SAE AERO DESIGN CHALLENGE 2017

FINAL DESIGN REPORT

BY TEAM ARCHEOPTERYX 2.0

SAEISS AERO TEAM REGISTRATION ID : ADC20170103

1
2
 S.No. CONTENT Pg.No.
1 List of figures and tables 4
2 Executive Summary 5
3 Acknowledgments 5
4 Introduction 6
5 Objective 6
6 Design Process 6
7 Research and Strategy 7
8 Aircraft Design Approach 8
9 Conceptual Options 8
10 Aircraft Design 8
11 Final Aircraft Design Parameters 8
12 Weight Build-Up 9
13 AIRFOIL Selection 10
14 Wing Configuration 11
15 Wing Sizing 12
16 Aileron Sizing 13
17 ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION 13
18 Take-off Performance 15
18.1 Takeoff velocity 15
18.2 Takeoff rolling distance 16
19 Stability and Control 16
20 Structures 18
21 CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY 21
22 Payload Prediction Chart 22
23 Conclusion 23
24 List of Symbols and Acronyms 24
25 Reference 25
Appendix 26
2D Drawings

3
1. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 (REFLEXED AIRFOIL)

Figure 2 (WING LAYOUT)

Figure 3 (DRAG Vs VELOCITY CURVE)

Figure 4 (AC CALCULATOR)

Figure 5 (WING LOADING DIAGRAM)

Figure 6 (SHEAR STRESS ON WING)

Figure 7 (BENDING MOMENT ON WING)

Figure 8 (LANDING GEAR ANALYSIS)

Figure 9 (PAYLOAD PREDICTION CURVE)

Table 1 (CONCEPTUAL OPTIONS)

Table 2 (AIRCRAFT PARAMETER)

Table 3 (WEIGHT BUILTUP)

Table 4 (CALCULATION AND ANALYSIS)

Table 5 (THRUST REQUIRED MINIMUM)

Table 6 (MAXIMUM THRUST CONDITION)

4
2. Executive Summary:

The objective of this project was to design, fabricate, and fly a remote control aircraft

for the 2017 SAE ISS Aero Design Challenge, Regular Class. According to the SAE rule book 2017,

the ultimate goal for Regular class is to lift as much payload as possible . Our team has designed an

aircraft that can maintain a high payload percentage, be precise to construct, stable at different

weights, and durable. The aircraft parameters were selected through the aircraft design process. The

detailed design of the aircraft was performed on computer aided design software. The body of the

aircraft was fabricated from the Balsa wood and the material was cut using the laser-cutting machine.

Throughout the design process, we had tested several prototypes for various types of air foils,

fuselage materials. Ultimately, a flightworthy aircraft was fabricated that met the competition

requirements. The team approached the design process by assessing our previous SAE Aero Design

competi-tion experiences, as well as utilizing rough and conservative hand-calculations. In

conclusion, this year’s design is aimed at challenging a more experienced team,with the ultimate

goal of winning the Regular Class competition.

3.Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank our faculty advisors, Professor Arivalagan S, for their assistance and

guidance over the course of the project. We would also like to thank Dr. N.Natarajan , Head Of the

Department, Mechanical Engineering and our institution for their great support and motivation to

makes this project a reality.

5
4.Introduction:

We, Team ARCHEOPTERYX 2.0 a group of 6 mechanical engineering students, are

determined to excel in this competition. The team’s name ARCHEOPTERYX 2.0 is the name

of the first ever evolved flying species that existed on the earth. The Archeopteryx was also the

first flying dinosaur that ruled the skies for a long reign. So, we are aiming to rule the Aero

design Challenge this year, similar to the history of our team’s mascot. Hence, this team will

perceive to achieve that feat and extend SAE’s fame in Coimbatore.

In the following sections, we outline the design process used to create our regular aircraft.

We begin with a broad view of the design process with which we selected individual components

and how those components were altered as we adapted our design throughout five iterations.

Calculations used to justify the aerodynamic, propulsion, and stability performance are detailed and

a final weight build-up is given.

5.Objective:

The team’s objectives for this project were:

1. Design and fabrication of a heavy-lift radio-controlled (RC) aircraft which met the requirements

to compete in the Regular Class in the 2017 SAE Aero Design Challenge.

Major design requirements set by the SAE Aero Design Challenge Guidelines:

1. The aircraft must take-off; complete a circuit around the air field, and land.

2. The aircraft must maintain structural integrity throughout the duration of its flights.

6.Design Process:

The primary reference sources for the design stages of the project consisted of aircraft

design and aerodynamics textbooks some online course, and some stability references. We also

referenced information on past winners on the SAE website and their associated data. The objective

6
of this year’s aircraft is to participate in SAE Aero Design South Competition 2017, and show our

best in it. Our design steps are outlined in the following flow diagram.

