Design and Manufacture

of a High Speed Model

Aircraft for a National
Competition

Progress Report

Morena Moremoholo - 19141645

2018

Fac ul t y o f E ngi ne eri n g

Fa kul tei t In ge ni e u r sw es e

D e p a r t m e n t o f M e c h a n i c a l a n d M ec h a tr o n i c E n g i n e er i n g
D e p a r t e m e n t M e g a n i es e en M eg a tr o n i e s e I n g e n i e u r s w e s e

Privaat Sak / Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, Suid-Afrika / South Africa · Banghoek Weg / Road, Stellenbosch, 7600,
Suid-Afrika / South Africa
Tel: +27 21 808 4376 · Epos / Email: mmchair@sun.ac.za
 Design and Manufacture of a High
Speed Model Aircraft for a National
Competition

Progress Report

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic

Engineering
Stellenbosch University

2018
Plagiarism declaration
I have read and understand the Stellenbosch University Policy on Plagiarism and
the definitions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism contained in the Policy
[Plagiarism: The use of the ideas or material of others without acknowledgement,
or the re-use of one's own previously evaluated or published material without
acknowledgement or indication thereof (self-plagiarism or text-recycling)].

I also understand that direct translations are plagiarism, unless accompanied by

an appropriate acknowledgement of the source. I also know that verbatim copy
that has not been explicitly indicated as such, is plagiarism.

I know that plagiarism is a punishable offence and may be referred to the

University's Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) who has the authority to expel
me for such an offence.

I know that plagiarism is harmful for the academic environment and that it has a
negative impact on any profession.

Accordingly all quotations and contributions from any source whatsoever

(including the internet) have been cited fully (acknowledged); further, all verbatim
copies have been expressly indicated as such (e.g. through quotation marks) and
the sources are cited fully.

I declare that, except where a source has been cited, the work contained in this
assignment is my own work and that I have not previously (in its entirety or in part)
submitted it for grading in this module/assignment or another
module/assignment.

I declare that have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to use my work (in
paper, graphics, electronic, verbal or any other format) with the intention of
passing it off as his/her own work.

I know that a mark of zero may be awarded to assignments with plagiarism and
also that no opportunity be given to submit an improved assignment.

Signature:

Name: Morena Moremoholo Student no: 19141645

Date: 27-07-2018

i
Abstract

ii
Acknowledgements

iii
Table of contents
Page

Plagiarism declaration ....................................................................................... i

Abstract ........................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements......................................................................................... iii

Table of contents ............................................................................................ iv

List of figures .................................................................................................. vi

List of tables .................................................................................................. vii

List of symbols .............................................................................................. viii

1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Motivation ............................................................................................... 2

2 Literature review ....................................................................................... 3

2.1 General Aircraft Description.................................................................... 3
2.2 Push vs Pull Propeller Configuration ....................................................... 3
2.3 Aircraft Aeronautical Layout ................................................................... 5
2.4 Design Configuration ............................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Vertical Wing Location................................................................. 6
2.4.2 Aerofoil ........................................................................................ 7

3 Conceptual design ..................................................................................... 8

3.1 Development plan ................................................................................... 8
3.2 Initial design ............................................................................................ 9

4 Preliminary design ................................................................................... 11

4.1 Main wing .............................................................................................. 11
4.1.1 Aerofoil selection....................................................................... 11
4.2 Horizontal stabiliser............................................................................... 17
4.3 Vertical stabiliser ................................................................................... 17

5 References .............................................................................................. 18

iv
Appendix A Design Calculations ................................................................. 19

v
List of figures
Page
Figure 1: General Aircraft Structure ......................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Rutan-61 with a pusher configuration ...................................................... 4
Figure 3: MX2 Aerobatic aircraft with tractor configuration .................................. 5
Figure 4: RC plane with high wing ........................................................................... 6
Figure 5: RC Plane with low wing ............................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Aerofoil types ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 7: Relationships of the design phases ........................................................... 8
Figure 8: T-tail with the aircraft in deep stall ........................................................ 10
Figure 9: Cl vs Alpha of differently cambered aerofoils ......................................... 12
Figure 10: Cl/Cd vs Alpha for differently cambered aerofoils ................................ 13

