Glider Design Project Report

ME 628 Aerodynamics
December 14, 2016
Group B1
Nathan Gladfelter
Chandler Klamm
Caleb Shunatona
 Introduction
As part of ME 628 Aerodynamics, we were assigned a team project in which
groups of 3 or 4 would design a build a working glider. Our task was to construct a
glider to meet several objectives. Our glider must carry a 3 in by 2.5 in by 2.5 in
payload that could weigh from 4 to 18 oz. Our goal was to carry this payload
approximately 200 ft. from a starting height of 18.5 ft. while achieving a minimum
glide angle and maximum payload ratio. Payload ratio is determined by the
payload weight divided by the empty weight. In addition, our glider must be
within the following constraints. The sum height, weight, and length of the glider
must not exceed 180 in. The payload must fit within the glider and be easily
accessed and removed. The glider cannot have any active control such as onboard
servos, mechanisms, or electronics. Our team must construct the glider without
help from commercially available kits. Failure to meet these constraints would
result in a penalty to the final score of the glider. Our team was allotted $50 from
the Mechanical Engineering Department to make purchases on supplies and
construction materials.
Our glider was hand launched from a starting height of approximately 18.5
ft. in Weber area with a target distance of 200 ft. The following equation would
be used to determine our score.

= (1 + )

Where d is the ground distance measured diagonally and is the free fall
distance determined by the following equation.
2
=

Where U is nominal forward glide speed, h is height (18.5 ft.), and g is
acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft./ 2 ). Each team would be given multiple
attempts to achieve a maximum score.
With these goal and constraints, we decided to make a glide with a high lift
to drag ratio while keeping weight as low as possible to attempt to achieve the
maximum distance.
 Glider Design
With the design of our glider, we decided to follow the basic airplane
design approach. We started with beginning to estimate the very basic
parameters including the cruising speed, cruising, altitude, and weight of what
our finished glider would have on test day. After a little research we decided that
the nominal speed of our glider should be around 15mph or 22ft/s. The altitude
could be assumed to be zero and since the test would be happening around the
middle of December around temperature of 32F we estimated an air density of
0.0765 lbm/ft^3. We weighed most of our supplies intended to be used and
estimated that we would have a rough total empty weight of 3lbs. The variables
are listed below:

= 22


= 0.0765
3
= 3
We decided on an Eppler 562 airfoil to be used as the profile for our wing.
We choose this because of its high lift to drag ratio and thickness. We wanted an
airfoil that wasnt too thin so that it could be easily constructed using foam and a
hot wire cutter and wouldnt easily break after construction. Some of the
important airfoil data on this profile was found on an online database and is
shown below (Airfoil Tools, 2016):

Figure 1: Eppler 562 Section Lift Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack

 Figure 2: Eppler 562 Section Drag Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack

Figure 3: Eppler 562 Section Moment Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack

All of these graphs were taken at the Reynolds number of 100,000 that we
estimated our wing would be experiencing during our flights tests.
After this, we starting calculating the required size and other basic
parameters for our wing. To begin to do this, we still needed to estimate what
dynamic pressure our wing would be experiencing and calculate the dynamic
pressure from the variables listed earlier:
1
= 2
2
1 2
= 0.0765 3 (22 )
2 32.174 1 / 2

= 0.5754
2
To begin to specify the shape of our airfoil, we chose a high aspect ratio of
12 to help with the glide aspects we needed. To decide on the planform area of
our wing, we used the coefficient of lift of our finite wing, found from the simple
wing theory, and calculated what area we would need to produce the lift we
required to create a steady glide condition. We used an angle of attack of 4 for
these calculations:
= 12
(4) = 0.9235
0.9235
= = = 0.7916
2 2
1+ 1+
12

=

3
= = = 6.5866 2 (948.47 2 )
0.5754
0.7916
2
With the planform area calculated, we then calculated the dimensions of
the chord length and wing span that we would use to construct our wing:

6.5866 2
= = = 0.7409 (8.89 )
12

= = 12 0.7409 = 8.8904 (106.68 )

