REPORT- 2

February 6, 2017

Dept. of Aerospace Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

Design of UAV
VTOL Box Wing Aircraft

Submitted by: Group 14

NAME ROLL NUMBER JOB PERCENTAGE
Mayank Shukla AE16M007 REPORT WRITING 17
Mayank Joshi AE16M016 AIRCRAFT SKETCH 20
Alok Biswapratap Pani AE16M023 AIRFOIL DATA COLLECTION 16
Nitin Kumar AE16M025 GRAPH AND TABLE FORMATION 17
Piyush AE16M026 AIRFOIL PARAMETER 20
Kirubakaran AE16M030 REPORT EDITING 10

1
Contents
1 FIRST WEIGHT ESTIMATION 3
1.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Detail Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Weight Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4.1 Empty Weight Fraction Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.2 Take Off Weight Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Mission Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 SECOND WEIGHT ESTIMATION AND AIRFOIL 10

2.1 Powerplant Weight Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Second Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Configuration Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Wing Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.7 Wing Vertical Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.8 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.8.1 Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8.2 Power Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2
1 FIRST WEIGHT ESTIMATION
1.1 Aim
Determination of the total weight of the UAV in the category of our interest i.e. a box wing aircraft
in the weight range of 5 to 10 kgs. Also determining the payload capacity,empty weight from the
existing data in that weight range.

1.2 Introduction
Now days, new designs are coming from the sector of small aircrafts or drones which can, in future,
replace the automobiles or can be used for delivering goods. One of those designs is the VTOL
configuration which is a slight modification of a drone system. This makes an aircraft to act as a
helicopter as a result it can take off or land with space limitations. The major cost of an aircraft
comes from its fuel or energy consumption which is a direct result of the drag it has to overcome
during its flight. To reduce this drag, research is going on and a major breakthrough in this area
is the box wing configuration. Closed or box wing eliminates the trailing vortices of a finite wing
and cuts out the resulting induced drag.
Our design mainly focuses on combining these two technologies and making a hybrid VTOL aircraft
with box wing configuration which can have the better side of both.

1.3 Design Overview

This phase begins with customer requirements. It includes payload carrying capacity, range, en-
durance and the power producing unit to be used to accomplish the mission. Also need to decide
the space requirements for take off and landing, flight operating conditions and maneuverability.
In this phase, aerodynamic design and the weight fraction can be compared with the data available
from the previous studies.

1.3.1 Preliminary Design

Our aircraft is supposed to have a VTOL configuration with box tail wings so that it can have all
the advantages from both configurations. In VTOL mode it can stay still in air and can be used
for surveillance or for goods delivery purpose. With box tail wings configuration the aircraft suffers
less induced drag which proves to be cost effective.
The preliminary design process includes the followings:

1. Selection of geometric parameters of main components based on design criteria and arrange-
ment of equipment and control systems.

2. Selection of thrust producing unit.

3. Aerodynamic and stability calculations.

4. Preliminary structural design of main components.

5. Preparation of 3-d drawing.

6. Performance estimation.

3
1.3.2 Detail Design
1. In preliminary design phase, the take off weight, payload weight are decided through inter-
polation of past data.

2. Airfoil shape for the box wing is selected and different control system on the wing and their
positions are decided.

3. Material selection is done for different parts to have a light weight as well as the required
strength.

4. Entire structure of fuselage and wing is designed from different considerations.

5. Structural strength analysis is done for the wings and fuselage to take the imposed forces
during the extreme flight conditions.

6. The location of power producing unit and other components are selected to have the C.G. at
desired location with respect to the aerodynamic center to have stability during flight.

7. In the end of the design process, manufacturing considerations are taken to modify the struc-
ture suitably.

1.4 Weight Estimation

Determination of weight is an important factor in deciding our mission profile and thus fixing the
maximum payload carrying capacity and the maximum weight of the battery motor combination
that can be carried on board. Initial sizing of aircraft starts with the overall weight estimation
which includes empty weight, payload, motor weight and all other accessories required. In battery
powered UAVs the weight of battery and other electronics remain constant.
Total weight, W0 can be3 written as,

W0 = We + Wcrew + Wpayload + Wf uel

here,W0 = take off weight or initial total weight
We = Empty weight of aircraft
Wcrew = 0 as it is an Unmanned vehicle.

