration

With all of the preceding analyses complete, a preliminary design iteration was now
possible. This can be seen below in Figure 27. Note that in this design, the horizontal stabilizer was
located at the base of the tail. The blue sections represent the rudders and elevator.

Figure 27: First Empennage Design Iteration

48 | P a g e

D. Finalized Design
After performing further research into the effectiveness of tails subject to different flight
environments, it was discovered that placing a section of the tail within the wake of the aircraft
would inhibit its ability to control the plane. Thus, to remove the horizontal stabilizer out of the
wake of the wings and any propeller wash, it was relocated to the top of the tail section in this final
design iteration (Figure 28). Pertinent dimensions can be found in Table 16. An integrated model of
the tail with the remainder of the aircraft can be found in Appendix A. The final estimated weight is
1.008lbs.

Figure 28: Final Empennage Design Iteration

49 | P a g e

E. Materials and Budget

For similar reasons as was described in the Wing section of the report, the team chose balsa
wood, plywood, and carbon fiber as the three primary materials with which to construct the
empennage. Also, Monokote was chosen as the skin material, much like the skin on the wings and
fuselage. The balsa wood will be used for nonstructural components, such as the central airfoils in
the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, because it has a low weight. Plywood, though heavier, will be
used in structural locations such as the root and tip airfoils of the stabilizers. To keep the tail areas
together as one unit, carbon fiber spars will run the length of the stabilizers. These were chosen
once again for their excellent strength-to-weight ratio. Furthermore, two carbon fiber booms will
serve as the integration point between the tail and wings, made possible through the tail receiver
discussed earlier in the report (see Figure 18). The sizes of these members can be seen in the
budgeting table below. Also below in Figure 29 is the result of ANSYS testing that was performed on
these booms to ensure that during a worst-case scenario of takeoff loading, the deflection and
stresses present would be acceptable. This simulation verified calculations that had been
previously completed by hand.

Figure 29: ANSYS Test of Carbon Fiber Boom, Resulting in 0.57in Maximum Deflection

Table 17 below details the sizes of the materials ordered, as well as the budget plan for the tail. Sizes
chosen were based on stock material available, and the results of stress and deflection analysis
presented above.

50 | P a g e

Table 17: Materials and Approximate Budget

Component

Material

Unit Cost

Quantity

Sub-Total

Boom

Carbon Fiber (.625" OD x .515" ID x 60")

$34.99

$69.98

Main Spars

Carbon Fiber (.254" x 32.5")

$7.09

$14.18

Secondary Spars

Carbon Fiber (.18" x 32.5")

$3.99

$7.98

Middle Airfoils

Aero Light Balsa (.125" x 3" x 48")

$3.70

$7.40

Root/Tip Airfoils

45 Deg Birch Ply (.125" x 24" x 48")

$54.25

$54.25

Skin

Monokote (6' x 2.167')

$17.00

$17.00

Subtotal:

$170.79

F. Future Plans and Construction Schedule

The next steps that need to be taken towards the completion of this empennage design
mainly involve construction. The majority of the airfoil sections have been cut (see Figure 30) using
the schools laser cutter (see Appendix C for laser-cutting sketch file). The remaining sections will
be cut before the commencement of winter break, and at this point the tail can be assembled.
One final design component yet to be completed is the sizing of the servomotors that will be placed
within the tail sections to deflect the rudders and elevator. This will be accomplished using torque
analysis on the systems to reveal the necessary ratings of the motors to achieve successful and
reliable control during flight.

Figure 30: Laser Cut Tail Airfoil

51 | P a g e

V. Fuselage Design (Justin Gonzalez, ME)

A. General Fuselage Design
The purpose of the fuselage is to serve as the main integration point of each of the aircraft
components. The fuselage must be structurally stable and have the capacity to house the motor,
motor mount, fuel tank, payload, telemetry and servo wiring. The fuselage will be designed to
balance the moments from each of the components to ensure that the center of gravity is at its
desired location. The position of the center of gravity relative to the center of lift changes the flight
characteristics of the aircraft. The nomenclature, tail heavy and nose heavy, are used to define
where the center of gravity is with respect to the center of lift. Tail heavy aircrafts have highly
sensitive elevator responses. This leads to a very unstable aircraft; in addition, the aircraft is at a
greater risk to pitch too far upward, creating a stalling effect. Stalling happens when the airfoils of
the airplane are positioned at an unsuitable angle of attack such that the aircraft does not generate
enough lifting force to keep itself in flight. Stalling can lead to catastrophic failure of the aircraft;
and therefore, should not be designed to have a center of gravity aft of the center of lift. Nose heavy
aircrafts are characterized by their slow responsiveness to elevator changes. Furthermore, the
airplane will be at greater risk to land at a higher velocity which will lead to a larger impact force.
The center of lift changes throughout flight due to changes in angle of attack. This variance of center
of lift implies that the relative nose or tail heaviness also changes throughout flight. Thus, to
minimize the chance of stalling and to ensure the stability of the aircraft is maximized, the center of
gravity should be designed to be within a short range (1-3 inches) forward of the center of lift at its
intended angle of attack.
The fuselage design will also attach to the dropping mechanism which will be used to
release the 3 lb. payload. When the payload is released, a counteractive force will be applied
upward onto the aircraft. This will lift the plane upward and stability will be a critical concern in
this scenario. To maximize stability, the ideal position of the dropping mechanism is to be located
directly under the center of gravity. This design will reduce the moment, thus, increasing stability.
In terms of engine location and arrangement with regards to the fuselage, there are two
major configurations, puller and pusher. A puller configuration of the engine is generally
mounted on the front of the fuselage and generates trust by pulling the air. Puller configurations
create increased propeller wash which reduce the efficiency of the aircraft. The Pusher
configuration is generally attached to the aft of the fuselage and acts to push the air. This
configuration creates more weight in the aft of the aircraft which can lead to a tail heavy design. In
52 | P a g e

addition, the propeller clearance of the aircraft is also reduced during takeoff in this design. The
fuselage design utilizes a pusher configuration to allow for a greater size propeller to increase
thrust.

V.A.1. Design Constraints

The team designed the fuselage to adhere to each of the constraints listed in the 2015 SAE
Aero Design East and West Rules. The aircraft must not weigh more than sixty-five (65) pounds
including both fuel and payload. As discussed in the Weight Section, the fuselage was estimated to
be 17.5% of the aircrafts weight, or 1.40 lbs. The fuselage was designed to fit within this weight
budget. The advanced class features two types of payload, static and expellable. The static payload
bay must be fully enclosed and must not contribute to the structural integrity of the aircraft. In
addition, multiple payload bays are allowed. The expellable payload must weigh between 3.0003.250 lbs. and consist of sand enclosed with fabric. Furthermore, the expellable cargo cannot share
the same space as the static payload. The aircraft, including the payload, may not be made out of
lead. The fuel tank does not have to be accessible. In addition, realistic constraints, such as cost and
manufacturability, were considered in terms of material selection and the construction of the
fuselage.

B. Material Selection
The team considered cost, strength-to-weight ratio, elasticity, and manufacturability to
determine material selection. The fuselage material selection was split into three components;
fuselage structure, adhesives, and payload. The fuselage material must be able to handle all of the
loads applied to the fuselage. Common aircraft materials such as wood, metals, and carbon fiber
were considered in the selection process.
The major factor in selecting the material of the fuselage includes minimizing the weight to
achieve the maximum points in the aircraft empty weight while ensuring the fuselage is structural
enough to carry 15 lbs. of static payload. Due to this factor, the team required not only a high
strength-to-weight ratio material, but also one that was very light. Thus the team was able to justify
that metals were not suitable for the fuselage. In addition, TCNJs facilities have limited capabilities
in terms of carbon fiber fabrication. Due to the amount of fabrication that would be necessary, the
material was not further considered for the fuselage. Wood, in nature, is an orthotropic material,
which means that the wood has different properties along each orthogonal axis. As a result of the
numerous forces acting in various directions of an aircraft from takeoff to landing, the material
selected must have a high enough strength to withstand these loads. Thus various types of plywood
53 | P a g e

were analyzed. Plywood is a manufactured wood created from thin sheets of wood that are
commonly oriented in 90 and 45 increments and glued together to create a wood which attempts
to mimic isotropic material by having less variance in strength properties on each different axis.
Table 18 (Yersak 2012) shows various materials which were considered in the selection process. It
was determined that 45 birch plywood has the most effective combination of cost, strength to
weight ratio, elasticity manufacturability. The past TCNJ SAE Aero Design teams utilized 45 birch
plywood for the fuselage structure. The structure of the previous two fuselages withstood the
various loads acting on the aircraft which further provides confidence in the teams material
selection for the fuselage structure.

Table 18: Fuselage Structure - Material Selection

Material

***Modulus of Rupture (ksi)

Specific Weight

Modulus of Elasticity (ksi)

**S.T.W.

Birch Aircraft (Ply)

*8.26-16.53

*0.55-0.62

*1493.89-2016.02

26.66

Basswood (Ply)

*4.93-8.70

*0.32-0.37

*1044.27-1464.88

23.51

Balsa (Solid)

*2.17-3.63

0.13

163.89-870.22

27.92

Aluminum 6063-T6

31.03

2.7

9993.10

11.49

*Moisture content between 0-12 percent

**Max specific weight with respect to maximum modulus of rupture
***Maximum load carrying capacity of a member and acceptable criterion of strength at S.W.

The construction of a wood-based fuselage utilizes adhesives to connect the various

components together. Wood glue, Cyanoacrylate glue, and epoxy were considered in adhesive
selection. Each of the glues satisfies the strength properties necessary to hold the wood parts
together. Thus, the two major factors to determine the type of adhesive were cost and weight.
Table 19 displays the density of each of the adhesives. The Polyvinyl Acetate (Wood glue) and the
Cyanoacrylate (CA Glue) are both comparable (pre-curing) and much lighter than epoxy. However,
wood glue becomes lighter due to the nature of wood glue evaporating moisture to cure; whereas,
CA glue absorbs moisture to cure. The disadvantage of using wood glue is the increased curing time
as compared to the other two adhesives. Due to successful project scheduling, curing time was not a
concern and wood glue was chosen as the most effective adhesive.