Designing the aircraft Coro-sheet Prototype Fabrication of Flight

using CAD software construction and testing worthy aircraft

Aerodynamics and Rapid Prototyping and Final Aircraft

Stuctural Stability Testing Performance Testing
calculation

Modification of Design Analysis of the Design Final ready for flight

according to calculation testing
parameters

7.Research and Strategy:

Our team has competed in the SAE Aero Design competitions for the past year. This prior

experience in designing a practical aircraft intended for maximum payload capacity helped us

determine what elements are both good and bad for a successful aircraft.

Last year, our team had a very productive season and built our plane along with an extra set

of wings well ahead of schedule. Having finished construction so early in the season last year, we

saw this as an opportunity to extend the research and design period for the 2017 season. With

experienced members on the team this year, we were able to allocate our resources more efficiently,

creating a schedule that would put more emphasis on the design of our plane without having to

worry about being behind schedule when the construction process began. With this extra time, we

chose a different style of airfoil and redesigned our landing gear, among other things essential to

improving our performance in the competition.

7
 8.Aircraft Design Approach:

The Team had a Goal to fabricate a Flying Wing, keeping in mind the limitations laid by

the Rule book of SAEISS Aero Designing Challenge. We went on searching for various models

using the internet, books, some online course, and came up with our own design which meets the

challenge’s requirement. This section details our Team’s process in designing the plane.

9.Conceptual Options:

A simple research analysis was made for some selected conceptual options and were

tabulated as below, the standard wing type scored well and had a balance in every criteria.

Thus, standard design was selected.

Figures of merit weightage Conventional Bi-Plane Flying Canard Theoretical

wing Ideal

Ease of construction 0.80 3 2.5 3.5 2.5 5

cost 0.40 3 2.5 4 3 5

Empty Weight 0.90 2.5 2 3 2 5

Handling Qualities 0.90 4 3.5 3.5 3 5

Historical Datas 0.60 4 3.5 3 3 5

Total 11.85 10.05 12.5 9.5 18

Table 1 (CONCEPTUAL OPTIONS)

10.Aircraft Design:

After deciding on the general configuration we wanted our aircraft to have our

own performed calculations to refine estimated numbers and create a more favorable design.

8
11.Final Aircraft Design Parameters:

Based on the design process and considerations detailed above and in following sections, we

arrived at the following parameters for our aircraft

Aircraft Type: Flying Wing

Structural Component Dimension

Total Length 665mm

Fuselage Length 650mm

Wing Span 2000mm

Wing Chord(MAC) 479.62mm

Root Chord 250mm

Tip Chord 650mm

Table 2 (AIRCRAFT PARAMETER)

12.Weight Build-Up:
Part Weight

Aircraft Skeleton 2000g

Motor 380g

Motor Mount 100g

Propeller 100g

Battery 300g

Receiver 15g

Servos: Aileron(2) 50g

Electronic Speed Control 50g

Total Weight 2995g

Table 3 (WEIGHT BUILTUP)

From the Weight Build-up Table, It is evident that the required electronics compose the

majority of our total weight. This was where we tried to cut as much unnecessary weight as possible.

9
We looked at several different options for each electronic component, and chose the option which

had the minimal weight for the specifications we required. Our second concern was the material

with which we would be constructing the aircraft structure. We looked primarily at balsa wood. It is

the most commonly used materials in model aviation because of their densities and strength.

Ultimately, we came up with this Balsa Wood as our consideration.

13.AIRFOIL Selection:

N-22 AIRFOIL CLARK YS AIRFOIL

The objective method of selecting the airfoil design was deemed necessary since there were

various criteria to consider. One of the most important factor was that the aircraft was Flying Wing

category for which the Aerodynamic Center lies behind the Center of Gravity of aircraft which is

highly stable condition, leading the pitching moment of the aircraft negative, giving the aircraft nose

down movement. To overcome this negative pitching movement we preferred Reflexed airfoil

which can provide the necessary positive pitching moment.

Figure 1 (REFLEXED AIRFOIL)

We also concentrated in Flat Bottom airfoil for its strength and ease of manufacturability

factor, keeping in mind to provide sufficient Lift for aircraft with and without payload condition.

