Final Report
Group 13:
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
Team Members:
Richard-Marc Hernandez
Yoosuk Kee
Stephen McNulty
Jessica Pisano
Chi-Ieong Yan
Project Advisor:
Siva Thangam
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Page
SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………
4
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….
5
PROJECT OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………… 5
PROJECT BACKGROUND……………………………………………………. 6
PROJECT STATEMENT……………………………………………………….
7
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………
8
APPROACH…………………………………………………………………………….
9
CALCULATIONS………………………………………………………………………
10
DESIGN SELECTION…………………………………………………………………
15
WING…………………………………………………………………………..
15
TAIL……………………………………………………………………………
17
FUSELAGE…………………………………………………………………….
18
TAIL BOOM…………………………………………………………………...
19
LANDING GEAR…….………………………………………………………..
20
FINAL DESIGN………………………………………………………………………….. 21
BUDGET…………………………….…………………………………………………… 22
SCHEDULE………………………………………………………………………………. 23
TEAM DYNAMICS……………………………………………………………………… 23
ADVISOR MEETINGS………………………………………………………………….. 23
CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………………………
24
2
APPENDICIES …………………………………………………………………………… 25
GANTT CHART…………………………………………………………………..A
WING DESIGN……….………………………………………………………….. B
MODELFOIL GRAPHS .……………………………………………….. B-1
RIB DESIGN……………………………………………………………...B-2
WING DESIGN…………………………………………………………...B-3
COSMOSWORKS MODEL……………………………………………...B-4
TAIL DESIGN…………………………………………………………………… C
FUSELAGE DESIGN……………………………………………………………. D
TAIL BOOM……………………………………………………………………... E
LANDING GEAR ANALYSIS.......................................................................…... F
DECISION MATRICES…………………………………………………………. G
NUGGET CHART……………………………………………………………….. H
CALCULATIONS……………………………………………………………….. I
FINAL DESIGN………………………………………………………………….. J
BEGINNING OF SEMESTER BUDGET………………………………………... K
JOURNAL…………………………………………………………………….….. L
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… M
3
Summary
This proposal is for the 2004 SAE Aero Design Radio Controlled Heavy Lift
Cargo Plane. Upon the completion of this project, the team will participate in a
competition in Fort Worth, Texas. The goal of the project is to design a radio controlled
plane that can lift 2 to 3 times its own weight. The design should be of intermediate
difficulty for construction, but still maximizing lift. Overall the goal is to compete and
place well at the competition which will take place from June 18th to June 20th.
4
Project Objectives







The plane to be flight capable
The plane to carry 2-3 times its own weight
The plane meets the specifications of the 2004 SAE Aero Design West
competition
To finish the design of the plane by December and begin construction and testing
in January
To compete well at competition and improve Stevens reputation
For the team to improve and expand their knowledge of the design and
construction of airplanes
To stay within the parameters of the budget that is set by the team
Ideally, our group’s goal is to expand our knowledge of engineering and to further
our experience with taking a project from concept and design to construction and testing.
Our team would like to begin the testing of our plane as early as possible to try and
overcome the problem from previous years where the plane did not fly. We feel that with
early construction and more time for testing and modifications, if necessary, we will be
able to ensure that the airplane is flight capable. Our group is not only aiming for the
plane to be flight capable but for it to be able to lift two to three times its weight as well.
Our group would also like to improve upon the Stevens reputation. In the past,
Stevens has not placed among the higher competitors at the competition, we hope to be
able to pave the way and start a tradition of Stevens being a top contender at the
competition. It would also be a great asset to future Aero Design teams.
5
Project Background
Last years group had a lot of problems with the construction of the heavy lift
cargo plane, and had some suggestions for this year’s team. The team’s design was
sound on paper and may have worked, but they may never know if it would have, it was
the building of the plane that gave the team a lot of trouble. There are a number of little
things that the team did not know nor could they know unless they had experience
building these types of planes before. These problems included the space between the
flaps and the wing, theirs was much too great even though it physically was a small
space; the same thing happened on the tail. At the competition they had to put tape over
the space in order to conform to safety considerations. Their suggested solution to these
problems and others like these that came up was to consult with hobby enthusiasts’ late in
the design phase and throughout the construction process. Another major problem the
group encountered was with the landing gear; it broke many times during landing and
they had to change the design to add extra support for the landing gear. The team
suggested that our team builds replacement parts for most of the major portions of the
plane, wing, landing gear, and tail. Also we should test the plane as early as possible so
that we can fix problems that our team will encounter.
6
Project Statement
Each individual member of the team has an interest, whether it is career or hobby
oriented, in aeronautics and wants to expand their knowledge, and experience with the
design and manufacture of airplanes. Our team wants to compete against other colleges
and universities to get exposure to students at other schools and their approach to the
engineering design process.
There are many engineering disciplines that will need to be incorporated into the
design and manufacture of this heavy lift cargo plane. In the design phase our group will
need to use fluids, mechanics, control systems, dynamics, and static to design the
physical structure of the plane, before any construction is done. Physics will be applied
to determine lift, drag and other components of flight our design will achieve. Basic
knowledge of calculus will be needed for the calculations in the design phase. Once the
basic design is decided on, our group will need to use materials engineering to decide on
the optimal building materials to construct the plane. A strict budget will have to be
made for this project and followed which will require the knowledge of engineering
economics. In the construction phase, freshman design course skills, particularly
machine shop, will be utilized.
7
Design Specifications
According to the rules for the SAE Aero Design competition, the following are the design
specifications:
Minimum allowed wingspan
120 inches
Takeoff limit
200 feet
Landing Distance
400 feet
Minimum cargo area
6 inches by 5 inches by 4 inches
Engine
unmodified FX O.S. 2 stroke motor
0.61 cubic inches
1.9 hp
E-4010 muffler
Due to the change of some of the design constrains and the late-posting of the finalized
rules this year, the team’s approach towards the design is slightly different than previous
years’ teams.
Design Specifications Comparison
Design Specifications:
This Year (2004)
Previous Year (2003)
Wing Span
Minimum 10 ft
Maximum 6 ft
Wing Chord
No restriction
Maximum 1 ft
Cargo Volume
Minimum 120 in3
Minimum 300 in3
Maximum Takeoff Distance
200 ft
200 ft
Maximum Landing Distance
400 ft
400 ft
Engine
.61 FX-OS
.61 FX-OS or
K&B .61 R/C ABC
Battery
Minimum 500 mAh
Minimum 500 mAh
8
Approach
The first step of this project was to understand all the rules and regulations in the
competition. Specific rules on aircraft design, configuration, fabrication, and the
prescribed course are strictly applied to this competition. However, since the information
of this year’s competition was not posted on the web until very late in the semester, the
team decided to look at last year’s competition and developed basic knowledge of the
rules from it.
The second step was to break down the plane into smaller components and
brainstorm all the different ideas for designs. The team (with a total number of five
members) was divided into smaller groups of two to three members to research and
design each specific part in detail. (Further details about the smaller group progress can
be seen in the journal in Appendix L ). Furthermore, areas such as selections of airfoil,
wing shape, tail stabilizer (both horizontal and vertical), landing gear, fuselage, and
control surface were intensively researched and designed to maximize the overall
efficiency of the aircraft performance during the competition. A detailed design of the
aircraft has been finalized.
The next step is to construct the aircraft. The team will spend a good amount of
time during next semester for the construction stage because it is the most critical stage in
this project. A small deflection on the wing or a tiny crack in the landing gear can have a
great impact on the performance of the aircraft. In fact, NASA’s Columbia disaster was
caused by a small piece of foam falling from the fuel tank that damaged the wing of the
shuttle. The team has acknowledged this incident and tries their best to avoid such
accidents to the aircraft.
The final step is to test and fly the designed aircraft. Small adjustments,
calibrations, and other improvements will be made during this stage. The final prototype
of the aircraft will be completed prior to the competition.
9
Calculations
(For detailed calculations, see Appendix I)
Take-off Calculation
Take-off Velocity
1
 2W  2
  61.8190 ft / sec

