See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367509602

Conceptual approach towards Green Aviation

Technical Report · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20396.33929

CITATIONS READS

0 20

1 author:

Swapnil Kumar
Imperial College London
12 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

L-PBF Additive Manufacturing View project

Design evaluation and performance optimization of an all-wheel drive miniature car capable of torque vectoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Swapnil Kumar on 28 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mr. Swapnil Kumar
Academic and Welfare Officer (AWO PGT)
Faculty of Engineering
Imperial College London
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/swapnil.kumar22

Scholar – Imperial College London, Boeing, Royal Aeronautical Society

Visiting Researcher – Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, United States
Visiting Researcher – NASA Langley Research Center, United States
Research Fellow – Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Project Engineer – University of Louisville, United States

Contact Email: [email protected]

Contact Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/swapnil-kumar-5b77b9177/
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4464-0558
Website - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Swapnil-Kumar-15 (H-index: 3, Citations: 18)

Conceptual approach towards Green Aviation

Page 1|2
Problem Statement:

Page 2|2
 AERO70022 Aircraft Design and Airworthiness
Conceptual Design of an Unmanned Cargo Aircraft
Group 9: Lindsey Payne, David Wang, Ahmed Nasr, Neel Purohit, Swapnil Kumar
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London
Advisor: Professor Daqing Yang

January 24, 2023

Abstract
This paper presents a robust conceptual design iteration for a medium-altitude, medium-range
unmanned aerial aircraft (UAV) capable of transporting 1500 kg of cargo. The design features
a high-wing, T-tail configuration with two pusher turboprop engines and a NACA 23012 airfoil
L
that supports a D max
of 15.52. The maximum gross take-off weight (MGTOW) is 6800 kg, where
30.1% is occupied by the fuel supply and 47.9% contributes to the operational empty weight
(OEW). Solar arrays on the wings, horizontal tail, and fuselage power the engine ignition for a
greener source of energy. The aircraft achieves a specific air range (SAR) of 2.37 km/kg, climb
rate of 13.02 m/s, cruise speed of 111 m/s, and a clean CL,max of 2.55; these values suggest this
UAV design is both efficient and sufficiently high-performing for its aircraft category. Lateral and
longitudinal stability margins for this design are both within the desired range for general aircraft.

1
Figure 1: A SOLIDWORKS technical drawing showing the final design and its overall dimensions.
2
Figure 2: An isometric view of the unmanned aerial cargo aircraft conceptual design model from
SOLIDWORKS.

Figure 3: A rendered isometric view of the unmanned aerial cargo aircraft conceptual design model
from SOLIDWORKS.

3
Contents
1 Introduction 6

2 Preliminary Steps 6
2.1 Literature Search for a Reference Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Powerplant Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Wing, Tail-plane, and Control Surface Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Fuselage Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Preliminary Weight and Performance Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Final Weight and Sizing 10

3.1 Weight Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Sizing Revisions and Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Refining the Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Subsystems and Component Weights 13

4.1 Electrical and Hydraulic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Avionics and Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Breakdown of OEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5 Final Performance Analysis 17

5.1 Flight Phase Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 Lift and Drag Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3 Airfoil Selection and High Lift Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4 Aerodynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5 Range, Endurance, Fuel Consumption, and Climb Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.6 Stability, Trim, and Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6.1 Longitudinal Static Stability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6.2 Trim Setting Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.6.3 Center of Gravity Flight Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6 Discussion and Next Steps 28

6.1 Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 Future Design Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

A Supporting Figures 31

List of Figures
1 SOLIDWORKS Technical Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 SOLIDWORKS Transparent Isometric View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 SOLIDWORKS Fully Rendered Isometric View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Preliminary Conceptual Aircraft Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Fuselage Outline and Modularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Final Aircraft Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Top View Sketch of Major Load Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Side View Sketch of Major Load Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 Solar Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10 Component Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11 Chord, Span, and Lift Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12 Drag Polar, Lift, and Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13 Lifting Line at 10º Angle of Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14 Wing Loading and Payload Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15 Flight Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16 Trim and C.G. Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
17 SOLIDWORKS Top View with Solar Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4
 18 SOLIDWORKS Top View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19 SOLIDWORKS Front View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20 SOLIDWORKS Side View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
21 Wing Pressure Distribution versus 10º Angle of Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
22 Pressure and Drag Distribution versus 5º Angle of Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
23 Component Centers of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
24 Detailed Undercarriage Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
25 SOLIDWORKS Base Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
26 Preliminary Maximum Takeoff Weight Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
27 Final Maximum Takeoff Weight Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
28 Lift to Drag Ratio Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
29 Range and Endurance Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
30 NACA 23012 Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
31 Cruise Free Body Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
32 Variable Pitch Propeller Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
33 Propeller Efficiency versus Mach Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

List of Tables
1 Flight Velocities and Aerodynamic Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5
1 Introduction
The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) presents unique benefits to the next generation of aviation, such
as weight and cargo optimization, increased security, and decreased risk to pilot and citizen lives.
Cargo UAVs have recently become assets to both the military and commercial sectors. This paper
offers a unique design for this type of aircraft that meets the following specifications and constraints:

• Can fly 500 km at minimum

• Can accommodate a 1500 kg payload
• Uses a turboprop engine(s) within the power range of 400-500 kW or is an entirely electric aircraft

• Can accommodate a loiter time of 20 minutes

• Has a span less than 20 m
• Will cruise at an altitude of 3000 m
• Will takeoff at sea level (altitude of 0 m) and land on a plateau 1000 m above sea level

• Will be launched and received by a theoretical launch and landing system that provides and
accepts 5.2 MJ of energy over a 200 m distance – these are called EMALS (Electromagnetic
Aircraft Launch System) and EAGS (Electromagnetic Arresting Gear System), respectively

It is important to note that this aircraft may exceed these performance requirements, so long as
the minimum requirements are met. For example, the EAGS limits the amount of kinetic energy this
aircraft may have at touchdown, which in turn places a constraint on this aircraft’s maximum stall
speed. This stall speed affects the reported velocities along the aircraft’s entire flight path, as well as
lift and drag coefficients. So, even if this aircraft has enough power to sustain a higher landing speed,
its performance analysis will involve the lower landing speed.

2 Preliminary Steps
First, it was decided to move forward with a turboprop aircraft rather than an entirely electric design.
This choice was informed by the lack of literature and reference designs/parameters available for electric
aircraft, as well as the benefits a turboprop can provide this unique category of aircraft (cargo UAV).
After making this decision, it was acceptable to move on to preliminary structural and propulsive
design choices.

2.1 Literature Search for a Reference Aircraft

In order to develop a reasonable base design, one must first determine what UAVs exist that may
share one, some, or all of these mission requirements. The most inspiring/fitting configurations, sizes,
capabilities, systems, layouts, etc. and can be extracted from reference aircraft(s) such that one may
begin to synthesize a unique design.
The MQ-9 Reaper UAV ultimately became the most influential reference for fundamental design
decisions. This U.S. military UAV roughly fit the range, altitude, and payload requirements that must
be upheld for this design [1], [2], [3]. As a result, more intuition was developed for what this aircraft
size should be.
Equations, value tables, and general design frameworks from Daniel P. Raymer’s 2018 edition of
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach were abundantly referenced and implemented throughout the
scope of this cargo UAV design project [4].

6
2.2 Powerplant Choice
The aircraft powerplant (engine) provides the mechanical force to power the aircraft and systems
associated with the aircraft for the proper flight. The aircraft is structured with two Honeywell
TPE331-43A turboprop engines consisting of single-shaft with integral gearbox, two-stage centrifugal
compressor, three-stage axial turbine and reverse annular combustor [5].
The reason for selecting this specific turboprop engine is its power output, per engine, sits within
the range of 400-500 kW, it is efficient at low speeds and low altitudes, and it has a variable pitch
propeller. These qualities are desirable given this UAV will not be cruising at such high speeds where
there might be substantial losses from tip-Mach effects [6]. The excellent performance of a turboprop
engine during the takeoff and climb demonstrates, even in low ground and flight speed, it is able to
accelerate a large mass of the air.
The variable pitch propeller changes the incidence angle of the propeller blade. Simultaneously, the
controller for the variable pitch propeller is favorable, as it adjusts the angle of incidence to maintain
a constant rotational speed for the propeller. In general, high performance propeller-driven aircraft
have constant-speed propellers because they help improve the fuel efficiency, propeller efficiency, and
therefore, the aircraft performance at high altitudes [7].
This design has five blades per engine propeller [8], each with a length of 1.2 m. The combined
weight of the engines is 304 kg, corresponding to a total power output of 858 kW, also called shaft
power Pshaf t [5]. The engine installation mount weighs around 55 kg which corresponds to 11.01% of
weight contribution in the maximum take-off weight (seen in the table in Figure 10) [9]. The estimated
maximum thrust is about 11,152 N, converted from 858 kW.
The Mattingly method has been proposed for calculating the propeller efficiency for an increasing
Mach Number M [7]. The propeller efficiency is unchanged from the cruise to loiter phase because this
particular phase of flight occurs within 0.1 < M < 0.7, where the aircraft is expected to have maximum
propeller efficiency [7]. Figure 33 demonstrates the variation of the propeller efficiency through different
stages of flight. This curve helps to predict the power requirements per flight segment [10].
Air mass flow is estimated to be 6.33 kg/s, as informed by a credible source [11]; the velocity during
cruise conditions is 111 m/s, as explained in section 5.1. Knowing these parameters allows the thrust
power Tprop to be calculated, which is air mass flow times Vcruise , and finally, the propeller’s efficiency
η. η is the ratio of Tprop to Pshaf t , which gives the Honeywell propeller for this cargo UAV design an
efficiency of 82%.
JP-8 jet fuel is selected to power these turboprop engines because the Honeywell TPE331 engine
uses this as its primary fuel source [12]. The other reasons of using the JP-8 jet fuel is that, it‘s cheaper
than the aviation gasoline fuel, and it also contains anti-icing and corrosion inhibitor additives which
enhances the fuel economy and reduces the emissions for the aircraft [13].
These turboprop engines will be arranged in a pusher configuration. This means the propeller
is located behind the engine, which is behind the wing, and facing away from the line of thrust,
such that thrust pushes the aircraft forward [14]. This is different from a puller configuration that
has its propeller in front of the engine and generally closer to the front of the aircraft. A pusher
configuration invites fewer blanking effects, or less upstream flow disturbance, and allows for a more
efficient turboprop installation because of the unique engine intake design. The engine experiences
fewer intake losses because the air flows into the intake valve without obstruction or flow turbulence
from upstream [14]. Finally, an aircraft with this pusher configuration will have less induced drag on
its horizontal tail surfaces. This is because the rear-mounted engines shift the center of gravity (c.g.)
rearward, which reduces the tail’s need to balance the pitching moment of the wing [14].