In this equation, we have a fixed maximum payload weight that has to be carried. And as it is a
battery powered plane the fuel weight is also zero. The battery weight is included in the empty
weight of the aircraft.
Wpayload
so, the equation becomes, W0 = We
1− W
0

The ratio of empty load to total take off load is to be calculated from historical data and through
iteration process, the take off load is to be determined.

Notation used:-
Wp l = payload weight
Wo = initial weight value
We = empty weight
We /Wo = empty weight fraction

4
 Sl. No. UAV Name Wpl (kg) Wo (kg) We (kg) We /Wo
1 UAs Wasp@AE 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.615
2 UAS RQ-11B Raven 0.5 1.9 1.4 0.736
3 DESERT HAWK IV 0.9 3.72 2.82 0.758
4 Bird Eye-400 1.2 5.6 4.4 0.785
5 DESERT HAWKEER 2 8.2 6.2 0.756
6 Stalker eXtended Endurance 2.4 10 7.6 0.76
7 Bird Eye 650 1.2 11 9.8 0.89
8 Boeing Insitu Scan Eagle 5 22 17 .23
9 Boeing Insitu Scan Eagle 2 4 23 19 .17
10 Panther Fixed Wing VTOL-UAS 8.5 65 56.5 0.869
11 Arcturus T-20 388 74 36 .51

Table 1: Collected data for different UAVs

1.4.1 Empty Weight Fraction Estimation

Empty weight fraction calculations can be done using the data available in the previous studies
made on designing aircraft. This fraction varies for different aircraft’s depends on the mission it
designed for. From the data obtained, we have extracted the pay load and the empty weights for
the different UAV’s and plotted. From the trend obtained, the calculated values from the total
weight seems to be good.

1.4.2 Take Off Weight Estimation

Sl. No. Wpl (kg) Wo (initial) Wo (obtained) We /Wo We (Kg)
1 0.25 1 3.30454 0.92853 2.926725
2 0.50 1 4.75003 0.897964 4.105492
3 0.75 1 6.03372 0.878656 5.114655
4 1 1 7.226384 0.863914 6.068994
5 1.25 1 8.357106 0.852923 6.907822
6 1.50 1 9.44291 0.843285 7.748946
7 1.75 1 10.492204 0.835082 8.553916
8 2 1 11.51327 0.828486 9.268104
Table 2: Data Interpretation by Iteration

Notation used:-
Wp l = payload weight
Wo (initial) = initial weight value for iteration
Wo (obtained) = weight value
obtained after iteration
We = empty weight
We /Wo = empty weight fraction

Thus, from iterations performed above, the total take off weight is calculated for different values
of payload.

5
 Figure 1: We/Wo vs Gross Weight

Figure 2: Wpayload vs Gross Weight

6
 Figure 3: For Surveillance Purpose

1.5 Mission Profile

Typical mission profile includes payload carrying capacity, range, endurance, cruise altitude, cruise
velocity .
This aircraft design can be used for both surveillance and delivery purpose. So, given below,
two mission profile for each.

1.6 Conclusion
From the obtained values of take off weights corresponding to the values of payloads, a suitable set
of values will be chosen according to our final estimations of individual components.

7
 Figure 4: Wo convergence graph

1.7 Appendix
Matlab code for weight estimation Simple fixed point method is used.
It is not very accurate.
Error is taken as 1Code is given below:-

f unction[W r, ea] = weightest(W o, N, error)

clc
W r(1) = W o;
i = 1;
ea = 100
while(i < N ea > error)
W r(i + 1) = G(W r(i));
if (i > 1)
ea(1) = abs((W r(i + 1) − W r(i))/W r(i + 1)) ∗ 100
end
i = i + 1;
end
Wr
ea
end
f unction[y] = G(W )
y = 2 + (1.0296 ∗ (W ).( − 0.09)) ∗ W ;
end