C


A
 L, max p 
Vtake off
Mass
m
Wtotal
 1.3975slugs
32.2
Initial Coefficient of Lift
CL 0 
W
A
1
Vto 2 p ,wing
2
144
 1.0828
Initial Coefficient of Drag
 1
2
C D 0  0.016  
C L 0   0.0533
 31.4

k Constant
k
Ap
1
CD 0 
 0.0013slug / ft
2
144
Take-off Drag
2
D0  kVto  4.9971lb
Static Thrust
Tstatic  20lb
The force balance at the take-off is
Fs  m
dV
 thrust  drag  T  kV 2
dt
Since we are looking for the take-off distance, not the time, we introduce
dV
dV
V
dt
ds
into previous Fs equation, separate variables, and integrate

S0
0
dS 
 
m V0 d V 2
2 0 T  kV 2
or
S0 
m
T
m
T
ln

ln
2
2k T  kVto 2k T  D0
There fore the take-off distance is
S0 
m
T
1.3975
20
ln

ln
 193.5524 ft
2k T  D0 2 * 0.0013 20  4.9971
The requirement of the SAE aero design competition for take-off distance is 200ft. Our
design with 45lb maximum loading had 193.55ft of take-off distance. Therefore, the
plane will take-off within the given distance.
10
Landing Calculation
The differential equation of motion that is used to describe the landing ground run is the
following:
dS 
VdV
A  BV 2
We integrate the differential equation. In addition, we use V2  0 , because the plane stops
at rest.
S landing 
1  B 2 
ln 1  VTD 
2B 
A

In order to solve the equation, we have to calculate constants A and B;
T

A  g  static  Crolling   0.966 ft / sec 2
 W

B
g
W
1

 2 Ap C D , g  CrollingC L , g 
Stall Velocity


W
Vstall  
 1 A C

p L ,max
2
1
2

  25.8494 ft / sec



Touchdown Velocity
VTD  1.3Vstall  33.6042 ft / sec
Coefficient of Lift at VTD
CL,g 
W
 1.7492
1
2
ApVTD
2
Coefficient of Drag at VTD
Drag Force of take-off and landing are the same
D0
 0.1942
1
2
ApVTD
2
g 1

