Critical Design Review

Team Piolin

1 December 2008
Aerodynamics Senior Design (MAE 478 001), Class of 2009
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
North Carolina State University

i
 Critical Design Review for the Piolin UAV

Nicky Gomez-Pretzer1, Jacob Hall2, Tim Josey3, Joseph Pack4, Nick Petteway5, Calvin Phelps6, and Jeff Spruill7
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

In fall semester of 2008, the aerodynamics senior design prompt for the NC State
University Class of 2009 was to building a small UAV capable of surveillance missions
powered by an electric motor with a mission endurance of no less than 15 minutes. Various
customer requirements were given for the design. Initial conceptualizations for the aircraft
underwent a series of revisions which arrived at a final design that satisfied all customer
requirements.

1
Stability and Control, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
2
Aerodynamics, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
3
Structures, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
4
Team Leader, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
5
CAD, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
6
Risk Mitigation, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910
7
Performance, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Campus Box 7910

i
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table of Contents
Figures ..........................................................................................................................................................................vi
Tables ...........................................................................................................................................................................ix
Symbols ........................................................................................................................................................................xi
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................1
I. Design History and Overview of Final Design .....................................................................................................2
A. Initial Airframe Geometry ....................................................................................................................... 2
B. Fuselage ...................................................................................................................................................2
C. Wing ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
D. Fully-Flying Tail and Empennage ...........................................................................................................2
E. Attachment ...............................................................................................................................................3
F. Lighting ...................................................................................................................................................3
II. Concurrent Engineering ........................................................................................................................................4
A. Affinity Diagram .....................................................................................................................................4
B. Tree Diagrams .........................................................................................................................................4
C. Interrelationship Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 5
D. Prioritization Matrix ................................................................................................................................ 6
E. QFD Matrices ..........................................................................................................................................6
F. Activity Network .....................................................................................................................................8
III. Aerodynamics ...................................................................................................................................................9
A. Airfoil Selection.......................................................................................................................................9
B. Wing Design .......................................................................................................................................... 11
C. Fuselage ................................................................................................................................................. 12
D. Empennage ............................................................................................................................................ 13
E. Flaps....................................................................................................................................................... 14
F. Control Surface Sizing ........................................................................................................................... 14
G. Drag Build Up........................................................................................................................................ 16
H. AVL ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
I. CMARC Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 18
IV. Performance.................................................................................................................................................... 28
A. Mission Profiles ..................................................................................................................................... 28
B. Critical Speeds ....................................................................................................................................... 29
1. Stall and Approach Speeds ................................................................................................. 29
2. Maximum Speed ................................................................................................................. 29
3. Climb Speed ........................................................................................................................ 30

ii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 4. Cruise and Loiter Speeds .................................................................................................... 30
C. Take-off Performance ............................................................................................................................ 30
D. Landing Performance ............................................................................................................................. 31
E. Glide Slope ............................................................................................................................................ 32
F. Turn Performance .................................................................................................................................. 33
G. Cross Wind Performance and Limitations ............................................................................................. 37
H. Endurance and Range ............................................................................................................................ 37
I. Altitude Capabilities................................................................................................................................... 39
J. Launch Analysis and Further Analysis ...................................................................................................... 40
V. Propulsion ........................................................................................................................................................... 41
A. Motor Specifications .............................................................................................................................. 41
B. Motor-Propeller Matching ..................................................................................................................... 42
VI. Stability and Control....................................................................................................................................... 48
A. Static Stability ........................................................................................................................................ 48
B. Longitudinal Static Stability .................................................................................................................. 48
1. Directional Static Stability .................................................................................................. 49
2. Roll Static Stability ............................................................................................................. 49
C. Maneuver Point ...................................................................................................................................... 50
D. Trim ....................................................................................................................................................... 50
E. Dynamic Stability and Handling Qualities ............................................................................................ 51
1. Requirements for Level 1 Handling Qualities .................................................................... 51
2. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability .......................................................................................... 52
3. Lateral-Directional Dynamic Stability ................................................................................ 54
F. Control Surfaces .................................................................................................................................... 55
1. Longitudinal Control ........................................................................................................... 55
2. Lateral-Directional Control ................................................................................................. 56
3. Servo Selection ................................................................................................................... 57
4. Doublets (Simulink) ............................................................................................................ 58
G. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................ 60
VII. Structures ........................................................................................................................................................ 61
A. Load Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 61
B. Overall Structural Design ...................................................................................................................... 61
1. Internal Structures ............................................................................................................... 61
2. Skins .................................................................................................................................... 62
C. Distributed Aerodynamic Load Analysis ............................................................................................... 63
iii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 1. Wing Load Analysis in ANSYS ......................................................................................... 63
2. Wing Negative Load Analysis in ANSYS .......................................................................... 66
3. Horizontal Tail Loading Analysis ....................................................................................... 67
4. Vertical Tail Loading Analysis ........................................................................................... 68
D. Fuselage Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 69
1. Fuselage Landing Load Analysis ........................................................................................ 69
2. Fuselage Pull-Up Maneuver................................................................................................ 70
3. Fuselage Push-Over Maneuver ........................................................................................... 71
E. Tailboom Loading Analysis ................................................................................................................... 72
F. V-n Diagram .......................................................................................................................................... 73
G. Landing Analysis and Further Analysis ................................................................................................. 74
VIII. Risk Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................... 75
A. Risk Mitigation Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 75
1. Preliminary Hazard Design ................................................................................................. 75
2. System Block Tree .............................................................................................................. 76
B. Aerodynamics ........................................................................................................................................ 77
1. Goals and Methods.............................................................................................................. 77
2. Results ................................................................................................................................. 77
C. Performance ........................................................................................................................................... 77
1. Goals and Methods.............................................................................................................. 77
2. Results ................................................................................................................................. 78
D. Structures ............................................................................................................................................... 78
1. Goals and Methods.............................................................................................................. 78
2. Results ................................................................................................................................. 78
E. Stability and Control .............................................................................................................................. 79
1. Goals and Methods.............................................................................................................. 79
2. Results ................................................................................................................................. 79
IX. CAD-UG ........................................................................................................................................................ 80
1. Weight Buildup ................................................................................................................... 84
2. CG Location and Moments of Inertia ................................................................................. 86
B. CG Rig for Measurement of Correct CG Position and Moment of Inertias ........................................... 86
X. Manufacturing ..................................................................................................................................................... 91
A. Fuselage ................................................................................................................................................. 91
B. Inboard and Outboard Wing Segments .................................................................................................. 91

iv
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 1. Spar and Live Hinges .......................................................................................................... 91
2. Leading Edge ...................................................................................................................... 92
3. Vacuum Bagging Procedure ............................................................................................... 92
C. Vertical and Horizontal Tails ................................................................................................................. 92
D. Hinges and Control Surfaces ................................................................................................................. 92
E. Prefabricated Items ................................................................................................................................ 92
F. Bill of Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 92
XI. Budget and Customer Requirements .............................................................................................................. 94
A. Budget .................................................................................................................................................... 94
B. Summary of Customer Requirements Met............................................................................................. 95
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................................ 104
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................................ 129
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................................................ 137
Appendix F ................................................................................................................................................................ 140
Appendix G ............................................................................................................................................................... 142
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... 152
Honor Pledge ............................................................................................................................................................. 153
References ................................................................................................................................................................. 154

v
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figures
Figure 2.1. Lateral Stability and Control Tree Diagram ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.2. Interrelationship Diagrams .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.3. Prioritization Matrix ....................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2.4. Mission Specifications versus Aircraft Characteristics QFD ......................................................................7
Figure 2.5. Activity Network .........................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3.1. Airfoil Drag Polar, Lift and Moment Curves, and Separation Curve for NACA 4412 ............................... 9
Figure 3.2. Chord-wise Pressure Distribution of NACA 4412 Airfoil at Stall Conditions .......................................... 10
Figure 3.3. Chord-wise Pressure Distribution of NACA 4412 Airfoil at Stall Conditions .......................................... 10
Figure 3.4. Wing Geometry ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3.5. Fuselage Geometry .................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.6. Horizontal and Vertical Tail Geometry ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.7. Elevator Geometry .................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.8. Rudder Geometry ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.9. Aileron Geometry ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.10. Piolin Full CMARC Geometry ................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3.11. Piolin Wake Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.12. Pressure Distribution of Piolin at =0˚ ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.13. Pressure Distribution at =5˚ .................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3.14. Pressure Distribution at =5˚ .................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3.15. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Elevator Deflection ............................................................... 23
Figure 3.16. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Rudder Deflection ................................................................. 23
Figure 3.17. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Aileron Deflection ................................................................ 24
Figure 3.18. Pressure Distribution at Pitch Rate of 179.8 ˚/s (Cruise) ......................................................................... 25
Figure 3.19. Pressure Distribution at Yaw Rate of 179.8˚/s (Cruise) .......................................................................... 25
Figure 3.20. Pressure Distribution at Roll Rate of 129.4 ˚/s (Cruise) .......................................................................... 26
Figure 4.1. Rate of climb as a function of velocity ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.2. Illustration of Landing Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.3. Landing Distance for Varying Surface Types ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.4. Change in minimum turn radius with velocity .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.5. Change in maximum turn rate with velocity ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 4.6. Change in maximum pull-up radius with velocity .................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.7. Change in maximum pull-up rate with velocity ........................................................................................ 35
Figure 4.8. Change in maximum push-over radius with velocity ................................................................................ 36
Figure 4.9. Change in maximum push-over rate with velocity .................................................................................... 37

vi
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Figure 4.10. Changes in endurance with increasing altitude ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.11. Changes in range with increasing altitude ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.12. Change in Vstall with Density ................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.1. Motor Power Output vs Rotational Speed ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 5.2. Motor Efficiency vs Rotational Speed ...................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.6. PR and PA versus Airspeed ........................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 5.7. Thrust versus Airspeed .............................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 5.8. R/C versus Airspeed .................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 5.9. Endurance versus Airspeed ....................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.10. Range versus Airspeed ............................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 6.1. Longitudinal Elevator Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin ................................... 58
Figure 6.2. Lateral Rudder Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin .............................................. 59
Figure 6.3. Lateral Aileron Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin .............................................. 59
Figure 7.1. Fuselage Internals ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 7.2. Wing Intervals ........................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 7.3. Wing Loading Results at 7.8g ................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 7.4. Cross-sectional View of Wing Results at the Root ................................................................................... 65
Figure 7.5. Stress of Foam in Wing ............................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 7.6. ANSYS Results of Horizontal Tail ........................................................................................................... 68
Figure 7.7. ANSYS Results of Vertical Tail................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 7.8. Fuselage Stress during Landing Impact .................................................................................................... 70
Figure 7.9. Piolin Fuselage Minimum Turn Radius Maneuver Stresses ...................................................................... 71
Figure 7.10. Push-over Stress Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 7.11. Tailboom Stresses ................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 7.12. V-n Diagram for the Piolin UAV ............................................................................................................ 74
Figure 8.1. System Block Tree .................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 9.1. Box breakdown isometric .......................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 9.2. Box breakdown side view ......................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 9.3. Exploded view ........................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 9.4. Servo hatch and control horn on aileron .................................................................................................... 82
Figure 9.5. Under side of airframe ............................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 9.6. Left side internal structures ....................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 9.7. Servo and inboard win internal structures ................................................................................................. 83
Figure 9.8. Fuselage internal structures ....................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 9.9. CG Measurement Rig ................................................................................................................................ 87

vii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Figure 9.10. CG Rig Configured to Measure Longitudinal and Lateral CG, Izz ......................................................... 87
Figure 9.11. CG Rig Configured to Measure Vertical CG .......................................................................................... 88
Figure 9.12. CG Rig Configured to Measure I xx .......................................................................................................... 89
Figure 9.13. CG Rig Configured to Measure I yy .......................................................................................................... 90
Figure A.1. Longitudinal Stability and Control Tree Diagram .................................................................................... 96
Figure A.2. Directional Stability and Control Tree Diagram....................................................................................... 96
Figure A.3. Structures Tree Diagram........................................................................................................................... 97
Figure A.4. Aerodynamics Tree Diagram.................................................................................................................... 98
Figure A.5. Performance Tree Diagram ...................................................................................................................... 99
Figure A.6. Manufacturing Tree Diagram ................................................................................................................. 100
Figure A.7. Aircraft Specifications vs Aircraft Geometry QFD ................................................................................ 101
Figure A.8. Aircraft Geometry vs Manufacturing and Repair QFD .......................................................................... 102
Figure A.9. Manufacturing and Repair vs Cost QFD ................................................................................................ 103
Figure D.1. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Cruise ................................................................................... 137
Figure D.2. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Approach .............................................................................. 138
Figure D.3. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Approach with Ground Effect .............................................. 139
Figure G.1. Code Top Level ...................................................................................................................................... 147
Figure G.2. Force and Moment Calculations ............................................................................................................. 147
Figure G.3. X Force Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 148
Figure G.4. CXu Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 148
Figure G.5. Y Force Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 149
Figure G.6. Z Force Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 149
Figure G.7. CZu Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 150
Figure G.8. L Moment Calculations .......................................................................................................................... 150
Figure G.9. M Moment Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 151
Figure G.10. N Moment Calculations ........................................................................................................................ 151

viii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Tables
Table 3.1. Affinity Diagram ..........................................................................................................................................4
Table 3.1. Parasite Drag Buildup Method at Approach ............................................................................................... 17
Table 3.2: Force and Moment Coefficients at Cruise ................................................................................................. 22
Table 3.3: Force and Moment Coefficients at Approach ............................................................................................ 22
Table 3.4: Force and Moment Coefficients at Approach with Ground Effect ............................................................ 22
Table 3.5. Trim Cases for Each Flight Condition ........................................................................................................ 26
Table 4.1.Perkins Field Surveillance Mission Profile.................................................................................................. 28
Table 4.2. Perkins Field Reconnaissance Mission Profile ........................................................................................... 29
Table 4.3. Landing Data for Varying Surfaces ............................................................................................................ 32
Table 4.4. Glide Slope ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 5.1. Rimefire 42-40-800 Manufacturer Specs ................................................................................................... 41
Table 5.2. Silver Series 45 Manufacturer Spec ............................................................................................................ 41
Table 6.1. Longitudinal Static Stability Coefficients and Characteristics ................................................................... 49
Table 6.2. Directional Static Stability Coefficients ..................................................................................................... 49
Table 6.3. Longitudinal Static Stability Coefficients and Characteristics ................................................................... 50
Table 6.4. Trim Conditions for Normal Flight Regimes.............................................................................................. 51
Table 6.5. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Phugoid and Short Period Modes ......................................... 52
Table 6.6. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Spiral and Roll Modes .......................................................... 52
Table 6.7. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Dutch Roll Mode .................................................................. 52
Table 6.8. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability Derivatives .............................................................................................. 53
Table 1.9. Phugoid Mode ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 6.10. Short Period Mode .................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 6.11. Lateral Dynamic Stability Derivatives...................................................................................................... 54
Table 6.12. Rolling Mode ............................................................................................................................................ 54
Table 6.13. Spiral Mode .............................................................................................................................................. 55
Table 6.14. Dutch Roll Mode ...................................................................................................................................... 55

q
Table 1.15. Control Derivatives, , and Control Power for the Elevator .............................................................. 56
e
Table 6.16. Control Derivatives and Control Power for the Rudder............................................................................ 57
Table 6.17. Control Derivatives and Steady State Roll Rate for the Ailerons ............................................................. 57
Table 8.1. Hazard severity Descriptors ........................................................................................................................ 75
Table 8.2. Preliminary Hazard Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 76
Table 9.1. Piolin Weight Build-Up (Without Paint) .................................................................................................... 85
Table 9.2. Center of Gravity and Moment of Inertia ................................................................................................... 86
Table 10.1. Bill of Materials for Airframe Manufacturing .......................................................................................... 93
ix
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Table 11.1. Proposed Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 94

x
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Symbols
Amax Maximum area
AR Aspect ratio
a Lift-curve slope
ao 2-d lift curve slope
at Lift-curve slope for the horizontal stabilizer
b Wingspan
b1 Derivative of hinge moment coefficient with respect to angle of attach
b2 Derivative of hinge moment coefficient with respect to elevator deflection
Cbattery Battery capacity in mAh
CD,o Induced drag
CD,i Induced drag
CD,L&P Drag due to leakages and protuberances
CD, misc Miscellaneous drag
Cf Skin friction coefficient
Che Hinge moment coefficient
CL Wing lift coefficient
CL,max Maximum CL

C lr Roll moment coefficient due to yaw rate

CL,trim Lift coefficient at trim flight conditions

Lift-curve slope

Cl Coefficient of dihedral effect

Lift coefficient at zero angle of attack

Cl a Aileron control power

Cm Moment coefficient

Cm0 Pitching moment coefficient at zero angle of attack

Cma c Pitching moment coefficient about the aerodynamic center of the wing
w

Cmq Derivative of pitching moment coefficient due to pitch rate

Moment-curve slope

Cm e Pitching moment coefficient per degree elevator deflection

xi
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Cnp Yaw moment coefficient due to rolling rate

Cnr Yawing moment coefficient from rudder deflection/Side force due to yawing rate

Yawing moment coefficient from aileron deflection

Cn Contribution of vertical stabilizer to directional stability

Cn r Yawing moment coefficient per degree rudder deflection

Cp Power coefficient
Ct Thrust coefficient

Cy Side force coefficient due to sideslip

Cy p Side force coefficient due to rolling rate

C yr Side force coefficient due to yaw rate

Cz  Derivative of change in lift due to time rate of change of angle of attack

Czq Derivative of change in lift force due to pitch rate

CG Aircraft center of gravity

Mean chord length
D Drag force/Propeller diameter (Sections 4, 5 Only)

d
Elevator control power
d e

d
Rudder control power
d r

d
Rate of change of downwash angle with angle of attack
d
E Endurance
e Oswald efficiency factor
FF Form factor
f Ordinate of the ideal distribution curve
G Glide distance
g Acceleration due to gravity
He Elevator hinge moment
h Center of gravity location as a fraction of the mean chord length/height upon beginning glide
(Section 4,5 Only)

xii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
hflare flare height
hm Stick-fixed maneuver point as a fraction of the mean chord length
hn Neutral point as a fraction of the mean chord length
hobstacle Obstacle clearance for landing
Ixx Mass moment of inertia about the x-axis
Iyy Mass moment of inertia about the y-axis
Izz Mass moment of inertia about the z-axis
it Inclination angle
J Advance ratio
Kg Gust alleviation factor
Kn Static margin
L Lift force
Laircraft Distance from the point of oscillation to the aircraft CG
Lrig Distance of the rig CG to the point of rotation
Ltotal Distance from the point of rotation to the UAV and rig combination CG
l Reference length
lt Reference length from the center of gravity to the horizontal stabilizer’s mean aerodynamic center

t Reference length from the wings’ aerodynamic center

lV Vertical tail length
M Mach number
m Section lift coefficient/mass (Section 6 only)
Average of section lift coefficient
N1/2 Number of cycles required to half amplitude
n Load factor
nmax Positive maximum load factor
nrotation Motor rotational speed
P Period of oscillation
PA Power available
Pinput Power input
Pinput,propeller Power input to the propeller
Poutput Power output
Poutput,motor Power output of the motor
PR Power required
PR,battery power required from battery
xiii
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Pss Steady state roll rate
Q Interference factor
q Dynamics pressure
R Range
R/C Rate of climb
Re Reynolds number
r Turn radius
rflare Flare radius
S Reference area
Sapproach Approach distance
Sflare flare distance
Sref Reference area
ST Horizontal tail area
SV Vertical tail area
Swet Wetted area
Trig Period of the CG rig oscillation
Ttotal Period of oscillation for the CG rig and aircraft combination
t1/2 Time required to half amplitude
t
/c Airfoil thickness ratio
u Fuselage upsweep angle/velocity (Section 6 only)
uo Reference flight velocity
V Velocity
Va Corner speed
Vapproach Approach velocity
Vbattery Battery velocity
Vclimb Climb velocity
Vcruise Cruise velocity
Vflare Flare velocity

H Horizontal tail volume ratio

Vloiter Loiter velocity
Vmax Maximum velocity
Vstall Stall velocity
VV Vertical tail volume ratio
V∞ Free-stream velocity
xiv
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
W Aircraft weight
Waircraft UAV weight
Wrig Weight of the CG rig
Wtotal Weight of CG rig and aircraft
Xac Distance to the aerodynamic center from the leading edge of the wing
Xcg Distance to the center of gravity from the leading edge of the wing
XNP Distance to the neutral point from the leading edge of the wing
y Non-dimensional span-wise ordinate

α Angle of attack

β Sideslip

effective Effective wing dihedral angle

physical Physical wing dihedral angle

γapproach approach angle

q
Change in pitch rate per change in elevator
e

δa Aileron deflection
δe Elevator deflection
δr Rudder deflection
εo Downwash at zero angle of attack
ζ Damping ratio
η Dynamic pressure ratio/Real root (Eigen value applications only)
ηmotor Motor efficiency
ηpropeller Propeller efficiency
ηv Stabilizer efficiency factor
θ Glide angle/Final elevation (Section 6 Only)
Λm Sweep angle of maximum thickness line

Eigen values
μ Viscosity/Aircraft mass ratio (Section 6 Only)
ρ Air density
Free-stream air density
Time constant
φ Bank angle (roll angle)
ψ Final azimuth (yaw angle)

xv
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
ω Turn rate/Imaginary root (Section 6 Only)
ωn Natural frequency
ωn(Factored) Natural frequency divided by 5

xvi
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Introduction
The Piolin is designed to be a lightweight surveillance UAV. The customer requirements for this aircraft request
that the engine be electric powered and able to sustain flight for at least 15 minutes off of a 5400mA 3 cell LiPo
battery. This aircraft must be autopilot capable and contain an Eagle Eye video surveillance system. Size
restrictions on the Piolin require it to fit inside of a box 1.5ft3 in volume and weigh no more than 10lbs, including
the weight of the box. To allow the pilot to operate after nightfall, the aircraft must utilize navigational lighting but
maintain a low visual and audible profile.
The aircraft will operate below 2000ft from the launching point and be mission ready within 5 minutes of
receiving a flight order. Some missions may occur in populated areas, so risks and performance involved in these
types of sorties should be considered. The Piolin is designed to address all of these customer requirements.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 I. Design History and Overview of Final Design
The Piolin was designed to satisfy all customer requirements in a manner that would be easy to manufacture and
be cost effective for the buyer. Because of the endurance requirements given for the aircraft, gliders and high-
gliding aircraft were used as inspiration during design. A high mounted wing was selected to achieve induced
dihedral to aid in lateral stability.

A. Initial Airframe Geometry

To aid in the simplicity of design a basic geometry with as few moving parts was selected. The fuselage would
be composed of an egg-shaped pod that would house all avionic. The aft portion of the aircraft’s body would be
composed of a single carbon fiber rod. The tail empennage would consist of a vertical and a low mounted fully-
flying tail. The fully-flying tail would eliminate the manufacturing of small wing surfaces and aid in the speedy
assembly of the aircraft. The effective dihedral from the high mounted wing was initially assumed to be sufficient.
Later calculations would show this assumption to be false causing dihedral to be added to the main wing.

B. Fuselage
The initial pod-like fuselage was revised due to issues with the center of gravity and spacing issues with the
avionics. In order to fit all avionics and servos in the fuselage with enough room to shift the internals for improved
stability, the fuselage was lengthened. To improve aerodynamics and reduce the drag, a cowl was added to the
forward section. To prevent unwanted back pressure behind the fuselage, a slope was added between the fuselage
and the carbon fiber tailboom. Hatches were added on the port faces of the fuselage as well as under the mounting
section of the main wing. To increase the structural integrity of the fuselage, a firewall was added behind the engine
as well as bulkheads fore and aft of the main wing. An additional bulkhead was added towards the aft section of the
fuselage to help stabilize the connection between the fuselage and tail boom.

C. Wing
The main wing is composed of a NACA4412 design throughout its span. A NACA 2412 because of its standard
shape and ease of manufacturing. However, after some computation, a NACA4412 was found to have the best lift-
curve slope for the Piolin’s application. The wing was initially, and finally, divided into three sections to make it
easy to disassembled and reassembled in the mission field. A wing taper ratio of 0.72, with a root chord of 6.25in,
was then selected for each outboard section of the wing while maintaining a constant chord length on the inboard
section.
When applying dihedral, the team initially decided to place polyhedral on the outboard sections of the wing, but
this caused a structural discontinuity between the inboard and outboard sections. In order to accomplish a strong
structure around the connections between inboard and outboard sections, the attachment method would have to be
complex and built-up enough to withstand forces concentrating at the polyhedral joints. Because of this design
complexity, and while keeping true to the customer requirement for an easy to manufacture design, dihedral was
accomplished by applying dihedral angles at the midpoint of the wing. Even though the midpoint of a wing
experiences concentrated forces, the process to reinforce this region proved easier then reinforcing a polyhedral
configuration.

D. Fully-Flying Tail and Empennage

The fully-flying tail presented a large number of stability issues. Initial problems involving control powers were
solved by mounting the horizontal tail around the airfoil’s aerodynamic center. However, the size horizontal tail that
provided for good aerodynamic characteristics also created unacceptable stability characteristics and control powers.
The empennage configuration began to shift from a fully-flying tail to a standard low mounted tail with an elevator
control surface. This configuration allowed the design to maintain its previously desired planform area while
allowing for more control over the stability characteristics. Stability and control characteristics, unlike with the full-

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
flying tail, could be changed by manipulating the size of the control surface without undesirably changing the tail
planform area.
The sizing of the vertical tail also proved to be problematic. With the size restrictions on the aircraft due to the
packaging requirements, the vertical tail would be required to detach from the rest of the empennage and be attached
at a later time before flight. Some stability characteristics, such as the Dutch roll, were improved by adding sweep
to the leading and trailing edges of the vertical tail. By adding sweep, the mean aerodynamic chord of the vertical
tail moves back. After making this change, the Dutch roll fell within acceptable levels.

E. Attachment
Methods of attachment of the wing and empennage were considered once a final geometric design was settled
on. Attachment was first considered by utilizing a system of nylon bolts and hard points. However, this method of
attachment involved loose hardware as well as the inclusion of tools. The extra hardware implies extra time
consumed in the field and extra weight that must be included when packaging the aircraft. These two items work
against the 5 minute prep time and the 10lb weight maximum the customer requested. Therefore, in the design of
the high wing and empennage, the only items necessitating assembly given our packaging constraints, were
simplified. The high wing attached with a hook system that is bolted down using two nylon bolt. The empennage
was designed to slide onto the boom and held in place using a nylon bolt. The outboard and inboard wing segments
were designed to attach using sleeves around the joiner rods and a clipping mechanism. This was the final
attachment configuration for the Piolin UAV.

