AE413 FINAL REPORT:

THE GLIDER PROJECT

Date of Submission:
May 1, 2006

by

_______________________________________
Harsh Menon
menon387@erau.edu

_______________________________________
Brian Pollock
pollo299@erau.edu

Submitted to:
Dr. Jeff Ashworth
Aerospace Engineering

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
Of
AE 413
Aircraft Stability and Control
Spring 2006

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Prescott, Arizona
ii
ABSTRACT

The glider configuration chosen for this project was a conventional high-wing, T-tail
configuration. This configuration was based on the configuration of common sailplanes.
The design was created using several assumptions to provide a reference base if the
design and configuration were to be altered. An initial model was constructed and
substantial flight testing was performed to determine the most efficient configuration for
the glider regarding wing location, incidence angles, and added weight. Once a
configuration was chosen, a second model was constructed, exactly replicating the
original model. The final model was flown a few times before distance was recorded as
to prevent damage. Three flights were flown for distance, and an average distance of 111
feet was achieved.

This report details the design, construction, and flight trials for a conventional high-wing,
T-tail glider. It discusses the process of why the design of the glider was chosen, along
with the assumptions made initially to begin testing. An analysis on the design is
presented, including calculations of the mean aerodynamic center, center of gravity, static
margin, and trim velocity. Results of the final fly-off are given, including discussion on
the stability of the glider during the three flights and average range achieved over three
flights during the final fly-off.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................................................................................................................II

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................I

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................IV

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................V

LIST OF SYMBOLS..............................................................................................VI

LIST OF EQUATIONS.........................................................................................VIII

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1

2.0 DESIGN AND TESTING...................................................................................2

3.0 ANALYSIS
................................................................................................................................4
Table 3.1: Final Design Parameters..............................................................................................................4
Figure 3.1: Vertical Tail................................................................................................................................5
Figure 3.2: Horizontal Tail...........................................................................................................................5
Table 3.2: Assumed Parameters for Static Margin and Trim Speed..............................................................5

CALCULATING THE STATIC MARGIN.................................................................6

Table 3.3: Calculating the center of gravity of the aircraft without clay....................................................7

CALCULATING THE TRIM SPEED.......................................................................8

Figure 3.3: Cm vs CL curve. .......................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.4: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α=0, ih=0.................................................................9
Figure 3.5: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α =0..........................................................................11

4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................14

5.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................15

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................16

ii
7.0 APPENDIX I: MATLAB M-FILE USED FOR CALCULATIONS....................17

8.0 APPENDIX I: OUTPUTS FROM MATLAB M-FILE USED FOR

CALCULATIONS..................................................................................................20

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Final Design Parameters....................................................................................................................

Table 3.2: Assumed Parameters for Static Margin and Trim Speed...................................................................
Table 3.3: Calculating the center of gravity of the aircraft without clay............................................................

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Vertical Tail......................................................................................................................................

Figure 3.2: Horizontal Tail.................................................................................................................................
Figure 3.3: Cm vs CL curve..................................................................................................................................
Figure 3.4: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α=0, ih=0.....................................................................
Figure 3.5: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α =0.............................................................................
Figure 3.6: Summing forces on the glider..........................................................................................................

v
LIST OF SYMBOLS

AR Aspect Ratio non-dimensional

SM Static Margin non-dimensional

S Wing Planform Area inches2

M Pitching Moment lbf-in

W Weight lbf

V Volume inches3

e Span Efficiency Factor non-dimensional

m Mass slugs

q Dynamic Pressure lbf/inches2

v Velocity ft/s

x AC Aerodynamic Center inches

x AC Aerodynamic Center non-dimensional

x cg Location of Center of Gravity non-dimensional

ρ Density slugs/ft3

ηh Efficiency of the Horizontal non-dimensional

Tail

dε/dα Dynamic Pressure Ratio non-dimensional

Clα Lift-Curve Slope for an airfoil (degree)-1

C Lα Lift-Curve Slope (degree)-1

CL Lift-Coefficient non-dimensional

CM Pitching Moment Coefficient (degree)-1

vi
Subscripts:

