See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274733715

Design, Analysis & Optimization of a Small Unmanned Aircraft

Conference Paper · March 2015

DOI: 10.1109/AERO.2015.7119231

CITATIONS READS
3 495

4 authors, including:

Md Abu Horaira Banna Md. Rayhan Afsar

University of Alabama University of Alabama
7 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md. Abdus Salam

Bangladesh Polytechnic Institute
56 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NRI: Collaborative Research: Quadrupedal Human-Assistive Robotic Platform (Q-HARP) View project

Solitary Wave Solutions of Chafee-Infante Equation and (2+1) dimensional BreakingSoliton Equationbt the Improved Kudryashov Method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Rayhan Afsar on 18 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design, Analysis & Optimization of a Small Unmanned
Aircraft
Md Abu Horaira Banna, Md. Rayhan Afsar, Md. Abdus Salam
Zahangir Mohammad Shahjahan Ali Professor and Head
Department of Aeronautical Engineering Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Military Institute of Science and Technology Military Institute of Science and Technology
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka-1216, Bangladesh. Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka-1216, Bangladesh.
+8801671079963 +8801678034516
abuhorairabanna@gmail.com head@ae.mist.ac.bd

Abstract-- A small unmanned aircraft was designed and (AIAA) through the Applied Aerodynamics, Aircraft
manufactured. The aim was to fulfill the specifications and Design, Design Engineering and Flight Test Technical
achieve high performance for the 17th annual AIAA Committees, and the AIAA Foundation invites all university
Design/Build/Fly (DBF) challenge. After the competition students to participate in the Cessna/Raytheon Missile
authors continued further study and the outcome of the study
Systems Student Design/Build/Fly competition. The 17 th
is presented here which could be used to improve existing
design. Design process was driven by the individual mission annual event of Design/Build/Fly competition required the
targets and optimizing between them. After selecting the teams to design an unmanned aircraft which can simulate a
aircraft configurations, starting design point was selected using real life joint strike fighter. The aircraft must follow the
sizing trades. After that MDO (multi-disciplinary aircraft general requirements [1] set by the organizing
optimization) was initiated and continued until the design committees and capable of completing three different
converged to a feasible solution. Basic aerodynamic and flight missions [1] following a flight path [1] set up by the
mechanics theory was used beside various computational organizers. The first mission is short take-off, in which the
methods during preliminary design. objective is to fly the maximum number of laps within 4
minutes. Second is the stealth mission, where the aircraft
TABLE OF CONTENTS has to fly 3 laps with maximum possible internal payload.
The last one is the strike mission, where the aircraft takes
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 random payloads and completes three laps as fast as
2. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ....................................... 2 possible. At all missions the aircraft must take-off within 30
ft., complete the mission and land safely with no limit on
3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ...................................... 3 landing roll. A careful analysis revealed lowest rated aircraft
4. DETAIL DESIGN .................................................. 10 cost (RAC) as the primary design objective. So, the
5. MANUFACTURING PROCESS ......................... 15 challenge is to build an aircraft with minimum RAC that can
6. FLIGHT TEST ....................................................... 15 fly fast, fly with maximum payload, and take-off within the
7. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 16 marked area of 30 x 30 feet square at all missions.
REFERENCES ................................................................ 17 Starting the design process with conceptual design, all basic
BIOGRAPHY .................................................................. 17 aspects like aircraft configuration, propulsion, empennage,
and landing gear were selected. After completion of the
conceptual and preliminary design, an optimized design was
proposed. The final design was a high wing monoplane with
1. INTRODUCTION conventional tail, single tractor propulsion system and a tail
dragger landing gear. The design iterations ended with a low
wing loading, high lift coefficient, and a high thrust to
The prospect of Small Unmanned Aircraft (sUA) in various weight ratio. The combination of low wing loading and high
fields from civil to military is no more a subject of thrust to weight ratio leads to the short take-off capability. A
controversy. Today we discover versatile applications of the careful wing and fuselage design allowed sufficient payload.
sUA, and more are coming. And unlike the conventional Overall geometry was designed to generate less drag to
aircraft, the sUA is becoming a challenge for the designers make the aircraft fly as a fast as possible. Thus, an optimal
to cope with the level of expectations from the users. design to meet all the mission requirements was obtained.
To address this situation and provide a real-world aircraft
design experience for engineering students by giving them
the opportunity to validate their analytic studies, each year
the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
978-1-4799-5380-6/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
1
 2. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN dependent on the payload capability and thus weighted as 5.
Thrust: Take-off, cruise speed, high speed and
The aim is to design a lightweight aircraft with a minimum maneuverability of the aircraft depends on thrust and hence
size factor which can safely accomplish the third mission it is weighted as 5.
within the possible fastest time, fly the second mission with Tail Efficiency: Stability, control, and energy consumed by
maximum possible payload, and complete maximum the servo are a function of tail efficiency. It is weighted as 5.
number of laps within 4 minutes in the first mission. The Ground Handling: AOA of the aircraft, structural vibration
constraints of the respective mission derived the design are dependent on the quality of the ground handling. It is
requirements tabulated below. weighted as 5.
L/D: To ensure high aerodynamic efficiency and minimum
Table 1. Translation of Mission Requirements into Key power consumption high lift to drag is a crucial factor. It is
Design Requirements weighted as 4.
Speed: Success of mission one and three depends on the
Mission speed of the aircraft. It is weighted as 4.
Design Requirements Drag: Speed, power consumption and maneuverability are
Requirements
function of drag. It is weighted as 3.
Short Take-off Stability & Control: Flight performance is a function of
 High Static Thrust.
(30ftX30ft stability and control. It is weighted as 3.
square  Low Stall Velocity.
 Low wing loading. Manufacturability: A simple manufacturing process
area) ensures less manufacturing time and better precision. It is
weighted as 3.
Efficiency of Propulsion configuration: Wing and tail
 Minimize parasite drag.
High Airspeed  efficiency is affected by the configuration the propulsion
Sufficient thrust at high
system. It is weighted as 2.
Airspeed.