54 | P a g e

Table 19: Adhesive Material Density

Material

Density (lb/ft^3)

Cross-linking Polyvinyl Acetate

68.07

CyanoAcrylate

65.50

Epoxy

81.16

Static payload material consideration included the density and cost of the material. A total
of 15lbs. of static payload is needed. Having a greater density will allow the fuselage static payload
bay to be designed to a smaller volume which will help reduce the overall weight of the aircraft. The
past four TCNJ teams utilized a combination of cast iron and steel. The material will be reused to
reduce the cost of the aircraft and because the densities are suitable for the application. The
densities of the two materials are shown in Table 20.
Table 20: Payload Material Density
Material

Density (lb/ft^3)

Cast Iron

~450.00

Steel

~490.00

C. Design
The design of the fuselage was an iterative process which relied heavily on the geometry of
the components which would be used for telemetry, payload, engine, landing gear, and wing. The
primary design considerations for the fuselage were strength and weight. The fuselage must be able
to hold each of these components in such a way to reduce the amount of stress acting that the
fuselage will encounter. Furthermore, the location of each of these components, the wing, and the
tail, must be taken into account to meet the proposed center of gravity location.
The teams foundation for the design of the fuselage was determined through research,
experience, and past TCNJ Aero Design models. One of the major decisions was to utilize the static
payload system of the previous teams aircraft. This system, shown in Figure 31, consists of a coldrolled steel rod which contains spring-loaded pins at the ends and removable cast iron blocks with
integrated set screws.

55 | P a g e

Figure 31: Creo Parametric: Static Payload Assembly

This assembly provides the benefit of increasing or decreasing the payload weight while
easily shifting the weight to move the center of gravity. The disadvantage of this setup is wasted
space. By having wasted space, the fuselage will be made of superfluous material which could be
reduced to save on the weight of the aircraft. The team planned to design a fuselage which had a
center of gravity slightly in front of the center of lift with the cast iron blocks concentrated on one
end of the rod. By doing so, the team proposed to decrease the length of the rod to reduce the
amount of wasted space in the fuselage.
In terms of wing placement relative to the fuselage, the three most common wing setups
are: low, mid, and high wing, shown in Figure 32. The major consideration in determining the
placement of the wing on the fuselage was due to stability concerns. Wing placements affects where
the wing is relative to the center of gravity. Wings below the center of gravity have increased
maneuverability of the aircraft; however, stability issues become a concern and vice versa for wings
above the center of gravity. A high wing setup was deemed most appropriate to ensure that the
center of gravity was below the wing to maximize stability.

Figure 32: (Left to Right) Low, Mid, and High Wing Setup

56 | P a g e

The team decided upon a tricycle configuration for the landing gear (Further Discussed in
Chapter VII). This setup employs two rear wheels and one front wheel. The optimal load on the
main landing gear is 80-95% of the weight of the aircraft. Thus ratio of the distance between the
rear and front landing gear with respect to the center of gravity was taken into account during the
design of the fuselage.
Throughout the fuselage design process a table of component weight and geometry was
produced. The telemetry components are shown in Table 21(the rest of the components are shown
in the Fuselage Appendix). Total volume for each set of components was calculated to produce a
preliminary size of the bay(s).
Table 21: Telemetry Components
Telemetry Components

Weight (lbs)

Dimensions (in)

Arduino Uno

0.062

2.953 x 2.087 x 0.591

Arduino Receiver

0.022

1.732 x 0.787 x 0.276

Battery

0.346

3.858 x 1.181 x 1.063

FPV transmitter

0.055

2.165 x 1.024 x 0.669

Telemetry Transmitter

0.033

2.756 x 1.260 x 0.276

Telemetry Recording

0.095

1.969 x 1.378 x 0.709

Camera

0.065

2.913 x 1.102 x 0.591

The preliminary fuselage design, shown in Figure 33, was developed by balancing stress
concentration, center of gravity, and component integration. The design contains two bays: a
multipurpose bay in the front of the fuselage, and a static payload bay in the middle. The design also
features brackets that connect to the wing which adheres to the modularity design concept.

Figure 33: Creo Parametric: Initial Fuselage Design

57 | P a g e

The disadvantage of this design includes wasted space in the aft of the fuselage and a heavy
bracket design. In addition, because all of the components were packed into the multipurpose bay,
the width needed to be 4 in. to accommodate all of the components. After several design iterations
and as the team progressed with the design of each of the major components, the team was able to
finalize the fuselage design, shown in Figure 34.

Figure 34: Creo Parametric: Final Fuselage Design

This design features three bays: telemetry, static payload, and fuel tank bay. By separating
these components, the fuselage was reduced in width and slightly increased in length. This reduces
the overall drag of the fuselage. The fuel tank bay is located in the front of the fuselage. Due to the
engine proposed to be configured in the front of the aircraft, the fuel tank bay location was
determined to be most beneficial in the front of the fuselage. This location reduces the amount of
fuel tubing needed which will reduce the weight of the aircraft. The telemetry and static payload
bay location were determined based upon center of gravity considerations. The static payload is
denser than the telemetry and thus the location of the static payload bay in the middle of the
fuselage was justified. The fuselage layout is shown in Figure 35.

58 | P a g e

Figure 35: Fuselage Layout

The finalized design was created to be fully integrated into the wing. The top portion of the
fuselage shares the same geometry and the wing airfoils that were selected (determined in Chapter
III).By sharing the same geometry, the fuselage will not interfere with the airflow that travels over
the wing. The disadvantage of this design includes the loss of modularity of the fuselage. However,
the amount of weight saved by reducing the bracket setup was large enough to justify this design
alteration. By integrating the fuselage to the wing, the static payload would no longer be able to be
loaded from the top of the fuselage. To solve this design issue, the floor of the fuselage was
designed to be removable. This will allow the static payload to be loaded from the bottom of the
aircraft.
In addition, throughout the iterations of the fuselage, structural analysis was done to
determine the stresses that will be applied to the fuselage (further discussed in Fuselage Analysis).
It was determined that there was minimal stress on most of the fuselage side panel; therefore, to
save weight, cutouts in the fuselage were created. Most of the cutouts resemble trusses. Trussing
maximizes the strength to weight ratio of the aircraft and was therefore the most appropriate
cutout geometry.
The final dimensions of the fuselage were as follows: the overall length of the fuselage was
25.27 in. The height of the fuselage is 4.88 in. and the width is 3 in. In addition, the estimated weight
of the fuselage (excluding glue) was 0.92 lbs. (analysis shown in the Fuselage Appendix) which is
under the proposed weight budget. The telemetry bay area is 6.75 in. by 2.75 in. which was verified
to sufficient while reducing the amount of wasted space by creating a model of each of the

59 | P a g e

components within the bay, shown in Figure 36. The telemetry components will be placed from the
top of the fuselage and Velcro will be used to reduce the risk of the components shifting.

Figure 36: Telemetry Bay (Refer to Table 21 for color- coded components)

The static payload bay features a 2.75 in. by 7.625 in. by 4 in. dimensioned volume which
allows the static payload to be removable from the bottom of the fuselage. The static payload will
be secured through the use of spring loaded pins that are to be inserted into the static payload walls
as visible in Figure 34. The static payload bay was designed to carry much greater than the optimal
payload weight, 15lbs to ensure structural integrity during impact.

In addition, a ballast

dimensioned at 2.75 in. by 2.25 in. by 0.875 in., shown in Figure 5, has the capability to carry 1.25
lbs. of cast iron if a center of gravity correction is needed. The fuel tank bay contains the both the
tank and the tubing for the engine. The dimensions of the bay are 2.75 in. by 2.25 in. by 5.125 in.
Velcro will be used to secure the fuel tank to the fuselage if necessary.
The wing fastens to the fuselage through the two spar holes shown in Figure 35. The spars
will be inserted into the holes and will be glued permanently using epoxy. Two O-rings will also be
attached to the spar holes to increase the strength by increasing the thickness of a critical stress
point. The deployable payload dropping mechanism will be attached to bottom of the static payload
floor. Wood glue and gussets will be used to secure the mechanism to the fuselage. The landing gear
attaches to the fuselage by sliding the rear landing gear into the slot and securing it through the
screws and bolts. In addition, the motor mount and engine will be fixed onto the engine firewall
shown in Figure 35. The fuselage will be coated in Monokote which will help reduce the friction of
the aircraft as air travels along fuselage.

60 | P a g e

D. Fuselage Analysis
After the finalized fuselage was designed, structural and aerodynamic analysis was
performed on the fuselage. Stress, deformation, and drag were the critical topics of analysis. The
fuselage was assumed to generate no lift; therefore, lift calculations were not performed.

V.D.1. Structural Analysis

The fuselage was designed in Creo Parametric 1.0 and imported into ANSYS Workbench to
perform finite element analysis for stress and deformation. Two critical points during the flight of
the aircraft were analyzed within ANSYS, the in-flight and landing loading conditions. It was
imperative that the design be both structurally sound in both cases to ensure the aircraft will not
fail. The in-flight frame is characterized by the majority of the weight acting upon the spar holes of
the fuselage. To reduce calculation time, finite element analysis was performed on one side panel of
the fuselage and loads with normal loads being applied to one side panel (creating 2x load factor of
safety).

Figure 37: ANSYS Verification: Side Panel - In-Flight

Figure 37 displays the Von-Mises stress analysis of the fuselage in-flight. The stress
concentration was around the larger spar and along the corners of the static payload bay trussing.
The maximum stress of the in-flight frame was 582 psi.

61 | P a g e

Figure 38: ANSYS Verification Side Panel - 2x Impact Loading - 100% of Load on Rear Landing Gear Hole

Figure 39: ANSYS Verification: Side Panel - 2x Impact Loading - 80% Front Landing Gear / 20% Rear Landing Gear

In addition, landing analysis was done assuming 200% of the planes weight on impact. This
is shown in Figures 38 and 39 for each case. Based upon the structural analysis of the fuselage, it
was determined that 1/8 birch plywood would be the optimal stock thickness. The birch plywood
strength properties are shown Table 22 below for varying thicknesses of the material.

62 | P a g e

Table 22: Birch Plywood Strength Properties

63 | P a g e

V.D.2. Aerodynamic Analysis

Parasitic drag analysis was conducted on the fuselage. Parasitic drag occurs as a results of a
solid object traversing through a fluid and is essentially a combination of form drag and skin
friction. Parasitic drag is calculated using Equation 12.
2
= 0.5 inf

Equation 12

Where is the fluid density, Sref is the reference surface area, Uinf is aircraft velocity and CD
is the zero lift drag coefficient.
In order to determine the parasitic drag calculation, an assumption of the aircraft velocity
must be determined. Based upon the velocity needed to generate enough lift to keep the aircraft
suspended, determined in the Wing section, an aircraft velocity was determined to be 47.08. Using
the velocity, the Reynolds number was calculated using Equation 13.
= /

Equation 13

Where L is the total length of the fuselage, which was previously stated as 25.27 and is the
kinematic viscosity of the fluid, which in this case, is air. After calculating the Reynolds number, the
skin coefficient of friction was determined based upon a function of the Reynolds number graphed
in Bertin (2014).
The fineness ratio, which is the ratio of the length to the diameter of the fuselage, L/D, was
then calculated and used to determine the body form factor, K based upon an available chart in
Bertin (2014). These values were used to determine the coefficient of drag defined as:

Equation 14

The coefficient of drag and the previously calculated values were plugged into Equation 12
and the total parasitic drag force acting on the fuselage was 0.55 lbs. A full spreadsheet of each of
the calculated values is available in the appendix.