H Horizontal Tail

V Vertical Tail

ih Incidence Angle on Horizontal

Tail

h Horizontal Tail

wf Wing-Fuselage

0 Coefficient with all other terms 0

α Angle of Attack

aircraft Coefficient for the entire aircraft

vii
LIST OF EQUATIONS

S H = S * 0.2
Equation 3.1

SV = S H * 0.5 Equation 3.2

Clα
C Lα wf =
57.3Clα Equation 3.3
1+
πeAR

Clα
C Lαh =
57.3Clα Equation 3.4
1+
πeARh

C Lα h Sh  dε 
x AC wf + ηh x ACh 1 − 
C Lα wf S  dα 
x AC = Equation 3.5
C Lα h S  dε 
1+ η h h x ACh 1 − 
C Lα wf S  dα 

∫ xdm ∫ ρxdV ∑ xiVi

x cg = m
=V = Equation 3.6
∫ dm
m
∫ ρdV
V
∑ Vi

SM = x AC − x cg Equation 3.7

SM = − CM CL Equation 3.8

Cm = Cm 0 + Cmα α + Cm ih ih Equation 3.9

Cm0 = C L ( x ACwf − x cg ) Equation 3.10

Sh
C mih = −C Lα h η h ( x ach − x cg ) Equation 3.11
S

Sh  dε 
C Lαaircraft = C Lα + C Lα η h 1 −  Equation 3.12
wf h S  dα 

viii
 Cmα
SM = − Equation 3.13
C Lα

Sh
Cm0 = C Lwf ( x ACwf − x cg ) − η hC Lhtail
*
( x ACh − x cg ) Equation 3.14
S

Sh
C Lwf − C Lh = C Laircraft Equation 3.15
S

0 = Cmα α + Cm0
*
Equation 3.16

2W
vtrim = Equation 3.17
C Ltrim ρS

ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The goal of this project was to design, build, and fly a statically stable glider constructed
from balsa wood using principles of stability and control learned throughout the semester.
Design constraints for the glider were defined as follows:

- maximum wing span of 18 inches

- maximum chord length of 3 inches
- maximum fuselage length of 18 inches
- wing camber allowed
- conventional, canard, or three-surface designs allowed
- must utilized supplied balsa wood (wing surface: 3 x 3/32 x 36-in; fuselage: 1/2 x 3/16
x 36-in)
- three competition launches allowed

Beyond those dimension constraints, overall design of the glider was left to the
imagination of the student groups. After choosing a design for the glider, quantitative
analysis was to be performed on the design to determine certain stability factors. The
most important values to be solved for were the static margin and trim velocity of the
glider. These values provided a reference of the stability of the glider and a velocity at
which it should be released at for steady, level flight.

Glider designs were put to the test in a final fly-off in which each glider was flown three
times. Distance was measured and an average of the three flights was recorded. The fly-
off was held in the Eagle Gym with measuring tape running the length of the gym.
Distance was measured from the point of release to the point at which the glider made
initial contact with the floor. In the event that a glider flew longer than the distance of the
gym floor, four feet of distance was added for every foot off the floor the glider made
contact with the wall at.

1
2.0 DESIGN AND TESTING

Design of the glider began with considerations of the wing. For simplicity, a rectangular
wing with no dihedral was chosen to avoid design complications. Various dimensions
were considered to find an efficient balance of wing area and aspect ratio. The full
allowable wing area of 54-in2 was chosen in order to create the most lift, which provided
for an aspect ratio of 6 for the wing. After finalizing dimensions of the wing, the
recommendations of using S HT = 0.2S wing and SVT = 0.5S HT were followed. To model
this glider after conventional gliders, a T-tail configuration was chosen for the
arrangement of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Finally, the full allowable fuselage
of 18-in was also used.

To begin flight testing, the vertical stabilizer was placed at the rear of the fuselage, with
the horizontal stabilizer placed with no incidence angle so that the leading edges were
flush. The wing was placed with no angle of attack roughly at the mid-point of the
fuselage just to give a reference once changes were made based on flight performance.
Since the glider had a negative static margin without any weight on the nose, a small
amount of modeling clay was added.

After multiple tests of the glider with various wing positions, results showed that as the
wing was moved forward on the fuselage, the glider’s trim velocity would decrease, and
the gilder would pitch up considerably, climb and then pitch down and descend to the
floor. Conversely, as the wing was moved aft on the fuselage, the glider’s trim velocity
would increase, making it increasingly difficult to reach trim velocity; however, as the
glider would not stall in flight, range was increased. Also, as more weight was added to
the nose, the trim velocity would increase, keeping the glider in more steady flight.
Eventually a wing position and weight was chosen so that the trim velocity was relatively
high, thus keeping the glider from dramatically pitching up and carrying it acceptable
distances.

