Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
AUTHORS:
Jia Yao CUI Garland HU Tuyen NGUYEN Joshua NORTHEAST Jake PHOENIX Quoc Hung TRAN 1160900 1163062 1147028 1161924 1161542 1160835
Executive Summary
This report details the design of a hang glider for military applications. It was decided that the hang glider is to be used to drop paratroopers at their landing zone without endangering the aircraft.
A classic approach was used to design the hang glider and feasibility studies and statistical analysis was used in development of our hang glider design. These allowed us to approximate the size of our hang glider allowing detailed models to be generated.
The hang glider has the capability to be dropped out of a slowly travelling aircraft at 3000 metres and allow the pilot to be safely transported to the ground with a glide ratio of approximately 1:15. The mission profile was constructed such that the hang glider was launched from the aircraft then descended to landing.
ii
Disclaimer
The content of this report is entirely the work of the following students from the University of Adelaide. Any content obtained from other sources has been referenced accordingly.
Garland HU Date:
iii
Table of Contents
1. 2. Introduction............................................................................................................1 Literature Review and Market Evaluation.............................................................4 2.1. 2.2. Literature Review............................................................................................4 Market Review ................................................................................................6 Wills Wing ...............................................................................................7 Airborne C4 .............................................................................................7 Avian JAVA.............................................................................................8 Moyes Light Speed RS ............................................................................9
Design Specifications...........................................................................................10 3.1. Technical Task ..............................................................................................10 Standard Requirements ..........................................................................11 Technical Level of the Product ..............................................................11 Performance Parameters ........................................................................11 Economical Parameters..........................................................................14 Power Plant Type and Requirements.....................................................14 Main System Parameters........................................................................14 Special Systems and Miscellaneous....................................................15 Reliability and Maintainability ..............................................................16 Unification Level ...................................................................................16
3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. 3.1.8. 3.1.9. 3.2.
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................16 Statistics of Civilian Application Hang Gliders.....................................16 Statistics of Parachutes ..........................................................................20
iv
3.6.1. 3.6.2. 4.
Preliminary Design ..............................................................................................27 4.1. 4.2. Concept Design Number 1 ............................................................................31 Concept Design Number 2 ............................................................................36
5.
6.
Aerodynamic Analysis.........................................................................................42 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. Lift distribution .............................................................................................42 L/D Determination ........................................................................................42 Fineness Ratio and Drag of Structure ...........................................................43
7. 8. 9.
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 - Paratroopers ...............................................................................................1 Figure 1-2 - Airborne Troops.........................................................................................2 Figure 1-3 - Gryphon Attack Glider ..............................................................................2 Figure 2-1 - The Gryphon Parachute System ................................................................5 Figure 3-1 - Empty Weight Technology Diagram.......................................................17 Figure 3-2 - Aspect Ratio Technology Diagram..........................................................19 Figure 3-3 - Wing Span Technology Diagram ............................................................20 Figure 3-4 - Mission Profile.........................................................................................21 Figure 4-1 - Hand Sketch of Glider Configuration......................................................28 Figure 4-2 - Sketch of pilot configuration on conventional hang glider......................30 Figure 4-3 - Air flow over forward swept wing and backwards swept wing (Wilson 2008) ............................................................................................................................31 Figure 4-4 - Concept Design Number 1.......................................................................33 Figure 4-5 - Detailed sketches of concept 1.................................................................34 Figure 4-6 - Parachute Deployment .............................................................................35 Figure 4-7 - Image of vertical tail used for stabilization (Marshall Brain 2008).........36 Figure 4-8 - Vertical tail concept design......................................................................37 Figure 4-9 - Detailed Sketch of Vertical Tail ..............................................................38 Figure 5-1 - CG Envelope............................................................................................40 Figure 6-1 - Technology Diagram of Glide Ratio .......................................................43 Figure 6-2 - Drag Coefficient of Cylindrical Bodies in Axial Flow...........................44
vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1 - Wills Wing T2 Hang Glider (Wills Wing 2009).........................................7 Table 2-2 - Airborne C4 Hang Glider Specifications (Airborne 2004) .........................7 Table 2-3 - Avian Java Hang Glider Data (Avian 2010) ...............................................8 Table 2-4 - Moyes LightSpeed RS data (Moyes 2005) .................................................9 Table 3-1 - Summary of Performance Parameters.......................................................12 Table 5-1 - Weight Breakdown of the Hang Glider Subsystems.................................39 Table 8-1 - Compliance with performance parameters................................................45
vii
1. Introduction
Airborne forces are military units of light infantry that can be deployed and transported via aircraft. With this aerial deployment method, they can be dropped behind enemy lines without alerting enemy troops. The basic premise of this technique is that the units can be deployed with such speed and fast enough that a cohesive defence cannot be mounted against them immediately, thus giving a tactical advantage. Typically, airborne forces are able to land with parachutes from aircrafts as shown in Figure 1-1, or transported by helicopters as shown in Figure 1-2; however, both methods have their various limitations. Hang gliders could provide a viable alternative to these methods, as they could efficiently complete such a mission, and offer a range of advantages over the methods currently used.