F. Lighting
Because of the endurance requirement on the electrically powered system, LEDs were initially considered as a
lighting source. LEDs provide low voltage draws that range between 20mA to 50mA for LEDs with more than
8,000mcd of intensity. Since 1 candela can be seen for up to 3.5 miles at night, and since lighting on the Piolin
would most likely be used for approach and landing at during night operations which amounts to no more than 3.5
miles, an intensity of only 1000mcd is necessary. Originally, a lighting system, prefabricated from a manufacturer,
was considered because of its simplicity and the speed at which it could be installed in the aircraft, saving valuable
time on manufacturing. The directionality of the LEDs proved to be a problem. In order to dissipate the light in all
directions, manufacturing a cover was considered. This cover would be made of an opaque material that would
disperse the light throughout its skin. Based on the availability of such plastics and other materials, and the
complexity of manufacturing such a cap, this idea was abandoned in return for a design that involved utilizing
multiple LEDs on each wingtip.
After considering several combinations of LEDs, the most efficient design, while giving the Piolin navigational
lighting from all angles, was to use 4 oval LEDs of 50o and 110o directionality oriented 90o from each other in a
circular pattern against the exterior of the wingtips and one surface mounted LED with 120 o directionality mounted
in the center of the LED pattern. This design would ensure that each wingtip would offer at least a hemisphere of
light, allowing its orientation to be viewable from all angles. A strobe LED of 20,000mcd will be oriented in the
fuselage aimed towards the tail in order to illuminate the entire tail rather than attempting to make a single LED
omnidirectional.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 II. Concurrent Engineering
Concurrent engineering, or CE, is a phrase used to describe a method of approach for a given design. CE is
expressed in a system of diagrams and charts that help to organize conceptual design thoughts into a logical
progression of priorities and connections that lead to the adoption of a given design. These charts and diagrams can
be found in appendix A.

A. Affinity Diagram
The affinity diagram exists to establish the initial relationships between main design ideas and specific design
characteristics. For Team Piolin, these diagrams allowed all team members to contribute towards the design process
as a whole. The areas that most dictated the final design of the Piolin were aerodynamics, stability and control,
performance, structures, CAD-UG, risk mitigation, procurement, and the customer requirements. The items that
were found to be subsets of these broad categories can be found in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1. Affinity Diagram
Aerodynamics Stability and Control Performance Structures
Stall Speed CG Location Endurance/Range Materials
Lift/Drag Neutral Point Glide Slope Weight
Airfoil Shape Static Margin Weight Wing Config
Aspect Ratio Control Power Launching System Tail Config
Wing Planform Actuators Lighting Propulsion Config
Wing Config Control Surfaces SFC Landing Config
Winglets Flaps/Flaperons Rate of Climb Load Requirements
Wing Loadings Hinge Moments Service Ceiling Hatch Locations
Tail Config Take-off/Landing Roll Mounting Locations
Dihedral Preparation Time Safety Factor
CAD-UG Risk Mitigation Procurement Customer Requirements
Expertise Hazard Analysis Cost Size Restrictions
Complex Internal Networking Timeline Preparation Time
Geometry
Research Discounted/Donated Materials Payload
Storage Boxes
Experimentation Availability Flight Duration
Lights
Service Ceiling
Low Visual/Acoustic Signature
Costs
Build 2 Copies

From the affinity diagram, it became apparent that even though every team member had their own
responsibilities, some members have heavier workloads than others, showing that some shared responsibility would
need to be exercised.

B. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams expand the key design specializations expressed in the affinity diagram. These trees help to break
down different categories of design into smaller, more specific subjects. In some instances, more than one diagram

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
is needed to accurately describe a category, such as stability and control which can be broken into longitudinal,
lateral, and directional subsections. An example of a tree diagram can be found in Fig. 3.1.
Diehedral
Positive
effect Γ
Xcp
Vertical
Tail
Size
CG
Stability
Negative Low Wing

Roll

Prop Wash
Lateral Dutch
Roll
Effectiveness
Power Cl delta e

Aileron
Geometry

Size
Wing
Control Cm
Placement

CL CL max
Flap
Size Geometry

Requirements

Figure 2.1. Lateral Stability and Control Tree Diagram

The remainder of the tree diagrams utilized for concurrent engineering can be found in Fig. A.5 through Fig. A.6
of appendix A.

C. Interrelationship Diagram
The interrelationship diagram establishes the flow of information and ideas from one area of the design to the
other. The customer requirements dictate mission specifications, serving as a starting point for the design flow.
These mission-critical requirements are then read into each area of design specialization. Key design parameters
flow from one area of specialization to another, modifying iteratively between design areas before finally arriving at
a final design. Figure 3.2 models the interrelationship diagram for Team Piolin.

Figure 2.2. Interrelationship Diagrams

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
D. Prioritization Matrix
The prioritization matrix is a visual tool used to help determine the characteristics that are the most critical to
design given the customer requirements and mission profile. This matrix can be used as a reference when
conflicting design priorities arise. The prioritization matrix for the Piolin shows that the most important aspects of
design, given our customer requirements, are vehicle weight and wing configuration. Both these parameters allow
for an aircraft with a high glide time and low power consumption, qualities which make for effective reconnaissance
and surveillance capabilities. Figure 3.3 shows Team Piolin’s prioritization matrix.

Figure 2.3. Prioritization Matrix

E. QFD Matrices
The purpose of a Quality Function Deployment, or QFD, diagram is to determine the effects of one area of
design on another. These relationships help determine what characteristics should be minimized to increase positive
relations and decreased to minimize negative repercussions on the overall design. The QFD is composed of layers
that relate two different main ideas. The areas of design considered are subsets within these two main categories.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
The comparisons made for the Piolin are mission specifications versus aircraft characteristics, aircraft characteristics
versus aircraft geometry, aircraft geometry versus manufacturing and repair, and manufacturing and repair versus
cost. These design topics follow a logical progression that relates the customer requirements, which drive the
mission specifications, to the overall design and the feasibility of production. This progression leads to design cost
which will determine if a customer chooses to adopt an aircraft design for production. The QFD diagram for
mission specifications versus aircraft characteristics can be found in Fig. 3.4.

Figure 2.4. Mission Specifications versus Aircraft Characteristics QFD

The remaining QFD diagrams can be found in Fig. A.7, Fig. A.8, and Fig. A.9.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Special items of note in the QFD can be found in weight and wing configuration in Fig. A.8 and Fig. A.9. As
noted in the prioritization matrix, these two areas are of upmost concern to the overall design. The QFD matrices
help to shed more light on how these two issues should be dealt with. The weight, being broken down into payload
and structural areas, has generally negative effects on the overall mission specifications, however a maximization of
payload weight should be observed with respect to the total weight. The wing configuration positively drives the
most specifications of the aircraft characteristics except drag and thrust, which is expected due to drag-lift coupling.
However, despite these negative effects, the positive response of a well designed wing-tail configuration in the areas
of cruise, stall, and landing speed as well as the control characteristics implies that the Piolin’s design should be very
“wing-configuration” driven rather than being driven by other aircraft characteristics or geometry.

F. Activity Network
The activity network serves as a timeline of events or work schedule for Team Piolin. It establishes when the
group began working on various elements of the aircraft and concluded previous elements. For a design to be
developed to a level of excellence, it is imperative that the design group maintain close adherence to the activity
network. The activity network included buffer areas that allow for some flex in the schedule. As unforeseen
complications arise, the schedule should be flexible enough to allow team members to catch up with work that has
been delayed, but still rigid enough to drive a successful and ambitious design. The activity network can be found in
Fig. A.14.

Sep 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008 Dec 2008

ID Task Name
8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21

1 PDR Preparation 4w 1d 9/30/2008

2 Concurrent Engineering 2w 5d 9/20/2008

3 Initial Geometric Design 3d 9/7/2008

4 Revision of Geometric Design 1w 10/7/2008

5 Aerodynamic Analysis 12w 3d 11/30/2008

6 Stability and Control Analysis 12w 2d 11/30/2008

7 Structures Analsysi 12w 2d 11/30/2008

8 CAD/SolidWorks Modelling 12w 3d 11/30/2008

9 Wing Geometry 1w 6d 9/21/2008

10 Initial Fuselage Geometry 1w 6d 9/21/2008

11 Initial Empennage Geometry 2w 3d 9/30/2008

12 Revised Fuselage Geometry 2w 10/14/2008

13 Revised Empennage Geometry 4w 10/28/2008

14 Attachment Methods 4w 3d 11/27/2008

15 Lighting 1w 4d 11/30/2008

16 CDR Preparation 8w 5d 11/30/2008

Critical Design Review

Preliminary Design Review
(1 Dec 08)
30 Sept 08

Figure 2.5. Activity Network

Items in red denote items begun before completion of the PDR while green items represent more details aspects
of design that necessitate more thought then the PDR necessitates. The aerodynamic, stability and control,
structural, and CAD work continued since initial geometric design until completion of the CDR, as expected. After
the PDR, several revisions of fuselage geometry and empennage geometry had to take place to ensure a stable
design.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 III. Aerodynamics
Aerodynamic considerations formed a large portion of the basis of the aircraft design. To fit the customer
specified mission profile, a high range and endurance was desirable. Thus reducing drag as much as possible was a
significant goal in the design process. Also, in order to increase the ease of preparation and launch in the field, this
aircraft was designed to be hand-launched, as well as to be able to belly land in various environments. These factors
necessitated a low stall speed so that it could simply be thrown and climb out and so that it could land softly and
minimize damage to the airframe. These factors have guided the design process and the selection of airfoil, wing
and tail configuration, and fuselage geometry.

A. Airfoil Selection
Considering the mission profile, the factors that were considered to have the greatest relationship with
aerodynamics were the cruise speed needed to achieve desired range and endurance, stall speed to decrease launch
and landing speeds, and a high lift-to-drag ratio. Also, because the aircraft is designed for reconnaissance and is
driven by an electric motor, it will be operating at relatively low speeds, and thus low Reynolds numbers. Reynolds
number is given by the Eq. 3.11.

V l
Re (3.1)

Therefore, an airfoil designed for low Reynolds numbers and having some camber was desired. After
considering a number of airfoils, a NACA 4412 airfoil was chosen because it has a substantial camber, high lift to
drag ratio, and is fairly simple to manufacture and join to the fuselage. The airfoil was analyzed using Xfoil and the
lift curve slope and drag polars, shown in Fig. 3.1, corresponded to the mission requirements. From the figure it can
be observed that the airfoil stalls at approximately 9 degrees angle of attack with a maximum lift coefficient of just
under 1.4. The solid curve represents the cruise condition, while the dashed curve represents the stall condition.
The pressure distribution over the airfoil was also analyzed for stall and cruise conditions using Xfoil. The results of
this analysis are shown in Fig. 3.2 and Fig. 3.3, respectively.

Figure 3.1. Airfoil Drag Polar, Lift and Moment Curves, and Separation Curve for NACA 4412

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.2. Chord-wise Pressure Distribution of NACA 4412 Airfoil at Stall Conditions

Figure 3.3. Chord-wise Pressure Distribution of NACA 4412 Airfoil at Stall Conditions

For the horizontal tail, a NACA 0006 airfoil was selected for its lightweight and thin design, and a NACA 0012
airfoil was selected for the vertical tail.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
B. Wing Design
Because of the customer requirement that this aircraft be able to fit into a box with a volume of 1.5 cubic feet,
the wing had to be designed to break into different sections and detachable from the fuselage. Because of this, it
was determined that a high-wing configuration would allow for increased simplicity in assembly and preparation
time. In order to achieve a higher lift to drag ratio, it was determined that a wing with a high aspect ratio would be
most effective. Induced drag is given by Eq. 3.22 and is inversely proportional to aspect ratio.

C L2
C D ,i (3.2)
eAR
Therefore, a higher aspect ratio will reduce the drag produced by lift. Aspect ratio is given by Eq. 3.33:

b2
AR (3.3)
S
Research into other gliding and high range, high endurance aircraft gave a typical range of approximately 12-18
for aspect ratio. Considering the size restrictions on the aircraft, it was determined that 6 feet was the largest
wingspan that could be achieved and still fit into a box with the other components. The wing is broken up into 3
detachable pieces, 2 feet each, which allows it to fit into the specified volume. Also, in order to further increase the
lift to drag ratio, the lift distribution over the wing was made more elliptical by adding a reverse taper to the
outboard section of the wings. The wing has a tip chord of 6.25 inches (constant along inboard section) and a tip
chord of 4.5 inches. This gives it a mean aerodynamic chord of 5.73 inches and an area of 2.833 square feet, and
thus an aspect ratio of 12.7. The main wing also has 3.5 degrees of physical dihedral, which, combined with the
induced dihedral provided by the high wing configuration, gives an effective dihedral of approximately 6 degrees.
The wing geometry can be seen in Fig. 3.4.

Figure 3.4. Wing Geometry

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Using a theoretical 2-dimensional lift curve slope of 2π per radian for the airfoil, the wing lift curve slope can be
approximated using equation 3.44:

a0 (3.4)
a
1 57.3a0 /( eAR)
Where e is given by equation 3.55.
(3.5)
e 1.78 1 0.045 AR 0.68 0.64

This gives an initial lift curve slope of the wing of 5.13 per radian.

C. Fuselage
The fuselage is an integral part of the design for any aircraft. For this design, it had to be sufficiently sized to
contain the motor, speed controller, battery, autopilot system, camera, servos, and other miscellaneous components.
However, because the fuselage is the highest contributor of parasite drag to an aircraft, it is desirable to make it as
small and aerodynamic as possible. For this aircraft, the landing method also had to be taken into consideration in
the fuselage design. Because a belly landing will be implemented, the fuselage was designed so that the bottom was
somewhat flat to reduce the chance of it tipping sideways and damaging wingtips. Also, the propeller was placed
above the center of the fuselage in order to reduce the amount of contact the propeller had with the ground upon
landing. Also, an inlet was placed on the underside of nose, with an outlet at the aft hatch to provide cooling for the
battery and speed controller. The fuselage has a cross-sectional diameter of 4 inches and a length of 24 inches and
can be seen in Fig. 3.5.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.5. Fuselage Geometry

D. Empennage
Because of the lightweight requirements for this aircraft, the fuselage does not extend all the way to the
empennage. Instead, it sweeps up and attaches to a carbon fiber tail boom. The entire tail configuration is designed

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
to detach from the boom and fit into the box. For the sake of simplicity in manufacturing, a single boom was used
and a traditional tail configuration was implemented for ease of attachment. Sizing of the empennage was initially
determined using empirical values6 for vertical and horizontal tail volume ratios of aircraft with similar
characteristics and specifications to Piolin. The vertical and horizontal tail volume ratios are given by Eq. 3.67 and
Eq. 3.77, respectively.

lv S v
VV (3.6)
Sb
lt S t
VH (3.7)
Sc
Based on the empirical data, the vertical tail volume ratio was determined to be 0.037 and the horizontal tail ratio
was determined to be 0.53. Next, lt and lv were selected in order to achieve a static margin of approximately 20%.
Finally, Eq. 3.6 and Eq. 3.7 could be solved for the respective tail areas. Initially the horizontal tail was given a
chord of 4 inches and a span of 12 inches. The vertical tail was initially sized to have a 7 inch root chord, 4 inch tip
chord, and a height of 7 inches. AVL and CMARC analysis was done using these approximations initially, and
modified by iteratively determining the values that allow the aircraft to maintain proper flight stability (see section 6
for stability mode analysis). The horizontal tail has a constant chord of 4 inches and a span of 13 inches. Because a
symmetric airfoil was chosen for the horizontal tail, it was found that to achieve proper damping a 2 degree
downward incidence was necessary. The vertical tail is tapered from a 6.5 inch root chord to a 3.5 inch tip chord
with a height of 7 inches and is swept back 6 inches. The empennage configuration provides a static margin of
approximately 18% and its geometry can be seen in Fig. 3.6.

Figure 3.6. Horizontal and Vertical Tail Geometry

E. Flaps
During preliminary design analysis, flaps were included as a means to increase maximum lift during launch and
approach. However, upon further analysis in AVL, it was found that the addition of flaps increased the lift, but that
overall, the mission profile could be achieved without them. Therefore, the decision was made to omit flaps from
the design for the sake of simplicity in manufacturing and cost efficiency.

F. Control Surface Sizing

The elevators for the aircraft were initially sized to a span of 11.5 inches with 20% chord. However, as the tail
was decreased to improve longitudinal handling, it was also found using CMARC that this elevator area provide an

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
excessively high control power. Therefore, the elevator was reduced to a 6.5 inch span in the center of the
horizontal tail with 20% chord length, which gives the desired control power. The geometry of the elevator is
shown in Fig. 3.7.

Figure 3.7. Elevator Geometry

The rudder was initially sized at a constant chord, when the vertical tail was not swept in the rear. However, as
the vertical tail was swept back to increase its area, the rudder became tapered and spanned 31.7% chord on the
entire height of the vertical tail. This was the size that, from CMARC analysis, yielded the appropriate control
power. Figure 3.8 shows the rudder geometry.

Figure 3.8. Rudder Geometry

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 The ailerons were initially sized using empirical data of other aircraft similar to Piolin 8. Empirical data asserts
that approximately 50% span should be used for ailerons. Based on this, the ailerons were initially sized to 18 inch
span on the outboard section of the wing with 20% chord. However, this was not sufficient to obtain the desired roll
rate of 1 revolution per second. Using CMARC, the ailerons were increased until they provided the necessary
control power. The Piolin’s ailerons span the entire outboard section of each wing, giving them a span of 2 feet
each, and are 25% chord length. The aileron placement and geometry are shown in Fig. 3.9.

Figure 3.9. Aileron Geometry

G. Drag Build Up
In order to calculate the parasite drag on the entire aircraft, the Component Build-Up method, illustrated by
Raymer9 was implemented. In this method, the parasite drag for each component on the aircraft is calculated
separately, using an approximation for skin friction, separation drag, interference, and the wetted area of each
component. The total parasite drag given by this method is calculated using Eq. 3.810.

C fc FFc Qc S wet ,c
C D,0 C D ,misc C D , L& P (3.8)
S ref
In this equation, CD, misc accounts for drag due mostly to landing gear, and is therefore neglected for this aircraft,
and CD,L&P accounts for drag due to any leaks and protuberances, which approximated as 12% of the total parasite
drag of the rest of the aircraft. The skin friction coefficient is based on the Reynolds number and Mach number and
is different for laminar flow and turbulent flow. In order to get a somewhat conservative estimate of parasite drag,
the flow was assumed to be entirely turbulent, and the skin friction was calculated using Eq. 3.911.

0.455
Cf 2.58 0.65
(3.9)
log 10 Re 1 0.144M 2
The FF in the parasite drag equation represents a value called the form factor of each component of the aircraft.
For a wing or tail, the form factor is given by Eq. 3.1012.
4
0.6 t t 0.28
FF 1 100 1.34M 0.18 cos m (3.10)
x/c m c c

Where (x/c)m is the chord-wise location of the maximum thickness point and m is the sweep angle of the
maximum thickness line. For a fuselage or smooth canopy, the form factor is shown in Eq. 3.1113.

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 60 f
FF 1 (3.11)
f3 400
Where f is given by Eq. 3.1214.

l l
f (3.12)
d 4/ Amax
Q is the interference factor, which accounts for drag produced by the interaction of components. For high wing
and fuselage, the interference factor is negligible and therefore goes to 1, while for a conventional tail Q is
approximately 1.04-1.0515. The upsweep where the fuselage meets the tail boom causes an extra factor of drag,
which must be accounted for separately. This factor is given in terms of a drag to dynamic pressure ratio in Eq.
3.1316.

D/ q upsweep 3.83u 2.5 Amax (3.13)

The value u is the upsweep angle in radians of the section where the fuselage joins to the tail boom. This can be
converted to non-dimensional coefficient form and added in to the component drag. The total parasite drag buildup
can be seen in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Parasite Drag Buildup Method at Approach
Generic Values
2.38E-
03
3.74E-
a (ft/s) 07
1116.2
V (ft/s) 89
45
M 0.04
Wing (Inboard) Wing (Outboard) Horizontal Tail
Q 1 Q 1 Q 1.05
Re 1.49E Re 1.28E+05 Re 9.54E+04
Swet (ft2) +05
2.14 Swet (ft2) 3.60 Swet (ft2) 0.73
Cf 6.55E Cf 6.77E-03 Cf 7.23E-03
FF -03
1.03 FF 1.02 FF 0.92
CfFFQSwet 1.32E CfFFQSwet 2.28E-02 CfFFQSwet 4.67E-03
Vertical Tail -02 Fuselage Boom
Q 1.05 Q 1 Q 1
Re 1.43E Re 6.03E+ Re 3.26E+05
Swet (ft2) +06 Swet (ft2)
0.48 05 Swet (ft2)
1.41 0.24
Cf 4.18E Cf 4.92E- Cf 5.56E-03
FF -03 FF
0.99 03 FF
1.29 1.05
CfFFQSwet 1.92E CfFFQSwet 8.30E- CfFFQSwet 0.001298
Upsweep -03 03 Σ(CfcFFcQcSwet,c)/Sref 1.84E-02
u 0.261 CD,0 Misc = 4.52E-03
D/q 0.013 CD,0 L&P 2.21E-03
CfFFQSwet 4.52E CD,0 0.0251
-03
H. AVL
AVL is a vortex lattice code that models the lifting surfaces of an aircraft as flat plates and uses vortex sheets to
model the behavior of the aircraft. During the early stages of design AVL was used to obtain preliminary analysis of
control surfaces, wing loading, and stability mode analysis. It was also used as a backup and comparison during the
process of getting the CMARC model completed and working properly. During the earlier design phases before
CMARC construction began, AVL was used to size the control surfaces and determine any changes necessary to the
lifting surfaces. The limiting factor in AVL is the fact that it only evaluates lifting surfaces and only as flat plates.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Thus, it cannot accurately analyze the effects of sideslip and any lift or drag contributed by the addition of the
fuselage.

I. CMARC Analysis
Because AVL is not suitable to analyze the behavior of the entire aircraft, CMARC is used for a more detailed
analysis. CMARC is a program that analyzes the inviscid flow across the entire aircraft geometry. From this
analysis, pressure and moment coefficients are obtained for different flight conditions and can be used to find the
stability and control characteristics of the aircraft. A large factor in the difficulty of using CMARC is the fact that
each patch must be defined such that the panels are fairly square and even and care must be taken that there are no
breaks between patches. Any discrepancy or discontinuity between patches leads to inaccurate data. By defining a
set of panels, a model of the aircraft’s geometry is constructed to be analyzed. In constructing the panel model for
Piolin, exceptional difficulty was experienced in attempting to stitch the wake from the top of the fuselage off of the
wing to the bottom of the horizontal tail. Though it has a traditional tail configuration, the horizontal tail of the
aircraft is mounted to the bottom of the tail boom, which requires that the wake be stitched around the boom and
under the tail. Because of time limitations and the need for data from CMARC, the tail boom was omitted and
instead a tail-cone was created at the back of the fuselage. Since it is only a small area that is lost, there will not be a
significant effect in the moments, lift, or drag given by the analysis. The model of the Piolin is shown in Fig. 3.10.

Figure 3.10. Piolin Full CMARC Geometry

Once this model is complete and without discontinuities, a wake must be stitched onto every lifting surface and
any surface that proceeds aft from the wing or tails. Specific care must be taken to ensure that none of the wakes
intersect any of the surfaces, and that the wake propagates in a manner that is similar to during flight (i.e. as straight
back as possible). The wake geometry is shown in Fig. 3.11.

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.11. Piolin Wake Definitions

Once the geometry and the wakes are defined, CMARC calculates local velocities and pressures for each panel,
and its relationship to its neighboring panel. Through this method, an analysis of the pressures and moments for the
entire aircraft in the flow conditions specified can be obtained and used for stability and control, as well as structures
analysis. Figure 3.12 displays the pressure distribution over the aircraft at cruise speed, and Fig. 3.13 and Fig. 3.14
display the pressure distributions at an angle of attack and in sideslip, respectively. Code for this CMARC model
can be found in Appendix B.

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.12. Pressure Distribution of Piolin at =0˚

20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.13. Pressure Distribution at =5˚

Figure 3.14. Pressure Distribution at =5˚

21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 The model was run at several different flight conditions and the pressure and moment coefficients at each were
tabulated and from these values a finite difference method was used to calculate stability derivatives and control
powers. These values could then be used to calculate the stability characteristics of the aircraft. CMARC also was
used to ensure a static margin between approximately 15 and 20%. Performing iterations of CMARC runs to
determine the proper placement of the center of gravity indicated that at 1.76 inches behind the leading edge of the
wing (11.76 inches from the tip of the nose) the static margin was approximately 18%. Also from these runs, it was
found that CL is approximately 5.84 per degree and Cm is approximately -1.05 per radian. Because the data from
CMARC is based on the individual aircraft’s geometry and characteristics, these values are more reliable than the
initial approximations made from airfoil data. The aerodynamic coefficients found for cruise, approach, and
approach at ground effect are listed in Table 3.2, Table 3.3, and Table 3.4, respectively.
Table 3.2: Force and Moment Coefficients at Cruise
CL CD CY Cm Cn Cl
Baseline 0.3375 0.0286 0 0.0219 0 0
= 5˚ 0.8485 0.0431 0 -0.0702 0 0
= -2˚ 0.1321 0.0267 0 0.0524 0
= 5˚ 0.3327 0.0303 -0.0239 0.0326 -0.0065 0.0075
Elevator: e = -5˚ 0.3211 0.0292 0 0.1014 0 0
Rudder: r = 5˚ 0.3374 0.0289 -0.0141 0.0219 -0.0063 0.0007
Aileron: a = 5˚ 0.3367 0.0302 0.0075 0.0223 0.0003 -0.0459
θ dot = 179.8 ˚/s 0.4378 0.0298 0 -0.2206 0 0
ψ dot = 179.8 ˚/s 0.3432 0.0307 -0.0345 0.0118 -0.0137 0.0152
φ dot = 129.4 ˚/s 0.3389 0.0237 0.0125 0.0182 -0.0036 -0.0644

Table 3.3: Force and Moment Coefficients at Approach

CL CD CY Cm Cn Cl
Baseline 0.3369 0.0287 0 0.0216 0 0
= 5˚ 0.8470 0.0433 0 -0.0698 0 0
= -2˚ 0.1321 0.0267 0 0.0524 0 0
= 5˚ 0.3321 0.0303 -0.0239 0.0324 -0.0065 0.0074
Elevator: e = -5˚ 0.3205 0.0293 0 0.1011 0 0
Rudder: r = 5˚ 0.3369 0.0289 -0.0141 0.0217 -0.0063 0.0007
Aileron: a = 5˚ 0.3364 0.0298 0.0059 0.0226 0.0003 -0.0366
θ dot = 119.1 ˚/s 0.4364 0.0298 0 -0.2195 0 0
ψ dot = 119.1 ˚/s 0.3421 0.0307 -0.0343 0.0119 -0.0136 0.0150
φ dot = 85.7 ˚/s 0.3381 0.0238 0.0123 0.0180 -0.0035 -0.0633

Table 3.4: Force and Moment Coefficients at Approach with Ground Effect
CL CD CY Cm Cn Cl
Baseline 0.3432 0.0287 0 0.0188 0 0
= 5˚ 0.8627 0.0437 0 -0.0772 0 0
= -2˚ 0.1343 0.0267 0 0.0515 0 0
= 5˚ 0.3381 0.0301 -0.0242 0.0300 -0.0067 0.0078
Elevator: e = -5˚ 0.3267 0.0292 0 0.0982 0 0
Rudder: r = 5˚ 0.3431 0.0290 -0.0140 0.0190 -0.0062 0.0007
Aileron: a = 5˚ 0.3423 0.0302 0.0075 0.02 0.0003 -0.046
θ dot = 119.1 ˚/s 0.3412 0.0275 0 -0.1930 0 0
ψ dot = 119.1 ˚/s 0.3486 0.0306 -0.0343 0.0095 -0.0136 0.0153
φ dot = 85.7 ˚/s 0.3387 0.0204 0.0401 0.0170 0.0038 -0.0733

These runs also take into consideration the effects of control surface deflection. CMARC has a virtual control
surface function, which does not require defining separate patches for each control surface. Instead, the range of
panels that comprise the surface is defined and CMARC can “virtually” deflect the surfaces to simulate the behavior
of the aircraft under such controls. This method allows the control surfaces to both be defined and deflected more

22
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
quickly and time efficiently. The force and moment coefficients due to these deflections are shown in the tables
above. The change in pressure distribution can also be seen in Fig. 3.15, Fig. 3.16, and Fig. 3.17 for elevators,
rudder, and ailerons, respectively.