vi
List of tables
Page
Table 1: Wings figure of merit ............................................................................... 10

vii
List of symbols

A Wing area
c Chord length
 Angle of attack

viii
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Model aircraft are indispensable tools used in the aerospace industry to help
predict the behaviour of complex aircraft systems. Moreover, low complexity
and cost enabled model aircraft to be used in the entertainment industry.
Popular usage of aircraft technology is found in model aircraft racing
competitions organised by model aircraft societies and clubs. In these
competitions, the winning criteria typically becomes the quickest flight
completion time. As a result, there is a growing need to design fast model
aircraft that are competitive.

This document proposes the design and manufacture of a high speed model
aircraft that will compete in the Aeronautical Society of South Africa (AESSA)’s
annual high speed model aircraft competition. The competition entails flying the
model aircraft faster than all the competitors on a course consisting of two
pylons that are 150m apart for four laps with the ability to land and take off.
Detailed description of the competition rules is found in Appendix ?? The primary
focus of the design was to optimise the shape, weight and configuration of the
model aircraft for high speed flight with stable control for turning at the pylons.

The document also details the project’s objectives, motivation and planned
activities to ensure successful project completion. Predicted costs and time plans
are also outlined.

1.2 Objectives
The goal as mentioned above was to design and manufacture a high speed
model aircraft that is able to complete a race course of four laps around two
pylons that are 150m apart. The propulsion system is specified as the E-flight
Park 450 electric motor with the power source being a 3 cell Lithium Polymer
battery of a sufficient capacity. The minimum span must at least be 1000 mm.
Thus the objectives of the project are as follows:
1.1. Identify and design the optimum aircraft configuration for low energy
loss due to drag to maximise the use of the power from the motor.

1
 1.2. Design and optimise aircraft shape and control surfaces for low drag,
high manoeuvrability and high stability for easy and efficient turning at
the pylons.
1.3. Manufacture the optimised design of the aircraft.

1.3 Motivation
As one of the most prestigious South African model aircraft competitions held
annually, winning the competition is a priority. Apart from my personal interest in
model aircrafts and the opportunity of acquiring more knowledge, the
contribution of the project’s findings to future model aircraft designs will be
worthwhile. Also, in accordance with the Aeronautical Society of South Africa’s
aim of encouraging interest in aeronautics and aviation, the project will build a
knowledge base upon which further findings could be made thus helping grow the
aviation industry in South Africa.

2
2 Literature review
2.1 General Aircraft Description

Elevator
Wing
Rudder

Cockpit

Empennage

Aileron
Propeller

Fuselage

Figure 1: General Aircraft Structure

Figure 1 shows a labelled sketch of an aircraft. Generally, the aircraft generates lift
with the main wing as air flows over it by creating pressure difference between
the lower and the upper surfaces of the wing. The empennage which includes the
horizontal and vertical stabilisers functions to stabilise the aircraft longitudinally
and in yaw. The ailerons control the roll while the elevators control the pitch of
the aircraft. The rudder controls the yaw of the aircraft. The propeller which is
driven by the power plant of the aircraft provides the thrust force necessary to fly
the aircraft.

2.2 Push vs Pull Propeller Configuration

The electric motor can drive the propeller in either push or pull configuration. The
choice of propeller configuration affects the placement of the motor on the
aircraft. Both pusher and tractor (puller) configurations have advantages and
disadvantages which influence the performance of the aircraft.

3
In pusher configuration, the propeller is usually behind the wing. Consequently,
the propeller works in a flow disturbed by the wings. This not only makes the
propeller noisy, but it also creates vibration which could lead to the structural
failure of the aircraft. The pusher configuration also requires ground clearance
when the aircraft takes off to prevent the propeller from hitting the ground and
debris. Although this could be mitigated by increasing the height of the landing
gear, this introduces additional unnecessary weight and complexity to the design.
It is also complex to design a pusher configuration with empennage behind the
propeller. Figure 2 shows the aircraft that employs a pusher configuration.
Another main disadvantage is that air does not consistently flow across the entire
propeller disk and this reduces the efficiency of the propeller drastically.