10
 The Website Airfoil-Tools was used to survey the existing flying wing airfoils. The analysis

of the airfoil was done using XFOIL Prediction which is available online in website Airfoil-Tools

itself. XFOIL is an open source publicly available interactive program for the design and analysis of

subsonic isolated airfoils. Given the coordinates specifying the shape of a 2D airfoil, Reynold’s

Number and Mach Number, XFOIL can calculate the pressure distribution on the airfoil and hence

lift and drag characteristics. The program also allows inverse design - it will vary an airfoil shape to

achieve the desired parameters.

The following Graphs shows the Pitching moment co-efficient Cm as positive with respect to

angle of attack for CLARK YS airfoil, also the Co-efficient of lift(CL Vs Angle of attack(alpha)

curve. Keeping the Reynold’s Number between 50,000 to 1,000,000; and the Ncrit value between

7 to 9. For this particular curve the Reynold’s number was assumed to be 500,000; whereas the

calculated value was 333,268; for aircraft velocity 10.5m/s; Kinematic Viscosity of 1.5111e-5m2/s;

at 1atm pressure; 20°C Temperature(which are pretty realistic assumption we made).

From the graph the Clmax obtained as 1.2580 for angle of attack 11.5°;

Clo was 0.0260 for angle of attack 0°.

From the choices of two enquired airfoils (i.e. N-22 and CLARK YS ), the Team decided

Clark YS airfoil to be the best choice giving the necessary performance expected.

14.Wing Configuration:

11
 Probably the most important design characteristic that will affect the performance of the

aircraft is the wing design. It requires considering many factors such as airfoil design, wing location,

dihedral angle and to a very large degree, the manufacturing feasibility of the design. A desirable

characteristic for wing design would be selecting a design that contributes to lateral stability. Since

our aircraft is Flying Wing configuration, the stability of aircraft should be included with the wing

and the airfoil used. Our aircraft wing will not be experiencing supersonic airflow, it is not necessary

to consider sweeping in order to mitigate shock wave effects. Triangular section was selected as

wing plan form design as it corresponds to Flying Wing category.

Figure 2 (WING LAYOUT)

15.Wing Sizing:

The span of the Wing was chosen as 2000mm with Mean Aerodynamic Chord of

479.62mm. The Wing Area was calculated to be 0.96m2. The aspect ratio was calculated to be

4.1667.

12
 AR= (span2/area)=4.1667

Another very important factor affecting wing geometry and performance is the aspect ratio.

Generally, the high pressure beneath the wing tries to escape into the lower pressure above the wing

near the wing tips. This is also referred to creating wing tip vortices. The wing with the higher wing

span and thus higher aspect ratio helps to reduce this effect. A value of 4.1667 is a typical value for

general flying airplane and it was deemed the appropriate choice for our design. In order to

overcome this induced drag we used winglets in our design.

16.Aileron Sizing:

The sizing of the span of ailerons was done using a statistical historical approach. By using

this method an aileron should start around the 50% of the wingspan and extend outward to

90%.Ailerons are not deemed very effective at the tip due to vortices. A similar approach was done

for calculating the chord length of the ailerons. Typically the aileron chord length should be between

15% and 25% of the chord.

17.ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION:

From the value obtained from the Cl Vs angle of attack graph for airfoil the calculation

were made for the wing, and the result were obtained as,

Clmax, max. Co-efficient of Lift 0.8281

Cd, co-efficient of drag 0.0674

Stall velocity, Vstall 10.99m/s

Lift at Vstall 58.85N (6.0kg)

Thrust required for Lift at Vstall 5.78N (0.5899kg)

13
 Table 4 (CALCULATION AND ANALYSIS)
The above findings are for cruise flight condition at angle of attack 11.5° to the horizontal. Since it

is cruise flight the control altitude was assumed to be 200m, where the altitude density calculated

at that altitude was 1.1837kg/m3; taken sea level density as 1.225kg/m3.

For thrust required minimum i.e. For minimum drag the calculation gave results as

VTr min, velocity 18.73m/s

for thrust required minimum

CL , co-efficient of lift 0.2951

at thrust required minimum

CD , co-efficient of drag 0.0152

at thrust required minimum

Tmin , thrust required minimum 3.0313N (0.309kg)

D, drag 3.0313N (0.309kg)

L, Lift 58.85N (6.0kg)

Table 5 (THRUST REQUIRED MINIMUM)

From the propulsion system of aircraft(i.e. Motor- propeller specification),

the Max. Thrust available was 44.145N(4.5kg).

