Department of Aerospace

Engineering
IIT Madras

AS5213: Design of MAVs and UAVs

Group 5: UAV Design Report

• AE21B002 : Abhigyan Roy

• AE23M004 : Vinu Mathew
• AE23M008 : Anish Konar
• AE23M014 : Gautham Anil
• AE23M033 : Satyam Chandra
• AE23M006 : Aditya Sai Deepak Rachagiri

December 23, 2024

Contents

1 Problem Definition 6
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.1 Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.2 Mission Motivation and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3 Mission Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Weight and Power Estimation 15

2.1 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Payload Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Powerplant Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 First Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 Thrust to Weight Ratios and Wing Loading 20

3.1 Calculation of T/W Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Wing Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.1 Wing Loading for Takeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.2 Wing Loading for Climb Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3 Wing Loading for Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.4 Wing Loading for Cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.5 Wing Loading for Absolute Ceiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.6 Wing Loading for Loiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.7 Wing Loading Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.8 Power Loading vs Wing Loading Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4 Second Weight Estimate 28

5 Wing Design 29
5.1 Design Lift Coefficient Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.1 Cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.2 Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.3 Take-Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.4 Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3 Angle of Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4 Taper Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.5 Sweep Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.6 Wing Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.7 Dihedral Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.8 Aileron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6 Fuselage Design 40
6.1 Fuselage Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.2 Fuselage Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1
7 Tail Design 43
7.1 Tail Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.2 Optimum Tail Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3 Horizontal Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.4 Vertical Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8 Landing Gear Design 48

8.1 Landing gear Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.2 Landing Gear retraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.3 Landing Gear Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.3.1 Position of Main LG and Nose LG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.3.2 Landing Gear Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8.3.3 Landing Gear Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8.3.4 Landing Gear Overturn Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.4 Load on each Landing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.5 Selection of Tyres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.6 Nose Wheel Steering System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

9 Three View Diagram 53

9.1 CAD Model of UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9.2 Centre of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

10 Stability Analysis 56
10.1 Simulation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10.1.1 Modelling the UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10.1.2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10.2 Neutral point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.3 Longitudinal Static Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.3.1 Pitching Moment Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
10.3.2 Static Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
10.4 Directional Static Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
10.5 Lateral Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
10.6 Control Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10.6.1 Aileron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10.6.2 Elevator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10.6.3 Rudder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10.7 Flight Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

11 Performance Calculation 64
11.1 Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11.1.1 Swet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11.1.2 CDo Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11.2 Final Power Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11.2.1 Takeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11.2.2 Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.2.3 Cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.3 Range and Endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.4 V - n Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

12 Final Summary 68

13 Appendix 71
13.1 First Weight and Power Estimate Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
13.2 T/W Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
13.3 W/S Calculation for Multiple Phases of Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
13.4 Second Weight Estimate Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
13.5 Fuselage Length Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
13.6 Conceptual Horizontal Tail Area Sizing Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
13.7 Drag Polar Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

2
List of Figures

1.1.1 Area of Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1.2 Mission Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Workswell Wiris Pro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Prana Air SQUAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1 The Blue Shark F250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2 The E-384 UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.3 The Bayraktar Mini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.4 The Raven B RQ-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.5 Albatross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.6 JOUAV CW15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.7 JOUAV CW 007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1.1 Weight Estimate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3.1 Tattu LiPo Battery [17] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.1 First Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1.1 (L/D)max vs v√cruise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.1.2 (L/D)max vs ARwet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.3 T16 Propellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.4 T Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.5 T-MOTOR AT7215 Datasheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.0.1 Second Weight Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.2.1 Plot of chosen Airfoil GOE 553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.2.2 Airfoil Lift vs Angle of Attack and Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.3 Airfoil Moment vs Angle of Attack and Airfoil Lift-To-Drag vs Lift Coefficient . . . . . . 32
5.2.4 3D image of rectangular wing for chosen airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.5 Wing Lift vs Angle of Attack and Wing Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.6 Wing Lift-To-Drag vs Angle of Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.7 Wing with Flap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.8 Wing Lift vs Angle of Attack with and without flaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4.1 Different taper ratios for a wing and their CL variation [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.2 Tapered Wing with taper ratio 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.3 Drag Polar of wing with and without taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4.4 Air Stream over Rectangular Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4.5 Air Stream over Tapered Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6.1.1 Fuselage Length Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6.2.1 Components Arrangement in Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

7.3.1 CM vs α for Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7.3.2 Total CM vs α for Varying VH and Tail Area (St ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3.3 Airfoil for Tail: Symmetric Airfoil NACA0014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.4.1 Airfoil of Vertical Tail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8.0.1 Landing Gear Parameters [28] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3
8.1.1 Tricycle Landing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2.1 Comparison of Fixed vs Retractable system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.3.1 Landing Gear Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8.3.2 Take off Ground Clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.3.3 Clearance Angle Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.3.4 Estimation of Overturn Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.4.1 Loads acting on the LG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

9.1.1 Isometric View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

9.1.2 Front View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9.1.3 Top View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9.1.4 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9.2.1 CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9.2.2 CG without Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

10.1.1XFLR5 UAV Model Isometric View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

10.1.2XFLR5 UAV Model Front View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
10.1.3XFLR5 UAV Side View with sizings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10.1.4UAV Lift CL and and Moment CM vs Angle of Attack α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10.1.5UAV Directional Stability Cn and Roll Stability Cl vs Sideslip angle β . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10.1.6UAV CM vs CL and CL /CD vs Angle of Attack α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.6.1(a) Top view of the wing and aileron for reference ; (b) Side view of the wing and aileron
for reference[28] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

11.1.1Drag Polar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11.4.1V - n diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4
List of Tables

1.3.1 Blue Shark F250 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3.2 E-384 UAV Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.3 Bayraktar Mini UAV Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.4 Raven B RQ-11 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.5 Albatross Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.6 JOUAV CW-15 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3.7 JOUAV CW 007 Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1.1 Reference UAV Weight Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2.1 Payload Weight Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.1 Approximate values used to estimate Power required for different Flight Phases . . . . . . 17
2.3.2 Battery Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.1.1 Cruise Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2.1 Parameters for Wing Loading Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.2 Wing Loading at different Flight Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.2.1 Airfoil Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.2.2 Geometric and Aerodynamic Characteristics GOE 553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.1.1 Fuselage Lengths for different UAVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6.2.1 Fuselage Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

10.3.1Longitudinal Stability Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

11.1.1Area of components (m2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

12.0.1General UAV Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

12.0.2Wing Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
12.0.3Horizontal Tail Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
12.0.4Vertical Tail Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
12.0.5Fuselage Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
12.0.6Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
12.0.7Aerodynamic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5
Chapter 1

Problem Definition

1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Mission Statement
Monitoring of Flora and Fauna and the environment of forests in the Chennai AOR and Mapping of Forest
Cover which includes security based Surveillance of the forest within the said Area of Responsibility.

1.1.2 Mission Motivation and Description

Forests are indispensable in the fight against climate change, serving as crucial carbon sinks that absorb
significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through the process of photosynthesis,
trees and vegetation capture CO2, storing it in their biomass and releasing oxygen back into the air.
Moreover, forests help regulate regional and global climates by influencing atmospheric moisture levels
and reflecting sunlight through their canopy cover. Deforestation, however, disrupts this balance, releas-
ing stored carbon and reducing the Earth’s capacity to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Preserving
and restoring forests not only safeguards biodiversity but also mitigates climate change impacts, making
them essential components of sustainable environmental stewardship.

For an efficient management of the Forest cover within the city, it is crucial to monitor the highly dy-
namic and ever-changing nature of forests which requires timely data acquisition. The process for which
is often time, labor and cost-intensive and requires data coverage across a large spatial region. Medium-
range medium-endurance UAVs have thus been identified as a cost-effective readily available alternative.
Short-term and quick surveys at scheduled time intervals of the forest cover can aid in achieving quan-
tifiable results that can help assess the real-time Environmental state of the forest.

With the mission motivation defined, the group has decided to list its mission description as below.
1. To design a UAV with sufficient range and endurance to be able to fly within the Chennai City
Limits to monitor the forest cover of the city. The UAV should have to have an initial cruise
altitude of about 80m to be able to provide an aerial survey of the Chennai AOR. Post which, the
UAV would fly into the specific target area at a lower altitude of about 40m to be able to provide
the user detail inputs of the Target forest area.
2. The UAV should be equipped with sufficient sensors to be able to undertake environment monitoring
and surveillance. The UAV should enable the user to be able to monitor the forest by indicating
different stressors that attribute to the overall health of the forest. The environmental parameters
such as temperature, relative humidity, and presence of harmful gases in the air will produce
quantifiable results for the health monitoring. The UAV could also be utilized for monitoring and
tracking of specific Fauna in the forest and to monitor the state of the water bodies in the forest
or within the city limits.
3. The UAV has the potent capability of carrying out high range aerial survey within a very short
period of time and hence can be used for early detection of forest fires. This should enable the user
to activate fire services well in time for efficient management of the forest fire.

6
 4. As the UAV is an airborne platform equipped with an optical sensor, it could also be used for
assessment of damage from environmental calamities such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes, etc.
where a ground survey assessment would not be a feasible solution.
5. The UAV should be equipped with optical and Infrared sensors. This could also be used for active
and passive surveillance missions to reduce trespassing and illegal timber poaching activities. With
the aid of the IR sensors, the UAV would be able to capture the presence and movement of the
intruders even under the forest canopy.

1.1.3 Mission Profile

Based on the aforementioned Mission objectives, the Mission Profile is generated below.

Phase I:

Take Off and Climb:

The UAV should have a very low startup time and hence be readily deployed on short notice to achieve
the desired objective. Also, it would need to have a low take-off distance and a high Rate of Climb is
desirable to be able to reach cruising altitude as soon as possible.

Phase II:

Cursory Data Acquisition:

Figure 1.1.1: Area of Coverage

Based on the area of coverage of the Chennai City limits and considering the height of the tallest
tree within the city limits to be about 40m, Two cruising altitudes of 80 meters and 40 meters have been
identified for the UAV operation. In the Cursory data acquisition phase with an altitude of 80m, the
area of coverage comes upto about 6943 m2 . This would be sufficient for a cursory scan of the target
area. The UAV is expected to be able to loiter for about 20–30 minutes at an altitude of about 80m.
This would enable us to carry out a high range aerial survey to collect higher spatial data and identify
areas of interest.

Phase III:

Detail Data Acquisition:

Post completion of the Cursory Data Acquisition phase, the UAV would be employed to loiter at a lower
cruise altitude of about 40 m for about 45–60 minutes to monitor the environment of the forest at tree
top levels. The area of coverage at an altitude of 40m would be about 3471 m2 . This cruise altitude will
also provide detailed information of the target AOR at a higher resolution This would enable the user
to extract detailed source information for a better assessment of the data acquired.

7
Phase IV:

Descent and Landing:

The UAV must then carry out a descent at nominal descent angles, maintaining correct approach speeds,
to carry out a safe landing at the desired landing strip.

Figure 1.1.2: Mission Profile

1.2 Payload
To effectively achieve the mission objectives outlined previously, it is imperative that the UAV be out-
fitted with appropriate avionics equipment. The following payloads have been carefully chosen to ensure
the successful attainment of the mission objectives.

1) Thermo – Optical sensor : Workswell Wiris Pro

Figure 1.2.1: Workswell Wiris Pro

The Workswell WIRIS Pro is a thermodiagnostic device. Its thermal camera is equipped with an LWIR
microbolometric sensor with 640×512 px resolution (in the 7.5 – 13.5 m range), and its ‘Super Resolution
Mode’ functionality can deliver a final thermogram in 1266×1010 px resolution. The RGB camera comes
with Full HD (1920 x 1080 px) resolution and provides an absolutely unrivalled optical ultrazoom 10x
in real-time (6.9° to 58.2° field of vision). The highest possible temperature that the thermal camera
can measure is 1,500 °C. The thermo optic sensor is equipped with an advanced operating system for
thermal cameras, ensuring full real-time data streaming and control during flights, with easy camera
control through various interfaces. Also an interface used for integrating UAV cameras with MAVLINK
systems, allowing for advanced control and data transmission capabilities.