2.3 Wing, Tail-plane, and Control Surface Configurations

A few essential design choices were made to form the crux of the aircraft structure. First and most
importantly, high AR wings, similar to the MQ9-Reaper, but with a smaller span to fit the warehouse
constraint, were chosen [15]. Moreover, the wings will have minimal backward sweep and be positioned
as 3º anhedral high wings. The 5º backward sweep introduces some longitudinal stability in addition
to reduced wing tip loading [4].
Both low and high wing configurations have been widely used in cargo aircraft. Low wings allow
better takeoff performance due to the ground effect, higher stability, and less downwash over the
tailplane. However, low wings have two separate sections exposed to airflow - rather than two connected

7
Figure 4: A preliminary hand-drawn sketch featuring only fundamental design choices and some di-
mensional estimates.

sections at the top of the fuselage in the high wing configuration - so lift is decreased, stall speeds
must increase, and a longer takeoff runway would be necessary. This equates to a lower airworthiness
and less practicality, for this particular UAV design profile, if a low wing configuration is used. Thus,
the high wing configuration was chosen.
The high wing with an anhedral angle is a smart choice for cargo planes in particular because
this configuration improves lateral stability, particularly at lower speeds, and also supports roll ma-
neuverability due to the higher center of gravity (c.g.). The dihedral effect - which creates lateral
stability - is significantly higher in a high wing configuration due to the greater fuselage contribution
within the wing’s dihedral. In addition, this configuration tolerates lower stall speeds, which is useful
because of the landing speed constraint discussed in more detail in section 5. Higher lift coefficients
are maintained as a result of the connected wing sections and airflow is smoother along the lower half
of the fuselage surface. Furthermore, the high wing placement facilitates the loading and unloading
of cargo because there is less interference with the wings; there will be more space for cargo inside of
the fuselage. Finally, the high wing gives higher ground clearance which facilitate engine and propeller
installation. Increased ground clearance is also beneficial for takeoff and landing as the engines blades
are further away from the ground and will be less prone to a propeller strike compared to a low wing
design.
The T-tail configuration was chosen because it has several advantages. For one, it keeps the
aircraft out of the wing wake, wing downwash, wing vortices, and engine exit flow zones (i.e., hot
and turbulent high-speed gas) which forms a safer structure and improved aerodynamic efficiency.
Moreover, the vertical tail component acts as a lever arm that keeps the horizontal tail further away
from wing and engine influences. This allows the horizontal tail area to be reduced, and therefore less
likely to vibrate and buffet, which leads to fewer fatigue issues and a longer tail lifespan. An additional
advantage of the T-tail is the influence of the horizontal tail over the vertical tail, which results in the
”end-plate effect” where vertical tail area is reduced. The horizontal tail will have a backwards sweep
of 10º because Raymer states ”leading-edge sweep of the horizontal tail is usually set to about 5º more
than the wing sweep” to ensure the tail stalls after the wing [4].
Both wings and tail components will have a preliminary taper ratio λ of 0.4 because Raymer states
this is a typical value for low-sweep wings and T-tails [4]. The wings and tail will have typical control
surfaces - a rudder, elevator, and ailerons. However, given there is no pilot, these control surfaces
will be steered using actuators that receive directions from the on-board computer (CPU) and flight
controller, which are fed real-time inputs via the telemetry system, which transmits positional signals
picked up by various types of sensors discussed in section 4.2 [16].
The above structural choices, paired with the reference aircraft visual, informed the production of
this basic conceptual sketch in Figure 32. This sketch was used to make preliminary sizing estimations
which were slightly, but not significantly, revised in section 3.2 (displayed in Figure 6).

8
((a)) A SOLIDWORKS model of the final fuselage
design, with a lengthened tail cone, strengthened ar- ((b)) A SOLIDWORKS model showing the undercarriage
eas in the center, and a floor panel. sections and their respective locations.

Figure 5

2.4 Fuselage Design

The fuselage is the main body of an aircraft. It forms the overall shape and is responsible for carrying
passengers and cargo, the on-board avionics and systems, and acts as a structural connection for the
wings and the empennage.
For this project, the initial step was to select a reference object to represent the 1500 kg payload
specified in the brief. A VW Golf hatchback was chosen as an initial reference due to the similarities
in weight. By rounding its dimensions up to 4300 mm in length, 1500 mm in height, and 1800 mm in
width [17], this initial cargo volume is 11.6 m3 . At first look, these figures should enable an efficient use
of the cargo bay due to its boxy dimensions and will allow transportation of versatile objects between
depots.
As the current fuselage is just a rectangular prism, further modifications were implemented to
improve its aerodynamic performance. Using a fineness ratio of around 3, which is the most suitable
ratio between the fuselage length and the maximum diameter when a specific cross-sectional area is
required, the ideal fuselage length is 5.4 m when the maximum width is 1.8 m [4]. The initial fuselage
length was found to be 5.99 m, with 0.6 m from the nose cone, 4.3 m from the cargo area, and 1.09 m
from the engine, giving a fineness ratio of around 3.3, as shown in Figure 25.
However, the fuselage length is nearly half the length of the reference aircraft MQ-9 Reaper [2].
With a second look, several problems were found regarding the fuselage dimensions. First, it is far
too short to implement an effective tail wing on the fuselage, as it will not generate enough moments
to control the pitch of the aircraft. Although it is possible to have an extended H-tail attached to
the wings, it would put extra loading on the wings and there might be interference with the airflow
around the airfoil. Second, the boxy shape is not ideal for aerodynamic reasons even after including
the additional nose cone.
In an attempt to overcome the problems above, the fineness ratio was increased to between 6 and
8, which is the optimum fineness ratio for subsonic aircraft. This made the fuselage more aerodynamic
by smoothing off sharp corners [4]. At the same time, the engine location was reallocated from the tail
to the wings, as two engines will be required to power the aircraft instead of one. Not only does this
allow for the empennage to be directly mounted to the fuselage, but it also allows for better ground
clearance during takeoff and landing as the blade tips are further away from the ground [18].
Using a fineness ratio of 7, the updated dimensions of the fuselage has a maximum diameter of 1.5
m and a fuselage length of 10.5 m. Assuming that 7.5 m of the fuselage is used as the cargo area, as
the front and tail cone takes up 1.5 m each, the new cargo volume is 13.2 m3 - 1.6 m3 more than the
initial volume.
To further improve the aerodynamic efficiency, the fitment of the vertical tail wing, and to reduce
the chance of a tail-strike, the cargo area was made smaller. This was done in exchange for a lengthened
and angled tail cone, without changing the overall fuselage length. Moreover, the center of the fuselage
was strengthened for the wing attachment and undercarriage landing system, and a floor panel was
added to separate the cargo area and the undercarriage, where the subsystems will be located (Figure
5(a)). The final cargo length is 7 m with a cargo volume of around 7.4 m3 , excluding the undercarriage.
The density of cargo is calculated to be ( 1500
7.4 ) around 202 kg/m .
3

9
2.5 Preliminary Weight and Performance Estimates
An initial MTOW estimate was completed by doing manual computations. This was cross-checked
L
with the Initial Sizing Excel sheet outputs, which gave a weight in addition to a D max
[reference]. This
cross-check was an important step because it led to many revisions, that will be explained in detail in
L
section 3. The first MGTOW iteration was found to be too low (4824.6 kg)and the D max
to be too
L
high (21.83). A high D max and low weight incurred a very small CL,max (< 1.0) and a very high stall
speed (Vstall = 60 m/s. Furthermore, Figure 26 shows the predicted fuel fraction was 0.117, 11.7%,
which is almost 20% lower than the typical aircraft. Another source of error is introduced with the
velocity estimates, which are purely guesses at this stage, loosely scaled down from the MQ-9 Reaper
reference aircraft again [? ]. All of these factors contribute to unrealistic conditions for this first design
iteration. Hence, new sizing and performance analysis is completed in the following sections.