As the glider was being released with an angle of attack, an incidence angle was added to
the horizontal stabilizer and an angle of attack was added to the wing so that the glider
could be release horizontally while still seeking a positive pitch attitude. The incidence
angle in the horizontal stabilizer was created by sanding the top of the vertical stabilizer
down by 1/32-in at the leading edge over a 1-in chord length, creating a slight incidence
angle of -1.194 deg. The angle of attack in the wing was created by adding a simple
balsa wood shim under the leading edge of the wing, giving an angle of attack of 2.566
deg.

In this configuration, the glider began consistently reaching distances of above 120-ft. As
this design was simple and therefore relatively strong, it was chosen as the final design
for the glider and another model was built using the same dimensions and locations for
the final fly-off.

2
A second model was constructed due to the substantial damage received by the first
during flight testing. This model was an exact replica of the first, although a small
amount of clay was required in order for the center of gravity to be at the same location.
This dissimilar weight distribution between the two models was most likely caused by
different densities in the balsa wood between the different pieces used.

Once the second model was completed, a few test flights were conducted to prove that its
flight characteristics were equal to that of the first glider. After showing that its flight
characteristics were indeed equal, the decision was made to record distances.

Upon release during the first flight, the glider began a slow left bank almost immediately.
This was most likely caused by releasing the glider in a banked condition. This turn
continued through the whole flight, and the glider made contact with the side wall, about
seven feet above the ground. However, since the glider did not make first contact with
the back wall, only the distance along the floor from release to contact was measured, and
the flight distance was given as 89 feet.

The second and third flights were more successful than the first, with the glider flying in
steady, level flight. In both flights, the glider flew more than the distance of the gym and
made contact with the wall eight feet above the floor, resulting in flight distances of 122
feet.

Based on the distances achieved by the glider over the three flights, the average distance
the glider flew was calculated as 111 feet.

3
3.0 ANALYSIS

The first step of the analysis process was making certain assumptions. All the distances
were measured from the nose of the glider. Our glider design parameters are listed in the
table below:

Parameter Assumed Value

B (Wing Span) 18 inches
c (Chord Length) 3 inches
λ (Taper Ratio) 1
Length of Fuselage 18 inches
Location of Leading Edge of Wing 5.5 inches
Location of Leading Edge of Vertical Tail 16 inches
Incidence Angle on Wing 2.566 degrees
Incidence Angle on Horizontal Tail -1.194 degrees

Table 3.1: Final Design Parameters.

These quantities enabled us to perform calculations to obtain the static margin and solve
for the trim speed.

The wing planform area (S) was calculated using the wing span and chord and the
planform area for the horizontal and vertical tails were calculated using the following
relations:
S H = S * 0.2
Equation 3.1

SV = S H * 0.5 Equation 3.2

The planform area of the wing was evaluated to be 54 in2. The planform area of the
horizontal tail was found to be 10.8 in2 and the planform area of the vertical tail was
determined to be 5.3 in2. The next step was determining the aspect ratios of the
empennage lifting surfaces. Further assumptions were made, considering other aircraft as
well as the need for simplicity.

The dimensions of the vertical tail can be seen below.

4
 Figure 3.1: Vertical Tail.

From the above figure, using a span of 3.53 in. and a planform area of 5.4 in2 we obtained
an aspect ratio for the vertical tail of 2.35. For the horizontal tail, we used the following
dimensions

Figure 3.2: Horizontal Tail.

These dimensions were used to calculate the aspect ratio of the horizontal tail which was
determined to be 4.8. With these basic numbers, we made a few more assumptions
necessary to calculate the aerodynamic center which are listed below:

Parameter Assumed Value

dε/dα 0.1
ηh (Dynamic Pressure Ratio) 0.9
Clα (Lift Curve Slope for a Flat Plate) 0.11/deg

Table 3.2: Assumed Parameters for Static Margin and Trim Speed.

5
Calculating the static margin

We then calculated the lift coefficient for the wing fuselage using the following relation:

Clα
C Lα wf =
57.3Clα Equation 3.3
1+
πeAR

This lift coefficient was determined to be 0.0802/deg.

The lift coefficient for the horizontal tail was then calculated using the following
equation:

Clα
C Lαh =
57.3Clα Equation 3.4
1+
πeARh

The above term was determined to be 0.0751/deg.