V.D.3. Center of Gravity Analysis

Center of gravity analysis was conducted on the whole aircraft. This was done through the Creo
Parametric 1.0 software, where density values of each component were input into the software. The
proposed location of the center of gravity was based on research of remote controlled aircrafts, and
our pilots recommendations of his preferred flight conditions. The center of gravity was
64 | P a g e

determined to be optimal, at a few inches in front of the center of lift. The analysis was taken at two
instances, both with and without the ballast in use. This comparison is shown in Figure 40.

Figure 40: Center of Gravity (Black Crosshair in Figure) of Aircraft Without (left) and With (right) Ballast

As shown above, the center of gravity without the ballast, is about two inches forward of the
center of lift (represented by the blue arrow in the figure), which satisfies the proposed location.
The center of gravity was determined assuming glue and Monokote to be negligible. However, the
ballast was inserted, if after construction, the center of gravity tends to be closer to the center of lift
than determined through Creo. The ballast is essentially a second static payload bay; therefore, it
will replace the small payload block within the main static payload bay. This reduces the need for
additional weight if the center of gravity must be moved. In addition, analysis was conducted to
determine the center of gravity both before and after the expellable cargo was released. This is
shown in Figure 41 below.

Figure 41: Center of Gravity (Black Crosshair in Figure) of Aircraft without Expellable Cargo

65 | P a g e

Because the dropping mechanism and expellable cargo are directly below the center of
gravity, the release of the cargo only shifts the center of gravity slightly upward, as expected.

E. Current and Future Plans

The fuselage is currently sanded and glued together. Gussets still need to be glued on to increase
the surface area of critical components. In addition, Monokote still needs to be applied. Once the
fuselage is fully constructed, the team plans to do a physical test of weight and center of gravity
analysis. The current stage of the fuselage and static payload are shown below.

Figure 42: Current Fuselage

Figure 43: Current Cast Iron Blocks

66 | P a g e

VI. Engine (Jonathan Wang, ME)

A. Restrictions:
Section 5.1.7 of the 2015 Aero Design Rules states:
Advanced Class aircraft must be solely powered by internal combustion, reciprocating
engines. The common-use displacement will be used to determine displacement, i.e. the advertised
displacement.

The total displacement may not exceed .46 cubic inches.

Advanced Class aircraft are not limited to the number of engines.

No changes to the internal displacement of the engine(s) will be allowed.

No restriction to the make and model of the engine(s).

B. Engine Selection:
The main design choice from the requirements mandates by the competition rules is
whether to us a single engine or multiple engines. The use of a single engine was chosen because of
simplicity. Using two or more engines adds complexity and also adds weight. When selecting what
size engine to use, the maximum displacement allowed by the competition rules (0.46 cu. in) was
used to maximize power output. The three engine models that were considered are listed in Table
23.
Table 23: Engine Considerations

Engine
Price
Weight with muffler (g)
Power (hp at 16000
rpm)

O.S. 46AX II
ABL

Thunder Tiger PRO

.46

$150.00
486.00

$120.00
464.50

1.67

1.60

Jett BSE .46

R/C
$315.00
487.60

The .46 Jett BSE Signature Series engine was chosen because it is tested by the
manufacturer to make sure it meets performance specifications before it is shipped. The muffler
that comes with the engine is also pre-tuned. In addition, the manufacturer specifies exactly which
propeller size and fuel type to use. Lastly, the Jett BSE Engine was believed to have the highest
engine output and deliver the highest thrust. Even though the Jett engine cost more than two times
67 | P a g e

as much as the O.S. engine, the amount of money and time that would be needed to test and tune the
other engines along with the high engine output make the Jett engine the best choice. The
manufacturer specifications are shown below in Table 24.
Table 24: Jett BSE Engine Manufacturer Specifications

Engine
BSE .46 R/C
with muffler

Type
AAC

RPM
16,500

PROP
10x6

WEIGHT
17.2 g

PRICE
$315.00

C. Testing:
The purpose of testing the engines performance is to validate the assumed thrust used to
calculate lift. It is also important that the students familiarize themselves with how the engine
works and troubleshooting problems before the competition.
In order to test the engine, it will be mounted to the test stand shown below in Figure 44.
The test stand contains a mount for the engine connected to a force meter. The engine will be
tested for performance with the recommended 10x6 propeller. The static force curve was
generated by measuring thrust generated by the engine at different rotational speeds and is shown
in Figure 45.

c
a

Figure 44: Engine test stand. (a) Engine Mount, (b) Jett .46 BSE Signature Engine, (c) Tettra bubbleless fuel tank, (d) force
meter

68 | P a g e

10x6 Propeller Static Force Curve

7

y = 0.0007x - 4.4588
R = 0.9786

Lbf

5
4
Force (lbs)

Linear (Force (lbs))

2
1
0
9

10

11

12

13

14

Propeller RPM

15

16

17

Thousands

Figure 45: Static force curve for 10x6 propeller.

The thrust from the engine can be approximated by a linear function of RPM. The engine
may not have reached full rpm during testing because it was tested on a snowy day and the
humidity and temperature could have affected the engine performance. The maximum thrust from
the engine was 6.47 lbf, but by extrapolating to an rpm of 16,500, which is the manufacturers
guarantee, the engine would output 7.09 lbf.
In order to measure the dynamic force curve, the engine will be tested again with a highspeed fan blowing into it. The wind speed was measured to be approximately 25 ft/s. Lastly, the
engine will be tested for fuel consumption by weighing the fuel tank before and after running the
engine for 1 minute at 8000 rpm to maximum rpm in increments of 2000 rpm.

D. Accessories:
VI.D.1 Engine Mount
A back plate mount was purchased from Jett Engineering to complement the engine. The
back plate of the engine is removed and replaced by the back plate mount that is attached directly
to the firewall. This makes it harder to install the engine, but is much lighter compared to the
standard beam mount we used for testing the engine.

69 | P a g e

VI.D.2 Fuel Tank

A bladder tank was purchased from Tettra to prevent the fuel from foaming. This saves
space in the fuselage because no vibration dampening is needed for the fuel tank. In a regular tank,
vibrations will cause the fuel to foam which will stop the engine. Another reason the bladder tank
was chosen is because it can use almost all of the fuel in the tank. As the bladder contracts, it
squeezes the fuel into the tubing. In a regular tank, the some of the fuel sits on the bottom of the
tank and cannot be used. The fuel tank that was purchased holds 8.5 ounces of fuel.

70 | P a g e

VII. Landing Gear (Jonathan Wang, ME)

A. Restrictions
There are no restrictions regarding landing gear in the official competition rules. Additionally, it
is explicitly stated in the rules that the use of standard model aircraft landing gear is allowed. In
order to decide whether to purchase a standard landing gear or design one, the following design
constraints needed to be considered:

Ground Clearance the lowest point of the aircraft must not be touching the ground.

Steering the aircraft should be able to steer during taxi and landing

Take-off rotation the aft fuselage and tail should not touch the ground during takeoff.

Ground stability the aircraft should not tip over during a sharp turn or crosswind

Static and Dynamic loading the landing gear should be able to function in static and
dynamic loading.

In order to address these design constraints, the first consideration is the configuration of the
wheels.

B. Configuration
Planes have different configurations of wheels for landing gear. A decision matrix was
created to decide between five different wheel setups shown in Figure 46 below: single main,
bicycle, tail-gear, nose-gear, and quadricycle.

Figure 46: Landing gear configurations

71 | P a g e

Table 25: Wheel Configuration Decision Matrix

CONFIGURATION

Weight Single Main Bicycle Tail-gear Nose-gear Quadricycle

Cost
Aircraft weight
Manufacturability
Takeoff/Landing
Stability on ground
Stability during taxi
Total

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1

9
3
3
3
1
2
3.9

7
4
4
4
2
3
4.3

6
6
5
6
7
1
5.4

4
7
7
10
9
8
7.3

2
9
9
5
10
10
7

Based on the decision matrix in Table 25, the nose-gear was chosen.
Another consideration is whether or not to make the landing gear retractable. Table 26
compares the properties of fixed landing gear and retractable landing gear. The fixed landing gear
was chosen mainly because it is cheaper and lighter.
Table 26: Fixed vs Retractable Landing Gear

FIXED/RETRACT

Fixed

Retractable

Cost

Cheaper

More Expensive

Weight

Lighter

Heavier

Design

Easier to Design

Harder to Design

Manufacturing

Easier to Manufacture

Harder to Manufacture

Maintenance

Easier to Maintain

Harder to Maintain

Drag

More Drag

Less Drag

Aircraft performance

Lower Performance

Higher Performance

Longitudinal stability

More Stable

Less Stable

Storing bay

Not Required

Required

Retraction system

Not Required

Required

aircraft structure

Uninterrupted

Needs Reinforcement

C. Landing Gear Height

One of the parameters when designing landing gear is the landing gear height and affects
the ground clearance and take-off rotation as well as the ground stability of the aircraft. MLG:
6.1875, 10.75, LG to drop: 3.535+1.2764

VII.C.1 Ground Clearance

According to the aircraft configuration, the lowest point of the aircraft is either the tip of the
propeller or the bottom of the humanitarian aid package. It was determined that the lowest point of
72 | P a g e

the aircraft was in fact the humanitarian aid package, which was at a distance of 4.81 in. from the
landing gear mounting point. In order to have a minimum of 1 in. clearance, the landing gear must
be at least 5.8 in high.

VII.C.2 Take-off Rotation

In order to take off without the back of the fuselage touching the ground, the minimum
height found from the ground clearance requirement was first checked to see if the height needed
to be increased. However, it was clear that the tail would touch the ground before the fuselage. This
angle was analyzed to be 8.88 degrees, which is greater than our takeoff angle.

VII.C.3 Ground Stability

Ground stability was determined to be insignificant because there is no required turning
radius and the amount of turning needed at the competition is negligible. Furthermore, the plane
will be set up to takeoff into the wind, so the crosswind will be negligible.

D. Wheel Base
In addition to the height of the landing gear, the wheel base must also be considered. The
wheel base is defined by B in Figure 47. Bn and Bm are defined as the horizontal distance from the
center of gravity to the nose and main wheels respectively. In standard aircraft manuals, the nose
gear must take between 5% to 20% of the load (the main gear should take 80% to 95%).