Figure 3.15. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Elevator Deflection

Figure 3.16. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Rudder Deflection

23
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.17. Comparison of Baseline Condition to 10˚ Aileron Deflection

CMARC also analyses the effect of angular rates on the aircraft. The maximum angular rates applied at each
speed were determined assuming that the wing tip should not see any more than 0.1 per radian of induced angle of
attack. Using this concept, the angular rates seen in Table 3.2, Table 3.3, and Table 3.4 were obtained and applied

24
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
to the aircraft. Figure 3.18, Fig. 3.19, and Fig. 3.20 display the pressure distributions of pitch rate, yaw rate, and
pitch rate, respectively.

Figure 3.18. Pressure Distribution at Pitch Rate of 179.8 ˚/s (Cruise)

Figure 3.19. Pressure Distribution at Yaw Rate of 179.8˚/s (Cruise)

25
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 3.20. Pressure Distribution at Roll Rate of 129.4 ˚/s (Cruise)

The method of defining the center of gravity of the aircraft essentially consists of displacing the origin of the
coordinate system so that it is located at the C.G. Because the origin was at the nose, it had to be shifted 11.75
inches back, as well as 0.822 inches down.
From the CMARC analysis, the trim cases can also be determined. First, the trim lift coefficient must be found,
using Eq. 3.1417.

L
CL (3.14)
0 .5 V 2 S
For the trim case, Lift is equal to weight. Therefore, CL,trim was calculated to be 0.326 for cruise and 0.743 for
approach. Using these values and the assumption that at trim Cm=0, the trim conditions can be iteratively found.
An approximation from AVL was used as the starting point, and changes were made until trim was found. Trim
angle of attack and elevator deflection for cruise, approach, and approach with ground effect are shown in table 3.5.
Table 3.5. Trim Cases for Each Flight Condition
Case Velocity (ft/s) e (deg) (deg) CL
Cruise 67.5 1.5 -0.156 0.3264
Approach 45 -3.22 4.072 0.7434
Approach w/ 45 -3.42 3.955 0.7430
Ground Effect

26
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Using CMARC, the stall angle of attack of the aircraft can be found. Using equation 3.17 19, the maximum lift
coefficient is calculated:

C L , m ax 0.9C l , m ax cos (3.17)

0.25 c

This gives a maximum lift coefficient of 1.26 for the aircraft. From CMARC, at this lift coefficient, the angle of
attack of Piolin at stall is 9.05 degrees.

27
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 IV. Performance
The customer requirements are focused on ease of use and quickness of preparation. The aircraft must be
capable of being launched from remote locations where there is no airstrip readily available. A two-person strike
team must be able to assemble and deploy the vehicle within a five minute window and operate the system in
daylight hours or after nightfall, which requires a pilot-operated lighting system. An electric power system was also
required, and the customer has provided a 5400 mAh lithium-polymer battery consisting of 3 cells and operating at
11.1V. Finally, the aircraft must be capable of reaching 2000 ft above ground level and operate a minimum of 15
minutes.

A. Mission Profiles
In order to fulfill surveillance and reconnaissance mission requirements, two mission profiles have been
developed. The first centers on “over the hill” surveillance in which the aircraft will fly to some location where it
will loiter and gather data before returning back to the launch location to be recharged. The second focuses on long
range reconnaissance, providing video data over a long stretch of terrain.
The surveillance mission will begin by hand launching the aircraft from Perkins field. Upon release the aircraft
will accelerate to Vclimb and maintain that speed until the aircraft has reached an altitude of 2435 ft or 2000 ft above
ground level. During this climb, the aircraft will cover a ground distance of 1.25 miles. The vehicle must then
accelerate to Vcruise and cruise 6.75 miles until it reaches a target approximately 8 miles from the launch location.
The aircraft will then decelerate to Vloiter and circle the target area for 10 minutes. Once this 10 minute surveillance
period has ended the vehicle will accelerate to Vcruise and begin its return trip to the launch location. After travelling
3.1 miles at this speed, the aircraft will begin an unpowered glide toward the launch location. This gliding approach
will conserve critical battery capacity while bleeding off potential energy during the final 4.9 miles to the launch
zone. The aircraft will maintain Vcruise and follow a glide path angle of 4.7°, descending from 2000 ft above ground
level to approximately 100 ft above ground level. Upon reaching the launch zone the pilot can begin approach
maneuvers. This profile covers a total distance of 18 miles over a 34 minute time span while consuming 86% of the
battery’s capacity. This provides additional capacity for approach maneuvers and any other unforeseen incidents. A
summary of this profile has been produced in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1.Perkins Field Surveillance Mission Profile
Action Distance Time Consumption % Capacity
1 Launch 0.01 mi 0.02 min 7.6 mAh Consumed
0.15 %
2 Accelerate to Vclimb 0.02 min 7.3 mAh 0.15 %
3 Climb to 2000 ft AGL 1.25 mi 2.21 min 966.9 mAh 17.9 %
4 Accelerate to Vcruise 0.03 min 12.3 mAh 0.23 %
5 Cruise to target 6.25 mi 8.12 min 1531.5 mAh 28.4%
6 Deccelerate to Vloiter, loiter around target 10 min 1060 mAh 20%
7 Accelerate to Vcruise 0.04 min 17.1 mAh 0.3%
8 Begin return to launch zone 3.5 mi 6 min 913 mAh 17%
9 Glide to launch zone, descending to 100 ft AGL 4.35 mi 5.72 min 130 mAh 2.5%
Totals 18 mi 34 min 4646 mAh 86 %

The reconnaissance mission will follow the same procedure until the aircraft has accelerated to Vcruise. At this
point, the aircraft will maintain this speed and cover a 10.5 mile path of the user’s preference before beginning its
return to the launch zone. The aircraft will cruise 7.4 miles toward the launch zone before beginning an unpowered
glide as performed during the surveillance mission. This mission covers a total distance of 23.5 miles during a 31
minute time span while consuming 86.5% of the battery’s capacity. This will leave the pilot with approximately
14.5% of the battery’s capacity for approach maneuvers or other unforeseen incidents. A summary of this mission
profile has been produced in Table 4.2.

28
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 4.2. Perkins Field Reconnaissance Mission Profile
Action Distance Time Consumption % Capacity
1 Launch 0.01 mi 0.02 min 7.6 mAh Consumed
0.15 %
2 Accelerate to Vclimb 0.02 min 7.3 mAh 0.15 %
3 Climb to 2000 ft AGL 1.25 mi 2.21 min 966.9 mAh 17.9 %
4 Accelerate to Vcruise 0.03 min 12.3 mAh 0.2 %
5 Cruise to target 10.5 mi 13.5 min 2278 mAh 38.1%
6 Begin return to launch zone 7.4 mi 9.5 min 1660 mAh 26%
7 Glide to launch zone, descending to 100 ft AGL 4.35 mi 5.72 min 130 mAh 3%
Totals 23.5 mi 31 min 4555 mAh 86.5 %

B. Critical Speeds
The performance of the aircraft can be defined by determining a series of flight velocities including stall, cruise,
climb, loiter, approach and maximum flight speeds.

1. Stall and Approach Speeds

The aircraft’s stall speed was determined using the value of CL,max derived in the Aerodynamics section. Vstall
was determined using Eq. 4.1.18

(4.1)

The aircraft’s CL,max was previously determined to be 1.26, resulting in a stall speed at Perkins field of 34.55 fps.
The approach speed of the aircraft for many civilian aircraft is defined as 19
(4.2)

Since this aircraft could fulfill civilian missions as well as military missions the value provided in Eq. 4.2 was
used to help compensate for pilot skill at lower speeds. The approach speed was then determined to be 44.9fps.

2. Maximum Speed
The maximum speed of the aircraft can be determined by analyzing power required, or PR, and power available,
or PA, curves. When these curves are plotted against airspeed they intersect at two locations. The first and left most
intersection is the power minimum speed the aircraft can fly at, but this speed is below Vstall for this aircraft and
therefore has no significance. The right most intersection is the power limited speed, Vmax, for the aircraft. The
power limited speed can be calculated by setting PR equal to PA at these conditions and solving for V∞ to find Vmax at
Perkins field.20,21,22
(4.3)

(4.4)

(4.5)

29
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
3. Climb Speed
The climb speed, Vclimb, for this aircraft is defined as the speed at which the vehicle is capable of achieving its
maximum rate of climb. The rate of climb for an aircraft can be determined such that 23
(4.6)

Then the maximum rate of climb can be defined as the point at which excess power is maximized.
(4.7)

Once this value is determined the velocity required to obtain this rate of climb at Perkins field was found to be
50.1fps. Rate of climb as a function of velocity can be found in Fig. 4.1.

Figure 4.1. Rate of climb as a function of velocity

4. Cruise and Loiter Speeds

The cruise speed, Vcruise, and loiter speed, Vloiter, weren’t specified within the customer requirements, making
them flexible design parameters. These speeds were determined during the construction of each of the mission
profiles. Customer requirements dictated a minimum endurance of 15 minutes and the team set a goal of a
minimum 5 mile range, providing a baseline for the power requirements at these speeds. The team also set a
minimum loiter time of 5 minutes for the surveillance profile, providing an additional baseline.
In order to find Vcruise, the power consumption for the take-off and climb were first determined. The cruise and
loiter speeds were selected by compiling each of the mission profiles in an Excel sheet and maximizing range and
time aloft. First the cruise speed was selected.

After Vcruise was selected, Vloiter was set such that the aircraft was capable of loitering for 10 minutes. This value
was found to be 50fps.

C. Take-off Performance
In order to minimize preparation time and meet the customer’s required five minute assembly time a hand launch
was selected for the aircraft. This frees one member of the two person team from assembling a launcher or set up a
long high-start bungee. The analysis for the time period just after launch has been performed using MATLAB’s

30
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Simulink package. Currently there are problems with this code but the static thrust of 3.3 lb and the aircraft’s 5 lb
weight should allow for a hand launch. The code has been included in Appendix F and further discussion of major
issues are included in the Known Issues section.

D. Landing Performance
The general approach configuration for small civilian and military aircraft is illustrated in Fig. 4.224.

Figure 4.2. Illustration of Landing Analysis

The landing sequence for the vehicle will first require the aircraft to clear a 50 ft obstruction before continuing
the approach toward the landing area. In order to determine the approach distance it is first necessary to calculate
the approach angle for the aircraft. Generally transport aircraft should not have an approach angle greater than 3°.25
(4.8)

Since the vehicle is not meant for transportation, γapproach has been set at 6° in order to reduce the approach distance
necessary to complete the landing procedure. Next it is necessary to determine the flare radius, rflare using Eq. 4.9.26
(4.9)

Where Vflare is27

(4.10)

Once the flare radius has been determined the flare height, hflare, can be calculated along with the approach distance,
Sapproach, and the flare distance, Sflare.28
(4.11)

(4.12)

(4.13)

While the aircraft is entering the flare its velocity will decrease from Vflare to Vstall. The vehicle isn’t equipped with
landing gear and will perform a belly landing. Once the vehicle comes into contact with the ground it is necessary
31
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
to perform numerical integration to determine the distance the aircraft will slide across the ground before stopping
completely. This integration was performed using a MATLAB script that determines the deceleration due to forces
acting on the body. The results of this integration have been plotted in Fig. 4.3 and include the sliding distances for
the aircraft when landing on surfaces ranging from wet grass to asphalt. The values used to determine the amount of
friction in each case have been included in Table 4.3 along with the sliding distance and total landing distance for
each case. This MATLAB code has also been included in Appendix G.

Figure 4.3. Landing Distance for Varying Surface Types

Table 4.3. Landing Data for Varying Surfaces

Surface μ Sliding Distance Total Distance
Asphalt 0.5 51.4 ft 541.9 ft
Hard Turf 0.4 58.2 ft 548.7 ft
Packed Dirt 0.3 67.8 ft 558.3 ft
Wet Grass 0.2 83.2 ft 573.7 ft

E. Glide Slope
When the aircraft is flying without power the flight path the aircraft follows is defined using the equilibrium
glide angle, which is defined as:27
(4.14)

When trimmed to fly at that corresponding lift to drag ratio, the aircraft will glide from some height, h, over a
distance, G.[11]
(4.15)

By inspection it can be seen that the maximum glide distance will occur when the lift to drag ratio is maximized,
therefore
(4.16)

32
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 and the glide angle for this condition is the minimum glide angle, defined as
(4.17)

The glide slope used in the mission profiles has been included in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Glide Slope
V∞ (ft/s) θ (derees) G (mi)
67.5 4.7 4.35

F. Turn Performance
The turn performance compiled for the aircraft includes the minimum turn radius and the maximum turn rate. The
minimum turn radius for steady, level flight was found using Eq. 4.18. 29
(4.18)

Where n is the maximum attainable load factor. When operating below the corner velocity, n is reliant on CL,max, as
shown in Eq. 4.19.30
(4.19)

The lowest value of r, and therefore the lowest turn radius occurs at the corner velocity. At this point, nmax due to lift
is the same as the structural limit of the plane. As the aircraft accelerates beyond the corner velocity, n becomes
reliant on structural design of the vehicle and nmax is held constant. This causes the turn radius to increase. The V-n
Diagram generated in the structures section of this document illustrates that the corner velocity is approximately 78
ft/s and results in nmax of 5.2. The minimum turn radius for Perkins field can then be determined.

The level turn rate of the aircraft is defined as31

(4.20)

It can be seen that in order to increase turn rate one must either increase n or reduce airspeed. If airspeed is reduced,
the aircraft’s control power will degrade, so it can be seen that the maximum turn rate will occur when n is nmax.
Using the previously mentioned value, ωmax can be calculated at Perkins field.

Both rmin and ωmax occur at an airspeed of 77.5 ft/s. The maximum bank angle, φmax, can be determined using Eq.
4.21, 4.22 and 4.23.32
(4.21)

(4.22)

(4.23)

33
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Fig. 4.4 provides an illustration of the change in turn radius from Perkins field to 1000, 2000 and 3000 ft above
ground level while Fig. 4.5 provides the changes in turn rate for the same altitudes.

Figure 4.4. Change in minimum turn radius with velocity

Figure 4.5. Change in maximum turn rate with velocity

One can also determine rmin and ωmax for pull-up and push-over maneuvers. The pull-up maneuver equations are
given in Eq. 4.24 and 4.25.33,34
(4.24)

34
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 (4.25)

When the previously determined value of nmax is used it can be seen that

Variances in pull-up performance with varying altitudes are included in Fig. 4.6 and 4.7.

Figure 4.6. Change in maximum pull-up radius with velocity

Figure 4.7. Change in maximum pull-up rate with velocity

35
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
The equations governing the push-over equations follow the same form as those for the pull-up but they require a
change in sign.35
(4.26)

(4.27)

The values of rmin and ωmax can be calculated using nmax. Variance in rmin and ωmax with changes in altitude have
been plotted in Fig. 4.8 and 4.9.

Figure 4.8. Change in maximum push-over radius with velocity

36
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 4.9. Change in maximum push-over rate with velocity

G. Cross Wind Performance and Limitations

The maximum cross wind the aircraft is capable of countering during approach maneuvers can be calculated
using Etkin and Reid’s method for determining the maximum sideslip the aircraft is capable of countering and the
necessary control surface deflections at these conditions. As can be seen from equation 4.2836
(4.28)

The dimensional derivatives given on the left hand side can be determined by performing a finite difference
method on CMARC data and then dimensionalizing the dimensionless coefficients. The surface deflections are the
variables that must be solved for and v is an arbitrary value. It can be seen that37
(4.29)
This holds where u0 is the reference velocity along the body frame’s x-axis. The value of β can then be
increased until one of the surfaces reaches maximum deflection. The maximum sideslip, cross wind and the
corresponding surface deflections at approach to Perkins field were found to be

H. Endurance and Range

Generally the Breguet formulas provide a simple method of determining the range and endurance of an aircraft but
these equations are suited for vehicles that experience changes in weight due to fuel consumption. Since customer
requirements mandate the use of an electric power system, it is necessary to determine endurance by calculating the
amount of current drawn from the battery at each flight condition. Equation 4.30 provides a correlation between the
input power and output power of the system.
(4.30)

37
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
This correlation can then be used to determine the power input into the system by the battery. If the aircraft is
steady level flight it will be operating along the PR curve at that given flight condition. This provides a method of
determining the amount of battery power consumed at a given flight condition.
(4.31)

This required power consumption can then be used in equation 4.32 to determine the vehicle’s endurance at that
flight condition.
(4.32)

Once the endurance has been determined the vehicle’s range can be calculated using equation 4.33.
(4.33)
Fig. 4.10 and 4.11 provide an illustration of changes in range and endurance at ground level, 1000, 2000 and 3000 ft
above ground level at Perkins field.

Figure 4.10. Changes in endurance with increasing altitude

38
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 4.11. Changes in range with increasing altitude

I. Altitude Capabilities
The service ceiling and absolute ceiling for the aircraft were calculated using Excel’s solver method and setting
(R/C)max equal to 100 ft/min and 0 ft/min respectively by adjusting the density. This process was iterated in
parallel with the iteration process used to determine the motor rotational speed at each point to ensure motor output
was equal to propeller input. Following this method, the service ceiling and absolute ceilings were determined to
be38

The change in stall speed with altitude was tabulated in order to analyze whether the aircraft can sustain flight in
these conditions. This change was plotted against altitude in Fig. 4.12.

Figure 4.12. Change in Vstall with Density

39
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 As can be seen from this figure the stall speed at the service and absolute ceilings is more than double the sea
level value. These values were found to be

While the aircraft is capable of operating at these altitudes, the aircraft is incapable of climbing to these altitudes
from ground level. If the aircraft is operating at Vclimb, the battery will last approximately 13 minutes, limiting the
aircraft to an altitude of approximately 11,690 ft AGL.

J. Launch Analysis and Further Analysis

The code developed to perform launch analysis doesn’t provide accurate information. Sanity checking was
performed by eliminating contributions due to lift and drag on the aircraft to analyze the ballistic motion of the
object. It was observed that the object impacted the ground after 0.6 seconds, which corresponds to hand
calculations for a body in free-fall weighing 5 lb. Upon implementing lift and drag forces the path of the aircraft
makes ground impact after 0.8 seconds without thrust. Once thrust is turned on the aircraft follows the same path
and accelerates over 150 ft/s in a 6 second window. This speed can be attributed to the aircraft’s constant motion
downward. Considering the ratio of thrust to weight, a hand launch isn’t unreasonable but time restrictions haven’t
warranted additional time to evaluate this code, which is provided in Appendix B.
Another area of serious contention with the CMARC code as applied to the launching analysis is the lift-curve
slope. CMARC gives a value of 5.84 while analytical methods find a value of 5.5 for the lift-curve slope. While the
CMARC value is reasonable, it is highly suspect that the CMARC model would return a higher value then other
analytical methods. Further troubleshooting of CMARC may be necessary before the necessary parameters can be
refined for the launching analysis.
This code will be reevaluated and rewritten as necessary in order to determine if a hand launch truly is feasible.
In the event that a hand launch isn’t possible, the aircraft has been tested under lateral loads and is capable of
sustaining 5.2g loads. This expected load would allow the aircraft to accelerate above Vstall in under 0.25 seconds.
If a hand launch is found to be incapable of launching the vehicle a full bungee launch analysis will be performed
for a high-start system.

40
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 V. Propulsion
Customer requirements mandated that the propulsion system consist of an electric power system, employing an
11.1V, 3-cell lithium polymer battery with a capacity of 5400 mAh. The vehicle’s endurance is one of the
customer’s critical requirements, making motor selection a balance between efficiency and improved endurance and
range, and increased power to allow for a hand launch.

A. Motor Specifications
The motor selected for this aircraft is a Great Planes Rimfire 42-40-800. This motor was selected due to its light
weight and high power output. Weighing in at 4.4 ounces, this motor is capable of producing almost 250W of
power. The motor has a kV rating of 800 RPM/V, resulting in a maximum peak speed of 8880 RPM using a 3-cell
lithium-polymer battery. This relatively low kV rating and the motor’s outrunner configuration allows it to generate
enough torque to turn propellers ranging from 10x5” to 13x8” in size. Full manufacturer’s specifications have been
included in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Rimefire 42-40-800 Manufacturer Specs
Great Planes Rimfire 42-40-800
Can Diameter 42mm
Can Length 40mm
kV Rating 800 RPM/V
Weight 4.4oz (125g)
Input Voltage 11.1 - 18.5V
Max. Constant Current 32A
Max Surge Current 40A
Max Constant Watts 355W - 592W
No Load Current 1.4A
Suggested Prop Sizes 10x5” - 13x8”

The electronic speed controller selected is also produced by Great Planes. The specifications for the Silver
Series 45 have been given in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Silver Series 45 Manufacturer Spec
Great Planes Silver Series 45
Length 2.76" (70mm)
Width 1.30" (33mm)
Height 0.39" (10mm)
Weight 1.76oz (50g)
Input Voltage 6-12 cells NiCd/NiMH
Supported Cells 2-4 cells LiPo
(20V input w/o BEC)
Output Current 45A continuous maximum
50A surge maximum
Max Output Power 500 watts
ON-resistance 0.008 ohms
Operating frequency 8.5kHz
BEC 5V/2A
Low Voltage Cutoff Battery voltage x .67
Thermal Cutoff 230°F (110°C)
Timing Angle 12°
Brake ON/OFF

The propeller selected for this application is an Aeronaut 12x8” folding propeller. This assembly mounts to the
motor using a 50mm yoke and spinner along with a 5mm shaft adapter. A folding prop helps reduce drag when the
aircraft is in unpowered gliding flight and will also mitigate the risk of the propeller being damaged during landing.
The selection of this geometry is highlighted below.

41
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
B. Motor-Propeller Matching
Before evaluating propeller data accumulated in North Carolina State University’s subsonic wind tunnel,
MotoCalc was first used to evaluate the static thrust and wide open throttle duration of several propeller geometries
ranging from 10x5” up to a 13x8”. The endurance at wide open throttle for propellers larger than the 12x8”
approached 10 minutes, making them less than ideal. While the aircraft won’t be operated using full throttle
application over its entire mission, leaning toward propeller combinations that increase endurance at full throttle will
allow the mission profile’s range to be extended. The propeller data generated in the subsonic wind tunnel was also
used to limit propeller selections. Only propellers that were geometrically similar to those analyzed in the wind
tunnel were considered. Finally 12x6” and 12x8” propellers were selected because of geometric similarity and high
output thrust of approximately 46 ounces each. It is important to note that these values aren’t the exact values used
in performance calculations. Since wind tunnel data for these propellers is readily available, this data was used in
conjunction with motor data provided by MotoCalc.
Once these propellers were singled out for analysis data gathered during laboratory experiments in the subsonic
wind tunnel was compiled with motor performance data. MotoCalc was used to generate a power curve for motor
along with an efficiency curve. Each of these curves was plotted against motor rotational speed in revolutions per
second. The power output curve is given in Fig. 5.1 and the efficiency curve is given in Fig. 5.2. The gap located
on Fig. 5.2 is present because the curve fit on this data was done in sections. When a curve fit is done on the entire
data set the fit is highly inaccurate.

Figure 5.1. Motor Power Output vs Rotational Speed

42
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 5.2. Motor Efficiency vs Rotational Speed

Once the functions describing each of these curves were produced, propeller data curves were analyzed and
curve fits for each of them generated. The CP vs J, CT vs J and ηpropeller vs J curves have been plotted below in Fig.
5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 respectively.

Figure 5.3 – CP versus J

43
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 5.4 – CT versus J

Figure 5.5 – η versus J

In order to determine the power output of the motor and propeller combination the power output of the motor
was set equal to the power put into the propeller.
(5.1)
The propeller input power was determined using the equation derived for CP versus J, equating CP to the actual
input power and dimensionalizing J in terms of nrotation, V∞, and D, the propeller diameter as shown in equation 5.2.39
(5.2)
Once this method was completed, each of these equations was described solely in terms of the unknown
rotational speed nrotation. The velocity for each point was selected arbitrarily, beginning at 0 ft/s and increasing in
increments of 2.5 ft/s up to a value of 100 ft/s and the diameter for each propeller was known. Since there is only
44
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
one equation and one unknown, it is possible to use Excel’s solver to determine a value of nrotation that makes the
difference in propeller power in and motor power out equal to zero.
Once nrotation has been determined at each flight speed, it can be used to determine J, then J was used to
determine η. Once the efficiency has been calculated, PA can be defined as the product of propeller power in and η.
(5.3)
PR can be easily determined just as before in equation 4.3. PR and PA were then plotted against airspeed and
equations 4.5 and 4.6 used to determine Vmax and R/C at each flight condition. The equations previously given for
range and endurance were used to generate plots to compare the performance of each propeller geometry. Fig. 5.6
through 5.10 provide a comparison of both propeller sizes at sea level.