8
1.8 References
1. https : //www.avinc.com/uas/smallu as/puma

2. https : /www.avinc.com/uas/view/wasp

3. https : /www.avinc.com/uas/view/raven

4. http : //www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/desert − hawk.html

5. http : //www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/stalker − uas.html

6. http : //www.iai.co.il/2013/36943−39739−en/BusinessAreasU nmannedAirSystems.aspx

7. http : //www.militaryf actory.com/aircraf t/detail.asp?aircraf ti d = 389

8. http : //www.militaryf actory.com/aircraf t/detail.asp?aircraf ti d = 1458

9. http : //www.iai.co.il/2013/36944−41636−en/BusinessAreasU nmannedAirSystems.aspx

10. http : //www.militaryf actory.com/aircraf t/detail.asp?aircraf ti d = 911

9
2 SECOND WEIGHT ESTIMATION AND AIRFOIL
First weight estimate was performed by considering the power plant weight as part of empty weight.
For second estimate empty weight has been divided in powerplant weight and actual empty weight.

2.1 Powerplant Weight Estimation

For the solar powered UAV, power plant is considered to be consist of following:
1. Solar Cells
2. DC Motor
3. Battery
4. Controller
5. Propellor

Therefore overall powerplant weight is given as

Wpp = Wsc + Wmotor + Wbattery + Wcont + Wprop (1)

Where
Wpp is Powerplant weight (in kg),
Wsc is Solar Cell weight (in kg),
Wmotor is DC Motor weight (in kg),
Wbattery is Battery weight (in kg),
Wcont is Controller weight (in kg),
Wprop is Propellar weight (in kg)

For this design battery driven motor is considered. However considerable weight reduction can
be achieved if motor is fed directly from solar cell grid instead of using power pack. The feasibility
study for same is being undertaken.
Data for powerplant weight fraction was collected and plotted against gross weight(refer Table
1)
Ws Wpp
UAV Wo (kg) Ws (kg) Wpp (kg) Wo Wo
Foamtana 0.45 0.28 0.17 0.622222222 0.377777778
Electrify Yak 55M 1.70 1.187 0.37 0.698235294 0.217647059
Electrify Extra 330SC 0.195 0.1485 0.0465 0.761538462 0.238461538
Hobbico Superstar EP 1.40 1.04 0.36 0.742857143 0.257142857
Electrify Edge 540 1.59 1.171 0.419 0.736477987 0.263522013
Carbon Z Yak54 1.73 1.319 0.411 0.762427746 0.237572254
Hawker Hurrican 25E 2.1 1.528 0.572 0.727619048 0.272380952
Nemesis Racer EP 2.1 1.39 0.71 0.661904762 0.338095238
F3A/GADFLY 2.35 1.713 0.637 0.72893617 0.27106383
Revolution 3D Trainer 0.43 0.282 0.148 0.655813953 0.344186047
Extra 330L 0.62 0.427 0.193 0.688709677 0.311290323
Table 3: Powerplant fraction of aircraft
Wpp
Using linear fit the equation for Wo Vs Wo is obtained as follows(refer figure :5):
Wpp
= (0.008) × W0 + 0.235 (2)
Wo

10
 Figure 5: Power plant and Empty weight fraction

Ws
Similarly, linear fit the equation for Wo Vs Wo is obtained as follows(refer figure :5):

Ws
= (−0.018) × W0 + 0.765 (3)
Wo

2.2 Second Weight Estimate

Second weight estimate was performed with following formula:

Wo = Wpayload + Wpp + Ws (4)

Where,
Wo is total weight
Wpayload is payload weight
Wpp is powerplant weight
Ws is structural weight