8
 Thermal Camera Specification
IR Camera Resolution 640 x 512 pixels
IR Super Resolution Mode 1 266 x 1 010 pixels
FPA active sensor size 1.088 x 0.8705 cm
Temperature ranges -25 °C to +150 °C -40 °C °C to +550 °C optional temperature range +50 – 1 000 °C optional temperature range +400 – 1 500 °C
Temperature sensitivity Standard 0.05 °C (50 mK) or optional 0.03 °C (30 mK)
Accuracy ±2 % or ±2 °C (in temperature range -10 °C to +150°C and 0 °C to +550°C, after stabilization, climate chamber and black body testing for all products)
Frame rate 30 Hz or ¡ 9 Hz
Spectral range / detector 7.5 – 13.5 m / Uncooled VOx microbolometer

Digital Visual Camera

Resolution 1 920 x 1 080 pixels (Full HD), 1/3” sensor, Auto white balance, Wide dynamic range, Backlight compensation, Exposure and Gamma control
Optical zoom 10x optical zoom with vibration compensation.
View angle ultra zoom 6.9° - extra wide 58.2°, focal 33.0 mm - 3.3 mm
Noise reduction Special 3D noise reduction function
Focus Autofocus with Direct Focus Zoom synchronization

2) AIR QUALITY SENSOR – PRANA AIR SQUAIR

SQUAIR monitor is a air quality monitoring device that can detect particulate matters and gas param-
eters. It detects PM10, PM2.5, CO, CO2, O3, NO2, SO2, TVOC, HCHO, noise, light, temperature &
humidity.

Figure 1.2.2: Prana Air SQUAIR

Instrument Specification
Features Description
Weight 227 g
Power Supply 5 V DC
Connectivity Wi-Fi/GSM/RS485
Storage Micro-SD card/Cloud storage

SENSOR SPECIFICATIONS
Parameters Sensor Type Range Resolution Accuracy
Temperature Digital Sensor -30 to 60 °C 0.1 °C ±0.1°C
Relative Humidity Digital Sensor 0 to 99% 1% +/- 1 % RH
PM 10, PM 2.5 &PM 1 Light Scattering 1 to 1999 1 µg/m³ 0-150 µg/m³

9
1.3 Data Collection
To enable a better understanding of the physical attributes of the UAV required to achieve the afore-
mentioned Mission Profile, data has been collected about the various other UAVs available with similar
mission profiles. The same is as listed below:-

1. Blue Shark F250

Figure 1.3.1: The Blue Shark F250

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE

Capacity: 220 W Cruise speed: 20-27 m/s
Length: 126 cm Range: up to 150 km
Wingspan: 250 cm Endurance: 4 hrs without Payload, 3.2 hrs with 1.2 Kg payload
Gross Weight: 13.5 kg
Power plant: 2*65 27000 mAH HED Li-ion
ADDITIONAL FEATURES
Pitot Tube
CG balance
Aileron Servo
Tail Quick Release
High quality motors and props
Tail ECS ventilation
Laser Radar
ViewPro Gimbal Camera
Surveying and Mapping Camera

Table 1.3.1: Blue Shark F250 Specifications

10
 2. UAV E384

Figure 1.3.2: The E-384 UAV

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE

Max Payload: 1.7 Kg Cruise speed: 12-20 m/s
Length: 130 cm Range: 70 km
Wingspan: 190 cm Endurance: 90 mins Flight time
Gross Weight: 2.5 Kg Maximum Altitude: 3960 m
ADDITIONAL FEATURES
Handshot Take-off
Belly landing
Equipped with Sony R10C Camera plus companion computer
Quanum i8 2.4GHz Transmitter Radio with 8 channels

Table 1.3.2: E-384 UAV Specifications

3. Bayraktar Mini UAV

Figure 1.3.3: The Bayraktar Mini

11
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE
Length: 1.2 m Cruise speed: 55 - 75 kmph
Wingspan: 2 m Endurance: 100-120 min
Gross Weight: 4.5 kg Operational Altitude: 600 m
Dimensions: 17 x 35 x 43 cm Maximum Altitude: 1200 m
Powerplant: Brushless Electric Motor
Fuel Capacity: 2 Low Current Chargers, 1 High Current Charger, 1 Transformer, 220V AC, 12V DC
Input Possibility
ADDITIONAL FEATURES
Handshot Take-Off & Automatic Parachute Landing
Joystick Assisted Semi-Automatic Flight
Stall Speed Control Capability &
Reliable Digital Communication System with 15 km range
Automatic Return to Home and
Automatic Landing in Case of Communication Loss
Interchangeable 2 Axis Day/Night Cameras

Table 1.3.3: Bayraktar Mini UAV Specifications

4. Raven B RQ-11

Figure 1.3.4: The Raven B RQ-11

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE

Length: 0.9 m Cruise speed: 32 kmph
Wingspan: 1.4 m Dash speed: 81 kmph
Gross Weight: 2.2 kg Endurance: 75+ min
Powerplant: Single Aveox 27/26/7-AV Electric motor Range: 10 km
Operational Altitude: 30-152 m
Maximum Altitude: 4267 m
ADDITIONAL FEATURES
Handshot Take-Off
Autonomous or manual precision deep-stall landing
10 km link range, Equipped with 2 ISR Cameras Mantis i23
Real Time Video and Infrared Imagery

Table 1.3.4: Raven B RQ-11 Specifications

12
 5. Albatross

Figure 1.3.5: Albatross

General Characteristics Performance

Wingspan: 300 cm Cruise speed: 68 km/hr
Fuselage: 740 mm x 200 mm x 150 mm Range: Up to 250 km
MTOW: 10 kg Endurance: Up to 4hrs flight time
Powerplant: Electric Motors with Custom Li ion batteries
Additional Features
Multiple cameras are fitted for capturing reliable aerial imagery
to suit every mapping job.
This drone seamlessly integrates with the user-friendly PX4 software,
allowing you to plan missions, monitor progress,
and analyze results directly from your base station.
It can resist winds up to 32 km/hr.
It is made of carbon fiber and fiberglass composite.

Table 1.3.5: Albatross Specifications

6. JOUAV CW-15

Figure 1.3.6: JOUAV CW15

13
 General Characteristics Flight Performance
MTOW: 16.5 Kg Endurance: 180 min
Fuselage: 2.06 m Cruising Speed: 61 km/h
Wingspan: 3.54 m Wind Resistance: 10.8-13.8 m/s
Powerplant: Electrical Motor (Low noise, brushless) Ceiling: 6500 m
Payload: 3 kg Max Takeoff Altitude: 4500 m
Takeoff Landing: VTOL
Additional features
The CW-15 can carry various payloads.
Therefore, it can be applied to a wide range of tasks,
including mapping, surveillance, public safety,
oil and gas pipeline inspection, etc.
Automatically avoid obstacles in flight, detect other drones equipped with ADS-B modules,
adapt to more terrain, and avoid dangerous landing points such as roofs and cliffs.
Fly in high altitude, high humidity, low-temperature,
and light rain conditions with self-heating airspeed tube and battery.
It can also easily fly in complex electromagnetic environments.

Table 1.3.6: JOUAV CW-15 Specifications

7. JOUAV CW-007

Figure 1.3.7: JOUAV CW 007

General Characteristics Flight Performance

MTOW: 6.8 kg Endurance: 55 min
Fuselage: 1.3 m Cruising Speed: 61.2 km/h
Wingspan: 2.2 m Wind Resistance: 10.8-13.8 m/s
Propulsion: Electrical Motor (Low noise, brush less) Ceiling: 6000 m
Payload: 1 kg Max Takeoff Altitude: 4500 m
Additional Features
Modular design: Takes less than 2 minutes for setup or take down.
High Efficiency: Single flight can finish 4 km2 of 1:500 scale,
6 km2 of 1:1000 scale, 12 km2 of 1:2000 scale.
Dual GPS and Dual compass, it can smoothly switch to the backup unit
if there is a fault.
Ground-based and handheld control station setup.

Table 1.3.7: JOUAV CW 007 Specifications

14
Chapter 2

Weight and Power Estimation

2.1 Data Collection

To obtain an estimate of the weight a historical data collection was carried out. The data has been
obtained by survey of UAVs with similar mission profiles. Table 2.1.1 below shows a compilation of the
weight data collected of currently flying Radio Controlled (RC) electrically powered model airplanes.

S. No. UAV Take-Off Weight Estimate (Wo ) (kg) Empty Weight Ratio (Wempty /Wo ) (kg) Battery Weight (kg)
1. Blue Shark F250 13.5 0.43 4.6
2. JOUAV CW 007 6.8 0.55 2.5
3. JOUAV CW 015 16.5 0.54 4.6
4. Albatross: Long Range Drone 10 0.44 1.2 per battery
5. Blue Shark F320 24 0.34 4*2.57
6. Skywalker X5 Pro 2.5 0.84 0.488

Table 2.1.1: Reference UAV Weight Data

Note:- For the case of Albatross where number of batteries was not available, it has been assumed to be
2.
Also, since exact weights were not available in open source, the weights have been calculated based on the
type of battery and their capacity.

Using the above data collected, we can fit a curve through it which would be our design curve for
weight estimation. The equation of the curve fit which compares the empty weight fraction with the
total flying weight would follow:
Wempty
= AWoL (2.1.1)
Wo
[19] where A and L are constant, and L is less than 0. Using similar UAV data, we used linear regression
to find that A = 1.0744 and L = -0.2695.

15
 Figure 2.1.1: Weight Estimate Data

2.2 Payload Weight

For the successful completion of the mission objective of Environmental Monitoring and Mapping of
Forest Cover including Security based Surveillance, we would require a optical sensor, thermal sensor
and a weather based sensor. Additionally, the sensors need to be placed on a stabilized platform with
suitable gimbals. Based on a brief market survey we finalised the below mentioned components for the
completion of the mission objective. We also kept a 0.5kg buffer for any other extra accessories.

Sl No Payload Payload Weight (kg)

1 Integrated Thermal and Optical Sensor - Workswell WIRIS 0.68
2 Weather Sensor - Prana air SQUAIR 0.25
3 Gimbal for optical stabilization 0.4
4 Misc (connectors + wires + supports) 0.17
Total Payload Weight 1.5

Table 2.2.1: Payload Weight Data

Design Payload Weight = 1.5 kg

Max Payload Weight = 2.0 kg

2.3 Powerplant Selection

Now, we estimate the power consumption in different phases of flight and hence, can choose an appro-
priate battery for the UAV.
The power required during cruise is calculated using the following equation.
1 3
Pcruise = Tcruise vcruise = ρv SCD (2.3.1)
2 cruise
[19] where, vcruise = 18 m/s,

Tcruise = D = 12 ρvcruise
2
SCD and
 2
1 W
drag coefficient for cruise, CD = CDo + πeAR 1 2
2 ρvcruise S

The power required during climb is calculated using the following equation.
1 3
Pclimb = Tclimb vclimb = ρv SCD + W vclimb sinγ (2.3.2)
2 climb

16
 2
[28] where, vclimb = sin10◦ = 11.51m/s

Tclimb = D + W sinγ = 12 ρvclimb

2
SCD + W sinγ, γ being the climb angle, and
 2
1 W cosγ
drag coefficient for climb, CD = CDo + πeAR 1
ρv 2 S
2 climb

The power required during takeoff is calculated using the following equation.
1 3
Ptakeof f = ρv CD (2.3.3)
2 takeof f takeof f
[28] where, vtakeof f = 1.2vstall and
 2
1 W (16h/b)2
drag coefficient for climb, CDtakeof f = CDo + ϕ πeAR 1 2 , with the ground effect, ϕ = 1+(16h/b)2
2 ρvclimb S

s
2W
vstall = (2.3.4)
ρCLmax S
[28]
Using the above equations, and substituting values from a design profile of a similar UAV as cited in
[18], the following assumptions have been referenced.

Sl. No. Parameters Values

1 Aspect Ratio 8.89
2 CDo 0.03
3 CLmax 0.82
4 Wing Planform Area 0.76

Table 2.3.1: Approximate values used to estimate Power required for different Flight Phases

Using the above data and the equations above, we get

P owerphase Tphase
Ptakeof f 129.3016 W 10 s
Pclimb 284.1195 W 5 min
Pcruise 128.9291 W 1 hour

P
Total Watt Hour = Pphase Tphase = 152.9650 Watt Hour
W h ∗ 1000
mAh = (2.3.5)
V oltage
Thus, estimated battery capacity for 9V DC Supply = 16996.11 mAh

Additionally, we would also require battery power to run the payload sensors. We have approximated
that the power requirement for all the sensors to work throughout the duration of flight and reached a
final battery capacity estimate.
Hence, the total battery capacity required for the UAV can be approximated to 18000 mAh.