CL , co-efficient of lift at max. available thrust 0.0101453

for Cruise condition

Vmax , max. velocity at max. thrust 101.049m/s

For lift required, L 58.86N(6.0kg)

Table 6 (MAXIMUM THRUST CONDITION)

14
 Figure 3 (DRAG Vs VELOCITY CURVE)

18. Take-off Performance:

18.1.Takeoff velocity:

VTO = [2W/(0.8 x area x density x CLmax)]1/2

Assuming a weight of 6kg, the takeoff velocity is 12.29m/s

The takeoff acceleration will vary during the ground roll and is given by the following

expression,

a= (g/W)[(T-D)-FC(W-L)]

Where, g=gravitational constant (9.81m/s)

Coefficient of rolling friction, FC=0.03

T=Thrust

D=Drag

Resultant acceleration, a=6.4737m/s2

15
18.2 Takeoff rolling distance:

The expression for the ground roll distance is given by,

SG = VTO2/(2amean)

Resulted SG=11.67m

19.Stability and Control:

Static longitudinal stability, dCm/dCL, is the change in pitching moment vs. change in lift

coefficient. In order for an aircraft to be statically stable, the slope of this curve should be negative

such that the aircraft pitches nose down with increasing lift coefficient. The team quickly decided

that the aircraft

would be statically stable in order to achieve good flying qualities and reduce electronics cost and

complication. This requires that the ‘static margin’ (SM) must be positive, or, put another way, the

CG must be forward of the aerodynamic center (AC) . The equation for static margin is simply:

SM = (XAC – XCG) / MAC

Where: XAC = x loc. of aerodynamic center,

XCG = x loc. of center of gravity,

MAC = mean aerodynamic chord = 479.62mm

The distance between aerodynamic center and the leading edge of the wing was calculated

from online tool website RC-Planes.

16
 Figure 4 (AC CALCULATOR)

The obtained distance between aerodynamic center and the leading edge of the wing was

119.91mm

XAC = 119.91mm

The AC was calculated at approximately 24.2% of the MAC, which

is in agreement with general theory that holds that the AC is roughly 25% of MAC. Therefore, to

remain statically stable, the CG must be forward of X = 119.91mm, where X=0mm is at the LE

vertex of the planform. In our case, the aircraft must maintain a static margin of no less than 5%,

requiring the CG to be forward of X = 115mm. This was determined to be a good compromise

between flying qualities and performance since an increased static margin improves stability, but

reduces performance due to greater trailing edge deflections required for trim. It should be noted that

the static margin is affected by power as well as CG placement. For tractor layout flying wings, it is

recommended that the AC of the wing sections immersed in the slipstream are forward of the CG.

Also, it is desirable to have the thrust line going through the CG or be slightly above the CG. Both

of these features will produce a stabilizing effect with the addition of power. A destabilizing effect

17
will occur if the AC of the ‘immersed’ wing sections are forward of the CG. Essentially the entire

center section of our planform directly aft of the propellers is immersed in prop wash. The resulting

‘immersed’ wing has an AR = 4.167, and span = 2000mm.

In order to locate the AC of the immersed planform section, a 20% sheet foam glider was

created with AR=4.167, span = 2000mm. The CG was then placed at the 20% MAC location of the

full-up planform. Test flights were made and it was seen that the glider was roughly neutrally stable

to slightly unstable. This means that power will have a destabilizing effect on the aircraft.

Modifying the thrust axis such that it passes above the CG can mitigate this destabilizing effect.

Though on the low side, these values are sufficient for static stability. They are also small

enough that controllability should not be an issue.

The video links of testing the Prototype has been included in the appendix section.

20.Structures:

The structure was laid out such that there was a forward and aft spar. Due to the long

chord of the center section and the necessity to remove the torsion inherent in swept wing

structure, the structure employs a 2-spar layout. The structure was arranged such that the CG

was in between the forward and aft spar, thus providing a very strong box structure to

incorporate the payload bays.

An XCEL spreadsheet was created to calculate the inertial loads, wing air loads, shear

diagram and bending moment diagram for the spars. It was assumed that the wing has a

roughly elliptical span load. The inertial loads were calculated based on estimated structures,

hardware and payload weights at the given preliminary structural layout locations.

18
 Figure 5 (WING LOADING DIAGRAM)

Of note in the wing loading diagram is the span-wise distributed inertial loads from 0 to 30

inches in the payload bay section. Also, due to the increased section chord across the payload

section, the wing lift is well located above the inertial loads. This is important in reducing the root

bending moment on the spar, thus reducing structural weight.

Next, the shear and bending moment diagrams can be calculated in order.