With the basics of our wing found, we next had to decide upon what our
overall glider configuration would be. We decided that an easier design would be
best for our lack of skill in creating models. We choose to have our glider be a
cantilever monoplane with a conventional tail arrangement. We didnt have much
of a decision on our vertical wing location but decided that a high wing placement
would be best because it would keep the center of gravity lower and in turn
increase stability. We didnt see much of a reason to have special wing shapes and
decided that rectangular wings would be best for us and easiest to build. We did
decide that a slight dihedral would help with stability and planned to incorporate
that into our design.
 After we finished our configuration, we needed to design our horizontal
tail. We used the same airfoil that we used for the wing and choose an aspect
ratio of 6. For our design we decided to set our wing at an incidence angle of 4.
Using the section coefficient of lift of our tail and the coefficient of moment of our
wing we calculated a horizontal tail volume ratio to use to design our tail:
= 6
(4) = 0.1728
0.1728
= = = 0.1296
2 2
1+ 1+
6
= 0.1183
0.1186
= = = 0.9128
0.1296
After having found the horizontal tail volume ratio, we choose a distance of
3ft to estimate length to tail and calculated a planform area of our tail. With the
planform ratio we were able to calculate the chord length and wing span of our tail:

=

0.9128 0.7409 6.5866 2
= = = 1.4848 2 (213.81 2 )
3

1.4848 2
= = = 0.4975 (5.97 )
6

= = 6 0.4975 = 2.9847 (35.82 )

After having our wing and tail dimensions completely dimensioned out, we
decided to find our neutral point location so that we could find the stability of our
design. We first found it without any downwash effect and then found it including
downwash:
 1.4848 2
= = 3 = 0.5519
+ 1.4848 2 + 6.5866 2
= = 3 0.4161 = 2.4481
n.p. = 15.373 in. behind nose

= (1 )

4
=
2 +
4 4
= (1 ) = 1.4848 2 (1 ) = 1.0605 2
2 + 2 + 12

1.0605 2
= = 3 = 0.4161
+ 1.0605 2 + 6.5866 2

= = 3 0.4161 = 2.5840
n.p. = 13.743 in. behind nose
After the neutral point of our glider was found, we needed to calculate the
center of gravity of our glider to be able to see if this design would be initially
stable. We can also see if the weight that we assumed earlier on will be a close
estimate of what are final glider will be. We started this process by setting out
rough volumes for the different parts of our glider:
Glider Section Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Height (ft.) Volume (ft^3)
Wing 8.50 0.750 0.100 0.6375
Horizontal Tail 3.16 0.500 0.062 0.0980
Vertical Tail 0.79 0.500 0.100 0.0395
Fuselage 2.25 0.330 0.250 0.1856
Tail Connector 3.00 0.125 0.042 0.0158
Figure 4: Volume Calculation for Glider Sections
With the glider section volumes found, we found the density of the
different parts of the sections to be able to find the total weight of the sections
and the overall glider. We found that the density of the foam we are going to use

is 1.9 and the density of the wood we are going to use is 15 .
3 3

Glider Section Volume (ft^3) Density (lb/ft^3) Weight (lb)

Wing 0.6375 1.9 1.211
Horizontal Tail 0.0980 1.9 0.186
Vertical Tail 0.0395 1.9 0.075
Fuselage 0.1856 1.9 0.353
Tail Connector 0.0158 15.0 0.237
Figure 5: Weight Calculation of Glider Sections
The sum of all our glider sections weights show that our glider should
weigh around 2.062 lb. when empty. When taking into account of the possible
payload weight range during the flight test, our glider will weigh between 2.312
lb. and 3.187 lb. with the test payload. This matches very close with the estimate
we made with our initial design parameters.
The location of the center of gravity can be calculated now by using the
weights and center of gravities of the different glider sections. We used the
assumptions that, for the wings, the center of gravities are at the quarter chord
location and for all other sections that the center of gravities are at the center of
the sections. We used the following equation to solve for the total center of
gravity for the glider with the minimum and maximum test payload range:

= ,

Section m (lb) x (inches) m*x (lb*inches)
Wing 1.211 8.75 10.598
Horizontal Tail 0.186 43.50 8.096
Vertical Tail 0.075 43.50 3.265
Fuselage 0.353 13.00 4.585
Tail Connector 0.237 30.00 7.110
Payload 0.250 8.50 2.130
Sum 2.312 35.784
Figure 6: Center of Gravity Calculation with Minimum Payload Weight
 35.784
= = 15.478
2.312

Section m (lb) x (inches) m*x (lb*inches)

Wing 1.211 8.75 10.598
Horizontal Tail 0.186 43.50 8.096
Vertical Tail 0.075 43.50 3.265
Fuselage 0.353 13.00 4.585
Tail Connector 0.237 30.00 7.110
Payload 1.125 8.50 9.563
Sum 3.187 43.217
Figure 7: Center of Gravity Calculation with Maximum Payload Weight
43.217
= = 13.560
3.187
So, at maximum payload our center of gravity is 0.18 in. in front of our
neutral point. Our glider should be stable, and additional tape added to the wing
and fuselage will move the c.g. further forward and increase stability. Although
our glider appears to not be stable at minimum payload, we believe the additional
tape will move the c.g. forward enough to make up for this. The wings also will
have a slight dihedral shape which should decrease the moment created on the
glider and move the neutral point even further back.
 After having decided upon a design, we set out to purchase the materials
that would be required to build our design:
Item Size Quantity Purchase Location Total CostUse
Formular 150 XPS Material for create
Insulation 4'x8'x1.5" 1 Home Depot $23.98 wings, tail, and fuselage
Electrical Tape Roll 5 Walmart $11.35 Covers foam
Connects fuselage to
Poplar Wood 3'x1.5"x0.5" Home Depot $2.32 tail
Cardboard (Puff's tissue Covers compartment
box) holding payload
Locks down payload
Paper Clips Small 1 compartment cover
Glues together any
connections on wings,
Loctite Epoxy 2 Walmart $5.94 tail, fuselage
Figure 8: Itemized Materials List and Total Cost of Materials

With the materials purchased, we began the construction phase of our

glider:
To begin our construction process, we first used a jigsaw to cut an airfoil
template out of wood for our wing (0.75 chord) and tail (0.5 chord). We also cut
a symmetric airfoil out of cardboard for the tail. We made two templates for each
airfoil shape. Next, we cut out 16 9x9 sheets of foam from the 4x8 sheet of
Formular 150 XPS Insulation using the foam wire cutter. We used 11 of the sheets
for wing sections, 4 sheets for the horizontal tail sections, and 1 sheet for the
vertical tail. To cut out the airfoil shapes we clamped the templates for the
respective airfoils to both sides of the 9x9 sheets. We then held the clamp and
ran the wire cutter along the templates, moving the clamps around when
necessary, until the foam had been entirely shaped to that airfoil shape. We cut
one of the wing sections in half so that there were 5.5 sections on each side of the
fuselage. After having cut out all sections for the wing, horizontal tail, and vertical
tail using this process, we began to glue the sections together using epoxy. We
left a gap in the middle of the wing and tail so we could later glue both sides to
the body of the glider. Next, we glued 3 sheets of the foam on top of each other
to make a large rectangular prism which we could cut the fuselage out of. We cut
this block into three sections: one for the nose, one for the payload, and one
behind the payload. Using the foam wire cutter, we rounded off the front of the
nose block of foam in both the horizontal and vertical plane, cut the center block
into a U-shape capable of holding the payload, cut the back block into a U-shape
capable of holding the wood that connects the tail, and also tapered off the back
of the block on the sides and bottom. We used the epoxy to reconnect each of
these 3 sections back into one piece. We cut out and glued the cardboard from
the tissue box into the payload section as a lid and used the paper clip as a clip to
keep it closed. Next, we sanded the nose and the back of the reassembled
fuselage until the were perfectly rounded and smooth. After forming the fuselage,
we glued the wings to both sides of it. We glued the horizontal tail pieces to both
sides of the wood and glued the vertical tail to the top of the wood. With the tail
assembled, we glued the wood piece holding the tail into the fuselage completing
the form of the glider. To finish, we taped over the fuselage, horizontal tail, and
most of the wings to increase strength in the joints and reduce skin friction drag.