3 Final Weight and Sizing

The first design iteration provided a foundation to work backwards from, such that the final design will
be refined and this aircraft’s performance will be optimized. Course Excel sheets ([19], [20]), Raymer’s
text [4], and Matlab code are utilized to:

1. Change the wing shape and dimensions, notably the taper ratio λ and mean aerodynamic chord
L
(MAC), to get a more reasonable (smaller) D max

2. Achieve better fuel and OEW percentages relative to the MGTOW - 30% and <50%, respectively.

3.1 Weight Revision

Step (1) above was achieved by increasing λ by a factor of 2 such that λ = 0.8 - which slightly decreases
the MAC - and decreasing span by 1m. Decreased dimensions will also decrease planform and wetted
areas. These changes reduce the planform wing area to 24.7 m2 and increase aspect ratio (AR) to
L L
13.12, which ultimately decreases the D max
by 6.3 (from 21.8 to 15.52). A lower D max
helps increase
MGTOW, which was a positive and necessary change in order to improve the fuel and OEW fractions
in step (2) above.
Step (2) began with determining which parameter significantly impacts fuel fraction and is reason-
able to adjust; the best choice was cruise range, because changing propeller efficiency requires a change
of powerplant. Increasing the cruise range by a scaling factor (the successful one ended up being 4.13
to scale up from 500 km to 2065 km) yielded a new output MGTOW in the Sizing spreadsheet[19]
which one may input into the Range and Endurance spreadsheet [20]. Here, the new MGTOW value
is fixed and the OEW variable is adjusted according to how much weight is left after subtracting fuel
and payload weight from the new MGTOW. This is done until the output range roughly matches the
cruise range entered in the former spreadsheet [19] and the OEW fraction drops to around 50%. Step
2 must be repeated with different scaling factors until this outcome is achieved.
Eventually, a reasonable MGTOW weight was constrained to be 6800kg. Note: the final iteration’s
MGTOW is rounded up 0.2 kg from the spreadsheet’s MGTOW output to work with a nicer number
moving forward. See Figure 27.
One might notice that Figure 29 reflects a final flight range capability of 5257 km (discussed more
in section 5.5) for this aircraft, which is over two times larger than the cruise range used to get 6800
kg of MGTOW, above. This is because of the decision to manually increase the fuel fraction to 0.30,
which decreases the empty weight fraction to an even lower value of 0.479. The payload weight fraction
remains at 0.22, which is about typical. This theoretical design change is made for 4 reasons:
1. To improve the range and versatility of this aircraft

2. To stay consistent with the empty weight percentages seen in the greater aircraft population
3. To add a “safety factor” to the payload, meaning, if the payload goes over 1500kg (assuming it
has a high density so it does not occupy the allotted fuselage storage volume) the fuel fraction
can be marginally decreased to allow a small “overflow payload weight.”

10
Figure 6: Final sizing and areas of main structural components: span (b), mean aerodynamic chords
(MAC), length (L), height (h), maximum diameter (Max D), etc.

4. The Excel sheet’s weight estimate involves assumptions and parameters for an aircraft that is
close to this one’s, but not exactly the same [4], [19]. Though this aircraft does have twin
turboprop engines, it is unmanned, so one may assume that the empty weight is comparatively
smaller due to no pilot, seats, cockpit, etc.
In sum, the final estimate for MGTOW is 6800 kg. The fuel weight is 2040 kg, including 6% as
T
reserve fuel, and the OEW is 3260 kg. This yields a final thrust-to-weight ratio W of 0.167.

3.2 Sizing Revisions and Areas

Figure 6 shows the breakdown of size, planform area, wetted area, and any other important parameters
related to a specified structural component.
A trapezoidal area formula is used to find the planform surface area of all flight structures. The
flight structures do have taper, which means they are not perfect trapezoids. However, the formula is
a close approximation and is sufficient for the conceptual design phase. Furthermore, area parameters
do not significantly affect any part of the aerodynamic analysis. The wetted area is calculated with
slightly more precision using Equation 1 in Raymer, for airfoils with a maximum thickness-to-chord
ratio ct of greater than 5% [4]. This design will incorporate an airfoil with a ct of 12% [21]. Airfoil
selection will be discussed in detail in section 5.3.
t
Swettted = Splanf orm · [ 1.977 + (0.52 · )] (1)
c
Once all component areas are found, as displayed in Figure 6, the wet area ratio can be calculated,
which is the only unknown parameter left in the Lift to Drag Ratio spreadsheet [19].The output of this
spreadsheet is shown in Figure 28. This is the ratio between the total wetted area and the planform
Swetted
area of the wings and tails only: Splanf orm
= 3.32. The K coefficient is a given for various types of
aircraft in Raymer, but none of which match this exact type of aircraft [4]. So therefore, the value for
a non-retractable prop aircraft is used and decreased by 1.2, to get K = 7.8. If this assumption is too
L
low, this would give an adverse result: a larger D max
. However, for the scope of this design phase, 7.8
still lies within reasonable bounds.
Dividing MGTOW by the wings’ planform area, a wing loading value of 275.75 kg/m2 or 2705.11
N/m2 is found. The Field Performance spreadsheet outputs figure 27, which indicates this airplane is
most efficient (about 26 W/N at the cruise ceiling) at small wing loading values (about 90 N/m2 ) [20].

11
This value of 2705.11 N/m2 falls outside the x-axis bounds of figure 27, but one can infer from the
P
curvature that as wing loading increases, W will continue to slowly trend up again, which is good for
P
this design. And for the curve corresponding to the takeoff segment, W has a strong linear relationship
with increasing wing loading values, which is yet again a positive performance indicator for this design.

3.3 Refining the Fuselage

As the fuselage design and dimensions were finalized, the undercarriage was divided into several sections
including the avionics, hydraulics, electrical and landing systems, as seen in Figure 5(b). Placing the
subsystems in the undercarriage is common practice amongst aircraft designs, as it frees up space for
passengers or cargo above the floor panel. The loading bay locations were also determined, with a
nose cone lifting mechanism at the front and a side door lifting mechanism at the rear of the fuselage,
both powered by hydraulic actuators. This allow items of various dimensions to be loaded with ease
and can reduce the time taken to load and unload.
There are two avionics section, one in the nose cone and another at the front of the undercarriage.
The nose section is mainly used to house the front facing camera which provides a live view in the
flight direction of the aircraft to the operator on the ground. As the nose cone is one of the cargo
access points and will be lifted up during loading and unloading, the rest of the essential avionics
such as the flight control computers, GPS, communication systems, and battery packs are housed in
the undercarriage section to decrease the load concentration around the pivot point and the need for
bigger actuators to lift the nose cone, therefore reducing weight and conserving energy. Details of the
components can be found in section 4.2 [9]. The two sections are placed close to one another to reduce
the length of wiring required and it also enables easier maintenance.
The electrical section includes components such as the battery packs, generators, and the RAT
system. This section is located in between the avionics section and the wing as its main purpose is
to provide electrical power to the avionics systems and to start the engine before flight, therefore the
length and weight of wiring can be reduced. Further details can be found in sections 4.1 and 4.2.
The hydraulic sections consists of pumps, reservoir, actuators, valves, and pressure regulating
systems. There are two hydraulic sections, both located at the aft of the fuselage. The section closer
to the landing systems is used mainly to power the front cargo loading mechanism of the nose cone
and the control surfaces on the wings such as the ailerons and flaps. The other section is used mainly
to power the extension and retraction of the landing system, the control surfaces on the tail wing such
as the rudder and elevators, and the side cargo loading door. Two hydraulic sections were chosen for
a fail safe design, so in case of one failing, the other hydraulics system can still power the essential
components to retain basic flight controls. Further details can be found in section 4.1.
The landing section is mainly used to house the landing gear and its respective systems. The
retracted position of the landing gears is a blend between the fuselage and the fuselage-podded con-
figuration. This strikes a balance between aerodynamic performance and the space available for the
components. The components include the actuators, struts, shock absorbers, ski type undercarriage,
wheels, brakes, and in-wheel motors. The actuators are responsible for the extension and retraction of
the ski type undercarriage whilst the struts will connect the ski type undercarriage to the fuselage. The
shock absorbers are present to dampen the force during landing and therefore protects the structure of
the aircraft and the various avionics and cargo onboard. The two in-wheel motors provide movement
for the aircraft on the ground and the two mini wheels on either ends of the ski type undercarriage
provide stability. The motors are independent of one another, meaning the wheels can rotate in op-
posite directions and allow the aircraft to turn 360º at the same location, which is convenient when
space is limited. It also eliminates the need for a front wheel for turning, reducing the weight of the
aircraft and increasing the undercarriage space. Although there are no details of the EMALS at this
stage, an initial concept of the ski type undercarriage is proposed in Figure 24.
The overall layout of the components in each section can be seen in Figure 2, Figure 18, Figure 19,
and Figure 20 - these models show an isometric, top, front, and side view of this aircraft, respectively.
The major load paths of the aircraft can be seen in Figure 7 and Figure 8, for the top view and the
side view respectively. The fuselage is constructed of straight and uninterrupted stringers around the
circumference of the fuselage, with longerons running along the length of the fuselage. Major fuselage
bulkheads are highlighted in red and these will be responsible for carrying large concentrated loads
especially at the wing, the landing gear, the engine, the cargo doors, and the tail. To reduce the

12
 Figure 7: A top view sketch showing the major load paths and their respective locations.

number of such heavy bulkheads, the two central bulkheads were designed to carry both the loads of
the wing and the landing gear.
The wing carry through structure is responsible for integrating the wings to the fuselage. The
chosen structure for this aircraft is the bending beam, as it occupies less volume compared to the wing
box and will not require as many large and heavy bulkheads as the ring frames [4]. An alternative is
the strut-based structure, but it would induce additional form drag and it will also disturb the airflow
to the engine blades, which are placed behind the trailing edge of the wing as it is of a pusher type.
Therefore, the bending beam is the most suitable structure.
The wing box will not only act as the fuel tank for the aircraft, but will also provide structural
strength for the wings, engine mounting points, and for a simple pump-tube system that runs from
the fuselage into each wing where fuel may be dumped out of the wing. This system was incorporated
into the wings to allow the aircraft to reach landing weight - 70% of MGTOW - within 15-20 minutes
after departure, in case of an emergency malfunction.

4 Subsystems and Component Weights

Now that all major structural choices and calculations are finalized, one may begin to fine tune this
design. This means specificity can be introduced into the various subsystems of this aircraft in order
for it to become viable. Later, an evaluation of how much individual structures and subsystems weigh
will be completed. This will bolster understanding of the aircraft’s weight distribution, and thus, of
its c.g. (discussed in section 5.6).
According to Raymer, [4] ”[a]ircraft subsystems include the hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic, and
auxiliary/emergency power systems” [4]. Here, the main focus is on electrical and hydraulic subsystems,
though an emergency power system will be addressed as well.