The next two quantities to be determined were the location of the aerodynamic center of
the wing-fuselage and the aerodynamic center of the horizontal tail. Since we used a
rectangular wing, the location of the aerodynamic center was just the quarter chord
location. Therefore, the location of the aerodynamic center was

x ACwf = 6.25in.
To calculate, x ACwf , we just divide by the mean chord length of the wing (which is the
same as the chord length for a rectangular wing)

x ACwf = 6.25in. = 2.0833

3in.

For the horizontal tail, the aerodynamic center was also located at the quarter chord
location since it was a rectangular lifting surface too. To find x ACh , we add the distance
from the nose to the vertical tail, the distance from the leading edge of the vertical tail to
the leading edge of the horizontal tail and the distance from the leading edge of the
horizontal tail to the quarter chord location. This results in

x ACh = 17.375in.

We then calculate x ACh by dividing the above result by the wing chord length to obtain

x ACh = 17.375in. = 5.7917

3in.

6
These two quantities were then used in the equation below to obtain the location of the
aerodynamic center of the glider.

C Lα h Sh  dε 
x AC wf + ηh x ACh 1 − 
C Lα wf S  dα 
x AC = Equation 3.5
C Lα h S  dε 
1+ η h h x ACh 1 − 
C Lα wf S  dα 

The above equation gave us a value of 2.5719 as the location of the aerodynamic center.

We then proceeded to determine the location of the center of gravity of the glider in order
to determine the static margin. The center of gravity of the airplane was determined using
the following equation (assuming density ρ to be a constant)

∫ xdm ∫ ρxdV ∑ xiVi

x cg = m
=V = Equation 3.6
∫ dm
m
∫ ρdV
V
∑ Vi

Part Centroid ( x i) Volume (Vi) x i Vi

Fuselage (18/2)/3 = 3 1/2in x 3/16in x 5.06 in3
18in = 1.6875 in3
Wing (5.5+(3/2))/3 = 2.33 3in x 18in x 3/32in 11.81 in3
= 5.0625 in3
Horizontal Tail (16+.5+(1.5/2))/3 = 1.5in x 7.2in x 5.82 in3
5.75 3/32in = 1.0125 in3
Vertical Tail (16+0.88)/3=5.6270 5.4in x 3/32in = 2.85 in3
0.50625 in3
TOTAL 8.26875 in3 25.5 in3

Table 3.3: Calculating the center of gravity of the aircraft without clay.

Using data from the table above and plugging it into equation xx, we get a c.g. location of
3.08. However, after experimentally measuring the location of the c.g, we determined the
location to be (9.46875in/3in) = 3.156. Therefore, we will use the experimentally
determined value of the c.g. for all further calculations. We can then calculate our static
margin by using the following equation:

SM = x AC − x cg Equation 3.7

This equation yielded a result of -0.5841. We thus concluded that the glider was statically
unstable and hence decided to use clay at the nose of the airplane to move the aircraft c.g.
ahead of the aircraft aerodynamic center. We added up 1.2 oz. of modeling clay to the
nose of the glider to move the c.g. forward. The addition of clay resulted in a new c.g.,

7
experimentally measured to be 4.53125 in., which when non-dimensional zed came out to
be an x cg of 1.51. The new static margin was then determined to be +1.06.

Calculating the trim speed

The next part of our analysis focused on calculating the trim speed of our aircraft. To
calculate our trim speed, we started from the static margin. The static margin is related to
slope of the Cm vs CL curve by the following relation:

SM = − CM CL Equation 3.8

The graph of Cm vs CL has the following characteristic shape:

Figure 3.3: Cm vs CL curve.

The point in the above graph where Cm=0 corresponds to the trim condition. The trim
conditions can be obtained using two methods:

1. Using the equation shown below which describes the pitching moment coefficient in
terms of the other stability derivatives,

Cm = Cm 0 + Cmα α + Cm ih ih Equation 3.9

where α is the angle of attack, ih is the incidence angle of the horizontal tail and the Cms
are the pitching moment coefficients corresponding to angle of attack, incidence angle of
horizontal tail etc.

2. Summing the moments on the aircraft and determining the quantity (Cm0 + Cm ih ih ).

8
Method I

Calculating Cm0

We used the lift coefficient of the wing-fuselage determined earlier (0.0802/deg) to obtain
the lift coefficient at the wing incidence angle of 2.566 deg. This evaluates to

C L = 2.566 deg* 0.0802 / deg = 0.2058

Thus the lift generated when the wing is at 2.566 deg angle of incidence is determined by
using the following equation. The next step is calculating the Cm0 and we do so by
summing moments about the center of gravity in the figure below:

Figure 3.4: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α=0, ih=0.