Figure 9: Picture of Foam Cutting Process

Below are our actual glider dimensions after construction:

Figure 11: Side View of Glider Design (All Units in Inches)

Figure 10: Top View of Glider Design (All Units in Inches)

 Area measurements of certain pieces for our actual glider:
Sw=918 in^2
Sht=228 in^2
Svt=57 in^2
Frontal Area, fuselage=18 in^2
Frontal Area, vertical tail=9.5 in^2
L+H+W=48+13.5+106.5=168 in

Predicted Glide Characteristics

To get an estimate of our gliders characteristics we first must find the
effective area of the tail with downwash effects. Downwash from vortices created
by the wings will affect the amount of lift the tail can generate. The following
equation is helps us correct for downwash effects:

= (1 )

4
=
2+

With AR=11, we found =.31 so, the effective planform area of the

tail is = 0.69 . With the initial planform area =2282 we found
=157.42
With the corrected planform area, we can next find the neutral point to
determine stability. the following equation is used to find the distance from the
quarter chord of the wing to the neutral point:

=
+
Using =157.42 as our planform area for the tail, = 9182 , and
X=35.5 in, lwn= 5.2 in. placing the neutral point 13.95 in. behind the front of the
glider. This placed the neutral point behind our center of gravity making our glider
stable.
 We must also determine the total drag our glider generates in flight. Total
drag is calculated by adding the drag of the fuselage, wing, and tail. By finding the
coefficient of drag we can use the following equation to find drag force.
= .5 2

Fuselage
Based on its shape, our fuselage has a coefficient of drag of approximately
.3. With this we can calculate the drag force from the fuselage with the
above equation. With an air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.125
2 , we found the fuselages drag to be .022 lbf.

Vertical tail
Because our vertical tail is a symmetrical airfoil we can approximate its
coefficient of drag to be .12. Using this with and air density of .0765
/ 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.066 2 , we found drag force to be .005 lbf.

Wing
At an attack angle of 4 degrees, the e562-il airfoil has a section drag
coefficient of approximately .02. With the following equation we can
calculate the coefficient of drag of our wing.
2
= +

With CL=.792 and AR=11.3 we find CD=.038. We can then find the drag
force using air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft./s, S=6.375 2 which
turns out to be 0.139 lbf.

Tail
 Our tail had an angle of attack of -5 degrees. This gives it a section drag
coefficient of .025. With CL=-0.129 and AR=3.17 we get CD=.027. Then
using air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.792 2 we find a drag
force of .012 lbf.

Total:
By summing each drag force, we get a total drag force of .178 lbf.

Glider Steady Glide Design Variables

Our glider was designed to fly at 22 ft./s over a 200 ft. range from a starting
height of 18.5 feet. We can use these test goals to create a glide angle that our
glider must achieve to reach the required distance.

tan( ) =

18.5
= 1 ( ) = 1 ( ) = 5.28
200
We can solve some variables for gliders in steady glide for our glider to see
the performance capabilities of our glider. We used the following equation to
solve for the attitude angle of our glider with the use of previously found
variables.

( ) = 0, = 0 = 4

4 0.913
= = = 5.78
0.208
0.913
0.741
We then used the following equations to solve for the total coefficient of
lift, calculated dynamic pressure, calculated glide velocity, and calculated glide
angle:

= ( ) + ( )

6.567 2
=( ) (0.1615 1 )(5.78)
8.071 2
1.485 2
+( 2
)((0.1615 1 )(5.78 4)
8.071
= 0.815
( ) (3 )(1)
= = = 0.456
(8.071 2 )(0.815) 2

2 2(0.456)
2
= = = 19.594
1
(0.0765 3 ) ( )