13
Figure 8: A side view sketch showing the major load paths, attachment points, and their respective
locations.

4.1 Electrical and Hydraulic Systems

One may refer back to the reference aircraft to build intuition for how large or small this design’s
electric power supply needs to be. The MQ-9 Reaper’s total electrical power is 11 kW, but this
includes redundancy, so only about 5.5 kW will be in use at a given time [2]. One can assume that
electrical power between this model and the MQ-9 Reaper’s is about the same, if not slightly lower,
because electrical systems between planes in the same category should be independent of weight. In
fact, this plane should have even fewer high-tech/avionics capabilities than the MQ-9 Reaper because
it does not have military applications [2]. Thus, it is assumed that this plane will only use about 4.5
kW total of electrical power, corresponding to a total redundant power supply of about 9 kW. This
does not include the hydraulic power supply because that subsystem is engine-driven. The required
hydraulic power supply is estimated below using proportionality between the F-22 Raptor aircraft and
this one [22].
Traditionally, a battery is used to power the aircraft’s avionics and electronics before takeoff and
after landing when the engine is turned off. The generator is used in-flight to recharge this battery,
which still needs to power the avionics and electronics after takeoff. Typically, it is essential that the
generator is designed to meet the following specification: it must charge the battery enough such that
it can start the current flight’s engine as well as the next flight’s engine [23]. An aircraft’s generator
is typically 115 ACV and 400 Hz because the higher frequency of voltage change translates to higher
RPM, smaller transforms, and therefore a lighter core component which notably contributes to aircraft
weight and cost efficiency. For this particular cargo UAV, the generator must also meet a minimum
output power requirement to charge the batteries.
However, there exists a trend in the aviation industry to move towards developing greener aircraft.
Numerous ideas were proposed for this unmanned aerial cargo aircraft. One of which was to exploit
the wind energy in flight by deploying a RAT-like turbine to generate energy and store them in the
battery [24]. However, this causes form drag and makes the engine work harder to maintain the same
velocity whilst extra fuel is needed to achieve the same range.
Therefore, this novel design for a cargo UAV will incorporate a supplementary green solar supply,
using solar panels, installed flush with the fuselage and wing top surfaces. This will provide steady
energy during daytime as the cursing attitude is above that of the low-level clouds. Three different
models of solar panels were used, with details in Figure 9.
Although only the Dokio solar panels are flexible [25], an assumption that the other 6 solar panels
from Jolywood can be manufactured to be integrated to the fuselage in the future was made [26].
After a few iterations, the optimal number and power supply of solar panels that may fit on these
surfaces is 19 panels at 4.44 kW, as shown in Figure 17. This is enough power to start a single engine
before flight, according to a scaled-up requirement for a piston engine (1.1 kW). The generator and
battery are therefore relieved of the engine-start power requirement. Therefore, a reference generator
has been found that is just large enough to power the entire avionics and electronics suite, including

14
 Figure 9: A table showing the details of the solar panels used on the aircraft.

redundancy: the Werner CT-10 model has a 10kW power output and only weighs 47 kg [27].
There will be 2 batteries in this electrical system, each with a nominal output power of 5 kW
(total of 10 kW) that is operable between sea level and 4000 m of altitude. Together, they weigh 228
and accept 350-560 V. These numbers are adopted from the LUNA2000-10-S0 model battery, made
by Huawei [28]. These batteries will be placed in the rear part of the fuselage floor along with the
generator.
This subsystem also contains an electrical bus, which consists of electrical mediums like wiring,
breakers, switches, ports, etc. The bus is estimated to weigh 96kg, working backwards from the total
electrical system estimate, and finding the remaining weight in this total as if only one battery is used
[29]. The total electrical system weight estimate - based on component weight percentages from a
reference aircraft, explained in more detail in section 4.3 - was supposed to include one battery only,
so if two battery weights are subtracted from the total, the bus weight will be unrealistically low.
In the event of a single-point engine failure, these batteries will not be enough to power basic
flight. But this is the benefit of having two engines. Significant lateral stability will still be lost, but
control surfaces may be able to help mitigate these adverse effects. These control surfaces may still
be actuated using hydraulic power from an emergency Ram Air Turbine (RAT). The RAT is “a small
turbine that is installed in an aircraft and used as an alternate or emergency hydraulic or electrical
power source” which “generates power from the airstream based on the speed of the aircraft and is
connected to an electrical generator or to a hydraulic pump” [24]. Scaling up from this source’s RAT
weight that corresponds to a smaller aircraft, a reasonable weight estimate of 44 kg can be made for
this large UAV subsystem’s RAT.
Next, the hydraulic system is discussed. This important subsystem uses a fluid under pressure to
drive machinery or move mechanical components [30]. It is engine-driven, meaning it is not typically
fueled by an electric (green) power supply, and consists of hydraulics pumps, motors, and tubing which
directs the fluid appropriately through the aircraft. Actuators are used to open and close the cargo
doors (at the nose and side of fuselage) and adjust the flight control surfaces. These actuators are
powered by the hydraulic system, for example.
After searching a long while for aircraft hydraulic system specification documents, a pertinent
document for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, written by the Eaton Aerospace Group, was found
[31]. The F-22 Raptor is much different and much heavier than this paper’s design, but using educated
assumptions and proportionality between the total electrical power supplies, one arrives at a value for
this hydraulic system’s power supply: 8.625 kW, including redundancy. First, a value of 125 kW of
power input per hydraulic pump was extracted from a source reporting on F-22 Raptor specifications
[22]. Normally, one must take into account that input power is higher than output due to mechanical
inefficiencies, but this will not be considered in this early design phase. The source also reported that
the F-22 Raptor uses two 65 kW generators (130 kW total, assuming this includes redundancy) to
power its electrical system [22]. Therefore, one may take the ratio between an F-22 Raptor’s 130 kW
electical system and this cargo UAV’s 9 kW electrical sytem to get a scaling factor of 0.069. This
fraction is multiplied by the F22-Raptor’s 125 kW hydraulic power assumption to get a hydraulic
power estimate for this unique system: 8.625 kW.

4.2 Avionics and Electronics

Avionics and electronics broadly include communication systems, navigation and GPS, navigation
lights, cameras, positional sensors, a computer (CPU), and a flight controller [16]. Below, various

15
components are listed, their functionality explained, and a real example given.
The specific avionics suite can be divided into two categories: data collection components and data
processing devices. Collection components include the cameras, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sen-
sors, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors, a differential Global Positioning System (dGPS),
and a communications system that includes telemetry, receivers, and a radio. The processing com-
ponents include the on-board computer (CPU), flight controller, and a video processing system that
processes camera inputs. Other electronics might include navigation lights and external turn indicators.
This design assumes three cameras: one on nose, one on top of the horizontal T-tail, and one on
the belly of the fuselage (near the undercarriage, for landing). The purpose of these cameras is to
provide precise information on topology, location, and video transmission to ground control systems
during the flight duration. Specifications from a real UAV camera model are used to make power and
weight estimates. This is the FlightEye FE 320 UAV Camera Kit, which includes a 360 g camera that
supplies an average of 20 V [32]. For this aircraft’s subsystem, 3 cameras are assumed to operate in
a 5 Ampere electrical system. This yields a total camera component weight of 1.08 kg and a power
consumption of 300 W.
This design is roughly estimated to require seventeen sensors: fifteen IMUs, one LiDAR, and one
dGPS. A compact and lightweight example of an IMU sensor is one from Silicon Sensing [33]. All 15
sensors add 5.18 kg of weight and require 1.5 kW of power, assuming an 20 V input voltage. 15 sensors
are estimated due to the size of this UAV, as well as the fact that these devices are essential for data
collection on attitude, orientation, angular rate, velocity, specific force, and acceleration of the aircraft
[34].The LiDAR sensor is helpful for measuring the distance to a target, in this case a warehouse at
1000 m of altitude, and is successful where cameras may not be (i.e. in dark, foggy conditions). LiDAR
for this design will be assumed to weigh 3.5 kg and consume 50 W of power [35]. A visual system will
not be needed for this aircraft if a proper GPS system is installed. A traditional Instrument Landing
System (ILS) system could also be used, but it is expensive and not robust enough to support a UAV
landing, especially a large cargo UAV. Modern aircraft depend on the GPS to land, in conjunction with
an altimeter. However, a differential GPS includes the altimeter within it, for the highest accuracy,
efficiency, and compactness. An example of this dGPS device in small UAVs is found, which one can
then scale up for this design using weight proportions [36]. The dGPS of this aircraft will therefore
weigh 2 kg and consume 35 W of power, given the sensor accepts 31 V and operates on 35 W.
Next, the communications system will require two radios to support telemetry. The SkyLink 5060
is an example for smaller UAVs, but its values can be scaled-up again for this cargo UAV design [37].
The radios can be estimated to weight 1.25 kg and operate on 100 W of power. Receivers forward
signals to the flight controller, CPU, and radios. The radios receive this telemetry and communicate via
antennas to ground control. Data links, amplifiers, and converters are used to aid signal transmission
and processing for the UAV. The on-board CPU contains high-level control algorithms and the flight
controller is used for attitude and state estimation.
The total avionics and electronics power demand is 4.5 kW, based on the explanation in section 4.1.
Power estimates for each component of this avionics system were attempted, but sufficient data was not
available for every single one. Available weight and power consumptions were noted above. Unavailable
values for a few specific electronics/systems are assumed to all contribute to the remaining weight or
power allotted to this given subsystem, once the known individual values are summed and subtracted
from the totals. The total avionics weight is estimated using reference component percentages (3.9%)
[9]. However, this resultant weight of 126.24 kg appeared much too high due to (1) a comparison with
the summation of found/available component weights and (2) a significant fraction of the component
weights were available, so there should not be that much leftover weight. Therefore, an educated
assumption was made to decrease the total avionics and electronics system weight to 70 kg (2.15% of
the OEW).

