Thoikol Final BX

Thiokol Final Design Report
AAE 451: Purdue University Senior Aircraft Design

Professor Dominick Andrisani
Fall 2000
Team
Boiler Xpress
Ryan Beech
Matt Basiletti
Mike VanMeter
Oneeb Bhutta
Thiokol Final Design Report

AAE 451: Purdue University Senior Aircraft Design
Professor Dominick Andrisani
Fall 2000
Team
Boiler Xpress
We, the undersigned authors of this report, certify that the material contained within this
report is original unless otherwise referenced.
___________________________________________________________
Matthew Basiletti, Team Leader/Aerodynamics
Date
___________________________________________________________
Mike VanMeter, Team Co-Leader/Propulsion
Date
___________________________________________________________
Oneeb Bhutta, Historian/Structures
Date
___________________________________________________________
Ryan Beech, Dynamics, Stability and Controls
Date
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................5
1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................6
2 Concept Selection and Initial Sizing.............................................................................7
2.1 Mission Requirements...............................................................................................7
2.2 Concept generation and Evaluation...........................................................................7
2.3 Constraints.................................................................................................................8
2.4 Initial Sizing...............................................................................................................9
3 Aerodynamics..................................................................................................................9
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................9
3.2 Lift Production.........................................................................................................10
3.3 Drag Prediction........................................................................................................12
3.4 Wing Design............................................................................................................14
3.5 Stability....................................................................................................................14
4 Structures......................................................................................................................16
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................16
4.2 Physical Properties...................................................................................................16
4.3 Wing.........................................................................................................................17
4.4 Fuselage...................................................................................................................19
4.5 Tail Section..............................................................................................................20
4.6 Landing Gear...........................................................................................................21
5 Propulsion system.........................................................................................................22
5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................22
5.2 Design Process.........................................................................................................22
5.3 Motor and Speed Controller Selection....................................................................23
5.4 Propeller Selection...................................................................................................23
5.5 System Testing.........................................................................................................24
6 Dynamics and Control..................................................................................................25
6.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................25
6.2 Analysis....................................................................................................................25
6.3 Flight characteristics................................................................................................27
7 Economics......................................................................................................................28
7.1 Structural Cost Breakdown......................................................................................28
7.2 Propulsion and Electronic Cost Break down...........................................................28
7.3 Marketability............................................................................................................28
8 References......................................................................................................................30
Appendix A Concept Selection and Weighted Objectives Method...........................32
Appendix B Aerodynamics Methodology...................................................................37
Appendix C - Structural Analysis Methodology...........................................................48
Appendix D MATLAB Propulsion System Analysis Code........................................59
Appendix E Propulsion Tests Results..........................................................................67
Appendix F Model Electronics Corporation Turbo 10 GT Motor...........................70
Appendix G Dynamics and Stability Methodology...................................................81
Appendix H Economic Details.....................................................................................90
Executive Summary
The Boiler Xpress aircraft is designed as a variable stability platform for
instruction in aircraft dynamics and control. The electrically powered aircraft is
configured to be structurally and aerodynamically efficient, using materials that ease
construction and repair. The modular design allows aircraft and support equipment to be
disassembled for transport or storage in a space 5 by 3 by 2.
The Boiler Xpress features a high aspect ratio wing for efficient cruise, and a
high-lift airfoil designed specifically for smaller aircraft operating at low Reynolds
numbers. This enables the aircraft to cruise at a slow 17 mph, despite its 11 ft. wingspan
and 10 lb take-off weight. The generous tail sizes and moments give stable handling
characteristics without the twitchiness found in many small remotely piloted aircraft.
The stall speed is only 13 mph, allowing easy take-off and maneuvering within a
confined space such as the Mollenkopf Athletic Center. An indoor or outdoor area with
dimensions of a football field is sufficient for operation of the Boiler Xpress aircraft. The
electric power plant is quiet, adaptable, and very easy to operate and maintain. Very little
support equipment is necessary to operate the aircraft.
Cost is always an important consideration, and the Xpress is designed to use low
cost materials for most of its construction. The total cost for airframe materials is just
over $290. The styling is attractive, giving it good market appeal for schools and
universities desiring a useful tool for instruction in aircraft stability and control theory.
Variable stability allows studies as to the dynamic response of the aircraft in the roll
mode both with only open-loop control, and with a pilot-selectable gain enabled. The inflight data recorder allows the time response of the aircraft roll rate to be downloaded
after each flight. This can then be compared to mathematical models, providing
instructional value previously unobtainable.
All of the design goals for the Boiler Xpress were met in the prototype. The takeoff run of around 60 ft. is followed by good climb and the ability to cruise for 12 minutes
at just over half throttle. Even at slow flight speeds, the control authority is good, and the
aircraft remains solid and maneuverable. The aircraft demonstrated the ability to carry at
least 8 ounces of additional payload, allowing expansion of the mission envelope in the
future. Flights may be accomplished outdoors as well, when the winds are moderate with
only a small field required. This further demonstrates the value and flexibility of the
Boiler Xpress remotely-piloted aircraft.
1 Introduction
The Boiler Xpress aircraft represents a large effort on the part of four Purdue
University students. The fifteen-week design process began in late August and was
completed in early December with the successful test flight of the Boiler Xpress aircraft.
This report will detail identification of mission requirements, the initial concept selection
and sizing, and then outline the preliminary design process.
The preliminary aircraft design was divided into four primary areas:
aerodynamics, structures, propulsion and dynamics and stability. Flight testing results are
included as verification of the design analysis, and to indicate the effectiveness of the
Boiler Xpress aircraft to complete the mission. Economics are an important constraint on
producing and operating an aircraft, and summary of these considerations are given in the
final section.
Figure 1.1 presents views of the Boiler Xpress aircraft with dimensions and
performance specifications of the final aircraft given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Aircraft Parameters
Wing Geometry
Span
11 ft 2 in
croot
1 ft 5 in
ctip
11.5 in
Sref
13.5 ft2
Dihedral angle
2
Aspect Ratio
9.0
Horizontal Tail Geometry
Span
2 ft 8 in
Area
1.83 ft2
Vertical Tail Geometry
Span
1 ft 1 in
Area
1.18 ft2
Fuselage
Length
2 ft 10 in
Width
3.5 in
Height
6.0 in
Tail Booms
Length (TE to TE)
2 ft 10 in
Diameter
0.55 in
Wall Thickness
0.032 in
Weights
Wto
10.25 lb
Wempty
9.0 lb
Flight Speeds
Stall Speed (est.)
19 ft/s
Cruise Speed
28 ft/s
(meas.)
Figure 1.1 Aircraft layout
2 Concept Selection and Initial Sizing

2.1 Mission Requirements
The mission requirements for the Fall 2000 senior design project include
constraints on climb rate, turn rate/radius, stall speed, cruise speed, take-off ground roll
and endurance. The overall mission is to design and build an aircraft that will carry 1.4
pounds of flight test equipment. This includes the feedback rate gyroscope system, the
data logger, and the interface circuitry. During the twelve-minute endurance mission, the
data acquisition system will record roll rates and use the control augmentation system to
vary the aircraft dynamics.
Designing the aircraft for flight within the 410 x 220 confines of the indoor
football practice field presents unique problems. Flight speeds must be slow enough for
comfortable maneuvering, and to allow time to turn the feedback controller on and off
during the straight-and-level portions of the flight. Electric power is required to reduce
mess and noise. It will be seen that the result is an aircraft with generous wing area,
high-lift aerodynamics, and careful attention to good flying qualities. The specifics of the
mission constraints are discussed in the Design Requirements and Objectives document
[1].
2.2 Concept generation and Evaluation
Any design process must be driven by the needs and requirements outlined by the
mission specification [7]. The Xpress team spent several sessions studying and
discussing these requirements before initiating analysis of any particular design solution.
After becoming comfortable with this foundation for the design, a brain storming session
generated the concepts shown in Figure 2.1. The concepts considered encompass a range
of configurations. They include a twin-boom pusher, a conventional tractor monoplane, a
biplane tractor, a flying wing, and a biplane pusher.
5
Figure 2.1 Concepts considered for further analysis.
The process continued by listing the objectives of the mission. Ten areas of
concern were noted. They were (in ranked order of importance):
1) Light weight
2) Turning Radius (Ref. 1)
3) Marketability (will the plane sell)
4) Build within three weeks (ease of construction)
5) Maintainability (access to inside, ease of repair)
6) Robustness to crashes
7) Twelve minute endurance (mission requirement)
8) Ease of analysis (aerodynamic, dynamics and structural)
9) Transportability (must fit in mid-size car)
10) Landing ability
The five concepts were evaluated using the weighted objectives method. Concepts
1 and 2 scored nearly equally as the best concepts; the twin-boom pusher configuration
was finally selected by the team to explore the potential efficiency of this design.
2.3 Constraints
The requirements for take-off distance, climb angle, stall speed, minimum turn
radius, and cruise speed were modeled mathematically to relate each performance
parameter with power loading W/P and wing loading W/S. These each are plotted by
means of a Matlab code, with varying aspect ratios. This result is shown in Figure 2.2.
From this diagram it is possible to choose a design target to define the power loading and
the wing loading. This is indicated on the figure. The dashed regions show the side of
the plots which are not allowable values for the design wing and power loadings.
0.6
W /P [lb/ft-lb/s ]
0.5
AR=7
AR=8
AR=9
AR=10
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
W/S [lb/ft 2]
0.6
0.7
Power loading = 0.22 lb/ft-lb/s

Wing loading = 0.68 lb/ft2
Figure 2.2: Constraint Diagram showing feasible design space.
0.8
2.4 Initial Sizing

Estimates of the weight of the aircraft for the mission were made on the basis of a
component break-down method. Components whose weights are known were listed in a
spreadsheet. Airframe components were sized iteratively to allow enough room to carry
the equipment. Wing and tail size are related by stability considerations, and the wing
reference area Sref is constrained by the wing loading obtained from the constraint
diagram analysis. The weights for the wing and tail were initially found from a database
of existing model aircraft designs on a per-square foot basis. This was later changed to
reflect the make-up of our chosen construction method. Testing and weighing of sample
components built during the design analysis allowed this method to more accurately
predict the finished weight than a historical database approach.
The sizing process is iterative. Changing the size of any component which is not
a fixed quantity will of course change the weight of the aircraft. This in turn alters the
stall speed, requiring the wing area (hence weight) to be adjusted further. Motor and
battery weights were determined from the target power loading using a database of
electric motor systems. The spread sheet approach allowed convergence on the
component sizes and aircraft weight very quickly. The engineers could quickly see the
effect of varying any components size.
3 Aerodynamics
3.1 Introduction
The mission requirements for the Boiler Xpress aircraft are the starting point in
the design of the aircraft. Aerodynamic considerations stemming from the requirements
are:
1. Slow flight capabilities- 20 ft/s max stall speed, 28 ft/s max cruise.
2. Load carrying capabilities- 1.4 lb payload for the computer and
interface/feedback control system
3. Control and flying qualities- easily maneuverable within the confines of
Mollenkopf Athletic Center, gentle stall characteristics, good stability on all axes.
The aerodynamics problem is broken down into three main areas:
Lift production
Drag prediction
Stability and Control characteristics
Within theses three areas the design and performance of the aircraft will be defined. All
three areas are interrelated; changing the wing design, for instance, will impact lift
production, with the consequence of affecting the drag and stability. It is necessary to
prioritize the desired characteristics, setting some as constraints, and some as desired
targets.
As the goal for the aircraft is flight, lift production, specifically high CLmax is the
foremost design goal. Lower drag, or higher lift-to-drag ratio L/D, requires less power,
and thereby lower weight motor and batteries. This results is smaller size and less cost
for the aircraft, both very important design goals. Low drag therefore is the second most
important consideration.
Good flight characteristics are also vital. The stability of the aircraft can be easily
adjusted once the basic configuration has been set by specifying the center of gravity to
attain the desired pitch stability, introducing dihedral or washout in the wing to tailor the
roll stability, and adjusting the size of the vertical stabilizer to achieve proper directional
stability. In general, these adjustments have only minor impact on lift and drag.
3.2 Lift Production
The heart of the aircraft is the airfoil. Proper airfoil design and selection will
allow the wing to produce the required lift with minimum drag during cruise, and allow a
low stalling speed. The maximum section lift coefficient Clmax of the wing largely
determines the size, and consequently weight and cost of the wing. Selection of the
airfoil for the Boiler Xpress aircraft began with analysis of the range of Reynolds
numbers (Rn) at which the wing will operate. This is an iterative process, as Rn is defined
by the flight conditions (known), as well as the characteristic length (chord of the wing,
unknown).
Research began with the assumption that the aircraft will be operating in the low
Rn regime. This is generally defined as the range below Rn=800,000. In regime, the
flow is generally assumed to be laminar over a significant portion of the body. Laminar
flow velocity profiles are less full than those for turbulent flow, as illustrated in
Figure 3.1. The consequence is that the laminar flow has less momentum near the
surface of the airfoil, and is more prone to separation in an adverse pressure gradient.
This is the danger of an improperly designed airfoil operating at low Rn: formation of a
laminar separation bubble, with the attending dramatic loss of lift, and increase in drag.
Laminar
Flow
Turbulent
Flow
Figure 3.1: Laminar and Turbulent boundary layer velocity profiles.
Airfoils designed for larger aircraft, such as the NACA series do not generally
perform well at low Rn. Figure 3.2 illustrates the trend in lift performance as the Rn
decreases.
Figure 3.2: Trend of CLmax with Reynolds number for various airfoils from reference 14.
The quest for better performance in small aircraft has led to families of airfoils
designed to overcome these trends. The work of Dr. Michael Selig and his colleagues at
the University of Illinois has produced both a number of good airfoil designs, as well as
rigorously obtained experimental data on their performance. Examining this data led to
the selection of three candidate airfoils: the S1223, the S1210, and the Wortmann FX 63137. They were chosen for their high Clmax values, and resistence to laminar separation
down to Rn= 100,000. The drag polars for these three aircraft are compared in Figure
3.3.
Re = 150e3
FX63-137
0.06
0.05
0.04
Cd
S1210
FX63-137
S1210
0.03
S1223
0.02
S1223
0.01
0
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
Cl
Figure 3.3: Drag polars for candidate low Reynolds number airfoils.
The S1210 airfoil was chosen for its good lift capability without the sharp drag increase
for Cl < 0.9. Using the approximation for whole wing lift coefficient from Raymer, the
predicted lift coefficient of a high aspect ratio wing with this airfoil is as follows:
CLmax = 0.85Clmax (airfoil) = 1.53 (S1210 airfoil)
Using an iterative process to estimate the total weight of the aircraft, including the wing
weight, the stalling speed requirement sets the plan form area of the wing at 13.5 sq.ft.
Computer flow simulation is an increasingly useful tool in preliminary design. In
order to verify the lift prediction, the computer program CMARC was utilized to model
the wing pressure distribution, lift, drag, and moment characteristics. Using this method,
the lift coefficients and moment coefficients for a range of angles of attack were
compaered to the computed values. CMARC uses a low-order panel method to compute
the flow over the panelized model, and does not accurately predict flow qualities when
viscous effects dominate. Therefore predicting CLmax in this way would give erroneous
results. However, the lift coefficients at lower angles of attack correlated well with those
predicted using Raymers method of finding CL. This comparison is plotted in Figure 3.4.
2
CL, CMc/4
1.5
CMARC CL
Raymer CL
CMARC CMc/4
0.5
Raymer CMc/4
0
-0.5
-4
-2
10
12
14
Alpha (deg)
Figure 3.4: Lift curve versus alpha: CMARC and analytical results.
3.3 Drag Prediction