2.1. Aircraft Configuration: Monoplane

High Turn  High load factor.
Time  Enough thrust to assure
Sustained turn. Monoplane is the most conventional practice in the aviation
sector. Better aerodynamic characteristics and design
simplicity makes it the best choice for the overall design
High Payload  Large payload compartment. solution. A comparison of several aircraft configurations
Capability  High lift-ability. have been shown in tabular form in below.

 Adequate static and dynamic Table 2. Aircraft Configuration Selection

Stable Flight
stability.

Flying wing
Monoplane
Weight of

Biplane

Canard
Factor

Several configurations for the aircraft were abstracted. Factor

Finding out the suitable configuration which can best
meet the design requirements was done quantitatively
comparing the competitive configurations. Various factors RAC 7 4 5 4 7
of different configurations were given Weight of Factor to Payload
represent their importance. After that, different Capability 5 5 6 5 3
configurations were scored for each of the factor. A scale
factor from 1 to 7 was followed for the weighting and L/D 4 6 5 3 7
scoring schedule to assess different configurations. Stability &
Control 3 6 4 7 3
Configurations were ranked by total score.
Manufactur-
Total score = ∑Weight of Factor * Score of Factor ability 3 6 4 5 3
Total Score - 113 109 101 110
The factors are following:

RAC: As designing a joint strike fighter with minimum

2.2. Component Layout
weight and size factor is the prime objective, so RAC is
weighted as 7.
Weight: RAC is function of weight. It is also weighted as 7. 2.2.1. Propulsion: Single Tractor- Single tractor propulsion
Payload Capability: Success of mission three and four is system benefits from better propeller efficiency. Although

2
drag increases due to the interaction of the slipstream from With the assistance of a skilled pilot, the tail-dagger can be
propeller with the wing, the single tractor seemed easy to considered the best solution.
mount and required less structural elements.
Table 5. Landing Gear Selection
Table 3. Propulsion Selection

Tail-dragger
Weight of

Tricycle
Bicycle
Factor
Single Tractor
Factor

Single Pusher

Twin-Tractor
Weight of
Factor Factor

Weight 7 7 5 4

Ground
Weight 7 6 5 2 5 1 5 6
Handling
Thrust 5 4 4 6 Drag 3 6 5 4

Efficiency 2 6 5 2 Total Score - 72 75 70

Aerodynamics 2 5 6 2

Total Score - 84 77 52 2.3. Overall Conceptual Configuration

Based on the selections in the previous sections, the

2.2.2. Empennage: Conventional- Conventional tail can conceptual configuration is shown below. Note that the
provide adequate stability and control at the lowest weight. exact scale of the design is not fixed yet, as it will be done
It may suffer from the wake effect of the wing, but a in the preliminary design section.
suitable positioning of the conventional tail can best meet
the desired requirements.

Table 4. Empennage Configuration

Weight of Factor

Conventional

V-Tail
T-Tail

Factor

Weight 7 6 3 6

Efficiency 5 5 6 4
Figure 1- Conceptual Configuration

Drag 3 4 5 5
3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Total Score - 79 66 77
Following the conceptual phase, the preliminary design
process starts with the initial airframe sizing. At the
2.2.3. Landing Gear: Tail-Dragger- Tail-dragger landing beginning of the preliminary design, the starting design
gear provides higher propeller clearance, has less drag and point was selected by using a multidisciplinary
weight, and allows the aircraft to take-off smoothly for design/sizing trades. After that, Aerodynamics, propulsion,
rough field operation than the tricycle gear. Main stability and control are evaluated for individual design
disadvantage of tail-dragger is that it is inherently unstable. iterations and continued untill a desired point is obtained.

3
3.1. Airframe Design and Analysis Methodology aspect ratio. Again, a higher payload capability demands a
heavier aircraft with a heavier propulsion unit, which suffers
from increased RAC, but benefits from increased
Concept Idea Requirements performance during mission 2. A relatively faster flyer
requires lower power loading (i.e., high specific power) and
higher wing loading, which assures increased performance
in mission 1 and 3. So, a careful optimization method could
Conceptual design only finalize the design which will attain the maximum
score. This philosophy influenced defining a starting design
point as a function of mission’s performance parameters.
Several curves were plotted using the basic flight mechanics
Design Trade First Sizing theory to generate a design point from which iteration could
be started.