4.3 Breakdown of OEW

Figure 10 tabulates all independent structural component and subsystem component weights, shows
their percentage of the expected OEW, and shows the difference between expected OEW and OEW
from summation of each component row.
These weight estimates were not made blindly, but rather computed using a benchmark OEW
breakdown table from an apt source with reasonably balanced component weights [9]. The exact
percentages are not provided in this source, but are calculated by dividing the listed component weight

16
by the source’s OEW. When searching for a source to inform this design’s weight breakdown, the first
thing to look for was a near match in OEW percentage of the MGTOW with this design, so around
47.9%. By dividing the OEW of this source by its MGTOW, one gets 47.1%, which is extremely close
to this UAV’s OEW fraction. The source exhibits proportionality with this design, and therefore its
components and subsystems too. However, one must take into consideration that this source aircraft
is not a UAV, but simply a traditional military aircraft. This means the source’s table contains extra
components that do not fit this unmanned aircraft mission profile, such as oxygen or retractable landing
gear. This discrepancy invites differences in component weight fractions between this design and the
source configuration. So from here, individual components and subsystems, as seen in the leftmost
column of the table in Figure 10, are characterized but not necessary replicated from this source.
Where common sense prevails, adjustments are made. Subsystems are adjusted based on the research
and calculations from sections 4.1 and 4.2 above. Structural components (wings, fuselage, tail) remain
consistent with the source, given the category and type of aircraft affects internal components more
than the external component weights. For example, the source reports an OEW fraction of 3.9% for
avionics. This corresponds to a weight of 126.24 kg relative to the UAV OEW, which if accepted,
would weigh more than the fuel system in this design. Therefore, avionics were reduced to 70 kg,
based on this finding as well as example models for various sensors, etc. explained in section 4.2.
Assumptions were necessary at points where research fell short. Components requiring the most
estimation, rather than sourced calculations, were the undercarriage for landing and the hydraulic
system.
Finally, there is a 19.27% margin for leftover OEW noted in Figure 10 due to component weights
not adding up to the holistic OEW fraction. This is actually a positive result that is justified later in
section 6.2.

5 Final Performance Analysis

L
With a larger fuel weight fraction, smaller OEW fraction, larger MGTOW, and smaller D max
, one
may re-calculate the lift coefficients and velocities at different stages of flight. The reference aircraft’s
published performance values are revisited, and cross-checked with these new ones [15]. A cross-check
led to the conclusion that previous stall speed calculations were too large, as a result of the maximum
lift coefficient being too small. To fix this, one cannot just scale down from a reference aircraft’s
given stall velocity because one must abide by the EMALS and EAGS takeoff and landing constraints.
Therefore, one must work backwards from the maximum allowed landing speed in order for the EAGS
mechanism to function. From this landing speed, one can calculate stall speed Vstall , the maximum
lift coefficient CLmax , and the remaining speed and aerodynamic quantities.

5.1 Flight Phase Velocities

As alluded to above, maximum landing speed can be solved for using Equation (2).
1 2
KEland = · mland + ·Vland = 5.2M J (2)
2
Assuming Vland is 1.15 larger than Vstall , as indicated in the Field Performance spreadsheet, Vstall
can now be calculated.
Raymer states that an ”aircraft takes off at about 1.1 times the stall speed” which allows VT O to
calculated now [4]. However, one must account for the fact that the EMALS provides 5.2 MJ of extra
energy during takeoff. One can add this to the aircraft’s kinetic energy when flying at 37 m/s, solving
for a new catapult-boosted takeoff velocity using the same form of Equation (2).
Next, cruise velocity Vcruise can be determined by working backwards from a reasonable choice of
lift coefficient CL,Cr = 0.5, and applying Equation (3).
2
CL,cruise · Splanf orm,wings · Vcruise · ρz=3000m
Wcruise = Lif t = (3)
2
Although this is faster than the reference aircraft’s cruise speed by 24 m/s, it is completely valid
because this aircraft is heavier and has about 25% more combined power from the two turboprop
engines than the MQ-9 Reaper has [1].

17
Figure 10: Operational Empty Weight component weight breakdowns, percentages, and commentary.

18
 Finally, average climb and loiter speeds are estimated by considering the general amount of work
required of the respective flight segment compared to its prior and later segments.
Using Vcruise in Table 1(a), the Mach number during cruise is found to be 0.324, which means this
UAV is flying at subsonic speeds.

5.2 Lift and Drag Coefficients

It is important to compute various lift and drag coefficients various flight segments, such that the
aerodynamic behavior of this UAV design structure may be characterized and evaluated. All coefficient
values can be seen in Table 1(b).
The zero-drag coefficient CD0 is estimated using Raymer’s value for a clean propeller aircraft [4].
The zero-drag coefficient at takeoff CD0,T O is simply found via summation of CD0 , landing gear drag
(0.006), and high lift devices drag (0.055) [38].
L CL,Cr
CD,Cr , the drag coefficient during cruise, is calculated using the expression D max
= CD,Cr given
L
one knows CL,Cr and D max
. The calculated drag at cruise speed, accounting for weight and air density
at 3000 m of altitude, is 4000 N. This is less than the engines’ maximum thrust capability, 11151 N,
so this aircraft will fly.
This aircraft’s maximum lift coefficient CLmax can also be calculated using Equation (4) because
the stall speed is known. The calculated value is rather high compared to Raymer’s normal range of
CLmax (1.6-2.0) [4]. Stall speed cannot increase because of the maximum landing velocity constraint.
Therefore, in order to achieve this CLmax , high lift devices such as flaps and slats are added, which
can increase the lift coefficient by 0.9 at landing or 0.3 at takeoff [38]. In the event of a traditional
takeoff and landing, where much higher stall speeds can be sustained, this aircraft could do without
such high lift devices. This would mean this aircraft is ”clean,” and therefore has a clean lift coefficient
CLmax,clean that is about 50% smaller than its CLmax [39].
2
2 · M GT OW · Vstall
CLmax = (4)
ρz=0m · Splanf orm,wings
Using Equation (5) one can find the lift coefficient of this aircraft at takeoff. For simplicity, the
MGTOW in used in this equation. In future performance iterations, one might increase the precision
of this calculation by using the marginally reduced weight of this aircraft due to fuel burn up to the
takeoff location. A similar assumption is made when calculating CLmax in Equation (4).
0.85 · 2 · M GT OW
CL,T O = (5)
ρz=0m · VT2O · Splanf orm,wings
Raymer states ”that the takeoff lift coefficient [CL,T O ] is the maximum takeoff lift coefficient
[CL,T Omax ] divided by 1.21,” so using this relation, one can solve for the latter lift coefficient [4].
Similarly, the maximum lift coefficient at landing CL,landmax is related to CL,T O by a factor of 0.8
larger [40]. This proportionality makes sense, because takeoff speed with the catapult’s added energy
is greater than the landing speed, and a decrease in speed corresponds to an increase in lift coefficient.
Finally, CD,T O and CD, L are outputs of the Field Performance spreadsheet [20]. Checking
D max
these two drag coefficients against those of the MQ-9 Reaper in [15], these maximum drag values are
L
of the same order of magnitude. This is a valid check to perform given the MQ-9 Reaper’s D max
is
quite similar to this one’s, and its CLmax is similar to this one’s CL,T omax using the EMALS catapult.
The only discrepancy that occurs is between the true CLmax values, which is a sensible discrepancy
given the landing constraint imposed by the EAGS landing mechanism for this aircraft.

5.3 Airfoil Selection and High Lift Devices

It was decided that one of the NACA wing airfoils will be chosen in order to accelerate the selection
procedure and to mitigate the chance of choosing a wrong airfoil. So, in order to select the right NACA
airfoil, the ideal and the maximum lift coefficients of the wing should be calculated as they are the x
and y-axis in the NACA airfoil’s graph respectively. All coefficients in this section pertain to the wing
only, opposed to the reported coefficients in section 5.2 and Table 1(b) that pertain to the aircraft as
a whole.

19
 Coefficient Value [dimensionless]
CD0 0.02
Speed Segment Value [m/s] CD0,T O 0.0910
VT O 37 CD,T O 0.316
VT O,catapult 46 CD,cruise 0.032
Vstall 34 CD, L 0.350
D max
Vclimb 75 CL,T Omax 1.77
Vcruise 111 CLmax 5.1
Vloiter 50 CLmax,clean 2.55
Vland 39 CL,landmax 2.21
((a)) Final velocity estimates for various stages ((b)) Final lift and drag coefficient estimates for
of flight. various stages of flight.