The main advantage of the pusher configuration is that it is aerodynamically more

efficient than the tractor configuration. This is due to the elimination of flow
separation on the wings by the suction of the propeller. It can also have a short
fuselage to reduce the weight of the aircraft.

Figure 2: Rutan-61 with a pusher configuration

Tractor configuration is the most common aircraft configuration for various

reasons. It allows for better cooling of the power plant of the aircraft. This is due
to lack of interference with the flow of air to the propeller. The aircraft also
becomes more aerodynamically stable and this makes it easier to control an
aircraft with tractor configuration. The main disadvantage is that the propeller
creates turbulence behind it and the wing in its wake generates less or no lift at
all. Thus the efficiency of the wing decreases as a result. Figure 3 shows MX2
aerobatic aircraft with tractor configuration. Although the pusher configuration is
generally more efficient, it is generally a less preferred design in aviation for safety
and reliability reasons.

4
 Figure 3: MX2 Aerobatic aircraft with tractor configuration

2.3 Aircraft Aeronautical Layout

The canard is a wing arrangement where a small forewing is placed forward of the
main wing on a fixed wing aircraft. Figure 3 shows a canard aircraft. The main
advantage of the canard is that it carries some of the weight of the aircraft
therefore the size of the main wing can be reduced. The canard arrangement
generally has good stalling characteristics without the need of elevators. However,
there are some important issues of the canard arrangement to be considered.
Canard sizing is critical and needs careful design because a canard that is slightly
bigger or small severed impacts the performance of the aircraft. Also, there is high
possibility of deep stall if by any means the main wing stalls before the canard.
Furthermore, achieving directional stability is not easy because the distance from
the centre of gravity to the rear most part of the aircraft is usually short and
locating the vertical stabiliser is a problem.

The conventional aircraft utilizes a horizontal stabiliser to maintain the aircraft

stability. The tail generates a downwards force which counters the moment of the
centre of gravity about the main wing’s centre of lift. Although the arrangement
maintains the aircraft stability, the main wing has to generate enough lift force to
balance the weight of the aircraft and the downward force of the tail. This
increases the required planform area of the main wing which ultimately increases
the weight of the aircraft.

5
2.4 Design Configuration
To select the best design configuration, many trade-offs are made regarding
subsystems and components. This section studies some of the major design
components of an aircraft.

2.4.1 Vertical Wing Location

The most notable design feature of an aircraft is the vertical location of the main
wing. Wing location is generally chosen based on the design requirements.
Generally, high wings are chosen when stability is one of the main requirements
since they are inherently stable from being bottom heavy. Also, the wing produces
more lift which means a lower stall speed. Figure 4 shows a high wing aircraft.

Figure 4: RC plane with high wing

Mid-wings are generally chosen for aerobatic airplane designs due to their
instability. However, it is much expensive to manufacture a mid-wing aircraft and
the airframe tends to be heavier. Figure 2 shows an example of a mid-wing aircraft.

Low wing designs are also chosen for stability and being lighter than wing designs.
There is less downwash to the tail hence the tail is more effective and it is lighter.
Figure 5 shows the RC plane with low wing configuration.

6
 Figure 5: RC Plane with low wing

2.4.2 Aerofoil

The aerofoil is the cross section of the wing. There are generally three basic
aerofoil types which are flat bottom, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical aerofoils.

Figure 6: Aerofoil types

The flat bottom aerofoil is efficient at generating lift though it cannot be flown
inverted as in aerobatics. Symmetrical aerofoil generates lift even when inverted.
Semi-symmetrical aerofoil provide a trade-off between the other two aerofoils.

7
3 Conceptual design
This section details the concept generation procedure and the selection of the
main aircraft components with the aim of satisfying the design requirements of
the aircraft. System requirements are formulated and concepts are generated to
meet the requirements.

3.1 Development plan

The aircraft system design is divided into three main system design phases as
shows in Figure 7 below. The design phases are the conceptual design, preliminary
design and detail design and after each phase the design is tested and evaluated
to check whether the design requirements are met. It is an iterative design process
where the design iteratively changed as required until the design requirements
are met.

Figure 7: Relationships of the design phases

In the conceptual design phase, system requirements are formulated and

concepts are generated to meet the stated requirements. This makes it easier to
determine a performance measure for each requirement and analyse how the
system requirements are related to each other.