Revised Layout

 Weight
Iterate

 Stability

 Aerodynamics

 Propulsion

Sizing & Performance

optimization
Figure 3- Design Trades

Figure 2- Design and analysis methodology The selected design point demonstrates an approximated
stall velocity of 16ft/sec, wing loading around 0.615lb/ft2,
A closed loop optimization process was followed during and thrust to weight ratio around 0.6.
preliminary design. The first iteration started with the
concept idea developed during conceptual design, and
initial approximated airframe parameters were based upon 3.3. Airfoil Selection
the design trades. Individual design parameters were used
as an input, and the performance result was monitored to 3.3.1. Wing Airfoil- Effect of lift coefficient on the wing
explore any further improvements. If improvements were loading for the take- off du r i n g mission 3 was analyzed to
monitored at any point, then the next iteration was started predict a required lift coefficient for a predefined wing-
from that point. loading.

3.2. Design Trades

To achieve highest score and of optimal configuration, the

prime requirement was to build an aircraft with minimum
RAC and optimum speed, with high payload capability,
while assuring a maximum takeoff distance of 30 ft.
Minimizing RAC led the design to be light and of minimum
size factor (SF). A small size factor influenced the design to
be of short span, which indicates a comparatively higher
wing loading and low aspect ratio. But the limitation of
takeoff distance, available propulsive power, and better
aerodynamic performance pushes the design to be of Figure 4- Effect of CLmax on wing-loading.
comparatively lower wing loading and demands a higher

4
Simultaneously, effect of lift coefficient on stall velocity for
various wing-loadings was also analyzed for a better
understanding of the required lift coefficient.

Figure 6- XFLR5 analysis of lift curve.

(Re no: 180,000)

Figure 5- Effect of CLmax on stall velocity for different

wing loadings.

We can observe form the above graphs, that the required

airfoil should be capable of generating a 3-D lift coefficient
of around 2 with some flap deflection. As a result, the team
searched for airfoil [2], [3], [4] having lift coefficient more
than 2.2, while considering some other important aspects as
follows.
 Drag polar Figure 7- XFLR5 analysis of drag polar.
 Stall characteristics (Re no: 500,000)
 Pitching moment coefficient
 Manufacturability

After initial quick review, four airfoils were shortlisted [5]

for further detailed analysis under different flight condition
(i.e., using different Reynolds number). JavaFoil [6] and
XFLR5 [7] were used to analyze the airfoil. Analyzed
airfoils were:

CH10 (smoothed)
E423
S1223
WORTMAN FX 63-137

Figure 8- XFLR5 pitching moment analysis at takeoff

condition. (Re no: 180,000)

5
 Figure 10- Chosen airfoil for wing (E423).

3.3.2. Empennage Airfoil - For simplicity and weight

reduction, flat plates were used for horizontal and vertical
stabilizer, with a curvature shape at the leading edge and
sharp edge at the trailing end.

Figure 9-XFLR5 pitching moment analysis at cruise 3.4. Aerodynamic Performance Estimation
condition. (Re no: 500,000)
The aerodynamic performance estimation was started by
estimating the parasite drag coefficient, or zero lift drag
Scoring method mentioned in section 2 was used on the
coefficient, of the aircraft. Raymer’s “Component Buildup
basis of the XFLR5 [7] analysis to find out the best airfoil
Method” [9] was applied to estimate the parasite drag.
for the wing.

Table 6. Airfoil Selection

of Factor

CH10sm
Weight

FX 63-
E423

E423

137

Factor

Clmax 7 6 6 7 5
Figure 11- Mission 1 drag polar.

(L/D) 4 5 6 5 4

Cl@ (L/D)max 3 6 6 7 3

Stall
3 4 5 4 7
characteristics
Figure 12- Mission 2 drag polar.
Manufacturability 3 5 5 2 3

-dCm/dα 2 3 4 4 4

Total Score - 113 122 116 98

Figure 13- Mission 3 drag polar.

Finally the table showed E423 [8] was the best airfoil for
the wing which will be able to generate the desired amount Drag and lift coefficient of the aircraft for maximum
of lift, with good aerodynamic performance. velocity of mission 1, cruise velocity of mission 2, and
cruise velocity of mission 3 are tabulated below.

6
 Table 7. Aerodynamic Estimation of Each Mission methods were followed to design the tail plane, to assure
desired characteristics.

Mission Three
Mission Two
A conventional tail plane is chosen, which is easy to build,

Mission one
light, and can provide sufficient controllability. A tail
Components volume coefficient of 0.5 and 0.04 are chosen for horizontal
and vertical stabilizers, from historical data. A modified flat
plate is chosen for horizontal and vertical stabilizers, which
is easy to build, and which gives sufficient stability
CD0 (Wing) 0.0202 0.0205 0.0207 characteristics.