Proper drag prediction is difficult in the early design stages. Current industry
practice makes use of historical data and CFD codes wherever possible, and relies heavily
on wind tunnel testing to fine-tune the design and finalize the performance predictions.
Data for the power required at different flight speeds, the take-off and climb performance,
and the maximum flight speed and range of the aircraft all stem from accurate
representation of the aircrafts drag characteristics.
The aircraft was assumed to have a parabolic drag polar described by the
following relationship as found in Raymer 3:
2
C D C D KC L
(3.1)
where the total drag coefficient results from summing the parasite drag CD0 and the
induced drag KCL2. The parasite drag is that component independent of the lift being
produced by the aircraft and is found by summing terms of the wetted area times the skin
friction coefficient times the form factor times the interference factor for each
component:
0
C D0
C fi Qi FFi S weti
S ref
(3.2)
The terms Q (interference factor) and FF (form factor) make allowance for the
configuration and shape of the components, commonly known as form drag, while the
skin friction is accounted for by the Cfii term. The skin friction for any given component
is dependent on the local Rn, and the condition of the flow. The flow was assumed to be
turbulent for all components, a conservative assumption. The work on aerodynamics by
McCormick2 references the increase in skin friction drag with surface roughness. Our
aircraft prototype will be assumed to have less-than-ideal surface finishes, and
McCormick suggests that experimentally determined values of the skin friction should be
increased by 20% over that predicted by Blasius correlation3:
Cf
0.455
(log10 Rn ) 2.55
(3.3)
The Rn for each component is found from its characteristic length, and is computed at the
actual flight condition for which that drag point is being produced.
Studying the work of Hoerner [15] and McCormick guided the design of the
aircraft to produce fuselage and pod shapes which will produce the minimum drag. The
wing tip was also patterned by Hoerners findings concerning the shape producing the
least prominent tip vortices.
The induced drag term in equation x.1 accounts for the drag resulting from the
production of lift. The factor K is as follows:
K
1
Ae
(3.4)
According to lifting line theory, the lowest induced drag for a planar wing results from an
elliptical lift distribution over the wing. Oswalds efficiency factor e accounts for the nonelliptical lift distribution. Its value of 0.75 was found by averaging the values given by
Roskam [20] for similar smaller, single engine aircraft with higher aspect ratio wings.
This is consistent with the historical average given in Raymer.
It is necessary to account for the change in drag with changing trim conditions.
This results from the down force generated by the horizontal tail to counteract the
pitching moment of the wing. The tail will incur induced drag itself in the production of
lift, and its downward lift must be added to the total lift required of the wing. This trim
drag was found from the pitch stability analysis, and added to the total lift and induced
drag. This was done at the target c.g. location of 30% MAC.
The preceding relationships were implemented in a Matlab script to produce the
whole-aircraft drag polar shown in Figure 3.5
Aircraft Drag Polar
0.16
CD
CDi
CDo
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
CL
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 3.5: Whole-aircraft drag polar for the Boiler Xpress over the expected range of flight speeds.
3.4 Wing Design

Wing design began with the sizing of the planform area based on lift coefficient
predictions and the required total lift. With the pod and boom arrangement, the center
section of the wing was chosen to be untapered to ease manufacturing, and provide
maximum torsional stiffness. The aspect ratio A is defined as:
A
b2
S ref
(3.5)
Higher aspect ratio wings produce lower induced drag, as seen from equation 3.4.
However, a longer wingspan will increase the bending moment at the wing root,
necessitating a stronger, heavier wing spar design. Consideration of the slow flight
speeds, in which the induced drag is a high percentage of the total drag, led the team to
choose an aspect ratio of 9. With removable outer wing panels, this is a good
compromise to keep the size of these components manageable. The total wingspan then
is 11 ft.
Some taper is desirable to produce a more elliptical lift distribution. An iterative
process allowed adjustment of the tip chord to keep the local Rn of the tip from becoming
sub-critical, which may lead to laminar separation. The inner wing tip in a turn at the
slowest flight speed gives the condition for lowest Rn of any flight condition. Setting the
lowest allowable Rn at 100,000 (determined from airfoil data), the wing tip chord was set
at 0.95 ft, giving an average taper ratio of 0.6 for the wing with a 1.5 ft. root chord.
3.5 Stability
The Boiler Xpress is designed to be a stable aircraft with trainer-like handling
qualities. Foremost in this effort is the determination of pitch stability and controllability.
It is desired that the aircraft not be too sensitive in pitch, requiring constant attention from
the pilot to maintain flight equilibrium, while at the same time giving the required
maneuverability. Additionally, it is desirable to minimize the trim drag. The method

from Raymer was again followed to analyze the static stability of the aircraft [19].
The trim condition in steady level flight results in zero net pitching moment about
the center of gravity. Adjusting the position of the elevator changes the lift coefficient of
the horizontal tail. This is the mechanism to provide both maneuvering capability and
trim ability in pitch.
For any given elevator position and angle of attack, there is a given lift coefficient
and pitching moment produced. These can be plotted for a range of elevator deflections
and wing angles of attack to produce the plot shown in Figure 3.6:
0.3
elev deflect=-8 deg

-4
0
4
8
0.2
Cm c g
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
CL
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 3.6: Pitching moment versus lift coefficient for Xc.g. = 33% MAC.
This plot is produced for a particular center of gravity location. The neutral point for the
aircraft is found, and the resulting static margin is used as the measure of stability about
the pitch axis. Following the guideline from Raymer for less maneuverable aircraft, the
desired minimum static margin was set at 10% MAC. The advantage of keeping close to
this figure is that the horizontal tail is less heavily loaded during cruise. This produces
lower trim drag and more efficient operation. Though Mark Peters thesis on model
aircraft stability suggests larger static margins [17], the authors own experience with
model aircraft indicates that 10% is an acceptable minimum. Component sizing to
achieve the desired center of gravity led the design team to set the target s.m. at 10% with
a c.g. location of 33% for the Boiler Xpress aircraft.
Using the Matlab code described above, the c.g. location was varied, and moment
diagrams examined for a range of c.g. locations. The allowable range for this aircraft was
determined to be 10% < c.g. < 38%. Within this range, the static margin remains above
6%, and sufficient elevator authority is available to trim the aircraft for level flight.
4 Structures
4.1 Introduction
The structural design of the aircraft was driven by several key mission
requirements. The five categories of design requirements that applied to this mission
were: mission requirements, airworthiness, cost, manufacturing, maintenance and
accessibility. The missions endurance requirement required a lightweight structure and
the size of aircraft was constrained by the mission specification that the plane should be
small enough to fit in a compact car. The landing phase of the mission drove the need for
a robust structure. The cost of the project limited the structural material to be
inexpensive, lightweight and non-exotic. Moreover, manufacturing and maintenance
added dimensions of simplicity in the aircraft. As a result of these requirements the
aircraft wing structure was made up of lightweight balsa spars, inexpensive styrene foam,
hollow carbon fiber rods that were employed as booms and fiberglass. Fiberglass was
used as reinforcement for the outer surface of fuselage and also for the trailing edge of
the wing. Styrene foam was employed to get true airfoil shape of the wings, horizontal
and vertical tails and also for the aerodynamic, smooth shape of the fuselage. The use of
these materials kept the structural weight of the aircraft to a minimum. The aircraft used
detachable wings that allowed for ease in transportation.
4.2 Physical Properties
Physical properties of the materials were needed in order to perform structural
analysis on different components of the aircraft. The yield stress of balsa was taken from
the actual test performed by Whiskey Tango team [16] in the spring of 1999 at Aerospace
Science Laboratory (ASL). The experimental results of the density and strength of balsa
obtained by Whiskey Tango were consistent with the published results of Kohn [18].
Table 4.1 shows the material properties of various materials that were employed in the
construction of the aircraft.
Table 4.1 Summary of materials properties.
Material
Balsa
Spruce
Carbon Fiber*
Styrene Foam
Fiber Glass
Epoxy
Youngs Modulus E
(ksi)
625
1500
17400
Density (lb/ft^3)
11
34
yield (psi)
1725
8600
1.42
.0937 oz/sq in
.007 oz/sq in
It should be noted that the value of youngs modulus of carbon fiber is an approximate
one; taken for a carbon epoxy matrix and the actual value of E for carbon fiber used for
our aircraft may be different than shown in the Table 4.1 above. Due to time and material
limitations, our team was not able to perform an actual test to determine the physical
properties of the carbon fiber.
4.3 Wing
To retain the highly cambered shape of the airfoil and its lift characteristics,
styrene foam was used for the construction of the wing. Four balsa spars of size 0.25
inches x 0.25 inches each were embedded in the foam close to the quarter chord of the
wing as shown in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1 Wing cross section showing four main spars and one spar
at the trailing edge used for the control surface hinges.
The spars were designed to support the bending loads applied at the maximum loading
condition during flight that is at the maximum thickness point of the wing; quarter chord.
The size of each of the spars was obtained by multiplying the wing loading factor by 2.5g
and 1.5 safety factor and approximating the distributed lifting load on the wing as
rectangular rather than elliptical for ease of calculation. Further more, it was assumed that
the spars carried the all bending stresses and the foam and Micafilm did not carry any
load. The dimensions and distance between the spars is shown in figure 4.2 below.
2. 5
2.0
1/4
1/4
Figure 4.2 Configuration of the balsa spars at the quarter chord of the wing.
With the given dimensions and configuration of spars, the mathematical model predicted
the spar will experience a maximum bending stress of about 2100 psi at the root of the
wing. This suggests that the spar would break as the yield for balsa was experimentally
found to be 1725 psi. Our conservative assumption that foam and Micafilm does not
carry any bending loads, for simplicity of calculations, is not true. In reality, foam and
Micafilm do carry bending loads. In order to test this assumption, a sample model of the
wing of about 1.5 ft was constructed from foam, Micafilm and four 0.25x 0.25 balsa
spars. It was tested at ASL with the maximum loading condition on the wing during flight
and that included the safety factor (2.5g x 1.5). This is shown in Figure 4.3.
1.50 ft
Figure 4.3 This figure exhibits the loading on the wing test section performed at ASL.
The sample wing was clamped at one end with heavy weights and a constant loading of
2.50 lb/ft was applied with the aid of sand bags along the 1.5ft span. A resultant force P of
about 6.0 lb, which is the sum of all constant loading on the rest of the wing subtracting
the downward force from the weights of servo, wires, boom, landing gear, half of the
horizontal and vertical tails, was applied at the end of sample wing. It was observed that
the wing did not break. Hence, this proved that not only the wing will not break at the
maximum loading condition but also that the styrene foam and Micafilm do carry some
of the bending loads. Micafilm was employed as wing skin that provided the torsional
rigidity and stiffness. Since the trailing edge of the wing was very thin, it was reinforced
with fiberglass that is lightweight, strong and durable.
The wing of our aircraft was made up of three parts. The mid-wing section was
about 3ft in length and the two outer wing sections were 4.0 ft each. The reason for this
type of configuration was that the wings could be easily detached allowing for ease in
transportation. 6 x 1 long balsa connectors held the sections together. These are shown
in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4 Balsa connectors
The connectors were made to be a tight fit so that the wing tips dont fall off during
banking. Moreover, holes were drilled in the connecters for the reduction of weight. 6x
1/16 balsa was glued to either end of each of the spars to prevent the shear force from
ripping the connecters and balsa spars apart from the foam wing. At 0.27 of the span of
the wing, a 2o dihedral angle was used. It is at this point where the outer wings were
removed from the mid-wing section so that the aircraft can be transported easily.
4.4 Fuselage
The dimensions of the components placed inside the fuselage drove the height,
width and length of fuselage. The fuselage compartment was 6 high, 4 wide and 36 in
length. The rear end of the fuselage housing the motor was tapered and thin pieces of
balsa wood were glued so as to hold the motor in place with the aid of screws. A small
cutout near the motor compartment was made to keep the motor cool during flight. This
is shown Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6 Motor housed in the rear of the fuselage.
The aerodynamic shape of the fuselage was achieved using styrene foam. The foam was
then covered with 3 layers of thin fiberglass to give it strength, rigidity and durability
incase of an impact. A cutout of the fuselage was made in a way such that the wing rests
on top of the bottom portion of the fuselage. There is a removable panel on the top so that
the components can be accessed easily. This is illustrated in the Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7 Layout of equipment inside the fuselage.
As seen from the above Figure 4.7, the fuselage was hollowed out to make room for the
equipment and payload. Most of the payload was placed close to the nose of the fuselage
so as to center of gravity may be shifted forward. Fuselage was mounted in the center of
the mid section of the wing with two plastic blots that were located underneath the wing
and were fixed to blocks of balsa 1 x 1. The batteries were housed in the front bottom
portion of the fuselage that was removable and was made up of thin sheet of carbon fiber.
4.5 Tail Section
The horizontal and vertical tails were constructed as flat plates made out of
styrene foam and were covered with Micafilm. The horizontal tail consisted of foam and
four balsa spars for carrying stresses. Both of these materials were chosen for their
lightweight characteristics. Only one of the vertical tails of our aircraft was moveable.
This was done so as to minimize the weight of servos and wires needed to operate the
vertical tail thus helping in moving the C.G. of the aircraft forward. The moveable part of
the vertical tail was made from foam and was hinged to a piece of balsa wood. This is
shown in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8 The horizontal and vertical tail sections.
The sizes of each of the four balsa spars needed to carry the horizontal tail aerodynamic
loads were 1/8 inches x 1/16 inches. The critical stresses in the horizontal tail were well
below the yield stress of balsa. Both the tail sections were attached to the carbon fiber
boom that in turn was connected to the wing. The carbon fiber booms were hollow, 3.0 ft
in length with an outer diameter of about 0.6, were very stiff and carried the wires from
the fuselage to the tail section of the aircraft.
4.6 Landing Gear
The center of gravity of our aircraft was located at 35% of mean aerodynamic
chord. The main landing gears were glued to the balsa spars of the wing and were located
6 from the leading edge of the wing. They were made from thin sheet of balsa that in
turn was glued with carbon fiber from both sides. The landing gears are shown in Figure
4.9.
Figure 4.9 Main landing gear and nose gear.
From the Figure 4.9 it is seen that a piece of metal wire was clamped to the main landing
gear to which the landing wheel was connected. The dimension of the main landing gears
were; 7 in height, 1.50 in width. The nose gear was 5.50 in height and was made
moveable with the aid of a servo. This helped the pilot to make quick turns and avoid
hitting the walls upon landing. The diameters of the tires were 2.56 and 2.375 for the
main and nose landing gears respectively. The main landing gears were located such that
they were behind the center of gravity of our aircraft. The tip-back angle and the rotation
angle were 15o and 10o respectively.
5 Propulsion system
5.1 Introduction
For this project, the term propulsion system, refers to the entire arrangement of
batteries, speed controller, motor, gearbox and propeller. The design of a suitable
propulsion system for the Boiler Xpress aircraft began early in the design process, when
the first constraint diagram (Fig. 2.2) was developed. The largest constraint on the
propulsion system came from the requirements for climb. This years senior design
project was required to climb at a minimum flight path angle of 5.5. Dr. Andrisani felt
this constraint necessary due to the sluggish climb performance of previous AAE 451
designs.
5.2 Design Process
Initially several MATLAB codes were produced in an attempt to analyze and
optimize the propulsion system (App. D). The production of this type of program proved
to be very difficult. Dr. John Sullivan (Purdue University) provided a MATLAB code,
which aided in analyzing the propeller, but there were several questions as to the
reliability of said code when analyzing small, model propellers. Additional concerns
were raised in the analysis of the motor itself. Due to its complexity and time constraints
the MATLAB analysis code was abandoned as a design tool.
Another program called MotoCalc (www.motocalc.com) was determined to be a
very useful tool for analyzing model propulsion systems. MotoCalc gave both static and
in flight analysis of the propulsion system based on a basic model of the aircraft. This
program was difficult to use in the early stages of the design process due to the large
amounts of data it produced. In the later design stages, this program would have been
much more useful, in that many more of our propulsion system parameters had been
defined, and fewer iterations of MotoCalc would have been necessary. Unfortunately, the
temporary license received from MotoCalc expired after 30 days and the propulsion team
was unable to reinstall the program.
With the MATLAB codes producing questionable results and the MotoCalc
program becoming unavailable, the Boiler Xpress propulsion team turned to using a
simple paper and pencil power analysis of the propulsion system.
The first step in the power analysis method for propulsion design, or any method,
is to determine the power required. The power required for the Boiler Xpress came from
the constraint diagram. In general, much more power is needed in the takeoff and climb
phases of the mission than in any other. Therefore, the Boiler Xpress team felt
comfortable in assuming, that by meeting the climb constraints the cruise constraints
would also be met.
The required power loading, and thus the required power, was given by the design
point chosen in the early stages of the design. With the required power for takeoff and
climb given, the next step was to track the power losses in the system. To do this, the
efficiencies of each of the components had to be analyzed or assumed. The propeller
proved to be the most difficult component to analysis, and an efficiency of 50% was
assumed as a worst case scenario. The gear box was assumed to have an efficiency of
95%, as losses in a gearbox are do only to friction losses and are generally quite low.
With efficiencies chosen for the propeller and gearbox it is possible to determine how
much power the motor must supply.
Pmotor
Paircraft
/(0.50 * 0.95)
(5.1)
The power required by the motor then became the driving parameter for motor selection.
required
required
5.3 Motor and Speed Controller Selection