B   Ap C D , g  CrollingC L , g   0.0023 / ft
W 2

CD,g 
Now, we can calculate the distance of land ground run,
1  B 2 
1
0.0023


Slanding 
ln 1  VTD  
ln 1 
33.6042 2   283.1568 ft
2B 
A
 20.0023   0.9660

11
The requirement of the SAE aero design competition for landing ground run distance is
400ft. Our design with 45lb maximum loading had 283.16ft of ground run distance.
Therefore, the plane will land safely to the ground within the given distance.
Fuselage
The dimension of the fuselage is going to be 4in x 5in x 25 in.
The same equation is being used to calculate the force from the fuselage.
CD  FF  C f
Swet
Sref
However, the form factor FF is calculated differently from the wing because it is a
function of the fuselage fineness ratio FR:
60
 0.0025FR
FR 3
fuselage  length
where FR 
fueslage  diameter
FF  1 
For our calculation, the fuselage fineness ratio is about 4.8 and the form factor is about
1.55.
The total coefficient of drag CD is about 0.032.
The total drag force experienced from the fuselage is about
FD 
1
ApV 2  0.05 lbf
2
12
Wing Calculation
The airfoil used is Selig 1223. Based on the software ModelFoil, the maximum
coefficients of lift and drag are 2.95 and 0.05, respectively. The stall point of S1223 is
about 15 degrees. The Reynolds number of the airfoil is about 326,000 (turbulence flow).
The wing span is 120 inches and the chord is 12 inches. The total planform area is 1440
in2. Moreover, the surface area is estimated to be 3016 in2. The drag of the wing can be
calculated as follow:
CD  FF  C f
Swet
Sref
4
t
t
Where the form factor FF  [1  L   100  ]R , S wet is the wetted surface area,
c
c
S ref is the planform area, R is the lifting surface correlation parameter, Cf is the skin
t
friction coefficient, and   is the ratio of thickness over cord length. It is to be assumed
c
that R is about 1.05 since this is a low-speed non-swept wing.
Cf, which equals to 0.006, can be determined from the equation C f 
0.455
since
log Re 2.58
the Reynolds number is high and the airflow is turbulence.
The drag from the wing is calculated to be about 0.017.
The drag force due to the wing is calculated as:
FD 
1
ApV 2  3.6 lbf
2
where ρ is the density of the air, Ap is the projected area, and V is the velocity of the
plane.
Based on the above formula, the drag force is calculated to be about 3.6 lbf.
Similarly, from the coefficient of lift the group obtained from ModelFoil, the lift force of
the wing can then be calculated as:
FL 
1
ApV 2  61.40 lbf
2
Since the magnitude of the lift force is much greater than the magnitude of drag force, the
plane is assumed to fly without any major external forces such as high wind and other
environmental conditions.
13
Tail Calculation
The tail calculation is very similar to the wing. However, the tail is divided into two
parts, the horizontal tail and the horizontal. The group decided to use NACA 0012 airfoil
for the tail due to its simplicity of construction.
The wing span of the horizontal tail is 40 inches and its chord is 7 inches. The surface
area is estimated to be about 685.18 in2. From ModelFoil, the following data of NACA
0012 airfoil at zero degree initial angle of attack can be obtained:
Coefficient of lift CL = 0
Coefficient of drag CD = 0.01
Similarly to the wing calculations, the lift and drag forces of the horizontal tail are
calculated to be:
FL 
1
A p V 2  0
2
FD 
1
A p V 2  0.022 lbf
2
The horizontal tail does not contribute any lift of the plane because the airfoil NACA
0012 has no initial coefficient of lift at zero angle of attack. Moreover, NACA 0012
airfoil is not efficient for high lift aircrafts even though the initial angel is not zero.
Just like the horizontal wing, the vertical wing has no contribution to the lift of the plane.
The vertical tail has a height of 24 inches. The Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) is
calculated to be about 9.8 inches. The surface area is estimated to be 189 in2 and the
planform area is 235.2 in2. Moreover, the thickness to chord ratio is about 0.12 and the
form factor FF is about 1.27. The coefficient of lift and drag are being obtained from
Modelfoil,
Coefficient of lift CL = 0
Coefficient of drag CD = 0.01
The vertical tail has a very minimum effect of the drag force also because the projected
area of the vertical is very small. However, the drag force of the vertical tail can’t be
calculated as:
FD 
1
ApV 2  0.013 lbf
2
14
Design Selection
Wing
The wing is the most important part any plane, it is the component that creates lift
and allows flight. One hundred years ago two men discovered how to create a light
weight wings and using other light weight material they were able to be the first people to
fly under power. The wing that we have designed this year has incorporated all the
knowledge that people have discovered about wings over the last one hundred years.
The first thing to do when designing a wing is to look at the airfoil shape that the
wing will take. The airfoil is a shape that has characteristics that create lift. When
looking into the airfoil, like any portion of the plane, it is important to first do research
into the subject and to look at what people have done before. This team looked into what
airfoils previous teams at this school used, to see if they used similar airfoils and how
well the airfoils preformed. The team then used an airfoil software, ModelFoil, and
calculations to compare the characteristics of many airfoils. The airfoils included 2000’s
E 211, 2001 E423, 2002’s OAF102, and from our own research the E214 and S1223.
The program was able to generate many of the key numbers that are important to
engineers in designing the wing, top among these is the coefficient of lift and drag at
different angles of attack. The plane to be designed is a heavy lift cargo plane and there
for must have a high coefficient of lift, even at low speeds, and has a low coefficient of
drag. This maximizes the ability of a plane with a heavy load to take off within the given
output of engine constraints. Comparing the data received from the software, and other
calculations it is determined that the S1223 is the best airfoil with a high coefficient of lift
and a small coefficient of drag. The graphs generated from the ModelFoil software can
be found in appendix B-1 showing comparisons between CL vs. Angle of Attack of the
various airfoils. This data can then be used in the various calculations in order to
determine the characteristics of the plane see the calculations section for further details.
The airfoil is the most important part of the wing creating lift but there many
decisions to be made before the wing design is done. The wing shape and the angle with
which it makes parallel to the ground improve some of the characteristics of airfoil
chosen. The wing shapes considered by the group were rectangular, tapered, elliptical,
swept and elliptical each with there own positive and negatives see appendix G. The
rectangular wing shape was chosen mainly for its easy of build, though its stall
characteristics is worst then that of the elliptical, which is corrected with the addition of a
honer plate on the tip of the wing. The honer plate disrupts air flow over the tip of the
wing helping create lift and abating stall. The wing angle gives many improving