CD0 3.5.3. Control Surfaces Sizing- Elevator is used to modify

0.0147 0.0162 0.0172
(Fuselage) tail lift and, hence, pitching moment of the aircraft. 30%
chord of the horizontal tail was used of elevator movement,
which is sufficient to trim the aircraft at every flight
CD0 condition.
(Stabilizers,
Landing Rudder was configured as 40% chord of the vertical tail,
0.0087 0.0092 0.0095 using suggested values from Roskam [10] and Raymer [9].
gears,
pylons, It was sufficiently large to produce required yawing moment
Interference) to move the aircraft in the required direction in both air and
ground.

Total CD0 0.0437 0.0459 0.0474 During every mission, aircraft will require less lateral
controllability. That’s why Flaperon was used, which also
CL 0.1680 0.6001 0.7560 saves aircraft weight.
Total CD 0.0454 0.0681 0.0827
3.5.4. Stability and Control Analysis - Aircraft stability and
CL/CD 3.7 8.8 9.1 control derivatives were estimated by equations from Etkin
[11] by using a MATLAB ® [12] program developed by the
authors. The developed program needed the particular input
Although the parasitic drag for every mission doesn’t parameters of the designed aircraft. The output of static and
deviate that much, the total drag is a much more variant dynamic stability, and control parameters based on the input
quantity. This is due to increase in induced drag for different constraints from the developed program, is tabulated below.
missions. As the gross weight of missions 2 and 3 is higher
than the mission 1, the required lift, and hence the induced Table 8. Longitudinal Static Stability
drag, is greater for missions 2 and 3. For this reason, the
total drag for missions 2 and 3 is higher than mission 1.

3.5. Stability & Control Characteristics

The aircraft is designed to remain stable in every flight

condition and has sufficient control power to perform
necessary maneuvers. The major parameters which affect
the stability and controllability of the aircraft are static
margin and tail plane geometry.

3.5.1. Static margin- Following calculations, static margin

is chosen, that will give sufficient stability as well as
minimum tail volume co-efficient, which will be enough to
provide sufficient controllability. A static margin of 8% is
chosen for mission one, 5% for mission two, and 4% to 5%
for mission three.

3.5.2. Tail Plane Sizing- Its primary function is to ensure

longitudinal and directional stability along with ability to
house an effective elevator and rudder. Raymer’s [9]

7
 Table 9. Directional Static Stability Table 12. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability

Table 13. Directional Dynamic Stability

Table 10. Longitudinal Stability Co-efficient

3.6. Aircraft Mission Performance Estimation

Performances of different missions were assessed using the

Table 11. Longitudinal & Directional Stability Anderson’s [13] method. Estimated performances are
Derivatives tabulated as below.

Table 14. Estimated Mission Performance

Mission
Mission Mission Mission
performance
One Two Three
Parameters
Gross Weight (lb) 3 4 6

Takeoff Distance
7.5 13.33 29
(ft)
Stall Velocity
13.7 16.84 25
(ft/sec)
Cruise Velocity
45 34 30
(ft/sec)

Number of Laps 4 - -
Total Lap Time
- - 5.5
(minutes)
Max Payload - 4 3

8
These estimations involve limitations (i.e., gross weight is Table 16. Battery Pack Selection
roughly estimated), and requires further estimation in the
detail design section.

Weight per
Capacity

Current
Battery

weight
(mAh)

(Amp)
No. of

Total
Cells
(lb.)

(lb.)
cell
3.7. Propulsion Characteristics

The propulsion system is designed so that it can meet all the

Elite 3300
requirements as well as give high static thrust, in addition to
high cruise speed. 3300 0.137 12 1.644 30

3.7.1. Propulsion Motor and Propeller Optimization- A low

weight motor (Tiger MT 2814-10) with low heat generation

Elite 2400
is selected so that it is of low KV (RPM/V) to avoid high
current draw. 2200 0.091 12 1.09 22

As different flight speed is required for different missions,

for optimizing overall performance of aircraft, different
propellers are required for different missions. APC 10X6 A 12 celled Elite 2200 mAh was selected as the final battery
electric propeller was selected for the first mission. Higher pack for the main propulsion motor. The rated voltage is
pitch of this propeller allows it to generate enough thrust at 1.2v/cell. But this voltage drops differently with time for
high airspeed. For the second and third mission APC different current draw. Also, capacity is reduced with the
11X4.7 propeller was selected. The larger diameter of this increase in current draw. The variation of capacity with
propeller generates high static thrust, which is the prime current draw was estimated, to evaluate the ability of the
requirement for the increased gross weight flight during battery pack to provide the required amount of energy.
missions two and three.

eCalc [14] and JavaProp [15] software are used to simulate

thrust and current draw by the motor, using various
propeller configurations. Performance of the motor (Tiger
MT 2814-10) was estimated using a 12 cell NiMH battery
pack with the mentioned propeller combinations.