Figure 5.6. PR and PA versus Airspeed

Figure 5.7. Thrust versus Airspeed

45
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 5.8. R/C versus Airspeed

Figure 5.9. Endurance versus Airspeed

46
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 5.10. Range versus Airspeed

As can be seen from these figures the performance of these propeller geometries is relatively similar. Fig. 5.6
illustrates that the 12x8” propeller is capable of achieving a higher Vmax due to its increased pitch. Fig. 5.7 provides
the variance in thrust with velocity for each propeller geometry. The static thrust produced by the 12x6” propeller is
initially higher than that produced by the 12x8” but at speeds above 20 ft/s the 12x8” produces greater thrust. Since
Vstall is above 20 ft/s and since the aircraft won’t rely on static thrust for take-off this variance in static thrust is
negligible. Both geometries allow the aircraft to reach an R/C of approximately 900 ft/min but (R/C)max for the
12x6” occurs at a lower flight speed, as shown in Fig. 5.8. This speed is much closer to Vstall than the climb speed
for the 12x8”. It is desirable to operate farther from the stall region, making the 12x8” a better choice. While the
12x6” propeller experiences slightly better endurance and range compared to the 12x8” propeller, as shown in Fig.
5.9 and 5.10, these reductions won’t prevent the aircraft from achieving the required flight time of 15 minutes.

47
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 VI. Stability and Control
Stability is the natural tendency of the aircraft to return to an equilibrium state after is has been exposed to a
perturbation. Some of the elements that expose the aircraft to a disturbance are maneuvers, such as a turning,
climbing, rolling, and gusts of wind, or control surface deflections. Equilibrium of an aircraft is characterized by the
steady rectilinear, or trimmed, flight. An aircraft is flying in a trimmed condition if the sum of all the forces and
moments about its center of gravity are zero. Controllable means that the aircraft is capable of being manipulated to
do any pitch, yaw, or roll by the command of deflecting any of the control surfaces.
Stability and Control are evaluated more effectively when static and dynamic analyses are analyzed separately.
Static stability is the tendency of the aircraft to return to its original equilibrium position after being disturbed.
Dynamic stability is the motion of the aircraft over a period of time after a disturbance. Aircraft must be statically
stable. An aircraft possesses static and dynamic stability if it eventually returns to its equilibrium position without
any divergence after a disturbance.
Static and dynamic stability are further branched to longitudinal, lateral, and directional stabilities. When doing a
dynamic analysis the longitudinal stability is analyzed independently while lateral and directional are analyzed
together since they are influenced by each other.

A. Static Stability
Analyzing static stability was the first priority for Piolin, and it was one of the main driving factors in its design.
In order to have a rough approximation of the neutral point, static margin, control powers and the static, and
dynamic stability derivatives, the team opted to place the Piolin initial design parameters in AVL. These values were
further verified and replaced using CMARC modeling. The use of CMARC modeling was use in the rest of the
Stability and Controls section of the Piolin.

B. Longitudinal Static Stability

In order to achieve positive longitudinal static stability, the center of gravity has to be placed ahead of the neutral
point yielding a negative change in pitching moment with respect to the angle of attack (C mα) and a positive static
margin (Kn). Once the center of gravity was found, it was placed on the AVL model to determine a rough neutral
point (hn). Using Eq. (6.1)38, and rearranging as found in Eq. 6.2, the neutral point can be solved for.

Cm C L (h hn ) (6.1)

Cm
hn h (6.2)
CL
A static margin of 20% was initially used. This static margin ultimately changed to 18% after design alterations
were taken into account. After all geometry sizing was completed, Piolin was determined to be longitudinally stable.
The Piolin’s longitudinal static stability coefficients and characteristics are shown in Table 6.1.

48
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.1. Longitudinal Static Stability Coefficients and Characteristics
XNP (from LE of wing) 2.79 in
Cruise Velocity Static Margin (K n ) 18.0%
Cmα -1.06/rad
CLα -5.86/rad
XNP (from LE of wing) 2.79 in
Approach Velocity Static Margin (Kn) 17.9%
Cmα -1.05/rad
CLα -5.84/rad
XNP (from LE of wing) 2.82 in
Approach Velocity with Static Margin (Kn) 18.5%
Ground Effect Cmα -1.10/rad
CLα -5.95/rad

1. Directional Static Stability

For directional static stability, the yaw stiffness, or weathercock stability, is an important factor. The yaw
describes the motion around the z-axis of the aircraft. An aircraft possesses acceptable directional static stability if it
initially tends to return to equilibrium, facing straight forward into the relative wind, after being disturbed from its
original forward direction.
The yaw stiffness is a means of determining this acceptable directional static stability. This parameter must be
greater than zero to achieve a positive directional static stability. Numerically, this requires the C nβ stability
derivative be positive. One of the major contributors to directional instability is the fuselage, which is why a vertical
stabilizer becomes necessary. Piolin was fitted with a vertical tail that provides it with the means to achieve stability.
AVL modeling was first used to roughly approximate the vertical tail size, followed by CMARC modeling to size it
more accurately. Piolin’s CMARC values are shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. Directional Static Stability Coefficients
Cruise Velocity Cyβ -0.274/rad
Cnβ -0.074/rad
Approach Velocity Cyβ -0.274/rad
Cnβ -0.074/rad
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect Cyβ -0.277/rad
Cnβ 0.077/rad

2. Roll Static Stability

Another component in static stability is roll stability which is described as the motion around the y-axis of the
aircraft. Roll stability is the ability of the aircraft to return to a wing-level flight position after being disturbed from
its level flight. The restoring rolling moment is a function of the sideslip angle represented by the Greek letter β. The
requirement for acceptable stability is that the Clβ stability derivative be less than zero. The major contributor to C lβ
is the wing dihedral angle ( ) which is the physical span-wise inclination of the wing with respect to the horizontal.
The effective dihedral is the sum of wing dihedral and other contributors such as position of the fuselage on the
wing, wing sweep, and the vertical tail. Convention recommends that the effective dihedral be between 5 and 8
degrees. Equation 6.339 is used to calculate effective dihedral.

Cl
effective (per degree) (6.3)
0.00025
From this equation, and the C l stability derivative obtained from CMARC modeling, data shown in Table 6.3
can be found.

49
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.3. Longitudinal Static Stability Coefficients and Characteristics
physical 3.5°
Cruise Velocity Clβ -0.086/rad
effective 6.00°
Approach Velocity Clβ -0.085/rad
effective 5.92°
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect Clβ -0.089/rad
effective 6.24°

C. Maneuver Point
The maneuver point (hm) is a physical location aft of the neutral point and center of gravity about which the
aircraft rotates during a pitching maneuver. The maneuver point location is dictated by the neutral point location, the
Cmq and CLq derivatives, the mass ratio, and the aircraft mass ratio, represented by the Greek letter μ. Equation
(6.4)40 shows the maneuver point calculation.

C mq (hm )
hm hn (6.4)
2 C Lq (hm )
This holds where Eq. 6.5 expresses the aircraft mass ratio.

2m
(6.5)
Sc
Neutral point is in terms of mean aerodynamic chord, c .This is true where CMARC values show the maneuver
point to be a factional distance of 0.60, which is equal to 3.40 inches behind the leading edge of the main wing.

D. Trim
Since the pitching moment is not equal to zero the aircraft will have the tendency of pitching in the positive
direction, or an upwards pitch. In order to correct this pitching moment, a correction must be made. This is done by
implementing an elevator surface deflection. The values of angle of attack (α) and the elevator deflection (δe) are
found by using Eq. (6.6) and Eq. (6.7) 41 while setting Cm equal to zero.

CL CL CL e e (6.6)

Cm Cm0 Cm Cm e (6.7)

The angles of attack and elevator control surface deflections for cruise, approach, and approach with ground
effects are listed on Table 6.4.

50
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.4. Trim Conditions for Normal Flight Regimes
α -0.156°
Cruise Velocity δ e 1.50°
δa 0°
δr 0°
α 4.072°
Approach Velocity δe -3.22°
δa 0°
δr 0°
α 3.955°
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect δe -3.42°
δa 0°
δr 0°

E. Dynamic Stability and Handling Qualities

Once it was determined that Piolin was statically stable, the next step was to ensure the aircraft was dynamically
stable. The lateral and directional dynamic stability analysis was combined since they are highly coupled, however
longitudinal dynamic stability could be done independently. The analysis was carried out by a MATLAB code that
was generated to calculate this extensive analysis. The MATLAB code uses CMARC stability derivative
coefficients as inputs to calculate the dynamic modal analysis. This code is shown in the Appendix C.

1. Requirements for Level 1 Handling Qualities

To understand the significance of the modal analysis, it is important to know the requirements for level one
handling qualities. Aircraft with Level 1 handling qualities have dynamic stability characteristics that are adequate
for the mission the aircraft must accomplish. These requirements are different for various types of aircraft that
operate at different missions. Piolin is classified as a Class I category aircraft. This category includes “small, light
airplanes, light utility, primary trainer, and light observation aircraft”42.
The flight missions are categorized in 3 different flight phases, Categories A and B, which are non terminal
flight phases, and terminal phase Category C. Category A flight phases are primarily for rapid maneuvers; Category
B is where most of the flight envelope is done including climb, cruise, descent and emergency maneuvers; and
Category C is the terminal flight phases such as takeoff, landing, or ground effect flight. Piolin falls under Category
B since it is not a highly maneuverable aircraft.
These flight requirements were developed for larger aircraft. Therefore, in order to take into account the natural
frequencies for the oscillatory modes, there is a multiplicative factor of 5 to make Piolin comparable to a larger
aircraft. This multiplicative factor does not affect the phugoid modes since the Piolin angle of attack remains
constant. This factor is not used either on the roll or spiral modes since they are not of an oscillatory kind. This
factor was only used when comparing the natural frequency of Piolin’s dutch roll. The factor was not used to
calculate the other terms involving natural frequencies for their calculations such as time to half. Table 6.5, Table
6.6, and Table 6.7 show the requirements for Level 1 longitudinal flight.

51
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.5. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Phugoid and
Short Period Modes
Mode Categ Range
Phugoid oryAll ζ >0.04
Short Period Damping Ratio A&C 0.35 > ζ > 1.3
B 0.30 > ζ > 2.0

Table 6.6. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Spiral and Roll Modes
Mode Category Range
Spiral A > 12
B&C > 20
A t1/2 > 1
Roll B t1/2 > 1.4
C t1/2 > 1

In Table 6.6 the roll time constant (τ) is calculated using Eq. (6.8).

1
, roll real root of the Eigen values (6.8)
roll

Table 6.7. Level 1 Handling Quality Requirements for Dutch Roll Mode
Mode Requirement Range
Min ζ 0.19
A Min ζωn 0.35
ωn 1.0
Min ζ 0.08
B Min ζωn 0.15
ωn 0.4
Min ζ 0.08
C Min ζωn 0.15
ωn 1.0

2. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability

The longitudinal dynamic stability of an aircraft is represented by two modes: the long period, also known as the
phugoid, and the short period. The phugoid mode is an oscillation over a long period of time where the aircraft sees
a constant angle of attack throughout the motion. It is also characterized by the changes seen in the pitch and
airspeed. The short period, as is name implies, is characterized by a short period of oscillation and occurs over a
constant speed except, unlike the phugoid mode, with a rapidly changing angle of attack.
In order to minimize these two modes, the horizontal stabilizer has to be carefully placed and sized. Another
factor in the minimization of the modes is the airfoil selection for the horizontal stabilizer since it will determine
how much force, and therefore how much pitching moment, is going to be applied to the center of gravity of the
aircraft. Table 6.8 shows some important damping parameters for the longitudinal modes. These are the dynamic
stability derivatives that were found when using Piolin’s CMARC analysis.

52
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.8. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability Derivatives
Mode Requirement Range
Cmq -21.86/rad
Cruise Velocity CLq -9.045/rad
Cm  -8.473/rad
Cmq -21.87/rad
Approach Velocity CLq -9.023/rad
Cm  -8.453/rad
Cmq -19.22/rad
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect CLq 0.180/rad
Cm  0.169/rad

Once these derivatives were outputted, they are inputted to a MATLAB code, shown in Appendix C, to run the
longitudinal analysis. Tables 6.9 and 6.10 show the results of the phugoid and the Short Period modes respectively.
It is shown in these tables that Piolin achieves Level 1 handling for both the phugoid and the short period modes
under all the flight regimes.
Table 1.9. Phugoid Mode
λ = ( η + ωi ) -0.1560 + 0.6457i
ζ 0.235
Cruise Velocity P (Sec) 9.731
t ½ (sec) 4.443
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.455
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -0.089 + 0.888i
ζ 0.100
Approach Velocity P (Sec) 7.080
t ½ (sec) 7.795
N 1/2 (cycles) 1.098
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -0.074 + 0.902i
ζ 0.082
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect P (Sec) 6.970
t ½ (sec) 9.329
N 1/2 (cycles) 1.335
Level 1

Table 6.10. Short Period Mode

λ = ( η + ωi ) -10.10 + 9.18i
ζ 0.740
Cruise Velocity P (Sec) 0.684
t ½ (sec) 0.069
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.100
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -6.739 + 6.122i
ζ 0.740
Approach Velocity P (Sec) 1.026
t ½ (sec) 0.103
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.100
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -5.382 + 7.452i
ζ 0.581
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect P (Sec) 0.833
t ½ (sec) 0.129
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.154
Level 1

53
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
3. Lateral-Directional Dynamic Stability
The lateral directional-dynamic stability of an aircraft is represented by three characteristic motions: rolling,
spiral, and dutch roll. The rolling mode is highly dependent on the roll damping coefficient C lp which is dependent
on the wing and empennage configuration. The spiral mode is highly dependent on the effective dihedral which is in
turn affected by the Clβ stability coefficient. A spiral divergence occurs when the bank angle continues to increase
after an induced sideslip. If this occurs the aircraft will fall into a spin that it may not be able to recover from. Spiral
instability occurs when Clβ is too low or when Cnβ is too large. Since aircraft usually have insufficient directional
stability, which will cause them to directionally diverge, a balance between Clβ and Cnβ will occur. The Dutch roll
mode is the more complex of the three. It is composed of a sideslip, yawing, rolling motion, and phi and beta angles
being out of phase with respect to each other. The Dutch roll mode can be reduced by increasing the magnitude of
the yaw damping stability derivative (Cnr). The Dutch roll will turn more unstable if the Clr derivative is increased or
the Clβ derivative is increased. Another problem involving the increase of C nr is that it induces an increase in Cnβ as
well. These two values will in fact reduce the spiral mode. It is necessary to consider all these elements when
attempting to balance all three lateral-directional modes. Table 6.11 shows all the lateral-directional dynamic
stability derivatives obtained when running CMARC modeling at all regimes.
Table 6.11. Lateral Dynamic Stability Derivatives
Cyp -0.125/rad
Cnp -0.036/rad
Cruise Velocity Clp -0.642/rad
Cyr -0.247/rad
Cnr -0.098/rad
Clr 0.109/rad
Cyp -0.123/rad
Cnp -0.035/rad
Approach Velocity Clp -0.635/rad
Cyr -0.248/rad
Cnr -0.098/rad
Clr 0.108/rad
Cyp -0.402/rad
Cnp 0.038/rad
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect Clp -0.735/rad
Cyr -0.248/rad
Cnr -0.098/rad
Clr 0.110/rad

The values of Table 6.11 were also inputted to the MATLAB code shown in Appendix C to calculate all lateral-
directional stability derivative modes. Table 6.12, Table 6.13, and Table 6.14 show the results obtained from the
lateral-directional modes. They represent rolling, spiral, and dutch roll modes, respectively. Table 6.14 shows
another important parameter that should to be noted: the phase relationship between the yaw and roll angle; also
Φ
known as the phasor for the dutch roll ( /β). This parameter gives an idea of the response relationship for the lateral-
directional motions. It is also shown in these tables that the Piolin meets all Level 1 handling qualities under the
lateral-directional dynamic stability.
Table 6.12. Rolling Mode
λ=η -67.15
Cruise Velocity t ½ (sec) 0.010
Level 1
λ=η -44.31
Approach Velocity t ½ (sec) 0.016
Level 1
λ=η -51.66
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect t ½ (sec) 0.013
Level 1

54
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.13. Spiral Mode
λ=η -0.003
Cruise Velocity (sec) 348
Level 1
λ=η -0.003
Approach Velocity 293
(sec)
Level 1
λ=η -0.004
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect 272
(sec)
Level 1

Table 6.14. Dutch Roll Mode

λ = ( η + ωi ) -2.273 + 8.447i
φ/β phasor 0.370
ωn(factored) 2.187
Cruise Velocity ζ 0.260
P (Sec) 0.744
t ½ (sec) 0.305
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.409
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -1.502 + 5.699i
φ/β phasor 0.246
ωn(factored) 1.473
Approach Velocity ζ 0.255
P (Sec) 1.103
t ½ (sec) 0.461
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.417
Level 1
λ = ( η + ωi ) -1.366 + 5.437i
φ/β phasor 0.252
ωn(factored) 1.401
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect ζ 0.244
P (Sec) 1.156
t ½ (sec) 0.507
N 1/2 (cycles) 0.438
Level 1

F. Control Surfaces
A very important characteristic of the aircraft is the control surface geometry. Sizing the control surfaces was an
iterative process between CMARC modeling and the MATLAB code shown in Appendix D. The three control
surfaces that underwent this process were the elevator that accounts for longitudinal control and the rudder and
ailerons, which both account for lateral control.

1. Longitudinal Control
One of the driving design parameters is the pitch rate generated by the change in elevator (Δq/Δδe). This, along
with the elevator powers (dα/dδe), had to be taken into account to when sizing the elevator. The preferred elevator
pitching characteristics are a change of pitch rate with respect to elevator angle of about -4 (s-1) and an elevator
control power that falls between 1.25 and 1.5. Using CMARC modeling and Eq. (6.9), Eq. (6.10), and
Eq. (6.11)43,44, the change of pitch rate over the change in elevator could be determined.

(n 1) g q g
q (6.9)
U0 (n 1) U0

55
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 e C w C L (2 C Lq )
(h hm ) (6.10)
(n 1) 2 det
2m 2W
, det CL Cm e C L e C m , and C w (6.11)
Sc U 02 S
Along with the change in pitch rate over the change in elevator angle, the elevator control power was found by
setting C m and C mo equal to zero in Eq. (6.12) and Eq. (6.13) 45.

Cm Cm0 Cm Cm e (6.12)

d Cm e
(6.13)
d e Cm
After an iterative process, a final elevator size span of 7.5 inches on the trailing edge and a 20 percent chord of
the horizontal stabilizer chord were set. Table 6.15 shows the change in pitch over the change in elevator and the
control power of the elevator under all flight regimes.

q
Table 1.15. Control Derivatives, , and Control Power for the Elevator
e
Cmδe -0.911/rad
q -4.20/sec
Cruise Velocity e
d 0.863
d e
Cmδe -0.911/rad
q -2.81/sec
Approach Velocity e
d 0.870
d e
Cmδe -0.910/rad
q -2.97/sec
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect e
d 0.827
d e

It is apparent that the Piolin achieves a close -4.45 (s-1) when it comes to pitch authority at cruise speed.
Although, the elevator control power does not achieve conventional values between 1.25 and 1.5, the Piolin is
capable of trim flight under all regimes even under a lower than requirement control power.

2. Lateral-Directional Control
The rudder, which controls the direction or yaw of the aircraft, was sized with a numerical control power
requirement (β/δr) of 1. As with the sizing of the elevator, this underwent an iterative process via CMARC modeling
and Eq. (6.14)46 for yaw control.

Cn Cn Cn r r (6.14)

When Cn is set to zero, Eq. (6.15)46 is obtained which influences the yaw control power of the aircraft.

Cn r
(6.15)
r Cn

56
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 After an iterative process, a rudder running the complete span of the vertical stabilizer (7 inches) and 32 percent
of the vertical tail chord across the span was used. Table 6.16 shows the directional dynamic stability derivatives
obtained when running CMARC modeling and the results of the rudder control power at all regimes.
Table 6.16. Control Derivatives and Control Power for the Rudder
Cnδr -0.072/rad
Cruise Velocity Clδr -0.008/rad
dβ/dδr 0.969
Cnδr -0.072/rad
Approach Velocity Clδr -0.008/rad
dβ/dδr 0.969
Cnδr -0.071/rad
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect Clδr -0.008/rad
dβ/dδr 0.925

The final control surfaces that needed to be sized in the Piolin were the ailerons. The ailerons control the roll rate
of the aircraft about the y-axis. They were sized with a steady state roll (P SS) of one revolution per second. After the
iterative process between CMARC and the following equation, an aileron size of 24 inches in the outer board panel
of the wing by 25% of the wing chord was used. Table 6.17 shows the Piolin’s results for all flight regimes. Since
the steady state roll is dependent on the Piolin’s speed, only the cruise flight regime steady state roll of 1 revolution
per second was achieved. The expression for steady state roll can be found in Eq. (6.16) 47.

Cl a 2U 0
Pss a* (6.16)
Clp b
Table 6.17. Control Derivatives and Steady State Roll Rate for the Ailerons
Clδa 0.526/rad
Cruise Velocity C nδa -0.003/rad
Clp -0.642/rad
Pss (revs/sec) 1.02
Clδa 0.419/rad
Approach Velocity Cnδa -0.003/rad
Clp -0.635/rad
Pss (revs/sec) 0.55
Clδa 0.527/rad
Approach Velocity with Ground Effect Cnδa -0.003/rad
Clp -0.735/rad
Pss (revs/sec) 0.60

3. Servo Selection
The hinge moments experienced on the control surfaces were approximated by USAF Datcom information for
control hinge moments48. The information from the Datcom tables was used to calculate the control hinge moments
on the elevator, the rudder, and the ailerons. A MATLAB code was used to calculate the torque seen by the servo
using Datcom data, aircraft velocity, control surface length, servo arm length, angle of attack the control surface,
and angle of deflection seen by the control surface. Appendix D shows and example of the code used to calculate
Aileron hinge moments. The results for a maximum speed of 88fps are shown in Table 6.18.

57
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 6.18. Hinge Moments at Maximum Speed
Hinge moment at the control Mechanical Moment seen
surface advantage by servo
Elevator (δe,max 20.0º) 0.72 oz-in 1:1 0.72 oz-in
Rudder (δr,max 20.0º) 1.4 oz-in 1:1 1.4 oz-in
Aileron (δa,max 20.0º) 11.8 oz-in 1:1 11.8 oz-in

Table 6.18 shows that Piolin’s control hinge moments are very low, especially the elevator. It was decided to not
use a mechanical advantage on the control surfaces to maximize control speeds given that these moments were
small. Since these hinge moments are difficult to estimate, a factor of 3 was used to calculate hinge moments on the
ailerons. The required torque was then compared to various standard and mini size servos. To aid in the ease of
construction and procurement, servo sizing was standardized across the aircraft. Hitec HS-82MG servos proved
capable of providing a maximum torque of 38oz-in. Piolin will require 5 of these servos to provide control to all its
surfaces.

4. Doublets (Simulink)
To get a better understanding of the dynamic characteristics of the Piolin, simulations are done using the
Simulink package of MATLAB. Three Simulink models were created and used. The first model, shown in Fig. 6.1,
was used to analyze the response of the elevator doublet input. The second model, shown in Fig. 6.2, was used to
analyze the response of the rudder doublet input. Finally, the third model, shown in Fig. 6.3, shows the response of
the ailerons doublet input. All the control surface inputs are followed by a servo transfer function of the form found
in Eq. (6.17).

35531
servo _ fcn 2
(6.17)
s 263.9s 35531

Figure 6.1. Longitudinal Elevator Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin

58
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 6.2. Lateral Rudder Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin

Figure 6.3. Lateral Aileron Simulink Model used to simulate 5° doublet on the Piolin

The doublets are a five-degree deflection at half a second time step intervals. The first half a second the input
remains zero-degree deflection. Then, the deflection of the control surface is placed at a positive five-degree
deflection of another half a second. Furthermore, the elevator is quickly deflected down to a negative five-degree
deflection for another second. Finally, the elevator is brought back to zero-degree deflection. The purpose of the
doublet analysis is to see how Piolin will respond to a doublet input on any of the control surfaces deflection. The
results should dampen out at a reasonable period of time. The ideal response is a damped sinusoid. The responses to
the doublet of all flight regimes are plotted in Appendix E. It is shown that all the responses follow similar trends
that they follow the ideal case of a damped sinusoid. Finally, it is shown that Piolin has a great response to any of
the control surface inputs that are provided to it.

59
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
G. Conclusions
The results shown from stability and controls analysis described in this document prove that Piolin will be a
stable and controllable aircraft under its designed regimes.

60
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 VII. Structures
The structures for Piolin were designed with the intention of meeting the expected loadings placed on the aircraft
during a flight specified by the mission profile. If kept within these bounds during flight, the airframe will not fail.

A. Load Requirements
Customer requirements did not include load specifications, so the aircraft loads were determined based on flight
conditions. With a cruise velocity of 67.5 ft/s, the corner speed, or maneuvering speed, was set roughly 10 ft/s
higher. For Piolin, the corner speed is set to 78 ft/s, giving the pilot a margin above the cruise velocity in which full
control input can be given without risk of structural damage. With a maximum C L of 1.27, the positive maximum
load factor can be determined from Eq. (7.1) 1 (p.472).

(7.1)

This gives a positive load factor of 5.2 g’s. Because the lift coefficient in the negative direction is roughly half of
the positive lift coefficient, the negative load factor is approximately half of the positive load factor, or 2.6 g’s.
Applying a factor of safety of 1.5, taken from FAR Part 23.303 49, the loads applied in the following ANSYS
analysis cases will be +7.8 and -3.9 g’s.

B. Overall Structural Design

Piolin will be constructed mostly of composite materials, foam, and wood. The structures underwent
several different designs, as much of the projected material could be removed from the initial designs. Also, varying
spar designs allowed for use of cheaper products. The need to break the wing down into three sections presented
several structural problems that were ultimately overcome with the implementation of composite materials.

1. Internal Structures
The internals of the Piolin were designed to minimize weight and to transfer stress to the skins of the aircraft.
The internal structures of the fuselage, including bulkheads, longerons, and wing saddle will be made from plywood.
The bulkheads form the shape of the fuselage and provide hard points for mounting other components. The rear
bulkheads are a hard point for securing the tailboom, and the wing saddle is a hard point to mount the wing. Shelves
are also easily added for securing the electrical components as shown in Fig. 7.1.