characteristics to the airfoil including stability and performance see appendix G. A
dihedral angle is the common angle used on model aircraft and has been used many times
in previous years. The dihedral angle improves stability in side to side motion as well as
stability in turning.
Once all of the components of the wing are decided on, and the major calculations
concerning the characteristics of the plane are completed, the design for the construction
can begin. Design for construction takes into account the decisions made the materials to
15
use and way in which parts can be fabricated. The wing makes up the largest area of the
plane but is among the lightest. There are to main construction methods for building a
model aircraft wing foam core and risers, each with there benefits and drawbacks. The
foam core is and easy construction and has been used with varying degrees of success in
the past. The foam core is just that lightweight foam that is shaped, with a hot wire, in to
the airfoil design, and then covered with various materials to improve strength. One year
the covering was Kevlar attached with an epoxy, the epoxy soaked in to the foam making
the wing heavier then designed, the plane did not do well that year. Other years they
have used foam core with a little better success but not much. This year the team has
decided to use the rise constructions method which entails creating many thin airfoils, out
of balsa wood, and spacing each along wooden spars through out the wing. The spacing
was determined to be every 2 inches, this distance was determined from studying
commercial available planes and a previous years plans for a riser wing. A front edge
wooden dowel and two middle spares give the wing its strength; a tailing edge supports
the flaps, gives the tailing edge airfoil shape and also lends strength to the wing. See
appendix B-2 for the detailed design of the rib and appendix B-3 to see the final
fabrication of the wing.
The tail edge of the wing contains the flap, a small surface that can be moved up
or down to increase or decrease the coefficient of lift. It is during takeoff that the flap is
lowered to increase the angle of attack and allow for increased lift; during landing the
flap is raised it increase drag so the plane can lower itself safely to the ground. The
design of the flap was determined from advice from experienced model fliers. In
previous years groups tried to create flaps without using advice from experienced
modelers and the soon learned that it was some thing that you gained experience,
equations are idealized models not the real thing. These experienced modelers advised
use the flap should be 25% of the camber and 30% of the length. The flaps are controlled
by two independent servos, one for each side of the wing, allowing for vertical movement
only.
The wing a static analysis, in SolidWorks, was done on the wing to determine if it
could support crack under the lifting force. This was a simple beam analysis on half of
the wing, it was determined that the lifting force was no sufficient to break the wing.
This final analysis with the completed design of the wing can be found in appendix B-4.
16
Tail
The horizontal and vertical stabilizer provides stability and controllability during
the flight. The purpose of the horizontal stabilizer, or elevator, is to prevent up and down
motion of the nose and provides downward lift. The vertical stabilizer keeps the plane in
a straight line. It controls yaw motion so that, they keep the plane from swerving to the
left or to the right.
There are many types of tail designs available such as; Conventional tail, T-tail,
V-tail, or H-tail. They do not perform significantly different from one to another. For
example, each tail will behave the same as long as the surface area of horizontal and
vertical stabilizer is same. On the other hand, the tail does not provide lift to the plane.
Therefore, the considerations of selecting the tail were ease to construct and least drag.
Our group decided to use NACA0012 airfoil for horizontal stabilizer that has
symmetrical shape top and bottom, also has least drag. For vertical stabilizer, the group
selected just thin planar surface, not an airfoil, that as rounded shape in front and the flap
on rear side.
For the construction of the horizontal stabilizer, our group will use the risers that
will be made out of balsa wood connected with simple wooden beam. Using wood for tail
assembly is to reduce the weight and ease to construct. Since the vertical stabilizer is not
an airfoil, it will be made out of wooden beams only. The wooden structures may be
inaccurate during the cutting and bonding phase, however they would not affect the
critical performance of the plane.
See Appendix C for Tail Design
17
Fuselage
In the selection of the fuselage several considerations were made when it came to
the construction, strength and cost of making the fuselage. They include having panels,
wire frame (truss structure) or cast molding a fuselage. Each of the options had
advantages that were ideal for this project yet at the same time disadvantages that
affected the selection of that particular fuselage design. The wire frame structure has its
advantages, for instance it is very sturdy (if built correctly), and it is lightweight,
affordable and enables the team to have easy access to the interior. These characteristics
are ideal for a project of this nature where we must select components that are light and
strong. The wire frame however is extremely difficult to construct and even though its
structure is relatively strong, it may not withstand forces due to an improper landing. In
the event that the plane does not execute a perfect landing there will be high stress in
areas around the connecting joints and the wire frame may collapse due to failure.
Another option considered in choosing a fuselage was a design comprised of panels.
Panels are generally lightweight, easy to construct and assemble and can be considered
affordable but it is not as strong as the wire frame design. Due to its cost, ease of
construction and assembly it appears to be a good choice irregardless of its strength.
Panels also allow for easy access to the cargo bay, engine, fuel tank and other
components. The team considered the use of a fuselage cast mold. Cast molding is very
advantageous for several reasons; it provides a very accurate shape which in turn gives it
aerodynamic advantages, the fuselage is very strong and does not require any assembly.
These factors are very important to selecting the perfect design, however it is also very
costly to make, it is heavier than the other designs and its aerodynamic shape is not
necessary for flight at low speed. The panel design was selected after constructing a
design matrix. (See Appendix D)
To view the proposed fuselage and reconstructed design see Appendix D
18
Tail Boom
Several factors were taken to consideration when selecting a tail boom; construction,
weight and strength are most important. A design matrix was constructed based on those
characteristics and is listed below. Initially it was decided to select a tripod system
constructed out of carbon fibers. A flaw was later detected in this design as the team did