Table 15. Estimated Motor Performance

10x6 11x4.7
Parameters
propeller propeller
Weight (g) 120 120
Figure 14- Battery voltage drop with time
Max
18.5 19
current(Amp)
We applied Peukert’s law to calculate new capacity of the
Static thrust battery for various current draws. A table of total energy
3.417 3.485
(pound force) available for various current draws and estimated required
Electrical power energy for all missions is shown below.
270 299.5
in(watt)
RPM 9680 9520 Table 17. Available Energy
Efficiency (%) 89.2 88.7
Current Required
Total Energy (KJ)
3.7.2. Battery Selection- As the DBF committee prohibits (Amp) Energy(KJ)
the use of LiPo battery the only better option left is NiMH. 12(M2) 67.3 M1 M2 M3
The NiMH battery is selected as it is light weighted, smaller 14 65.5
in size and has no memory effect, etc. Different 16 (M3) 64 56 54 62
combinations of battery for the required parameters are 18(M1) 62.2
shown in the following table.

9
 4. DETAIL DESIGN 4.2. Structural Characteristics

The prime consideration during manufacture was

At this design stage, detail dimensions of the aircraft,
minimizing the structural member, while upholding a
system integration and optimization and overall assembly of
flexible structure. Different portions of the structure were
the aircraft was decided. Priority was given to some specific
made assuring the required strength of those parts. The
features, such as simple design, light structure, and swift
following figure illustrates the V-n diagram for three
manufacturability.
different missions.

4.1. Aircraft Dimensional Parameters

Aircraft dimensional parameters are calculated using

Raymer’s [9] method, which is tabulated below:

Table 18. Aircraft Dimensional Parameters

Wing

Airfoil E423
Area 7.988 ft2
Span 6.92 ft
Root Chord 19.78 in
Tip Chord 7.91 in
Aspect Ratio 6
Taper Ratio 0.4 Figure 15 - V-n Diagrams
˄1/4 0o
During flight, the wing withstands the major loads. The
Flaperon structural arrangement of wing mainly focuses on sustaining
a 2.5 g load during mission 3, which is equivalent to a 3.7 g
Span 6.92 ft load during mission 2 and a 5 g load during mission 1. Spars
% of Chord 20 were designed to sustain the bending and twisting moments
ᵟa ±25o during maximum load conditions.

Horizontal Stabilizer Vertical Stabilizer The fuselage encloses the internal payload. Attention was
paid to assure that the fuselage provides enough space and
Area 252.5 in2 Area 114.2 in2 support for the payloads. Bulkheads and spars of the
Span 27.7 in Span 13.85 in fuselage were designed so that the structure could bear the
Root force during landing.
Root Chord 13 in 11.8 in
Chord
Tip The empennage unit provides the aerodynamic force to trim
Tip Chord 5.2 in 4.7in the aircraft. This force is transmitted through the tail boom.
Chord
Careful consideration was given, so that required amount of
Elevator Rudder control force could be achieved without any structural
damage.
Span 27.7 in Span 13.85 in
% of Landing is a crucial part of an aircraft. The selected tail
% of Chord 30 40 dragger landing system can withstand sufficient amount of
Chord
ᵟe ±25o ᵟr ±25o force without any substantial weight penalty.

Fuselage
4.3. Structural Analysis
Length 37.42 in
Width 7 in During flight, the wing withstands some foremost load, so
Height 7.6 in wings have been analyzed to measure the amount of span
load, bending moment, and shear force, using “Tornado”
[16] - a vortex lattice software.

10
 Figure 16- Span load on main wing
Figure 18- Bending moment on main wing
The above figure demonstrates the span load maximum at
the roots (45 N/m at spanstation 0) and minimum at the tips Analyzing the above figures, it had been decided that, the
(22 N/m at spanstation 1 & -1) of the wings, as expected. designed wing is structurally stable.
From root to the tip of the wing span, load is decreased
gradually.
4.4. Payload Store System Design

The main purpose for the design of all external and internal
payload mount systems is to minimize weight and simplify
payload storing system. The payload mount system is
designed to fulfill the various requirements of mission two
and mission 3, which will not go against the criteria stated
below.

Table 19. Storage Requirements & Restraints

Storage Requirement Restraints

Stores must be completely
Stores must be secured to a
internal as a part of the main
mounting rack that is part of
fuselage or external part of
the permanent structure.
main wing
The stores can only contact
Stores must be positioned in the mounting racks they
Figure 17- Shear force on main wing the direction of flight cannot touch the fuselage.