In addition to the power required, the Boiler Xpress team felt a reversible motor
was also required since the concept was a pusher type aircraft. There are pusher type
propellers, which allow a motor to run in the normal direction, but the number of pusher
props available was very limited. The team felt that by limiting the propeller selection
database to these few propellers, the aircraft would never achieve the desired
performance. The aircraft might also be unable to complete the endurance mission if the
propeller were not appropriate matched to the motor and gearbox, due to the decreased
efficiency.
Very few motor manufacturers produced, or advertise, reversible motors. The
Boiler Xpress team did, however, find one manufacturer who sold a reversible motor that
met the power requirements of the aircraft, Model Electronics Corp. The specific motor
selected was the Turbo 10 GT (Fig. 5.1). The Turbo 10 GT (App. F) motor came with a
gearbox, called the monster box, which could accept multiple gear ratio wheels. The
manufacturer was generous enough to send several gear ratios along with the motor,
including 7:1, 6:1 and 9.6:1. With a large range of ratios to choose from, the team felt
very sure that the motor, gearbox and propeller could be reasonably matched for excellent
performance. The MX-80 digital speed controller, supplied with the motor, is small (less
than 1.5 oz.) and includes built-in battery eliminator circuitry to power the receiver and
servos from the motor pack.
Figure 5.1 Turbo 10 GT Motor and Gearbox from Model Electronics Corporation.
5.4 Propeller Selection

The twelve-minute endurance mission requires that the propulsion system be as
efficient as possible. Therefore, the Boiler Xpress team chose a Freudenthaler propeller
system (Fig. 5.2). The Freudenthaler propellers are specifically designed for electric
flight. They are also designed into three parts, the blade, the center yoke, the spinner and
an optional propeller shaft adapter. The advantage to this system is that the center yoke
and spinner can be used with multiple blades, allowing for an added degree of freedom
over conventional, wooden propellers. The two blade sizes that the Boiler Xpress team
chose to use and analyze were 16x15 and 14x8.
Figure 5.2 Freudenthaler Propeller System
5.5 System Testing

A series of wind tunnel test were completed in the Boeing Wind Tunnel at Purdue
University (Fig. 5.3). The tunnel was run at the anticipated 24 ft/s cruise speed to
simulate flight conditions. Combinations of propellers, battery packs and gear ratios were
tested with the Turbo 10 GT motor (App. E). The primary focus of these tests was to
verify that the endurance mission could be met.
1.8
1.6
1.4
Thrust (lb)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0:00:00
0:07:12
0:14:24
Time (h:mm:ss)
Figure 5.3 Thrust time histories for propulsion tests in the wind tunnel.
The battery packs, one ten cell 1.2 volt nickel cadmium (NiCad) pack and one ten
cell, 1.2 volt nickel metal hydride (NiMH) pack, exhibited different behavior during the
tests. Only two complete tests were executed with the nickel metal hydride battery pack.
Both tests were promising, having endurances right at the twelve-minute mission
requirement. Nickel metal hydride batteries also dont reach full capacity until they have
been cycled several times.
The results of the NiCad battery pack tests were inconsistent. Although the
battery was charged at the same rate prior to each tests, the resulting endurances varied
widely. Endurances with the NiCad batteries ranged from ten minutes up to sixteen
minutes. This is likely due to older cells degrading over time and disuse.
Further testing with all combinations of batteries, gear ratios, and propellers is
recommended. The limited preparation time prior to the proving flights did not permit
the full range of testing which was desired. Interests in the results of additional testing
has been indicated by other design teams for the purpose of MATLAB code verification,
in the prediction of propulsion system performance.
6 Dynamics and Control
6.1 Introduction
The dynamics and control analysis of an aircraft is computational proof that the
aircraft will not only fly, but do so with exceptional flying qualities. An aircraft that can
remain in the air is useless unless it can be controlled and can demonstrate dynamic
stability. The dynamic stability of an aircraft is governed by the main wing, the
horizontal and vertical tails, and the control surfaces associated with each wing, namely
the ailerons, rudder(s), and elevator(s). The dynamics and control of an aircraft is
essentially a study of how changes in the control surfaces size and deflection effects the
way an aircraft performs during flight.
6.2 Analysis
The design process of an aircraft requires interaction of all the disciplines that are
necessary to conceive an aircraft concept. For the dynamics and control analysis, we
needed certain information pertaining especially to the geometry of the main wing. This
information came from the aerodynamic aspect of aircraft design.
To calculate the size of the horizontal and vertical tails, we used the Class I
method for empennage sizing as described by Roskam [2]. We needed the reference area
of the wing, Sref, the chord of the wing, c, the span of the wing, b and the distance from
the aerodynamic center of the wing to the aerodynamic center of the horizontal and
vertical tails, xh and xv, respectively. Vv and Vh are the vertical and horizontal tail
coefficients. These values are based on the geometrical layout of the aircraft. We found
these values based on historical data taken from tables (8.1a) and (8.1b) by Roskam [2].
From this method we found our horizontal tail area, Sh = 2.2 ft2 and our vertical tail area,
Sv = 1.75 ft2. Since we are incorporating a dual rudder system, historical data suggests
that we increase our vertical tail area by 25% to make up for the loss of effectiveness due
to a dual rudder configuration. This value already includes this increase.
Later in the design process we used a more detailed sizing method also described
in Roskam [2] called X-plot sizing. To size the vertical tail, the Directional x-plot
method was used. This method involves the yaw-axis stability derivatives of our aircraft.
We first determined that our aircraft was inherently directionally stable. This means
that we did not need to implement a rate feedback system to obtain stable flight
conditions. Figure 6.1 shows a graphical representation of this method.
Weathercock Stability Curve

Prototype target
0.8
0.6
0.4
CnBeta0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Vertical tail area [sq ft]
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.1. X-plot for directional stability.
The Longitudinal x-plot, also described in Roskam, is the method used to

determine the horizontal tail area of our aircraft. Similar to directional x-plot sizing, the
longitudinal x-plot incorporates pitch-axis stability derivatives. Figure 6.2 shows a graph
of this method.
1
cg location
neutral point loction
0.5
x/c
0
-0.5
1
1.2
1.4
Figure 6.2.
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
Horizontal tail area

[sq ft] for longitudinal
X-plot
2.6
2.8
stability.
Figure 6.2 shows how the center of gravity and neutral point change when we change the
size of the horizontal tail. The distance between these two lines is called the static
margin, which I will discuss later. There is an acceptable range for the static margin to
ensure stability of the aircraft. From this method we calculated our horizontal tail area to
be 1.83 ft2 . This gave us a static margin of 0.09. Dr. Roskam [20] suggests the static
margin to be between 0.10 and 0.15. We decided on this value partially based on center
of gravity location concerns. However, during the flight our aircraft demonstrated
exceptional pitch stability.
The sizes of the control surfaces were also found using historical data from Dr.
Roskam [2] tables (8.1a) and (8.1b). These tables give ratios of the area of the control
surface to the area of the corresponding wing. We took the average ratio from homebuilt
aircraft and single engine aircraft and then used our wing areas to calculate the area of
our control surfaces. We calculated our aileron area, Sa = 1.35 ft2, our rudder area, Sr =
0.80 ft2, and our elevator area, Se = 1.00 ft2. During the flight, the pilot commented that
our aircraft was just a little sluggish in roll and yaw maneuverability, however, the
aircraft did maintain very good stability in these axes. He suggested an increase in
control surface area or a slight increase in our wing dihedral.
The purpose of wing dihedral is to return the aircraft to its proper (trimmed)
attitude after it has been disturbed laterally (banked). William F. McCombs suggests a
wing dihedral between 0 and 2 degrees for an RC controlled model aircraft with ailerons
[21]. Daniel Raymer suggests a wing dihedral between 2 and 4 degrees for mid-wing
aircraft [19]. After taking into consideration both of these sources we concluded on a
wing dihedral of 2 degrees.
The dynamic model of the aircraft determines the stability of the aircraft. Using
the following block diagram in Figure 6.3, we can calculate the mathematical model of
the aircraft and then perform a root locus on the transfer function to solve for our
aircrafts gain for stabilizing or de-stabilizing feedback.
Tx
Rx
Servo
Aircrft
Gyro
Figure 6.3. Block Diagram of roll axis.
Tx is the transmitter, Rx is the receiver, the servo is the motor that moves the
aileron, da is the deflection of the aileron, P is the roll rate of the aircraft, the Gyro senses
any disturbances in the roll axis, and k is the gain associated with the gyro.
6.3 Flight characteristics
Good flying qualities are expected of the Boiler Xpress aircraft. Flight testing
proved this out. Power available, cruise speed and duration, and pitch stability were
exceptional. Normal maneuvers were accomplished with very stable pitch characteristics.
High-performance maneuvers such as power-on and power-off stalls, and a rolling split-S
maneuver demonstrated very good controllability. These were accomplished with the
center of gravity at 35% of MAC. The stall behavior is straight ahead with recovery
accomplished in less than 15 ft of altitude.
The aircraft shows some degree of adverse yaw due to aileron deflection when a
turn is initiated. This is easily corrected by coordinated use of rudder. The single
movable rudder surface proved adequate for flight requirements. True to form for aircraft
with long, high aspect ratio wings, a degree of spiral instability is exhibited. The
tendency to tighten up into an ever-increasing turn rate must be counteracted with
opposing aileron input to maintain a steady-banked turn. Additional dihedral could be
added by modifying the wing connectors to alleviate this characteristic.
7 Economics
7.1 Structural Cost Breakdown
The structural cost includes the cost of all the woods, glues, wires, harware,
Micafilm (covering/laminate), styrene foam, carbon fiber booms, and fiberglass cloth
(Fig. 7.1). The allowed cost of the project was $200. For our aircraft the total structural
cost came out to be $292; that was more than the allotted amount for the project (App.
H).
others
11%
Glue
23%
wires
9%
Balsa
7%
Carbon fi ber booms

22%
Micafi lm
13%
fi ber glass
3%
f oam
12%
Figure 7.1 Structural cost breakdown for the prototype aircraft.
7.2 Propulsion and Electronic Cost Break down

The propulsion system cost consists of the cost of electric motor, gearbox, speed
controller and propeller. The electronic system cost consisted of rate gyroscopes, radiocontrol gear and data recording system. There was no fixed amount reserved for the
purchase of motor and the teams were advised to buy whatever motor necessary to
complete the mission requirements. The Purdue Aeronautical and Astronautical
Engineering department paid for the electronic equipment and it too was not included in
the $200 limit. The total cost of motor and electronic equipment was $815.68 (App. H).
7.3 Marketability
The total expense for producing the prototype aircraft was $98,314.37. Majority
of this expense was due to the 1295 man-hours put into the project at a rate of $75 per
hour that totaled to be $97,125 (Fig. 7.2). The 1295 man-hours consist of 50 hours of
testing, 525 hours on preliminary design and 720 hours in building the plane. The basic
airframe can be produced for less than $300 in materials. While this cost is above the
$200 design goal, the cost is proportionally better for its size than other remotely piloted
vehicles with less performance.
A key marketing feature of this aircraft is the ease with which the plane could be
assembled. The Boiler Xpress aircraft requires less than 5 minutes to make it flight ready.
The use of fiberglass for the fuselage and for the thin trailing edge of the wing made it
very durable and robust to handling and crashes. The pusher design helps in protecting
the motor in case of a head-on collision. If the motor is switched on inadvertently, the
surrounding airframe helps keep the propeller from injuring crew or operators. This is an
important safety feature for high-powered electric aircraft.
Due to its large wing, the aircraft was very stable in flight. Power-off flight is
glider-like, with continued ease of handling to landing. This is an especially helpful
feature in case the motor fails during flight or if the propulsion battery pack has been
depleted before landing. Battery recharging can be accomplished in 20 minutes.
Replacement of the power pack is easily accomplished within 5 minutes requiring only a
screwdriver.
Preliminary Design
41%
Build
55%
Testing
4%
Figure 7.2 Labor Distribution for Prototype Design and Build
8 References
[1] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes,
DARcorporation, Kansas, 1997.
[2] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and
Integration of the Propulsion System, DARcorporation, Kansas, 1997.
[3] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part III: Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing
and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Profiles, DARcorporation, Kansas, 1989.
[4] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part IV: Layout Design of Landing Gear and Systems,
[5] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part V: Component Weight Estimation,
[6] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part VI: , DARcorporation, Kansas, 1997.
[7] Andrisani, D., Mission Specification for A&AE451 Aircraft Design, Fall 2000, Purdue
University, Indiana, 2000.
[8] Sun C.T, Mechanics Of Composite Materials and Laminates; Purdue University,
Sring1999.
[9] Doyle James F., Alvarado F.L., Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures; Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1991.
[10] Archer R. R. & Lardner T. J., Mechanics of Solids: An Introduction; McGraw Hill,
Inc, 1994.
[11] Basiletti, M., Beech, R., Bhutta, O., and VanMeter, M., Team Design Requirements
and Objectives, AAE451 Senior Design, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, Sept.14,
2000.
[12] Selig, M., Donovon, J., and Fraser, D., Airfoils at Low Speeds, SoarTech
Publications, Virginia Beech, VA, 1989.
[13] Schmitz, F. W. , Aerodynamics of the Model Airplane, translated from the German
language by U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 1967.
[14] Selig, Michael S., Guglielmo, James J., High-Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil
Design, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 1, January-February 1997.
[15] Hoerner, Sighard F., Fluid Dynamic Drag., Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Bakersfield,
CA, 1992.
[16] A. Cook, K. Indermuehle, G. Labuda, J. Ruiz, T. Schmidt-Lange, A. Shurtleff, L.