not account for any torsion force that may be created from the tail onto the tail boom.
With this consideration made the tripod system was eliminated and we incorporated a
truss-like structure made out of balsa wood and covered by a monokote layer. This design
is suitable because it is lightweight, sturdy and affordable.
To view tail boom SolidWorks design see Appendix E
19
Landing Gear
The landing gear is the first part of the plane that touches the ground upon landing
and absorbs the forces. The design of the landing gear has given the most trouble to
groups in the past, and this year’s group started its design of the landing gear based on
previous year’s experience. In previous years planes that could take off crashed because
of failures in the landing gear. The first flight of the plane last year the main landing gear
impacted the ground and elastically deforming and causing the propeller to break. The
team was able to fix the landing gear by adding a tie rod between the two wheels
lessening the elastic deflection. Another problem with the landing gear was the front
land gear, upon landing the nose gear hit first bending backward and again destroying the
propeller. This year’s team has come up with many solutions to the problems of past
years. A few different designs were made in the SolidWorks program and static analysis
was preformed in CosmosWorks. The results of the analysis were used to determine
which design would best correct the problems seen in the past. The fifth design seen in
appendix F gave the smallest deflection, which corrects the first problem above. The fact
that it has so little deflection is a problem because most of the force transferred into the
plane. This can cause various problems including damaging sensitive equipment, this
could be corrected using a spring damper system, but time constraints and cost made this
idea a secondary solution to the landing gear. Last years final design is the most practical
design to use, not only did it work but the airplane inventory has many spare main
landing gear parts, for these reasons the final design for the main landing gear is a simple
trapezoid made out of light aluminum material.
The position of the third wheel of the landing gear is still in debate, it can be
placed in either the front or off the tail of the airplane and each position has is benefits
and drawbacks. The nose landing gear allows for maximized control on the ground, but
if it should hit hard it the landing gear could bend plastically and even destroy the prop
and damage the engine. The tail landing gear allows for slightly decreased
maneuverability, and the chance still exists that the nose could hit first. The placement of
the wheel will not affect the flight performance of the plane; with this in mind testing will
help determine the placement of the landing gear the team will choose.
20
Final Design
The final design of the plane consists of a combination of all the selected designs
of the wing, tail, fuselage, and landing gear. After intensive research and calculations, the
group decided to use Selig 1223 high lift airfoil. The final wing design is going to be a
dihedral wing with Horner plate at the ends. There will be flaps attached at end of the
wing. Risers will be used for the wing construction. Servos for controlling flaps will be
installed inside the airfoil.
The fuselage is specially designed to contain the motor, fuel tank, loads, radio
receiver, battery, and servos in separate compartments. The team decided to use balsa
wood for the construction of the fuselage because if it is endurable and light weighted.
The wing and landing gear of the plane will also be directly attached to the fuselage.
The final tail design chosen is the conventional tail. There will be flaps at the end
of both the horizontal and vertical tail for stability. The construction of the tail is very
similar to the wing, using risers with balsa wood. The tail boom is constructed as a truss
in order to prevent bending and twisting forces of the tail. Balsa wood will also be used to
construct the tail boom of the plane. The tail boom will be covered with a thin layer of
monokote for minimizing the aerodynamic drag forces during flight.
The landing gear of the plane has to be light and stiff to withstand the landing
impact of the plane. Based on this reason, the team decided to use aluminum for the
construction of the landing gear. Rubber bar will be used for the construction of the
horizontal rod that is attached between the wheels. The landing gear will be directly
attached to the base of the fuselage.
Due the SAE competition specification changed this year, the group is
considering other design approaches such as ideas of a biplane to increase the lift and
adding some kind of shock absorber to the landing gear to minimize the impact.
However, since the finalized rules were posted toward the end of the semester, the team
is going to perform more research in these areas over the break and at the beginning of
the following semester.
See Appendix J for CAD models of final design and design components
21
Budget
In the beginning of the semester the team came up with a budget for the
plane using estimates which can be scene in appendix K. This budget was
roughly based on previous year's cost and from research into costing on the
internet and hobby shops. The final costing of the material is yet to be
completed, but the cost will be significantly less then originally proposed.
The big ticket items, such as the engine, radio controller, and servos, were
bought in previous years and are still viable. The materials budget will go
mostly to wood, glue, covering and ect. The bulk of the budget will need to go
into the trip, the cost of a van, lodging and registration fees. The details
of the budget have not been worked out by the time of the final report, but
most of the materials will be purchased at hobby shops. Since the design of
the plane is now finalized the team will spend the holiday break pricing
materials and will be able to start building in the beginning of the spring
semester.
22
Schedule
Please see the attached Gantt Chart (Appendix A) for the detailed breakdown of
the schedule for or project. It shows the tasks and the timeframe in which we are aiming
to complete them.
Team Dynamics
Aero Design Team is made out of five members; Stephen McNulty, Richard-Marc
Hernandez, Yoosuk Kee, Jessica Pisano, and Chi-Ieong Yan. Each of the team members
has a high level of commitment and motivation to design and fabricate the best cargo
plane and hopefully to win the competition, which will allow us to overcome the lack of
knowledge and experience.
In the beginning, the team is divided into two smaller groups to achieve a more
efficient use of time. The team broke down the plane into smaller components such as
research of the airfoil, wing shape, tail stabilizer, landing gear, fuselage, and control
surface. The smaller teams research subcomponents of the airplane and the whole team
meets twice a week to discuss the research results.
Towards the second half of the semester, our team worked together in one large
group. We worked individually but met several times a week so decide on design
selection.
Advisor Meetings
The advisor for the Aero Design Team is Professor Siva Thangam. The team and