Figure 17 illustrates the shear force on main wing with Access to the stores must be
spanstation. Shear force is lowest at the root (0 N). They must be capable of through bay doors although
Following that, there is a sharp increase of shear force at being released one at a time the doors don’t need to be
spanstation -0.1 & 0.1, which is 37 N. There is a sharp mechanized
decrease of the shear force up to the wing tips. Stores must have a
The most inboard store(s)
minimum store-to-store
The following figure clarifies the bending moment on the centerline must be at least 3"
separation of 3" on
main wing with respect to spanstation. Bending moment is from the aircraft centerline.
centerline.
minimum at wing roots and maximum at wing roots, as
predicted. 4.4.1. Internal Payload Store System-Internal store is
designed to accommodate a maximum 4 payloads, in 2x2
combinations, following the mission criteria. Payload mount
is fixed with the fuselage main spar. Payload mount is made
of balsa to reduce weight. Payload is mounted with the

11
fuselage, such that it can keep itself away from translating 4.6. Weight & Balance
and rotating.
The main objective of the aircraft weight and balance is to
4.4.2. External Payload Store System-The design of the build a CG point, which allows the predefined stability
external store attachment system is influenced by weight margin for all the missions. A straight line ten centimeters
and capability of withstanding high structural load. The ahead of the motor mount served as a datum [17]. Weight
external payload is attached to the wing by pylons assembly. & balance analysis for mission 1, 2 & 3 is tabulated below.
Each pylon can hold two payloads, with an intermediate
distance of 1 inch in between them. Table 22. Weight & Balance for Mission 1

4.5. Avionics
Components Weight (lb) CG (in) Moment
A total of 4 servos were used to operate the entire control (lb-in)
system. Two servos were used to operate the flaperon
movements, which were attached in the main wing. Another
two servos were used to operate the rudder and elevator Wing Structure 0.65 27.6 17.999
movements which were attached just before the end of the
tail-boom section. The selected servo was XGD-11M. This Fuselage 0.4 29.5 11.824
servo is very lightweight and can generate the sufficient
amount of control force. The following table shows the Tail Boom 0.12 50.1 6.0132
specifications of the servo. A 4.8 volt battery pack was used
to power up the servos. Vertical stabilizer
0.06 63.1 3.788

Table 20. Servo Specification Horizontal

stabilizer 0.08 53.8 4.308

Weight(g) Speed(sec/600) Torque(kg-cm) Landing Gear 0.13 25.9 3.38

11 0.12 2,2
Propeller 0.1 4 0.4

A Turnigy AE- 30A Brushless Speed controller of 25g Motor 0.24 5.6 1.344
weight was used. The +Vcc connection was removed from
the speed controller to receiver to disable the battery Speed Controller
0.066 12 0.792
elimination circuit to ensure receiver was separately
powered. Receiver with
Battery 0.17 32.4 5.508
The characteristics of receiver and transmitter tabulated Propulsion battery
below. pack 1.08 20.1 21.708

Table 21. Receiver and Transmitter wing Servos 0.025 30.8 0.77

Tail Servo 0.025 64.4 1.61

Frequency
Fail safe
Channel

Voltage
Weight
Model

Power
mode
name

Payload 0 0 0

Fly Total 3.146 - 79.44298

Sky Low power 4.8 2.4
Low 9 ok Aircraft C.G. 25.3 in
FS- consumption volt GHz
R9B

For receiver and servo power source KAN 1/2AAA (250

mAh) 4 cell battery pack was used, which can supply 2A
current, and weighs total of 21.2 gm.

12
 Table 23. Weight & Balance for Mission 2 Table 24. Weight & Balance for Mission 3

Components Weight (lb) CG (in) Moment (lb-in) Moment

Components Weight (lb) CG (in)
(lb-in)

Wing Structure 0.65 27.6 17.999 Wing Structure 0.65 27.6 17.999

Fuselage 0.4 29.5 11.824 Fuselage 0.4 29.5 11.824

Tail Boom 0.12 50.1 6.0132

Tail Boom 0.12 50.1 6.0132
Vertical
stabilizer 0.06 63.1 3.788
Vertical stabilizer
0.06 63.1 3.788
Horizontal
stabilizer 0.08 53.8 4.308
Horizontal
0.08 53.8 4.308
stabilizer Landing Gear 0.13 25.9 3.38

Landing Gear 0.13 25.9 3.38 Propeller 0.1 4 0.4

Propeller 0.1 4 0.4 Motor 0.24 5.6 1.344

Speed Controller
0.066 12 0.792
Motor 0.24 5.6 1.344
Receiver with
Speed Controller Battery 0.17 32.4 5.508
0.066 12 0.792
Propulsion
battery pack 1.08 20.1 21.708
Receiver with
0.17 32.4 5.508
Battery wing Servos 0.025 30.8 0.77
Propulsion
1.08 20.1 21.708 Tail Servo 0.025 64.4 1.61
battery pack
2~3.5 53.4 ~93.45
wing Servos 0.02 30.8 0.77 Payload 26.7
5.14 ~ 6.65 132.8 ~172.9
1.61 Total -
Tail Servo 0.02 64.4
Aircraft C.G. 25.83 in – 26.01 in
Payload 1 27.5 27.56
From the above calculation of CG for missions 1, 2 & 3 we
Total 4.146 - 107.003 can observe that the CG is very close to our desired
location.
Aircraft C.G. 25.8 in
4.7. Revised Mission Performance Estimation

After the acquisition of all design parameters, empty weight,

and propulsion data, the final mission performance
parameters were estimated, again, using the Anderson’s [13]
method . With an empty weight of 3.15 lb., the RAC of the
aircraft became 0.77 lb. - ft.