Summing the moments, we get the following:

∑ M cg = − M + L( x ACwf − x cg ) = 0
⇒ M = L( x ACwf − x cg )
Equation 3.10
⇒ C m0 qS = C L qS ( x ACwf − x cg )
⇒ C m0 = C L ( x ACwf − x cg )

Therefore, we can calculate Cm0 by multiplying 0.2058 and (2.0833 - 1.51) to give a
value of 0.118.

9
Calculating Cmih

We calculated the value of Cmih using the following equation

Sh
C mih = −C Lα h η h
( x ach − x cg ) Equation 3.11
S
10.8in 2
= −0.0751 / deg* 0.9 * * (5.7917 − 1.5) = −0.0579 / deg
54in 2

Calculating Cmα

The total C Lαaicraft is calculated by using the following equations:

S h  dε 
C Lαaircraft = C Lα + C Lα η h
1 −  Equation 3.12
wf h S  dα 
= (0.0802/deg) + (0.0751/deg * 0.9 * (10.8 in2/54 in2) * (0.9)
= 0.0924/deg

We know that

Cmα
SM = − Equation 3.13
C Lα

From this we can calculate Cmα for the aircraft, by multiplying 0.0924/deg and -1.06 to
give -0.0981/deg.

We can now calculate the trim angle of attack by using Equation 9:

Cm = Cm 0 + Cmα α + Cm ih ih

and setting Cm to 0. This yields the following equation:

0 = (0.118) + (-0.0981/deg)(α) + (-0.0579/deg)*(-1.194deg)

This yielded a trim angle of attack of 1.91 deg.

Method II

If we were to include the incidence angle of the horizontal tail, we would get an
additional moment from the lift generated at the horizontal tail. This would result in the
figure shown on the next page.

10
Determining the contributions due to Cm0 and horizontal tail

Figure 3.5: Summing the moments about the c.g. with α =0.

∑ M cg = − M + L( x ACwf − x cg ) − Lhtail ( x ACh − x cg ) = 0

c
⇒M = L( x ACwf − x cg ) − Lhtail ( x ACh − x cg )
c
Equation 3.14
⇒ Cm0 qS = C Lwf qS ( x ACwf − x cg ) − η hC Lhtail qS h ( x ACh − x cg )
*

Sh
⇒ Cm0 = C Lwf ( x ACwf − x cg ) − η h C Lhtail
*
( x ACh − x cg )
S

*
Cm0 = (0.118 - (0.0751/deg * -1.194 deg*0.9*(10.8 in2/54 in2)*(5.7917-1.51))
= 0.1871.

This term represents the contribution due to Cm0 as well as the incidence angle on the
horizontal tail.

Generating the Lift-Curve for the Aircraft

The total C L of the aircraft can be found at α=0, by using the lift curve slopes of the wing-
fuselage and horizontal tail determined earlier.

11
 Figure 3.6: Summing forces on the glider.

∑ Fy = Lwing − L htail = Ltotal

Sh Equation 3.15
⇒ C Lwf − C Lh = C Laircraft
S

C Laircraft =
α =0
(0.0802/deg*2.566deg)-(0.0751/deg*-1.994 deg)*(10.8 in2/54 in2)
= 0.2237

Therefore, the total C Lαaicraft is calculated by using the Equation 3.12:

S h  dε 
C Lαaircraft = C Lα + C Lα η h
1 − 
wf h S  dα 
= (0.0802/deg) + (0.0751/deg * 0.9 * (10.8 in2/54 in2) * (0.9)
= 0.0924/deg

This translates to a lift curve with a slope of 0.0924/deg and a y-intercept of 0.2237.

Calculating the Trim Angle of Attack

We know from Equation 13:

Cmα
SM = −
C Lα

From this we can calculate Cmα for the aircraft, by multiplying 0.0924/deg and -1.06 to
give -0.0981/deg.

From the Cm vs α plot, we can determine the value of α that gives a Cm=0.

0 = Cmα α + Cm0
*
Equation 3.16

12
 α = -(0.1871)/(-0.0981/deg)=1.91 deg

This is the required trim angle of attack. We decided to use this trim angle of attack to
give us a higher trim speed.