The preliminary system design follows the conceptual design. The aim of the
preliminary system design is to develop simple models and provide technical data
and descriptions for basic components of the aircraft.

The last design phase is the detail design which involves specifications of the
aircraft and its subsystems. The design is iteratively optimised to meet all the
design requirements. Engineering drawings and manufacturing plans are
generated in this phase.

8
3.2 Initial design
This subsection discusses the aircraft performance requirements and concepts are
generated to meet the requirements.

There are three main design features considered in this section which are the wing
type, aircraft configuration and tail configuration. The following performance
requirements are deduced from competition rules and are used to influence the
choice of the design features of the aircraft.

 Maximum speed: 30 m/s

 Endurance: 5 minutes

 High manoeuvrability

 Turning radius: 15 meters

As discussed in the literature review, the aircraft with tractor configuration offers
important advantages over the canard configuration. For reliability and safety
reasons and the relative ease of design and manufacture of the tractor
configuration, it is chosen as the aircraft arrangement for this project.

The main wing forms a crucial part of the design and a careful design process must
be employed. A figure of merit table is used to determine the optimum wing
configuration. It investigates monoplane wing, biplane and a blended wing body.
Figures of merit include: Weight, stability, span, control, manufacturability and
strength. The weight of each figure of merit is chosen as follows:

 Weight: 30%

 Stability and control: 20%

 Take-off and landing performance: 15%

 Span: 10%

 Manufacturability: 15%

Strength: 10%

Figure of merit Weight (%) Monoplane Blended wing Biplane

Weight 30 1 1 -1

9
 Stability and control 25 -1 -1 1

Take-off performance 10 0 1 1

Span 10 0 0 0

Manufacturability 15 1 -1 1

Strength 10 1 1 1

Total 100 0.3 0.1 0.3

Table 1 outlines a figure of merit used to choose an optimal wing configuration.

In the table, the numbers “-1”, “0” and “1” are employed. The number “-1”
indicates that the wing configuration has a negative influence on a certain figure
of merit. The number “0” indicates that this configuration has no influence on the
particular figure of merit. The number “1” indicates that there is positive
correlation between a particular figure of merit and the wing configuration.

Table 1: Wings figure of merit

Figure of merit Weight (%) Monoplane Blended wing Biplane

Weight 30 1 1 -1

Stability and control 25 -1 -1 1

Take-off performance 10 0 1 1

Span 10 0 0 0

Manufacturability 15 1 -1 1

Strength 10 1 1 1

Total 100 0.3 0.1 0.3

The monoplane and the biplane met the design requirements at the highest level.
The monoplane is lighter while the biplane is able to employ shorter wings which
ultimately allow a longer tail arm which makes the biplane more stable than the
monoplane. However, since the weight of the aircraft has a higher weighting than
other figures of merit, the monoplane was chosen for the project.

10
The tail configuration that compliments the tractor type monoplane aircraft is the
aft tail. There are many variants of the aft tail configuration but the most
prominent are the conventional tail, the T-tail and the V-tail. The conventional tail
has many advantages over other aft tail configurations. The most important is that
the analysis and evaluation of the conventional tail is easy and the tail easily avoids
the wake of the main wing in deep stall which helps recover the aircraft in deep
stall. Figure 8 shows an aircraft with an aft T-tail and the main wing in deep stall.

Figure 8: T-tail with the aircraft in deep stall

11
4 Preliminary design
The main focus of this section is to provide and technical data and specifications
on the design of the main components of the aircraft.

4.1 Main wing

The main wing forms an integral part of the aircraft design. It is necessary to focus
first on its design because other subsystems such as the empennage depend on
the properties of the main wing.

4.1.1 Aerofoil selection

First, it is important to establish the atmospheric properties in which the aircraft

will be flying. The most important is the air density of the air which is taken as
1.225kg/m3 at sea level and this is the value used in the report as it does not
change much with the context of the competition.

For flight performance evaluation purposes, the Reynolds number used was
ranged between 20000 and 450000. This provides insight into the performance of
the aircraft over the whole speed range of the aircraft. However, the desired
operating point of the aircraft is the Reynolds number of about 352000 which
corresponds to a cruising speed of 25m/s.