Page | 1
Hang gliders are light, unpowered aircrafts that are typically foot-launched from higher ground to glide through the air, supported by aerodynamic lift from various sources. Hang gliders have a main frame which is constructed out of lightweight materials, typically an aluminium alloy or a composite. This frame supports the wing, which can be either flexible, and made of fabric, or rigid, and made of epoxy and carbon fibre materials. Given their ability to glide silently, this technology could be used to replace the parachutes to provide stealth transportation via aerial deployment at a large distance from the destination. Currently, the military has begun investigating several designs for such hang gliders, an example being SPERCOs Gryphon Attack Glider shown in Figure 1-3
Page | 2
Page | 3
The military performs aerial insertions by the use of helicopters and parachutes. Helicopters are traditionally used for these operations as they can drop personnel at their landing zone (LZ) accurately without risk to the personnel. However if the LZ is in a hostile area the helicopter there is a risk the helicopter can be shot down. Parachuting is another way to drop personnel at their LZ there is however a larger risk to the safety of the persons because they slowly glide to the ground and are required to land in open areas like fields which provide minimal cover. There are three types of parachuting missions Low Altitude, Low Opening (LALO) jumps, High Altitude, Low Opening (HALO) jumps and High Altitude, High Opening (HAHO) jumps.
LALO jumps are a method of aerial insertion where the parachutist leaves the aircraft at a low altitude of approximately 500 to 2000ft with their parachute opening as they exit the aircraft. This has the advantage of being able to drop a large number of parachutists quickly into a large LZ. This reduces the time the parachutist is visible ensuring they remain safer (White, 1992) however the aircraft must be travelling slowly and at low altitude making it exposed to surface to air missile (SAM) sites.
HALO jumps are a method of delivering equipment, supplies and personnel from a transport aircraft at high altitude to a LZ by free fall parachute insertion. The Page | 4
HAHO jumps are used to deliver personnel to a LZ using a transport aircraft. HAHO drops are used when the parachutist needs to be dropped into a hostile environment. During a HAHO jump a parachutist is dropped between 25,000 ft to 90,000ft opening their parachute 8 to 10 seconds after exiting the transport aircraft. The parachutist will then glide with a glide ratio of approximately 1 to 3.5 to their LZ. This technique was employed during the gulf war where SAS teams could leave the transport aircraft outside of hostile areas gliding silently and landing inside enemy territory.
Wing Suits are suits used to increase the surface area of a human to create more lift during a parachute jump. These have been known to decrease the velocity of the parachutist by up to 40 km/h. A form of this has been applied in the SPELCO Gryphon parachute system see Figure 2-1.This was developed to bring soldiers to their LZ without exposing the transport to anti-aircraft fire and maintaining the surprise. The gryphon parachute system weighs only 13kg, has a 1.8m wing with Page | 5
Aero towing which is a system where an ultra-light aircraft tows a hang glider aloft. The hang glider is positioned on a rolling cart designed to support at the correct angle of attack for take-off. It also stabilises the hang glider until its velocity is large enough that lift-off occurs (Hang Gliding, 2010). This system is the only system in which a hang glider is towed into to altitude then released.
Page | 6
Wills Wing is an American hang glider manufacturer that produces hang gliders for beginners through to advanced pilots. The Wills Wing T2 is an advanced level, high performance hang glider with two models, a 144 and 154. The 154 has a larger wing area, span, and aspect ratio allowing for an increase in pilot weight. The performance parameters are equal however for each model. Table 2-1 shows the configuration of the T2 hang glider.