Figure 47: Wheel Base

Using a total aircraft weight of 26 lbs and the equations below, the load on the aircraft landing gears
were calculated in Table 27.
73 | P a g e

Table 27: Wheel Base Dimensions for Straight Landing Gear

Wheel
Base
Main
Nose
Total

B
(in.)
3.00
13.66
16.66

%
load
18.01
81.99
1

Static Load
(lbs)
4.68
21.32
26

Dynamic Load
(lbs)
0 (no braking)
3.36
3.36

Total Load
(lbs)
4.68
24.70
29.36

While this landing gear design meets the weight distribution requirements, it is very close
to the maximum amount of load for the nose landing gear. Since the center of gravity can only be
obtained through modeling until the actual aircraft is built, the main landing gear was redesigned to
have a slight forward canter. The dimensions for the redesigned landing gear wheel base are shown
below in Table 28.

Table 28: Wheel Base Dimensions for Cantered Landing Gear

Wheel
Base
Main
Nose
Total

B
(in.)
1.85
13.65
15.5

%
load
11.94
88.06
1

Static Load
(lbs)
3.10
22.90
26

Dynamic Load
(lbs)
0 (no braking)
3.61
3.61

Total Load
(lbs)
3.10
26.51
29.61

The redesigned landing gear sits right in the middle of the acceptable weight distribution. This
allows for a larger error in the preliminary CG analysis.

E. Wheel Track
In order to prevent the aircraft from overturning, standard aircraft design books define an
angle ot as the overturn angle. As a rule of thumb, ot 25. Using the Hcg = 7 and an overturn
angle of 37.5, a wheel track of 10.75 was determined.

74 | P a g e

Figure 48: Wheel Track

75 | P a g e

F. Main Landing Gear

VII.F.1 Attachment
In order to save weight, the main landing gear is designed so that it is attached to the
fuselage. The other option is to have two struts coming down from the wings. This option would
add more weight because the wings would have to be designed to carry a much higher load. This
would require a thicker wing spar which would increase the weight across the whole span of the
plane. Furthermore, the struts would have to provide some shock absorption. Attaching the landing
gear to the fuselage only requires a small part of the fuselage to be reinforced as opposed to the
entire spar. The landing gear will also act as a solid spring to give some shock absorption for
landing.

VII.F.2 Design
Initially the landing gear was designed to be made from 6061-T6 aluminum with a thickness
of 1/8 and finite element analysis was run using ANSYS. The top plate was fixed and 25 lbs of force
was applied to each axle giving it a safety factor of close to 2. The maximum stress was 40,708 psi
which is above 6061-T6s yield stress of 35,000 psi. The stress distribution is shown below in
Figure 49.

Figure 49: Main Landing Gear Equivalent Stress: 1/8" Thickness

76 | P a g e

After increasing the thickness to 3/16, the analysis was run again yielding a maximum stress of
18,058 psi in Figure 50, giving this design a total safety factor of close to 4.

Figure 50: Main Landing Gear Equivalent Stress: 3/16" Thickness

In order to decrease the weight, holes were cut out of the landing gear on the top plate since
there were no appreciable stresses there. The redesigned landing gear was analyzed for equivalent
stress and gave a maximum stress of 16,342 psi as shown in Figure 51.

Figure 51: Main Landing Gear Equivalent Stress: 3/16" Thickness with cutouts

77 | P a g e

The maximum stress is lower than the 3/16 thickness without cutouts because the design
is cantered forward which gives it a bending moment. This is also why the stress is concentrated at
the top in the front where the landing gear attaches to the fuselage. The cutouts relieve some of this
bending stress thereby decreasing the maximum stress. The total safety factor for this design is
approximately 4. The total deformation for this design is 0.0748 inches as shown in Figure 52,
which is negligible.

Figure 52: Main Landing Gear Total Deformation: 3/16" Thickness with cutouts

78 | P a g e

G. Main Landing Gear Wheels

The wheels for the main landing gear are designed to be made out of aluminum. Aluminum has
a low rolling resistance and a high strength to weight ratio. The maximum stress on the wheel,
when applying a 25 lb load, is only 5347 psi giving it a safety factor of 6.5. The main landing gear
wheel dimensions are shown in Figure 53 below. Each wheel axle will have two stainless steel ball
bearings to further decrease resistance.

Figure 53: Main Landing Gear Wheel Dimensions

79 | P a g e

H. Nose Landing Gear

The two requirements for the nose landing gear are that it must be able to support the static
and dynamic loading and have steering capabilities.

VII.H.1 Nose Strut

The force was calculated to be just under 3 pounds and a standard nose strut was
purchased with an adjustable height. The total height is approximately 8.375 from the axle of the
nose wheel to the ceiling of the fuselage. The RF36J nose strut from Fults Landing Gear is adjustable
from 7.375 to 10.375, which is suitable for our needs. The manufacturer specifications are shown
below in Figure 54 and Table 7.

Table 29: Nose Landing Gear Manufacturer Specifications

(A)
Length

(A)
Wire
Size

(B)
(B)
Length Wire
Size

Wheel Size
& (w)width

Engine
Size

3" to
6"

5/32"

4
3/8"

up to 4.5"
(h)
1
3/8"(w)

.40 to
1.2

7/32"

Figure 54: Nose Landing Gear

VII.H.2 Nose Wheel

For the nose wheel, two materials were considered: aluminum and rubber foam. The rubber
foam wheels were chosen because they are less dense and can provide more contact area thereby
increasing the friction which allows the aircraft to turn during steering. A 1.75 wheel was chosen
because it is small to decrease the drag, but large enough to roll easily for take-off. Furthermore, it
is only taking 3.1 pounds of load (Table 28), so it will not deflect.

80 | P a g e

VIII. Dropping Mechanism (Jonathan Wang, ME)

The dropping mechanism drops the humanitarian aid package and is attached to the bottom
panel of the fuselage.

A. Design Constraints
There are official competition rules regarding how the three-pound humanitarian aid
package will be dropped. However, it is important that the drop mechanism can support the static
and dynamic loading of the package. It is also important to make sure the package does not shift
during flight and is released consistently for every drop.

B. Design
Using 90 lb/ft3 as the density of sand, the total volume of the humanitarian aid package was
calculated to be 57.6 in3. In order to make the fuselage smaller and lighter, the package is designed
to be externally mounted below the fuselage. To make it as aerodynamic as possible, while still
being easy to manufacture, a cylinder shape was chosen and different cylinder lengths with
corresponding diameters were tabulated. In order to maintain enough clearance for the landing
gear and have enough clearance for the camera in the front of the fuselage while still being able to
adjust the center of gravity if necessary, a length of 10 inches was chosen.
The dropping mechanism was designed with two points of attachment 5 inches apart to
create the minimum deflection across the package. It is comprised of two sets of brackets that serve
as the attachment points with a slider in an encasing mounted to the fuselage. The encasing has a
slot on the side wall for a servo attachment. The final design is shown below in Figure 55.

Figure 55: Drop Mechanism with Package

81 | P a g e

VIII.B.1 Material Selection

The materials that were considered for the drop mechanism were dense balsa and plywood.
Plywood was chosen because the angles on the sliding mechanism are very weak due to the
directionality of the grain. This is counteracted by the 1/8 inch 45 birch plywood.

VIII.B.2 Construction
The pieces of the drop mechanism were cut out on the laser cutter to ensure that all the
pieces fit together perfectly to make the most accurate and consistent drop. The laser cutouts are
shown below in Figure 56.

Figure 56: Laser cutouts for drop mechanism

82 | P a g e

IX. Telemetry (Cody DAmbrosio, ECE)

A. Introduction
In previous years, The College of New Jersey has participated in the Regular Class SAE Aero
Design Competition. This year marks the first time in its history that the college will enter the
Advanced Class competition. The distinguishing factors between the classes are the integration of a
Data Acquisition System (DAS) and a payload dropping mechanism. Whereas previously, a team's
score depended primarily on how much weight the plane could carry, the scoring now focuses on
the accuracy of the cargo drop. The DAS can be broken down into four main elements: telemetry
recording, first-person view video streaming, the physical dropping mechanism, and software
integrating these elements. Each of these subsystems has a set of specifications, as per the SAE
competition rules.

B. Specifications
The goal of the advanced class planes is to drop a cargo as close as possible to a target on
the ground. The target in this case will be an orange cone, which will be located in the middle of an
open field. The aircraft will have two chances to fly over the cone and initiate the drop. This allows
for a correction factor, should the team decide on the first flyover that the aircraft is not properly
lined up with the target. For the flight to count, the payload must land within a 50ft radius from the
cone. The distance is measured from the payload's final resting place, as opposed to its initial point
of contact with the ground. The closer the object lands to the cone, the higher the score.
Additionally, the plane's altitude at the time of the drop must be a minimum of 100ft. There will be
an SAE official at the site measuring the aircraft's altitude to ensure that this requirement is met.

IX.B.1 Telemetry Recording

The telemetry system on board the aircraft is expected to read data in real time. The
minimum requirement is to record the plane's altitude. This reading must be visible from a ground
station at the competition, and will be monitored by both a secondary pilot (a team member), as
well as an SAE official. The altitude is to be measured in feet with a minimum precision of 1ft. Not
only must it provide real time altitude readings, but it must be able to record the altitude at the time
of the payload drop. Furthermore, the frequency of the wireless transmission may not be 2.4GHz.
This is because the controller used by the primary pilot to operate the aircraft operates at 2.4GHz.
Overlapping frequencies could potentially cause interference with the primary controller. Finally,
the competition rules state that the telemetry system must have an arming/reset switch. This is to
83 | P a g e

ensure that the wireless transmissions will not be in operation during other team's flights, as it
could interfere with their systems.

IX.B.2 First Person View

The aircraft is required to have some sort of camera mounted to it, which will allow for a
team member at the ground station to have a first-person view (FPV) of the flight. Only a secondary
pilot may view the video feed. The primary pilot is to fly visually. The team member viewing the
stream may communicate with the primary pilot in order to coordinate altitude and lining up the
aircraft with the dropping location. Similarly to the telemetry system, the camera transmitter and
receiver may not operate at 2.4GHz.

IX.B.3 Cargo Dropping Device

The initiator for the cargo drop, as outlined in the SAE competition rules, may not be
operated by the primary pilot. The secondary team member, who will be watching the FPV video,
will be the one to initiate the dropping sequence. As opposed to the video stream and the telemetry,
the dropping transmitter and receiver are required to operate at 2.4GHz. The competition requires
all transmissions sent to the plane to be on that channel, including the servo motors used to control
the aircraft's flight. Having outlined the requirements for these pieces of the advanced class
competition, it is possible to begin designing and implementing the appropriate solution.