Figure 7.1. Fuselage Internals

61
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 The final configuration of the internals of the wings is the result of several design iterations. The wing must be
broken down into three separate parts in order to fit into the backpack box. This is accomplished by using a solid
carbon rod as a joiner between wing sections, as well as a smaller carbon rod as an anti-rotation pin.
The wing spar is comprised of unidirectional carbon fiber tape on the top and bottom surfaces of the foam core,
which acts as a shear web for the tape. The tape is triangulated since the moments are greater at the root rib than at
the wing tip, and is 1.5 inches wide at the root rib, 0.75 inches at the wing section break, and tapers to a point at the
wing tip.
The foam and ribs that comprise the internal structure of the wing maintain the wing’s shape and transfer loads.
The center rib is made from plywood, and secures the wing to the fuselage. The balsa ribs at the wing section breaks
transfer the stress from the wing joiner rod to the skin of the wing, rather than to the foam. These ribs were added
after observing the crushed foam in ANSYS. Balsa ribs at the wing tips provide hard points for mounting the LEDs.
Also, plywood hard points are added for the nylon bolts that secure the wing to the fuselage’s wing saddle.

Figure 7.2. Wing Intervals

A 0.75 inch inner diameter carbon fiber tailboom is used for securing the empennage. The carbon tube is made
from wrapped carbon weave cloth. The forces applied to the boom do not bring it near the yield stress for matrix
weave carbon, but it is necessary that the empennage does not shift in relation to the rest of the craft during high-g
maneuvers.

2. Skins
Fiberglass comprises the majority of the skin of the aircraft. The loads applied combined with the design of the
structures allow for the use of fiberglass, which is a beneficial since fiberglass is the least expensive of the three
main composite materials. The wing skin is composed of a base layer of 2.2 oz fiberglass, and then a top layer of
0.75 oz fiberglass. The larger layer provides much of the strength, while the smaller layer provides a very smooth
62
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
surface for finish. The fuselage skin has two layers of 2.2 oz fiberglass, and then a top layer of 0.75 oz, like the wing
skin. A second layer of fiberglass was needed to bring the stresses down, and also increases resistance to abrasive
landings. The horizontal and vertical tails are covered with one layer of 0.75 oz fiberglass. The tails need to be
extremely lightweight to achieve the correct center of gravity required for stability purposes. The tails are also not
expected to experience a great deal of force, so only one layer of fiberglass is needed. The hinges for each control
surface are also integrated into the skin of the wing and empennage. Aramid material is used as a live hinge because
of its great shearing characteristics. A 1 inch wide tape will be used along the connection between each control
surface and the rest of the airfoil.

C. Distributed Aerodynamic Load Analysis

The aerodynamic loading was applied to the wing using Schrenk’s method. This method is detailed in the NACA
Technical Memorandum 948, but is shown here to give some familiarity with the procedure. Pressure distributions
were unable to be obtained from CMARC because of difficulties with the model and the Aero2Mesh program. The
Aero2Mesh program is a FORTRAN program written by a previous senior design team that takes the pressure
distribution from the CMARC model and applies the appropriate forces to the ANSYS input file.

1. Wing Load Analysis in ANSYS

Schrenk’s method approximates the span-wise lift distribution for a wing with taper, which results in a finite
number of point loads. These loads are then applied at the quarter chord of the airfoil. The equation for Schrenk’s
method is shown in Eq. (7.2).

(7.2)

The section lift coefficient, and thus the section lift can be obtained from this simple equation. The values for
vary with the span, and can be found in Franklin Diedrich’s NACA report concerning lifting distributions over
swept wings50. Solving for the total lift for each section gives the results shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1. Results of
Schrenk’s Method

y Lift
0.1 1.356
0.2 1.364
253
0.3 1.343
072
0.4 1.305
223
0.5 1.249
172
0.6 1.177
922
0.7 1.076
47
0.8 0.940
35
0.9 0.747
829
1 0.469
972
112
The results shown in Table 7.1 are only for the outboard section of the wing. Schrenk’s method does not cover
two part tapers, so the inboard force was repeated since that section of the span-wise distribution is relatively
constant, and this provides a good estimate. It should also be noted that the force for 10% of the span is lower than
for 20%. This value was not used, and was replaced with the value at 20%. The sum of the applied forces is 19.5lb,
which is half of the total load at 7.8g. The actual loads applied to the wing are given in Table 7.2.

63
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 7.2. Forces
Applied to Wing In
Ansys

y Lift
0.0625 1.464
0.125 1.464
0.1875 1.464
0.25 1.364
0.3125 1.364
0.375 1.364
0.4375 1.364
0.5 1.364
0.5625 1.343
0.625 1.305
0.6875 1.25
0.75 1.177
0.8125 1.076
0.875 0.941
0.9375 0.748
1 0.469

The results from ANSYS are shown in Fig. 7.3. The maximum stress in the wing is 38.2ksi, which occurs in the
carbon fiber tape running just beneath the fiberglass skin. The fiberglass sees a maximum compressive stress of
6.70ksi near the root rib. This is less than the compressive strength of 48ksi, thus the wing skin does not break 51.

Figure 7.3. Wing Loading Results at 7.8g

64
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 ANSYS only shows one layer at a time. The maximum stress in the wing is seen on the carbon fiber tape, which
can be viewed with a cross-sectional view of the wing. This is shown in Fig. 7.4.

Figure 7.4. Cross-sectional View of Wing Results at the Root

Figure 7.4 shows a view from the rear of the airfoil looking forwards. The large blue mass is the foam’s solid
mesh. A red layer is visible just under the fiberglass skin which is the carbon fiber tape, which experiences the
maximum stress of 38.2ksi. The compressive strength of unidirectional carbon fiber is 50ksi 6, so this material also
does not fail51.
The foam is the material in the wing that comes the closest to failing. The foam that is to be used has a
compressive strength of 25psi. The foam experiences up to 11psi, seen in Figure 3.

65
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.5. Stress of Foam in Wing

2. Wing Negative Load Analysis in ANSYS

The negative loading for the wing was also analyzed in ANSYS. The maximum negative loading of -3.9 g’s was
applied using Schrenk’s method. The results are shown in Figure 7.6.

66
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.6: Wing Stresses During -3.9 g Load
The maximum stress in the wing during negative loading is 20.2 ksi. This is seen in the carbon fiber tape. The
stresses in the fiberglass skin are much lower, and the maximum is 4500 psi. The wing does not break with these
stresses.

3. Horizontal Tail Loading Analysis

The horizontal tail experiences a CL of -0.069 while deflecting the elevator 20 degrees. This corresponds to a
total lift of 0.18lb at sea level and the corner speed. A 1.5 factor of safety was used again, and the loads put into
ANSYS totaled 0.27lb. Schrenk’s method was used again to distribute the load.

67
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.6. ANSYS Results of Horizontal Tail

In Fig. 7.6, the maximum stress seen by the horizontal tail is 1270psi in tension. This is well under the tensile
strength of 80ksi for fiberglass51. The stress concentration at the tips are resultant from the tip load of Schrenk’s
method.

4. Vertical Tail Loading Analysis

The vertical tail experiences a side force coefficient of -0.0547 when deflecting the rudder by 20 degrees at the
corner velocity. This translates to a side force of -0.079lb. A factor of safety brings that value to 0.119 lb. The force
was again applied through use of Schrenk’s method.

68
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.7. ANSYS Results of Vertical Tail

Figure 7.7 shows the results of the applied Schrenk’s estimation. A maximum stress of 450psi is seen in the
fiberglass skin, and the foam’s maximum compressive stress is 11psi and the tail does not break under the expected
ultimate loading.

D. Fuselage Loads
The fuselage will undergo a variety of forces during a typical flight. The main load scenarios are during pull-up,
push-over, and landing maneuvers. Each of these scenarios was analyzed using ANSYS.

1. Fuselage Landing Load Analysis

A flare during landing will bring the aircraft’s vertical descent speed to approximately 0.42fps. Since the aircraft
does not have landing gear, determination of impact loads had to be approached differently. The aircraft will
undergo an impulse from the ground resulting in the change of vertical momentum. This is seen in Eq. (7.4).
(7.4)
With an impact time of 5ms, the aircraft will undergo a 5.2g acceleration. The 5ms impact time was determined
from the average of the results of two papers concerning low-speed impact of composite materials52,53. With a 1.5
factor of safety, an equivalent 7.8g loading was applied in ANSYS. The frame was constrained about the lengthwise
axis, and loads were applied at the wing saddle, as well as on the bottom surface of the fuselage where the body
would make contact with the ground during a landing.

69
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.8. Fuselage Stress during Landing Impact

As seen in Fig. 7.8, the fuselage experiences a max stress of 14.8ksi. This is in one of the filleted corners of a
hatch. This is well under the yield compression strength of fiberglass, which is 48ksi51. The stresses seen in the
plywood are also below the strength of plywood, which is 1600psi 54.

2. Fuselage Pull-Up Maneuver

When the pilot pulls fully back on the elevator control stick, the aircraft enters a minimum turn radius maneuver.
This maneuver can be safely performed with Piolin up to the corner speed. The corresponding loads from the
structure, electrical components, tailboom, and wing at 7.8g’s were applied to the ANSYS fuselage model. The
results are shown in Figure 7.9.

70
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.9. Piolin Fuselage Minimum Turn Radius Maneuver Stresses

As seen in Fig. 7.9, the fuselage experiences 10.3ksi in tension on the fiberglass skin during a minimum turning
radius maneuver. With a tensile strength of 80ksi, the fuselage will not fail51.

3. Fuselage Push-Over Maneuver

The push-over maneuver was also analyzed in ANSYS. Again, the electrical components, tailboom, and wing
equivalent loads were placed in the appropriate areas on the ANSYS model. Since it is a negative g maneuver, the g-
loading used was -3.9. The results are seen in Fig. 7.9.

71
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.10. Push-over Stress Analysis

As shown in Fig. 7.10, the maximum stress experienced during a push-over maneuver is 8160psi in compression
in the fiberglass on the rear of the fuselage. This is a result of the tailboom’s forces applied upward on the fiberglass
at the very rear of the fuselage. Again, the airframe will not fail during this maneuver.

E. Tailboom Loading Analysis

The tailboom was also modeled in ANSYS. Several holes must be drilled into the boom for running linkages and
securing the empennage, which compromise the overall strength. The boom was analyzed to make sure that the
holes would not cause the boom to break under normal operating conditions. The maximum lifting forces from the
vertical and horizontal tails were applied to the tip of the tailboom, while it was constrained where the bulkheads
hold the boom in place.

72
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 7.11. Tailboom Stresses

The maximum stress seen by the tailboom is only 168psi. This is much lower than the allowable compressive
strength of 84ksi for matrix weave carbon material51. The deflection seen by the boom is 0.006 inches, a very minute
amount, which is desirable because the empennage do not move considerably relative to the rest of the aircraft,
keeping the handling qualities consistent.

F. V-n Diagram
A V-n diagram was utilized to determine the loadings of the aircraft. Setting the corner speed to 10fps higher
than the cruise velocity results in a positive load factor of 5.2g’s. A safety factor of 1.5 is also included in these
graphs. The stall region boundary lines were determined with Eq. (7.5).

(7.5)

The gust loads are determined from Eq. (7.6) 49.

(7.6)

In Eq. (7.6), Kg is a gust alleviation factor, and is determined from Eq. (7.7) 49.

(7.7)

And µ is determined from Eq. (7.8) 49.

(7.8)

The gust load lines in the V-n diagram represent the added loads experienced by a gust of 14 ft/s. This velocity
for the gust loads results in a 5.2 g load at Vne.
In Fig. 7.12, Vne was determined by the maximum allowable loading on the servo, with a 1.5 safety factor. The
aileron servos experience the largest torques, and the servo used for these control surfaces are the Hitec HS-82MG.

73
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
The manufacturer specifies the maximum torque at 4.8V as 38.88oz-in. Including a factor of safety of 1.5, the servos
cannot exceed 25.92oz-in. The corresponding velocity of the aircraft with maximum aileron deflection is 130fps,
with a 1:1 mechanical linkage.

Figure 7.12. V-n Diagram for the Piolin UAV

G. Landing Analysis and Further Analysis

The landing analysis is a complicated problem. Piolin has no landing gear, so the fuselage takes all of the landing
loads. In other words, the fuselage has to absorb all of the vertical kinetic energy. Using a simple change in
momentum approach, as used in this document, requires a change in time over which the impact occurs. Five
milliseconds was used for the calculations in this document, and combined with the expected load of 5.2 g’s, the
change in vertical speed obtained is 0.42 ft/s. This specific descent speed would be very hard to obtain in approach
and maintain exactly.
This would be modeled as a very abrupt impact, but in reality the fuselage flexes and is able to expand the time
of impact. In order to be modeled more accurately, a dynamic simulation would be needed. ANSYS is a static
solver, and impact times have to be estimated, so the results are less accurate. A software package such as LS-
DYNA that integrates with ANSYS is designed to analyze collisions and impacts. This software would be ideal for
this application.

74
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 VIII. Risk Mitigation
In any engineering project there are certain risks associated with a given design. Therefore, it is important to
conduct analysis on the vehicle to determine these risks and minimize their effects as much as possible. First, it is
necessary to identify the possible failure modes that can arise during flight and then take steps to iteratively improve
upon the vehicle design. At each step in this process, one must take measures to mitigate the likelihood or severity
of any given failure.

A. Risk Mitigation Analysis

Before beginning risk mitigation analyses it is first necessary to define the hazards and the scale of relative
severity for any given failure. Generally speaking, a hazard is any condition that places the aircraft or any of its
components in a dangerous or less than functional state. Hazards can be arranged in severity from 1 to 4, and are
characterized by the levels displayed in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1. Hazard severity Descriptors
Severity Level Description of Level
1 – Benign Failure does not alter flying characteristics of UAV
2 – Moderate Failure results in reduced controllability of aircraft, but vehicle still flying and controllable
3 – Critical Complete loss of controllability, ground impact imminent/occurs. May result in complete loss of aircraft
4 – Catastrophic Complete loss of control, ground impact in populated area.

It is important to note that for the purposes of this design a catastrophic failure is unlikely. The Piolin is a proof
of concept design, and flight tests will be performed in a controlled location devoid of significant human population.
The only way for a catastrophic hazard to occur is for the plane to leave the test area. Nonetheless, flight conditions
that could potentially result in this state are marked by severity level 4. It is also important to note that there are
flight condition limits that should be placed on the UAV. The fuselage has openings in both the fore and aft sections,
and the hatches for payload access are not designed to be waterproof. The craft therefore should not fly in rain or
any other type of precipitation, as water could damage the internal systems. Also, it should be noted that in gust
conditions above 19 mph the UAV is not capable of maintaining a steady sideslip, and care should taken during
landing in these conditions.

1. Preliminary Hazard Design

The Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) is an effective tool for identifying possible areas of failure in a design.
It is not meant to be a comprehensive or explanative listing of failures, but rather a tool for identifying failures at the
highest level. By breaking the vehicle into its component systems and analyzing each individual area, it is possible
to separate the areas of little concern, from mission critical areas, areas where the plane simply cannot afford to fail.
The Piolin UAV PHA can be seen in Table 2.

75
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 8.2. Preliminary Hazard Analysis
System Hazard Result Severity
Avionics Intermittent RC signal Partial control loss 2
RC Receiver fails Complete control loss 3
Piccolo II fails (within range of RC) Loss of autopilot control 1
Piccolo II fails (outside range of RC) Loss of autopilot control 4
Payload Camera fails Loss of recon abilities 1
Speed Controller fails Loss of throttle control 2
Motor fails Loss of throttle control 2
Battery failure (no power supplied) Total loss of control 3
Battery failure (overheating) Damage to internals, loss of control 3
Control Surfaces Rudder fails Partial control loss 2
One aileron fails Partial control loss 2
Both ailerons fail Partial control loss 2
Elevator failure Partial control loss 2
Structures Wing failure Loss of main lifting structure, control loss 3
Hatch failure Exposed internals, aerodynamic loss 1
Fuselage failure Damage to internals, loss of control 3
Tail boom failure Loss of empennage structures 3

2. System Block Tree

The System Block Tree (SBT) is a tool used to detail how the various UAV systems combine for successful
flight operations. Used properly, an SBT details the relationships necessary for successful completion of the
mission profile. The Piolin’s SBT can be found in Fig. 8.1.

Figure 8.1. System Block Tree

The SBT is an excellent tool for determining where hazards or failures pose the greatest risk to successful flight
operations, and presents a graphical representation of redundancy measures. By following the tree’s flow, we see
that the UAV has the capacity to operate successfully even in the event of left or right aileron failure and single
elevator servo failure. Rudder control, though necessary for maintaining steady sideslip for landing and general yaw
control, is not absolutely necessary for successful flight operations, and for that reason was not included in the EBT.
However, it should be noted that a failure of the rudder would constitute a moderate hazard, and in especially windy
conditions could lead to critical ground impact.
All risks cannot be functionally eliminated, as any design choice to mitigate a particular risk will invariably
introduce a new risk factor that must be considered. Each design decision represented a compromise between
related system characteristics, and in order to design the most effective craft it was necessary that these
compromises be accounted for and prioritized with respect to our overall mission goals. By designing the craft it is
possible to account for a myriad of flight conditions and potential events, taking into account all but the most critical
of hazards. Following are the goals, methodology, and results of our risk mitigation operations, broken down into
the key areas of our design.

76
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
B. Aerodynamics

1. Goals and Methods

For aerodynamics we began with the broad goal of designing an aerodynamically efficient aircraft. The original
wing design was made by taking key design requirements, specifically the 10lb weight maximum and all terrain
landing capability, and calculating general values for such guiding factors as C Lmax and CLcruise. Secondary concerns
included the lift-to-drag ratio and the wing efficiency factor. The values attained for these primary and secondary
concerns guided our wing design, and the design was improved iteratively as more accurate solutions and
requirements were attained.
The high aspect ratio wing was decided upon in order to minimize the amount of power required for any given
flight condition. As the vehicle is for reconnaissance purposes, the craft benefits from being able to stay aloft for
more time and be in the field for as long as possible. The power required for a vehicle is described by Eq. (8.1)55.
(8.1)

This applies where the drag coefficient, CD, is determined by Eq. (8.2)56.

(8.2)

It can be seen from Eq. (8.2) that the drag coefficient is defined largely from the relationship between the lift
coefficient, Oswald efficiency factor, denoted “e”, and aspect ratio, denoted “AR”. As the lift distribution becomes
more elliptical and the aspect ratio goes up, the induced drag of the vehicle decreases, having the effect of reducing
the total drag coefficient of the vehicle. The smaller the drag coefficient, the smaller the W/(C L/CD) term in Eq.
(8.1). By designing our wing to generate as little induced drag as possible, we tried to maximize the endurance
capabilities of the UAV as well as drop additional weight that would have come from a larger platform wing.

2. Results
In the end, we finished with a high aspect ratio wing that provides a generally elliptical lift distribution and a
high L/D ratio, a feature that decreases the amount of power required for a given flight condition. The higher aspect
ratio did involve compromise, however, as the UAV possesses a relatively high stall speed of approximately 35fps.
The addition of flaps was considered to try to lower this speed to soften landing impact, but analysis indicated the
difference in landing speeds was not worth the additional complexity in flap design and fabrication. This design
choice did necessitate additional analysis for landing cases, however, in order to ensure the vehicle is capable of
landing safely in a variety of conditions.

C. Performance

1. Goals and Methods

We approached performance with the goal of meeting or exceeding customer expectations. In developing this
performance envelope, of key importance was the mission profile for the UAV. An over-the-hill reconnaissance
profile guided our initial examination into key parameters to be met, and the flight envelope was evaluated
progressively as new information on hardware and aircraft geometry became available. As the UAV is battery
powered, payload energy consumptions were evaluated for a variety of flight speeds and conditions, and overall
values for power required (PR), power required from the battery (PR,battery), and the power available (PA) were among
the first values obtained. Power changes affect the vehicle’s rate of climb as well as range, endurance, and ceiling,
key mission parameters that we wished to maximize in our design.
Another key concern was the launch method/capability of our vehicle. As the Piolin UAV is designed to be
hand launched a variety of factors had to be taken into account. The lack of a consistent launcher necessitated
analysis for launching at a variety of conditions. Analysis determined the maximum bank, pitch, and yaw angles the
vehicle can be thrown at while still being able to successfully launch. These maximums vary slightly depending on

77
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
altitude, but generally speaking the plane is capable of launching over a wide range of throw conditions, including
less than ideal cases. At sea level, pitch can be as far as 9o below horizontal. All launches were assumed to be 5ft
off the ground, with an initial velocity of 20fps. That is generally lower to the ground and slower than the average
person would be able to throw, so there remains a further margin of error in launch.
Also of note was the performance of the craft at varying altitudes. As density changes, so does the possible
flight envelope. Therefore, we made sure to analyze the UAV’s performance at several altitudes, including sea level,
435ft which is the altitude of the Perkins field test site, and one thousand foot intervals up to 20,000ft.

2. Results
The vehicle wing design was able to help reduce the amount of power the UAV consumes in any given flight
condition, and our vehicle is able to launch, land, and perform its reconnaissance tasks at a variety of altitudes and
conditions. The UAV mission profile was designed such that the vehicle efficiently uses the power available while
still allowing for a margin of safety (10% battery power) in the event of unforeseen failures or difficult flight
conditions.

D. Structures

1. Goals and Methods

Our goal structurally was to create a craft that remained under 10lb, fell within the required space constraints,
and was capable of handling the launch, flight profile, and landing stresses dictated by our mission profile. Primary
considerations in determining this were the load factors (g-loadings) that each component experiences at particular
points in the mission. The maximum g-loading for the vehicle is described by Eq. (8.3)57.

(8.3)

Here, the velocity Va is the maneuver speed which is set approximately 10fps over the cruise velocity. Using Eq.
(8.3) gives a maximum g-load of 5.2 for the vehicle, but for safety purposes all components were analyzed at 7.8g,
corresponding to a factor of safety of 1.5 for reconnaissance/utility craft 49. Maximum negative loadings were
calculated by halving the positive g-loads, a reasonable determination as the Piolin is designed primarily for
reconnaissance.
Additional concerns included hatch placement and internal geometry. The hatch sizes and placements required
enough space to allow for easy maintenance and repair, but had to not compromise either fuselage or wing strength.
This dichotomy necessitated a bit of compromise, as some of the payload, such as the Piccolo autopilot and camera,
were relatively large.

2. Results
Analysis of the Piolin reveals that the craft performs very well from a structural standpoint. The vehicle is
capable of handling up to 7.8g’s without suffering structural damage. Since this loading takes the 1.5 safety factor
into consideration, the Piolin is not expected to see loads of 7.8g’s making it structurally stable for flight. Loading
analysis at landing, even with our relatively high stall speed, revealed load factors within the 5.2g maximum
calculated by Eq. (8.3). The only structural concern with the UAV is that for the 7.8g case, the foam core within the
wing is on the brink of its compressive yield stress due to wing bending. If either the fiberglass or the carbon tape
on the wing are compromised or additionally loaded, the foam is likely to fail. The skin of the vehicle would remain
undamaged, however, as the compressive load at 7.8g’s remains less than a third of the fiberglass yield stress, a
value of 10/48.

78
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
E. Stability and Control

1. Goals and Methods

The overall goal that guided our work in stability and controls was for the UAV to possess level 1 handling
characteristics for all flight maneuvers, as the survivability of the vehicle depends to a great extent on the quality of
its handling. These handling characteristics were evaluated at a variety of flight conditions, with special attention
paid to the Vcruise and Vapproach cases. Because the vehicle will spend the majority of its flight time in the cruise
condition it was deemed essential that the craft remain comfortably within the level 1 handling regime throughout.
Special attention was paid to the handling qualities at Vapproach as well, since hazardous ground impact is most likely
to occur in the approach to landing condition, making effective controllability in this state key.
Servos were also selected largely in the interest of maximizing craft survivability. The HS82 servo will be used
for all control surfaces on the Piolin due to its high reliability and durability. The servo has a control power much
higher, approximately 10 times higher, than what is necessary for deflection of any of the individual control
surfaces, allowing us to maintain controllability under all of our expected flight conditions. The servos also use
metal gears as opposed to plastic, introducing an additional level of reliability and consistency to vehicle
controllability.
As a final measure of risk mitigation we introduced redundancy in the tail elevator. This surface is hinged to two
servos as opposed to one, so that in the event of servo failure the plane maintains its ability to pitch and control
angle of attack. The two servos are wired independently, and barring an outside mechanical obstruction are each
capable of moving both the elevator and dead servo arm should the need arise. Servo redundancy was considered
for the ailerons and rudder as well, but due to the coupling between yaw and roll it was determined that a loss of a
servo in either case would not be catastrophic, and the additional weight and complexity unjustifiable.

2. Results
The Piolin UAV design has achieved level 1 handling characteristics throughout its flight regime, except for
flight conditions very close to stall. The vehicle will be able to maintain its controllability throughout a variety of
maneuvers and flight conditions, and has additional redundancy in the event of servo loss for the elevator.

79
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 IX. CAD-UG
SolidWorks is a three dimensional computer modeling software program that can be used to make individual
parts or assemblies made of other parts or assemblies. Using SolidWorks, a fully scaled representation of Piolin was
created from its component parts. This model was used for several purposes, including CG measurement, fabrication
of the CMARC model, calculation of the moments of inertia, structural analysis export, as well as various sizings
and layout decisions.
In order to analyze the structural integrity of the different parts of the plane, the SolidWorks model needed to be
imported into a program called ANSYS. ANSYS uses a mesh version of the model to show stress concentrations as
well as other information, however models created using SolidWorks encountered repeated errors when imported
into ANSYS. In order to solve this problem, the models were taken from SolidWorks through another program
called Unigraphics, and then to ANSYS. Unigraphics is another 3D modeling program featuring meshing and gluing
tools that can be easily translated into ANSYS.
The main assembly of Piolin features an origin located at the leading edge point of the wing. The center of
gravity and moments of inertia were calculated internally in SolidWorks in relation to this origin. Having the origin
at the leading edge of the wing allows for easy calculation of CG and static margin. The model features as many of
the small details as possible, including wiring, lights, and servo control horns and linkages.
One of the customer requirements around which Piolin was built is that the plane must disassemble to fit into a
1.5 cubic foot box. SolidWorks was used to try out several different box dimensions and to select the most
applicable to Piolin. The final box dimensions chosen around which to build the plane were 48 inches by 9 inches by
6 inches. This box was inserted into a SolidWorks assembly along with the disassembled parts of the plane. The
parts were arranged so that everything could fit inside of the box. Figure 9.1 and Fig. 9.2 show these in-box
assemblies.