Valentini, Thiokol Final Design Report AAE 451: Purdue University Senior Aircraft
Design, Spring 1999, Purdue University.
[17] Peters, Mark, Development of a Light Unmanned Aircraft for the Determination of
Flying Qualities Requirements, Masters Thesis, Purdue University, May 1996
[18] Kohn. Jean, Properties and Uses of Balsa; Forest Products Journal, New York, New
York, August 1958.
[19] Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education
Series, 1989.
[20] Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part VII: Determination of Stability, Control, and
Performance Characteristics: FAR and Military Requirements, DARcorporation, Kansas,
1989.
[21] McCombs, William F., Wing and Tail Dihedral for Models
[22] McCormick, Barnes W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics,
August 1, 1994.
Appendix A Concept Selection and Weighted Objectives Method

Concept selection takes place as the design mission and requirements are well
understood by all team members. A group of canditate design configurations is formed as
a result of brainstorming/discussion. Creativity is encouraged in this stage to produce a
wide range of ideas and solutions to the problem.
Objectives the design must address adequately are drawn from the mission
statement and objectives as the team understands them. Each member of the design team
was then asked to divide, among the ten objectives, one hundred points. The point values
for each objective given by each team member were then summed and the percentage, of
total points, for each objective was calculated. (Table 2.1).
Table F.1 - Weighted Objective Process
Objective
Endurance
Build within 3 weeks
Light weight
Turning radius
Robustness
Transportability
Ease of analysis
Landing ability
Maintainability
Marketability
Score
30
27.5
50
50
30
12
22.5
8
30
40
% of Total
10.0
9.16
16.66
16.66
10
4
7.5
2.66
10
13.33
The objectives were then ranked in order of importance to the mission. When
objectives matched percentiles, a team discussion ensued to determine which would
receive the higher ranking. The ten objectives were ranked from one to ten, one being the
most important of the objectives (Table 2.2).
Table F.2 - Objective Ranking Result
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Objective
Light weight
Turn radius
Marketability
Ease of construction
Maintainability
Robustness
Endurance
Ease of analysis
Transportability
Landing ability
The final step in the weighted objectives method, evaluated each of the five
concepts, on each of the ten objectives. Each concept was given a score of 3, -1, 0, 1 or
3 based on how well team members felt the specific concept would meet the given
objective. The evaluation was determined by group discussion (Table F.3).
Table F.3 - Concept Evaluation
Ranked
Objectives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(1)
Twin Boom
3
1
3
0
3
1
0
1
1
3
(2)
Regular
3
1
1
3
3
-1
3
3
1
1
(3)
Flying Wing
-3
-1
3
1
1
0
-1
-3
3
0
(4)
Biplane
-1
3
-3
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
3
(5)
Bi-Pusher
0
3
0
-1
-1
3
0
-1
1
3
Dividing the concepts score by the rank of the objective and summing then
determined a final score for each concept.
10
SCORE
i 1
si
i
Where si is the concepts score for the ith ranked objective. The final scores
compared gave the team an indication of which concepts would best meet the mission
requirements (Table F.4).
Table F.4 - Weighted Objectives Score
Concept
(1) Twin Boom
(2) Conventional
(3) Flying Wing
(4) Biplane
(5) Biplane Pusher
Score
5.80278
6.03130
-2.2345
-0.640079
1.83611
The conventional tractor monoplane style aircraft, as seen above, is the highest
scoring by the weighted objectives method. However, due to the close scoring of the
regular and twin boom concepts, and the enthusiasm of the design team for the twin
boom design, the final concept choice was to build the twin boom concept. This would
also give the group the chance to further explore the weight savings potential of the
distributed wing load characterized by this layout.
Constraint Diagram
%****************************************************
%
% 451 Design Sizing Code
% By Oneeb Bhutta
%
%****************************************************
%****************************************************
% Parameter used by us for Climb Rate
%****************************************************
rho = 0.00231;
%slugs/ft^3
CLmax = 1.53;
%Assumption
CL = CLmax / power(1.2, .5);
gamma =5.5*pi/180;
%Climb Angle in Radians
Cf = 0.007;
Ratio_Swet_Sref = 3.465;
Vstall = 20;
%ft/s Stall Speed
Cdo = Cf*Ratio_Swet_Sref;
AR = [7:1:10];
e = 0.75;
%Oswald Efficency Factor
WS = [0.1:.01:1];
[dummy, N] = size(WS);
[dummy, M] = size(AR);
%****************************************************
% Parameter used by us for Take-off Roll
%****************************************************
meu = 0.05;
%Ground Friction Coefficient
k1 = 0.0376;
sigma = 0.9718;
DL =
88.863;
%lbf-ft/s-ft^2
k2 =
4.60*power( (sigma/DL), 1/3 );
Stog = 5;
%ft of Take-off ground
%****************************************************
% Parameter used by us for Turn Rate
%****************************************************
g
= 32.2;
%ft/s^2 (gravity)
psi = 0.6196;
%rad/sec ; Turn Angle
Vel = 28;
%ft/s ; Cruise Velocity
%****************************************************
% Applying loop for different AR values
%****************************************************
% Here WS = W/S & WP = W/P

for z = 1:M
K = 1/(pi*AR(z)*e);
%****************************************************
%
% Calculating Rate of Climb
%
%****************************************************
for k = 1:N
term1 = ( 2*WS(k)*cos(gamma) ) / (rho*CL);
term2 = WS(k)*sin(gamma) + WS(k)*cos(gamma)*( Cdo + K*power(CL,2)
)/CL;
WP(k) = WS(k)*power( term1, -.5 )*power( term2, -1 );
end
%****************************************************
% Plotting Different AR values for Climb Rate
%****************************************************
if AR(z) == 7
plot(WS, WP,'k')
hold on
elseif AR(z) == 8
plot(WS, WP,'g')
hold on
elseif AR(z) == 9
plot(WS, WP,'b')
hold on
else
plot(WS, WP,'r')
plot(WS, WP)
hold on
end
%****************************************************
%
% Calculating Take-Off Roll
%
%****************************************************
for k = 1:N
term3 = k1*WS(k);
term4 = Stog*rho*( CLmax*meu + 0.72*Cdo);
term5 = Stog*rho*CLmax*k2;
WP(k) = power ( ( ( term3 + term4 )/term5 ) , -1 );
end
%****************************************************
% Plotting Take-Off Roll
%****************************************************
plot(WS, WP)
hold on
%****************************************************
%
% Calculating Turn Rate
%
%****************************************************
for k = 1:N
term6 = WS(k)*K/( 0.5*rho*power( Vel, 2) );
term7 = power( psi, 2)*power( Vel, 2 )/power( g, 2 ) + 1;
term8 = 0.5*rho*power( Vel, 2)*Cdo/WS(k);
term9 = Vel*( term6*term7 + term8 );

WP(k) = power( term9, -1 );
end
%****************************************************
% Plotting Different AR values for Turn Rate
%****************************************************
if AR(z) == 7
plot(WS, WP,'k')
hold on
elseif AR(z) == 8
plot(WS, WP,'g')
hold on
elseif AR(z) == 9
plot(WS, WP,'b')
hold on
else
plot(WS, WP,'r')
plot(WS, WP)
hold on
end
%****************************************************
%
% Stall Speed
%
%****************************************************
counter = 0;
%Counter to form a straight line
for k = 1:N
WS_1(k) = 0.5*rho*power( Vstall, 2)*CLmax;
WP_1(k) = counter;
counter = counter + .16;
end
%****************************************************
% Plotting stall speed
%****************************************************
plot(WS_1, WP_1, 'r')
hold on
end
grid
xlabel('W/S')
ylabel('W/P')
legend('AR=7','AR=8','AR=9','AR=10',0)
Appendix B Aerodynamics Methodology

The component build-up method of drag prediction uses the wetted area Swet and
form factor FF to calculate the each airframe components contribution to the total
parasite drag. Interference between bodies is accounted for in the interference factor Q.
They are summed to give the total zero-lift (parasite) drag coefficient as:
C D0
C fi Qi FFi S weti
(B.1)
S ref
Form factors for the components are based on empirical formulas. The form
factors for fuselage and nacelle components are found from the following relationships:
f
l
d
60
f
FF 1 3 100
f
400
FF 1
0.35
f
Fuselage
(B.2)
Nacelle
Where f is the fineness ratio of body length l and diameter d.

The formulation of for the wing form function is given by:
4
c
FF 1 0.6 100 t 1.34M 0.18
c
x
(B.3)
Where t is the thickness and c is the mean chord. The Mach number M is of course
variable with flight conditions.
Interference drag prediction is also based on empirical estimations. Component
orientation and layout (high-wing, mid-wing, low-wing for example) determine the value
of Q as follows:
Component
Wing
Nacelle
Configuration
High wing
Low wing
Mid wing
On wing
< Nacelle Dia. From wing
> Nacelle Dia from wing
Q factor value
1.0
1.1-1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
See Raymers book on aircraft design for more details on this method.
The drag prediction involves calculation of the skin friction coefficient. This can
be calculated by equations representing the empirical fit of laboratory data for laminar
and turbulent flow. Turbulent flow is assumed for this analysis:
0.455
2.58
log 10(Re)
C f 1.2
(B.4)
This equation does not take into account Mach effects. To account for skin roughness, 20
percent was added to the value of Cf. This follows from observations made by
McCormick [22], and is a conservative assumption.
Moment Diagram
%******************************************
% Stability and Derivatives Calculation
%
% Uses the method outlined in Raymer's Aircraft Design ch 16
%
Assumptions:
%
No flaps
%
Linear lift curve slope
%
Sealed control surface gaps
%
Neglect thrust effects
%
% Matthew Basiletti 10/23/00
%
% ALL UNITS IN [ft, lbf, rad]
%
%******************************************
clear
%========================================
% Define Variables
Vcruise = 28;
%ft/sec
q = 0.5*.00231*Vcruise^2;
A = 9;
lamda = 0;%unswept wing
n = 1;
%load factor for manuevering
Sref = 13.5;
cbar = 1.22;
xbar_cg =input('Input the c.g.location:[in decimal fraction of the wing
chord]');
Sexp = 13.3;
Cm0 = -0.25;
% Selig data about c/4
Clmax = 1.83;
% Selig S1210 airfoil at Rn=150,000
CLmax = 0.85*Clmax; %Raymer's guesstimate for high aspect ratio
Vh =.5;
xh = 3.5;
S_horz = Vh*Sref*cbar/xh;
xbar_ach = 2.3;
elev_ratio = 0.2;
% chord of elevator/chord of h.stab
eta_h = 0.85;
% tail dyamic pressure ratio -Raymer p. 412
Fp = 0;
% assume no turning of flow by propeller
Fpa = 0;
xbar_acw = 0.3;
% S1210 aifoil
alpha_0L = -8*pi/180;
% rad
Cla = 5.44;
% from airfoil cl vs alpha plot
eta1 = Cla/(2*pi);
CL0h = 0;
CLah = 3.72;
%1/rad from thin symmetrical airfoil
alph_0L_h = 0;
%symmetrical h.stab section
%========================================
% Stability equations:
T = 0;
Zbar_t = .15;
%vertical distance of thrust line from c.g.
dEu_da = 1.3;
% upwash derivative with alpha from Raymer fig 16.11
dE_da = .33;
% downwash derivative from fig.16.12
del_h = 1-dE_da;
% change in horiz.stab angle of attack with wing
angle of attack
F = 1.07*(1+.25/11.1)^2;
%fuselage lift factor Raymer 12.9
iw =3*pi/180;
% wing incidence angle
ih = -6*pi/180;
% tail incidence angle
Cmw = Cm0*(A*(cos(lamda))^2/(A+2*cos(lamda)));
delta_alpha_CLmax=2*pi/180;
%From airfoil data
CLa_w= (2*pi*A)/(2 + (4+((A^2/eta1^2)*(1+
(tan(lamda))^2)))^.5)*Sexp/Sref*F; %wing only Raymer ch 12
alpha_CLmax = CLmax/CLa + alpha_0L + delta_alpha_CLmax;
CLh_de=CLah/pi*(acos(1-2*elev_ratio) + 2*(elev_ratio*(1elev_ratio))^.5); % Mark Peters A.12
CLa = CLa_w + CLah*eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*(1-dE_da); % whole aircraft From
Roskam eq 3.24
Cmfus = 0;
% assume no pitching moment from fuselage
Cma_fus = 0;
xbar_p = 0;
del_p = 0;
Cmq=-2.2*eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*CLah*(xbar_ach-xbar_cg)^2; %Pitch damping
derivative (Raymer 16.52)
qprime=32.2*(n-1)/Vcruise; %pitch rate as related to load factor for
pull-up manuever (Raymer 16.57)
i=0;
alpha = [-4:2:12];
alpha=alpha*pi/180;
for de=-18:9:18
if de == -18
string='k*-';
else if de==-9
string = 'r*-';
else if de==0
string = 'g*-'
else if de==9
string = 'b*-';
else string='m*-';
end
end
end
end
de=de*pi/180;
i=i+1;
%convert to radians
de_dummy(i) = de;
alpha_h = (alpha+iw).*(1-dE_da) + (ih-iw);
% effective angle of attack
of horiz.stab
CLh = CL0h + CLh_de*de + CLah.*alpha_h;
% lift of h-stab
CLwing=CLa_w*(alpha +iw - alpha_0L);
%wing alone
CL = n*(CLa_w.*(alpha + iw - alpha_0L) + eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*CLh);
Cmcg = CL.*(xbar_cg-xbar_acw) + Cmw + Cmfus eta_h*(S_horz/Sref).*CLh.*(xbar_ach - xbar_cg)...