C. Telemetry Recording
IX.C.1 Goals of Design
As the competition rules outlined, the minimum requirement for the telemetry component
is for the aircraft's altitude to be recorded in real time. In addition to this, it is beneficial for the DAS
to acquire the plane's airspeed in real time. Since the flight score depends primarily on the accuracy
of the cargo drop, it is imperative to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the most precise
drop possible. In order to accurately calculate where the cargo will land once released from the
aircraft, having a reading of the airspeed is required. Additionally, as with other aspects of the
plane, keeping weight as low as possible is crucial, both to the competition score and to the overall
functionality of the aircraft.

IX.C.2 Choosing a Design

To record telemetry in real time on an aircraft, there are several widely used options. The
first possibility is to use a laser sight. This would provide the most accurate readings for the
84 | P a g e

altitude, with precision as high as 1cm. Since the altitude will be used for timing when to initiate the
cargo's drop, this was an important benefit. However, using a laser sight would measure altitude
only, meaning an entirely separate system would be needed to record the plane's velocity.
Furthermore, compared to other solutions, the laser sight tended to be larger and heavier. This
would mean more of the weight budget for the aircraft would need to be allocated to the telemetry
system, as well as a larger fuselage to house the system. A final factor is its overall integration. A
majority of laser sights commercially available are not readily equipped to handle wireless data
transmission. In order to incorporate it effectively, a custom transmission unit would need to be
designed, which would increase cost and time to production.
A second viable option is the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS). This worldwide
radio-navigation system is formed from a constellation of 24 satellites. Using these satellites, it is
possible to obtain relative locations for anything equipped with a GPS. The integration of such a
system on the aircraft would be able to provide both altitude and airspeed readings at the ground
station. Because of their popularity in today's world, they are commercially available and are easy
to integrate with most systems. Similarly, there is a lot of documentation on them that is publicly
available, which would reduce expected production times. The fallbacks of GPS lies primarily on
their lack of accuracy. They are predominantly used in much larger systems, where precision
accuracy is not needed. For example, a common use is in mapping devices that are popular amongst
drivers. It can provide real time directions from one point to another. They are even used in larger
commercial aircrafts. However, in these examples, it is acceptable to have a larger accuracy
tolerance. For the smaller aircraft that will be used in the SAE competition, the inaccuracies that a
GPS device can produce can have a major impact on a team's score. Since the altitude and dropping
distances are relatively small, even being off by several feet can be drastic. Using GPS to record by
the altitude and the airspeed would only compound the error.
The final methodology for recording telemetry is the measurement of pressure differentials.
This is done with the use of a pitot tube. This pressure measurement instrument can measure the
velocity of flowing fluids, which is air in this case. Using a modified version, known as the pitotstatic tube, it is possible to measure both the aircraft's speed and altitude. This works by having two
ports. The side ports will measure the static air pressure, whereas the main tube measures the
moving air pressure. Due to the change in pressure at higher altitudes, it is possible to calculate the
aircraft's height based on the change in static pressure seen in the pitot tube. Though not as
accurate as a laser sight, it is much more accurate than the GPS. Furthermore, by having the
airspeed and altitude measurements in one system, it reduces the overall size and weight of the
85 | P a g e

telemetry components. It also decreases the time required to construct the system. Given its high
accuracy and low weight, which are the two primary considerations for the design, the pitot tube is
the optimal choice.

IX.C.3 Designing the System

The telemetry design utilized in the final product will measure pressure differentials to
record the aircraft's altitude and velocity. The system used will be the Seagull Wireless Telemetry
System by EagleTree. This is based on a number of factors. First, the included aluminum/brass pitot
tube, which measures both flowing and static air pressures, is lightweight compared to similar
tubes, weighing only 3 grams. The tube is also small: 80mm long and 4mm in diameter. This tube is
to be mounted in the wing of the plane facing in the same direction as the aircraft's flight. It must
extend approximately 3 inches from the end of the wing to allow proper airflow around the static
port. It also must be lined up as straight and level as possible, to ensure the air flowing into the tube
is read accurately. The EagleTree system includes 3ft of silicon tubing, which will attach to the pitot
tube.
The silicon tubes will transmit the pressure readings to the EagleTree Data Recorder. This
recorder only weights 43 grams, and is 50x35x18mm. This allow it to fit easily into the fuselage of
the plane. Also included in the system is a wireless transmitter and receiver for real time data
readings. This operates at 900MHz, which corresponds to the competition's rules. At the ground
station, there will be a laptop. This will read the telemetry data, as well as the video feed from the
FPV system. The EagleTree system comes with software that will allow for live data displays of
altitude and airspeed on the laptop. The altitude measurements are 1ft precision, which also
corresponds to the rules outlined by SAE. The system specifications state that it can handle
altitudes up to 25,000ft, and airspeeds up to 290MPH. These are well within where the aircraft is
expected to be flying.
Final considerations include power consumption. On the aircraft will be a Turnigy 3S LiPo
battery with 2650 mAh. The battery weighs 157 grams and has dimensions of 98x30x27mm. This
provides 11.1V, and will be connected to a voltage regulator which will output 5V. This is expected
to provide power to each of the servos used to control the plane, as well as telemetry and video
components. The entire telemetry power consumption is rated at approximately 35mA and
requires a 5V input. By using this unit from EagleTree, it is possible to get accurate recordings at the
ground station's laptop in real time, while using very little power and taking up minimal space and
weight in the fuselage.
86 | P a g e

IX.C.4 Current Progress

Using the included documentation, the EagleTree system was constructed. This required the
installation of the silicon tubing onto the pitot tube, and then attaching to the data recorder. The
data recorder was connected to the 900MHz transmitter, and the receiver was connected to the
laptop. The software was installed on the laptop that will be used during the competition. Utilizing a
wind tunnel, it was possible to test the accuracy of the tube in measuring airspeed. The plane is
expected to be traveling at approximately 32mph at the time of the payload drop. The wind tunnel
was set to the same speed. The pitot tube measured the pressure and transmit it to the laptop in
real time. The values displayed on the laptop were exactly as expected and updating in real time,
demonstrating the functionality of the system.

D. First Person Camera

VI.D.1 Goals of Design
The competition states that the FPV system must be visible from a ground station by both a
secondary pilot and by an SAE official. Also, the transmitter must not operate at 2.4GHz. Other
factors to consider are how far away the plane can fly without losing the signal, picture quality, how
easily it can be mounted onto the plane, as well as minimizing weight and cost.

IX.D.2 Choosing a Design

The first component to consider is the physical camera that will be recording the video. The
camera chosen is the 1/3-inch Sony CCD Video Camera. This camera uses a quality glass lens and
can be easily connected to most transceiver modules for live video streaming. Another popular
camera available today is the GoPro camera. They are built well for durability and provide high
resolution picture quality. However, they can be very expensive, up to hundreds of dollars, and are
much heavier than the 1/3-inch Sony. For its size, the Sony camera is quite durable and provides
480p video. Though this is not the highest of quality, for the purposes of this competition, the
picture quality is not as important. One benefit is that the Sony camera provides colored video.
Since the target cone is orange, this will make it easier to see on the green background that is the
field. Furthermore, this type of camera was made specifically for FPV flight. It is built to withstand
varying atmospheric conditions that come with flight, and ensures that the picture quality is not
diluted by sunlight. The camera's vendor, HobbyKing, also provided an FPV flight video recorded
through the camera, in order to have a better understanding of the picture quality. Weighing only
29.4 grams, and with dimensions of 74x28x15mm, this camera can easily be mounted onto the
aircraft without adding much in terms of weight. As with all designs, it is important to take cost into
87 | P a g e

consideration. This specific Sony camera is a fraction of the cost of other popular models. Finally, it
draws very little current, approximately 80mA.
In order for the camera to be seen live at the ground station, it will require a transmitter
and receiver module. This design will utilize the SkyZone FPV Wireless AV Tx & Rx Set. This
includes the transmitter and receiver modules, which operate at 5.8GHz, following the
competition's rules. The system is rated for a flight range of up to 500 meters with the included
antenna, which is within where the aircraft is expected to be flying. The transmitter, which will be
on the aircraft, operates between 7V and 15V, meaning the battery can power it directly, and only
draws 150mA. The transmitter can connect to and power the camera directly. The receiver at the
ground operates at 12V. For this, a separate battery pack of AA batteries will be at the ground
station powering it. By using AA batteries, as opposed to a designated LiPo or some other power
supply, it will be easy to swap out batteries when necessary. Furthermore, the transmitter on the
plane will weigh approximately 25 grams and is dimensioned at 55x26x17mm.
The receiver output is a standard component cable, typically connected to a television or
monitor. For the competition, the video stream will be used in the software to calculate when to
drop the cargo. To do this, the video feed must be sent to the laptop at the ground station. Since the
laptop does not come with a component input, an adapter must be used to convert the component
cable to a USB input. A Keedox USB Capture Device will be used. This device comes with the
necessary drivers to install on the laptop. Using this, it is possible to pass the camera feed into the
laptop via USB. From here, it can be incorporated into the team's software.

IX.D.3 Current Progress

The first component to be tested was the Keedox Capture Device. Using a Nintendo 64, a
popular video gaming console, it was possible to test the capture device before using it with the
camera. The Nintendo's component cables were connected to the input of the capture device, and
the USB output was plugged into the laptop. As expected, the console's video could be seen on the
laptop by using the included Keedox software.
The next component to test is the camera and transmitter. The Sony 1/3-inch camera had a
positive and negative wire which was split using a Y connection, to allow a separate connection to a
battery and to a transmitter. Since the camera is to be powered directly from the transmitter, the
included wire was cut and a new connector was soldered onto it. This connector allows the camera
to be quickly attached and detached to the transmitter. The camera was connected to the
transmitter, and the transmitter connected to the LiPo battery. The transmitter and receiver
88 | P a g e

channels had to be set according to the included documentation. The receiver module was
connected to the 12V battery pack, and the AV output cable connected to the Keedox USB capture
device. The adapter was connected to the laptop just as before with the Nintendo. However, this
time the video feed was black.
To test the camera and transmitter separately, the component output cable from the
receiver was connected to a standard television monitor. As expected, the camera feed was visible
on the television monitor. When connected to the USB input of the laptop however, it would not
function. The problem turned out to be the USB input on the laptop itself. Fortunately, the laptop is
equipped with four USB inputs. The adapter was connected to a different input on the laptop and
this time the camera's video feed was visible. This demonstrated basic functionality.
In an effort to further test the camera's abilities, it was taken outside. This would allow the
team to see the effect of sun on picture quality, as well as range. Though producing a glare on the
laptop screen, the sunlight did not dilute the picture. Furthermore, it was tested at a distance of
approximately 150ft and showed no signs of interference. Having concluded this preliminary
testing, the camera is ready to be integrated with the software.