Table 1

Firstly, the ideal lift coefficient at cruise should be calculated as the following:
2 · Wavg 2 · 5780 · 9.81
CLC = 2
= = 0.41 (6)
ρc · V c · S 0.909 · 1112 · 24.7
Where Wavg is the average weight at cruise, rhoc is the density at cruise. Vc is the cruise velocity and
S is the wing platform area.
Then the wing lift coefficient at cruise should be calculated so the following formula is used:
CLC 0.41
CLCw = = = 0.4315 (7)
0.95 0.95
The formula above was applied in accordance with [38]. Other aircraft components can also provide a
significant (up to 20 percent) positive or negative contribution to the overall lift. Thus, the aircraft’s
configuration affects how the aircraft cruise lift coefficient, and the wing cruise lift coefficient are
related. The contribution of the fuselage, tail, and other components, as well as the wing, would define
the aircraft lift coefficient. However, the anticipated connection is advised because the airfoil selection
procedure is in the early design stage and the geometry of the other components has not yet been
finalized yet.
After obtaining the wing lift coefficient at cruise the ideal lift coefficient is calculated by using the
following formula:
CLCw 0.4315
CLi = = = 0.48 (8)
0.9 0.9
The wing is a three-dimensional body, whereas the airfoil is a two-dimensional segment. Theoreti-
cally, if the wing chord is constant, there is no sweep angle, no dihedral, and the wingspan is infinite,
the wing lift coefficient should be equal to the wing airfoil lift coefficient. However, since the wing has
not yet been designed, one must go back to an approximate relationship. Since the span is constrained
and the wing typically has a sweep angle and a non-constant chord, its lift coefficient is slightly lower
than that of an airfoil. Therefore, the relationship mentioned above was utilized.
After calculating the ideal lift coefficient, the aircraft maximum lift coefficient should be calculated
as the following:
2 · Wto 2 · 6800 · 9.81
CLmax = 2
= = 3.814 (9)
ρ0 · Vs · S 1.225 · 342 · 24.7
Where Wto is the take-off weight, rho0 is the density at take-off. Vs is the stall velocity and S is
the wing platform area.
Then the wing maximum lift coefficient should be calculated using the same judgement used to
calculate the wing lift coefficient at cruise so:
CLmax 3.814
CLmaxw = = = 4.015 (10)
0.95 0.95
Moreover, the wing airfoil gross maximum lift coefficient which is the airfoil maximum lift coefficient
in which the effect of HLD (e.g., flap) is included ca be determined by the following equation:
CLmaxw 4.015
CLmaxgross = = = 4.46 (11)
0.9 0.9

20
 ((a)) Chord distribution along the semi-span. ((b)) Lift distribution along the semi-span.

((c)) Lift coefficient distribution along the semi-span.

Figure 11

Finally, the net maximum lift coefficient was calculated by the below formula:
CLmaxgross − ∆CLHLD = 4.46 − 1.3 = 3.16 (12)
The ∆CLHLD was calculated according to table 5.15 [38], as it was decided that the wing will have
flap at the trailing edge and slats at the leading edge [38]. The single flap has lift coefficient value of
0.9 and the slats have a lift coefficient value of 0.4. So, the sum is 1.3 and hence the chosen airfoil
from 30 is NACA 23012. This airfoil is the one with the closest ideal and maximum lift coefficient to
these performed calculations.

5.4 Aerodynamic Analysis

To begin the aerodynamic analysis, the lifting line theory was used to predict the lift and lift coefficient
distribution over the semi-span. A MATLAB code was developed in order to simulate the lift distri-
bution and calculate some of the wing parameters. The figures below illustrate the lift, lift coefficient,
and chord distribution along the semi-span as seen in 11.
According to what is shown in 11(b) and 11(c), the lift distribution along the semi-span is elliptical
shape which implies its effectiveness in mitigating the induced drag of the wing.
The results obtained from MATLAB for the wing were then compared to the results from xflr5.
The wing of the aircraft was modeled by xflr5, then simulations were carried out for the wing under
several angle of attacks (AoA) which can be seen in the following in 12.
Subfigures within Figure 12 were obtained by using the 3D panels method in xflr5 without taking
the viscous effects into account, as the program could not handle these in simulation. The lifting
line theory was implemented again to confirm the MATLAB simulations shown in Figure11 and the
following result was obtained as seen in 13.

21
 ((a)) ((b)) ((c)) ((d))

Figure 12: (a) The Drag Polar relationship. (b) The Lift Curve slope. (c) CM against AoA.CM against
CL
AoA. (d) C D
against AoA.

Figure 13: The lifting line theory results from xflr5 at AOA = 10º.

22
((a)) Excel Field Performance spreadsheet output ((b)) Payload Range Diagram outputted by the
plot of power-to-weight ratio versus wing loading. Range Endurance spreadsheet.

Figure 14

According to what is shown in 13, the lift distribution over the span is a quality match with the one
obtained by MATLAB, which confirms the wing’s capability of producing lift as well as the validity
of this design. The remaining xflr5 simulations can be seen in 6.2, showing induced drag the pressure
distributions over this wing.

5.5 Range, Endurance, Fuel Consumption, and Climb Profile

This aircraft carries enough fuel to fly over a range of 5257 km and has an 11.6 hour endurance; these
performance values are determined using the Range Endurance spreadsheet (shown in Figure 29)that
L
requires the UAV’s weight, VCruise , and D max
as its primary inputs []. It is important to note that
this range and endurance calculation uses the correct and final weight fractions: 30% to fuel, 47.9%
to OEW, and 22.1% to the payload. However, the 500 km journey will only use up a fraction of this
fuel weight, which will give a specific air range (SAR) of 2.37 kg/km as explained below.
Wi
The SAR is calculated by considering every fuel fraction W 0
per flight segment and applying each
fraction to Equation 13 to determine the aircraft’s gross weight at each segment and therefore the fuel
consumed between segments Wf uel,segment . The weight should decrease incrementally due to fuel usage.
Fuel consumptions per segment are summed to get a total WΣf uel . Although the fuel weight fraction
is known to be 30% of the MGTOW, this total WΣf uel number provides a more specific number based
on the exact flight path and fuel fractions. The fuel fractions used are from the Initial Weight Sizing
spreadsheet (shown in Figure 27) and are specific to the aircraft over its entire possible flight range,
5257 km, as well as to a fuel fraction of 21%. For reasons explained above, the fuel fraction is increased
to 30%. Therefore, the total fuel consumption calculation had to be adjusted using the proportion
shown in Equation 14. With this adjusted total fuel consumption WΣf uel,adjusted , proportions are
applied again using Equation 15 to find the WΣf uel,d over the required (much shorter) mission flight
path: 211.19 kg. One needed to geometrically calculate the total distance traveled d by this aircraft,
not just the horizontal displacement. (This is done under the assumption that this plane will not climb
in steps, but rather on a straight, positive, diagonalized path.)
A high-performance powerplant was chosen and this aircraft has a stall angle of attack of α=15º
according to the airfoil characteristics. Using trapezoidal geometry, choosing an ascent angle of α=10º,
a decent angle of α=7º, taking off from sea level, cruising at 3000 m of altitude (z), and landing at
z=1000 m, a total flight path of d=500.68 km is found. The SAR is the ratio between distance
traveled and fuel consumed Equation 16, so the SAR of this aircraft on its cargo delivery mission
is 2.37 km/kg. This number suggests that this UAV design is not under-performing, according to a
source that reported a typical SAR of 0.56 NM/lb, or 2.28 km/kg, for a Beechcraft Premier aircraft
[41]. If this aircraft flies longer, closer to its maximum range value of 5257 km, the calculated SAR
increases a bit to 2.76 km/kg. This is found by dividing R = 5257 km (not accounting for climb and
descent path resultants) by the original fuel fraction estimate of 2040 kg, minus the 6% reserve fuel of
121.44 kg, which equals 1902.56 kg of used fuel. Compared to other reported SAR values in the source

23
 Figure 15: The aircraft flight envelope.

- 0.37 km/kg for a Boeing 737 or 2.47 km/kg for a Cessna Citation CJ aircraft - this SAR suggests
an acceptable aircraft efficiency. Moreover, SAR is not the only indicator of efficiency - structural,
aerodynamic, and propulsive factors must be considered as well. The SAR only depends on weight
fractions and flight paths.
The plot in Figure 14(b) shows the relationship between payload weight, MGTOW, and maximum
fuel weight as a function of flight range for a 1500 kg payload on a 6800 kg MGTOW aircraft. It can
be seen that as range increases, fuel weight must increase too, which increases TOW in the limit of
MGTOW, and therefore the available payload weight is decreased in this limit. This design’s payload-
range curve suggests a 1500kg payload can be sustained over a very long range, which adds to the
design efficiency.
The plot in Figure 15 shows the flight envelope of this aircraft, which is a relationship between
stall speed, maximum speed, service ceiling (3000 m), and absolute ceiling (4125 m). The absolute
ceiling should be 1.375 times the service ceiling, according to a source []. Stall speed and maximum
speed are calculated according to provided equations in lecture 9 [] which indicate how the maximum
and the stall speeds varies with respect to the altitude, as shown in figure 15 the stall speed increases
exponentially with the altitude while the maximum speed decreases exponentially with the altitude
which implies the changes in the stall characteristics at high altitude.
Wi
Wf uel,segment = M GT OW − (M GT OW · ) (13)
W0
WΣf uel 0.2
= (14)
WΣf uel,adjusted 0.3
R5257 WΣf uel,adjusted
= (15)
Rd WΣf uel,d
d
SAR = (16)
WΣf uel,d

24
 Lastly, using the geometry above and Equation 17, one can calculate the rate of climb c. This uses
αclimb =10º and the VClimb value in Table 1(a) to get 13.02 m/s, which is corresponds to a rather quick
climb, as intended for this design’s climb profile. For example, this is 4 m/s faster than the climb rate
of a commercial Boeing 737 aircraft [].

c = VClimb · sin(10◦ ) (17)

5.6 Stability, Trim, and Balance

5.6.1 Longitudinal Static Stability Analysis
During the cruise stage of the flight, it is desirable for the aircraft to be statically stable. The aircraft
has a tendency to oppose any gust-induced pitching moments, which will allow the aircraft to return
back to its original orientation. A statically stable aircraft helps reduce fuel consumption and drag
produced by the aircraft, as the rudder does not have to compensate too much when the aircraft is
disturbed from its steady level flight.
The longitudinal static stability depends on the location of the aircraft center of gravity relative to
the neutral point of the aircraft. If the c.g. (center of gravity) is aft of the neutral point, the aircraft
is said to have negative stability. An aircraft with negative stability would never return to its original
orientation once disturbed, meaning that if a gust of wind produced a pitch up moment, the aircraft
would further increase its pitch angle due to its negative stability. On the other hand, if the c.g. is
forward of the neutral point the aircraft is said to be positively stable, meaning that if the aircraft
was disturbed in pitch, it would produce an opposite pitching moment to return itself to its original
orientation. In mostly military applications, an aircraft is purposely designed to be either neutrally or
negatively stable, which is required for increased maneuverability and dog fighting capability.
For the longitudinal static stability analysis, cruise conditions are used because this is when most
of the lift is being generated by the wings and ideally only a small amount is being produced by the
fuselage and horizontal tail. The aircraft is considered to be in equilibrium conditions, as the upward
lift generated from the wing and tail structures will equal the downward aircraft weight.
Figure 31 shows the aircraft free body diagram in cruise conditions, evaluating the pitching moments
about the center of gravity gives

Mcg = Macw + Lw lcg − Lh (lh − lcg ) (18)

this can be simplified by combining the lift forces into one force L.