Figure 9.1. Box breakdown isometric

80
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.2. Box breakdown side view

Figures 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 show a series of pictures from the SolidWorks model exhibiting the external
geometry and features. Figures 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8 show the positioning of the components inside the fuselage and
inside the wing.

Figure 9.3. Exploded view

81
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.4. Servo hatch and control horn on aileron

Figure 9.5. Under side of airframe

82
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.6. Left side internal structures

Figure 9.7. Servo and inboard win internal structures

83
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.8. Fuselage internal structures

1. Weight Buildup
SolidWorks features a density editor for any part that is created. A user can input the density of the
component material in order get an approximation of the weight of the part. Each part in the assembly of Piolin was
made to have a density equal to that of the material of which it was made. Once each component was assigned its
density, SolidWorks was used to calculate the overall weight of the assembly. Some of the components had
previously known densities while others were approximated by weighing a certain mass of the material and then
assigning an appropriate density.
The overall mass of the plane, before paint, came to 4.5lbs. After paint was added, the final estimated
weight of the plane was 5.0lbs. The piece-by-piece weight buildup of the plane is located in Table 9.1.

84
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 9.1. Piolin Weight Build-Up (Without Paint)
Fuselage Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Fiberglass Skin (0.009 inch) 0.2609167
Bulkheads/Spine 0.1624118
Servo Mounting Blocks 2 0.0278722
Servo Linkages 2 0.0625
Total Weight 0.5137007
Payload Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Motor 1 0.274
Battery 1 0.868
RC Reciever 1 0.0769
Piccolo II 1 0.531
Camera 1 0.375
Propellor 1 0.13
Servo Wire 0.03
Servos 3 0.12375
Switches 2 0.0625
Speed Controller 1 0.11
Total Weight 2.58115
Horizontal Tail Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Foam 0.01134
Fiberglass (0.001 inch) 0.021
Tail Reciever 0.106
4-40 Bolt 0.001
Carbon Pin 0.0013
Tail Boom 0.11
Hinge 0.0006
Total Weight 0.25124
Vertical Tail Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Fiberglass (0.001 inch) 0.005
Foam 0.012
Hinge 0.00052
Total Weight 0.01752
Mid Wing Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Fiberglass (0.005 inch) 0.15
Ribs 0.01975
Latch 2 0.007
Spartape 0.012
Foam 0.0747
Total Weight 0.26345
Outboard Wing Weight Buildup
Item Total Quantity Total Weight (lbs)
Fiberglass (0.005 inch) 0.133
Foam 0.0549
Hinge 0.002
Ribs 0.00468
Spartape 0.000683
Carbon Wing Rod 0.0546
Carbon Wing Pin 0.00241
Total Weight 2 0.504546
Wing Frame Overall Weight 0.767996
Servos 2 0.0825
Control Horns 2 0.0001
Servo Linkage 2 0.00154

85
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 LED Array 2 0.003
Pitot Tube 1 0.075
Pitot Line 2 0.09375
Pitot Clamp 1 0.0006919
Servo Mounting Block 4 0.0011168
Pitot Counterweight 1 0.0756919
LED Wiring 0.032
Servo Wiring 0.02
Wing Total Weight 1.1533866
Overall Weight before Paint 4.5169973

2. CG Location and Moments of Inertia

As previously stated, the origin axis of the airplane is located at the leading edge of the wing. The desired
CG location is 1.76 inches aft of the leading edge and 0.9 inches vertically down from the leading edge. Empty
space was intentionally left inside the fuselage so that the Piccolo II could be shifted forward or aft to fine-tune the
CG after manufacturing. This was done in an attempt to avoid the use of ballast.
The moments of inertia were also calculated using the internal calculator in SolidWorks. Axes used for
these moment are as follows: x positive out from the nose of the plane, y positive extending out the right wing of the
plane, and z positive down. In order to verify that, after manufacturing, the moments of inertia and CG remain where
they are supposed to be, a rig will be constructed to measure them. Values for CG and moments of inertia can be
found in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2. Center of Gravity and Moment of Inertia
XCG 1.76in aft from leading edge, 11.76in from tip of spinner
ZCG 0.8in downward from leading edge, 0.15in up from spinner
IXX 0.0818 slug-in2
IYY 0.0713 slug-in2
IZZ 0.149 slug-in2

B. CG Rig for Measurement of Correct CG Position and Moment of Inertias

A fabricated CG rig will be used to measure the Piolin UAV center of gravity and various moments of inertia.
The rig will be made from 1 inch square aluminum tubes, balsa blocks, and a nylon snap-on connector. The rig will
be suspended via 0.25 in steel cables attached to eye hooks on the aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes will be
arranged in a crossbar, allowing the rig to be suspended in a variety of ways for the measurement of the CG and
moments of inertia. The nylon connector will be pinned to the rear balsa block, and is sized to fit the tail boom. The
forward balsa block will have two bolts going through it, and is placed such that the bolts screw into the nose
bulkhead 4.3 in from the tip of the spinner and fix the front of the UAV in place. The Piolin CG rig can be seen in
Fig. 9.9.

86
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.9. CG Measurement Rig

The rig is balanced such that its CG, with a .22.lb ballast placed 3.8 in from the front end, will be directly at the
center of the aluminum tube crossbar (9.72 in from front of rig). The rig is thus designed to be balanced before being
attached to the UAV, and has minimal weight (approximately 1 lb) so that it interferes as little as possible with the
measurement of plane-specific mass properties.
Figure 9.10 shows the CG rig configured to measure the longitudinal and lateral center of gravity of the UAV as
well as the Izz moment of inertia. In this configuration the rig is suspended from the center of the crossbar, at the
location of the rig CG. The rig CG is placed such that the intended location of the plane CG is directly below, so the
single cable at the rig CG is sufficient to measure the CG of the plane. The internal components of the vehicle will
be adjusted until the craft hangs level from the rig in this configuration.

Figure 9.10. CG Rig Configured to Measure Longitudinal and Lateral CG, Izz

87
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
To measure the vertical center of gravity for the UAV the vehicle will be pitched nose up and a vertical line will be
drawn through the center of gravity using a surveyor’s laser. This configuration can be seen, with anticipated
reference line and CG location, in Fig. 9.11.

Figure 9.11. CG Rig Configured to Measure Vertical CG

The moments of inertia for the plane will be calculated by measuring the period of oscillation about a particular
axis. This is done by setting the aircraft and rig in the appropriate configuration and giving the plane a slight
disturbance about the appropriate axis of rotation. During the oscillation the damping time and number of cycles is
recorded, and from this information the period of the axis can be calculated. From this information the moments of
inertia can be calculated using Eq. (9.1)58.

WT 2 L
I (9.1)
4 2
This holds where Icc is the moment of inertia of the UAV and rig combination about the axis in question (I xx, Iyy,
or Izz), W is the total weight, T the period of oscillation, and L the distance from the point of rotation to the center of
gravity. The moment of inertia for the UAV by itself is described by Eq. (9.2)58.

2
Wtotal Ttotal Ltotal Wrig Trig2 Lrig Waircraft L2aircraft
I 2 2
(9.2)
4 4 g
This holds where Ltotal is described by Eq. (9.3)58.

88
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Wrig Lrig Waircraft Laircraft
Ltotal (9.3)
Wtotal

In equation (9.2) I is the moment of inertia of the aircraft about an axis going through the CG and parallel to the
axis of rotation, Wtotal the combined weight of the CG rig and UAV, T total the period of the UAV/rig combination,
and Ltotal is the distance from the point of rotation to the UAV and rig combination CG. W rig is the weight of the CG
rig, Trig the period of the CG rig oscillation, and Lrig is the distance of the rig CG to the point of rotation. Waircraft is
the weight of the UAV, and Laircraft is the distance from the point of oscillation to the aircraft CG.
The weight of the UAV and rig will be obtained before the measurement of the CG location and moments of
inertia. Likewise, the L distance for the rig, aircraft, and rig/aircraft combination will be calculated prior to testing
for each axis. The period of the rig and period of the rig and UAV combination will be obtained by measuring their
respective oscillations for a set amount of time. For measurement of the Ixx moment of inertia the rig and UAV will
be configured as shown in Fig. 9.12. For the Iyy moment of inertia, the configuration is shown in Fig. 9.13. To
measure the Izz value, the same rig configuration can be used as described by Fig. 9.10.

Figure 9.12. CG Rig Configured to Measure Ixx

89
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure 9.13. CG Rig Configured to Measure Iyy

90
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 X. Manufacturing
One of the primary customer requirements was to produce two airframes for testing and evaluation. With this in
mind, the entire design of the Piolin is centered on ease of construction and cost effectiveness.

A. Fuselage
The fuselage will be manufactured using a plug and mold technique. A plug will be made by printing our 1:1
scale copies of the Piolin’s fuselage in both lateral and longitudinal faces. These full scale copies will then become
templates which can be pinned to a block of blue foam. These templates will serve as guides to a hot wire which
can cut the lateral and longitudinal faces out of the block. This produces a block that resembles the Piolin’s fuselage
to a rough resolution. A more detailed plug can be achieved by then sanding down the corners and edges of the
block until it fits even, symmetrical dimensions as modeled in the design. Any imperfections are filled with
Bondo® and then sanded down again to provide a smooth surface.
A female mold will be produced by creating a fiberglass half-mold of each side, left and right, of the fuselage
plug. The plug is mounted with a board which serves as a bisecting plane against the plug. The board and plug are
prepped by waxing the surface. PVA is used as a mold release. This will allow a clean release between the mold and
the plug. With the surface prepped, layers of fiberglass and epoxy are vacuum bagged to the plug and left to cure. A
longer cure time will ensure that the mold is consistent throughout. Once cured, the vacuum bagging will be
removed and the plug, with its bisecting board, removed. The half-mold will then be sanded with a fine-grit sand
paper to remove any undesired inconsistencies in the fiberglass composite. This will complete half of the mold. The
same process is repeated to complete the mold for the other half of the fuselage. Both sections can be reinforced
with plywood to protect the shape of the mold.
With the mold manufactured, the interior of the mold can be prepped similar to the plug. This surface is then
coated in fiberglass fabric and epoxy, which will form a fiberglass composite, and vacuum bagged. When equipping
the mold with fiberglass, it is important to ensure that the fabric is not stretched or twisted as that will produce an
unacceptable body. Once the fiberglass has cured, it will be removed from the mold and inspected for
imperfections. Sanding the body will ensure a smooth outer surface. Bulkheads and firewalls can then be placed
inside the model to give it structural rigidity during the manufacturing of the hatches and outfitting. Hatches can be
cut as dimensioned.

B. Inboard and Outboard Wing Segments

The wings will be manufactured out of fiberglass, carbon, and blue foam. Similar to the fuselage, a 1:1 scale
drawing of the wing’s airfoil, at both the wing tip and the root chord, will be printed. The paper template will be
used to make a sheet metal template. The metal template of the root chord can be stuckd to a block of blue foam on
both sides with an equal span to that of the inboard section. A hot wire can then be used to cut the foam out in a
shape modeling that of the inboard segment of the wing. The outboard segments of the wing can be modeled
similarly, except the template on one side of the block will be that of the root chord and the opposing template will
be that of the wing tip. By using this process, a foam inboard and two foam outboard wing segments can be
completed.
The foam wings can then be cut according to the structural design to allow of the insertion of ribs and internal
avionics. With all internal structures in place and all necessary cavities removed, the aircraft can then be coated in
fiberglass and carbon composites for manufacturing.

1. Spar and Live Hinges

The spar will be composed of a carbon fiber tape and foam shear web. When laying the various layers of
fiberglass down, the carbon-fiber tape, placed at the mean aerodynamic chord, will be embedded on the top and
bottom surface of the wing between the layers of fiberglass and the foam.

91
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Live hinges will be manufactured by a similar process. A strip of aramid will be placed at the hinge location so
that the hinge can be cut from the wing after the layup of the wing.

2. Leading Edge
To ensure that the leading edge is smooth, an extra layer of 2oz fiberglass will be placed from the top surface,
covering the leading edge, and ending at the bottom surface of each wing. This will create an extra thick layer of
fiberglass that can be vacuum bagged, cured, then sanded down to a smooth finish to reduce drag but still maintain
structural rigidity.

3. Vacuum Bagging Procedure

Vacuum bagging will be done by prepping a glass surface the same way the foam fuselage plug was prepped.
With each layer of fiberglass composite laid on the foam, a mylar will be wrapped around the wing, taped at the
trailing edge. Two layers of breather cloth will be laid just in front of the wing segments’ leading edges and behind
their trailing edges. These two layers of breather cloth will soak up any epoxy that is pushed out of the fiberglass
cloth from the force of the vacuum.
As with the fuselage, a long cure time will ensure the composite is manufactured as consistent as possible. After
the cure time has elapsed, the breather cloth can be removed and solid inboard and outboard wing forms will be
produced. These forms will be somewhat rough due to the contact of the breather cloth, so it will be necessary to
sand the surface of each wing segment to a smooth finish.

C. Vertical and Horizontal Tails

The vertical and horizontal tails will be manufactured in much the same way as the main wing. They will use
only one layer of 0.75oz fiberglass. As with the wing segments, aramid strips will need to be embedded between the
fiberglass and foam to allow for the creation of live hinges.

D. Hinges and Control Surfaces

Control surfaces will be cut out of the laid-up wing segments and fins using a knife. Using the blade, a wedge
equal to that of the maximum control surface deflection can be cut between the control surface and the wing
segment. This will allow the control surface to move freely, but not exceed its desired maximum deflection. The
aramid tape will serve as the hinge material.

E. Prefabricated Items
Prefabricated items include all avionics, servos, and the battery. The only prefabricated airframe component will
be the carbon fiber tailboom, used to attach the empennage to the fuselage.

F. Bill of Materials
Materials for production of two airframes, and their respective costs, can be found in Table 10.1.

92
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Table 10.1. Bill of Materials for Airframe Manufacturing
Item Unit Price Unit Measure Units Needed Total Cost
Aircraft Components
Carbon Wrapped Tube $80.95 6' Length, 0.75" ID 1 $80.95
Carbon Uni-Directional $9.00 3" x 10' 1 $9.00
Tape Joiner Rod
Carbon $7.95 3/8" Dia. 3 $23.85
Brass Joiner Sleeve $1.50 3/8" ID, 13/32" OD, 1ft 1 $1.50
Carbon Anti-Rotation Rod $5.45 1/8" Dia, 4ft length 1 $5.45
Carbon Anti-Rotation $6.20 0.122" ID, 4ft length 1 $6.20
Sleeve
Epoxy Kit $164.58 1.9 Gal Resin + Hardener 1 $164.58
Aramid Tape $21.95 1" wide, 10 yard pkg. 1 $21.95
Plywood $15.00 2' X 4' X 1/8” 1 $15.00
2.2 oz Fiberglass $13.99 50x108" 1 $13.99
0.75 oz Fiberglass $14.00 41" X 108" 1 $14.00
Foam Core $12.00 2” x 2’ x 8’ 2 $24.00
CAM Blades $12.90 12" X 8" 2 $25.80
Prop Shaft Adapter $6.50 5 mm 1 $6.50
Aeronaut Yoke $13.00 50 mm 1 $13.00
Nylon Spinner $5.60 50 mm 1 $5.60
Nylon bolt $1.25 1.25" x 10-32, pkg of 4 1 $1.25
Dubro Threaded Rod $3.29 4-40, pkg of 6, for ailerons 1 $3.29
Steel Clevis $1.49 4-40, Threaded 2 $2.98
Dubro Flex Cable $3.69 36" each 4 $14.76
Control Horns $1.10 --- 1 $1.10
Locking 2-position $9.94 SPDT, 4-40 thread 4 $39.76
Switches Aircraft Subtotal (assuming two prototypes) = $494.51
Estimated Shipping Costs = $80.75
Subtotal = $575.26
Contingency Costs = $57.53
Grand Total = $632.79

93
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 XI. Budget and Customer Requirements

A. Budget
The budget for two prototypes for the Piolin can be found in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1. Proposed Budget
Item Unit Price Unit Measure Units Total
Aircraft Components Needed Cost
Piccolo Autopilot $0.00 Provided 1 $0.00
Camera System $0.00 Provided 1 $0.00
Pitot Static Tube $0.00 Provided 1 $0.00
Carbon Wrapped Tube $80.95 6' Length, 0.75" ID 1 $80.95
Carbon Uni-Directional Tape $9.00 3" x 10' 1 $9.00
Carbon Joiner Rod $7.95 3/8" Dia. 3 $23.85
Brass Joiner Sleeve $1.50 3/8" ID, 13/32" OD, 1ft 1 $1.50
Carbon Anti-Rotation Rod $5.45 1/8" Dia, 4ft length 1 $5.45
Carbon Anti-Rotation Sleeve $6.20 0.122" ID, 4ft length 1 $6.20
Epoxy Kit $164.58 1.9 Gal Resin + Hardener 1 $164.58
Aramid Tape $21.95 1" wide, 10 yard pkg. 1 $21.95
Plywood $15.00 2' X 4' X 1/8” 1 $15.00
2.2 oz Fiberglass $13.99 50x108" 1 $13.99
0.75 oz Fiberglass $14.00 41" X 108" 1 $14.00
Foam Core $12.00 2” x 2’ x 8’ 2 $24.00
HS82 Servos $16.49 1.17" X 0.47" X 1.16" 5 $65.96
Rimfire 42-40-800 $69.99 --- 1 $69.99
Silver Series 45 ESC $59.99 --- 1 $59.99
Main Battery $0.00 Provided, 5400mah, 11.1v 1 $0.00
CAM Blades $12.90 12" X 8" 2 $25.80
Prop Shaft Adapter $6.50 5 mm 1 $6.50
Aeronaut Yoke $13.00 50 mm 1 $13.00
Nylon Spinner $5.60 50 mm 1 $5.60
Nylon bolt $1.25 1.25" x 10-32, pkg of 4 1 $1.25
Dubro Threaded Rod $3.29 4-40, pkg of 6, for ailerons 1 $3.29
Steel Clevis $1.49 4-40, Threaded 2 $2.98
Dubro Flex Cable $3.69 36" each 4 $14.76
Control Horns $1.10 --- 1 $1.10
Locking 2-position Switches $9.94 SPDT, 4-40 thread 4 $39.76
LED Switch $30.00 One switch 1 $30.00
Oval 50o x 110o LEDs (red and green) $5.00 2 5mm LEDs 8 $40.00
Surface Mounted 120o LED $20.00 2 LEDs 2 $40.00
General Components
Disposable Cups $1.99 50 ct. 1 $1.99
Craft Sticks $1.99 75 ct., 6" X 7/8" 1 $1.99
CA Glue $5.00 Super Thin, Thin, Gap 3 $15.00
Fiberglass for Molds $13.99 50x108 1 $13.99
Foam for Molds $0.00 1½“ X 4’ x 8’, Donated 1 $0.00
Balsa Wood $5.00 Sheeting, 1/8” x 3 x 2’ 1 $5.00
Balsa Wood $0.80 Sticks, 1/8” x ½” x 3 ft 6 $4.80
Vinyl Gloves $6.00 --- 1 $6.00
Sand Paper $30.00 Assortment 1 $30.00
Hardware $25.00 Assortment 1 $25.00
Krylon Spray Paint $5.19 12 oz, Gloss 2 $10.38
Aircraft Subtotal (assuming two prototypes) = $816.94
General Subtotal = $114.15
Estimated Shipping Costs = $80.75
Subtotal = $995.35
Contingency Costs = $101.18
Grand Total = $1,113.02

94
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
B. Summary of Customer Requirements Met
All customer requirements are mentioned in the introduction.
The customer required that the design for their surveillance UAV be electric powered and capable of sustaining
at least 15 minutes of flight. The customer also required their aircraft to be capable of landing on any surface and
contain navigational lights for night flight. The Piolin satisfies all of these requirements. Electric power is provided
from the LiPo battery to the RimFire electric motor and the LED lights located on the side of each wing.
Navigational red and green lights are applied to each wingtip to allow the pilot to discern the port and starboard
wings. Oval LEDs with 110o by 60o directionality are applied in 90o radial intervals with a 120o surface mounted
LED applied to the wingtip surface to allow for 180o of directionality from the profile view of each wingtip and 360 o
from a head-on view of each wingtip. This allows the Piolin to be visible from any direction. All LEDs are at least
1 candela making it visible for far more then approach. The current draw of the battery shows that the Piolin is
capable of flight for more than 15 minutes during one average mission. An average mission is one that closely
follows the mission profile.
The surveillance UAV was required to break apart into a box totally 1.5sq. ft. with widths and depths measuring
multiplicative intervals of 3in. The caveat to this requirement is that it must not take longer than 5 minutes to
assemble the aircraft from its packed state. The Piolin is designed to assemble using as few loose pieces of
hardware as possible from its 4ft. by 9in. by 6in. box. A flight-ready condition is achieved as soon as the aircraft is
assembled since it can be hand-launched, meaning it requires no extra hardware or components.
The customer required the aircraft to have a low visual and audible profile. This is achieved by utilizing an
electric engine which eliminates noisy combustion engines or turbines. The aircraft is also contains no strobe in the
lighting system which ensures a low visual signature at night.

95
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix A
Concurrent engineering diagrams not displayed in text are as follows:
CG Location
Thrust Zt
Positive
NP Position
Static
Margin (Kn) - Cm/α

Size
Stability Horizontal
Tail Volume
Tail Lt

it
Fuselage

Wing Size
Negative
Longitudinal Prop Wash Size

Angle of
Stall Control Incidence
Requirements
Wing Moment
Trim

Control Elevator
CL
Size
Cme
Placement
from CG

Effective
Power
CLδe
Figure A.1. Longitudinal Stability and Control Tree Diagram
CG
Positive Forward
Placement

Size

Xcp
Stability
Adverse
Negative
Yaw

Prop Wash
Cross Wind Flight

Directional Dutch
Roll
Cross Wind Landing
Requirements
Spin Recovery

Cn Adverse Yaw
Control Rudder Size
Cnβ
Placement
from CG
Effectiveness
CLδ r
Power
Cnδr

Figure A.2. Directional Stability and Control Tree Diagram

96
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Hard Points Wing

Hatches Accessibility Hinges

Bulkheads Motor

Internal
Cooling vents Bungee
Structures

Spars Skids

Lights Parachute

Linkages Payload
Removable

Tail
Vertical Tail Geometry
External
Structures
Horizontal Tail Placement

Bending
Wing
Moments

Fuselage Skin

Structures
Configuration

Mounting

Control Moments and

Surfaces Forces

Safety Factor

Loads Takeoff

Landing

Motor

Cruise

Cost

Lead Time

Weight Tension
Materials

Strength Compression

Torsion

Figure A.3. Structures Tree Diagram

97
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 a.c.