Table 2-1 - Wills Wing T2 Hang Glider (Wills Wing 2009)
Specification Area (ft^2) Span (ft) Aspect Ratio Glider Weight (lbs) Hook-In Weight (lbs) Optimum Body Weight (lbs) Nose Angle (deg) Double Surface (%) USHPA Rating Maximum Velocity for straight flight Vne (ft/s) Maximum Velocity For Turbulent flight Va (ft/s) Minimum Descent Rate Velocity Vms (ft/s) Maximum Steady State Velocity Vd (ft/s)
T2 144 T2 154 144 154 32.3 33.5 7.3 7.4 71 73 160-235 185-285 140-180 180-200 127-132 92 4 77.73 67.47 30.8 102.67
2.2.2. Airborne C4
Airborne are an Australian micro light aircraft and hang glider manufacturer. The airborne C4 is another advanced level, high performance hang glider with three different models, the C4 13, 13.5 and 14. C4-13 has the smallest wing area, span and aspect ratio. These values increase between the other models as is shown in Table 2-2.
Avian are an English hang glider and paraglider manufacturer. Avian JAVA hang gliders are sports hang gliders offering an excellent blend of performance, handling whilst being light weight (Avian, 2010). There are two models of JAVA hang gliders are available, the 140 and 155. The performance data for the JAVA hand gliders are shown in Table 2-3.
JAVA Wing span Wing area Aspect ratio Min sink rate Max. L/D ratio Speed range* Pilot Clip in weight range Max. speed (VNE turbulent air) Max speed (VNE smooth air) Normal packed length Breakdown length Glider weight rigged Glider weight in bag
140 9.2 m (30' 1") 13 m (140ft ) 6.5 0.86m.sec (170ft.min) 13 15-70mph, 24-113 km/h 55kg - 85kg 72kmh (45mph) 113kmh (70mph) 5.6m (18' 5") 4.3m (14' 1") 27.5 kg (60 lbs) 29 kg (64 lbs)
155 10 m (32' 9") 14.4 m (155ft) 7 0.86m.sec (170ft.min) 13 15-70 mph, 24-113 km/h 70kg - 110kg 72kmh (45mph) 113kmh (70mph) 5.9m (19' 4") 4.6m (15' 2") 29.5 kg (65 lbs) 31 kg (68 lbs)
Page | 8
Moyes are another Australian hang glider manufacturer producing hang gliders ranging from beginner models to high performance, advanced level models. The Lightspeed RS has aluminium leading edges, carbon fibre cross bars and standard aerofoil uprights. This reduces the glide weight and improves the hang gliders handling characteristics. The RS comes in two models the RS 3.5 and RS 4. Their performance characteristics can be seen in Error! Reference source not found.
Litespeed Area Span Nose Angle Aspect Ratio Glider Weight * Optimal Pilot Weight Hook-In-Weight VNE VA Trim Speed Stall Speed *** Maximum Speed Best Glide Speed Best Glide Angle Glide Angle 10:1
RS 3.5 13.7 m2 (147 ft2) 10.3 m (33.7 ft) 130-132 degrees 7.7 33 kgs (73 lbs) 72 kgs (159 lbs) 68-109 kgs (150-240 lbs) 85 kph (53 mph) 74 kph (46 mph) 34 kph (21 mph) 26 kph (16 mph) 124 kph (77 mph) 45 kph (28 mph) 15:1 74 kph (46 mph)
RS 4 14.1 m2 (152 ft2 10.4 m (34.1 ft) 130-132 degrees 7.7 33.5 kgs (74 lbs) 78 kgs (172 lbs) 68-109 kgs (150-240 lbs) 85 kph (53 mph) 74 kph (46 mph) 34 kph (21 mph) 26 kph (16 mph) 124 kph (77 mph) 45 kph (28 mph) 15:1 74 kph (46 mph)
Page | 9
3. Design Specifications
The development of the hang glider concept requires numerous iterations of design and calculations, defined by specifications required of the design. The following sections discuss the process used for identifying problems and opportunities, determining objectives, describing situations, and defining successful objectives in the form of a technical task. A conceptual design configuration will then be proposed based off preliminary sizing for weight and wing area, as well as sensitivity studies. The resultant design is then brought together in the three view drawings.
Due to this, the scope of the project will be restricted to the design a hang glider with the main interest of transporting military personnel. The vehicle is to be controllable by one pilot/driver with sufficient military training, and also allow for the carrying of sufficient equipment and baggage.