the advisor meet once a week to discuss what the team has done so far and to obtain the
guidelines for further research. The professor steers the team in the right direction, and he
offers guidance from experience and knowledge. He also teaches the team how to read
and analyze some of critical equations and graphs. A detailed journal of weekly group
work and advisor meetings can be found in Appendix L
23
Conclusions
At the beginning of this project the team set out to design, analyzes,
construct and compete in the aero design west heavy lift cargo plane
competition. The rules of the competition laid out the design constraints the
team had to work in. The plane has to have a minimum wingspan of 10 feet, and
is constrained by the thrust that the OS .61 engine outputs. The goal is to
lift as much weight as possible, taking off in within 200ft and land in 400 ft
with out crashing. The team designed, using calculations, software, and
experience, has designed a plane to do just that. Breaking the plane in to its
components and doing a detailed design of each the team was able to optimize
the design. Now that the design is finalized the construction will begin in
the next semester, which will include testing and will conclude in June at the
aero design west competition in Ft Worth TX.
24
Appendix
25
Appendix A
Gantt Chart
26
Appendix B
Wing Design
Appendix B-1
ModelFoil Graphs
29
Appendix B-2
Rib Design
Rib Design
30
Appendix B-3
Wing Design
31
Appendix B-4
Cosmos Analysis of Wing
Max stress = 330.9 psi
32
Appendix C
Tail Design
Tail Riser
Tail:
33
Appendix D
Fuselage Design
The proposed fuselage design was:
With the change in the design rules the team decided to reconstruct the fuselage design:
34
Appendix E
Tail Boom
35
Appendix F
Landing Gear Analysis
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
Design 4
Design 5
36
Appendix G
Decision Matrices
37
Wing
Efficiency
Importance
4
Rect.
Wing Shape Matrix
Stall
Characteristic
Construct.
Overall
5
4
65
4
4
5
56
Tapered
4
4
4
52
Elliptical
5
5
2
48
Swept
3
3
3
36
Delta
3
3
3
36
Wing Angle Matrix
Important Factor Dihedral
Flat
Cathedral
Gull
Stability
5
5
3
5
3
Performance
4
4
3
2
2
Efficiency
4
5
4
2
2
Construction
3
3
5
3
2
Overall
80
70
58
50
37
38
Airfoil Matrix
Important
Factor
E122
E214
E423
OAF102 S1223
Cl
5
1
2
2
3
5
Cd
2
5
4
4
3
2
Construction
3
5
5
4
4
3
Overall
50
30
33
30
33
38
Fuselage
Importance
Panels
Construction
5
5
3
4
Weight
5
5
4
3
Cost
4
5
4
2
Strength
4
3
5
4
Total
90
82
71
59
1
2
3
Ranking
Wire frame Cast Mold
39
Landing Gear Matrix
Importance Bent Rod
Without
Bent Rod Solid Nose Solid Tail
Factor
Nose
Tail
Steerability
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
2
3
3
4
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
Total
50
37
33
39
41
3
5
3
5
4
Impact
5
3.5
4.5
4
5
Construction
3
4
3
3
3
Total
50
44.5
40.5
44
46
Rod
With Rod Steerability
40
Tail Matrix
Importance Conventional T-Tail
H-Tail
Tail
Triple
V-Tail
Tail
Construction
5
5
4
4
3
4
Surface
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
65
57
52
52
47
48
1
2
2
5
4
Area/ Drag
Control/
Stability
Total
Ranking
Tail Boom Matrix
Importance 1 spar
2 spars
3 spars
3 or more
panels
Construction 4
5
5
5
4
Weight
4
5
4
3
5
Strength
5
3
4
5
3
Total
65
55
56
57
51
3
2
1
4
Ranking
41
Construction Matrix
Wing
Tail
Fuselage
Boom
Landing Gear
Foam
Riser
s
Aluminu
m Plate
Plywoo
d
Woode
n
Dowels
Carbon
Fiber
Tubes
Aluminu
m
S te e l
Rubber
Core
Import
ance
Ease
3
2
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
Strength
3
4
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
4
Accurac
y
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
Weight
5
3
5
2
4
4
5
4
3
2
Machine
ability
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
2
57
80
75
85
79
87
72
57
53
Total
42
Appendix H
Nugget Chart
43
Appendix I
Calculations
44
total distance (ft)
2.094889028
surface area (ft^2)
20.94889028
(in^2)
3016.6402
Wing:
Re (S1223)
Swet
326529
3016.6402
in^2
Wing Span
120
in
Wing Chord
12
in
Sref
Clmax
1440
2.95611
Cf (turbulent)
0.005559594
Cf (laminar)
0.002324006
t/c
in^2
0.121
x/c
0.2
FF
1.384435888
Cdmin (turb)
0.016124153
Cdmin (laminar)
0.006740173
Fuselage:
length
width
25
in
5
in
planforrm area
151
in^2
wetted area
605
in^2
fuselage/boom
density
0.002175
coefficient of viscosity
3.677E-07
Velocity (flight speed)
51
Re (turbulent)
l/d
Form factor
slugs/ft^3
slugs/ft-sec
ft/sec
628484.4982
5
1.4925
Cf
0.004883112
Cd min (turbulent)
0.029200444
Horizontal tail:
45
Re (NACA 0012)
chord (MAC)
Swet
Wing Span
Sref
Clmax
Cf (laminar)
t/c
175975.6595
7
685.1837658
40
280
in^2
in
in^2
0
0.003165715
0.12
x/c
0.287
FF
1.27160708
Cdmin (laminar)
in
0.009850851
Vertical Tail:
Re
246365.9233
MAC
9.8
in
Swet
189
in^2
Tail height
Sref
24
in
235.2
in
Clmax
Cf (laminar)
t/c
0.002675517
0.12
x/c
0.287
FF
1.27160708
Cdmin (laminar)
0.002733916
Tail Boom:
Re
1835174.735
length boom
48
in
length fuselage
25
in
length fuselage/boom
73
in
Swet
28
in^2
Sref
14
in^2
Cf (turbulent)
0.004001212
Cd min (turbulent)
0.008402546
Landing Gear:
Cd min (single strut &
wheel)
Cd min (tricycle)
coefficient of rolling
friction
weight of plane (with load)
rolling drag
1.01
0.004208333
0.03
40
lb
0.96
lb
46
Engine:
Cd min
Cd min (total)
Efficiency of Wing
0.002
0.072520243
0.95
K'
0.033506304
K''
0.0137
Cd total
0.120237752
Takeoff:
Velocity Vto
58.28356494
Velocity Vto
ft/sec
mph
Static Trust
20
lb
Drag Force
5.771299647
lbf
98.2843978
lbf
Lift Force
mean acceleration
12.86167199
ft/sec^2
Sg
132.0580226
ft
mass
1.242236025
slugs
Cl0
1.082775724
Cd
0.053337684
k
0.001307586
slugs/ft
D0
4.441834041
lb
S0
149.5508585
ft
46.36355845
50.78873362
Gravity
Thrst at 0 airspeed
32.2
0
Vstall
24.37106772
ft/sec
Vtd
31.68238804
ft/sec
Clg
1.749177515
Cdg
0.194238906
A
-0.966
B
0.002599865
Slanding
251.6949294
ft/sec^2
47
Coefficient of Drag
No Flaps
Flaps +15
Flaps -15
0.12
coefficient of drag
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-5
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
Coefficient of Lift
No Flaps
Flaps +15
Flaps -15
3.5
coefficient of lift
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
0
5
10
15
angel of attack
48
Monoplane
Wing Span
[in]
120
120
120
120
120
120
Wing Chord
[in]
12
12
12
12
12
12
AS
10
10
10
10
10
10
Planform Area
[in^2]
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
1440
Total Weight
[lb]
20
25
30
35
40
45
Takeoff Speed
[ft/sec]
41.212704
46.07720384
50.47504786
54.51928282
58.28356494
61.819056
135
135
135
135
135
135
15
15
15
15
15
15
9
9
9
9
9
9
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
20
25
30
35
40
45
34.75360351
38.85570996
42.56429766
45.97469603
49.14901743
52.13040527
Biplane
Wing Span
[in]
120
120
120
120
120
120
Wing Chord
[in]
12
12
12
12
12
12
AS
10
10
10
10
10
10
Planform Area
[in^2]
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
Total Weight
[lb]
30
35
40
45
50
55
Takeoff Speed
[ft/sec]
35.69124862
38.55095459
41.212704
43.7126737
46.07720384
48.32617908
135
135
135
135
135
135
15
15
15
15
15
15
9
9
9
9
9
9
4050
4050
4050
4050
4050
4050
30
35
40
45
50
55
30.09750351
32.50901932
34.75360351
36.86176307
38.85570996
40.75221241
[mph]
49
Appendix J
Final Design
50
51
52
Appendix K
Beginning of Semester Budget
Item
Est. Cost
SAE Membership
SAE Registration