Mcg = Macw + Llcg − Lh lh (19)

Now the pitching moments can be non-dimensionalized with 21 ρV 2 Sc̄:

lcg
Cmcg = Cmacw + CL − CLh Vh (20)
c̄
Sh lh
Vh = (21)
Sc̄
The dimensionless quantity Vh is known as the tail volume. The rate of change of the pitching
dCm
moment with angle of attack dαcg is the main point off interest; to get this differentiate (20) with
respect to angle-of-attack α.
dCmcg Cmacw dCL lcg dCLh
= + − Vh (22)
dα dα dα c̄ dα
The aerodynamic center is the point on the aircraft where the pitching moment, about this point,
dCm dC
does not change with angle of attack, thus dαacw = 0. The term dαLh represents the rate of change
of horizontal tail lift coefficient with angle of attack. Due to the downwash generated by the main
wing αh ̸= α, αh is the difference between the main wing angle of attack α and downwash angle ε.

αh = α − ε + ih (23)

25
 Where ih is the tail setting angle, this is not a function of α. After replacing α with αh in the term
dCLh
dα and manipulating, the following equation is obtained:
!
dCmcg dCL lcg dCLh dε
= − 1− Vh (24)
dα dα c̄ dαh dα
For stability analysis, the neutral point of the aircraft is of importance. This point is defined as
the location along the length of the aircraft where the rate of change of pitching moment with angle
of attack is zero Cmα = 0. So, at the neutral point lcg = lnp , rearranging Equation (24) gives the
location of the neutral point lnp as a percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) c̄.
!
lnp dCLh dα dε
= Vh 1 − (25)
c̄ dαh dCL dα

dε
The variation of downwash angle with wing angle of attack dα is obtained empirically [42] by
!1.19
dε q CLa w |M
= 4.44 KA Kλ Kh cos Λc/4 (26)
dα CLa w |M =0

Where
1 1
KA = − (27)
AR 1 + AR1.7

Kλ = (10 − 3λ)/7 (28)

1 − |hh /b|
Kh = p3
(29)
2lh /b
l
Solving (25) gives a value of np
c̄ = 47.88% for the location of the neutral point as a percentage of the
wing MAC. The center of gravity of the aircraft calculated from previous sections is located at 30.71%
along the MAC which gives a stability margin of 17.18%. A Positive stability margin within 5%-20%
is desired for most general aviation aircraft, this also shows that the current design and configuration
of cargo UAV proposed in this paper exhibits longitudinal static stability.
The equations derived from the equilibrium state of the aircraft Figure 31 are for the power-off
case where the pitching moment produced by the engine thrust is not taken into account. To account
for this, the SMpower−of f (Power off Stability Margin) can be reduced by 0.07 for propeller driven
aircraft. This is an empirical solution [42] which gives the final SMpower−on =10.18%.

5.6.2 Trim Setting Angle

To maintain steady level flight during the cruise phase of the flight it is important to have the horizontal
tail trimmed. The most basic form of trimming is elevator trim, when an elevator is trimmed the whole
horizontal wing is either tilted up or down which either increases or decreases the lift component
produced by the tail to counteract the pitching moment produced by the main wing of the aircraft.
If the aircraft did not have the functionality to trim the horizontal tail it would mean the elevator
control surface would constantly be required to deflect which would generate undue stresses on the tail
structure and the control surface actuating mechanism.
The conditions for trimmed flight are the sum of pitching moments about the aircraft c.g. equal zero,
Cmcg = 0, and the sum of lifting forces equal the weight of the aircraft.

Mcg = Lw lcg + Macw + Mf − Lh (lh − lcg ) + T zt (30)

Convert each term into coefficients

lcg Sh (lh − lcg ) T zt

Cmcg = CLw + Cm0 w + Cmα f α − CLh ηh + (31)
c̄ Sw c̄ qSw c̄

26
 ((a)) The plot of Cmcg vs CL for −10◦ ≤ α ≤ 18◦
and 2◦ ≤ ih ≤ 8◦ ((b)) Center of gravity (c.g). envelope diagram.

Figure 16

T zt
Two additional terms, Cmα f α and qS w c̄
, are present they represent the pitching moment generated
by the fuselage and the pitching moment produced by the thrust of the engine respectively (zt is the
thrust moment arm). ηh is the tail efficiency factor which accounts for the difference between the
dynamic pressure at the tail and that in the freestream; for a T-tail configuration a typical value is
ηh ≈ 1.0. Cm0 w is the wing’s zero lift pitching moment, this and Cmα f α are empirically given as [42]
" #
A cos2 Λc/4
 
C L α w |M
Cm0 w = Cm0 airf |M =0 − 0.01ϵ (32)
A + 2 cos Λc/4 CLa w |M =0

Lf wf2
Cmα f = Kf (33)
c̄Sw
Cm0 airf is the incompressible airflow zero lift pitching moment and ϵ is the wing twist in degrees.
Lf is the fuselage length, wf is the fuselage width and Kf is a constant which is a function of the wing
root c/4 position which is obtained from [42].

For the trim analysis the Cmcg vs CL needs to be plotted for different angles of attack α and tail
setting angle ih . The expression for Cmcg was just derived in Equation (31) and now CL is given as
Sh
CL = CLw + ηh CL (34)
Sw h

The lift coefficients from the two lifting surfaces is given by [4]

CLw = CLα w (α + iw − α0w ) (35)

" ! #
dε
CLh = CLα h = (α + iw − α0w ) 1 − + (ih − iw ) − (α0h − α0w ) (36)
dα

CLh and CLw are the only terms in (31) and (35) that are a function of α and ih . Figure 16(a)
shows the plot for the horizontal tail trim analysis, to get the setting angle range the intersection point
at which Cmcg = 0 and CL = CLdesign (cruise lift coefficient) is required. From the graph the tail
setting angle is obtained as 4◦ ≤ ih ≤ 8◦ during the cruise stage of the flight.

5.6.3 Center of Gravity Flight Envelope

During flight an aircraft will continuously lose weight as the engines consume the fuel. As a result of
this the aircraft center of gravity will also move through the flight. Most commercial aircraft have an
additional fuel tank located in the tailplane to better control the c.g. by pumping fuel in or out of said
tanks. The UAV configuration in this paper has all its fuel tanks located in the wing. Certain aircraft
have additional mission requirements such as payload drops during flight and depending on the size of

27
the payload it could have a drastic effect on the balance of the aircraft. For this UAV design only the
fuel weight is reducing and so the calculation of the c.g flight envelope becomes simpler. Figure 16(b)
shows the location of the c.g as a per cent of the MAC for different stages of flight. The c.g limits have
been set 10% apart, it is recommended to have the limits 8% apart [4].

6 Discussion and Next Steps

6.1 Performance Evaluation
After evaluation and synthesization of various results from section 5, one may conclude that this
conceptual cargo UAV design not only fulfills all mission requirements, but is viable and sufficiently
high-performing.
This design maintains a good climb profile: a quick rate of climb, high cruise speed, and acceptable
SAR. According to the stability and trim analysis, this design is statically and longitudinally stable,
with a near perfect Power on Stability Margin of 10.18%. All fuel-payload-OEW ratios are at the
L
desired benchmark value for general aircraft. This design sustains a high D max
, a medium endurance,
and a range that is about 10 times larger than what was required, which gives this aircraft mission
flexibility. From an aerodynamic perspective, this design maintains an elliptical lift distribution which
fights induced drag very well.
The fuselage has an overall cargo length of 7 m, volume of around 7.4 m3 excluding the undercar-
riage, and a cargo density of about 202 kg/m3 . These values imply that there is a more than sufficient
cargo volume for the 1500 kg payload stated in the design brief, and that this aircraft is capable of
carrying items of various dimensions ranging from 120 standard gold bars to mini wind turbine blades.
The final design model can be seen in Figure 2, Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20 - these models
show an isometric, top, front, and side view of this aircraft, respectively. The detailed technical drawing
with the overall dimensions can be seen in Figure 1.

6.2 Future Design Iterations

There exists a useful weight margin of 19.27% on the OEW, which allows future design iterations
to enhance the capabilities of this aircraft. For example, more high lift devices may be added to
increase lift during important maneuvers or flight segments. Alternatively, the avionics suite could
be augmented, to include an electro-optical sensor suite which may accommodate military aircraft
requirements in addition to basic cargo transport [34].
A future structural iteration could involve a box wing configuration because of the aerodynamic
advantages. The box-wing configuration generates more lift within the same wingspan limit [43]. This
is an essential requirement for the cargo aircraft because of its loading capacity tendency. This type
of wing also leads to less overall fuel consumption because of the increased drag reduction. The box
wing allows the aircraft to fly at speeds optimized for efficient and environmentally friendly turboprop
engines for most weather conditions, given the significantly lower drag.
Another future goal is to rely on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) for this aircraft. This sustainable
fuel is created by blending the conventional kerosene (fossil-based) jet fuel with up to 50% renewable
hydrocarbon and, thus, is known as Jet-A1 fuel [44]. For sustainable, or blended, aviation fuel, there
would be no changes in the fueling infrastructure, which eases integration of this new propellant choice.
Additionally, using blended fuel for this cargo aircraft could reduce carbon emissions by up to 80%
over the life cycle of the fuel, in contrast to traditional jet fuel. Blended fuel also has a higher calorific
value than jet fuel, which means this aircraft can fly the same distance but with less fuel.