Page | 10
The proposed hang glider design must conform to Hang Glider Manufacturers Association (HGMA) standards. These standards are defined and enforced by private hang glider manufacturers across the globe, and are beyond the usual aviation standards. These HGMA standards cover everything required, such as load testing and stability requirements. This legislation will not be discussed in detail as it is beyond the scope of the course.
The design must also comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration governing all aviation activities. In particular, FAR 91, which covers general operating and flight rules, FAR 103, which covers the airworthiness requirements of all ultra-light vehicles, and FAR 105, which covers the airworthiness requirements of parachute operations will be relevant to this project.
The hang glider will be designed to offer an alternative to parachutes currently being used by the American military to service paratroopers. Consequently, the mission capabilities should be more advanced and superior to those that are provided by parachutes. Potential benefits from this new technology include longer range, increased stealth, higher deployment speed and possibly passenger comfort.
Page | 11
Parameter Crew Weight Glide Ratio Deployment Altitude Landing Distance Maximum Flight Speed
3.1.3.1.
Crew Weight
The crew weight of the hang glider will be the combined total of the pilot and any equipped gear such as a backpack with supplies, weaponry and communications devices. Based on rules of thumb exercised in weight estimations of aircraft, it can be assumed that the typical pilot will weigh 70 kilograms. In addition, the equipped gear carried by the pilot can be estimated to weigh approximately 30 kilograms which would provide a total crew weight of approximately 100 kilograms.
3.1.3.2.
Glide Ratio
To take full advantage of the travel range benefits that can be gained in comparison to parachutes, ideally the glide ratio should be as large as possible. Here, the large Page | 12
3.1.3.3.
Deployment Altitude
The deployment altitude for a military hang glider will need to be selected as a compromise between more forward range being achieved and less time being spent airborne where the hang glider is subject to detection or attacks. Research shows that paratrooper jumps are executed at altitudes as low as 150 metres. There is also the limitation of oxygen masks being required at altitudes greater than 2.5 kilometres where there is insufficient oxygen for proper mental function. Therefore the deployment altitude to be designed for will be in between these two figures at 1 kilometre.
The glide range will be dependent on the glide ratio and deployment altitude. For a glide ratio of 15 and a deployment altitude of 1 kilometre as specified above, the maximum range will be 15 kilometres. The range can also be decreased by the pilot inducing drag on the glider as necessary to meet the requirements of the mission.
3.1.3.4.
Landing Distance
Ideally the landing distance will preferably be uphill and into the wind so that the glider is on the verge of stalling just as the pilot lands. This landing distance can be estimated to be approximately 20 metres, but from an approach of up to few hundred meters.
Page | 13
3.1.4.1.
To maintain the viability of using a hang glider as an alternative means of transportation for airborne forces, the extra cost versus the benefits gained over the usage of parachutes will need to be justified. Ideally the cost should be comparable to a parachute, however due to the intricate mechanisms and materials involved in the manufacture of a hang glider it is very likely that the cost would exceed this. There may also be additional costs associated with the training of the pilots and maintenance of the hang gliders. As such, for military applications an initial purchase cost of $5,000 (AUD) per hang glider is ideal and is comparable to the cost of a parachute. If this initial purchase cost is exceeded then it will need to be well-justified accordingly.
This hang glider will have no propulsion system of its own and therefore solely rely on gliding to travel long distances. For stealth purposes, this will allow for silent gliding to the destination. Thus the only type of power required for the function of the hang glider will be sourced from the internal body strength of the pilot for the purposes of towing the hang glider and directional control. If the pilot is able to support the empty weight of the hang glider whilst carrying other required military gear such as a backpack with supplies, weaponry and communications devices then the power plant requirements are met.
Page | 14
Landing Gear
The legs of the pilot are intended to be used as landing gear as is done with conventional hang gliders. Therefore in the interest of maintaining a compact and minimalistic design for ease of towing, no additional landing gear will need to be considered.
3.1.6.2.
Navigational Equipment
For any form of transport, navigation is of utmost importance. As with conventional hang gliders, weight-shifting will be used as the method of attitude control for the military hang glider. Suitable navigational equipment will include a variometer, radio and GPS where the variometer will also provide the functions of an altimeter to indicate altitude, airspeed, climb rate and sink rate. While gliding, the variometer and GPS may not be easily accessible and will need to be mounted in an easy viewing position such as the control bar. The radio unit will be voiceactivated via a headset worn by the pilot and therefore will not need to be mounted onto the control bar.