+ T/(q*Sref)*Zbar_t + Fp/(q*Sref)*(xbar_cg - xbar_p)+ Cmq*qprime;
Cma = CLa_w*(xbar_cg - xbar_acw) + Cma_fus eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*CLah*(del_h)*(xbar_ach - xbar_cg)...
+ Fpa/(q*Sref)*del_p*(xbar_cg - xbar_p);
xbar_np = (CLa_w*xbar_acw - Cma_fus +
eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*CLah*del_h*xbar_ach + Fpa/(q*Sref)*del_p*xbar_p)...
/(CLa_w + eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*CLah*del_h + Fpa/(q*Sref))
%Cma = -CLa_w*(xbar_np - xbar_cg);
%subplot(1,2,1)
figure(1)
plot(alpha*180/pi, Cmcg,string);
hold on
figure(2)
plot(CL, Cmcg, string);
hold on
end
CLh_manuever = (Cmcg -(CL.*(xbar_cg-xbar_acw)+ Cmw + Cmfus + T/
(q*Sref)*Zbar_t + Fp/(q*Sref)*(xbar_cg - xbar_p)+ Cmq*qprime))...
./(- eta_h*(S_horz/Sref)*(xbar_ach - xbar_cg))
L_horz = CLh_manuever*.5*.00231*S_horz*Vcruise^2
figure(1)
grid on
xlabel('alpha (rad)')
ylabel('Cmcg')
legend('elev deflect=-8 deg','-4','0','4','8');
hold off
figure(2)
grid on
xlabel('CL')
ylabel('Cmcg')
legend('elev deflect=-8 deg','-4','0','4','8');
hold off
CL_de = CLh_de*(S_horz/Sref)
Cma
static_margin=-(xbar_cg-xbar_np)
figure(3)
plot (alpha*180/pi, CLwing)
xlabel('alpha [deg]');
ylabel('CL wing only')
grid on
Drag Analysis
%************************************************
%
% This code predicts the total Drag Cdo and lift
% coefficient Cl of the aircraft at different
% flight velocities.
%
% Programmer:
Oneeb Bhutta
% Dated:
09/24/00
% Modified by Matthew Basiletti 10/22/00
%
%************************************************
%Clearing Matlab memory and screen
clear
clc
%************************************************
% Flight Conditions
%************************************************
meu = 3.717e-7;
Vel = [19:1:50];
rho = 0.00231;
temp_air = 515.12;
gamma_air = 1.4;
R_air = 1718;
%slugs/ft-sec @ 1000ft
%Variuos flight Velocities
%slugs/ft^3 (density)
%temp of air in R @1000ft
%Gas constant for air
%Speed of sound @ 1000ft

a = power( temp_air*gamma_air*R_air, .5);
%Size of the Velocity Matrice
[dummy N] = size(Vel);
%************************************************
%
% Geometric parameters of the aircraft
%
%************************************************
weight = 9.5;
lift = weight;
eo = .75;
A = 9;
k1 = 1/( pi*A*eo
%lb
%lb
%Oswald Efficiency factor
);
%************************************************
% Main Wing
%************************************************
%Aspect Ratio
Sref = 13.5;
%Refrence area (ft^2)
b = (Sref*A)^.5; %wing span (ft)
broot=3.0;
%root span between pods - (ft)
btip=0.5*(b-broot); %span of one tip panel (ft)
croot=1.42
%root chord (ft)
ctip=(Sref-(broot*croot))/(btip*croot);
%tip chord (ft)
taper=ctip/croot;
%taper ratio of tip section
c_wing = Sref/b;
%mean chord of wing (ft)
%== For S1210 airfoil
x_c_wing = 0.25;
%Chordwise location of maximum thickness point
t_c_wing = 0.12;
%Precent of thickness of the airfoil
Swet_wing = Sref*2*1.04;
%Total wetted area of wing (ft^2)
%************************************************
% Tail horizontal & Vertical surfaces
%************************************************
b_horz = 3.0;
% span of horizontal stabilizer (ft)
S_horz = 2.2;
c_horz = S_horz/b_horz;
%Chord of the horizontal stab (ft)
x_c_horz = 0.4;
%Chordwise location of maximum thickness point
t_c_horz = 0.06;
Swet_horz = S_horz*2*1.02; %wetted area (ft^2)
Q_horz = 1.44;
%Component Interference factor
c_ver_root = 1.0;
%Root Chord of the vert. stab.(ft)
c_ver_tip = 0.6;
%Tip chord of vert. stab (ft)
c_ver = (c_ver_root+c_ver_tip)/2;
%average chord of vert tail
S_ver = 1.75;
%area of both vert tails (ft^2)
h_ver = 0.5*S_ver/(0.5*(c_ver_root+c_ver_tip));
Swet_ver = S_ver*2*1.02;
%wetted area (ft^2) (BOTH)
x_c_ver = 0.4;
%Chordwise location of maximum thickness
point
t_c_ver = 0.06;
%************************************************
% Fuselage
%************************************************
c_fuselage = 3.3;
%length in ft
d_fuselage = power( 4*.2/pi, .5 );
%Diameter in ft
%Area of the fuselage in ft^2
Swet_fuselage = 0.7*pi*d_fuselage*c_fuselage;
%************************************************
% pod ((Nacelles)
%************************************************
c_pods = 1.75;
%length (ft)
d_pods = power( 4*.05/pi, .5 );
%Diameter (ft)
Q_pods = 1.5;
%Component Interference factor
Swet_pods = 0.7*pi*d_pods*c_pods;
%Area of a pod (ft^2) (EACH)
%************************************************
% booms
%************************************************
c_boom = 3;
d_boom = .0625;
%length in ft
%Diameter in ft
Swet_boom = pi*d_boom*c_boom;
%Area of a boom (ft^2 ) EACH
%************************************************
%
% Calculation of Cdo and Cl
%
%************************************************
for k = 1:N
%************************************************
% lift coefficient 'Cl' calculation
%************************************************
CL(k) = lift / ( 0.5*rho*power(Vel(k) , 2)*Sref );
%************************************************
% Drag Calculation for main wing
%************************************************
% Reynolds number
R_wing = rho*Vel(k)*c_wing/meu;
%Skin friction Coefficient (Turbulent flow)
%(Ref. Raymer eq.12.27)
temp1 = log10(R_wing);
Cf_wing = (0.455/power(temp1, 2.58))*1.2; %skin friction coefficient
adjusted for rough surface
%Component Form factors
Mach = Vel(k)/a;
temp2 = 1 + 0.6*t_c_wing/x_c_wing ...
+ 100*power( t_c_wing, 4 );
temp3 = 1.34*power(Mach, 0.18);
FF_wing = temp2*temp3;
% Drag cdo
Cdo_wing = Cf_wing*FF_wing*Swet_wing/Sref;
%************************************************
% Drag Calculation for horizontal & Vertical
% surfaces
%************************************************
% Reynolds number
R_horz = rho*Vel(k)*c_horz/meu;
temp6 = log10(R_horz);
Cf_horz = (0.455/power(temp6, 2.58))*1.2; %Horiz.stab. friction
coeff. adjusted for rough surface
temp7 = 1 + 0.6*t_c_horz/x_c_horz ...
+ 100*power( t_c_horz, 4 );
FF_horz = temp7*temp8;
% Drag cdo
Cdo_horz = Cf_horz*FF_horz*Q_horz*Swet_horz/Sref;
% Reynolds number
R_ver
= rho*Vel(k)*c_ver/meu;

temp9 = log10(R_ver);
Cf_ver = (0.455/power(temp9, 2.58))*1.2; %Vert.stabl friction coeff.
adjusted for rough surface
temp10 = 1 + 0.6*t_c_ver/x_c_ver ...
+ 100*power( t_c_ver, 4 );
FF_ver = temp10*temp11;
% Drag cdo
Cdo_ver = Cf_ver*FF_ver*Swet_ver/Sref;
%************************************************
% Drag Calculation for Fuselage
%************************************************
% Reynolds number
R_fuselage = rho*Vel(k)*c_fuselage/meu;
temp4 = log10(R_fuselage);
Cf_fuselage = (.455/power(temp4, 2.58))*1.2;
%(Ref Raymer eq.12.31 & eq.12.33)
f_fuselage = c_fuselage/d_fuselage;
FF_fuselage = ( 1 + 60/power(f_fuselage,3) ...
+ f_fuselage/400 );
% Drag cdo
Cdo_fuselage = Cf_fuselage*FF_fuselage...
*Swet_fuselage/Sref;
%************************************************
% Drag Calculation for pods
%************************************************
% Reynolds number
R_pods = rho*Vel(k)*c_pods/meu;
temp5 = log10(R_pods);
Cf_pods = (0.455/power(temp5, 2.58))*1.2;
f_pods = c_pods/d_pods;
FF_pods = 1 + 0.35/f_pods;
% Drag cdo- for each pod
Cdo_pods = Cf_pods*FF_pods*Q_pods*Swet_pods/Sref;
%************************************************
% Drag Calculation for boom
%************************************************
% Reynolds number
R_boom = rho*Vel(k)*c_boom/meu;
temp12 = log10(R_boom);
Cf_boom = 0.455/power(temp12, 2.58);
f_boom = c_boom/d_boom;
FF_boom = ( 1 + 60/power(f_boom,3) ...
+ f_boom/400 );
% Drag cdo for each boom
Cdo_boom = Cf_boom*FF_boom*Swet_boom/Sref;
%************************************************
% Total Parasite Drag
%************************************************
CDo_temp = Cdo_wing + Cdo_horz + Cdo_ver +...
Cdo_fuselage + 2*Cdo_boom + 2*Cdo_pods ;
% 10 percent of miscellaneous drag
CD_misc = 0.10*CDo_temp;
%Total Parasite Drag;
CDo(k) = CDo_temp + CD_misc;
%************************************************
% Total Drag of the aircraft
%************************************************
CDi(k) = k1*power( CL(k), 2 );
CD(k) = CDo(k) + CDi(k);
Drag(k) = CD(k)*.5*rho*Vel(k).^2*Sref;
Dragi(k) = CDi(k)*.5*rho*Vel(k).^2*Sref;
end
Swet_total =
Swet_wing+Swet_horz+Swet_fuselage+2*Swet_pods+Swet_ver+2*Swet_boom
Power = Drag.*Vel;
figure(1)
plot(Vel, CD,'r-.')
hold on
plot(Vel, Drag,'g-')
title('Airfoil Selig 1210')
xlabel('Velocity ft/s')
grid
legend('CD','Total Drag',0)
figure(2)
plot(CL, CD, 'b*-')
hold on
plot(CL, CDi,'g*-')
plot(CL, CDo,'r*-')
hold off
title('Aircraft Drag Polar')
xlabel('CL')
grid
legend('CD','CDi','CDo',0)
figure(3)
plot(CL, CDo)
xlabel('CL')
ylabel('CDo')
grid
figure(4)
plot(Vel,Drag,'r-.')
hold on
plot(Vel, Dragi,'b-')
grid
legend('Total Drag','Induced Drag')
figure(5)
plot(Vel, CDi)
ylabel('Cdi')
grid
figure(6)
plot(CD.^2, CL.^3)
xlabel('CD^3')
ylabel('CL^2')
figure(7)
plot(Vel, Power,'r*-')
grid
xlabel('Velocity [ft/s]')
ylabel('Power Required [ft-lb/s]')
Appendix C - Structural Analysis Methodology
Displacement and Moment Equations for the Wing Section:
EIv( x)
L W x
'
24
L W x . L W L x
'
'
Px x 3a
for.0 x a
6
Pa 2 3 x a
EIv( x)
. for.a x L
6
2
EIv( x)
L W x L W Lx L W L
M ( x)
2
2
2
'
'
'
M ( x) P x L
Lift
wo
P
Wing
Displacement and Moment Equations for the Horizontal TailSection:
EIv( x)
L W x L W Lx L W L x
'
'
24
'
12
24
L' Wo x
L' Wo Lx
L' Wo L2
M ( x)
.
2
2
12
Lift
wo
Displacement and Moment Equations for the Booms:
EIv( x)
Px 2 (3L x)
6
M ( x) P ( x L)
Boom
P
Matlab Code Output

0.25 x 0.25 spars for Wing Section:
Moment_max = 41.7149 lbf/ft
Sigma_max = 2.0023e+003 psi
Sigma_critical = 1725 psi
1/8 x 1/16 spars for Horizontal Tail Section:
Moment_max = .8282 lbf/ft
Sigma_max = 848.0384 psi
Sigma_critical = 1725 psi
%***************************************************
% This program calculates the Moments and
% deflections for half of the wing of the
% Boiler-Xpress aircraft
%
% ******* Updated Version *******
% By Oneeb Bhutta
% Dated: 10/26/00
%
%***************************************************
close all
clear
clc
%***************************************************
% Moment of Inertia calculation of 4 stringers
%***************************************************
max_camber = 2;
width = .25;
height = .25;
Area = width*height;
%inches
%inches
%inches
%inches^2
Inertia = 4*Area*power( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4

Inertia_ft = Inertia/power( 12, 4);
%ft^4
%***************************************************
% Properties of Spar (Balsa)
%***************************************************
sigma_critical = 1725;
E = 625e3;
E_ft = E*power( 12, 2 );
%psi
%psi
%lbf/ft^2
%***************************************************
% Properties of the wing
%***************************************************
balsa_density = 11.0;
%lbf/ft^3
Y_centroid = 1;
saftey_factor = 2.5*1.5;
wo = 0.2389;
L = 5.5;
W_extra = 1.0*saftey_factor;
misc
L_prime = 3.406;
length_a = 1.5;
%in inches
%2.5g and SF=1.5
%weight loading lb/ft
%lenght of half of
%the wing in ft
%Weight of servo, wires, boom,
%half of the tail, landing gear and
%(lbf/ft) wing loading value
%distance of the
%extra weight from
%root of the wing
%***************************************************
%
% Calculation of the bending Moments and Deflection
% on the wing section
%
%***************************************************
x = [0:.1:L];
[dummy N] = size(x);
%Values of intergration Constants
%for
C1 =
C2 =
C3 =
C4 =
5.50ft of length analysis (const. Loading)

-(L_prime - wo)*L ;
(L_prime - wo)*.5*power( L, 2 );
0;
0;
for k = 1:N
%wing loading Values const.
if
x(k) <= 4
lo(k) = L_prime;
%lbf/ft
lo1(k) = L_prime;
else
lo(k) = L_prime*cos( (pi/2)*( (x(k) - 4) / (L - 4) ) ); %lbf/ft
lo1(k) = L_prime;
lo1(56) = 0;
end
%***************************************************
% Calculation of Bending moments on the wing
%***************************************************
%Part#1
Moment_1(k) = (L_prime - wo)*0.5*power( x(k), 2 ) + C1*x(k) + C2;
%Part#2
if x(k) <= length_a
Moment_2(k) = W_extra*( x(k) - length_a );
else
Moment_2(k) = 0;
end
%Total Bending Moments
Moment_total(k) = Moment_1(k) + Moment_2(k);
%***************************************************
% Calculation of deflections
%***************************************************
%Part#1
deflection_1(k) = ( (L_prime - wo)*power( x(k), 4)/24 + ...
C1*power( x(k), 3)/6 + C2*power( x(k), 2 )/2 + C3*x(k) ...
+ C4)/( E_ft*Inertia_ft);
%Part#2
if x(k) <= 1.5
deflection_2(k) = W_extra*power( x(k), 2)*( x(k) - 3*length_a)/
(6*E_ft*Inertia_ft);
else
deflection_2(k) = -W_extra*power(length_a, 2)*( 3*x(k) length_a)/(6*E_ft*Inertia_ft);
end
%Total Deflections
deflection_total(k) = deflection_1(k) + deflection_2(k);
end
%***************************************************
%
% Calculation of the Maximum Stress from Max
% Bending Moment
%
%***************************************************
[Moment_max dummy2] = max( abs(Moment_total) )
sigma_max = Moment_max*12*Y_centroid/Inertia
sigma_critical
Total_spar_weight = 16*( balsa_density*4*Area*L*2/144)
%***************************************************
%
% Figures and plots
%
%***************************************************
figure(1)
plot(x, lo)
hold on
plot(x, lo1, 'r-.')
title('Loading on half of the WING')
xlabel('Length [ft]')
ylabel('wing loading [lb/ft]')
grid
legend('Actual Wing loading','Mathematical Model Employed',0)
figure(2)
plot(x, Moment_total,'g*')
hold on
plot(x, Moment_1,'rx')
hold on
plot(x, Moment_2,'bo-')
title('Bending Moments for the Wing')
xlabel('length [ft]')
ylabel('Moment [lb/ft] ')
grid
legend('Total Bending','Lift loading Moment', 'Pod Weight Moment', 0)
figure(3)
plot(x, deflection_total*12,'g*')
hold on
plot(x, deflection_1*12,'rx')
hold on
plot(x, deflection_2*12,'bo-')
title('Deflection for the Wing')
ylabel('Deflection [in] ')
grid
legend('Total Deflection','Lift loading deflection', 'Pod Weight
deflection', 0)
Loading on half of the WING
3.5
Bending Moments for the Wing
50
Total Bending
Lift loading Moment
Pod Weight Moment
3
40
30
2
1.5
Moment [lb/ft]
wing loading [lb/ft]
2.5
Actual Wing loading