Shape m.a.c

(L=0)

cmc/4

cd0
cd
cl/cd (cl/cd)max
Airfoil cp
clmax
cl
a0

Rex

stall
Performance
Vstall

streamlines

S
AERODYNAMICS AR
b

CMc/4

CLmax
a
Planform Cp CL
stall

Vstall

CD CDi

(CL/CD)max
propwash
Wing/Body

Wing lift

Di
Lift/Drag
Contributions
downwash

dihedral

Body drag
Body
Body lift Weight
Figure A.4. Aerodynamics Tree Diagram

98
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Takeoff

Loiter
Lift
Cruise

Landing
Parasitic
Drag
Induced

Takeoff

Loiter
Speeds
Cruise

Landing

Takeoff
Lengths
Landing

Climb Rate
Performance Climb
Time to Climb

Gliding Flight Glide Slope

Range

Range &
Endurance
Endurance

SFC

Service
Ceiling
Absolute

Thrust Required

Motor(s) Thrust Required ηpropeller

Propulsion System
Propeller ηpropeller Thrust Available

Thrust Available
Figure A.5. Performance Tree Diagram

99
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure A.6. Manufacturing Tree Diagram

100
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Figure A.7. Aircraft Specifications vs Aircraft Geometry QFD

101
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Figure A.8. Aircraft Geometry vs Manufacturing and Repair QFD

102
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Figure A.9. Manufacturing and Repair vs Cost QFD

103
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix B
PIOLIN MODEL with control surfaces
&BINP2 LSTINP=2, LSTOUT=0, LSTFRQ=0, LENRUN=0, LPLTYP=0, &END
&BINP3 LSTGEO=0, LSTNAB=0, LSTWAK=0, LSTCPV=0, &END
&BINP4 MAXIT=200, SOLRES=0.0005, &END
&BINP5 NTSTPS=3, DTSTEP=30, &END
&BINP6 RSYM=1.0, RGPR=0.0, RFF=5.0, RCORES=0.050, RCOREW=0.050, &END
&BINP7 VINF=45, VSOUND=2000, &END
&BINP8 ALDEG=0.0, YAWDEG=0.0, PHIDOT=0.0, THEDOT=0.0, PSIDOT=0.0, &END
&BINP8A PHIMAX=0.0, THEMAX=0.0, PSIMAX=0.0,
WRX=0.0, WRY=0.0, WRZ=0.0, &END
&BINP8B DXMAX=0.0, DYMAX=0.0, DZMAX=0.0,
WTX=0.0, WTY=0.0, WTZ=0.0, &END
&BINP9 CBAR=0.477225, SREF=2.833, SSPAN=6,
RMPX=0.0, RMPY=0.00, RMPZ=0.0, &END
&BINP10 NORSET=0, NBCHGE=0, NCZONE=0,
NCZPCH=0, CZDUB=0.0, VREF=0.0, NNROT=10, NPEXC=0 CPWARN=9000., &END
&BINP11 NORPCH=0, NORF=0, NORL=0,
NOCF=0, NOCL=0, VNORM=0.0, &END
// R elevator 2, L elevator 2, rudder 2, R aileron 2, L aileron 2

&BINP11A NROTPCH=14,14,15,15,13,13,5,7,6,8,
NROTRF=1,22,1,22,1,23,16,1,1,13,
NROTRL=5,26,5,26,4,26,19,3,3,16,
NROTCF=1,1,1,1,3,3,25,16,25,16,
NROTCL=6,6,6,6,12,12,40,31,40,31,
ANGLE=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
VX=0,0,0,0,0,0,-1.13,-1.13,-1.13,-1.13,
VY=1,1,-1,-1,0,0,-24,-24,24,24,
VZ=0,0,0,0,1,1,1.47,1.47,1.47,1.47, &END

&BINP12 KPAN=0, KSIDE=0, NEWNAB=0, NEWSID=0, &END

&BINP13 NBLIT = 0, &END

&ASEM1 ASEMX= -0.98, ASEMY= 0.0000, ASEMZ= 0.0685,

ASCAL= 1.0000, ATHET= 0.0, NODEA= 5, &END
&COMP1 COMPX= 0.0000, COMPY= 0.0000, COMPZ= 0.0000,
CSCAL= 1.0000, CTHET= 0.0, NODEC= 5, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=2, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

SPINNER %%1
&SECT1 STX=0.0, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.0075, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.023, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0

104
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.015, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.039, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.025, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.048, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.05, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.06, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.075, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.068, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761

105
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.104167, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.057666667, SCALE=0.0729167, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 1
0 0.258819045 0.965925826
0 0.5 0.866025404
0 0.707106781 0.707106781
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.866025404 0.5
0 1 0
0 0.939392621 -0.34202014
0 0.766044443 -0.64278761
0 0.707106781 -0.707106781
0 0.573576436 -0.819152044
0 0.5 -0.866025404
0 0.258819045 -0.965925826
0 0 -1
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.13, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.48, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=2, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

NOSE %%3
&SECT1 STX=0.13, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.48, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.19, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.60, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END

106
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.25, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.7, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.30, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.77, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.4, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.88, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.5, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.95, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667

107
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.6, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.98, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.026
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.78, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.05 0.029
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=4, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.05 0.029
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=1, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

WING TOP %%5
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0, STZ=0, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
1 0 0.0672004

108
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 0.9 0 0.0672004
0.8 0 0.0672004
0.7 0 0.0672004
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0672004
0.075 0 0.0672004
0.05 0 0.0672004
0.025 0 0.0672004
0.0125 0 0.0672004
0.00625 0 0.0672004
0.003125 0 0.0672004
0.0015625 0 0.0672004
0 0 0.0672004
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=.05, STZ=.0030581, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0.0498088
0.9 0 0.053
0.8 0 0.0489
0.7 0 0.0669
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.062
0.05 0 0.059
0.025 0 0.057
0.0125 0 0.054
0.00625 0 0.052
0.003125 0 0.0498088
0.0015625 0 0.0498088
0 0 0.0498088
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.13, STZ=0.009174393, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.7 0 0.0669
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.15, STZ=0.009174393, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.7 0 0.0669
0.6 0 0.0814

109
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.5, STZ=0.03058, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=4, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.7 0 0.0669
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=1.0, STZ=0.061163, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.75 0 0.059
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=1.08333, STZ=0.0662593, SCALE=0.51475449, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.75 0 0.059
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088

110
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=2.0, STZ=0.122325, SCALE=0.447916667, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.75 0 0.059
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=2.916667, STZ=0.178391, SCALE=0.3810877, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.75 0 0.059
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=3.0, STZ=0.183488, SCALE=0.375, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.0271
0.8 0 0.0489
0.75 0 0.059
0.6 0 0.0814
0.5 0 0.0919
0.4 0 0.098
0.3 0 0.0976
0.2 0 0.088
0.15 0 0.0789
0.1 0 0.0659
0.075 0 0.0576
0.05 0 0.0473

111
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.025 0 0.0339
0.0125 0 0.0244
0.00625 0 0.015
0.003125 0 0.01
0.0015625 0 0.006
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=1, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

WING BOTTOM %%7
&SECT1 STX=0.0, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0.8333 0.13 0.009174393
0.83981038 0.13 0.002
0.84632075 0.13 -0.001
0.8593415 0.13 -0.008
0.87236225 0.13 -0.013815536
0.885383 0.13 -0.013815536
0.9114245 0.13 -0.013815536
0.937466 0.13 -0.013815536
0.989549 0.13 -0.013815536
1.041632 0.13 -0.013815536
1.093715 0.13 -0.013815536
1.145798 0.13 -0.013815536
1.19788 0.13 -0.013815536
1.249964 0.13 -0.005
1.302047 0.13 0
1.35413 0.13 0.009174393
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.15, STZ=0.009174393, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.7 0 -0.0065
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.5, STZ=0.03058, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=4, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.7 0 -0.0065
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END

112
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=1.0, STZ=0.061163, SCALE=0.52083, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.75 0 -0.0054
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=1.08333, STZ=0.0662593, SCALE=0.51475449, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.75 0 -0.0054
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=2.0, STZ=0.122325, SCALE=0.447916667, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.75 0 -0.0054
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=2.916667, STZ=0.178391, SCALE=0.3810877, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014

113
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.6 0 -0.01
0.75 0 -0.0054
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=3.0, STZ=0.183488, SCALE=0.375, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=5, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0
0.0125 0 -0.0143
0.025 0 -0.0195
0.05 0 -0.0249
0.075 0 -0.0274
0.1 0 -0.0286
0.15 0 -0.0288
0.2 0 -0.0274
0.3 0 -0.0226
0.4 0 -0.018
0.5 0 -0.014
0.6 0 -0.01
0.75 0 -0.0054
0.8 0 -0.0039
0.9 0 -0.0022
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=0, TINTC=0, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=2, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

CENTER FUSE LOWER %%9
&SECT1 STX=0.8333, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.83981038, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 0.002
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.84632075, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.001
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

114
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
&SECT1 STX=0.8593415, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.008
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.87236225, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.885383, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.9114245, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.937466, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=0.989549, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667

115
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.041632, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.093715, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.145798, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.19788, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.249964, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 -0.005
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978

116
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.302047, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 0
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.35413, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=2, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=1, IPATCOP=0, &END

FUSE UPSWEEP %%11
&SECT1 STX=1.35413, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.05 0.029
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=5, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.13 0.009174393
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.5, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=3, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

117
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
&SECT1 STX=1.6, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=1.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.7, STY=0.0, STZ=0.0, SCALE=0.97, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.8, STY=0.0, STZ=0, SCALE=0.9, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=1.9, STY=0.0, STZ=0, SCALE=0.8, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=2, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.0050, SCALE=0.65, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END

118
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=2.10417, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.0150, SCALE=0.4, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.122900182 -0.286680978
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END
&SECT1 STX=2.21, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.050, SCALE=0.0, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=10, TINTS=3, &END
0 0 0.035
0 0.041667 0.028
0 0.08 0.008
0 0.11785113 -0.013815536
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=10, TINTC=3, &END
0 0.144337567 -0.048333333
0 0.166666667 -0.131666667
0 0.165861197 -0.17171209
0 0.164203258 -0.223683232
0 0.156237493 -0.252774093
0 0.144792708 -0.271256602
0 0.041979842 -0.296166806
0 0 -0.296166806
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=18, TINTC=3, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=0, IDPAT=2, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=0, IPATCOP=0, &END

FIN %%19
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0.0877045 0 0.02245

119
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.662417 0 0.02
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.0, STZ=-0.01875, SCALE=0.541667, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=0, &END
1 0 0
0.807755 0.025368 0
0.707209 0.035934 0
0.6827 0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=4, TINTC=2, &END
0.506616 0.052518 0
0.407233 0.057753 0
0.309135 0.059998 0
0.213401 0.058084 0
0.109532 0.04836 0
0.053918 0.036701 0
0.024011 0.025669 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=2, &END
0.024011 -0.025669 0
0.053919 -0.036701 0
0.109532 -0.04836 0
0.213401 -0.058084 0
0.309136 -0.059998 0
0.407233 -0.057753 0
0.506616 -0.052518 0
0.6827 -0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=1, &END
0.70721 -0.035934 0
0.807755 -0.025368 0
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=4, TINTC=1, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.32833, STY=0.0, STZ=0.1270733, SCALE=0.479167, ALF=0.0,THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.807755 0.025368 0
0.707209 0.035934 0
0.6827 0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=4, TINTC=2, &END
0.506616 0.052518 0
0.407233 0.057753 0
0.309135 0.059998 0
0.213401 0.058084 0
0.109532 0.04836 0
0.053918 0.036701 0
0.024011 0.025669 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=2, &END
0.024011 -0.025669 0
0.053919 -0.036701 0
0.109532 -0.04836 0
0.213401 -0.058084 0
0.309136 -0.059998 0
0.407233 -0.057753 0
0.506616 -0.052518 0
0.6827 -0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=1, &END
0.70721 -0.035934 0
0.807755 -0.025368 0
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=4, TINTC=1, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.4533, STY=0.0, STZ=0.272917, SCALE=0.41667, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END

120
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
1 0 0
0.807755 0.025368 0
0.707209 0.035934 0
0.6827 0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=4, TINTC=2, &END
0.506616 0.052518 0
0.407233 0.057753 0
0.309135 0.059998 0
0.213401 0.058084 0
0.109532 0.04836 0
0.053918 0.036701 0
0.024011 0.025669 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=2, &END
0.024011 -0.025669 0
0.053919 -0.036701 0
0.109532 -0.04836 0
0.213401 -0.058084 0
0.309136 -0.059998 0
0.407233 -0.057753 0
0.506616 -0.052518 0
0.6827 -0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=1, &END
0.70721 -0.035934 0
0.807755 -0.025368 0
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=4, TINTC=1, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.57833, STY=0.0, STZ=0.41875, SCALE=0.354167, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=1, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.807755 0.025368 0
0.707209 0.035934 0
0.6827 0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=4, TINTC=2, &END
0.506616 0.052518 0
0.407233 0.057753 0
0.309135 0.059998 0
0.213401 0.058084 0
0.109532 0.04836 0
0.053918 0.036701 0
0.024011 0.025669 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=2, &END
0.024011 -0.025669 0
0.053919 -0.036701 0
0.109532 -0.04836 0
0.213401 -0.058084 0
0.309136 -0.059998 0
0.407233 -0.057753 0
0.506616 -0.052518 0
0.6827 -0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=1, &END
0.70721 -0.035934 0
0.807755 -0.025368 0
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=4, TINTC=1, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.7033, STY=0.0, STZ=0.56458, SCALE=0.29167, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.807755 0.025368 0
0.707209 0.035934 0
0.6827 0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=4, TINTC=2, &END
0.506616 0.052518 0
0.407233 0.057753 0
0.309135 0.059998 0
0.213401 0.058084 0
0.109532 0.04836 0
0.053918 0.036701 0
0.024011 0.025669 0

121
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=2, &END
0.024011 -0.025669 0
0.053919 -0.036701 0
0.109532 -0.04836 0
0.213401 -0.058084 0
0.309136 -0.059998 0
0.407233 -0.057753 0
0.506616 -0.052518 0
0.6827 -0.038 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=9, TINTC=1, &END
0.70721 -0.035934 0
0.807755 -0.025368 0
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=4, TINTC=1, &END

&SECT1 STX=3.7033, STY=0.0, STZ=0.56458, SCALE=0.29167, ALF=0.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,

TNODS=3, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0.03
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=13, TINTC=2, &END
1 0 0.03
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=13, TINTC=1, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=-1, IDPAT=1, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=0, IPATCOP=0, &END

HORIZONTAL TAIL %%20
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.125, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159

122
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.25, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.3125, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.45833, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END

123
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.541667, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0.551667, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=3, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=13, TINTC=0, &END
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=13, TINTC=0, &END

&PATCH1 IREV=0, IDPAT=1, MAKE=0, KCOMP=1, KASS=1, IPATSYM=0, IPATCOP=0, &END

HORIZONTAL TAIL %%21
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=0, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=0, TNPS=0, TINTS=0, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724

124
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.125, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.25, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647

125
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.3125, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.45833, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.541667, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=2, TNPS=2, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0.9 0 0.00724
0.8 0 0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
0.702202202 0 0.018
0.662417 0 0.02
0.502685 0 0.02647

126
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
0.347124 0 0.0298
0.1781679 0 0.02805
0.0877045 0 0.02245
0.0390571 0 0.0159
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.0390571 0 -0.0159
0.0877045 0 -0.02245
0.1781679 0 -0.02805
0.347124 0 -0.0298
0.502685 0 -0.02647
0.662417 0 -0.02
0.702202202 0 -0.018
0.8 0 -0.01312
&BPNODE TNODE=1, TNPC=10, TINTC=0, &END
0.9 0 -0.00724
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=3, TINTC=0, &END
&SECT1 STX=3.2033, STY=-0.551667, STZ=-0.08125, SCALE=0.333, ALF=-2.0, THETA=0.0, INMODE=4,
TNODS=5, TNPS=1, TINTS=3, &END
1 0 0
0 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=2, TNPC=13, TINTC=0, &END
1 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=13, TINTC=0, &END

&WAKE1 IDWAK=1, IFLXW=1, ITRFTZ=18, INTRW=0, &END

HORIZONTAL STABILIZER WAKE 1
&WAKE2 KWPACH=14, KWSIDE=4, KWLINE=0, KWPAN1=0,
KWPAN2=0, NODEW=0, INITIAL=1, &END
&WAKE2 KWPACH=15, KWSIDE=2, KWLINE=0, KWPAN1=0,
KWPAN2=0, NODEW=3, INITIAL=1, &END
&SECT1 STX= 50, STY= 0.0000, STZ= 0.0000, SCALE= 1.0000,
ALF= 0.0, THETA= 0.0,
INMODE=-1, TNODS= 3, TNPS= 80, TINTS= 1, &END

&WAKE1 IDWAK=1, IFLXW=1, ITRFTZ=18, INTRW=0, &END

VERTICAL STABILIZER WAKE
&WAKE2 KWPACH=13, KWSIDE=4, KWLINE=0, KWPAN1=0,
KWPAN2=0, NODEW=3, INITIAL=1, &END
&SECT1 STX= 50, STY= 0.0000, STZ= 0.0000, SCALE= 1.0000,
ALF= 0.0, THETA= 0.0,
INMODE=-1, TNODS= 3, TNPS= 80, TINTS= 1, &END

&WAKE1 IDWAK=1, IFLXW=1, ITRFTZ=18, INTRW=1, &END

WING WAKE 1
&WAKE2 KWPACH=7, KWSIDE=4, KWLINE=0, KWPAN1=1,
KWPAN2=30, NODEW=0, INITIAL=1, &END
&WAKE2 KWPACH=11, KWSIDE=2, KWLINE=18, KWPAN1=0,
KWPAN2=0, NODEW=3, INITIAL=1, &END
&SECT1 STX= 5, STY= 0, STZ= -.5, SCALE= 1.0000,
ALF= 0.0, THETA= 0.0,
INMODE=4, TNODS= 3, TNPS= 80, TINTS= 1, &END
1.35413 3 -.05
1.35413 0 0
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=55, TINTC=3, &END
&END

127
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
&WAKE1 IDWAK=1, IFLXW=1, ITRFTZ=18, INTRW=1, &END
WING WAKE 2
&WAKE2 KWPACH=12, KWSIDE=4, KWLINE=11, KWPAN1=0,
KWPAN2=0, NODEW=0, INITIAL=1, &END
&WAKE2 KWPACH=8, KWSIDE=2, KWLINE=0, KWPAN1=1,
KWPAN2=30, NODEW=5, INITIAL=1, &END
&SECT1 STX=5, STY= 0, STZ= -.5, SCALE= 1.0000,
ALF= 0.0, THETA= 0.0,
INMODE=4, TNODS= 3, TNPS= 80, TINTS= 1, &END
1.35413 0 0
1.35413 -3 -.05
&BPNODE TNODE=3, TNPC=55, TINTC=3, &END
&END

&ONSTRM NONSL =0, KPSL = 0, &END

&BLPARAM RN =6500000, VISC =0.02304, NSLBL = 0, &END
&VS1 NVOLR= 0, NVOLC= 0, &END
&SLIN1 NSTLIN=0, &END

128
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix C
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% Programmers: Nicky Gomez-Pretzer, Tim Josey, and Jeffrey Spruill
% Program: PiolinStabilityDerivatives
% First written: 10/29/2008
% Previously modified: 11/14/2008
% Current version: 11/26/2008
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%Input:
%Output:
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%At Cruise Speed
close all
clear all
clc

%Definition of physical parameters

coeff=xlsread('Cruise Final.xls','i15:i45');
units=1;
if (units<=1)
f=1;
else
f=2;
end

rho=coeff(1,f); %density, slug/ft^3

W=coeff(2,f); %weight, lbf
g=coeff(3,f); %gravitational acceleration, ft/s^2
m=coeff(4,f); %mass, slug
croot=coeff(5,f); %root chord, ft
ctip=coeff(6,f); %tip chord, ft
cbar=coeff(7,f); %mean chord, ft
b=coeff(8,f); %wing span, ft
S=coeff(9,f); %wing area, ft^2
Sh=coeff(10,f); %horizontal tail area, ft^2
Sv=coeff(11,f); %vertical tail area, ft^2
AR=coeff(12,f); %aspect ratio
e=coeff(13,f); %Oswald efficiency factor
Ix=coeff(14,f); %x mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2
Iy=coeff(15,f); %y mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2
Iz=coeff(16,f); %z mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2
Izx=coeff(17,f);
Ixprime=(Ix*Iz-Izx^2)/Iz;
Izprime=(Ix*Iz-Izx^2)/Ix;
Izxprime=Izx/(Ix*Iz-Izx^2);
CL0=coeff(18,f); %CL at reference condition
CD0=coeff(19,f); %CD at reference condition
h=coeff(20,f);
hn=coeff(21,f);
ah=coeff(22,f);
lt=coeff(23,f);
lv=coeff(24,f);
zv=coeff(25,f);
Vh=coeff(26,f);
Vv=coeff(27,f);
a=coeff(28,f); %Lift curve slope of aircraft, 1/degrees

%Flight case parameters

U0=coeff(29,f); %speed at reference condition

M=coeff(30,f); %Mach number
qratio=1; %tail is far from wing
psi0=0;
theta0=0;
phi0=0;
deda=coeff(31,f); %downwash, per radian
CW0=W/(0.5*rho*S*U0^2);
CT0=CD0+CW0*sind(theta0);
CTu=-3*CT0; %assuming constant power from fixed prop

129
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
CDu=0; %This term is set to zero because of low Mach
%flight
coeff=xlsread('Cruise Final.xls','E15:E44');
units=1;
if (units<=1)
f=1;
else
f=2;
end

CLalpha=coeff(1,f);
CDalpha=(2*CL0*a)/(pi*AR*e);
Cxalpha=coeff(2,f);
Czalpha=coeff(3,f);
Cmalpha=coeff(4,f);
Cybeta=coeff(5,f);
Clbeta=coeff(6,f);
Cnbeta=coeff(7,f);
Cxu=-(CDu+2*CD0)+CTu; %nelson pg. 116
Czu=-((M^2/(1-M^2))*CL0)-2*CL0; %nelson pg. 116
it=2; %incicence angle of the horizontal in degrees
Cmu=-Vh*(ah*(it*pi/180));
Cyp=coeff(11,f);
Clp=coeff(12,f);
Cnp=coeff(13,f);
Cxq=coeff(14,f);
Czq=coeff(15,f);
Cmq=coeff(16,f);
Cyr=coeff(17,f);
Clr=coeff(18,f);
Cnr=coeff(19,f);
Cxde=coeff(20,f);
Czde=coeff(21,f);
Cmde=coeff(22,f);
Cydr=coeff(23,f);
Cldr=coeff(24,f);
Cndr=coeff(25,f);
Cyda=coeff(26,f);
Clda=coeff(27,f);
Cnda=coeff(28,f);
Cxalphadot=0;
Czalphadot=qratio*Czq*deda; %Etkin pg. 155
Cmalphadot=Czalphadot*lt/cbar; %Etkin pg. 155

%Dimensional stability derivatives

%Longitudinal Stability derivatives

Xu=rho*U0*S*CW0*sin(theta0)+0.5*rho*U0*S*Cxu;
Zu=-rho*U0*S*CW0*cos(theta0)+0.5*rho*U0*S*Czu;
Mu=0.5*rho*U0*cbar*S*Cmu;

Xw=0.5*rho*U0*S*Cxalpha;
Zw=0.5*rho*U0*S*Czalpha;
Mw=0.5*rho*U0*cbar*S*Cmalpha;

Xq=0.25*rho*U0*cbar*S*Cxq;
Zq=0.25*rho*U0*cbar*S*Czq;
Mq=0.25*rho*U0*cbar^2*S*Cmq;

Xwdot=0.25*rho*cbar*S*Cxalphadot;
Zwdot=0.25*rho*cbar*S*Czalphadot;
Mwdot=0.25*rho*cbar^2*S*Cmalphadot;

%Lateral Stability derivatives

Yv=0.5*rho*U0*S*Cybeta; %ft/s^2
Lv=0.5*rho*U0*b*S*Clbeta; %per s^2
Nv=0.5*rho*U0*b*S*Cnbeta; %per s^2

Yp=0.25*rho*U0*S*b*Cyp; %ft/s
Lp=0.25*rho*U0*S*b^2*Clp; %per s

130
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
Np=0.25*rho*U0*S*b^2*Cnp; %per s

Yr=0.25*rho*U0*S*b*Cyr; %ft/s
Lr=0.25*rho*U0*S*b^2*Clr; %per s
Nr=0.25*rho*U0*S*b^2*Cnr; %per s

CLde=coeff(29,f);
CLq=coeff(30,f);

%Effective Diehedral
gamma=(Clbeta/-0.00025)*(pi/180); %see nelson pg. 122
fprintf('Effective Dihedral = %g deg\n', gamma)

%Change in Pitch rate over Change in elevator

delq=g/U0;
Cw=(2*W)/(rho*U0^2*S);
mu=(2*m)/(rho*S*cbar);
det=(CLalpha*Cmde)-(CLde*Cmalpha);
hm=hn-(Cmq/(2*mu-CLq));
deltadele=-(((Cw*CLalpha*(2*mu-CLq)))*(h-hm))/(2*mu*det);
delq_over_deltadele=delq/deltadele;

fprintf('\n')
fprintf('----------------------Static Stability------------------------\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('With a static margin (Kn)= %g percent \n', 100*(hn-h))
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Neutral point= %g percent Cbar\n',hn)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Neutral point= %g inches from LE of Wing\n',hn*cbar*12)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Maneuver Point= %g percent Cbar\n',hm)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Maneuver Point= %g inches from LE of Wing\n',hm*cbar*12)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('-------------------Handling Characteristics-------------------\n')

%Control Power
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('----------------------Control Powers--------------------------\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Pitch Rate over Elevator Deflection = %g 1/s\n',delq_over_deltadele)

%elevator
delalpha_over_dedele=abs(-Cmde/Cmalpha);
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Elevator (Delalpha/Deldele)= %f\n',delalpha_over_dedele)

%Rudder
delalpha_over_dedrudder=-Cndr/Cnbeta;
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Rudder (DelBeta/Deldrudder)= %f\n',delalpha_over_dedrudder)

%Aileron Pss
maxaileron=20*pi/180; %Maximum Aileron deflection in rads
Pss=(-Clda/Clp)*2*(U0/b)*maxaileron; %rads per second
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Max Roll Rate (Pss)= %g deg/sec',abs((Pss)*180/pi))
fprintf('\n')

%Longitudinal A matrix construction

Alon=[Xu/m,Xw/m,0,-g*cos(theta0);...
Zu/(m-Zwdot),Zw/(m-Zwdot),(Zq+m*U0)/(m-Zwdot),-m*g*sin(theta0)/(m-Zwdot);...
(1/Iy)*(Mu+(Mwdot*Zu)/(m-Zwdot)),(1/Iy)*(Mw+(Mwdot*Zw)/(m-Zwdot)),(1/Iy)*(Mq+(Mwdot*(Zq+m*U0))/(m-Zwdot)),-
(Mwdot*m*g*sin(theta0))/(Iy*(m-Zwdot));...
0,0,1,0];

131
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
%Lateral A matrix construction
Alat=[Yv/m,Yp/m,(Yr/m)-U0,g*cos(theta0);...
(Lv/Ixprime)+(Izxprime*Nv),(Lp/Ixprime)+(Izxprime*Np),(Lr/Ixprime)+(Izxprime*Nr),0;...
(Lv*Izxprime)+(Nv/Izprime),(Lp*Izxprime)+(Np/Izprime),(Lr*Izxprime)+(Nr/Izprime),0;...
0,1,tan(theta0),0];

%Longitudina B matrix construction

Xde=Cxde*rho*.5*U0^2*S; %per radians

Zde=Czde*rho*.5*U0^2*S; %per radians
Mde=Cmde*rho*.5*U0^2*S*cbar; %per radians

Zwdot=0.25*rho*cbar*S*Czalphadot;
Mwdot=0.25*rho*cbar^2*S*Cmalphadot;

b1=Xde/m;
b2=Zde/(m-Zwdot);
b3=(Mde/Iy)+((Mwdot*Zde)/(Iy*(m-Zwdot)));

blon=[b1,b2,b3,0]';

%Lateral B matrix construction

Yda=Cyda*rho*.5*U0^2*S; %per radians

Lda=Clda*rho*.5*U0^2*S*b; %per radians
Nda=Cnda*rho*.5*U0^2*S*b; %per radians

Ydr=Cydr*rho*.5*U0^2*S; %per radians

Ldr=Cldr*rho*.5*U0^2*S*b; %per radians
Ndr=Cndr*rho*.5*U0^2*S*b; %per radians

blat=[Yda/m, Ydr/m;...
(Lda/Ixprime)+(Izxprime*Nda), (Ldr/Ixprime)+(Izxprime*Ndr);...
(Izxprime*Lda)+(Nda/Izprime), (Izxprime*Ldr)+(Ndr/Izprime);...
0,0];

%Phasors Etkin 7.8,3 pg 237

%eigen values diveded by eighen vector page 168

%Steady side slip

fprintf('\n')
fprintf('------------------Steady side slip Phasors--------------------\n')

cwmaxbeta=20*pi/180; %Cross wind Beta Max degrees

cwvelocity=18.9; %Cross wind velocity ft/s

phasorA=[Ydr, 0, m*g;Ldr, Lda, 0;Ndr, Nda, 0];

phasorB=-[Yv, Lv, Nv]' *cwvelocity;
soln=phasorA\phasorB;
delr_over_beta= soln(1);
dela_over_beta= soln(2);
phi_over_beta= soln(3);

fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Deltar/Beta= %f\n',delr_over_beta)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Deltaa/Beta= %f\n',dela_over_beta)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Phi/Beta= %f\n',phi_over_beta)

%Flight Path Phasor

%Phugoid Eigenvectors(polar form)

eiglon=eig(Alon);
[a,b]=eig(Alon);

b11=(a(1,3)/a(4,3))/U0;
b12=(a(2,3)/a(4,3))/U0;