E. Dropping Trigger
IX.E.1 Goals of Design
Arguably the most important aspect of this system is the physical dropping mechanism. In
accordance with the SAE rules, this is to be activated by a secondary pilot, which will be a member
of the design team. The wireless transmission is required to operate at 2.4GHz. In order to have a
successful design, the dropping trigger must be reliable and have a quick response time. Should the
secondary pilot hit the trigger, the dropping device must activate every time without fail and within
the same amount of time.

IX.E.2 Choosing a Design

The dropping mechanism will be controlled by a general purpose servo motor. Therefore,
this design is based around controlling a servo wirelessly. To do this, an Arduino Uno R3 board will
be used. There are several benefits to this. The first is that Arduino microcontrollers are very
popular amongst both engineers and hobbyists, making it well documented. It is programmed in
the Arduino IDE and uses the C programming language. Included in the IDE are libraries specifically
designated for servo control, making it easy to operate the dropping mechanism. Similar to the
other components, the Arduino board is lightweight, approximately 28 grams, and is dimensioned
89 | P a g e

at 75x53x15mm. Though other popular models exist, such as the Raspberry Pi, the Arduino is often
easier to work with and cheaper, reducing production time.
In order for the Arduino to control the servo, it must be able to communicate in real time
with the ground station. This will be done using an nRF24L01+ transceiver module. These use
serial communication and operate at 2.4Ghz, as is required, and only weigh 5 grams. Their range is
expected to be approximately 200ft, and they cost less than two dollars each. Other modules could
have been used, such as the popular Xbee transceiver. They may have further range, but are often
heavier and more expensive. For the purposes of this design, 200ft is suitable. Also, there is an open
source library, RF24, which is used specifically for the integration of the nRF24L01 transceiver with
Arduino boards. The transceiver can be powered directly from the Arduino board, and draws 50mA
at most. The Arduino will be powered from the 3S battery and also draws very low current.
The final design will have an Arduino onboard the plane attached to a receiver, and it will be
communicating with a second Arduino at the ground station, which will have a transmitter attached
to it. The Arduino at the ground station will be powered via USB connection with the laptop. To
initiate the drop, an analog button will be used. This will connect to an analog input pin on the
ground station's Arduino. The microcontroller will be coded to read in the analog input, send a
signal to controller on the plane. The onboard Arduino will be running a code to wait for the signal
input, and then turn the servo upon receiving it.

IX.E.3 Current Progress

In order to be cost effective, team members contributed their personal Arduino boards. The
transceiver modules were attached. The pin connections for the transceivers were specified in
documentation that was included with the RF24 library. Pieces of the programs came from open
source code that was made available by the library's distributors. This was used to test the
connection between the Arduinos before attempting to control the servo. Upon testing, it was found
that the Arduino boards were not communicating as expected. Through debugging, it was
discovered that I/O pin 13 on the receiving Arduino was broken. In order to use the RF24 library,
this pin is required. A new Arduino board will be needed to replace the current one. Until it arrives,
no further progress can be made on the dropping mechanism.
Having established the expected layout for all physical components of the DAS and dropping
system, a top-level design was created (Figure 57). This schematic demonstrates which
components will be on the aircraft and the connections between them.

90 | P a g e

Figure 57: Block Diagram of System Components

F. Software
IX.F.1 Goals of Design
Having designed all the physical components of the system, the next step is to develop
software. This is not an explicit requirement of the competition, but will be crucial in improving the
team's chances of dropping the cargo within the target radius. The objective of the program is to
display the live video stream that is being recorded by the onboard camera. Additionally, the
program will overlay a red target site onto the picture, which will indicate the location on the
ground the payload would land if it were dropped at that instant. To calculate said location, the
code needs to import the altitude and airspeed measurements in real time, and use these values to
calculate where to overlay the target. The ideal video output will look similar to that seen in Figure
58 below.

91 | P a g e

Figure 58: Desired Software Output

IX.F.2 Creating the Software

Having outlined the goal of the software, the first decision was choosing which computer
language to use. Potential candidates included Java, C++, and Python. Though team members had
more experience with Java, research showed that it is not the preferred language for the capabilities
that were desired. In terms of video editing and processing, C++ and Python had libraries available
to them to simplify the process. In choosing between Python and C++, the decision to use Python
was made. The team member in charge of creating the software had equal experience in both of
these two languages, but the material required to create this software was relatively new. For this
reason, there would be a significant learning curve. Since Python is a scripting language, it is
generally easier to learn than C++. Considering its available video editing library and its ease of
learning, Python was the appropriate choice.
To write the software, the IDLE environment was used. The first task was to import the
video stream into python and display it in real time. To do this, the OpenCV library was used, which
allows the quick reading of an attached webcam and displays it in real time. Once this was
accomplished, it was tested with the camera that will be used on the plane. Although the camera
92 | P a g e

feed was visible when using the Keedox software, it was not immediately available for use in the
Python program because it was not a webcam. In order for the computer to recognize it as a
standard webcam, an additional tool was required: DVdriver. Having installed this driver, it allowed
the camera to be read as any standard webcam, and worked as expected with the software.
Now that the camera was reading and displaying properly, the team began working on basic
video overlaying. The OpenCV library also made this rather easy, allowing the drawing of simple
lines and circles on top of the video image. This was quickly implemented, with the overlay
coordinates being variables to change later.
Along with the video input, the program is also required to read in the altitude and airspeed
data in real time. Although the telemetry unit by EagleTree included software for reading and
displaying the data live, it did not allow for the data to be exported in real time. This made it
difficult to import into a custom Python program. In order to work around this, a unique solution
was realized. The recording software that EagleTree provided will be running at the same time as
the Python program, displaying the telemetry data. The Python program will essentially take
snapshots of the monitor's screen at rapid intervals. From these screenshots, it will decipher which
part of the screen is that data display, and decode the image into numeric values, which will be
stored into variables within the program. This decoding is done by analyzing individual pixel color
within the data displays.
Once the program was reading in all the necessary data, as well as displaying the live video
feed, the final component is calculating the location of the overlaid target. The first step was to
calculate the distance away from the plane the object would land in the forward direction. The
scenario was treated in two-dimensional space. It is assumed that the pilot will be flying the plane
level with a constant velocity at the time of the drop. Also, it is assumed that the plane will be lined
up with the cone (See Figure 59). Since the altitude is known and the cargo's initial velocity will be
the same as the aircrafts, the time it takes to fall can be calculated from the equation below. The
acceleration of gravity is assumed to be 32.2 ft/s. From this time, it is possible to calculate the
distance the object will travel.

93 | P a g e

Figure 59: Projectile Motion Diagram

= 0.5 2

(1)

(2)

Combining the two equations into one produced the equation below:
= ()

16.087

(3)

Here, distance and altitude are measured in feet, and airspeed is measured in feet per second.
Having this distance being calculated in real time, it was possible to overlay this data onto
the video feed. To do this, there are several variables that have to be known. The first is the angle
that the camera will be facing. For the program, the angle is measured with respect to the y-axis.
Also necessary to know is the field of view (FOV) and the resolution of the camera. It is known that
the camera height is 480 pixels. The angle the camera could view had to be measured physically.
This was done by mounting the camera flush with one wall, and marking where the video ending on
an adjacent wall. The distance between walls was measured, as well as the distance between the
points on the second wall. This can be seen in Figure 60 below. The total angle for the camera's
view was found to be approximately 22.68. This angle is relative to the base of the camera.

94 | P a g e

Figure 60: Camera FOV Measurement

After solving for these values, it was possible to convert the distance the cargo will fall from
feet to pixels. The first thing to consider is that the distance of each pixel corresponds to a different
length in feet. This is because the camera will be angled, so parts of the video that are further away
will have more feet per pixel than those that are closer. To account for this, it was necessary to
calculate how many degrees are in each pixel. This is found by dividing the camera's FOV by the
number of pixels, which is 480. This comes to approximately 0.04725/pixel.
The following calculations are derived from Figure 61 The distance from point A to the final
dropping site is tan . This distance is now to be converted into pixels. This is done by finding
the distance in feet given by each individual pixel and summing them together, which is shown
below.

95 | P a g e

Figure 61: Side View of Camera Sight

=0 [tan( + 0.04725) tan( + 0.04725( 1)] = tan (4)

The final summation value, N, is the number of pixels required. Once the left hand side will continue
increasing until the summation is equivalent to the right-hand side. This value of N will be stored
into an integer variable in the Python program and used to overlay the dropping distance onto the
video feed. These equations were implemented in software and tested using expected values for
altitude and cruising airspeed.

IX.F.3 Progressing and Testing

The software is currently ready to be tested on a physical aircraft. It is reading in the video
feed and telemetry components, performing the necessary operations to those pieces, and
displaying a video with an overlay of the dropping site on it. Though it seems to work properly
using expected values, it is impossible to gauge its accuracy until it is integrated into an actual
aircraft and used to estimate the dropping location.
Additional features were implemented in the software as well. Included is the display of the
telemetry readings for the altitude and airspeed. This allows for verification that the values the
program sees are the same as those recorded by the EagleTree software. Also, it lets the secondary
pilot see quickly if the aircraft is 100ft or higher, as per the competition rules. Another feature
added was the playing of music during the programs runtime. Though it does not add any
functional elements, it creates an exciting and enjoyable atmosphere while providing a mental
96 | P a g e

reprieve to the team members. When operating this system at the competition, it is expected to be
quite stressful on the secondary pilot. Having music playing for relaxation may help improve the
team member's timing in initiating the cargo expulsion.

G. Going Forward
The overall design for the DAS is now finalized and construction is underway. A major part
of design implementation is testing. Some basic functionality testing has been completed to ensure
the individual pieces work. The remaining function testing is dependent on the arrival of a new
Arduino microcontroller. Once this is received, future testing can begin.

IX.G.1 Continued Testing

One component that needs to be tested is the altitude measurement device. As stated
previously, the Pitot tube will measure the static pressure differences, which will be used to find the
plane's relative altitude. To test this, the telemetry components, along with the camera, are to be
mounted on a model plane. However, the team's aircraft will not be immediately ready to for flight
testing. Fortunately, the team's pilot has spare planes, which he has offered the team to use for
testing purposes. The telemetry recording components and camera will be mounted onto this plane,
and the pilot will test it in a large field. This will allow the altitude measurement system to be
tested. Additionally, the software will be running on the laptop at a ground station. This will enable
the testing of the dropping algorithm and overlay to be tested for accuracy. Once these components
are tested on the pilot's plane, they will be ready to be integrated with the team's plane once it is
ready to fly.