Based on the requirements of the mission profile and weight considerations, we have taken the battery
type to be a Li-Po Battery, for which the Specific Energy is about 100 Watthr/kg.

17
 Figure 2.3.1: Tattu LiPo Battery [17]

Table 2.3.2: Battery Specifications

Specification Value
Minimum Capacity 18000mAh
Configuration 6S1P / 22.2V / 6Cell
Discharge Rate 15C
Max Burst Discharge Rate 30C
Net Weight (±20g) 2270g
Dimensions 205.5mm Length x 94.2mm Width x 79.5mm Height
Discharge Plug XT90 plug
Charge Plug XT90

We get the weight of the battery to be about 2.270 Kg. Which we round of to 2.3 kg for positive
tolerance.

2.4 First Weight Estimate

We split the total weight of the aircraft into the sum of the empty weight (airframe), the battery weight,
and the payload weight because the aircraft under design is an unmanned aerial vehicle with electric
propulsion as shown in the equation below.

Wo = Wempty + Wbattery + Wpayload (2.4.1)

[28] The weight estimation was done with a Python Script. 13.1 The weight estimation process estimates
our Final Total weight Wo and our Empty Weight Fraction. It starts with fixing the Payload Weight =
2.3 kg, Battery Weight = 2 kg and initially guessing weight fraction = 0.5. We then estimate Wo from
the equation given below,
Wpayload + Wbattery
Wo = W
(2.4.2)
1 − empty
Wo

[28] Which initially gives a value of Wo = 8.0 kg. After that we substitute the estimated Wo into the
design curve equation that we fit previously and get an estimated Empty Weight Fraction
Wempty
= 1.206 ∗ Wo−0.3 (2.4.3)
Wo
[28] Using this new Empty Weight Fraction, we again use Equation 2.4 to estimate Wo . This process is
iterated a few more times, and converges at around iteration number 9 where we get a final estimate of
Total Weight Wo = 9.61 kg and an Empty Weight Fraction of 0.58.

Given below is the Plot for Total Weight Estimate vs No. of Iterations.

18
Figure 2.4.1: First Weight Estimate

19
Chapter 3

Thrust to Weight Ratios and Wing

Loading

3.1 Calculation of T/W Ratio

The lift (L) generated by an aircraft is given by:
1 2
L= ρV SCL (3.1.1)
2
[28] The drag (D) experienced by the aircraft is given by:
1 2
D= ρV SCD (3.1.2)
2
[28] The lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) is then:
L CL
= (3.1.3)
D CD
[28] where CD is given as,
 
1
CD = CDo + CL2 (3.1.4)
πeAR

[28] To find the maximum (L/D), we differentiate (L/D) with respect to the CL and set it to zero to get
the maxima. d(L/D)
dCL = 0. We substitute the value back in equation 3.11 to get the following result.

  s
L πeAR
= (3.1.5)
D max 4CDo
L
[28] For cruise, the thrust-to-weight ratio is equal to ( D )max
  r
T 1 4CDo
= L

= (3.1.6)
W cruise D max
πeAR

[28] The formula for the zero-lift drag coefficient (CD0 ) is given by: [25]

Cf · Swet
CDo = (3.1.7)
Sref

[28] where,
Cf is the skin friction coefficient, which depends on factors such as the surface roughness, Reynolds
number, and flow conditions
Swet is the wetted area of the aircraft, representing the total surface area exposed to airflow

20
Sref is the reference area, which is usually the wing area for aircraft

The skin friction coefficient Cf can be estimated using the Von-Karman relation which is a good ap-
proximation for flow over a variety of slope. We are making this assumption as we have a blended wing
configuration.
0.074
Cf = (3.1.8)
Re1/7
[28] where,
Cf is the skin friction coefficient
Re is the Reynolds number based on the length of the object.

The Reynolds number Re is defined as:

ρ·V ·c
Re = (3.1.9)
µ
[28] where,
ρ is the density of the fluid (air). We take an average value for the altitude we operate.
V is the velocity of the flow, which we take the cruise velocity of the UAV.
c is a characteristic length of the object, in this case the chord length
µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid

The Oswald Efficiency Factor, denoted by e, is a dimensionless parameter used in aerodynamics to

describe the efficiency of an aircraft’s wings in producing lift.
1
e= (3.1.10)
1.05 + 0.007 · πAR
[28] where,
e is the Oswald Efficiency Factor.[25]
AR is the aspect ratio of the wings.
Based on the above equations and the open source information, the following table has been tabulated.

Sl. No. UAV CDo (L/D)max (T /W )min Aspect Ratio Vcruise (m/s)
1 Green Raven - 19.05 0.05249344 5.55 30
2 ITU Tailess UAV - 26 0.03846154 .89 20
3 Sitaria - 20.6875 0.04833837 4 16
4 Slybird Mini UAV - 14 0.07142857 6 16
5 JOUAV CW-007 1.04654517e-04 13.37336828 0.07477548 3.27 16.67
6 JOUAV CW-015 9.67597940e-05 13.9069789 0.07190634 8.89 20
7 BlueShark F250 0.02275 17.30398653 0.05779 11.255 20

Table 3.1.1: Cruise Condition

√
We plot (L/D)max vs vcruise and (L/D)max vs AR from this data and find the regression curve for
each curve. 13.2

21
 Figure 3.1.1: (L/D)max vs vcruise

We obtain the (L/D)max value of 19.4824 for vcruise = 18 m/s matching our mission profile and use it
to find the appropriate aspect ratio (AR = 8.3) in the next graph. From this value of AR, e = 0.81.

√
Figure 3.1.2: (L/D)max vs ARwet

Using the power equations  

T
Ptakeof f = W vtakeof f (3.1.11)
W min

[28]  
T
Pclimb = Lmax vclimb + W vclimb sinγ (3.1.12)
W min

[28]  
T
Pcruise = W vcruise (3.1.13)
W min

[28] and the T/W graph, Ptakeof f = 105.79 Watt, Pcruise = 100.90 Watt, Pclimb = 1880.27 Watt.
Based on this power estimation and the first weight estimate , we have decided to use the AT7215
T-Motor[26] along with TF16*8[27] propeller.

22
 Figure 3.1.3: T16 Propellers

Figure 3.1.4: T Motor

The datasheet of the motor chosen has an range of power values that encompasses our requirements.

Figure 3.1.5: T-MOTOR AT7215 Datasheet

23
3.2 Wing Loading
For a better estimate of the wing loading for our Mini UAV, it has been calculated at various phases
of flight. The flight profile relevant towards deciding a reasonable Wing Loading has thus been divided
into the following.

1. Take off
2. Climb
2. Cruise
4. Absolute ceiling
5. Loiter
Based on the data collected for various Mini UAVs having similar profiles, the following parameters have
been assumed for the purpose of calculation of the wing loading at various phases of flight.

Sl. No. Parameter Value

1 CDo 0.04
2 CL /CDmax 19.48
3 CLmax 1.56
4 AR 8.3
5 e 0.81
6 VStall 10 m/s
7 VCruise 18 m/s
8 Rate of Climb 2 m/s
9 Angle of Climb 12◦

Table 3.2.1: Parameters for Wing Loading Calculation

3.2.1 Wing Loading for Takeoff

For the estimation of Wing loading during the take off segment, two approaches have been utilised.
Namely, a graphical estimation based on the equation stated below [28] and approximate estimate for a
quantitative numerical assessment.
1
1exp(0.6gCD,G ST O W/S
 
W
=  h  i P (3.2.1)
P ST O −
C
+ CD,G exp 0.6gC S 1 VT O
L,R
D,G T O W/S

[28] Substituting the below mentioned values gives us the following.

= 1.225 kg/m3 , g = 9.81 m/sec, ST O = 10m, µ= 0.03 (Dry concrete/ Asphalt)

CD,G = CD,T O CL,T O

2
CD,T O = CDo,T O + KCL,T O
CDo,T O = CDo + CDo ,LG + CDo ,HLDT O

Typical values of CDo , CDo ,LG and CDo ,HLDT O are 0.03, 0.009, 0.005 respectively.
Hence we get,
CDo ,T O = 0.044
CD,T O = 0.0482
CD,G = 0.0392

CL,R = 21 mgSV 2
Vr = 1.1VStall , Vstall = 10m/s, Vr = 11m/s
CL,R = 0.0134 (W/S)

24
P = 0.5
VT O = 1.2 VStall = 12m/s
Based on this approach, we find that the W/S for our configuration (W=7.83kg P=444.36Watt) is about
1.47kg/m2.
Alternatively,
Wing loading for loiter can be converted to takeoff conditions by dividing the loiter wing loading by the
ratio of the average of loiter weight to takeoff weight. In our case the weight of the UAV does not change,
hence this ratio can be assumed to be 1.0. [19]
   
W Wtakeof f W
= (3.2.2)
S takeof f Wloiter S loiter

[28]
W


S takeof f = 1 · 30.76 = 30.76kg/m2

Taking the higher value among the two approaches we estimate the wing loading for take off condition
to be 30.76 kg/m2 .

3.2.2 Wing Loading for Climb Rate

For a propeller aircraft a higher wing loading results in higher cruise speeds but lower takeoff and climb
rates. Whereas a lower wing loading results in slower cruise speeds but higher takeoff and climb rates.
We also know propellers are more efficient at lower speeds. [28] Since we intend to get off the ground
quick, we thus take a generous Climb Angle of 12◦ and make our following estimate.
r !
ηp2
 
W 1 3CD0 1.155
= ρ − L (3.2.3)
S ROCmax sinγ ( W P ) ROCmax
K ( D ) max

[28] where,
γ (climb angle) = 12◦ (10◦ - 30◦ ) [28], ηP (Propeller Efficiency) = 0.5, CDo = 0.04, AR = 8.3, e = 0.81,
1
k = πeAR = 0.0471, ρ = 1.17 kg/m3 , (L/D)max value of 19.4824.
q
W 1 0.25 0.12 1.155

2
S ROCmax = 0.2078 · ( 7.83·9.81 · 1.17 · 0.0471 − 19.4824 · 1.56 = 33.6525N/m
2009.7

W


S ROCmax
= 3.4304kg/m2

3.2.3 Wing Loading for Stall

We can calculate the wing loading for stall conditions by first considering force balance in the vertical
direction for a steady level flight L = W . Thus, we get [19]
 
W 1 2
= ρvstall CLmax (3.2.4)
S stall 2

[19]
where,
vstall = 10 m/s, ρ = 1.17 kg/m3 , CLmax = 1.56, as based from our previous estimates and design con-
ditions tabulated at the start of the section.

W 1


S stall = 2 · 1.17 · 102 · 1.56 = 91.26N/m2

W


S stall = 9.30kg/m2

3.2.4 Wing Loading for Cruise

For cruising conditions at steady level flight, we know that L = W .
 
W 1 2
= vcruise CLmax (3.2.5)
S cruise 2

25
[19] We are required to maximise the range and hence our aerodynamic efficiency or Lift-to-Drag ratio
L/D = CL /CD for a propeller aircraft to calculate the wing loading. Thus, for the given conditions,
d(CL /CD )
dCL = 0, we get[19],
 
1
CDo = CL (3.2.6)
πeAR
[19]
p √
CL = πeARCDo = π · 0.81 · 8.3 · 0.04 = 0.9191
Using this value in equation 3.2.6, we get

W 1


S cruise = 2 · 1.17 · 182 · 0.9091 = 172.31 N/m2

W


S cruise = 17.56 kg/m2

3.2.5 Wing Loading for Absolute Ceiling

Also considering the performance of our UAV at it’s absolute ceiling, which we have set at 100m, which
gives us a reasonable tolerance limit from our actual design altitude of 80m, we can arrive at a wing
loading using the following relation[28]
 
W σAC
=   (3.2.7)
P AC
r
ROCAC 2 W 1.155


ηP + 3C S
ρAC K Do ( D )max ηP
L

[28] where,
ηP (Propeller Efficiency) = 0.5, ρAC = 1.16 kg/m3 (150m), σAC (Relative Air Density) = 0.975,
1
CDo = 0.04, AR = 8.3, e = 0.81, k = πeAR = 0.0471, CLmax = 1.56

Using the power calculation from previous analysis and the calculated values of the constants, we can
get an approximate value as

W 7.35482 7.35482


S = 2 = 2 = 117.06N/m2
P )AC
(W ( 7.83·9.81
113 )
W


S = 11.93kg/m2

3.2.6 Wing Loading for Loiter

As we are designing our Mini UAV for surveillance, which requires periods of time during which it loiters,
we would like to calculate an optimum wing loading estimate that would optimize this period of loiter.
The wing loading should be selected to provide high L/D.
 