This trim angle of attack and corresponds to a CL of (0.0924/deg*1.91deg) + (0.2237)

=0.3999. The trim speed is therefore calculated from the following equation:

1 2
W = CL ρv S
2
2W
⇒ vtrim =
C Ltrim ρS
2(0.125lb)
⇒ vtrim =
0.3999 * (2.0481 * 10 −3 slugs / ft 3 ) * (54 / 144 ft 2 )
⇒ vtrim = 28.52 ft / s
Equation 3.17

This value for the trim velocity of the glider was verified during test flights as in level
flight, the glider flew the distance of the Eagle Gym – 90-ft in roughly three seconds. By
releasing the glider slightly above this trim velocity, and thus allowing it to gain altitude,
the glider consistently recorded distances of above 120-ft. When recording flights for
distance, due to one flight which was not straight, the glider flew an average of 111-ft.

13
4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The final glider fly off was the final test of whether the calculations met up with
experiment. The glider average distance was calculated from an average of three throws.
The first throw resulted in a total range of 89 feet. The glider yawed to the left after being
released. However, the glider hit the side wall almost seven7 feet above the ground.

The next time the glider was thrown it flew straight down the gym without yawing to the
right or left. The steady, level flight of the glider led it to achieve a height of eight feet
above the wall. The total distance of the glider was deemed to be 90ft + (8*4) feet = 122
feet. Steady, level flight was witnessed once again in the third recorded flight of the
glider. The glider hit the same spot with a total distance of 122 feet. The average of the
three flights was a distance of 111feet.

Thus, the simple, conventional configuration of the glider yielded impressive results. The
incidence angle of the wing combined with the T-tail of the empennage allowed the glider
to accomplish a maximum distance of 122 feet. The addition of clay was essential to the
success of the glider and future projects might involve reducing the dependence on clay
and trying to achieve a lighter glider with a lower trim velocity.

Future analyses would also involve determining whether the glider was laterally and
directionally stable as well as an analysis into the dynamic stability of the glider.

The glider is a very important educational tool and the effects of several different lifting
surfaces and configurations can be studied by building different models with different
wing shapes, sizes, empennages, fuselage shapes etc. Future projects would involve
trying out different configurations such as V-tails, canards, etc. and documenting the
effect that those lifting surfaces had on the overall performance and aerodynamics of the
glider.

14
5.0 REFERENCES

Yechout, T. (2003). Introduction to Aircraft Flight Mechanics. Blacksburg, Virgina:

AIAA.

15
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Harsh Menon Design, construction, analysis, report-

writing.
Brian Pollock Design, construction, flight-testing, report-
writing.
Dr. Jeff Ashworth Instructor

16
7.0 APPENDIX I: MATLAB M-FILE USED FOR CALCULATIONS

%Program to calculate Static Margin and Trim Speed for Glider

%Dimensions of Wing, Horizontal Tail, Vertical Tail, Fuselage.

c=3; % chord length [inches]
b=18; % wing span [inches]
AR_wf=b/c; % Aspect Ratio of Wing
S=b*c; % Planform area of Wing

c_htail=1.5; %chord length of horizontal tail [inches]

b_htail=7.2; %span of horizontal tail (inches)
AR_h=b_htail/c_htail; % Aspect Ratio of horizontal tail
S_h=b_htail*c_htail; % Planform area of Horizontal Tail

a_vt=1; % Chord length at tip of vertical tail [inches]

b_vt=2; % Chord length at root of vertical tail [inches]
h_vt=3.53; % Height of vertical tail [inches]
S_vt=0.5*(a_vt+b_vt)*h_vt; %Planform area of Horizontal Tail
AR_vt=(h_vt^2)/S_vt; %Aspect Ratio of Vertical Tail

length_fuselage=18; %Length of Fuselage [inches]

%Assumptions made for Calculations

e=0.9; % span efficiency factor

deda=0.1; % rate of change of downwash angle with change in angle of attack
eta_h=0.9; % efficiency of the horizontal tail

%Design Parameters, Locations of a.c., c.g., etc.

lambda=1; %Taper Ratio

ih_wing=2.566; %Angle of incidence on the wing [degrees]
ih_htail=-1.194; %Angle of incidence on horizontal tail [degrees]

loc_ledwing=5.5; %location of the leading edge of the wing [inches]

loc_ledvtail=16; %location of the leading edge of the vertical tail [inches]
loc_ledhtail=17; %location of the leading edge of the horizontal tail [inches]
xac_wf=(loc_ledwing+(0.25*c))/c %location of the aerodynamic center of the wing
fuselage [non-dimensionalized by dividing by chord length]
xac_h=(loc_ledhtail+(0.25*c_htail))/c % Location of aerodynamic center of horizontal
tail [non-dimensionalized by dividing by chord length]