IX.G.2 Future Challenges

As the team moves forward in construction and testing of the aircraft and the telemetry,
there are various areas where problems could arise. One such factor is the effect wind will have on
the cargo drop. It is possible that the wind will change the speed and direction of the payload as it
falls to the ground. Right now, it has been ignored in the telemetry measurements and software
algorithms. The decision to ignore it was made based on the limited amount of time the object will
be falling. Also, the wind speeds during spring in California should not be exceptionally strong,
especially considering the relatively low altitude the aircraft will be flying. However, through
testing and validation, the team will be able to see if wind is in fact an issue long before the
competition. To correct for the wind's effects, a wind speed sensor will be set up at the ground
station, and its magnitude will be entered manually into the computer program during runtime by
the secondary pilot.
97 | P a g e

Another potential issue is latency. Though not substantial, there is a delay in various
elements of the system. The video feed is delayed by a fraction of a second, and there will be a brief
pause between the time the drop is initiated at the ground and the time the signal is received and
acted upon on the aircraft. The latency will need to be evaluated during the testing phase. Once
found, the software algorithm can be quickly adapted to incorporate this variable.
Though not a problem in design implementation, there is a potential difficulty in testing that
would arise from using a button connected to an analog pin on the Arduino board to initiate the
drop. As mentioned before, testing will be crucial for measuring accurate readings for latency and
wind effect. In order to properly measure these values, it will be necessary to take a snapshot of the
video feed with the overlay at the exact moment the drop is initiated. This screenshot is done
through a computer keystroke. However, the drop is initiated by a second button separately.
Theoretically, the secondary pilot would need to hit both the analog button and the computer key
simultaneously. This also relies on the analog button press to have the same delay every time. A
more appropriate testing environment would use the same trigger to cause the payload to drop as
well as record the video stream. For this reason, it makes sense to use a computer key to
simultaneously initiate both actions. The dilemma arises in the way the computer would interface
with the microcontroller. When connected via USB, the command being sent would be through
serial communication. This is the same communication line that will be used for transmitting the
signal to the aircraft. Serial communication does not allow for multiple command sent
simultaneously. It may be possible to work around this difficulty, but will require further research
and testing into the implementation of Arduino serial communication.
One final derailment that may occur is a minor detail that is outlined in the SAE competition
rules. The rules state that the telemetry system must have an arming/reset switch. This statement
is rather broad. One could argue that simply connecting and disconnecting the data recorder to the
plane's battery is enough of a switching system. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that telemetry
systems of aircrafts that are not flying will not interfere with those that are. If the competition
requires a physical switch to be in the system, this can simply be connected between the battery
and the data recorder. The only disadvantage is a minor increase in weight. This point will need to
be clarified before the design is finalized for the competition. Having analyzed all the potential
delays in creating the final aircraft, the team is well prepared to handle most any situation.

98 | P a g e

X. Budget
The team has the opportunity to compete in one of two SAE Aero Design competition
locations. SAE Aero Design East is located in Lakeland, FL and is competition is held on March 1315th 2015; whereas, SAE Aero Design West is in Van Nuys, California and is held on April 24-26th
2015. If the team were to attend Aero Design East, the team would drive down in one van, provided
by The College of New Jersey and would ship the plane by the van. This will alleviate the cost of gas
and shipping. Due to safe driving conditions, driving East would require seven days of lodging. On
the other hand, attending West will require the team to fly to the competition. The cost of 5 roundtrip tickets and shipping to send the plane across country was factored in. The overall cost of the
two options is shown in Table 30.
Table 30: Travel Comparison

Option

Drive East

Fly West

Airfare

$0

$425

Ground: Car + gas

$0

$200

Hotel

$2100

$840

Shipping

$0

$355

Total

$2100

$3820

The team determined, using a decision matrix shown in Table 31, that the 6 extra weeks of
design and construction time and the benefit of being able to attend Thursday and Monday classes
would outweigh the extra costs involved with travelling to the West competition.

Table 31: Travel Decision Matrix

Drive East

Fly West

Cost (0.4)

10/10

7/10

Project Time (0.5)

3/10

10/10

Travel Time (0.1)

4/10

9/10

Weighted Total

5.9/10

8.7/10

99 | P a g e

The 2015 TCNJ SAE Aero Design Teams budget was approved September 22nd. A summary
of the contents are shown in Table 32. The team proposed to travel to the West competition, based
upon the later competition date. This led to an increase in travel expenses as compared to the 2014
TCNJ Aero Design team, who traveled to Georgia by car.
Table 32: 2015 Aero Design Budget

TCNJ Aero Design 2015 - Budget

Component

Cost

Wing

$464.96

Tail

$170.79

Fuselage

$88.18

Engine

$435.94

Landing Gear

$104.12

Telemetry

$653.00

Tools

$134.26

Shipping (15%)
Materials Budget

$306.41
$2,757.66

Travel

$3,820.00

Registration

$875.00

Total Budget

$7,452.66

The full budget which contains each material purchased is shown in the appendix.

100 | P a g e

References
1. http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/search
2. http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Aileron%20Design.pdf
3. Sadraey, Mohammad H. Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. Print.
4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Steelpillow/Aircraft
5. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-materials-d_1652.html
6. http://www.titebond.com/product.aspx?id=2ef3e95d-48d2-43bc-8e1b-217a38930fa2
7. http://www.hangar-9.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HANU870

101 | P a g e

Appendix A Overall Plane Dimensions

Figure 62: Overall Plane Dimensions

102 | P a g e

Appendix B: Constants & Sample Wing Sizing Parameters

103 | P a g e

Appendix C: Tail Control Surface Relationships Provided by Sadraey

104 | P a g e

105 | P a g e

106 | P a g e

Appendix D: Laser Cutting Sketch File (Not To Scale)

107 | P a g e

Appendix E: Fuselage Appendix

Table 33: Fuselage Empty Weight Analysis

Empty Weight Analysis

Material: Birch Ply 45 Degree
SG =

~0.62

42

lbs/ft^3

Fuselage Solid Volume

Volume =

0.01962772 ft^3

Fuselage Wetted Surface Area

(in^2)
Left Side

88.3273

Right Side

88.3273

Bottom

75.3945

Top

76.6359
Total

328.685

* 1.10 (10%)

361.5535

Total (ft^2)

2.510788

Monokote
Weight

0.211 oz/ft^2
Wood Glue

Density

9.1 lbs/gal

Density

68.07 lbs/ft^3

Fuselage Weight (lbs)

Plywood

0.824364

Monokote

0.033111

Glue

-------

Removable Floor
Supports

0.06
Total

0.917475

108 | P a g e

Table 34: Fuselage Components

Fuselage Components

Weight (lbs)

Dimensions (in)

1. Telemetry (colors
correspond to figure 6)
Arduino Uno

0.062

2.953 x 2.087 x 0.591

Arduino Receiver

0.022

1.732 x 0.787 x 0.276

Battery

0.346

3.858 x 1.181 x 1.063

FPV transmitter

0.055

2.165 x 1.024 x 0.669

Telemetry Transmitter

0.033

2.756 x 1.260 x 0.276

Telemetry Recording

0.095

1.969 x 1.378 x 0.709

Camera

0.065

2.913 x 1.102 x 0.591

Sport-Jett 0.46 (@15% fuel)

N/A

N/A

Motor Mount

0.2

N/A

Propeller

N/A

10x6

Fuel Tank

N/A

2.29 x 2.13 x 4.61

2. Motor

3. Empty Weight Fuselage

(see Sheet: Empty Weight)

0.917475255

4. Misc.
Dropping Payload
Landing Gear Servo
Static Payload
Velcro
Total Weight

3.1

D = 2.753

0.055

N/A

15

3.25 x 2.50 x 7.625

N/A
19.950

109 | P a g e

Table 35: Fuselage Drag Analysis

Fuselage Wetted Surface Area (ft^2)

Left Side

0.613

Right Side

0.613

Bottom

0.524

Top

0.532
Total

2.283

Diameter (ft)

0.410

Length (ft)

2.106

Fineness ratio, L/D

5.136

Body Form Factor, K

1.275

Air Density (slugs/ft^3)

0.002

Kin. Viscosity (ft^2/s)

0.002

Est. Aircraft Speed (ft/s)

47.080

Reynolds Number
Skin Friction Coef, Cf

63962.989
0.010

Wing Planform Area

(ft^2)

10.100

Zero Lift Drag

Coefficient

0.003

Drag (lbs)

0.547

Table 36: Deployable Payload Calculations

Removable Payload Design

Density of Dry Sand: 90 lbs/ft^3
Cylindrical Case
Length (in)
Diameter (in)

10.000
2.753

110 | P a g e

Appendix F: Telemetry Appendix

A.1. Arduino Transmitter Code
/* YourDuinoStarter Example: nRF24L01 Transmit Joystick values
- WHAT IT DOES: Reads Analog values on A0, A1 and transmits
them over a nRF24L01 Radio Link to another transceiver.
- SEE the comments after "//" on each line below
- CONNECTIONS: nRF24L01 Modules See:
1 - GND
2 - VCC 3.3V !!! NOT 5V
3 - CE to Arduino pin 9
4 - CSN to Arduino pin 10
5 - SCK to Arduino pin 13
6 - MOSI to Arduino pin 11
7 - MISO to Arduino pin 12
8 - UNUSED
Analog Joystick or two 10K potentiometers:
GND to Arduino GND
VCC to Arduino +5V
X Pot to Arduino A0
Y Pot to Arduino A1
- V1.00 11/26/13
Based on examples at http://www.bajdi.com/
Questions: terry@yourduino.com */
/*-----( Import needed libraries )-----*/
#include <SPI.h>
#include <nRF24L01.h>
#include <RF24.h>
/*-----( Declare Constants and Pin Numbers )-----*/
#define CE_PIN 9
#define CSN_PIN 10
#define JOYSTICK_X A0
#define JOYSTICK_Y A1
// NOTE: the "LL" at the end of the constant is "LongLong" type
const uint64_t pipe = 0xE8E8F0F0E1LL; // Define the transmit pipe
/*-----( Declare objects )-----*/
RF24 radio(CE_PIN, CSN_PIN); // Create a Radio
/*-----( Declare Variables )-----*/
int joystick[2]; // 2 element array holding Joystick readings
void setup() /****** SETUP: RUNS ONCE ******/
{
Serial.begin(9600);
radio.begin();
radio.openWritingPipe(pipe);
}//--(end setup )---