W 1 2
= ρvloiter CLloiter (3.2.8)
S loiter 2
3
[28] For a propeller aircraft, the maximum power condition for this phase is achieved when CL2 /CD ratio
3
d(CL2 /CD )
is maximised. For this condition, dCL = 0, we get[19]
 
1 1
CDo = CL2 (3.2.9)
3 πeAR

[28]
p √
CL = 3πeARCDo = 3 · π · 0.81 · 8.3 · 0.04 = 1.5920
Using

this value in equation 3.2.9, we get
W 1
S loiter = 2 · 1.17 · 182 · 1.5920 = 301.75 N/m2

W


S loiter = 30.76 kg/m2

26
3.2.7 Wing Loading Selection

Sl. No. Mission Segment Wing Loading (kg/m2 )

1 Takeoff 30.76
2 Climb Rate 3.4304
3 Cruise 17.56
4 Loiter 30.76
5 Stall 9.30
6 Absolute Ceiling 11.93

Table 3.2.2: Wing Loading at different Flight Conditions

3.2.8 Power Loading vs Wing Loading Plot

Below, we’ve roughly plotted our Power Loading vs Wing Loading for different phases of our flight, which
might come in handy and give us a sanity check as we revise our design for the Power Required and the
corresponding Wing Loading that we choose.
Parameters used to arrive at these plots have been tabulated at the beginning of the Section.

27
Chapter 4

Second Weight Estimate

13.4
Using the weights from previous calculations, the weight estimation process estimates our Final Total
weight Wo and our Empty Weight Fraction. ( Payload Weight = 2.0 kg, Powerplant Weight = 2.27 kg)
We then calculate a Wo estimate from the equation given below
Wpayload + Wpowerplant
Wo = Wempty
(4.0.1)
1− Wo

[28] which initially gives a value of Wo = 8.2084 kg. After that we substitute the estimated Wo into the
design curve equation that we fit previously and get an estimated Empty Weight Fraction
Wempty
= 1.206 ∗ Wo−0.3 (4.0.2)
Wo
[28] Using this new empty weight fraction, we again use equation 4 to estimate Wo . This process is
iterated a few more times, and converges at iteration number 8 where we get a final estimate of Total
Weight, Wo = 8.8017 kg and an Empty Weight Fraction of 0.5337. Given below is the plot for second
weight estimate against the number of iterations.

Figure 4.0.1: Second Weight Estimate

28
Chapter 5

Wing Design

In this section, we initially estimate the required Lift Coefficients for some of the important phases
of the mini UAV mission profile. Accordingly, multiple airfoils are considered using data available on
popular airfoil databases, and consequently simulated using the XFLR5 software. The performance
plots are inspected, and multiple wing configurations are also conceptually fabricated and simulated
after considering multiple wing design parameters and elements such as the chord length, span length,
high lift devices(flaps), taper ratio and sweep angle. After arriving at the performance plots which closely
outline the set design specifications and considering the practical feasibility of design, a final airfoil and
wing configuration is chosen and represented.

5.1 Design Lift Coefficient Calculations

Here we first re-estimate the lift coefficients that shall be referred to when searching an airfoil and
drafting the wing.

5.1.1 Cruise
The most important stage of the mission profile is the Cruise Phase. We design the mini UAV to cruise
at an altitude of 100 m at a velocity of 18 m/s. It is desirable to chose a wing which has the best
aerodynamic performance during this phase of the flight i.e. The Lift-to-Drag Ratio is maximum at
the operating Lift Coefficient desired for cruise. Hence, firstly the Lift Coefficient for cruise at 100 m is
calculated.

Cruise Velocity : vcruise = 18m/s

Density at 100 m : ρ100m = 1.21kg/m3
W
Wing Loading : = 90N/m2
S
W
CLcruise = 1 2
(5.1.1)
2 ρ100m vcruise S
Thus, the lift coefficient for cruise is CLcruise = 0.46.

5.1.2 Stall
The Stall Characteristics of the UAV is very important to take into consideration as it gives a physical
cap on the performance that can be extracted out of the conceptual wing (CLmax ). Considering a stalling
range of vstall = 10 m/s to 10.5 m/s, the stall lift coefficients are calculated at 100 m altitude.

W
CLstall = 1 2
(5.1.2)
2 ρ100m vstall S

Thus, the lift coefficient for stall is CLstall = 1.48 for vstall = 10m/s and CLstall = 1.35 for vstall =
10.5m/s.

29
5.1.3 Take-Off
During take-off, usually a higher lift coefficient is beneficial for a shorter take-off distance and a faster
rate of climb and is helpful in considering the using of high lift devices to increase the CLmax of the
wing. Hence, the Take-Off Lift Coefficient is estimated.
Take Off Velocity : vto = 1.1 × vstall = 11m/s
W
Wing Loading : = 90N/m2
S
Sea Level Density : ρsl = 1.225kg/m3
W
CLto = 1 2
(5.1.3)
2 ρsl vto S
Thus, the lift coefficient for the desired climb profile is CLto = 1.21

5.1.4 Climb
It is essential to also take into account the climb characteristics of the UAV before finally arriving at the
selection of the airfoil.
The Accelerated lift coefficient requirements is taken into account as the UAV takes off and is lifted
to the design altitude of 100 m. A load factor of n = 1.8 is considered and the climb lift coefficient is
calculated.
Climb Velocity : vclimb = 13m/s
Averaged Density : ρ = 1.22kg/m3
Load Factor : n = 1.5
nW
Wing Loading : = 162N/m2
S
W
CLclimb = 1 2
(5.1.4)
2 ρvclimb S
Thus, the lift coefficient for the desired climb profile is CLclimb = 1.31

The estimated wing lift coefficients that will be referred to for the mission profile are tabulated be-
low.

CL Values
CLcruise 0.46
CLstall 1.35-1.48
CLto 1.21
CLclimb 1.31

5.2 Airfoil Selection

Using XFLR5, with our calculated design Cl , we generated the following table with airfoil data of some
airfoils.

Airfoil Zero lift Angle of Attack Clmax stall Clα (per radian) (Cl /Cd )max α° for (C/D)max
NACA15013 -1 1.230 14 0.082 63.302 7
NACA25012 -2.5 1.370 12 0.095 69.139 9
NACA34012 -2.5 1.469 13.5 0.100 62.117 10
GOE 553 -2 1.52 14 0.93 150 4

Table 5.2.1: Airfoil Data

A crude estimation is done which helped in identifying the required airfoil section lift coefficient Cl
by employing a scaling of 0.9 on the wing lift coefficient CL i.e. Clmax = CLmax 0.9 = 1.44 and Clcruise =
CLcruise
0.9 = 0.51. It is also noted that the airfoil was selected with a design lift coefficient corresponding
to the Lift-to-Drag Max condition i.e. Highest Aerodynamic Efficiency.

30
After thoroughly investigating of the available airfoil datasets as given in bigfoil.com and airfoiltools.com,
further simulating in XFLR5 and based on the requirements tabulated, the GOE 553 airfoil has been
chosen for the UAV design. Figure 5.2.1, shows the profile of the selected airfoil GOE 553.

Airfoil GOE 553

Figure 5.2.1: Plot of chosen Airfoil GOE 553

Table 5.2.2: Geometric and Aerodynamic Characteristics GOE 553

Geometric Characteristics Value Aerodynamic Characteristics Value

Camber 4.7% of chord Clmax 1.52
Chord Length 0.34 m stall 14°
Location of maximum camber 39.6% of chord from LE (L/D)max 100
Maximum Thickness 13.7% of chord

Operational Characteristics of Airfoil

We first estimate the chord length and span length of the wing. We set the Aspect Ratio at 8.3 as found
previously, the Wing loading at 90N/m2 and the weight of the UAV at 8.8kg. Employing the relation

b2
AR = (5.2.1)
S
The Span length is estimated to be b = 2.82 m. Accordingly assuming a rectangular wing, the chord
length is estimated at c = 0.34 m.

For assessing the performance of the aerofoil for our UAV, we compare its performance in the tar-
get design atmospheric conditons of Cruise. For our cruise altitude of 100 m with a cruise velocity of
18 m/s and assuming ISA condtions, we get, density of air () as 1.21562 kg/m3 , viscosity of air of 1.809 x
10−5 Ns/m, and and the operating Reynolds number has been estimated to be which is used for finding
operational characteristics.
ρvc
Re = (5.2.2)
µ
Reynolds number of airfoil : 415000

The following image shows the graphs obtained during analysis on XFLR5 including the airfoil Drag
Polar, Lift vs α curve, Pitching Moment vs α and Lift-to-Drag vs Cl.

31
 Figure 5.2.2: Airfoil Lift vs Angle of Attack and Drag Polar

Figure 5.2.3: Airfoil Moment vs Angle of Attack and Airfoil Lift-To-Drag vs Lift Coefficient

From the Plots, it is observed that the Design Cl of the Airfoil is at 0.7, while it reaches a max Lift-
to-Drag of 100. The Clstall = 1.52 and it stalls at α = 14◦ . The Moment Coefficient has a positively
increasing slope with no jumps which can be fixed by the design of an effective tail, and the drag polar
has also been found to be referred to for later drag analysis. All of this indicate values close to the design
specifications, and thus a wing has been conceptually fabricated and simulated.

Operational Characteristics of Wing

To finalize the selection of the airfoil, a rectangular wing is made using the airfoil and the estimated Span
Length b = 2.82 m and chord length c = 0.34 m, and the operational characteristics have been simulated
at the calculated operational Re = 415000.

Figure 5.2.4: 3D image of rectangular wing for chosen airfoil

32
 Figure 5.2.5: Wing Lift vs Angle of Attack and Wing Drag Polar

Figure 5.2.6: Wing Lift-To-Drag vs Angle of Attack

From the Plots, it is observed that the max Lift-to-Drag occurs at α = 1◦ , at which the operating
CL = 0.48, which agrees with the design requirements for cruise. But it is also noted that the max
Lift-to-Drag decreases to 25, which is expected as compared to the airfoil. The CLstall = 1.45 and it
stalls at alpha = 14◦ , which agrees with the design requirement for Stall. The Moment Coefficient has
a positively increasing slope with no jumps which can be fixed by the design of an effective tail, and the
drag polar has also been found to be referred to for later drag analysis.
But we also note that the airfoil does not produce high lift at lower angle of attacks. Thus flaps have
been designed to take into consideration the take-off and initial climb requirements. After a few trial
and errors in XFLR5, the following wing with flaps is obtained.

Figure 5.2.7: Wing with Flap

The Flap is taken at from 0.6 × c, and the flap length is taken along the span from 0.1m to 0.8m, keeping
a healthy distance for the later roll considerations and aileron considerations. Simulating the flow with

33
the flap deflection at δ = 20◦ , the new lift curve slope is plotted.

Figure 5.2.8: Wing Lift vs Angle of Attack with and without flaps

It is observed that the Lift increases, and we get the take off and climb design CL = 1.21 to 1.31 at angle
of attacks α = 3◦ to 6◦ , which is very desirable. Thus the flaps will be operational during take-off and
accelerated climb.