The above formula can be rearranged as

Wpayload + Wpp
Wo = Ws
(5)
1− W o

Wpp
Wpp = ∗ Wo (6)
Wo

11
 The above equation is used to determine the second weight estimate of aircraft. For iteration
guessed weight was taken as first weight estimate i.e. 4.75kg. Power plant weight fraction was
calculated with the equation obtained through linear fit (equation 2).
Following is the sample calculation:
Guessed Weight = 4.75 kg
Payload Weight = 0.50 kg
Power plant weight fraction for gross weight of 4.75 kg = 0.273 (from equation2)
Structural weight fraction for gross weight of 4.75 kg = 0.6795 (from equation3)
Weight of powerplant = 1.3Kg(Approx)
Therfore, corrected weight calculated as Wo = 4.522Kg(from equation5)
Percentage improvement of weight obtained in second estimate was calculated as Percentage de-
crease = 4.75−4.52
4.75 = 0.048 ≈ 5%

2.3 Summary
For second weight estimate data for powerplant weight fractions was collected. Second weight
estimate was calculated with guessed weight as first weight. The second weight estimate is about
4.52 kg with power plant weighing 1.3 kg.Percentage increase of 5% (compared with first weight
estimate 4.75kg)was observed in second weight estimate.

2.4 Introduction
After the second weight study, the weight of motor, batteries and other control components have
been fixed. The details are provided in the second report weight estimation.This report provides
the details of study carried out in selecting the wing shape and configuration. The pros and cons
involved in the selection of each configuration and the process of arrival at the required configuration
will be discussed in detail in each sections.

2.5 Configuration Study

The following points were studied during the configuration study. At this point, some of the
parameters have been studied only qualitatively. Quantitative study has been carried out for
selection of aspect ratio and the airfoil profile for the wing.

• Wing location

• Number of wings

• Aspect Ratio

• Sweep

• Incidence

• Twist

2.6 Wing Location

First step for wing design was to select the number of wings.The options were as follows:

• Monoplane(i.e one wing)

12
 • Two wings(i.e biplane)

• Three wings

Nowadays all modern planes have monoplane wing and selection of monoplane design was done.

2.7 Wing Vertical Location

One of the wing parameters that could be determined at the early stages of wing design process
is the wing vertical location relative to the fuselage center line. This wing parameter will directly
influence the design of other aircraft components including aircraft tail design, landing gear design,
and center of gravity. In principle, there are four options for the vertical location of the wing. They
are:

• High wing

• Mid wing

• Low wing

• Parasol wing

All the configurations have their own advantages and disadvantages but based on following advan-
tages of low wing, it was selected:

1. Landing gear is shorter if connected to the wing. This makes the landing gear lighter and
requires less space inside the wing for retraction system. This will further make the wing
structure lighter.

2. The aircraft is lighter compared with a high wing structure.

3. The wing has less induced drag.

4. The wing has less downwash on the tail, so the tail is more effective.

2.8 Airfoil Selection

Selecting an airfoil is a part of the overall wing design. Selection of an airfoil for a wing begins with
the clear statement of the flight requirements. For instance, a subsonic flight design requirements
are very much different from a supersonic flight design objectives. On the other hand, flight in the
transonic region requires a special airfoil that meets Mach divergence requirements. The designer
must also consider other requirements such as airworthiness, structural, manufacturability, and
cost requirements. In general, the following are the criteria to select an airfoil for a wing with a
collection of design requirements:

• The airfoil with the highest maximum lift coefficient(Clmax )(This is for high lift generation
during take-off since our initial weight estimate is 4.52 kg)

• The airfoil with the lowest minimum drag coefficient(Cdmin )(This for reducing drag force)

• The airfoil with the highest lift-to-drag ratio (Cl /Cd )max )( For maximizing range)

• The airfoil with the highest lift curve slope(Clαmax )

13
 • The airfoil with the lowest pitching moment coefficient(Cm )(Applicable only for helicopter
rotor,aircraft propeller etc)

• The proper stall quality in the stall region (the variation must be gentle, not sharp).

• The airfoil must be structurally reinforce able. The airfoil should not that much thin that
spars cannot be placed inside.

• The airfoil must be such that the cross section is manufacturable.

• The cost requirements must be considered.