$50.00
$300.00
Balsa Wood
Plywood
Motor
R/C Controller
Propeller
Tires/Axle
Batteries
Servos
Push Rods
MonoKote
Fuel Tank
Misc.
$10.00
$30.00
$120.00
$200.00
$15.00
$25.00
$15.00
$45.00
$10.00
$30.00
$5.00
$100.00
Total
$855.00
53
Appendix L
Journal
54
Week 1
Project selection
In the ME 423 class, groups were formed and projects were chosen. After receiving
approval, our group decided to have five members. Most of us had been interested in the
Heavy Lift Cargo Plane project last spring and had received prior approval from the
Mechanical Engineering Department.
Advisor meeting
After receiving confirmation of our group and project, we met with our advisor and
received initial information including parameters and a suggested timeframe for various
parts of the project.
Week 2
Group Breakdown
Our team decided that it would be more time efficient to split up into two smaller teams
to work on separate parts of the project. Working in this manner, would enable more
tasks to be completed at the same time. The group would then come together at least
once a week to inform the rest of the team on their progress and research findings.
Initial Research
Our team looked at old progress reports from past teams that had done the Heavy Lift
Cargo Plane project. We read the rules for last year’s competition and researched some
airfoils and searched for any pertinent information for our project
Project Organization
We worked on coming up with a Gantt Chart for our project. This would enable us to
stay on track with the timeframe allotted and be as productive as possible.
Advisor meeting
Our advisor suggested that we start researching airfoils. He gave us the names of a few
books that we could read to learn more about airfoils. He also taught us about drag and
lift coefficients so we could start working on the airfoils.
Week 3
Proposal
Part of the group started the proposal that is due on September 30th. They worked on the
project objectives, project statement, deliverables, and project summary.
Airfoil Research
The other part of the team researched various different airfoil designs. They utilized the
books that our advisor suggested we read and looked up various designs on the internet.
They did some preliminary calculations on the airfoils and drag and lift coefficients.
55
Advisor meeting
Our advisor gave us the “white papers” as well as more guidance on the airfoils and he
critiqued the progress of the airfoil design thus far. He helped to steer the airfoil design
team on a more concise path.
Week 4
Airfoil Design
The airfoil design has been narrowed down to 3 or 4 designs that our group will be
discussing in order to choose the best one.
Proposal
Each member of our team wrote part of the project proposal and part of the team met to
compile and edit it.
Presentation
Part of our group put together the PowerPoint presentation for our project proposal
presentation on Thursday, October 2nd.
Advisor meeting
Our advisor told us that he would critique our proposal and presentation for us once we
had completed it and offer his suggestions and corrections.
Week 5
Project Proposal Presentation
Our presentation went well this week. We received a lot of feedback from Professor
Chassapis after the presentation. These were his comments:
- focus what went wrong last year, especially the landing gear, don’t waste time on the
airfoil
- use last year's airfoil, it’s pretty much the same airfoil being used every year and it
worked
- buy a model plane and play with it
- Learn to fly the plane ourselves for the competition instead of having someone else who
have never seen the plane fly it
Advisor meeting
We did not have an advisor meeting this week due to the presentations
Week 6
Group Member Concerns
Three out of the five group members will be taking the FE exam on April 17, 2004. The
dates for the SAE competition were posted last week and they are April 16-18, 2004.
This created a major concern for some of our group members. We have been doing
56
research to see if there are alternate days or locations to take the FE exam. We are
looking into the possibility of taking it in another state (e.g. NY). One of our group
members has also tried writing to the board of the SAE Heavy Lift Cargo Plane
competition at the advice of our project advisor. He outlined the problem and hopefully
enough students from New Jersey that will be taking the FE exam that are participating in
the competition will also write letters or send emails about the situation. We are waiting
to get a response.
Advisor Meeting
This week we are getting back on track with selecting an airfoil. By next week, we plan
to have the calculations completed for the airfoil design. We also want to start working
on the landing gear and tail stabilizer.
We also discussed various computer software that we can use for analyzing the airfoils
and learning to fly the plane.
We received a contact this week from our advisor named Lionel Cruz who is very
experienced with flying model airplanes. Our group plans on contacting him soon so that
we can benefit from his knowledge and experience.
Week 7
E 421 Presentation
This week part of our group worked on the slides for the midterm presentation for E 421.
We completed the slides and lap package for the class and each individual member is
going over the slides and they are going to add anything that they feel we missed.
Airfoil Calculations
The other part of our group is still working on the calculations for the airfoil. They are
having significant difficulties. Although they have the white paper, they are still
confused and hitting dead ends. They had most of the calculations done, but since the
specifications for the competition were changed very recently on the web, they had to
redo most of the calculations that were already done.
Advisor Meeting
We would have liked to have the calculations done this week, but with the rules for the
competition changing and the confusion on the calculations and white paper, they were,
unfortunately, not completed. We are falling behind schedule a little because we wanted
to have the calculations completed one or 2 weeks ago.
We also discussed that we were going to go ahead and try and start the fuselage or
landing gear next week.
Week 8
Stereo-lithography Lab
This week we have a stereo-lithography lab to do for ME423 (Senior Design class). Part
of our group spent their time this week on making the part. We had to create a part in a
CAD program and have it approved before the lab of our lab. The lab was interesting but
57
we found out during the lab that our part would not work on the program we needed to
convert it to because it was done in Solidworks. Apparently, the program that you need
for the stereo-lithography lab is more compatible with Pro-Engineer and not very
compatible with Solidworks.
The other part of our group started working on the Landing Gear this week. We created a
design matrix to list the pros and cons of each design we were considering and get a
numerically weighted output of which design was the most economical, fastest to build,
and most efficient design.
Advisor Meeting
We were not able to have an advisor meeting this week because our stereo-lithography
lab was scheduled for the same time that our advisor meetings usually are. We will be