Figure 6 (SHEAR STRESS ON WING)

19
 Figure 7 (BENDING MOMENT ON WING)

Since the spars are roughly located equidistant from the center of lift, each was sized equally. The

spars were sized using the following equation:

Stress = (Bending Moment * Section Depth/2) / Section Inertia

Next to be sized was the landing gear. 1/8” thick, carbon fibre material was chosen for its

excellent strength to weight ratio. The bending stress was analyzed using the following figure:

Figure 8 (LANDING GEAR ANALYSIS)

20
21.CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY :

The aircraft was constructed using 3mm thick Balsa sheets and 3mm thick Basswood

wherever necessary. The balsa wood box was constructed to form the payload bay. Balsa

spar was used along the wing. An Carbon Fibre pipe of 20mm was inserted through the

airfoil ribs and through the wing mount so that the load along the wing is distributed

throughout the aircraft. Epoxy was used for strong adhesion and cyanoacrylate was used for

all other places. The construction and assembly was planned keeping serviceability as an

important factor so that parts can be replaced easily in case of damage. At last, the whole

structure was covered using covering film. The Balsa Ribs of airfoil sections were cut using

Precise Laser cutting technique in order to obtain maximum accuracy.

21
22.Payload Prediction Chart:

In order to calculate an accurate payload prediction chart, the team created a spreadsheet that

allowed drag and lift to vary with altitude. The takeoff speed is increased due to reduced density

where:

Clmax = W / (1/2ρV2 * Sref)

Therefore, the velocity must be increased to produce the same amount of lift. This increases

the ground roll on takeoff. Also, the thrust produced by the propeller is reduced in the same way

due to reduced density.

All of these factors were allowed to vary in the spreadsheet in order to determine the payload

prediction equation.

Figure 9 (PAYLOAD PREDICTION CURVE)

Payload = -0.00056377x + 10

Whereas, x is the density altitude.

22
23.Conclusion:

We team “ARCHEOPTERYX 2.0” of Sri Krishna College of Technology has

conducted a complete conceptual design, performed thorough engineering analysis, and

completed the construction of a final design that met the requirements laid out by the Society

of Automotive Engineers for the Aero Design challenge 2017. The design and build of this

flying wing model was very challenging. The team found that no item could be taken for

granted since the configuration was so sensitive to changes in CG, planform shape, airfoil

section and propulsion integration. Overall, designing and building a tailless aircraft gave us

deeper insight into the design compromises that are a part of aircraft design and construction.

We look forward to demonstrating our ‘unusual’ configuration to the rest of our competitors.

23
24.List of Symbols and Acronyms:

S- Wing area
b- Wingspan
C- Chord length of Wing
L- Lift force
D- Drag force
CL- Coefficient of lift
C0- Coefficient of drag
CDmin- Minimum coefficient of drag
CLmin- Minimum coefficient of lift
CLmax- Maximum coefficient of lift
K’- In viscid or induced factor
K’’- Viscous factor
Ρ- Density
VTO- Take-off velocity
W-Weight of plane
a- Take-off Acceleration
g- Acceleration due to gravity
T- Thrust
SG- Take-off Rolling Distance
XCG- Distance between the leading edge of the wing to the Centre of Gravity
XAC- Distance between the leading edge of the wing to the Aerodynamic center
AR- Aspect Ratio
SM- Static Margin
MAC- Mean Aerodynamic Chord
CG- Centre of Gravity

24
25.Reference:

1. NPTEL Course: Introduction to Airplane Performance -

2. Airfoil Data and curve points: Airfoil Tools

3. Aerodynamic Centre Calculator:

4. Software used: Microsoft Office Project

5. : Software used: Solid works 2014

6. Flying Wing - Design Notes

25
7. Basic Design of Flying Wing Model

8. Flying wing Centre of Gravity Calculator

9. xFoil Software

10. Anderson, John D. Jr, ”Introduction to Flight”, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill

APPENDIX:
Flying Wing Prototype Testing Videos:

26
 CONFIGURATION DATA

20.82
SREF 37.79

SPAN (IN) 78.74

ASPECT RATIO 4.167

25.59 PROPELLER 17*6

11.92
MAC 18.8
PAY LOAD BAY
EMPTY WEIGHT 3 kg

4.18

8.59

TOP VIEW
SIDE VIEW
79.09

MOTOR
5.31

28.03 LANDING GEAR TEAM NO: ADC20170103

TEAM ARCHEOPTERYX 2.0
NAME

FRONT VIEW COLLEGE SRI KRISHNA COLLEGE OF

NAME TECHNOLOGY
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN inch