5.3 Angle of Incidence

During the flight, the drag should be kept to a minimum for optimal fuel consumption. When the
fuselage is at zero angle of attack, the drag is at its lowest. However, with this arrangement, the wings
ought to provide sufficient lift to sustain the aircraft’s weight. To do this, the wing is attached to the
fuselage at an angle that causes the wings to produce the necessary lift while the fuselage is at a zero
angle of attack. We refer to this angle as the incidence angle (iw ).
The design lift coefficient corresponding to the cruise is
W
CL,design = 1 2
(5.3.1)
2 ρ100m vcruise S

The incidence angle is calculated from the design lift coefficient as follows

CL,design = CL (iw0L ) (5.3.2)

where CL and 0L are the lift curve slope of the wing and zero lift angle of attack of the wing respectively,
which can be obtained from the airfoil lift curve slope (Cl ) and zero lift angle of attack (0l ) as follows

0L =0l +J (5.3.3)
Cl
CL = Cl
(5.3.4)
1 + AR
where is the twist angle and J = -0.4 can be used for an approximate estimate.
Using the parameters of the airfoil selected and a twist of 0°, the angle of incidence comes out to be iw
1°. This is chosen as it corresponds to the angle of attack α for Design Lift Coefficient for Cruise.

5.4 Taper Ratio

The taper ratio () is defined as the ratio between the tip chord (Ct ) and the root chord (Cr ). [28]
Ct
λ= (5.4.1)
Cr
The theoretically best aerodynamic efficiency (δ = 0) and lowest induced drag are obtained with a wing
platform that is elliptical in platform shape with no twist. This wing shape gives an elliptical span wise

34
aerodynamic loading (i.e., lift per unit span) and uniform downwash over the wing, which, as previously
mentioned, is theoretically the minimum induced drag condition, and so δ = 0. However, this value is
unobtainable in any practical wing design. [29]

Figure 5.4.1: Different taper ratios for a wing and their CL variation [29]

Based on the above analysis and our mission requirements, we realise that the having a Taper would
improve the aerodynamic characteristics of our UAV. The same has been analysed below. A tapered
wing with taper ratio = 0.6 is conceptually crafted, and recalculating the span and root chord lengths
to b = 3.0 m and croot = 0.4 m to get the same aerodynamic plots and wing area as obtained for the
rectangular wing.

Figure 5.4.2: Tapered Wing with taper ratio 0.6

35
 Figure 5.4.3: Drag Polar of wing with and without taper

All aerodynamic operational characteristics are similar, but plotting the drag polar, it is observed we get
the same lift for reduced drag values for the tapered wing. We also compare the streamlines over both
rectangular and tapered wing.

Figure 5.4.4: Air Stream over Rectangular Wing

Figure 5.4.5: Air Stream over Tapered Wing

From the pictures of the streamlines over the 2 wings, it is observed that the Induced drag is lesser for
the tapered wing as the wing tip vortices size decreases for a tapered wing, and thus a tapered wing

36
configuration could be beneficial.

However, considering, the practical difficulties in fabrication and weighing it against the marginal im-
provements in the aerodynamic characteristics, we have chosen not to add a taper and hence have decided
to proceed with a rectangular wing.

5.5 Sweep Angle

The quarter-chord line sweep angle c/4 and the leading-edge sweep angle LE are the two significant sweep
angles. Because the leading edge should be swept beneath the Mach cone to minimize wave drag, the
leading-edge sweep angle is the most important one for supersonic aircraft. When discussing high-speed
subsonic aircraft that are close to the speed of sound, the sweep angle of the quarter-chord line, c/4 , is
important. Based on the relationship, the leading edge sweep angle LE often lowers the drag divergence
Mach number(MD ). It is the Mach number at which an airfoil’s aerodynamic drag starts to increase
quickly as the Mach number rises. the relation between LE and MD is approximately given by

1 − (MD )
1 − (M − D)=0 = 1 − 90 (5.5.1)

where, (MD) and (MD)=0 drag divergence Mach number of swept and unswept wing respectively. When
the drag divergence Mach number is higher than 0.6, it usually corresponds to the transonic regime. Our
UAV operates far below the transonic region, with a cruising velocity of about 18m/s and a Mach number
of about 0.1. Hence at this stage, the requirement of a sweep angle is not found to be necessary. In other
words, LE = 0 and c/4 = 0.

5.6 Wing Configuration

Low-Wing Configuration

Advantages :

• Stability: Low-wing UAVs tend to have better lateral stability, making them more stable during
flight, which can be advantageous for various missions, including surveillance and mapping.
• Payload Capacity: The low-wing design allows for larger payload capacity, as the payload can be
mounted beneath the fuselage without interference from the wings.
• Aerodynamic Efficiency: Low-wing UAVs can benefit from reduced interference drag between the
wings and the fuselage, leading to improved overall aerodynamic efficiency and potentially longer
endurance.
• Ease of Ground Operations: The low-wing configuration can facilitate easier ground operations,
such as launching and landing, especially in confined spaces, as the wings are not obstructing the
ground clearance.

Disadvantages :
• Vulnerability to Ground Debris: The positioning of the wings beneath the fuselage makes low-wing
UAVs more vulnerable to debris on the ground during takeoff and landing, potentially leading to
damage to the wings or payload.

• Limited Ground Clearance: Low-wing UAVs may have limited ground clearance, which could be
problematic when operating in rough terrain or on uneven surfaces.
• Visibility: While low-wing configurations offer good visibility for the payload, they may have
slightly reduced visibility for certain types of sensors or cameras mounted on top of the fuselage.

• Maintenance Accessibility: Accessing components located beneath the fuselage, such as the payload
or landing gear, may require more effort and time compared to configurations with the wings
positioned higher.

37
Mid-Wing Configuration

Advantages :
• Balanced Lift Distribution: Mid-wing UAVs typically achieve a balanced lift distribution, enhancing
stability and control during flight maneuvers.
• Aerodynamic Efficiency: Similar to low-wing configurations, mid-wing UAVs can benefit from
reduced interference drag between the wings and the fuselage, contributing to overall aerodynamic
efficiency.

• Visibility: Mid-wing designs provide good visibility for both sensors and cameras mounted on top
of the fuselage, allowing for effective surveillance and reconnaissance missions.
• Payload Flexibility: The mid-wing configuration allows for flexible payload integration options, as
the payload can be mounted on top of the fuselage without interference from the wings.
• Ground Clearance: Mid-wing UAVs typically have sufficient ground clearance for landing gear and
other components, making them suitable for various terrain conditions.
Disadvantages :
• Complexity: Mid-wing configurations may involve more complex structural design and integration,
especially when considering payload mounting and aerodynamic considerations.

• Maintenance Accessibility: Accessing components located on top of the fuselage, such as sensors
or cameras, may require additional effort and time compared to configurations with the wings
positioned lower.
• Vulnerability to Damage: The mid-wing position exposes the wings to potential damage during
ground operations, such as takeoff and landing, especially in rough terrain.

• Weight Distribution: Achieving optimal weight distribution in mid-wing UAVs can be challenging,
as the payload and other components need to be carefully balanced to maintain stability and
performance.
High-Wing Configuration

Advanatges :
• Excellent Visibility: High-wing UAVs provide unobstructed visibility for sensors, cameras, and
other payloads mounted beneath the fuselage, facilitating effective surveillance and reconnaissance
missions.

• Stability: High-wing configurations typically offer greater inherent stability, especially during bank-
ing maneuvers, making them suitable for various applications, including aerial mapping and mon-
itoring.
• Protection from Ground Debris: With the wings positioned above the fuselage, high-wing UAVs
are less susceptible to damage from ground debris during takeoff and landing, enhancing durability
and reliability.
• Payload Flexibility: High-wing designs allow for flexible payload integration options, as the payload
can be mounted beneath the fuselage without interference from the wings.
• Ease of Ground Operations: High-wing UAVs often feature ample ground clearance, making takeoff
and landing operations easier, especially in rough or uneven terrain.

Disadvantages :
• Aerodynamic Interference: High-wing configurations may experience increased interference drag
between the wings and the fuselage, potentially impacting overall aerodynamic efficiency and en-
durance.

38
 • Limited Maneuverability: While high-wing UAVs offer stability, they may have slightly reduced
maneuverability compared to other configurations, which can be a consideration for certain mission
profiles.
• Weight Distribution: Achieving optimal weight distribution in high-wing UAVs can be challeng-
ing, as the payload and other components must be carefully balanced to maintain stability and
performance.
• Complexity in Payload Integration: Mounting certain payloads, such as gimbals or sensors, beneath
the fuselage of high-wing UAVs may require more complex integration and mounting solutions com-
pared to configurations with the wings positioned lower.

Based on the above considerations and keeping in mind our mission requirements, the High Wing
design is most suitable.

5.7 Dihedral Angle

The dihedral angle refers to the upward angle between the wings of the aircraft when viewed from the
front or rear. Traditionally, dihedral angles are employed in fixed-wing aircraft for various aerodynamic
benefits like
• Roll Stability: When the UAV is tilted due to a disturbance, such as wind gusts or turbulence,
the dihedral angle generates a restoring moment.
• Adverse Yaw Reduction: When an aircraft rolls, there is a tendency for the nose to yaw in the
opposite direction of the turn. Dihedral angles create differential drag between the wings, which
counters this adverse yaw effect, making the UAV more responsive and easier to control during
turns.

• Improved Lift-to-Drag Ratio: By reducing induced drag caused by wingtip vortices, the aircraft
becomes more efficient in generating lift.
For ease of manufacturing we are not taking any dihedral angle. This can change depending on our
calculations for stability of aerodynamic characteristics of our UAV.

5.8 Aileron
A hinge moment is involved in the deflection of any control surface, including the aileron. The aerody-
namic moments known as hinge moments are what need to be overcome in order to deflect the control
surfaces. The amount of the enhanced pilot force needed to move the appropriate actuator in order to
deflect the control surface is determined by the hinge moment. In order to reduce the actuation system’s
size and cost, the ailerons should be engineered with the lowest possible control forces.

We do these calculations after stability analysis.

39
Chapter 6

Fuselage Design

We now proceed with the design of the aircraft’s fuselage. The Fuselage plays a pivotal role in the
aircraft, serving as the primary housing for the payload and propulsion system. The design parameters
in the design process involves the following:-

6.1 Fuselage Length

The fuselage length is estimated by using data on similar aircraft. The fuselage length is obtained as a
function of:
L = aW0c (6.1.1)
Where, L is the fuselage length, W0 is the MTOW, and a and c are parameters obtained by fitting the
curve.
Following aircraft are chosen for best fit curve:

UAV Weight - W0 (kg) Fuselage Length - L (m)

Sitaria E UAV 35 2.8
JOUAV CW-0015 20 2.06
BLueShark F250 13.5 1.26
JOUAV CW-007 7.8 1.3

Table 6.1.1: Fuselage Lengths for different UAVs

Figure 6.1.1: Fuselage Length Estimation

Based on the best-fit plot using a MATLAB code 13.7, we obtained values of a = 0.3117 and c =
0.6156 for the parameters. For the design weight W0 = 8.8 kg, the fuselage length is calculated using
the relation as shown below.

40
 Fuselage Length = 0.3117 × (8.8)0.6156 = 1.17 m
Therefore, the design fuselage length is approximately L = 1.17 m

6.2 Fuselage Sizing

The fuselage defines the aircraft’s shape and influences its aerodynamics during flight. It acts as a central
hub for assembling the various aircraft components and evenly distributes forces across its entire surface.
Our focus will be on sizing the fuselage to accommodate the volume needs of our payload.
Our payload primarily includes the camera, with the fuselage also containing the propulsion system. The
propulsion system comprises the battery, motors, wiring, flight navigation, guidance, and communication
electronics.
Below are the estimated dimensions of the fuselage components:

Components Dimensions (in mm3 )

T Motor 185 × 125 × 105
Tattu 16000mAh Battery 190 × 75 × 63
Workswell WIRIS Integrated Thermal and Optical Sensor 76 × 107 × 102
Prana Air SQUAIR Weather Sensor 58 × 25 × 46
Flight Controller with GPS module 50 x 40 x 30
Gimbal 124.3 × 106 × 133.3
Miscellaneous 100 × 100 × 100

The arrangement of the above components is done inside the fuselage keeping the following in mind:
1. The motor has been sized keeping in mind the specific kV rating as per our thrust requirement.
2. Our camera has been sized keeping in mind the 6 DOF motion and the gimble size.