As the hang glider is a form of transport used for soldier deployment, mounted weapons are not necessary. Similarly, weapons would be incredibly difficult to utilize for a hang glider pilot. Lastly, firing projectiles from a hang glider would greatly affect the dynamics of its flight, possibly causing loss of control as well as giving away the gliders position. For these reasons, the use of weapons will be limited to ground combat and will not be considered in the design of this hang glider.
Page | 15
The glider must be able to satisfy all the requirements described by the in the 2006 HGMA Airworthiness Standards, which include flight and load testing. It is also to follow a maintenance schedule as described by the HGMA.
All maintenance and services should be carried out by a certified aircraft mechanic who is familiar with the vehicle.
The hang glider should be able to be safely and comfortably piloted without removing the centre of gravity from the centreline during forward gliding. The chosen aerofoils are limited to those available for current hang gliders. In future iterations of the design, the hang glider could possibly be designed to carry either an extra passenger or payload package such that the hang glider may be able to be used as a taxi.
At present hang gliders are almost exclusively used for recreational or sporting purposes. Thus far there have been no known military applications of hang gliders. In turn, this limited the ability to compare relevant statistical data due to the absence of such aircraft. Therefore the next most relevant statistical data to be investigated were civilian application hang gliders. A trade study of existing hang gliders was undertaken to gather the initial estimates of the take-off and empty weights of the hang glider. Subsequently other parameters Page | 16
3.2.1.1.
Empty Weight
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-1 shows the statistical trend of how the empty weight varies with take-off weight.
A linear trendline was fitted to this data where the equation of this trendline defines the A and B variables of Roskams equation shown below (Roskam, 1985).
where
and
technology diagram. Also note that the take-off weight of the hang glider was defined earlier as the sum of the empty weight and the crew weight, such that:
Page | 17
Solving Roskams equation and the equation for take-off weight simultaneously calculates the takeoff and empty weights of our proposed design. These weights were found to be:
3.2.1.2.
Aspect Ratio
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-2 shows the statistical trend of how the aspect ratio varies with take-off weight using a fitted linear trendline. On the basis of a takeoff weight of 134.3 kg as calculated earlier, a aspect ratio of 7.253 metres was estimated.
Page | 18
3.2.1.3.
Wing Span
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-3 shows the statistical trend of how the wing span varies with take-off weight using a fitted linear trendline. On the basis of a takeoff weight of 134.3 kg as calculated earlier, a wing span of 10.62 metres was estimated.
Page | 19
Parachutes do not utilize any form of propulsion system. Because of this, the design take-off weight is simply the total weight of the parachute system and the pilot. Similarly the empty weight is simply the total weight of the parachute and the container in which it is packed. Therefore any technology diagram developed to compare various existing parachutes would show a straight regression line with a gradient of one, assuming the weight of the user or payload were kept consistent. Comparing the parameters of different military application parachutes:
Parachute Type Maximum Suspended Weight (kg) Parachute Assembly Weight (kg) Diameter (m) Rate of Descent @ 90.72 kg (m/s) MC1-1C MC1-1B Round Round 136 136 13 13 10.67 10.67 4.27 5.43 Forward Speed @ 90.72 kg (m/s) 3.66 4.27 4.27
Page | 20
1 Start-up
2 Taxi
Page | 21
In the Technical Task, the initial weight was estimated based on the statistics of existing hang gliders and a regression line with A and B constants was obtained. These A and B constants, among others to be calculated, can in turn be used to determine the sensitivities using formulae derived by Arjomandi 2010. The hand calculations of the sensitivity analyses can be found in Appendix B.
The necessary constants that were used in the sensitivity analyses were calculated as follows:
Note that A and B were the regression line constants that were derived in the statistical analysis based on existing hang gliders. For the constant, D, there was no payload weight as the gear of the pilot is considered a part of the crew weight such Page | 22
The empty weight of the hang glider is the total weight minus the pilot and his gear. If the empty of the hang glider were increased, the effect of this was determined as below:
The sensitivity of the take-off weight to empty weight was found to be 5.142; hence for every kilogram increase in the empty weight, the take-off weight is required to increase by 5.142 kilograms.