2.8.1 Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading Estimation

AR = 1.117 ∗ W0 + 3.5 ...............from fig7
W0
= 2.603 ∗ W0 + 1.046 ..........from fig8
Sr ef √
2
b = AR ∗ S
e = 0.9
1
k = π∗e∗AR
Cd = C( d0) + k ∗ (Cl )2
At cruise speed, Thrust=Drag
T = 0.5 ∗ ρ ∗ V 2 ∗ S ∗ Cd
P ower(P ) = T ∗ V

W( payload) 0.5
W0 4.5781
W( powerplant) 1.3
AR 8.61
S 0.535
b 2.14
Table 4: Power Estimation

UAV Wo (kg) Length L(m) Span b(m) Sref(sq.m) AR Wo/Sref

Foamtana 0.45 0.978 0.991 0.254 3.86 1.771653543
Electrify Yak 55M 1.7 1.194 1.283 0.328 5.02 5.182926829
Electrify Extra 330SC 0.195 0.889 0.826 0.172 3.96 1.13372093
Hobbico Superstar EP 1.4 0.917 1.238 0.259 5.91 5.405405405
Electrify Edge 540 1.59 1.029 1.151 0.246 5.39 6.463414634
Carbon Z Yak54 1.73 1.232 1.219 0.339 4.39 5.103244838
Hawker Hurrican 25E 2.1 1.067 1.359 0.31 5.96 6.774193548
Nemesis Racer EP 2.1 1.2 1.56 0.392 6.21 5.357142857
Revolution 3D Trainer 0.43 0.965 0.864 0.254 3.04 1.692913386
Extra 330L 0.62 0.889 0.925 0.17 5.03 3.647058824
Table 5: Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading

14
Figure 6: Wing Area Surface Vs Wo

Figure 7: Aspect Ratio vs Wo

15
 Figure 8: Wo/Surface vs Wo

2.8.2 Power Estimation

Si.No Cruise velocity(V) Cdo Cl Cd Thrust(T) Power(P = T ∗ V )

1 3 0.05385 15.22831661 9.561816701 28.19959029 84.59877088
2 6 0.05385 3.807079153 0.648097919 7.645449124 45.87269474
3 9 0.05385 1.692035179 0.171232305 4.54496556 40.90469004
4 12 0.05385 0.951769788 0.090990495 4.293568484 51.52282181
5 15 0.05385 0.609132665 0.069062747 5.091974734 76.37962101
6 18 0.05385 0.423008795 0.061186394 6.496205347 116.9316962
7 21 0.05385 0.310781972 0.057810003 8.354134343 175.4368212
8 24 0.05385 0.237942447 0.056171281 10.60221693 254.4532064
9 27 0.05385 0.188003909 0.055299164 13.21009592 356.6725899
10 30 0.05385 0.152283166 0.054800797 16.16178245 484.8534736
Table 6: Power Estimation

Sl. No. Airfoil Parameter Weightage NACA2412 NACA4412 NACA6409

1 α 0.10 10 10 10
2 Cl 0.15 1.1784 1.3127 1.3535
3 Cd 0.10 0.03586 0.02965 0.03519
4 (Cl /Cd )max ) 0.10 50 56.1 61.6
3/2
5 (Cl /Cd ) 0.10 35.67 50.73 44.75
6 (Cd0 ) 0.10 0.02597 0.02123 0.02619
7 Cm 0.10 -0.0217 -0.0564 -0.081
8 t/c 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.09
9 Camber 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.06
10 Weighted Avg 9.768 11.90 .10.96
Table 7: Airfoil data for different profiles

16
 Figure 9: Power vs Velocity

Figure 10: Lift coefficient Vs Angle of attack

17
 Figure 11: Drag coefficient Vs Angle of attack

Figure 12: Moment coefficient Vs Angle of attack

18
 Figure 13: Cl vs Cd

Figure 14: Cl/Cd vs Angle of attack

19
20
 Figure 15: NACA6409

2.9 Conclusion
The comparison of aerodynamic properties were done and plotted ( see figure 10, 11, 12, 13, 14).
The weighted average method was used and the airfoil selected was NACA6409. Also the lift
coefficient of selected airfoil lies in the range of estimated lift coefficient.

21