3. Our battery has been sized based off the energy density for our specific mAh rating, allowing for
BMS.
4. The payload other than the camera, such as the guidance and navigation as well as the communi-
cation electronics.
As a second layer of protection for the internal components in case of turbulence , there will be a 1cm
layer of foam on the inside. For deciding the final dimensions of the fuselage, we have taken the following
tolerance levels so that there is a minimum spacing gap between the components, and also the ease of
movement if required:
Radial Tolerance = 5%
Axial Tolerance 10%

By following the above guidelines, we arrive at the arrangement roughly depicted in the following figure

Figure 6.2.1: Components Arrangement in Fuselage

The components shown in the figure have been designed considering,

41
 • The total fuselage length is taken to be close to the values predicted by fitting a curve to similar
aircraft data based on MTOW.
• The nose of the fuselage is taken as spherical for simplicity and for decreased drag.

• The motor, flight controller and batteries are arranged such that wire length is minimised and
wiring is convenient.
• The sensors are placed such that they can be used optimally.
Following these requirements and the figure of the arrangement, the initial sizing of our fuselage are:

Length 1.400 m
Fuselage Diameter 0.250 m
Width 0.200 m

Table 6.2.1: Fuselage Dimensions

The arrangement and sizing can change based on our CG calculations.

42
Chapter 7

Tail Design

7.1 Tail Configuration

Low-Tail Configuration

Advantages :

• Ground Clearance: With the tail positioned low, there is ample ground clearance during takeoff,
landing, and taxiing, reducing the risk of ground strikes and potential damage to the tail assembly.
• Stability: Low tail configurations often provide enhanced stability, particularly in pitch control,
which can be advantageous for maintaining flight stability during various mission profiles, including
surveillance and mapping.
• Payload Accessibility: Mounting the tail low allows for easier access to the payload bay or cargo
area, simplifying payload integration and maintenance procedures.
• Protection from Damage: Placing the tail low reduces its exposure to damage from airborne debris
or obstacles, contributing to the overall durability and reliability of the UAV.

• Reduced Aerodynamic Interference: Low tail configurations minimize interference drag between
the tail and the fuselage, improving overall aerodynamic efficiency and potentially extending flight
endurance.
Disadvantages:

• Limited Maneuverability: Low tail configurations may have slightly reduced maneuverability com-
pared to other tail configurations, particularly in pitch control, which could impact the UAV’s
ability to perform agile maneuvers.
• Vulnerability to Ground Debris: Despite reduced exposure to damage from airborne debris, low tail
configurations remain vulnerable to ground debris during takeoff and landing, potentially leading
to damage to the tail assembly.
• Weight Distribution Challenges: Achieving optimal weight distribution in low-tail UAVs can be
challenging, as the position of the tail may affect the UAV’s center of gravity and stability charac-
teristics.

• Potential for Ground Strikes: Despite the advantages of ground clearance, low tail configurations
may still be susceptible to ground strikes, particularly when operating in rough terrain or uneven
surfaces
Mid-tail Configuration

Advantages:
• Balanced Stability: Mid-tail configurations provide a balanced distribution of control surfaces,
offering good stability and control authority during flight maneuvers, especially in pitch control.

43
 • Payload Protection: Placing the tail at a mid-position above the fuselage can provide some pro-
tection for payloads mounted beneath the UAV, reducing the risk of damage from ground debris
during takeoff and landing.
• Ground Clearance: Mid-tail configurations typically offer sufficient ground clearance for the tail,
reducing the risk of ground strikes during taxiing, takeoff, and landing operations.
• Aerodynamic Efficiency: Mid-tail configurations can contribute to improved aerodynamic efficiency
by minimizing interference drag between the tail and the fuselage, leading to better overall perfor-
mance and endurance.

• Maneuverability: Mid-tail configurations can provide good maneuverability and control authority,
allowing for precise flight control and navigation, especially in challenging environments.
Disadvantages:
• Complexity: Mid-tail configurations may involve more complex design and integration processes
compared to other tail configurations, potentially increasing manufacturing costs and maintenance
requirements.
• Weight Distribution: Achieving optimal weight distribution in mid-tail UAVs can be challenging,
as the position of the tail may affect the UAV’s center of gravity and stability characteristics.
• Aeroelastic Effects: The mid-tail position may be susceptible to aeroelastic effects, such as flutter
or vibrations, which could affect the UAV’s structural integrity and flight performance.
• Height Restrictions: The mid-tail position may impose limitations on the overall height of the
UAV, which could be a consideration for operations in confined spaces or environments with low
clearance.
High-tail Configuration

Advantages:
• Stability: High tail configurations offer improved stability during flight, especially in pitch control,
which can be beneficial for various missions such as surveillance and mapping.

• Protection of Payload: Placing the tail above the fuselage can protect the payload, such as sensors
or cameras, from ground debris during takeoff and landing, enhancing the durability and reliability
of the UAV.
• Reduced Risk of Ground Strikes: With the tail positioned higher, there is less risk of the tail striking
the ground during takeoff, landing, or taxiing operations, reducing the potential for damage to the
UAV.

• Enhanced Aerodynamic Efficiency: High tail configurations can contribute to improved aerody-
namic efficiency by reducing interference drag between the tail and the fuselage, leading to better
overall performance and endurance.
• Improved Maneuverability: High tail configurations can provide better control authority and ma-
neuverability, especially in pitch control, which can be advantageous for performing precise flight
maneuvers or navigating challenging terrain.
Disadvantages:
• Complexity: High tail configurations may involve more complex design and integration processes,
potentially increasing manufacturing costs and maintenance requirements.

• Weight Distribution: Achieving optimal weight distribution in high-tail UAVs can be challenging,
as the position of the tail may affect the UAVs center of gravity and stability characteristics.
• Height Limitations: The higher tail position may impose limitations on the overall height of the
UAV, which could be a consideration for operations in confined spaces or environments with low
clearance.

44
 • Vulnerability to Wind: High tail configurations may be more susceptible to wind-induced distur-
bances, such as turbulence or gusts, which could affect flight stability and control, especially in
adverse weather conditions.
Based on the above and considering our mission requirements and stability requirements based on
design of wing, we have chosen to have Low tail or Conventional tail configuration.

7.2 Optimum Tail Arm

Two very significant aircraft general design requirements are aircraft low weight and low drag. Both of
these may be combined and translated as the requirement for a low aircraft wetted area. To estimate the
effectiveness of the horizontal tail, an optimum tail arm needs to be found. This would serve as an initial
estimate. As the horizontal tail arm is increased, the fuselage wetted area is increased, but horizontal
tail wetted area is decreased. Also, as the horizontal tail arm is decreased, the fuselage wetted area is
decreased, but horizontal tail wetted area is increased. Hence, we are looking to determine the optimum
tail arm to minimize drag; which in turn means to minimize the total wetted area of the aft portion of
the aircraft.
VH value is generally low for high maneuverability common values of 0.2 for fighter jets are considered
whereas for stability as values as high as 1.1 are taken. So, based on our mission profile we take VH = 1
[28]
Value of lopt was calculated (using equation 6.46 in [28])
s
4CSVH
lopt = (7.2.1)
πDf
lopt was found out to be 1.137 m. A correction factor is added to compensate for our assumption of
conical fuselage denoted as Kc . For a cylindrical fuselage it’s value is 1.4. The corrected lopt is 1.159 m.

7.3 Horizontal Tail

A preliminary analysis for the horizontal tail to obtain the horizontal tail area estimate and aspect
ratio is done by first considering the Wing Moment Coefficient vs Angle of Attack plot.

Figure 7.3.1: CM vs α for Wing

It’s observed that at α = 0, CMo = −0.2, and the moment curve slope is CMα = −0.02 per ◦ .
For Static Stability, CMo > 0.0 and CMα < 0, and a more statically stable plane will have a more
negative moment curve slope. For a conceptual horizontal tail area sizing, the moment equations denoting
contributions from the tail is considered.
dϵ
CMcgtail = ηVH CLαtail (iw + ϵo − it ) − ηVH CLαtail αw (1 − ) (7.3.1)
dα

45
[28] where VH = SSwtcltw , it and iw are the tail and wing setting angles, and the downwash angle is
dϵ
ϵ = ϵo + dα α. Now again, it is seen that the 1st term in the equation changes the CMo of the plane,
while the 2nd term changes CMα .
The original wing coefficient of moment graph can be formulated by the equation
CM = −0.2 − 0.02α (7.3.2)
[28] From [28], front mounted propeller wing tail arm is usually about 60% of the fuselage length (1.4m).
Thus tail arm lt = 0.84m.
Now taking lt = 0.84m, Sw = 0.96m2 , cw = 0.34m, ARw = 8.3, iw = 1◦ , it = −3◦ and approximating
2CLα 2CLo
downwash angle and downwash slope as dα dϵ
= πARwing w
= 0.34 and ϵo = πAR wing
w
= 1.73◦ where
◦
CLαwing = 0.08/ and CLowing = 0.4 from the wing CL vs α plots, the tail area is varied and hence VH
is varied and the resultant total moment coefficient is plotted for different VH .

Figure 7.3.2: Total CM vs α for Varying VH and Tail Area (St )

It is noted that CMo = 0 for the wing + tail configuration at VH = 0.5, St = 0.16m2 , and keeps increasing
as the tail area and hence VH is increased, and subsequently the CMα slope becomes increasingly negative.
Thus from the above plot, it is desirable if we choose the tail area in the range of 0.27 − 0.45m2 for a
subsequent VH of 0.7 − 1.2, keeping a tail setting angle it = −3◦ . The code to generate the plot has been
added to the appendix.
An initial Aspect Ratio can be chosen for the tail by using the relation given in [28]
2
ARt =
ARw (7.3.3)
3
Thus, given the selected Wing Aspect Ratio ARw = 8.3, a preliminary Tail Aspect Ratio is chosen
as ARt = 5.0. Accordingly, the span length and chord for the tail (selected rectangular for ease of
manufacturing) can be found from the equation
St
p ct =
bt = ARt St bt

Thus for an ARt = 5.0 and St = 0.27 − 0.45m2 , a span length range of bt = 1.16 − 1.5 m and a chord
length range of ct = 0.23 − 0.3 m.

Considering out mission requirements and the design parameters estimated in this section, we have
chosen a symmetric NACA 0014 airfoil for the horizontal tail.

Figure 7.3.3: Airfoil for Tail: Symmetric Airfoil NACA0014

46
7.4 Vertical Tail
The vertical tail parameters must be determined initially such that the directional stability requirements
are satisfied. In later stages of the vertical tail design process, the directional trim requirements and
directional control requirements will be examined.
As we are in early stage of the vertical tail design, where other aircraft components have not been
designed, the vertical tail moment arm is selected to be equal to the horizontal tail moment arm (lopt =
lV ). This assumption means that the vertical tail is located at the same distance from the wing as the
horizontal tail.
Similar to the horizontal tail volume coefficient, a new parameter that is referred to as the vertical tail
volume coefficient (VV ) is defined. If the value of this parameter is close to the ballpark number, we are
90% sure that the directional stability requirements have been satisfied. A typical value for the vertical
tail volume coefficient is between 0.02 and 0.12.[28] Vertical planform area is calculated as follows;

bSVV
SV = (7.4.1)
lV
Based on the design parameters and assuming a value of 0.04 for VV (Table 6.4) [28], we get SV = 0.13
m2 .
Considering out mission requirements and the design parameters estimated in this section, we have
chosen a symmetric NACA 0014 airfoil for the vertical tail with a chord(cV ) of 0.4m and span (bv ) of
0.325m.

Figure 7.4.1: Airfoil of Vertical Tail

47
Chapter 8

Landing Gear Design

The landing gear, a crucial component of aircraft design, supports the aircraft on the ground during
taxiing, takeoff, and landing. For an appropriate design of a landing gear system for our UAV, we shall
be describing the following parameters of the Landing gear.
• Configuration
• Fixed or retractable
• Landing Gear Geometry
• Load on each strut
• Tire sizing
• Nose Wheel Steering

Figure 8.0.1: Landing Gear Parameters [28]

8.1 Landing gear Configuration

Based on our CG and design specifications, the Tricycle LG is the best fit. The Tricycle LG is the
most widely used landing gear configuration. Figure 8.1.1 shows the Tricycle Landing gear in a typical
aircraft. The wheels aft of the aircraft cg are very close to it (compared with forward gear) and carry
much of the aircraft weight and load; Two main gears are at the same distance from the cg in the x-axis
and the same distance in the y-axis (left and right sides); thus both carry the same load. The forward
gear is far from the cg (compared with the main gear); hence it carries a much smaller load. The share
of the main gear from the total load is about 80–90%, so the nose gear carries about 10–20%.