32.2
2

( ) =

0.178
= 1 ( ) = 3.40
3

Preliminary Testing
After we had assembled our glider and picked it up, we noted that the
wings sagged significantly. As a result, we chose to tape the wings to the fuselage
to increase the stability of the wings. In addition, we added tape to the tail and
major joints to make them sturdier.
After adding the tape to the glider we noted that the center of gravity
shifted back to approximately 16.5 in from the front of the glider. This is behind
our estimated neutral point so we decided to do a flight test to make sure it was
still stable. We were unable to throw the glider for long distances or from large
heights, however, when we first threw our glider we noted that it stalled quickly.
Afterwards, we moved our tail back slightly and also threw the glider at a steeper
downward angle. In our second test after these adjustments, we noted that it
appeared to fly level and smooth. However, due to having too small of a distance
to fly, these were not accurate tests for our larger actual flight distance and
therefore did not completely fix our stability issues.

Final Testing and Adjustments

For our first flight in weber arena we attempted to through our glider at a
slight downward angle. Our glider quickly stalled and then dropped. We realized
the tape we added to make the tail sturdier moved the center of gravity to far
back making the glider unstable. After the flight we realized our wings had been
damaged. We added more tape to the wings to fix them as well as attempt to
move the center of gravity forward. We decided to through our glider at a steeper
downward angle to attempt to overcome our stability issues.
In our second flight we saw that the glider veered off to the left due to
damage sustained from our first flight. We realized that the dihedral shape of the
left and right sides of the wings was not equivalent during flight, the left wing was
loose and had a tendency to become more vertical than the right wing. In order to
fix this, we taped from the top of the wings to under the fuselage to hold the wing
down and reducing flexing. After these changes, we saw the glider fly more
straight and not veer to the left. We also noted that in this flight the glider was
more longitudinally stable and did not stall. We hoped this was due to the tape
moving the center of gravity forward however it was most likely due to the angled
wings not being able to produce as much lift.
For our next two flights we tried even steeper downward angles to try to avoid
stall. Unfortunately, each of the flight still resulted in significant stall.

Results

Figure 11: Table of test results.

 The above table lists the distance achieved by our glider as well as the flight
time, average glide speed, and glide angle. Total distance is found using
Pythagorean theorem with total distance being the hypotenuse and longitudinal
and lateral distance being the triangles sides. This gives us an estimate of how far
our glide would have traveled had it flown straight. Using this distance, we can
find average glide speed by dividing total distance by flight time. Glide angle is
found using the inverse tangent of the height (18.5 ft.) over total distance.

Analysis of Results
Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve our estimated flight distance.
This was mainly due to the glider being unstable and stalling. After we added
electrical tape to the tail for sturdiness, the center of gravity was shifted to far
back. The center of gravity ended up being 16.5 in from the front of the glider
instead of the 13.5 in we estimated. With our neutral point being 14 in from the
front, our glider ended up being unstable. The glider quickly stalled during each
flight and was unable to correct itself. Had the center of gravity been where we
estimated it would be, we would have likely seen the glider fly much closer to
how we predicted.
Although much of this shortness of flight can be associated with center of
gravity being behind the neutral point and causing stall, we can also assume that
some of the shortness of flight was caused by the wings flexing and creating a
greater wing dihedral angle than we expected and reducing lift. We use the
following equations to calculate the angle that the wings flexed to:

= 90 sin1
tan

0.178
= 90 sin1 = 84.1
3 tan 30

From these equations we see that the wings should have flexed to 84.1
degrees above horizontal. This number seems too big to be reasonable, however,
we must take a few flight characteristics into consideration. During our flight, the
wings flexed unevenly, causing the glider to curve back around and crash into the
stands rather than fly straight and land on the ground. This created a significant
reduction in our flight distance. So, our actual glide angle may have been
significantly less than 30 degrees and therefore the flex angle may have been
closer to 60 degrees than the seemingly high calculation of 84.1 degrees.
 References

Airfoil Tools (2016). Eppler 562 Airfoil (e562-il). Retrieved from:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=e562-il