If extra payload besides the pilot and his gear were to be included in the mission specification, the effect of this was determined as below:
Page | 23
The sensitivity of the take-off weight to payload weight was found to be 1.241; hence for every kilogram of payload added, the take-off weight is required to increase by 1.241 kilograms. Thus the sensitivity of the take-off weight to the payload weight is almost halved compared to the sensitivity to the empty weight. Therefore it appears that the empty weight has a much larger effect than the payload weight on the design of the hang glider.
3.6.1.1.
Stall Speed
For stall speed requirements, it was noted that in a glide, weight must equal lift, which yields:
Rearranging this equation indicates that wing loading at stall depends on stall velocity and the coefficient of lift of the vehicle:
Page | 24
Glide Ratio
This glider has a glide ratio requirement of 15. Whilst moving at a constant speed in still air, the glide ratio is numerically equal to the lift to drag ratio, but it is not necessarily equal during other manoeuvres.
During glide, vdown should be equivalent to the terminal velocity of the glider, as its descent is being slowed by the glider acting as a parasheet. Thus, vdown can be calculated as (NASA 2010):
where cD is the coefficient of drag of the vehicle downwards. According to Culp 2000, this is approximately 0.75 for a hang glider or parasheet. Rearranging these two equations gives a wing loading of:
Given that a maximum forward flight speed of 200km/h is a performance parameter, we can calculate the wing loading to be 6.3 kg/m3 in order to satisfy our glide ratio condition. Page | 25
3.6.1.3.
Landing Distance
Due to the higher angle of attack, and the heavy flare that pilots use, the stall speed at landing is generally higher than that for level flight, and so can be assumed to be 1012 ms-1. The maximum lift coefficient is similarly different, and will be assumed to be 2.3. From this, we have a wing loading of 146.9 kg/m3 order to satisfy our conditions at landing.
As our glider does not have a power loading, a matching diagram is not needed, and a design point can be taken from our wing loadings, which yields:
Given a take-off weight of 134.3 kg, we can find that our wingspan must be 31 m2.
Page | 26
4. Preliminary Design
The following conceptual designs are primarily based on existing configuration of the present day recreational hang glider. From Figure 4-1 it can be seen that the main structure of the hang glider consists of keel, cross bar and the leading edge tubes. The leading edge tubes provide the sweep desired sweep angle, while both the keep and crossbar provide structural rigidity laterally and longitudinally. These tubes make up the structural frame of the hang glider. The keel is then connected to the control bar. This control bar utilizes the weight of the pilot to encourage pitch and roll directional changes. The control bar is connected to the cross bar via flying wires. In addition there are also wires from the leading edge keel post and trailing edge keel post to aid in controllability and stability. The wires are the actuators which promote manoeuvrability.
Page | 27
The vertical structure is held via a vertical post known as the king post. The king post translates directly above the control bar and protrudes above the sail. Connected to the Page | 28
The incorporation of the pilot can be seen from Figure 4-2. The pilot is held by a pouch which is situated just above the control for ease of access to the control panel. The pouch is connected to a network of straps and safety harness all connected to the king post. The pilot manoeuvres through the production of moment forces. The pilot harnesses are directly connected to the king post, which results in the pilot being structurally fixed. The pilot then uses the control bar (which is connected to the cross bar through flying wires) to alter the sail angle and hence producing a moment arm to change direction.
Page | 29
Page | 30
Figure 4-3 - Air flow over forward swept wing and backwards swept wing (Wilson 2008)
Page | 31
The ability to prevent stall at higher angles of attack gives rise to heightened ability to maneuver and the ability to control this maneuverability. Hence this design incorporates the addition of ailerons at the wing tip. The control ailerons at the wing tip will allow for heightened roll ability as the magnitude of the moment force is highest at the wing tip. The wing tip control surfaces maybe controlled electronically through an onboard computer which can be situated underneath the parachute. The commands from the pilot to the control surfaces for this design may be very difficult. The incorporation of electronic control adds extra weight to the hang glider, which already struggles to induce significant lift. The additional weight from the accompanying electronic control will reduce the glide range, resulting in a limited mission profile.
The overall configuration of this design concept provides good ideas in terms of designing a glider that is more focused on the military and the potential tasks involved. The aspect of a forward swept wing with heightened manoeuvrability controls work together to enhance the glider to be able to change direction; this application can be used to infiltrate an area with skyscrapers which require high controllability to manoeuvre. The disadvantages of this concept are the design of a control panel and the electronic actuators required to control the ailerons require some sort of sensor interaction. The pilot him/herself will not be able to continually adjust control surfaces to stabilize the glider. As such, a feedback loop computer system is required to monitor the control surfaces and this addition of electronic device results in extra weight, which is highly undesirable.