References
[1] MQ-9 Reaper;. Available from: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/
Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/.
[2] General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper;. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_
Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper#Design.

28
 [3] Aeronautical GA. MQ-9A ”Reaper”;. Available from: https://www.ga-asi.com/
remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9a.
[4] Raymer DP. Aircraft design : a conceptual approach. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aero-
nautics and Astronautics, Inc; 2018. Includes bibliographical references (pages 1009-1015) and
index.; ID: alma991000248798801591.
[5] Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10 and TPE331-11 Series Tur-
boprop Engines. Federal Information &amp; News Dispatch, LLC; 2012. 77. Available from:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/920505429.
[6] Raymer DP. Approximate Method of Deriving Loiter Time from Range. JOURNAL OF AIR-
CRAFT. 2004;Vol. 41, No. 4. Available from: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.523.
[7] Johanning A, Scholz D. Propeller Efficiency Calculation in Conceptual Aircraft Design. 2013.
Available from: https://www.fzt.hawhamburg.de/pers/Scholz/transfer/Airport2030_TN_
Propeller-Efficiency_13-08-12_SLZ.pdf.
[8] Yorick T, Roelof V. Propeller Design for Conceptual Turboprop Aircraft. 2017. Available from:
http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:d746a647-25e1-463b-af3a-6c2c478e1b37.
[9] LeGresley P, Bathke T, Carrion A, Cornejo J, Owens J, Vartanian R, et al. In: 1998/1999 AIAA
Foundation Graduate Team Aircraft Design Competition - Super STOL Carrier On-board Delivery
aircraft. 2000 World Aviation Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics;
1998. .
[10] LI X, SUN K, LI F. General optimal design of solar-powered unmanned aerial vehicle for priority
considering propulsion system. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics. 2020;33(8):2176-88. Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936120301795.
[11] Aygun H, Kirmizi M, Turan O. Propeller effects on energy, exergy and sustainability pa-
rameters of a small turboprop engine. Energy. 2022;249:123759. Available from: https:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222006624.
[12] Honeywell. Turboprop Engine; 2022. Available from: https://aerospace.honeywell.
com/us/en/products-and-services/product/hardware-and-systems/engines/
tpe331-turboprop-engine.
[13] The Different Types of Aviation Fuel or Jet Fuel; 2021. Available from: https://ijet.aero/
ijet-blog/different-types-aviation-fuel-jet-fuel.
[14] Allan H. Pusher vs. Puller Propeller Aircraft Compared; 2022. Available from: https:
//airplaneacademy.com/pusher-vs-puller-propeller-aircraft-compared/.
[15] Ryan K. AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF THE ANGLE OF ATTACK O
FTHE WING DESIGN OF A MQ-9 REAPER UAV. Research Gate. 2022 18 10:All.
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364440038_Aerodynamic_
Optimization_of_the_Angle_of_Attack_of_the_Wing_Design_of_a_MQ-9_Reaper_UAV.
[16] Aerospace C. Unmanned; 2022. Flight controls, Avionics, etc.&nbsp;. Available from:
https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-do/industries/military-and-defense/
platforms/unmanned-air.
[17] UK V. VW Golf Dimensions; 2022. Available from: https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/
Scholz/dimensionierung/tofl_nn.htm.
[18] SCHOLZ D. Empennage sizing with the tail volume complemented with a method for dorsal fin
layout. INCAS bulletin. 2021 Sep 04,;13(3):149-64. Available from: https://search.proquest.
com/docview/2577804818.
[19] Yang D. AC Sizing Excel Sheet;.
[20] Yang D. AC Performance Excel Sheet;.

29
[21] NACA 23012; 2022. Available from: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=
naca23012-il.
[22] John P. F-22 Flight Critical Systems; 2022. Available from: https://www.globalsecurity.org/
military/systems/aircraft/f-22-fcas.htm.
[23] Andrew W. The Aircraft Electrical System – An Overview; 2022. Available from: https://
aerotoolbox.com/aircraft-electrical-system/.
[24] Coronado H, Rodrigez R, Sloss T, Sorley S. RAM Air Turbine -White Team Final Report ME
160 -Spring 2008;.
[25] DOKIO. DOKIO 2 x 100 W solar panel;. DOKIO-013,&nbsp;Monocrystalline Silicon. Available
from: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foldable-Battery-Waterproof-Caravan-Motorhome/
dp/B07YKRJ95W/ref=sr_1_3_sspa?keywords=solar%2Bpanel%2B300w&qid=1670419763\&sr=
8-3-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1.
[26] Jolywood. 108 Cells N-type Bifacial Half-Cell Module; 2019. Product model: NIWA PRO
HD108N. Available from: http://www.jolywood.cn/en/ProductDetails-6-108-1407.html.
[27] Werner. 5kw 200Hz generator for airport/aircraft;. Available from: https://www.alibaba.com/
product-detail/5kw-200Hz-generator-for-airport-aircraft_60259949482.html.
[28] mg solar shop. Huawei LUNA2000-10-S0 battery storage 10 kWh; 2022. Available from: https:
//www.mg-solar-shop.com/huawei-luna2000-10-s0-battery-storage-10-kwh.
[29] Mike C. HOW IT WORKS: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM POWER TO THE PANEL, LIGHTS,
STARTER. AOPA. 2020 08/08/. Available from: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/
all-news/2020/august/flight-training-magazine/ol-how-it-works-electrical-system.
[30] Ramsey MS. Chapter Two - Bit Hydraulics; 2019. ID: 321057. Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128170885000022.
[31] Group EA. Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22 Raptor Component & Systems Overview; 2014.
Available from: Lockheed-Martin-Boeing-FA22-Raptor-capabilities-brochure.pdf.
[32] Optronics K. UAV Imaging Systems & Drone Cameras for Piloting, Tactical ISR & SAR. Un-
manned System. 2021 03 25. Available from: https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/
company/kappa-optronics/.
[33] Sensing S. DMU30-01 Technical Datasheet; 2020.
[34] John K. Sensor payloads for unmanned vehicles;. Available
from: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unmanned/article/16707400/
sensor-payloads-for-unmanned-vehicles.
[35] Balestrieri E DVLLF Daponte P. Sensors and Measurements for Unmanned Systems: An
Overview. 2021 02 22. Academic Editor:&nbsp;Biswajeet Pradhan.
[36] uAvionix. truFYX Tech Specs; 2022. Available from: https://uavionix.com/products/
trufyx/.
[37] uAvionix. SkyLink5060 C-band CNPC Dual Channel Radio Data Link; 2019. Avail-
able from: https://uavionix.com/downloads/skyline/ARS/SkyLink5060%20Datasheet%
20UAV-1005201-001%20Rev%20E.pdf.
[38] Sadraey MH. Aircraft design a systems engineering approach. Aerospace series.. Chichester: John
Wiley Sons Ltd; 2012.
[39] Bhargava V. Importance of slat and flap devices on aircraft wings. MOJ Applied Bionics and
Biomechanics. 2019;3(2).
[40] Thomas P. Takeoff Field Length; 1999. Available from: https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/
pers/Scholz/dimensionierung/tofl_nn.htm.

30
[41] Paul T. What is Specific Range?; 2009. Available from: https://www.askacfi.com/860/
what-is-specific-range.htm.
[42] Yang D. Stability, Control Handling Qualities;.
[43] PISA UD. Box wing design for more efficient aircraft. CORDIS.
2020 31 07. Available from: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/
428904-box-wing-design-for-more-efficient-aircraft.
[44] BP. What is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)?; 2022. Available
from: https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/
what-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.html.
rotating

Appendix A Supporting Figures

The following figures are referenced in the above report. They are located here, instead of the main
body of text, because they contain supporting details rather than essential ones. All important statis-
tics from these figures are stated in the text, these figures exist as evidence.

31
Figure 17: A SOLIDWORKS model showing the solar panel placements and their respective dimen-
sions, in millimeters.

32
Figure 18: A top view of the unmanned aerial cargo aircraft conceptual design model from SOLID-
WORKS.

Figure 19: A front view of the unmanned aerial cargo aircraft conceptual design model from SOLID-
WORKS.

33
Figure 20: A side view of the unmanned aerial cargo aircraft conceptual design model from SOLID-
WORKS.

Figure 21: The coefficient of pressure distribution over the wing at AoA = 10º.

34
Figure 22: The coefficient of pressure distribution and induced drag over the wing at AoA = 5º.

Figure 23: Major components weights and their corresponding center of gravity locations.

35
Figure 24: An initial sketch of the concept ski type undercarriage, showing the various components
and the overall layout.

Figure 25: A SOLIDWORKS model showing the overall shape of the initial fuselage design, with the
nose cone at the front (left) and the engine at the back (right).

36
Figure 26: Excel Sizing spreadsheet inputs and output for a preliminary MGTOW estimate.

Figure 27: Excel Sizing spreadsheet inputs and output for a final MGTOW estimate.

37
 L
Figure 28: Final D max
output of 15.52, as determined by a set of input variables that have been
calculated throughout Section 3.

Figure 29: Range and Endurance values, calculated from aircraft input weights, outputted by the
Range Endurance spreadsheet. The range used in calculations will be in kilometers and the endurance
in hours.

38
Figure 30: Maximum lift coefficient versus ideal lift coefficient for several NACA airfoil sections.
Reproduced from permission of Dover Publications, Inc. [38].

39
 Figure 31: Free Body Diagram of aircraft in cruise conditions.

Figure 32: Airflow for the variable pitch propeller blade at the tip and root.

40
 Figure 33: Propeller efficiency curve with respect to the Mach Number for a maximum propeller
efficiency of 0.82.

41

View publication stats