13
 Table 25. Final mission Performance Parameters

Mission Mission Mission

Parameters
One Two Three
CLmax 2.3 2.3 2.5

CLcruise 0.17638 0.6002 0.8

e 0.86 0.86 0.86

CDo 0.044 0.045 0.045

L/Dcruise 3.84 9 9.5

L/Dmax 9.2 9 9.5

W/S (lb/ft2) 0.4 0.52 0.77

T/Wstatic 1.1 0.8482 0.5724

Stall velocity
12.2 14 17
(ft/sec)
Takeoff
8.83 14.8 29
distance (ft)
Cruise speed
45 28 30
(ft/sec)
Empty weight
3.15 3.15 3.15
(lb)
Gross Weight
3.15 4.15 6.15
(lb)
Load factor, n 5 3.7 2.5

Corner Speed
32.5 33.5 30
(ft/sec)
Turn rate
84.6 60 43
(deg/sece)
No. of laps 3 4 2

Flight Time
216 312 308
(sec)
Energy
56 54 62
Consumed (Kj)

4.8. Drawing Package

We have used SolidWorks 2013 [18] as our CAD tool. The

detail drawings of the designed aircraft, including payload,
are presented below.

14
 5. MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Manufacturing process was comprised of first, second and

final prototype construction and material selection. The First
prototype was built of plastic wood, with initial design.
After completing several experiments on it, the authors
modified that design and constructed the second prototype,
with solid foam. This prototype was not compatible with
payload configurations. Revising the previous two
prototypes, the team entered into the phase of final
prototype production.

To keep the structure firm, strong and light enough, the

authors analyzed different materials for the entire aircraft
parts. The summary of this selection is tabulated below:

Table 26. Selected Materials for Different Components.

Components Material
Structural Members Balsawood
Skinning Covering Film
Undercarriage Aluminum
Adhesive UHU glue & fiber tape
Part Manufacturing CAD-designed laser cut

6. FLIGHT TEST
The final prototype aircraft successfully completed missions
one and two, but failed to take-off within 30 ft. distance
during mission three. As the gross weight of mission three is
maximum (i.e. 6.15 lb.), the static thrust of the motor-
propeller combination isn’t enough to accelerate the aircraft
to the stall velocity, within the 30 ft. distance. A lower RPM
motor with a bigger diameter propeller is expected to
overcome this problem within the 20 amp Current limit.

Table 27. Flight Performance

Mission
Mission One Mission Two
Three
Take-off Take-off
12 20
Distance (ft.) Distance (ft.)
Cruise Cruise
Velocity 40 Velocity 32
(ft./sec) (ft./sec) N/A
Number Laps 2 Number Laps 3
Number of
- - Internal 2
Payload

15
 After test flights, we continued further study to identify the
reasons for deviated performances and made a list of
recommendations to govern the design process, which in our
belief, will increase the efficiency and validity of design of a
small unmanned aircraft (sUA).

 Modeling is helpful, but it shouldn’t be the only

means of predicting characteristics; rather, results
of systems and subsystems experiments should be
taken into consideration too.

 There is no single design solution for an aircraft.

We should try our luck on as much possible design
solutions as we can.

 Weight directly affects drag, lift and thrust. These

relations are always uncomfortable for an aircraft
designer. Weight must be minimized at any cost.

 Wing doesn’t hold only the weight of the aircraft,

but, also, sometimes (i.e., during maneuver) it
holds several times weight of the aircraft.
Definitely, the wing deserves special care, to
ensure structural rigidity.

 We can always play with both lift-dependent and

lift-independent drag, but it isn’t free. We just
need to find out, to what extent trading would be
beneficial for us.

 Modeling of various wind effects isn’t as negligible

Figure 19- Flight test of final prototype.
as it seems.

 Most of the time tail design of small unmanned

7. CONCLUSION aircraft doesn’t get enough attention. To some
extent the tail will merely stabilize or control the
The ribs of the main wing were supposed to be made of aircraft, although its lower efficiency will result in
balsa wood, but due to the low twisting resistance of balsa poor aerodynamic behavior. Still, a proper tail
wood, finally, it was made of plywood. The mass of design would be beneficial to reduce weight, and
adhesive was not taken into consideration and drag, and from aerodynamic viewpoint.
simultaneously the mass of bolts and wirings couldn’t be
estimated exactly. Moreover, the mass of solid foam didn’t  The search for newer material for aircraft structure
match the value given by the manufacturer. As a result, the likely won’t end in the near future. The best design
empty weight came to 4 lbs., which had been estimated as is of no use if the structural material can’t meet the
3.15 lb. requirements of that design. Very high strength,
with lower density materials (i.e., carbon fiber,
During the first mission, the current draw from the glass fiber, composite materials, etc.) can only
propulsive power source was supposed to be 18.5 amps for reflect the dream of today’s designers.
the APC 10X6 propellers. Actually, the propeller could
draw only 13 amps current at maximum throttle condition.
Again, during the second and third missions, maximum
current draw was supposed to be 19 amps for APC 11X4.7
propeller, but it was found that the current draw was 13.8
amps at maximum power. In addition, power consumption
by the servos wasn’t modeled. As a consequence, the actual
power consumption index varied from the estimated index.