Mathematical Model Employed
10
0.5
0
3
Length [ft]
Deflection for the Wing
4.5
Total Deflection
Lift loading deflection
Pod Weight deflection
4
3.5
Deflection [in]
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
20
3
length [ft]
-10
3
length [ft]
%***************************************************
% deflections for the Horizontal tail section
%
%
% By Oneeb Bhutta
% Dated: 10/28/00
%
%***************************************************
close all
clear
clc
%***************************************************
% Moment of Inertia calculation of 4 stringers
%***************************************************
max_camber = 3/4;
width = .125;
height = .0625;
Area = width*height;
%inches
%inches
%inches
%inches^2
Inertia = 4*Area*power( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4

%ft^4
%***************************************************
% Properties of Spar (Balsa)
%***************************************************
sigma_critical = 1725;
E = 625e3;
E_ft = E*power( 12, 2 );
%psi
%psi
%lbf/ft^2
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
balsa_density = 11.0;
Y_centroid = (3/4)*0.5;
saftey_factor = 1.5;
L = 3.0;
wo = 5.0/(16*L);
L_prime = 0.6667*saftey_factor;
factor
%lbf/ft^3
%in inches
%SF=1.5
%lenght of horizontal Tail in ft
%Total weight loading (lbf/ft)
%(lbf/ft) wing loading. 2.5 safety
%is already included in the wing
loading
%***************************************************
%
% on the Horizontal Tail section
%
%***************************************************
x = [0:.05:L];
%Values of intergration Constants
%for
C1 =
C2 =
C3 =
C4 =
3.0ft of length analysis (const. Loading)

-(-L_prime - wo)*L*0.5 ;
(-L_prime - wo)*power( L, 2 )/12;
0;
0;
for k = 1:N
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
Moment_1(k) = (-L_prime - wo)*0.5*power( x(k), 2 ) + C1*x(k) + C2;
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
deflection_1(k) = ( (-L_prime - wo)*power( x(k), 4)/24 + ...
C1*power( x(k), 3)/6 + C2*power( x(k), 2 )/2 + C3*x(k) ...
+ C4 )/( E_ft*Inertia_ft );
end
%***************************************************
%
% Calculation of the Maximum Stress from Max
% Bending Moment
%
%***************************************************
[Moment_max dummy2] = max( abs(Moment_1) )
sigma_max = Moment_max*12*Y_centroid/Inertia
sigma_critical
Total_spar_weight = 16*( balsa_density*4*Area*L*2/144)
%***************************************************
%
% Figures and plots
%
%***************************************************
figure(1)
plot(x, Moment_1,'g*')
title('Bending Moments on the Horizontal Tail')
grid
axis equal
legend('Total Bending', 0)
figure(2)
plot(x, deflection_1*12, 'r*')
title('Deflection of the Horizontal Tail')
grid
axis equal
legend('Total Deflection', 0)
Bending Moments on the Horizontal Tail
Deflection of the Horizontal Tail

Total Bending
0.8
Total Deflection
0.6
0.4
0.5
Deflection [in]
Moment [lb/ft]
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.5
-0.8
-1
-1
-1.2
0
0.5
1.5
length [ft]
2.5
0.5
1.5
length [ft]
2.5
%***************************************************
% deflections for one of the boom rods.
%
%
% By Oneeb Bhutta
% Dated: 10/29/00
%
%***************************************************
close all
clear
clc
%***************************************************
% Moment of Inertia calculation for the hollow
% boom rod
%***************************************************
ro = .532;
ri = .50;
%inner radius in inches

%outer radius in inches
Inertia = (pi/4)*( power( ro, 4 ) - power( ri, 4 ) ); %inches^4
%ft^4
%***************************************************
% Properties of Carbon-Epoxy rod
%***************************************************
E = 17.4e6;
E_ft = E*power( 12, 2 );
%psi
%lbf/ft^2
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
SF = 2.5*1.5;
L = 3.5;
H_tail = 5/16;
V_tail = 2.80/16;
P = 0.5*( H_tail + V_tail )*SF;
R = 1.5 + P;
%Safety
%lenght
%Weight
%weight
factor
of 1 boom in ft
of H-tail in lbf
of V-tail in lbf
%1.5lbf is the load on the

%half on the H-tail including SF
%***************************************************
%
% on the Horizontal Tail section
%
%***************************************************
x = [0:.05:L];
for k = 1:N
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
Moment(k) = R*( L - x(k) );
%***************************************************
%***************************************************
deflection(k) = -R*power( x(k), 2 )*( 3*L - x(k) )/
( 6*E_ft*Inertia_ft );
end
%***************************************************
%
% Max Bending Moment
%
%***************************************************
[Moment_max dummy2] = max( abs(Moment) )
%***************************************************
%
% Figures and plots
%
%***************************************************
figure(1)
plot(x, Moment,'g*')
title('Bending Moments for the boom')
grid
legend('Total Bending', 0)
figure(2)
plot(x, deflection*12, 'r*')
title(' Deflection of the boom')
grid
axis equal
legend('Total Deflection', 0)
Bending Moments for the boom
Deflection of the boom
Total Bending
Total Deflection
7
0.5
Deflection [in]
Moment [lb/ft]
4
3
-0.5
2
-1
1
0
0.5
1.5
2
length [ft]
2.5
3.5
-1.5
0.5
1.5
2
length [ft]
2.5
3.5
Appendix D MATLAB Propulsion System Analysis Code

% MATLAB CODE FOR PROPULSION SYSTEM SELCTION
% AAE451 FALL 200, MICHAEL VANMETER
% SEPTEMBER 30 2000
clear all
close all
dragprop
%clear Q_pods f_pods R_air foil_1 CD_misc R_boom foil_2 R_fuselage
%clear R_horz k CDo_temp R_pods R_ver Cdo_boom R_wing meu
%clear Cdo_fuselage Cdo_horz Swet_boom t_c_horz Cdo_pods Swet_fuselage
%clear t_c_ver Cdo_ver Swet_horz t_c_wing Cdo_wing Swet_pods temp1
Cf_boom
%clear Swet_ver temp10 Cf_fuselage Swet_wing temp11 Cf_horz temp12
Cf_pods
%clear temp2 Cf_ver c_boom temp3 Cf_wing c_fuselage temp4 c_horz temp5
Dragi
%clear c_pods temp6 FF_boom c_ver temp7 FF_fuselage c_wing temp8
FF_horz d_boom
%clear temp9 FF_pods d_fuselage temp_air FF_ver d_pods FF_wing dummy
x_c_horz
%clear Mach eo x_c_ver N f_boom x_c_wing Q_horz f_fuselage AR
% UNIT CONVERSIONS
hp2ftlbs = 550;
ftlbs2w = 1.356;
hp2watt = 745.7;
deg2rad = pi/180;
kwh2ftlb = 2.655e6;
%conversion
%conversion
%conversion
%conversion
%conversion
% CONSTANTS
Vstall = 18;
Vto = 1.2*Vstall;
Videal = 28.0;
%stall speed (ft/s)

%take off speed (ft/s)
%ideal velcotiy for indoor flight (ft/s)
factor
factor
factor
factor
factor
from
from
from
from
from
horsepower to ft-lbf/s
ft-lbf/s to watts
horsepower to watts
degrees to radians
Kw-hr to ft-lbf
% CALCULATE THE BEST ENDURANCE SPEED

CDoe = mean(CDo); % needed a single value for CDo, so I averaged
% the values over our flight regime (allowed?)
CLstar = sqrt(CDoe./k1);
CLe = sqrt(3).*CLstar;
CDstar = 2.*CDoe;
CDe = 2.*CDstar;
Ve = sqrt((2.*weight)./((rho).*Sref.*CLe)); %Speed for best endurance
(ft/s)
Fe = weight*(CDe/CLe);
% POWER REQUIRED
Pr = weight*sqrt(2*weight/Sref)*(1/sqrt(rho)).*(CD./(CL.^(3/2)));
figure(6)
plot(Vel,Pr,'b-',Ve,min(Pr),'mx')
title('Power Required Curve')
xlabel('Velocity (ft/s)')
ylabel('Power (lbf-ft/s)')
text(Ve-4,(min(Pr)+10),['Best Endurance Speed: ',num2str(Ve),' ft/s'])

grid on
F = Pr./Vel;
figure(7)
plot(Vel,F,'g-',Ve,Fe,'mx')
text(Ve,(Fe+0.1),['Best Endurance Thrust: ',num2str(Fe),' lb'])
title('Thrust Required Curve')
xlabel('Velocity (ft/s)')
ylabel('Thrust (lb)')
grid on
% PROPELLER PERFORMANCE
for k=0.5:0.1:1
if (k == 0.5)
string = 'b-.';
elseif (k == 0.6)
string = 'k-';
elseif (k == 0.7)
string = 'm-.';
elseif (k == 0.8)
string = 'b-';
elseif (k == 0.9)
string = 'k-.';
elseif (k == 1.0)
string = 'm-';
end
j=0;
for i=1:100
[Cpe(i-j,1) Cte(i-j,1) Je(i-j,1) etae(i-j,1)] = goldfunc(14,14*k,
(950+50*i),Ve);
if ((Cpe(i-j,1)<=0)|(Cte(i-j,1)<=0))
j=j+1;
end
end
[A dummy] = size(etae);
for i=1:A
if (max(etae) == etae(i))
etaestar = etae(i);
Jestar = Je(i);
end
end
startabe((10*k-4),1:3) = [k Jestar etaestar];
figure(8)
plot(Je,etae,string)
title(['Propeller Efficiency at Best Endurance Speed (',num2str(Ve),'
ft/s)'])
xlabel('J')
ylabel('eta')
grid on
hold on
j=0;
for i=1:100
[Cpi(i-j,1) Cti(i-j,1) Ji(i-j,1) etai(i-j,1)] = goldfunc(14,14*k,
(950+50*i),Videal);
if ((Cpi(i-j,1)<=0)|(Cti(i-j,1)<=0))
j=j+1;
end
end
[A dummy] = size(etai);
for i=1:A
if (max(etai) == etai(i))
etaistar = etai(i);
Jistar = Ji(i);
end
end
startabi((10*k-4),1:3) = [k Jistar etaistar];
figure(9)
plot(Ji,etai,string)
title(['Propeller Efficiency at Best Indoor Speed
(',num2str(Videal),' ft/s)'])
xlabel('J')
ylabel('eta')
grid on
hold on
end
figure(8)
legend('Tau = 0.5','Tau = 0.6','Tau = 0.7','Tau = 0.8','Tau = 0.9','Tau
= 1.0',3)
hold off
figure(9)
= 1.0',3)
hold off
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp(['
for V = ',num2str(Ve),' (ft/s)'])
disp('
tau
Jstar
etastar')
disp('
------------------------------')
disp(startabe)
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp(['
for V = ',num2str(Videal),' (ft/s)'])
disp('
tau
Jstar
etastar')
disp('
------------------------------')
disp(startabi)
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
% EXAMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROTATIONAL SPEED AND DIAMETER
RPM = 1500:100:5000;
n = RPM/60;
for i=1:max(size(startabe))
De(:,i) = ((Ve./(startabe(i,2).*n))*12)';
end
for i=1:max(size(startabi))
Di(:,i) = ((Videal./(startabi(i,2).*n))*12)';
end
figure(10)
plot(RPM,De(:,1),'b--',RPM,De(:,2),'b-',RPM,De(:,3),'b-.',RPM,De(:,4),'b
.',RPM,De(:,5),'m--',RPM,De(:,6),'m-.')
title(['Propeller Diameter for Best Efficiency for V= ',num2str(Ve),'
(ft/s)'])
= 1.0')
xlabel('RPM')
ylabel('Diameter (in)')
grid on
figure(11)
plot(RPM,Di(:,1),'b--',RPM,Di(:,2),'b-',RPM,Di(:,3),'b-.',RPM,Di(:,4),'b
.',RPM,Di(:,5),'m--',RPM,Di(:,6),'m-.')
= 1.0')
title(['Propeller Diameter for Best Efficiency for V=
',num2str(Videal),' (ft/s)'])
xlabel('RPM')
ylabel('Diameter (in)')
grid on
% CALCULATE AN IDEAL DIAMETER
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp('WARNING: Diameter is based on a Ve of 23 ft/s')
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
disp(' ')
%Dstar = sqrt(Pr(23)/(23*rho*(23/
% ACCOUNT FOR THE GEAR BOX
etag = 0.95; %assumed
figure(6)
hold on
Prp = Pr./etag;
Poutg = Prp;
plot(Vel,Prp,'m-.')
hold off
Ping = Poutg./etag;
% ELECTRIC MOTOR ANALYSIS
Poutm = Ping;
figure(6)
hold on
plot(Vel,Poutm,'b-x')
hold off
legend('A/C Power','Best Endurance Speed','Propeller Power','Motor
Power',2)
% Assuming the following representation from the "Analysis and Design of
Electrically
% Powered Propeller Driven Aircraft" handout, where Pout and RPM are the
% independent variables and Vin, Iin, Pin, Torque and etam are the
% dependent variables
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
______________
RPM ------->|
|------->
|
|------->
| REAL MOTOR |------->
Pout ------>|
|------->
|______________|------->
Vin
Iin
Pin
Torque
etam
% The poer required by the aircraft must be equal to the

% power output by the propeller
%
Pprop = T*V = Pa/c = V*rho*(n*D)^2*D^2*Ctstar
%clear deg2rad hp2ftlbs hp2watt ftlbs2w CDe CDi CDo CDoe CDstar
%clear CLe CLstar CDto D Drag Fe L Prto Sref T Ve Vel Vstall
%clear Vto a gamma_air k1 kwh2ftlb lift rho vmax vmin weight CD CL
Propeller analysis code
function [CP,CT,J,eta,T] = goldfunc(Din,Pin,RPM,Vinput)