111 | P a g e

void loop() /****** LOOP: RUNS CONSTANTLY ******/

{
joystick[0] = analogRead(JOYSTICK_X);
joystick[1] = analogRead(JOYSTICK_Y);
radio.write( joystick, sizeof(joystick) );
}//--(end main loop )--/*-----( Declare User-written Functions )-----*/
//NONE
//*********( THE END )***********

112 | P a g e

A.2 Arduino Receiver Code

#include <Servo.h>
/* YourDuinoStarter Example: nRF24L01 Receive Joystick values
- WHAT IT DOES: Receives data from another transceiver with
2 Analog values from a Joystick or 2 Potentiometers
Displays received values on Serial Monitor
- SEE the comments after "//" on each line below
- CONNECTIONS: nRF24L01 Modules See:
http://arduino-info.wikispaces.com/Nrf24L01-2.4GHz-HowTo
1 - GND
2 - VCC 3.3V !!! NOT 5V
3 - CE to Arduino pin 9
4 - CSN to Arduino pin 10
5 - SCK to Arduino pin 13
6 - MOSI to Arduino pin 11
7 - MISO to Arduino pin 12
8 - UNUSED
- V1.00 11/26/13
Based on examples at http://www.bajdi.com/
Questions: terry@yourduino.com */
/*-----( Import needed libraries )-----*/
#include <SPI.h>
#include <nRF24L01.h>
#include <RF24.h>
/*-----( Declare Constants and Pin Numbers )-----*/
#define CE_PIN 9
#define CSN_PIN 10
// NOTE: the "LL" at the end of the constant is "LongLong" type
const uint64_t pipe = 0xE8E8F0F0E1LL; // Define the transmit pipe
/*-----( Declare objects )-----*/
RF24 radio(CE_PIN, CSN_PIN); // Create a Radio
/*-----( Declare Variables )-----*/
int joystick[2]; // 2 element array holding Joystick readings
Servo myservo;
void setup() /****** SETUP: RUNS ONCE ******/
{
Serial.begin(9600);
delay(1000);
Serial.println("Nrf24L01 Receiver Starting");
radio.begin();
radio.openReadingPipe(1,pipe);
radio.startListening();;
myservo.attach(7); //Attach servo control to pin 7
}//--(end setup )---

113 | P a g e

void loop() /****** LOOP: RUNS CONSTANTLY ******/

{
if ( radio.available() )
{
// Read the data payload until we've received everything
bool done = false;
while (!done)
{
// Fetch the data payload
done = radio.read( joystick, sizeof(joystick) );
Serial.print("X = ");
Serial.print(joystick[0]);
myservo.writeMicroseconds(1500);
delay(1000);
myservo.writeMicroseconds(1000);
delay(1000);
myservo.writeMicroseconds(2000);
delay(1000);
Serial.print(" Y = ");
Serial.println(joystick[1]);
}
}
else
{
Serial.println("No radio available");
}
}//--(end main loop )--/*-----( Declare User-written Functions )-----*/
//NONE
//*********( THE END )***********

A.3 Video Overlay Source Code

import numpy as np
import sys
import cv2
import math
import pygame
import ImageGrab
import serial
from PIL import Image
#img = cv2.imread("field_picture.jpg")
cam = cv2.VideoCapture(0)
landingWidth = 320;
landingHeight = 1;
distance = 0;

# IF 640x480 pixels

pygame.mixer.init();

114 | P a g e

pygame.mixer.music.load("Aero_Shoot_To_Thrill.ogg");
pygame.mixer.music.play();
#create a copy of the original
#overlay = capture.copy()
#Arduino variable
#connected = False
#ser = serial.Serial("COM5", 9600);
#while not connected:
#
serin = ser.read()
#
connected = True
while(True):
altitude = 0.00;
airspeed = 0.00;
#Screenshot Telemetry Reading and convert it to numerical values
#(0, 0, 0) is black
screenshot = ImageGrab.grab()
rgb_im = screenshot.convert('RGB')
#Altitude conversion
for i in range (0, 5):
xshift = 29;
AltDigitTop = 0;
AltDigitTopRight = 0;
AltDigitTopLeft = 0;
AltDigitBottomRight = 0;
AltDigitBottomLeft = 0;
AltDigitBottom = 0;
AltDigitCenter = 0;
AltDigit = 0;
#convert pixels to digit segments
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((404 - (xshift*i), 201)) #AltitudeDigitTop
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitTop = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((411 - (xshift*i), 208)) #AltitudeDigitTopRight
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitTopRight = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((398 - (xshift*i), 207)) #AltitudeDigitTopLeft
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitTopLeft = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((411 - (xshift*i), 224)) #AltitudeDigitBottomRight
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitBottomRight = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((398 - (xshift*i), 224)) #AltitudeDigitBottomLeft
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitBottomLeft = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((404 - (xshift*i), 230)) #AltitudeDigitBottom
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitBottom = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((404 - (xshift*i), 214)) #AltitudeDigitCenter
if r==g and r==b and r==0: AltDigitCenter = 1;
#decide which digit is represented
if AltDigitTop == 0:
if AltDigitTopLeft == 1:
AltDigit = 4;

115 | P a g e

elif AltDigitTopRight ==1 : AltDigit = 1;

elif AltDigitCenter == 0 : AltDigit = 0;
elif AltDigitBottom == 0 : AltDigit = 7;
elif AltDigitBottomRight == 0 : AltDigit = 2;
elif AltDigitTopLeft == 0 : AltDigit = 3;
elif AltDigitTopRight == 0:
if AltDigitBottomLeft == 0: AltDigit = 5;
else : AltDigit = 6;
elif AltDigitBottomLeft == 0 : AltDigit = 9;
else : AltDigit = 8;
altitude += AltDigit*math.pow(10,i);
#Airspeed conversion
for i in range (0, 4):
xshift = 37;
SpeedDigitTop = 0;
SpeedDigitTopRight = 0;
SpeedDigitTopLeft = 0;
SpeedDigitBottomRight = 0;
SpeedDigitBottomLeft = 0;
SpeedDigitBottom = 0;
SpeedDigitCenter = 0;
SpeedDigit = 0;
#convert pixels to digit segments
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((400 - (xshift*i), 260)) #SpeedDigitTop
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitTop = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((410 - (xshift*i), 265)) #SpeedDigitTopRight
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitTopRight = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((389 - (xshift*i), 265)) #SpeedDigitTopLeft
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitTopLeft = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((410 - (xshift*i), 280)) #SpeedDigitBottomRight
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitBottomRight = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((389 - (xshift*i), 280)) #SpeedDigitBottomLeft
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitBottomLeft = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((400 - (xshift*i), 287)) #SpeedDigitBottom
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitBottom = 1;
r, g, b = rgb_im.getpixel((400 - (xshift*i), 273)) #SpeedDigitCenter
if r==g and r==b and r==0: SpeedDigitCenter = 1;
#decide which digit is represented
if SpeedDigitTop == 0:
if SpeedDigitTopLeft == 1:
SpeedDigit = 4;
elif SpeedDigitTopRight ==1 : SpeedDigit = 1;
elif SpeedDigitCenter == 0 : SpeedDigit = 0;
elif SpeedDigitBottom == 0 : SpeedDigit = 7;
elif SpeedDigitBottomRight == 0 : SpeedDigit = 2;
elif SpeedDigitTopLeft == 0 : SpeedDigit = 3;
elif SpeedDigitTopRight == 0:
if SpeedDigitBottomLeft == 0: SpeedDigit = 5;
else : SpeedDigit = 6;
elif SpeedDigitBottomLeft == 0 : SpeedDigit = 9;
else : SpeedDigit = 8;

116 | P a g e

airspeed += SpeedDigit*math.pow(10,i);
#------------------End of Conversion-----------------------#REMOVE AFTER TESTING!!!
#airspeed = 32 #mph
altitude = 100 #feet
speedText = "Airspeed: %.1f mph" % round(airspeed, 1);
airspeed = airspeed * 1.46667 #ft/sec
realDistance = airspeed * math.sqrt(altitude/16.087) #feet
#SET ACTUAL CAMERA ANGLE!
phi = 55; #degrees
FOV = 22.68 #degrees
phi = phi - (FOV / 2)
phi = math.radians(phi) #convert phi from degrees to radians
FOV = math.radians(FOV) #converts Field of View to radians
pixelFactor = float(FOV) / float(480) #radians per pixel
n=1;
distance = 0;
viewDistance = realDistance - (altitude*(math.tan(phi)))
while(distance < viewDistance) :
tanstuff1 = phi + (pixelFactor*n)
tanstuff2 = phi + (pixelFactor*(n-1))
distance = distance +(altitude*(math.tan(tanstuff1) - math.tan(tanstuff2)))
n += 1
landingHeight = 480 - n
#Video w/ Overlay and Text Output
altText = "Altitude: %.1f ft" % round(altitude, 1);
ret,img = cam.read()
if not ret: break

250))

#draw overlay shape

cv2.circle(img, (landingWidth, landingHeight), 3, (0, 0, 250), -1)
cv2.line(img, (landingWidth + 12, landingHeight), (landingWidth + 32, landingHeight), (0, 0,
cv2.line(img, (landingWidth - 12, landingHeight), (landingWidth - 32, landingHeight), (0, 0,

250))

cv2.line(img, (landingWidth, landingHeight + 12), (landingWidth, landingHeight + 24), (0, 0,

250))
250))

cv2.line(img, (landingWidth, landingHeight - 12), (landingWidth, landingHeight - 24), (0, 0,

cv2.putText(img, speedText, (400, 460), cv2.FONT_HERSHEY_SIMPLEX, 0.7, (0, 0, 0), 2);

if altitude < 100:
cv2.putText(img, altText, (10, 460), cv2.FONT_HERSHEY_SIMPLEX, 0.7, (0, 0, 255), 2)
elif altitude >= 100 and altitude <= 105:

117 | P a g e

cv2.putText(img, altText, (10, 460), cv2.FONT_HERSHEY_SIMPLEX, 0.7, (0, 255, 255), 2)

elif altitude > 105:
cv2.putText(img, altText, (10, 460), cv2.FONT_HERSHEY_SIMPLEX, 0.7, (0, 255, 0), 2)
#blend with the original
#opacity = 0.8
#cv2.addWeighted(overlay, opacity, capture, 1 - opacity, 0, capture)
cv2.imshow('Video Feed', img)
if cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF == ord(' '):
cv2.imwrite('expectedDrop.png', img)
#ser.write("1")
elif cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF == ord('q'):
break
#ser.close();
#img.release()
cv2.destroyAllWindows()

118 | P a g e

Appendix G: Budget Appendix

119 | P a g e

120 | P a g e

121 | P a g e