meeting next week.
Week 9
Stereo-lithography Lab
We completed the Stereo-lithography lab. The file we had in SolidWorks didn’t work in
the 3D-Light year software because of minor errors due to the method of modeling and
scaling. One of our group members was able to figure out what was incorrect with the
CAD drawing and was able to fix it so that we could have it created in the lab.
Landing Gear
SolidWorks models were created for various different design concepts. Each was
analyzed with a stress and deformation analysis is CosmosWorks. Our group was able to
see which designs would perform the best.
Airfoil Calculations & Fuselage Calculations
Our group met together and put down most of the layout of the calculations in excel.
However, since the final conceptual design isn’t ready yet, we cannot complete all the
calculations at this time. For example, we still need the detailed designs of the fuselage,
landing gear, and other parts of the airplane to perform a complete calculation of the
project. We are planning to finish up the calculations next week, and working on the
progress presentation. We will have all the conceptual designs being compared in a
matrix, rank them, and choose the best final design of the plane next week.
E-421 Presentation
The E-421 midterm presentation was this week. We presented our business concept and
SEED model output for our project in the presentation. The presentation went well and
there are a few things that we have to research for the final presentation. (MARR,
breakeven year, and IRR).
Advisor Meeting
Professor Thangam reviewed the airfoil calculations that our group completed and
informed us of what needed to be revised and corrected that we overlooked.
58
Week 10
ME-423 Midterm Presentation
Most of this week was spent in preparation for out midterm presentation. We prepared
our presentation which included the design, calculations and analysis of the airfoil, tail,
fuselage, landing gear, and wing. We included the calculations, designs considered,
designs selected and any SolidWorks models and COSMOS analysis into the
presentation. The presentation went well. The panel had fewer questions for us and
seemed to not have too much feedback. We received a few suggestions for consideration
but nothing that needed to be drastically changed or redesigned.
Week 11
CNC Workshop
This Thursday was spend in the Machine Shop in the basement of the Burchard building
learning about different machines and how to safely and properly use them. We even got
to take a piece home that we made during the workshop. We learned how to cut the
metal, size it, tap a hole, bore and thread the screw. We used a lathe, drill press, metal
saw, tool for cutting a trench in our metal piece, and a machine that allowed us to cut off
the excess metal to have the piece accurate to within five thousandths of an inch.
We hope that this workshop will help as we enter the spring semester and begin to work
on the construction of the airplane. The machinists were also very helpful and very
willing to give up advice from previous experience. Having worked with the Heavy Lift
Cargo plane groups before, they have a lot of experience and a wealth of knowledge to
share. They were able to give us some suggestions on what and what not to do from a
practical and machining point of view. They all seemed really willing to help and excited
to help our group exceed the performance of previous groups.
Calculations
Our group is still working on some of the calculations. We are working on the
calculations for the takeoff and landing distance as well as the lift and drag of the design.
We had some trouble in the beginning with these calculations, but Professor Thangam
gave us some direction so we will be working with the new information we were given
this weekend.
Week 12
Construction
This week we worked on the technique that we will be using for the construction in the
spring. We designed the construction technique that we hope to follow once we get all
our parts in and our design completely finished.
Wing
Our group decided to use ribs in the wing to create better lift, more support, and a lighter
wing. We spent part of our time this week designing the ribs as well as putting them into
59
SolidWorks. We will, hopefully, be running the analysis for the wings and ribs this
weekend so we can see how effective they will be.
Our group is also working with the idea is using a biplane. Since there is no maximum
planform area, a biplane design would be feasible and effective.
Calculations
We are still working on finalizing the calculations for lift, drag and takeoff and landing
distance. We hope to have these completed and finalized by next week.
Advisor Meeting
We discussed our progress with Professor Thangam. We showed him what calculations
we have so far and he told us that he would look them over for us and give us his
feedback. We also discussed the idea of using a biplane design with our advisor and he
said that there was a group in the past that did a very thorough analysis of biplane design
and that he would provide us with that information so we would not have to spend a lot of
time redoing the analysis that was already completed.
60
Appendix
References
Programs:
Solidworks
Cosmos
Modelfoil
Microsoft Office
Books:
Fluid Mechanics, Fourth Edition, by Frank M. White, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1999
Theory of Wing Sections by Ira H. Abbott and Albert E. Von Doenhoff, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1959
Aircraft Detail Drafting by Norman Meadowcroft, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1942
The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory by Glauert, Cambridge University Press,
1944
Stress Analysis for Airplane Draftsmen by Ernest J. Greenwood and Joseph R. Silverman,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1943
Weight-Strength Analysis for Aircraft Structures by F. R. Shanley, McGraw-Hill
Company, Inc., 1952
Aerodynamic Theory Volume V-VI by Berlin-Julius Springer, print in Germany, 1936
Websites:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/index
http://towerhobbies.com/
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/contents.htm
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/airplane.htm/printable
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/events/collaborative/help.html
http://ciurpita.tripod.com/rc/wing/air_db/wing.html
http://www.kupula.com/SeniorD/seniorD.html
61
http://www.me.stevens-tech.edu/seniordesigns/2001-2/index.htm
http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads.html
http://eiss.cnde.iastate.edu/calcs/frames.shtml
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Wing31.htm
http://www.airfoils.com/index.htm
http://www-ec.njit.edu/sae/aero.htm
http://www.nasg.com/afdb/index-e.phtml
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/flight14.htm
http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/uiuc_lsat/lsat_2bulletin.html
http://www.engr.ku.edu/ae/event_SAElift.htm
http://www.uwplatt.edu/~sae/AeroDesign.html
http://www.me.mtu.edu/~saeaero/
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design-tail.html
http://www.eng.upm.edu.my/~aznijar/paper/WEC2002/wec113-RDS-paper.pdf
http://ceaspub.eas.asu.edu/aero/mae444/notes/aerochapter.pdf
62