% Propeller Analysius Function Using Goldstein's Vortex Theory
%
%
Usage:
%
[CP,CT,J,eta,T] = goldfunc(D,P,RPM,V)
%
%
Inputs:
%
D - Propeller Diameter
%
P - Propeller Pitch
%
RPM - Propeller Speed
%
V - Flight Speed
%
%
Outputs:
%
CP - Power Coefficient
%
CT - Thrust Coefficient
%
J - Advance Ratio
%
eta - Efficiency
%
T - Thrust
echo off
format compact
%disp(' ')
%disp('Start new run')
%disp('Propeller Analysis using Goldsteins Classical Vortex Theory')
%disp(' This code works for two bladed propellers only.')
%disp(' ')
% Input constants
Vmph = Vinput*.6818; %input velocity (mph)
%Vmph=0 % airspeed in mph
rho = 0.00231;
% Pin gives geometric angle to the flat part of the

%
rear of the propeller
aoldeg=-6;
% angle of zero lift of the propeller (degrees)
% measured from mean chord line (typically negative)
beta0deg=.5; % angle from flat part of the prop to mean chord line
a=2*pi;
% lift curve slope of propeller
Cd0=.00655; % 2-d minimum drag coefficient
k=.01;
% Cd = Cd0+k*Cl*Cl
B=2 ;
% number of blades (2 for standard type propeller)
% input nondimensional properties at each radial location
% cR=c/R, x=r/R
x=[.3,.35,.4,.45,.5,.55,.6,.65,.7,.75,.8,.85,.9,.95,1.];
cR=.09*ones(size(x));
% END OF INPUTS
% Display inputs section
%disp(['Angle of zero lift aoldeg= ',num2str(aoldeg),' degrees'])
%disp(['Angle Flat side to mean chord beta0deg= ',num2str(beta0deg),'
degrees'])
%disp(['RPM= ',num2str(RPM),' rpm'])
%disp(['2-d Lift curve slope a= ',num2str(a),' per rad'])
%disp(['2-d Min drag coef Cd0= ',num2str(Cd0)])
%disp(['k from 2-d drag polar= ',num2str(k)])
%disp(['Number of blades B= ',num2str(B)])
%disp(['air density rho= ',num2str(rho),' slug/ft^3'])
%disp(['Airspeed Vmph= ',num2str(Vmph),' mph'])
% derived constants
V=Vmph*88/60; % airspeed in ft/sec
D=Din/12;
% Diameter in feet
R=D/2;
% Radius in feet
n=RPM/60;
% propeller frequency (rev/sec) or (hz)
omega=2*pi*n; % frequency of revolution of the propeller (rad/sec)
lamda=V/(omega*R);
r2d=180/pi;
Vt=omega*R;
% tip velocity (ft/sec)
J=V/(n*D);
% advance ratio
% Output scalar constants
%disp(['Airspeed V= ',num2str(V),' ft/sec'])
%disp(['Propeller Diameter D= ',num2str(D),' feet'])
%disp(['Propeller Radius R= ',num2str(R),' feet'])
%disp(['propeller RPS n= ',num2str(n),' hertz'])
%disp(['omega= ',num2str(omega),' rad/sec'])
%disp(['lamda= ',num2str(lamda)])
%disp(['r2d= ',num2str(r2d),' deg/rad'])
%disp(['Tip speed Vt= ',num2str(Vt),' ft/sec'])
%disp(['Advance Ratio J= ',num2str(J)])
%disp(' ')
%derived section constants
c=R*cR;
% chord in feet
cin=c*12; % chord in inches
%%disp(' ')
%disp('x is r/R and is nondimensional, cR=c/R, cin is the chord in
inches')
%echo on
%disp([x',
cR',
cin'])
%echo off
%disp(' ')
beta1=atan(((Pin/Din)/pi)./x);
beta=beta1+(beta0deg-aoldeg)/r2d;
sigma=B*c/(pi*R);
r=x*R;
Vr=Vt*sqrt(x.*x+lamda*lamda);
phi=atan(lamda./x);
WtVt=.02*ones(size(c)); %initial guess
nr=length(c);
nr1=nr-1;
aiold=zeros(size(c));
for ii=1:40
WaVt(1:nr1)=.5*(-lamda+sqrt(lamda*lamda+4*WtVt(1:nr1).*(x(1:nr1)WtVt(1:nr1))));
ai(1:nr1)=atan(WtVt(1:nr1)./WaVt(1:nr1))-phi(1:nr1);
%ai(1:nr1)=atan((V+WaVt(1:nr1)*Vt)./(omega*r(1:nr1)-WtVt(1:nr1)*Vt))phi(1:nr1);
e=sum(abs(ai(1:nr1)-aiold(1:nr1)));
iter=['Loop index= ',num2str(ii),' error= ',num2str(e)];
%disp(iter)
if e<.0001 ; break; end
aiold(1:nr1)=ai(1:nr1);
Cl(1:nr1)=a*(beta(1:nr1)-ai(1:nr1)-phi(1:nr1));
VeVt(1:nr1)=sqrt((lamda+WaVt(1:nr1)).^2+(x(1:nr1)-WtVt(1:nr1)).^2);
gamma(1:nr1)=.5*c(1:nr1).*Cl(1:nr1).*VeVt(1:nr1)*Vt;
sinphialp(1:nr1)=sin(phi(1:nr1)+ai(1:nr1));
kappa(1:nr1)=kappa2(x(1:nr1),sinphialp(1:nr1));
WtVt(1:nr1)=B*gamma(1:nr1)./(4*pi*Vt*r(1:nr1).*kappa(1:nr1));
end
Cl(nr)=0;
ai(nr)=beta(nr)-phi(nr);
VrVt=sqrt(lamda*lamda+1);
WaVt(nr)=VrVt*sin(ai(nr))*cos(ai(nr)+phi(nr));
WtVt(nr)=VrVt*sin(ai(nr))*sin(ai(nr)+phi(nr));
VeVt(nr)=sqrt((lamda+WaVt(nr))^2+(x(nr)-WtVt(nr))^2);
kappa(nr)=0;
Cd=Cd0+k*Cl.*Cl;
ZT=(pi/8)*(J*J+pi*pi*(x.*x)).*sigma;
ZP=pi*ZT.*x;
dCTdx=ZT.*(Cl.*cos(phi+ai)-Cd.*sin(phi+ai));
dCPdx=ZP.*(Cl.*sin(phi+ai)+Cd.*cos(phi+ai));
% Overall propeller performance
CT=trapi(dCTdx,x);
CP=trapi(dCPdx,x);
eta=CT*J/CP;
T=CT*rho*n^2*D^4;
P=(CP*rho*n^3*D^5)/.75;
HP=P/550;
Pwatt=1.356*P;
torque=P/omega;
Clmax=max(Cl);
Toz=T*16;
PestWatts=1.31*D^4*(Pin/12)*(RPM/1000)^3;
% The above approximate formula works for
% Top Flite, Zinger and Master Airscrews reasonably well.
% For Rev Up props subract .5 in from the pitch.
% For APC props use constant 1.11 instead of 1.31.
% For thin carbon fiber folding props use 1.18 instead of 1.31.
% Ref: Electric Motor Handbook, by Robert J. Boucher,
%
AstroFlight, Inc.
%echo on
%dat=[ x',
beta',
phi',
kappa',
ai',
WtVt']
%disp(' ')
%dat2=[x',
WaVt',
VeVt',
Cl',
dCTdx',
dCPdx']
%echo off
%disp(' ')
%disp(['Speed V= ',num2str(V),' ft/sec'])
%disp(['RPM= ',num2str(RPM),' rpm'])
%disp(['Diameter Din= ',num2str(Din),' inches'])
%disp(['Pitch Pin= ',num2str(Pin),' inches'])
%disp(['Propeller efficiency eta= ',num2str(eta)])
%disp(['Thrust T= ',num2str(T),' pounds'])
%disp(['Thrust Toz= ',num2str(Toz),' ounces'])
%disp(['Power used P= ',num2str(P),' ft*lbf/sec'])
%disp(['Horsepower used HP= ',num2str(HP),' HP'])
%disp(['Power used Pwatt= ',num2str(Pwatt),' watts'])
%disp(['Torque used Q= ',num2str(torque),' ft*lbf'])
%disp(['Torque used Q= ',num2str(torque*192),' in-oz'])
%disp(['Power Coefficient CP= ',num2str(CP)])
%disp(['Thrust Coefficient CT= ',num2str(CT)])
%disp(['Advance Ratio J= ',num2str(J)])
%disp(['Clmax= ',num2str(Clmax)])
%disp(' ')
%disp(['Estimated power used, PestWatts= ',num2str(PestWatts),' watts,
Ref: Boucher'])
%disp(' ')
%subplot(211)
%plot(x,dCTdx)
%z=axis;
%axis([0,1,0,z(4)])
%xlabel('nondimensional radial location')
%ylabel('dCTdx')
%subplot(212)
%plot(x,dCPdx)
%z=axis;
%axis([0,1,0,z(4)])
%xlabel('nondimensional radial location')
%ylabel('dCPdx')
%disp(' For model aircraft propellers this code underestimates')
%disp(' the power required. The underestimation is worse for
RPM>10,000')
%disp(' where it may underestimate by a factor of .5')
%disp(' For RPM <10,000 the factor is about .75')
Appendix E Propulsion Tests Results

Atmospheric Pressure:
29.287 inHg
State of Batteries
Amount Charged: Uknown
Peak Voltage: Uknown
Time to Charge: Uknown
Charge Current: Uknown
Charge Method: Uknown
Battery Pack: NiCad
Propulsion System
Propeller: 16X15
Gear Box: 9.6:1
Stati c T hr ust T est
1. 8
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2
1
0. 8
0. 6
0. 4
0. 2
0
-0. 2
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
T i me ( h: mm: s s )
State of Batteries
Amount Charged:
Peak Voltage:
Time to Charge:
Charge Current:
Charge Method:
Battery Pack:
29.285 inHg
1.923
16.34
0:23:29
5.1
Fast
NiCad
Ah
volts
h:mm:ss
amp
Propulsion System
Propeller: 16X15
Gear Box: 9.6:1
Best E ndur ance T hr ust Hi stor y
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0:00:00
0:01:26
0:02:53
0:04:19
0:05:46
0:07:12
0:08:38
0:10:05
0:11:31
0:12:58
State of Batteries
Amount Charged:
Peak Voltage:
Time to Charge:
Charge Current:
Charge Method:
Battery Pack:
29.284 inHg
3.613
15.04
0:56:19
4
Fast
NiMH
Propulsion System
Propeller: 16X15
Gear Box: 9.6:1
Ah
volts
h:mm:ss
amp
T est 2 T hr ust Hi stor y
1. 6
1. 4
1. 2
1
0. 8
0. 6
0. 4
0. 2
0
-0. 2
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
0:17:17
T i me ( h : mm: s s )
State of Batteries
Amount Charged:
Peak Voltage:
Time to Charge:
Charge Current:
Charge Method:
Battery Pack:
29.187 inHg
1.879
16.46
0:29:12
4
Fast
NiCad
Propulsion System
Propeller: 14X8
Gear Box: 8.0:1
Ah
volts
h:mm:ss
amp
Test 3 Thrust Hi story
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
0:17:17
0:20:10
State of Batteries
29.187 inHg
Propulsion System
Amount Charged:
Peak Voltage:
Time to Charge:
Charge Current:
Charge Method:
Battery Pack:
2.899
15.37
0:35:37
5
Fast
NiMH
Ah
volts
h:mm:ss
amp
Propeller: 14X8
Gear Box: 8.0:1
T est 4 T hr ust Hi stor y
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
State of Batteries
Amount Charged:
Peak Voltage:
Time to Charge:
Charge Current:
Charge Method:
Battery Pack:
29.091 inHg
2.861
15.36
0:35:31
5
Fast
NiMH
Propulsion System
Propeller: 14X8
Gear Box: 7.0:1
Ah
volts
h:mm:ss
amp
Test 5 Thrust History
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0:00:00
0:01:26
0:02:53
0:04:19
0:05:46
0:07:12
T i me (h:ss: mm)
0:08:38
0:10:05
0:11:31
0:12:58
Appendix F Model Electronics Corporation Turbo 10 GT Motor
Appendix G Dynamics and Stability Methodology

Equations 6.1 and 6.2 show Roskams Class I empennage sizing equations for
initial sizing of the horizontal and vertical tails.
Sh
Vh S ref c
(6.1)
xh
Sv
Vv S ref b
(6.2)
xv
Equation 6.3 represents the directional x-plot method used in Roskam to

determine the vertical tail area. For an inherently directionally stable aircraft, Roskam
suggests a value for C n of 0.06 per degree. In Mark Peters thesis, he uses a value of
0.16 for his aircraft. A look at historical data also suggests values slightly higher than
0.06. Therefore, we chose a value of 0.11
S x
C n C n wf C LV v v
S ref b
(6.3)
Equation 6.4 represents the longitudinal x-plot method used in Roskam to

determine the area of the horizontal tail.
X ac
X acwf C Lh 1 h
d
Sh
X ac
h
S
ref
d S
1 C Lh 1 h h
d S ref
(6.4)
The static margin, SM, of our aircraft was determined using the following
equation
SM X ac X cg
(6.5)
To find the values of Xac and Xcg, I consulted our structural specialist. The
position of the aerodynamic center of the wing, Xac = 0.46 and the position of the center
of gravity, Xcg = 0.37, are both percentages of the mean aerodynamic chord. Using these
values we calculated SM = 0.09.
The transfer functions of the dynamic model are shown below
Gyro:
Servo:
950
s 2 40s 950
62.31
s 76.85
Aircraft:
Using these transfer functions we then calculated stabilizing and de-stabilizing

gains for our aircraft based on a gain margin and phase margin of zero. This initially
gave us k = +/- 1.2401, positive being stabilizing feedback. After discussing safety
concerns of flying a marginally stable aircraft inside Mollenkopf with people present, we
decided to lower our gain to 0.3655. This gave us an infinte phase margin and a gain
margin of 25.4284. Figure 6.4 is the Nyquist diagram of our aircraft with the
implemented gain, Figure 6.5 is the rootlocus with de-stabilizing feedback, and Figure
6.6 is the Bode diagram with the implemented gain.
Nyquist Diagrams
From: U(1)
0.3
0.2
To: Y(1)
Imaginary Axis
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
Real Axis
Figure 6.4. Nyquist diagram corresponding to k=0.3655.
0.4
De-stabilizing feedback
80
60
40
Imag Axis
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40 -30
Real Axis
-20
-10
10
20
Figure 6.5. Root locus plot of destabilizing feedback.