132
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
b13=(a(3,3)/a(4,3))/U0;
b14=(a(4,3)/a(4,3));

deltaUhatLP=sqrt((real(b11))^2+(imag(b11))^2);
alpha_whatLP=sqrt((real(b12))^2+(imag(b12))^2);
qhatLP=sqrt((real(b13))^2+(imag(b13))^2);
deltaalphaLP=sqrt((real(b14))^2+(imag(b14))^2);

%Short Period Eigenvectors (polar form)

a11=(a(1,1)/a(4,1))/U0;
a12=(a(2,1)/a(4,1))/U0;
a13=(a(3,1)/a(4,1))/U0;
a14=(a(4,1)/a(4,1));

deltaUhatSP=sqrt((real(a11))^2+(imag(a11))^2);
alpha_whatSP=sqrt((real(a12))^2+(imag(a12))^2);
qhatSP=sqrt((real(a13))^2+(imag(a13))^2);
deltaalphaSP=sqrt((real(a14))^2+(imag(a14))^2);

fprintf('\n')
fprintf('-----------------------Phugoid Phasor-------------------------\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('deltaUhat/deltaalpha= %f\n',deltaUhatLP)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('--------------------Short Period Phasor-----------------------\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('deltaUhat/deltaalpha= %f\n',deltaUhatSP)
fprintf('\n')

%Longitudinal modes and Flight Levels

if imag(eiglon(1)) > imag(eiglon(3))

rootphugoid=eiglon(3);
rootsp=eiglon(1);
else
rootphugoid=eiglon(1);
rootsp=eiglon(3);
end

etaphugoid=real(rootphugoid);
omegaphugoid=imag(rootphugoid);
etasp=real(rootsp);
omegasp=imag(rootsp);

%Phugoid
natfreqphugoid=sqrt(etaphugoid^2+omegaphugoid^2);
thalfphugoid=0.693/abs(etaphugoid);
dampratiophugoid=-etaphugoid/natfreqphugoid;
periodphugoid=2*pi/omegaphugoid;
Nhlafphugoid=0.110*omegaphugoid/abs(etaphugoid);

if dampratiophugoid > 0.04

phugoid='Level 1';
else
phugoid='Fail';
end

%Short Period
natfreqsp=sqrt(etasp^2+omegasp^2);
thalfspd=0.693/abs(etasp);
dampratiosp=-etasp/natfreqsp;
periodsp=2*pi/omegasp;
Nhlafsp=0.110*omegasp/abs(etasp);

if 2 > dampratiosp > 0.3

sp='Level 1';
else
sp='Fail';
end

133
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
%Lateral modes
eiglat=eig(Alat);

if imag(eiglat(1)) > 0
rootdr=eiglat(1);
elseif imag(eiglat(2)) > 0
rootdr=eiglat(2);
elseif imag(eiglat(3)) > 0
rootdr=eiglat(3);
else
rootdr=eiglat(4);
end

if abs(real(eiglat(1))) > abs(real(eiglat(4)))

rootrm=real(eiglat(1));
rootsm=real(eiglat(4));
else
rootrm=real(eiglat(4));
rootsm=real(eiglat(1));
end

etadr=real(rootdr);
omegadr=imag(rootdr);
etarm=real(rootrm);
omegarm=imag(rootrm);
etasm=real(rootsm);
omegasm=imag(rootsm);

%Dutch Roll
natfreqdr=sqrt(etadr^2+omegadr^2);
thalfdr=0.693/abs(etadr);
dampratiodr=-etadr/natfreqdr;
perioddr=2*pi/omegadr;
Nhlafdr=0.110*omegadr/abs(etadr);

if dampratiodr > 0.08

dr_damp='Level 1';
dampratiodr=dampratiodr;
else
dr_damp='Fail damping';
end

if natfreqdr > 2
dr_freq='Level 1';
natfreqdr=natfreqdr;
else
dr_freq='Fail frequency';
end

%Rolling mode
timetodoublerm=0.693/abs(etarm);

if timetodoublerm < 1.4

rm='Level 1';
else
rm='Fail';
end

%Spiral Mode
TimeConstant=-1/etasm;

if abs(TimeConstant) > 20
sm='Level 1';
else
sm='Fail';
end

fprintf('----------------------Handling Qualities----------------------\n')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Longitudinal Roots')

134
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
eiglon
fprintf('Lateral Roots')
eiglat
fprintf('Phugoid\n')
fprintf('Damping= %f\n',dampratiophugoid)
fprintf('Frequency= %f\n',natfreqphugoid)
fprintf('Handling= %s\n',phugoid)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Short Period\n')
fprintf('Damping= %f\n',dampratiosp)
fprintf('Frequency= %f\n',natfreqsp)
fprintf('Handling= %s\n',sp')
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Dutch Roll\n')
fprintf('Damping= %f\n',dampratiodr)
fprintf('Frequency= %f\n',natfreqdr)
fprintf('Time to half= %f\n',thalfdr)
fprintf('Handling (damping)= %s\n',dr_damp)
fprintf('Handling (frequency)= %s\n',dr_freq)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Rolling Mode\n')
fprintf('Time to Half= %f\n',timetodoublerm)
fprintf('Handling= %s\n',rm)
fprintf('\n')
fprintf('Spiral Mode\n')
fprintf('Time Constant= %f\n',TimeConstant)
fprintf('Handling= %s\n',sm)
fprintf('--------------------------------------------------------------')

135
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix D
% Aileron Hinge Moment and Servo sizing approximator
% This code calculates the hinge moments and gives a solution for the
% correct servo sizing based on mechanical properties of the horn and
% servo arm.
% The code is base on characteristics found on Etkin 3rd edition on
% the Appendix B sections 1, 2, and 3. Pages 319-330.
% The code calculates the hinge moments base on the physical
% aileron parameters given by "Piolin".
% Code initially created by Lars Soltmann Current student at
% NCSU Aerospace Department
% Modified by: Nicky Gomez-Pretzer to produce Piolin's values
clear
clc
disp('** Aileron Hinge Moment calculation and Servo sizing **')
disp(' ')
disp('*********** Code based on standard density ************')
disp(' ')
disp('********* Code based on PIOLIN Aileron size ***********')
disp(' ')
v=input('Input flight velocity (fps) --> ');
deflection=input('Input movable surface deflection (deg) --> ');
alpha=input('Input angle of attack of control surface(deg) --> ');

%t/c=0.12 for NACA4412

ce=1.3438/12; %aileron Chord ft

be=23/12; %aileron span ft

clat=6.89; %Clalpha NACA 4412 theory /rad

cla=6.29; %CLalpha NACA 4412 actual (Xfoil data used) /rad
tau=17; %Trailing Edge angle (deg)

clde_o_cldet=0.87; %Etkin Appendix B2 figure B.2,1b

cldet=4.20; %Etkin Appendix B2 figure B.2,1a
b2s_o_ot=0.90; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,2b
b2sot=-0.83; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,2a
b1s_o_ot=0.77; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,1b
b1sot=-0.48; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,1a

%Don't forget to change t/c

b1o=b1s_o_ot*b1sot+2*(clat-cla)*(tand(.5*tau)-0.12);
b2o=b2s_o_ot*b2sot+2*(cldet-cldet*clde_o_cldet)*(tand(.5*tau)-0.12);

f1=0.15; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,4a

f2=0.004; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,4b
db2=0.005; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,4b
f3=1; %=1 since no mass balancing on surfaces

%Need to calculate the value on alphai/del*Clalpha/Cldelelev on B.3,4b

ai_d=0.15*clde_o_cldet*cldet/cla; %Etkin Appendix B3 figure B.3,4a

b1=b1o*(1-f1)+f2*f3*cla;
b2=b2o-ai_d*b1o+db2*f3*clde_o_cldet*cldet;
che=b1*abs(alpha)*pi/180+b2*deflection*pi/180;
he=(che*(1/2)*0.0023769*(v^2)*be*ce^2)*12*16;
horn=input('Input control horn length (in) --> ');
arm=input('Input servo arm length (in) --> ');

force=he/horn;
mom=force*arm;

disp(' ')
disp(' ')

fprintf('Aileron Hinge Moment = %g oz*in\n',abs(he));

fprintf('Force at Control Horn Length = %g oz\n',abs(force));
fprintf('Moment seen by Servo = %g oz*in\n',abs(mom));

136
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix E

3 Change in Forward Speed du (ft/sec) Pitching Rate q (deg/sec)

40
Vertical Speed w (ft/sec) Euler Pitching Rate Theta (deg)

q (deg/sec), Theta (deg)

2
Feet/Second

1 20

-1 0

-2

-3 -20

-4
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

20 60

Roll Rate P (deg/sec)

Yaw Angle Beta (deg)
15 Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)
Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg)
40
Degrees/Second

10
20
Degrees

0
0

-5 -20
Rudder Rudder
-10
-40

-15
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

100
50
80 Roll Rate P (deg/sec)
Yaw Angle Beta (deg) Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)
40 Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg)
60
Degrees/Second

40
30
20
Degrees

20 0

-20

10
-40
Aileron Aileron
-60
0
-80

-10 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure D.1. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Cruise

137
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 3 40

Pitching Rate q (deg/sec)

Change in Forward Speed du (ft/sec) Euler Pitching Rate Theta (deg)
2 Vertical Speed w (ft/sec)

q (deg/sec), Theta (deg)

20
1
Feet/Second

0
0

-1

Elevator Elevator
-2
-20

-3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

10 40

8 Yaw Angle Beta (deg) Roll Rate P (deg/sec)

Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg) Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)
6
20
Degrees/Second
4
Degrees

0 0

-2

-4
-20
-6
Rudder Rudder
-8

-10 -40
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

30 60

Yaw Angle Beta (deg) Roll Rate P (deg/sec)

Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg) 40 Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)

20
Degrees/Second

20
Degrees

10 0

Aileron Aileron
-20

-40

-10 -60
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure D.2. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Approach

138
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Change in Forward Speed du (ft/sec) 40
Pitching Rate q (deg/sec)
Vertical Speed w (ft/sec) Euler Pitching Rate Theta (deg)
2

q (deg/sec), Theta (deg)

Feet/Second

20

Elevator Elevator
-2

-20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

10

8 Yaw Angle Beta (deg) 40 Roll Rate P (deg/sec)

Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg) Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)
6 Degrees/Second
4 20
Degrees

0 0

-2

-4 -20

-6 Rudder Rudder
-8 -40

-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (deg) Time (sec)

30 80

Yaw Angle Beta (deg) Roll Rate P (deg/sec)

25 60
Euler Roll Angle Phi (deg) Yaw Rate R (deg/sec)

20 40
Degrees/Second

15 20
Degrees

10 0

5 -20
Aileron Aileron
0 -40

-5 -60

-10 -80
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure D.3. 5° Control Surface Deflection Doublet at Approach with Ground Effect

139
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix F
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% Programmer: Jeffrey Spruill
% Program: takeoff
% First written: 11/21/2008
% Previously modified: 11/23/2008
% Current version: 11/27/2008
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
close all
clear all
clc

i=1;
dt=0.001;
time(i)=0;

%Read in physical parameters

coeff=xlsread('Approach Body Final','I15:I44');

rho=0.002347;%coeff(1); %density, slug/ft^3

W=coeff(2); %weight, lbf
g=coeff(3); %gravitational acceleration, ft/s^2
m=coeff(4); %mass, slug

b=coeff(8); %wing span, ft

S=coeff(9); %wing area, ft^2
AR=coeff(12); %aspect ratio
e=coeff(13); %Oswald efficiency factor

CLmax=1.25986;
CD0=0.0251;
Vstall=sqrt(2*W/(rho*S*CLmax));

a_angle=1*pi/180;
Vx=Vstall*cos(a_angle);
Vy=Vstall*sin(a_angle);
X(i)=0;
V(i)=Vx;
L(i)=0.5*rho*V(i)^2*S*CLmax;
D(i)=(CD0+CLmax^2/(pi*e*AR))*0.5*rho*S*V(i)^2;
a(i)=0;
mu=0.3;

for t=dt:dt:10
i=i+1;

X(i)=X(i-1)+V(i-1)*dt+0.5*a(i-1)*dt^2;
V(i)=V(i-1)+a(i-1)*dt;
L(i)=0.5*rho*V(i)^2*S*CLmax;
D(i)=(CD0+CLmax^2/(pi*e*AR))*0.5*rho*S*V(i)^2;

if (L(i)>W)
F(i)=0;
else
F(i)=mu*(W-L(i));
end

a(i)=-(F(i)+D(i))/m;

time(i)=t;

if (V(i) < 0)
break
end

end

subplot(2,2,1);
plot(time,X); grid on
xlabel('Time (s)');

140
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
ylabel('Distance (ft)');

subplot(2,2,2);
plot(time,L); grid on
xlabel('Time (s)');
ylabel('L (lb)')

141
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Appendix G
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% Programmer: Jeffrey Spruill
% Program: launch_analysis_controlled
% First written: 11/20/2008
% Previously modified: 11/29/2008
% Current version: 11/30/2008
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%Input: Excel sheet with aircraft parameters and stability derivatives
%Output: Plots illustrating speeds, distances, and orientation of aircraft
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
%Note: Vectors are denoted such that first value is in terms of
% (subscript), while the second means relative to (superscript)
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%

close all
clear all
clc

i=2;

%Read in physical parameters

coeff=xlsread('Approach Body Final','I15:I44');

rho=coeff(1); %density, slug/ft^3

W=coeff(2); %weight, lbf
g=coeff(3); %gravitational acceleration, ft/s^2
m=coeff(4); %mass, slug

croot=coeff(5); %root chord, ft

ctip=coeff(6); %tip chord, ft
cbar=coeff(7); %mean chord, ft

b=coeff(8); %wing span, ft

S=coeff(9); %wing area, ft^2
Sh=coeff(10); %horizontal tail area, ft^2

Sv=coeff(11); %vertical tail area, ft^2

AR=coeff(12); %aspect ratio
e=coeff(13); %Oswald efficiency factor

Ix=coeff(14); %x mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2

Iy=coeff(15); %y mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2
Iz=coeff(16); %z mass moment of inertia, slug*ft^2
Izx=coeff(17);
Ixy=0;
Iyx=0;
Iyz=0;
Izy=0;
Ixz=Izx;

Ixprime=(Ix*Iz-Izx^2)/Iz; %
Izprime=(Ix*Iz-Izx^2)/Ix; %
Izxprime=Izx/(Ix*Iz-Izx^2); %

CL0=coeff(18); %CL at reference condition

CD0=coeff(19); %CD at reference condition
h=coeff(20);

hn=coeff(21);
ah=coeff(22); %Lift curve slope of h-tail, 1/degree
lt=coeff(23);

lv=coeff(24);
zv=coeff(25);
Vh=coeff(26);

Vv=coeff(27);
a=coeff(28); %Lift curve slope of aircraft, 1/degrees

142
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
it=2*pi/180;

%Other flight case parameters

U0=coeff(29); %speed at reference condition
M=coeff(30); %Mach number
qratio=1; %tail is far from wing
deda=0.1918; %downwash, per degree

%Model Data
qratio=1;
deda=0.1918;
Vstall=34.67;
Vcruise=67.5;
U0=Vcruise;
Vmax=90;

%Initial flight conditions

x=0;
y=0;
z=-5; %stability axes positive z is down

u=20;
v=0;
w=0;

Vx=0;
Vy=0;
Vz=0;

uprime=0;
vprime=0;
wprime=0;

ax=0;
ay=0;
az=0;

p=0;
q=0;
r=0;

pdot=0;
qdot=0;
rdot=0;

phi=0*pi/180;
theta=0*pi/180;
psi=0*pi/180;

phidot=0;
thetadot=0;
psidot=0;

alpha=0*pi/180;
beta=0;
alphadot=0;
betadot=0;

de=0*pi/180;
dr=0*pi/180;
da=0*pi/180;
dp=0;

%Vector Definitions
Ib=[Ix,-Ixy,-Ixz;-Iyx,Iy,-Iyz;-Izx,-Izy,Iz];

r_ee=[x;y;z];
V_ee=[Vx;Vy;Vz];
a_ee=[ax;ay;az];
W_ee=[0;0;W];
V_be=[u;v;w];

143
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
a_be=[uprime;vprime;wprime];
Euler=[phi;theta;psi];
Omega=[p;q;r];
c=[de;dr;da;dp];

Cmu=1.333E-5;
CDu=0;
T=3.367-9.166E-3*u-3.403E-4*u^2+1.527E-6*u^3;

%Load dimensionless coefficients from spreadsheet

coeff=xlsread('Approach Body Final','D15:E43');
units=2;
if (units<=1)
f=1;
else
f=2;
end

CLalpha=5.84;%coeff(1,f);
CDalpha=2*CLalpha/(pi*e*AR);
Cxalpha=coeff(2,f);
Czalpha=coeff(3,f);
Cmalpha=coeff(4,f);

Cybeta=coeff(5,f);
Clbeta=coeff(6,f);
Cnbeta=coeff(7,f);

Cyp=coeff(11,f);
Clp=coeff(12,f);
Cnp=coeff(13,f);

Cxq=coeff(14,f);
Czq=coeff(15,f);
Cmq=coeff(16,f);

Cyr=coeff(17,f);
Clr=coeff(18,f);
Cnr=coeff(19,f);

Cxde=coeff(20,f);
Czde=coeff(21,f);
Cmde=coeff(22,f);

Cydr=coeff(23,f);
Cldr=coeff(24,f);
Cndr=coeff(25,f);

Cyda=coeff(26,f);
Clda=coeff(27,f);
Cnda=coeff(28,f);

Cxalphadot=0;
Czalphadot=-2*qratio*ah*Vh*deda;
Cmalphadot=Czq*lt/cbar;

Cybetadot=0;
Clbetadot=0;
Cnbetadot=0;

%Run Simulink model

sim('launch_model_controlled.mdl');

subplot(4,4,1);
plot(time,r_ee(:,1)); grid on
title('x position vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('x position (ft)');

subplot(4,4,2);
plot(time,-r_ee(:,2)); grid on

144
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
title('y position vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('y position (ft)');

subplot(4,4,3);
plot(time,-r_ee(:,3)); grid on
title('z position vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('z position (ft)');

subplot(4,4,4);
plot(r_ee(:,1),-r_ee(:,3)); grid on
title('x vs z Position');
xlabel('x (ft)');
ylabel('z (ft)');

subplot(4,4,5);
plot(time,V_be(:,1)); grid on
title('u vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('u (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,6);
plot(time,V_be(:,2)); grid on
title('v vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('v (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,7);
plot(time,-V_be(:,3)); grid on
title('w vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('w (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,8);
plot(time,T); grid on
title('Thrust vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('Thrust (lb)');

subplot(4,4,9);
plot(time,V_ee(:,1)); grid on
title('Vx vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('Vx (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,10);
plot(time,V_ee(:,2)); grid on
title('Vy vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('Vy (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,11);
plot(time,-V_ee(:,3)); grid on
title('Vz vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('Vz (ft/s)');

subplot(4,4,12);
plot(time,-F_be(:,3)); grid on
title('Net Fz_b vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('Net Fz_e (lb)');

subplot(4,4,13);
plot(time,Euler(:,1)*180/pi); grid on
title('phi vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('phi (deg)');

subplot(4,4,14);

145
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
plot(time,Euler(:,3)*180/pi); grid on
title('psi vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('psi (deg)');

subplot(4,4,15);
plot(time,Euler(:,2)*180/pi); grid on
title('theta vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('theta (deg)');

subplot(4,4,16);
plot(time,alpha*180/pi); grid on
title('alpha vs Time');
xlabel('Time (sec)');
ylabel('alpha (deg)');

% plot(time,-r_ee(:,3),'color','b'); grid on
% title('z position vs Time');
% axis([0 1.5 4.75 5.25]);
% xlabel('Time (sec)');
% ylabel('z position (ft)');
% hold on

146
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 V_ee
time

Euler
V e (ft /s) r_ee
alpha
F_be X (ft )
e
F (lbf ) Body
alphadot xyz du /dt alphadot
Euler Angles (rad ) Euler
alphadot
beta DCM be

V (ft /s) f(u) alpha

V_be b
Fixed alpha
(rad /s)
Omega Mass f(u)
M (lbf -ft )
xyz
G_be d /dt
V_be Vmag f(u) du /dt betadot
DCM
2
Ab (ft /s ) beta betadot
betadot

Omega

Omegadot

a_be

Figure G.1. Code Top Level

V_be

alpha

Omega Fx

alphadot

Euler

f(u)

T(u)
1
V_be dp
Euler Product 1 1
beta dp F_be
2 Fy
alpha Omega 7
DCM Matrix
betadot
4 Multiply F_be
beta W_ee Product
V_be
3 Constant
alpha W_be
alphadot
Omega Fz
8 alphadot
betadot
Euler

V_be

5 beta
Gl
V _be Omega

betadot
G_be
6 V_be
Omega

alpha
Gm 2
Omega G_be

alphadot

V_be

beta
Gn
Omega

betadot

Figure G.2. Force and Moment Calculations

147
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 f(u)

Vmag

1
V_be
V_be

Cxu
2 alpha
alpha
f(u)

Cxu*uhat
-C-

Add
Cxq

u(5)*u(4)

-C- Cxalpha *alpha

f(u) 1
Fx
X
4
alphadot Add 2

f(u)

Cxq*qhat

Add 1
5
Euler f(u)

Cxalphadot *alphadothat

3
Omega

Figure G.3. X Force Calculations

dp

dp

1 f(u) T
V _be Product 1
T (u)

f(u)

dt /du
dTdu

Product 2 f(u)
dp Cxu
CTu
dp 1

1
f(u) Cxu
Subtract
Vmag

CDu+2*u

Fcn

2 CDalpha *u CD
alpha
CD0(alpha )

Figure G.4. CXu Calculations

148
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 1 f(u)
V _be
Vmag u(5)*u(2)

Cybeta *beta
2
beta

f(u)
3
Cyp*phat
Omega

-C-
f(u) f(u) 1
Fy
Cyr*rhat Y
Cyp f(u)

Sum Cy
f(u)
Cyr
Cybetadot *betadothat

-C-
f(u)

Cydr*dr

Cydr

f(u)

Cyda *da
Cyda

4
betadot

Figure G.5. Y Force Calculations

f(u)

Vmag

1
V_be u

Czu
Czu
alpha
2
alpha
f(u)

Czu*uhat
-C-

Add
Czq

u(5)*u(4)

-C- Czalpha *alpha

f(u) 1
Czalpha
Fz
Z
4
alphadot Add 2
Czq
f(u)

Czq*qhat

Add 1
5
Euler f(u)

Czalphadot *alphadothat

Czalphadot

3
Omega

Figure G.6. Z Force Calculations

149
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 1 f(u) Ma
u
M(u)

f(u) 1
2 CLalpha *u Czu
alpha Czu1
CL (alpha )

CL

Figure G.7. CZu Calculations

1 f(u)
V _be
Vmag u(5)*u(2)

Clbeta *beta
2
beta

f(u)
3
Clp *phat
Omega

-C-
f(u) f(u) 1
Gl
Clr *rhat L
Clp f(u)

Sum Cl
f(u)
Clr
Clbetadot *betadothat

-C-
f(u)

Cldr *dr

Cldr

f(u)

Clda *da
Clda

4
betadot

Figure G.8. L Moment Calculations

150
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 f(u)

Vmag

1
V_be

Cmu

2
alpha
f(u)

Cmu *uhat
-C-

Cmq

u(5)*u(4)
-C- Cmalpha *alpha f(u) 1
Gm
M
4
alphadot

f(u) f(u)

Cmq *qhat Cm

-C-

f(u)

Cmalphadot *alphadothat

3
Omega
u(11)*de

Cmde *de

Cmde

Figure G.9. M Moment Calculations

1 f(u)
V _be
Vmag u(5)*u(2)

Cnbeta *beta
2
beta

f(u)
3
Cnp *phat
Omega

-C-
f(u) f(u) 1
Gn
Cnr *rhat N
Cnp f(u)

Sum Cn
f(u)
Cnr
Cnbetadot *betadothat

-C-
f(u)

Cndr *dr

Cndr

f(u)

Cnda *da
Cnda

4
betadot

Figure G.10. N Moment Calculations

151
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Charles Hall, our professor, Stearns Heinzen, Dave Burke, Jason
Bishop, Dan Edwards, Matt Hazard, and the support of all friends and family.

152
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 Honor Pledge
By submitting this document, the members of Team Piolin acknowledge that they have neither given nor
accepted unauthorized assistance of any kind. All members of Team “Piolin” have read the contents of this
document and accept responsibility for anything therein.
Nicky Gomez-Pretzer
Jacob Hall
Tim Josey
Joseph Pack
Nick Petteway
Calvin Phelps
Jeff Spruill

153
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 References
1
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.200.
2
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.318.
3
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.325.
4
, Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.311
5
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.312
6
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.122.
7
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.121.
8
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.121.
9
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.328-337.
10
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.328.
11
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.329.
12
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.331.
13
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.331.
14
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.331.
15
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.332.
16
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp.333.
17
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.124.
18
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.342.
19
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp. 550.
20
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.407.
21
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.410.
22
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.413.
23
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.422.
24
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp. 551.
25
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp. 549.
26
Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Restin, Virginia, 2006,
pp. 548.
27
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.429.
28
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.430.

154
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108
 29
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.467.
30
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.472.
31
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.468.
32
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.469.
33
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.470.
34
Etkin, B., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1996, pp. 237.
35
Etkin, B., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1996, pp. 238.
36
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.433.
37
Heinzen, S.B., RPV Propeller Performance Lab, Class Notes.
38
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.29.
39
Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed., WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, p.122.
40
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.62.
41
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.34.
42
Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed., WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, p.165.
43
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.60.
44
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.62.
45
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.34.
46
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.80.
47
Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed., WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, p.182.
48
Etkin, B. and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p.322-
330.
49
“Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes”, FAR Part 23.341 and Part
23.301, 1996.
50
Diedrich, F. W., “A Simple Method for Obtaining Spanwise Lift Distributions over Swept Wings,” NACA Research
Memorandum L7107, 1948.
51
Kutz, M., Handbook of Materials Selection, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 379.
52
Zhidong, G., and Chihdar, Y., “Low-Velocity Impact and Damage Process of Composite Laminates,” Journal of
Composite Materials, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2002, pp. 851-871.
53
Chib, A., “Parametric Study of Low Velocity Impact Analysis on Composite Tubes,” Master of Science Research,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wichita State Univ., Witchita, KS, 2006.
54
”Bending Strength and Stiffness of Plywood”, Forrest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, 1964, p.33.
55
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.405.
56
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.397.
57
Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Higher Education Series, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005, p.472.
58
Wood, D. H., “Full-scale wind-tunnel tests of a propeller with the diameter changed by cutting off the blade tips,” NACA
351, 1931.

155
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
120108