48
 Figure 8.1.1: Tricycle Landing Gear

8.2 Landing Gear retraction

As a major design configuration for our Mini UAV is low weight and low cost it is prudent to design
a Fixed Landing gear setup so as to reduce the cost and weight. A general assessment of the same is
presented below.

Figure 8.2.1: Comparison of Fixed vs Retractable system

Also, since the maximum speeds to be attained by the Mini UAV are relatively low, the need for
retraction of the Landing Gear is not envisaged.

8.3 Landing Gear Geometry

8.3.1 Position of Main LG and Nose LG
From our design specifications and fuselage design, we have a fuselage length fixed to 1.2m. Based on
the distribution of the loads within the fuselage, we have our CG location to be about 40% of the total
length. That is about 0.68m from the nose. Considering a CG margin of 10% of the total length of the
fuselage, we get the fwd most CG point to be about 0.51m and the aft CG point to be about
0.85m. The figure below describes these specifications graphically.

49
 Figure 8.3.1: Landing Gear Design

Based on these specifications we have chosen our nose gear to be ahead of the forward CG point and the
Main gear to be behind the aft CG point as shown above. Hence the distance of the Nose LG from the
nose has been chosen to be about 0.35m and the main LG from the nose has been chosen to be about
0.9m. This gives us a wheel base of 0.55m.

8.3.2 Landing Gear Track

The next parameter to be defined in the geometry is the track of the wheels. (As per 9.5.3 of Sadrey[28]
the landing gear track is usually set as a percentage of the wingspan or the width of the fuselage. For
small UAVs, the track is typically 15% to 20% of the wingspan. This ensures adequate stability during
taxiing, takeoff, and landing, without making the gear too wide. Since our wing span is about 2.82m for
this span, we have chosen a wheel track of 0.423m (0.75m x 2).

8.3.3 Landing Gear Height

With the position of the main LG and nose LG properly defined, we can now determining the landing
gear height requirements. For which it is essential to first understand the parameters that define the
Landing Gear height. The two main conditions for the determination of the LG height are as listed
below,

1. Aircraft General Ground Clearance Requirement

2. Take-Off Rotation Ground Clearance Requirement
We shall now look at each of these in detail.

Aircraft General Ground Clearance Requirement

One of the primary functions of the landing gear is to protect the aircraft structure from the ground. This
job is performed by providing a clearance from the ground. The clearance is measured from the lowest
point of the aircraft to the ground. In our case, the prop tip will be the lowest point nearest to the ground.

As a general rule (As per 9.5.1.2 of Sadrey[28]), for a propeller aircraft we take a clearance of 0.2m
from the propeller tip as the height of the Landing gears. As per our design, we have a fuselage diameter
of 0.23m with a a propeller diameter of 0.406m as depicted in Fig 8.3.1. Applying the 0.2m ground
clearance to these design specifications, we get the landing gear height from the fuselage to be
0.24355m.

Take-Off Rotation Ground Clearance Requirement

An aircraft is usually rotating about the main gear in order to increase the lift to prepare for take-
off (see Figure 8.3.2). This is also true for landing operation, in which the aircraft rotates to gain a high
angle of attack. Since our aircraft is nose gear, the height of the landing gear must be set so that the

50
tail or rear fuselage does not strike the ground during the take-off rotation or landing with a high angle
of attack.

Figure 8.3.2: Take off Ground Clearance

The take-off rotation ground clearance requirement to prevent a fuselage hit is as follows:

αC αT O
where the clearance angle is,  
Hf
αC = tan−1 (8.3.1)
AB
[19]

Figure 8.3.3: Clearance Angle Estimation

From our design specifications, Hf is 0.275m and AB as 0.6m as depicted in Fig 8.3.1. Hence the
clearance angle would be 24.65°. In our case the take off angle is about 12° and hence our design
ensures that the tail would not touch during take off or landing.

8.3.4 Landing Gear Overturn Angle

Figure 8.3.4: Estimation of Overturn Angle

The wheel track of the Landing Gear Design main wheel should be arranged so that the aircraft cannot
roll over too easily due to wind or during a ground turn. The overturn angle is the angle which is critical
to the aircraft overturn. To determine the overturn angle, look at the aircraft front view, the angle

51
between the vertical line passing through the aircraft cg and the line between the aircraft cg and that
of the main wheels is the overturn angle (As shown in Fig 8.3.4 ) . In the figure, the parameter Hcg is
the height of the aircraft cg from the ground. As a rule of thumb, the wheel track must be such that the
overturn angle (ϕot ) is inside the following recommended limit:

ϕot ≥ 25◦
Based on our dimensions we find that the overturn angle(ϕot ) is 69.86 Deg. Which meets the stability
condition for overturn criteria.

8.4 Load on each Landing Gear

Figure 8.4.1: Loads acting on the LG

Figure 8.4.1 shows a stationary aircraft with a tricycle landing gear on the ground. The aircraft weight
(W) is carried by three wheels (i.e., two main and one nose gear). Due to the ground mobility (i.e.,
steering) requirement, typically the nose gear must not carry less than about 5% of the total load and
also must not carry more than about 20% of the total load (e.g., aircraft weight). Thus, the main gear
carries about 80–95% of the aircraft load. The loads on nose and main gears are denoted by Fn and Fm
respectively.
Calculation of the static loads on each gear is performed by employing equilibrium equations. Since the
aircraft is in static equilibrium, the summation of all forces in the z direction must be zero:

Σ Fz = 0 Fn + Fm = W

Furthermore, the summation of all moments about O is zero

Σ M o = 0 Fn B W B m = 0

Applying the above equations with our design specifications as depicted in Fig 8.3.1. We find the
Load on the Nose LG is 13.81N and that being applied on the main LG is 72.52N (Each main
LG will have a load of 36.26N). This implies that the nose LG carries a load of about 16% and the
main LG carries about 84% of the total load. These specifications also ensure good ground mobility of
the mini UAV.

8.5 Selection of Tyres

Based on our load calculations, design parameters, ground clearance requirements, extensive market
survey and based on tyres being utilized by UAVs of similar weight and dimensions we have selected a
3.5 inch PU tyre. The main features of the same are as follows:-
- Core made of bore retrofitted copper pipe, force balanced and wear-resistant
- Golden Aluminum Hub
- Size: 3.5inch
- Weight: 68g

8.6 Nose Wheel Steering System

Considering the maneuvering requirement during taxi, minor course adjustments to be catered for during
take off roll and landing run the team has chosen to use a Nose Wheel Steering system. The nose wheel
will have a freedom of rotation of 45 Deg and enable the aircraft to efficiently maneuver on ground. The
nose wheel steering will be connected to the flight controller to enable its control on ground.

52
Chapter 9

Three View Diagram

As individual parts of the UAV have been designed, it is now time to make a 3-D model of the UAV.

9.1 CAD Model of UAV

The 3D model of the UAV has been made and is a s shown below.

Figure 9.1.1: Isometric View

Figure 9.1.2: Front View

53
 Figure 9.1.3: Top View

Figure 9.1.4: Components

9.2 Centre of Gravity

The centre of gravity is 220 mm behind and 109 mm the wing leading edge.

Figure 9.2.1: CG

The centre of gravity is 177 mm behind and 111 mm the wing leading edge.

54
Figure 9.2.2: CG without Wing

55
Chapter 10

Stability Analysis

10.1 Simulation Analysis

10.1.1 Modelling the UAV
For stability analysis, the UAV was crafted on the XFLR5 software which included the wing, vertical
tail, horizontal tail and an approximated fuselage.
Initially the wing, horizontal and vertical tail were modelled and the CG was taken into account from
the initial design of the plane as shown previously, and small adjustments were made to the vertical
stabilizer and the tail arm to account for stability as well as adjusting the CG. The fuselage was then
additionally modelled to take into account the fuselage’s effect on the stability parameters and especially
to check for high wing roll stability. The Simulations were conducted at altitude 100 m and V∞ = 18
m/s, at Re ≈ 415000.
After creating the initial model, several adjustments were made to stabilize the aircraft :

• A high wing configuration was used

• A dihedral angle of 2◦ was given to boost roll stability and counter possible disbalancing gusts and
turbulent flow as experienced above forest cover
• The length of the bulk of fuselage was extended to add directional and roll stability and reduce
Dutch Roll oscillations observed in previous iterations of our design
• The tail arm length was extended to boost longitudinal stability
• The horizontal stabilizer was given a 2◦ setting angle to match trim αtrim = αdesign for design CL

Name Values
Wing Chord, Horizontal Tail Chord, Vertical Tail Chord (0.34 m, 0.28 m, 0.35 m)
Wing Span, Horizontal Tail Span, Vertical Tail Span (2.82 m, 1.5 m, 0.4 m)
Wing Area, Horizontal Tail Area, Vertical Tail Area (0.96 m2 , 0.42 m2 , 0.14 m2 )
Wing Dihedral Angle Λ 2◦
Tail Arm lt 1.2 m
Horizontal Tail Setting Angle it 2◦
Total Fuselage Length 1.7 m
Fuselage Diameter 250 mm
CG Location (from Nose) XCG 0.5 m
NP Location (from Nose) XN P 0.57 m
Wing AC Location (From Nose) XACw 0.325 m
Tail AC Location (From Nose) XACt 1.46 m

56
Figure 10.1.1: XFLR5 UAV Model Isometric View

Figure 10.1.2: XFLR5 UAV Model Front View

57
 Figure 10.1.3: XFLR5 UAV Side View with sizings

10.1.2 Simulation Results

[t]0.8

Figure 10.1.4: UAV Lift CL and and Moment CM vs Angle of Attack α

0.8
Figure 10.1.5: UAV Directional Stability Cn and Roll Stability Cl vs Sideslip angle β

58
 Figure 10.1.6: UAV CM vs CL and CL /CD vs Angle of Attack α

10.2 Neutral point

The neutral point (XN P ) of an aircraft is the point along the chord line of the wing where the pitching
moment coefficient (Cm) remains constant, regardless of changes in the angle of attack (α). In other
words, the neutral point is the point where the aircraft is neutrally stable in pitch.
The location of the neutral point is given by:
∂CLαt
 
∂ϵ
XN P = Xacw + ηht VHht 1−
∂CLαw ∂α
[19]Now to get the value of the position of the neutral point, CG, and aerodynamic center of the wing
with respect to the leading edge of the wing along the chord line, we use simple geometry. XCG , ZCG
′
are positions along FRL, and XCG is along the chord line. So we get,

′ XCG
XCG = XCG cos θw − ZCG sin θw and hCG =
c
Here, θw is the wing setting angle. Thus, using similar geometry to get hACW B and hN P :
XN P cos θw − ZN P sin θw XAC,W cos θw − ZAC,W sin θw
hN P = and hACW B =
c c
The values set for the UAV model are XACw = 0.325 m from the tip of the fuselage, ηht = 0.8,
2CLα
VHht = Slwt Sctw = 1.42, where Sw = 0.96 m2 , cw = 0.34 m, lt = 1.1 m, St = 0.42 m2 , and dϵ
dα = wing
πARw =
0.34/rad−1 .

Thus replacing the values, the XN P obtained is

XN P = 0.57 m (10.2.1)

[19]

10.3 Longitudinal Static Stability

The longitudinal stability of an aircraft is the tendency of the aircraft to return to its original pitch
attitude after a disturbance. The condition for longitudinal stability is that the derivative of the pitching
moment coefficient with respect to angle of attack (α) must be negative:
∂CM
<0 (10.3.1)
∂α
where CM is the pitching moment coefficient.
In other words, if the angle of attack of the aircraft is increased, the pitching moment should be such
that it opposes the angle of attack change and brings the aircraft back to its original pitch attitude.