Bode Diagrams
0
Gm=25.428 dB (at 63.759 rad/sec), Pm = Inf
Phase (deg); Magnitude (dB)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
-100
-200
-300
100
101
102
Frequency (rad/sec)
Figure 6.6. Bode diagram corresponding to k = 0.3655
103
Xplot for Horizontal Tail

global Sh
Sh = [0:.1:4];
xbarcg = (((2748+180*Sh)./(9.78*16+3.7*Sh))-12.5)/17;
xbarnp = (1.48566+0.43748*Sh)./(4.9522+0.15459*Sh);
figure(1)
plot(Sh,xbarcg,'*');
hold on
plot(Sh,xbarnp,'-');
legend('cg location', 'neutral point loction')
xlabel('Horizontal tail area [sq ft]')
ylabel('x/c')
axis equal
grid on
hold off
Xplot for vertical Tail
% plot the weathercock (yaw) stability parameter

%Target value chosen based on the Master's thesis of Mark Peters (see
Prof. Andrisani)
%
global Sv
Sv = [0:.1:2];
Cnbwf = -0.004;
Clav = 1.4*pi;
S = 13.5;
b = 11.1;
xv = 3.5;
Cnb = Cnbwf + Clav*(Sv/S).*(xv/b);
Svproto=1.15; %area of prototype's vertical tails (total for both)
sq.ft.
Cnbproto=Cnbwf + Clav*(Svproto/S).*(xv/b);
plot(Sv,Cnb)
hold on
plot(Svproto, Cnbproto,'*')
legend('Weathercock Stability Curve', 'Prototype target')
xlabel('Vertical tail area [sq ft]')
ylabel('CnBeta')
grid on
Dynamics Analysis
% Matlab Script to compute Ganin and Phase Margins for the roll axis of
the AAE451 aircraft
% This script uses the simulink block diagram called
% S148Linear.mdl
% and optionally uses the Simulink block diagram called servoNL.mdl
%
clear all
close all
[a,b,c,d]=linmod('S148Linear');
% get linear model from linear
servo model in state space form
%[aNL,bNL,cNL,dNL]=linmod('servoNL') % get linear model from nonlinear
servo model
servoSys=ss(a,b,c,d); % Define a Matlab system from the linear model
from the state space
servoSys3=tf(servoSys); % Define a Matlab system in transfer function
form
%
%
% Define the feedback gain
disp('You want to pick a gain, K, to achieve the desired gain and phase
margins')
K=.3655 % Feedback gain, gives 3.76 db gain margin and infinite phase
margin. - is the sign here for destabilizing feedback
%K=-1.23347363742067
% gives 0 db of gain margin (destabilizing
feedback)
%K=+1.23347363742067
% gives 14.86 db of gain margin and 140.6 deg of
phase margin (stabilizing feedback)
% Define the roll mode transfer function, numerator first then
denominator
num=[K*[
den=[
62.31
1
]]
76.85
%num=[K*[-142.44 -1.9755]]
%den=[1 1.0917 7.1961]
% Define a system that is the roll mode transfer function
rollSys=tf(num,den);
% Cascade the servo model and the roll mode model
disp('Properties of the open loop system (roll + servo + gain')
openLoop=series(servoSys3,rollSys)
OLn = conv(num,[950]);
OLd = conv(den,[1 40 950]);
% Plot the open loop bode plot including any gain K that may have been
set above.
figure(1)
bode(openLoop) % plots the bode plot
bode(OLn,OLd) % plots the bode plot
[mag,phase,w]=bode(openLoop); % returns the data for the bode plot
[mag,phase,w]=bode(OLn,OLd); % returns the data for the bode plot
% Compute the gain and phase margin of the open loop system (servo +
roll mode + gain)
figure(2)
margin(mag,phase,w)
[Gm,Pm,Wcg,Wcp]=margin(mag,phase,w) % Note: this gain margin is not in

db
% Be careful that you understand the MATLABs definitions of the
frequencies Wcg and Wcp.
disp('Be careful that you understand the MATLABs definitions of the
frequencies Wcg and Wcp.')
disp('Look carefully at the gain and phase margins on the plot')
Gmdb=20*log10(Gm) % Gain morgin expressed in db
Pm
% Compute the Nyquist plot for the open loop system (servo + roll mode
+ gain)
figure(3)
nyquist(openLoop) % Check that you have the proper margins.
disp('Use the Nyquist plot to insure that you have the proper margins.')
pause
figure(4)
rlocus(OLn./K,OLd) % I finally figured it out.
title('Stabilizing feedback')
figure(5)
RollSysD=ss(a,b,-c,d) % note sign change is the c matrix.
rlocus(-OLn./K,OLd)
title('De-stabilizing feedback')
% margin(RollSysD) % This works. This approach was probably the best way
to procede.
Simulink Data File (we think)
Model {
Name
Version
SimParamPage
SampleTimeColors
InvariantConstants
WideVectorLines
ShowLineWidths
StartTime
StopTime
Solver
RelTol
AbsTol
Refine
MaxStep
InitialStep
FixedStep
MaxOrder
OutputOption
OutputTimes
LoadExternalInput
ExternalInput
SaveTime
TimeSaveName
SaveState
StateSaveName
"openLoopRoll"
2.20
Solver
off
off
off
off
"0.0"
"10.0"
ode45
"1e-3"
"1e-6"
"1"
"auto"
"auto"
"auto"
5
RefineOutputTimes
"[]"
off
"[t, u]"
on
"tout"
off
"xout"
SaveOutput
OutputSaveName
LoadInitialState
InitialState
SaveFinalState
FinalStateName
LimitMaxRows
MaxRows
Decimation
AlgebraicLoopMsg
MinStepSizeMsg
UnconnectedInputMsg
UnconnectedOutputMsg
UnconnectedLineMsg
ConsistencyChecking
ZeroCross
SimulationMode
RTWSystemTargetFile
RTWInlineParameters
RTWPlaceOutputsASAP
RTWRetainRTWFile
RTWTemplateMakefile
RTWMakeCommand
RTWGenerateCodeOnly
ExtModeMexFile
ExtModeBatchMode
BlockDefaults {
Orientation
ForegroundColor
BackgroundColor
DropShadow
NamePlacement
FontName
FontSize
FontWeight
FontAngle
ShowName
}
AnnotationDefaults {
HorizontalAlignment
VerticalAlignment
ForegroundColor
BackgroundColor
DropShadow
FontName
FontSize
FontWeight
FontAngle
}
LineDefaults {
FontName
FontSize
FontWeight
FontAngle
}
System {
Name
on
"yout"
off
"xInitial"
off
"xFinal"
off
"1000"
"1"
warning
warning
warning
warning
warning
off
on
normal
"grt.tlc"
off
off
off
"grt_default_tmf"
"make_rtw"
off
"ext_comm"
off
right
black
white
off
normal
"Helvetica"
10
normal
normal
on
center
middle
black
white
off
"Helvetica"
10
normal
normal
"Helvetica"
9
normal
normal
"openLoopRoll"
Location
Open
ToolBar
StatusBar
ScreenColor
PaperOrientation
PaperPositionMode
PaperType
PaperUnits
Block {
BlockType
Name
Position
Port
PortWidth
SampleTime
}
Block {
BlockType
Name
Ports
Position
SourceBlock
SourceType
}
Block {
BlockType
Name
Position
Numerator
Denominator
}
Block {
BlockType
Name
Position
Port
OutputWhenDisabled
InitialOutput
}
Line {
SrcBlock
SrcPort
DstBlock
DstPort
}
Line {
SrcBlock
SrcPort
DstBlock
DstPort
}
Line {
SrcBlock
SrcPort
DstBlock
DstPort
[490, 467, 990, 727]

on
on
on
white
landscape
auto
usletter
inches
Inport
"Dac (deg)"
[35, 78, 65, 92]
"1"
"-1"
"-1"
Reference
"Futaba S-148 Linear Servo"
[1, 1, 0, 0, 0]
[95, 62, 285, 108]
"AAE451Lib/Futaba S-148 Linear Servo"
"SubSystem"
TransferFcn
"Roll DOF"
[375, 67, 430, 103]
"[62.31]"
"[1 76.85]"
Outport
"p (deg/sec)"
[455, 78, 485, 92]
"1"
held
"[]"
"Roll DOF"
1
"p (deg/sec)"
1
1
"Roll DOF"
1
"Dac (deg)"
1
1
}
}
}
Annotation
Position
Text
}
Annotation
Position
Text
}
Annotation
Position
Text
}
Annotation
Position
Text
}
{
[241, 37]
"Open Loop System\nRoll Axis"
{
[446, 47]
"roll rate p\n(deg/sec)"
{
[331, 72]
"aileron deflection\n (deg)"
{
[51, 62]
"Servo Command \n(deg)"
Appendix H Economic Details

Model Electronics Corporation (MEC)
14550 20th Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98155
E-mail:mec@rc-aero.com
Phone: 206-440-5772
FAX: 206-440-5905
Hobby Lobby International (Hobby)

5614 Franklin Pike Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
Phone: (615) 373-1444
Fax: (615) 377-6948
Email: 74164.2423@compuserve.com
Tower Hobbies (Tower)

P.O. Box 9078
Champaign, IL 61824-9078
Phone: (800) 637-6050
Fax: (800) 637-7303
Composites Structures Technology (CST)

P.O. Box 622, 16330 Harris Rd.
Moutain Valley Airport #2
Tehachapi, CA 93581-0622
Phone: (800) 338-1278
Fax: (661) 822-4121
http://www.cstsales.com
Parts List Team BoilerXpress

Structural Cost
Comp.
CST
CST
CST
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Lowes
Cat. #
A105-A
A206-A
S-G01040-38
LXAS81
LXB243
LXB247
LXD867
LXD882
LXJC94
LXNK03
LXNK04
Description
105 resin
Slow Hardener (5:1)
Fiberglass 0.5 oz/sq-yd. (2 yards)
5510 Lite Ply 1/8"x6"x12" (6)
yellow Micafilm 65" (rolls)
yellow Micafilm 15' (rolls)
Dubro Threaded Rod 2-56x12" (6)
Dubro Nylon Kwik-Link Standard (2)
1/4"x3"x36" Balsa - 8pcs
Motor Wire (black)
Motor Wire (red)
Blue or Pink Foam (4'x8' sheets)
epoxy glue
Carbon fiber 1/2" x .032" x 60 " tubes for booms
screws and fasteners
Purdue University Stickers
spray paint
Qty. Price/unit
1
$23.70
2
$11.40
1
$10.00
1
$12.59
1
$9.99
1
$26.99
1
$2.39
3
$0.70
1
$7.99
2
$6.49
2
$6.49
2
$17.00
1
$20.00
2
$32.75
1
$15.00
2
$4.99
1
$3.00
Total
subtotal
$23.70
$22.80
$10.00
$12.59
$9.99
$26.99
$2.39
$2.10
$7.99
$12.98
$12.98
$34.00
$20.00
$65.50
$15.00
$9.98
$3.00
$291.99
Propulsion & Electronic Equipment Cost

Comp.
Hobby
Hobby
Hobby
Hobby
Hobby
MEC
Cat. #
HLAN241
HLAN3168
HLAN3186
HLAN4223
HLAN5145
Description
1/4" Prop Shaft Adapter
14x8 Prop Blade
16x15 Prop Blade
47mm Middlepart Yoke
45mm Spinner
Motor Power Package
Qty.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Price/unit
subtotal
$1.00
$13.40
$15.30
$12.00
$5.00
$200.00
$1.00
$13.40
$15.30
$12.00
$5.00
$200.00
Propulsion
Tower
LXTX41
$246.70
Radio Control System (transmitter,

receiver etc.)
Battery packs
Battery charger
Hitec/RCD HS-55J Economy Sub Micro
Servo Futaba
Rate Gyroscope
1
1
1
$250.00
$70.00
$100.00
$250.00
$70.00
$100.00
2
1
$19.99
$109.00
$39.98
$109.00
Total
$815.68
Electrical Equipment
$568.98
hours
525
50
720
Preliminary Design
Testing
Build
Test Material
Structural Cost
Prop and Elec Cost
Total Cost
Cost
$39,375.00
$3,750.00
$54,000.00
$81.70
$291.99
$815.68
$98,314.37
B oil erXpress Man hours per Week
200
150
100
50
0
1
Number of Weeks
10
11
12
13
14

Thoikol Final BX

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thoikol Final BX

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thiokol Final Design Report

AAE 451: Purdue University Senior Aircraft Design

Thiokol Final Design Report

Figure 1.1 Aircraft layout

2 Concept Selection and Initial Sizing

Power loading = 0.22 lb/ft-lb/s

2.4 Initial Sizing

Figure 3.1: Laminar and Turbulent boundary layer velocity profiles.

3.3 Drag Prediction

Aircraft Drag Polar

3.4 Wing Design

maneuverability. Additionally, it is desirable to minimize the trim drag. The method

elev deflect=-8 deg

Figure 4.4 Balsa connectors

Figure 4.6 Motor housed in the rear of the fuselage.

Figure 4.7 Layout of equipment inside the fuselage.

Figure 4.8 The horizontal and vertical tail sections.

Figure 4.9 Main landing gear and nose gear.

5.3 Motor and Speed Controller Selection

5.4 Propeller Selection

Figure 5.2 Freudenthaler Propeller System

5.5 System Testing

Weathercock Stability Curve

Vertical tail area [sq ft]

Figure 6.1. X-plot for directional stability.

The Longitudinal x-plot, also described in Roskam, is the method used to

Horizontal tail area

Figure 6.3. Block Diagram of roll axis.

Carbon fi ber booms

Figure 7.1 Structural cost breakdown for the prototype aircraft.

7.2 Propulsion and Electronic Cost Break down

Figure 7.2 Labor Distribution for Prototype Design and Build

[16] A. Cook, K. Indermuehle, G. Labuda, J. Ruiz, T. Schmidt-Lange, A. Shurtleff, L.

Appendix A Concept Selection and Weighted Objectives Method

% Here WS = W/S & WP = W/P

term9 = Vel*( term6*term7 + term8 );

Appendix B Aerodynamics Methodology

Where f is the fineness ratio of body length l and diameter d.

%vertical distance of thrust line from c.g.

Cmcg = CL.*(xbar_cg-xbar_acw) + Cmw + Cmfus eta_h*(S_horz/Sref).*CLh.*(xbar_ach - xbar_cg)...

%Speed of sound @ 1000ft

%Area of a boom (ft^2 ) EACH

%Skin friction Coefficient (Turbulent flow)

Appendix C - Structural Analysis Methodology

Displacement and Moment Equations for the Wing Section:

Displacement and Moment Equations for the Booms:

Matlab Code Output

Inertia = 4*Area*power( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4

5.50ft of length analysis (const. Loading)

Bending Moments for the Wing

wing loading [lb/ft]

Actual Wing loading

Deflection for the Wing

Inertia = 4*Area*power( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4

3.0ft of length analysis (const. Loading)

Bending Moments on the Horizontal Tail

Deflection of the Horizontal Tail

%inner radius in inches

Inertia = (pi/4)*( power( ro, 4 ) - power( ri, 4 ) ); %inches^4

Inertia_ft = Inertia/power( 12, 4);

%1.5lbf is the load on the

Deflection of the boom

Appendix D MATLAB Propulsion System Analysis Code

term9 = Vel( term6term7 + term8 );

Cmcg = CL.(xbar_cg-xbar_acw) + Cmw + Cmfus eta_h(S_horz/Sref).CLh.(xbar_ach - xbar_cg)...

Inertia = 4Areapower( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4

Inertia = 4Areapower( max_camber/2, 2 ); %inches^4