Aerofoils are generally selected based on the flow regime of the flow of air over
the wings. The most desirable flow regime is laminar because it results in low skin
friction drag. However, laminar flow tends to experience flow separation at
moderate angles of attack. Flow separation is undesirable because it stalls the
wings which may crash the aircraft. Aerofoils are also differentiated by their
camber as cambered and symmetrical aerofoils. Cambered aerofoils have a
greater down pitch moment and a higher lift coefficient while symmetrical
aerofoils have no pitching moment at zero angle of attack.

The aerofoils considered in this design are Clark Y, Eppler 197, NACA 2412 and
Siegel S8036. The following relationships were obtained through simulation of the
aerofoils using XFLR5 simulation software.

 Coefficient of lift (Cl) vs Angle of attack (Alpha)

 Coefficient of lift (Cl) vs Coefficient of drag (Cd)

 Pitching moment (Cm) vs Angle of attack (Alpha)

 Coefficient of lift/Coefficient of drag (Cl/Cd) vs Angle of attack (Alpha)

12
Figure 9: Cl vs Alpha of differently cambered aerofoils

From Figure 9, the lift characteristics of the aerofoils could be determined. The
blue curve, which is the Clark Y aerofoil has higher coefficients of lift than the other
aerofoils.

13
 Figure 10: Cl/Cd vs Alpha for differently cambered aerofoils

Figure 10 shows the relationship between lift to drag ratio and angle of attack and
it can be seen Clark Y has the highest lift to drag ratio at the angle of attack of
about 4˚. The higher the lift to drag ratio, the better the aircraft is at turning
sharply and this is an advantage when turning around the pylons.

14
Figure 11: CL vs Cd for differently cambered aerofoils

The expected lift coefficient ranges from 0.2 to 0.9 for the aircraft. Thus, within
the expected range of lift coefficient there is not much change in the performance
of the aerofoils as seen in Figure 11.

15
Figure 12: Cm vs Alpha for differently cambered aerofoils

The pitching moment coefficient of the aerofoils is different for each aerofoil.

Conclusion

The chosen aerofoil must preferably have a high lift coefficient and low drag at
high lift coefficient to improve manoeuvring performance. As it can be seen in
Figure 9 Clark Y performed better than the other aerofoils with respect to the lift
coefficient. Clark Y aerofoil has a higher lift coefficient between the angle of attack
of -5 and 20 degrees as also seen in Figure 9. It also has a lower drag coefficient
compared to Eppler 197 and NACA 2412 at higher angles of attack. However, Clark
Y has the highest pitch down moment of all the other aerofoils.

16
4.1.2 Wing loading

4.1.3 Aspect ratio

Aspect ratio relates to the slenderness of the wing. A wing with high aspect ratio
have high wing span and a shorter mean chord. The main advantage of high aspect
ratio wings is being able to generate high lift. However, it requires strong structure
to support the bending moments and torsion forces at the wing roots. The wing is
also vulnerable to flutter due to aerodynamic forces. Furthermore, the MAC is
moved further from the mass centre which also increases bending stresses
requiring strong wings. Figure 13 shows how aspect ratio affects lift coefficient of
a wing. Lift coefficient generally decreases with decreasing aspect ratio.

Figure 13: Cl vs Alpha for various aspect ratios

Thus, a moderate aspect ratio of 6 was chosen. It provides a balance between lift
coefficient and achievable structural integrity.

Wing design

17
4.2 Horizontal stabiliser

4.3 Vertical stabiliser

18
5 References

http://www.mickaircraft.com/LSA/alb_20.jpg

http://www.famouspublishing.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/image1-
Mamistov0488spurr.jpg

http://docs.desktop.aero/appliedaero/configuration/canardProCon.html

https://www.rc-airplane-world.com/rc-aerobatic-airplanes.html

https://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/high-wing-trainer.jpg

http://www.hobbysportz.com/image/cache/TB-4-main-640x480.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.flitetest.com/article_images/full/airfoil-03-
jpg_1456198881.jpg

19
Appendix A Design Calculations

20
21
22
23
Appendix B

24