17
%CALCULATING THE STATIC MARGIN

%1. Calculating the Lift-Curve Slopes for the Wing-Fuselage and Horizontal
%Tail and the Aerodynamic Center

Cla_wf=0.11/(1 + ((57.3*0.11)/(pi*e*AR_wf)))
Cla_h=0.11/(1 + ((57.3*0.11)/(pi*e*AR_h)))
xac=(((xac_wf)+((Cla_h/Cla_wf)*eta_h*(S_h/S)*xac_h*(1 - deda)))/(1 +
((Cla_h/Cla_wf)*eta_h*(S_h/S)*(1-deda))))

%2. Calculating the location of the C.G.

fuse_cg=(length_fuselage/2)/c; %Non-Dimensional Location of cg of Fuselage

wing_cg=(loc_ledwing+(c*0.5))/c; %Non-Dimensional Location of cg of Wing
hor_cg=(loc_ledhtail+(0.5*c_htail))/c; %Non-Dimensional Location of cg of horizontal
tail
vert_cg=(loc_ledvtail+((a_vt^2) + (a_vt*b_vt) + (b_vt^2))/(3*(a_vt+b_vt)))/c; % Non-
Dimensional Location of center of gravity of vertical tail

%Volumes of the different parts of the glider

fuse_vol=length_fuselage*.5*(3/16); %Fuselage Volume [inches^3]
wing_vol=S*3/32; %Wing Volume [inches^3]
hor_vol=S_h*3/32; %Horizontal Tail Volume [inches^3]
vert_vol=S_vt*3/32; %Vertical Tail Volume [inches^3]

xcg=((wing_cg*wing_vol)+(hor_cg*hor_vol)+(fuse_cg*fuse_vol)+(vert_cg*vert_vol))/(
hor_vol+wing_vol+fuse_vol+vert_vol);
exp_cg=3.156;

%Static Margin
SM=xac-exp_cg
newxcg=1.51; % New Aircraft CG with Clay [experimentally determined]
NewSM=xac-newxcg

%CALCULATING THE TRIM SPEED

%Using Method I with Approximations for eta_h

Clwf=Cla_wf*ih_wing; %Lift Coefficient of Wing at Given Incidence Angle

%Summing Moments at AOA=0, ih=0

Cm0=Clwf*(xac_wf-newxcg)
Cmih=-Cla_h*eta_h*(S_h/S)*(xac_h-newxcg) % Cmih has error associated with
assuming an efficiency for the horizontal tail

18
Cla_aircraft=Cla_wf+(Cla_h*eta_h*(S_h/S)*(1-deda)) %Cla_aircraft has errors
associated with assuming eta_h, deda
Cma=-NewSM*Cla_aircraft
Trim_AOA1=(-Cm0-(Cmih*ih_htail))/(Cma)

%Using Method II with Lesser Approximations

%Summing Moments at AOA=0

Cm0bar=Cm0-(Cla_h*eta_h*ih_htail*(S_h/S)*(xac_h-newxcg))

%Summing Forces at AOA=0 in the Z-direction

Claircraft_AOA_0=(Cla_wf*ih_wing)-(Cla_h*ih_htail*(S_h/S))
Trim_AOA2=-Cm0bar/Cma

Cl=Claircraft_AOA_0 + (Cla_aircraft*Trim_AOA2)
trim_v=sqrt((2*(0.125))/(Cl*(2.0481e-3)*(54/144)))

19
8.0 APPENDIX I: OUTPUTS FROM MATLAB M-FILE USED FOR
CALCULATIONS

xac_wf =

2.0833

xac_h =

5.7917

Cla_wf =

0.0802

Cla_h =

0.0751

xac =

2.5719

SM =

-0.5841

NewSM =

1.0619

Cm0 =

0.1180

20
Cmih =

-0.0579

Cla_aircraft =

0.0924

Cma =

-0.0981

Trim_AOA1 =

1.9077

Cm0bar =

0.1871

Claircraft_AOA_0 =

0.2237

Trim_AOA2 =

1.9077

Cl =

0.3999

trim_v =

28.5284

21
22