The effect of various wind models (i.e. head wind,

downwind, cross wind, gusts etc.) wasn’t taken into
consideration.
16
 REFERENCES BIOGRAPHY
[1] AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition – 2012/13 Web Md Abu Horaira Banna received a B.S. of
Site: http://www.aiaadbf.org/2013_files/2013_rules.htm Aeronautical Engineering from Military
Institute of Science and Technology (MIST),
[2] UIUC Airfoil co-ordinate Database Web Site: http://m- Bangladesh, in 2014. He was the team
selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html leader of team “Dreamers’ Fin” from
MIST, during the 17th annual Design, Build
[3] Michael S. Selig, James J. Guglielmo, Andy P. Broeren & Fly competition, organized by the AIAA foundation,
and Philippe Giguere, “Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Cessna Aircraft Company, and Raytheon Missile System.
Data,” SoarTech Publications, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mr. Banna is a student member of American Institute of
Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) and Royal Aeronautical
[4] Michael S. Selig and James J. Guglielmo, “High-Lift Society. He has several publications and was the presenting
Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design,” JOURNAL OF author of several conference papers, which are nationally
AIRCRAFT Vol. 34, No. 1, January- February 1997. and internationally reputed.
[5] Airfoil Investigation Database Web Site: Md. Rayhan Afsar received a B.S. of
http://www.airfoildb.com/ Aeronautical Engineering from Military
Institute of Science and Technology (MIST),
[6] JavaFoil Airfoil Analysis Software Web Site:
Bangladesh, in 2014, with CGPA of 3.90. He
http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm
has participated in the “Design, Build & Fly
[7] XFLR5 Airfoil Analysis Software Website: (DBF)” competition, organized by the AIAA
http://www.xflr5.com/xflr5.htm foundation, Cessna Aircraft Company, and Raytheon
Missile System. He has also participated “AIAA Student
[8] Airfoil Investigation Database (AID) Web Site: Conference” and “AIAA Foundation Undergraduate
http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/1280 ”. Individual Aircraft Design Competition.” He has completed
a one month internship at Biman Bangladesh Airlines and
[9] Raymer D. P. (2006), Aircraft Design: A Conceptual trained in aircraft Boeing 777, Airbus A 310, etc. Rayhan
Approach (4th edition), Washington, DC, AIAA, Inc. has attended several national and international conferences
and seminars. He has several publications in different
[10] Roskam J., “Airplane Design,” Roskam Aviation and conference proceedings and journals, which are
Engineering Corp. Ottawa, KS, 1985. internationally reputed.

[11] Bernard Etkin,” Dynamic of Flight: Stability and Zahangir Mohammad Shahjahan Ali
Control.” Banna received a B.S. of Aeronautical
Engineering from Military Institute of
[12] MATLAB ® Software Web Site: Science and Technology (MIST), Bangladesh,
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/ in 2014. He has participated in the 17th
annual Design, Build & Fly competition,
[13] Anderson J. D. (2005), “Introduction to Flight,” Tata
organized by the AIAA foundation, Cessna Aircraft
McGraw Hill.
Company, and Raytheon Missile System. He has completed
[14] eCalc-Online propeller calculator Web Site: a one month internship at “Biman Bangladesh Airlines.”
http://www.ecalc.ch He has participated in training conducted by Aero Train
Corp at MIST for equipment familiarization and user, on the
[15] Java-Prop Propeller design and Analysis Software Web following avionics systems: Autopilot system, Aircraft GPS,
Site: http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javaprop.htm Radio Altimeter, Aircraft DME system, and Instrument
Landing System. Mr. Shahjahan is a student member of
[16] Tornado Vortex Lattice Software Web Site: American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) and
http://www.redhammer.se/tornado/DL.html Royal Aeronautical Society.

[17] Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook (2007), FAA-

H-8083-1A Md Abdus Salam is Professor and Head of
the Department of Aeronautical Engineering
[18] SolidWorks 2013 Software Web Site: (AE) in Military Institute of Science and
http://www.solidworks.com/ Technology, Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. His Masters of Science in
Aeronautical Engineering is from the University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. He has completed a
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from
17
 Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
(BUET). He has also done Masters of Defense Studies at
Bangladesh National University (NU).

He has 24 years of working experience in the Bangladesh

Air Force. His current position is Group Captain. He has
also 9 years of teaching experience. His teaching interests
are Thermodynamics, Aeronautical Engineering,
Production Process, and Applied Aerodynamics. His
research areas are design and fabrication of lunar robots,
Design and Analysis of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV),
Design and Development of a windmill, Design and
Construction of a subsonic wind tunnel and study of
aerodynamics over a full body aircraft, Study on
Mechanical Product Based Small and Medium Enterprises
of Bangladesh and Improvement of a Selected Product.

Salam has attended several national and international

conferences and seminars. He has several publications in
different conference proceedings and journals which are
nationally and internationally reputed.

18

View publication stats