Page | 32
Page | 33
Page | 34
Page | 35
Figure 4-7 - Image of vertical tail used for stabilization (Marshall Brain 2008)
Page | 36
Page | 37
Page | 38
Control bar Pilot and harness Frame (keel, leading edge tubes and cross bar)
In this analysis the weight of the fabric was neglected due to its small weight and as its location is not fixed due to the flexing nature of the fabric. Furthermore, the CGs of each subsystem was assumed to be co-located with their geometric centres. This assumption is normally only applicable to objects of uniform density, however for a preliminary CG analysis this will provide a good estimation that can be further refined in the future if necessary. Due to the scarcity of statistical data regarding the individual weights of hang glider components, the weights were estimated using ProEngineer CAD software functions with material densities input.
Table 5-1 - Weight Breakdown of the Hang Glider Subsystems
Aircraft Subsystem Frame Wframe Control Bar Wbar Pilot and Harness Wpilot
Using the weights and CG locations of each subsystem which are presented in Table 5-1, the aircrafts actual CG with respect to each axis was determined using the equations detailed below. For this hang glider, X denotes the longitudinal axis, Y denotes the lateral axis and Z is the zenith axis. Page | 39
The CG envelope was then generated to determine the forward and aft ranges of locations where the CG must lie in order to be stable, expressed in terms of a percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). These were calculated at the different operating conditions that might occur in regular use. For a hang glider, there would only be two points: empty weight, and takeoff weight. These are shown in Figure 5-1.
Page | 40
The neutral point is defined as the point where the moment of the vehicle does not vary with angle of attack.
Due to the centre of gravity travel associated with the vehicle and as recommended for general aviation aircraft, static margin must be at least 10%. As can be found from our CG analysis, we have a static margin greater than 10%, even at our most aft CG, which is acceptable.
Page | 41
5.2.
6. Aerodynamic Analysis
The following section will discuss the aerodynamic properties of the hang glider, in particular, the lift distribution of the wing, the lift to drag ratio, and the fineness ratio.
where
is aerodynamic twist,
is effective lift curve slope, S is wing area, c is is the aspect ratio and the L values are coefficients
From this, taper ratio and wing geometry can be selected to optimise the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle.
Page | 42
The length of the glider was 2.22m, with a width of 1.09m, which results in a fineness ratio of 2.04. With a pilot in the harness, we can assume this structure to roughly be a cylinder with a cone pointed into the airflow. If we use statistical data from Scott 2010, this will result in a structural drag coefficient of approximately 0.2.
Page | 43
Page | 44
7. Performance Analysis
The vehicle was designed to meet the following criteria, as per the technical task, and the compliance is detailed below in Table 7-1.
Value 100 kg
Glide Ratio
15.0
Deployment Altitude
3000 m
20 m 100 km/h
Page | 45
Page | 46
9. References
Airborne. (2004). Airborne C4 Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/Airborne_C4_brochure.pdf Airborne. (2004). Airborne Fun Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/Airborne_Fun_brochure.pdf Airborne. (2004). Airborne Sting 3 Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hanggliders/brochures/Airborne_Sting3_Bro.pdf Airborne. (2004). REV Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/REV_brochure.pdf Avian. (2010). Cheetah Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_cheetah.php Avian. (2010). Java Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_java.php Avian. (2010). Rio Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_rio.php Brain, M. A. (2008, October 30). How Airplanes Work. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from How Stuff Works: http://science.howstuffworks.com/airplane19.htm Carr, G. (2003). Flight Safety Australia. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/nov/56/57.pdf Culp, R. (2000). Parachute Descent Calculations. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/descent.html FAR. (2010). Part 103 Ultralight Vehicles. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airweb.faa.gov FAR. (2010). Part 23 Airworthiness Standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airweb.faa.gov Gliding, H. (2010). Aerotowing. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.hanggliding.org/wiki/Aerotowing HGFA. (2010). HGFA Technical Manual. Hallidays Point: Hang Gliding Federation of Australia. HGMA. (2006). 2006 HGMA Airworthiness Standards. Hang Glider Manufacturers Association. Icaro. (2010). Easy Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_easy.php Icaro. (2010). Orbiter Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_orbiter.php
Page | 47
Page | 48
Page | 49
Page | 50