59
10.3.1 Pitching Moment Coefficient
Before calculating, it is estimated from XFLR5 that CMAC = −0.11, CL0w = 0.4, CLαw = 0.08/◦ ,
2CLα 2CLo
CLαt = 0.072/◦ . We also estimate dα
dϵ
= πARwing
w
= 0.34 and ϵo = πAR wing
w
= 1.73◦ .
The moment coefficient at angle of attack α = 0 due to wing and tail is
 
XCG − XAC
Cm0 = CMACw + CL0w + ηVH CLαt (ϵ0 − it − iw ) (10.3.2)
c̄
[28]
Cm0 = 0.048
Thus, the pitch moment curve slope due to the wing and tail is:
   
∂Cm XCG − XAC ∂ϵ
= CLαw − ηV H CLαt 1 − (10.3.3)
∂α c̄ ∂α
[28]

Cmα = −1.089 rad−1

Thus, the moment polar for the UAV is (as seen in 10.1.4),
Cm = 0.048 − 0.019α (10.3.4)
Thus, the trim α = 2.5◦ , which is close to the design α(CL /CD max) = 2.2◦ as seen in

10.3.2 Static Margin

By definition, static margin refers to the distance between the neutral point and the center of gravity of
the aircraft. The expression for it can be given by:
 
XN P − XCG CMα
Static Margin = =− = 0.08 (10.3.5)
c̄ CLα
[28]

Table 10.3.1: Longitudinal Stability Parameters

Parameters Values Units

XCG 0.5 m
Neutral point XN P 0.57 m
Aerodynamic center of wing XACw 0.325 m
Tail setting angle (it ) 2.0◦ deg
Absolute angle of attack at Trim 2.5◦ deg
Cruise Design angle of attack 2.2◦ deg
Cm 0.048 - 0.019α -
Static margin 0.2 -

10.4 Directional Static Stability

In the context of UAV design, directional stability refers to the ability of the aircraft to maintain its
intended direction of flight without excessive oscillations or deviations. This is particularly important
for UAVs, which often need to fly at low altitudes and in challenging environments and require precise
control for a wide range of missions.
The design of directional stability in a UAV involves the proper selection and placement of the
vertical tail surfaces and other control surfaces, as well as the optimization of the aircraft’s aerodynamic
characteristics. One important design consideration is the yaw moment coefficient (Cn ), which represents
the aircraft’s tendency to yaw or turn about its vertical axis in response to changes in sideslip angle (β).
The condition for directional stability is typically expressed as
∂Cn
>0 (10.4.1)
∂β

60
The vertical tail was adjusted in XFLR5 along with the bulk of the fuselage length to add directional
stability, and the final directional slope was obtained in FIg. 5.2.3 as
∂Cn
= 0.0153 rad−1 (10.4.2)
∂β

10.5 Lateral Stability

Lateral stability refers to the ability of an aircraft to maintain its lateral equilibrium during flight. It
is a measure of the aircraft’s resistance to rolling motion about its longitudinal axis and is an essential
aspect of flight safety and control. Lateral stability is achieved through the proper design and placement
of the aircraft’s wing and other control surfaces, which generate aerodynamic forces that counteract any
disturbances that may cause the aircraft to roll or bank off course.
The condition for lateral stability is typically expressed as:
∂Cl
<0 (10.5.1)
∂β
where Cl is the rolling moment coefficient and β is the sideslip angle. This means that the derivative
of the rolling moment coefficient with respect to sideslip angle must be negative, indicating that the
aircraft generates a stabilizing rolling moment that counteracts any disturbances that may cause it to
roll or bank off course.
Since the UAV is designed to survey forest cover, we take in additional considerations for the common
gusts of wind and turbulent air experienced above forests, and a high wing configuration with a small
roll stabilizing wing dihedral angle of 2◦ was designed. The lateral slope was obtained from XFLR5 Fig.
5.2.3:
∂Cl
= −0.0076 rad−1 (10.5.2)
∂β

61
10.6 Control Surfaces
10.6.1 Aileron
In the design process of an aileron, four parameters need to be determined.
• Aileron platform area (Sa )
• Aileron chord/span (ca /ba )

• Maximum up and down aileron deflection (Amax )

• Location of inner edge of the aileron along the wing span (bai )
As a general guidance, the typical values for these parameters are as follows:[28]
Sa /S = 0.05–0.1, ba /b = 0.2–0.3, ca /C = 0.15–0.25, bai /b= 0.6–0.8, and Amax = ±30°.
From our previous data, we use S = 0.95 m2 , b = 2.82 m,

Sa /S = 0.05 → Sa = 0.048 m2
ba /b = 0.2 → ba= 0.564m
ca /c = 0.25 → ca= 0.085 m
bai /b= 0.6 → bai= 1.692 m
→ Amax = ±30°.

Therefore, the factors affecting the design of the aileron are the required hinge moment, the aileron
effectiveness, the aerodynamic and mass balancing, the flap geometry, the aircraft structure and the
cost.
Aileron effectiveness is a measure of how effective the aileron deflection is in producing the desired rolling
moment. The following image is for representation of aileron only, there is no sweep angle in our design.

Figure 10.6.1: (a) Top view of the wing and aileron for reference ; (b) Side view of the wing and aileron
for reference[28]

10.6.2 Elevator
The typical values of the area, span and chord of the elevator seen below are taken from the reference
book [28]
Se /St : 0.15 0.4
be /bt : 0.8 1
ce /ct : 0.2 0.4

For the preliminary analysis we take the ratios to be Se /St = 0.25 for area, be /bt = 1.0 for span and
ce /ct = 0.25 for chord length and can be modified as per the requirements after doing stability analysis.
Therefore, the values for the area, span and chord length for the elevator comes out to be
Se : 0.105m2
be : 1.5m
ce : 0.07m

62
10.6.3 Rudder
The typical values of the area, span and chord of the Rudder seen below are taken from the reference
book [28]
Sr /Sv : 0.150.35
br /bv : 0.71
cr /cv : 0.150.4

For the preliminary analysis we take the ratios to be Sr /Sv = 0.3 for area,
br /bv = 0.8 for span and
cr /cv = 0.3 for chord length

These values can be modified as per the requirements after doing stability analysis. Therefore, the
values for the area, span and chord length for the rudder comes out to be
Sr = 0.042m2
br = 0.4m
cr = 0.105m

10.7 Flight Controller

In order to maintain a safe flight profile with sufficient maneuverability and control-ability, the UAV needs
to be equipped with a flight controller. Considering our design parameters, flight control dimensions
and flight profile we have selected the Ublox NEO-7M Flight Controller with GPS module. The flight
controller comes with an onboard GPS which provides an added advantage for accurate navigation. The
main features of the Flight Controller Module are as listed below:-
• Ublox Neo 7M GPS module includes an HMC5883L digital compass.

• Ublox NEO 7 series is a high-sensitivity, low-power GPS module that has 56 channels and outputs
precise position. The GPS module also comes with a moulded plastic case which keeps the module
protected against the environmental elements making it ideal for use on UAVs
• The NEO-7 series provides maximum sensitivity while maintaining low system power.

• RF integration. Sophisticated RF architecture and interference suppression ensure maximum per-

formance even in GPS-hostile environments.

63
Chapter 11

Performance Calculation

11.1 Drag Polar

11.1.1 Swet
The calculation of drag requires the wetted and the reference. The wetted areas for different components
are calculated from the three-point view and the CAD model of our UAV. The reference area (Sref ) is
the projected area (platform area) of the wing. The wetted area for the wing, horizontal and vertical
tail is approximately twice the platform area. All the values of Swet and S are tabulated in the following
table:

Component Area (m2 )

Sref Swet
Fuselage 0.27 1.7
Wing 0.96 1.96
Horizontal tail 0.39 0.67
Vertical tail 0.13 0.17

Table 11.1.1: Area of components (m2 )

11.1.2 CDo Calculation

We need the value of CDo to plot the drag variation for our specific UAV based on the parameters we
have calculated. The following formulae are used with same assumptions as previously stated during the
T/W calculations 13.2. The final aspect ratio(AR) chosen is 8.3 and Reynolds number is 411400.

Cf · Swet
CDo = = 0.03 (11.1.1)
Sref

[28]
0.074
Cf = = 0.0116 (11.1.2)
Re1/7
[28]
1
e= = 0.8113 (11.1.3)
1.05 + 0.007 · πAR
[28]

64
 Figure 11.1.1: Drag Polar

1
CD = CDo + C2 (11.1.4)
πeAR L
[28]

11.2 Final Power Estimates

After simulating and adjusting the UAV’s design, and conceptually creating it in a CAD software, the
Power estimation process is revisited to investigate the performance of the UAV. The final mass of the
CAD Model of the UAV is estimated at 9kg. The pre-determined CL values according to which the UAV
was designed are again stated here to facilitate final estimates of the required power for each significant
phase of flight.

CL Values
CLcruise 0.5
CLstall 1.42
CLtakeof f 1.21
CLclimb 1.31

11.2.1 Takeoff
The power required for Takeoff is estimated as
1 3
Ptakeof f = ρv CD (11.2.1)
2 takeof f takeof f
Where AR = 8.3, e = 0.81, ρground = 1.225kg/m3 , vtakeof f = 11m/s
(16h/b)2
ϕ = 1+(16h/b) 2 = 0.71 as ground clearance h = 0.275 m and wing span b = 2.82m

65
 1
Thus, Drag Coefficient for take off CDtakeof f = CDo + ϕ πeAR CL2 takeof f = 0.08
Which can be finally substituted to get

Ptakeof f = 65Watt (11.2.2)

11.2.2 Climb
The power required for Climbing Flight is estimated as
1 3
Pclimb = Tclimb vclimb = ρv SCD + W vclimb sinγ (11.2.3)
2 climb
Where AR = 8.3, e = 0.81, ρ = 1.225kg/m3
Climb Rate = 2 m/s, Pitch Angle = 9◦ , vclimb = sin(92
◦ ) = 13m/s
1
Thus, Drag Coefficient for climbing flight CDclimb = CDo + πeAR CL2 climb = 0.111
Which can be finally substituted to get

Pclimb = 276Watt (11.2.4)

11.2.3 Cruise
The power required during the cruise phase of flight at 100 m can be estimated as
1 3
Pcruise = Tcruise vcruise = ρ100 m vcruise Swing CD (11.2.5)
2
Where ρ100 m = 1.21kg/m3 , vcruise = 18m/s, Swing = 0.96m2
1
Thus, the drag coefficient for cruise flight CDcruise = CDo + πeAR CL2 cruise = 0.042
Which can be finally substituted to get

Pcruise = 142Watt (11.2.6)

P owerphase Tphase
Ptakeof f 65 W 10 s
Pclimb 276 W 5 min
Pcruise 142 W 1 hour

11.3 Range and Endurance

The maximum Discharge Rate (C) of our battery [17] is 30C and the rated voltage is 22.6V. We need
to make sure that we for the power requirement for each phase the battery does not get discharged
completely.
V oltage(V ) · BatteryCapacity(Ah)
T ime = (11.3.1)
P ower(W )
Using this for each phase power requirements, we find that the endurance would ideally be more than
1.5 hours due to climb and takeoff being short duration phases.

Range = Endurance · vcruise (11.3.2)

Hence, the range would ideally be close to 97.2 km.

11.4 V - n Diagram
Every possible combination of speeds, altitudes, and configurations is included in an aircraft’s flight
regime. The aircraft’s dynamics, aerodynamics, propulsion, and structure all influence this regime. The
terms ”flight envelope” and ”manoeuvring envelope” refer to the boundaries of this flight regime. Pilots
are constantly instructed not to fly outside of the flight envelope because the aircraft is not stable, con-
trollable, or physically strong enough outside of certain parameters. If an aircraft is flown outside of its

66
flight envelope, an accident or crash is predicted.

The V-n diagram is the most important flight envelope involved in preliminary design. It helps in
visualising the loads on the aircraft and determines the limits on maneuvering based on the maximum
loads the aircraft. The critical points of the diagram are calculated as below.
The load factor n is defined as:
L 1 ρv 2 SCLmax
n= = (11.4.1)
W 2 W
Typically, the maximum and minimum values of load factor are 3 and -1 respectively. The following V-n
diagram of our aircraft shows the conditions of the stall - positive and negative stall curve, maximum
and minimum structural limit, and maximum allowable velocity.

Figure 11.4.1: V - n diagram

• The maximum load factors that an aeroplane may safely handle without experiencing structural
failure is known as the structural limit.

• Cornering velocity is 5.4 m/s.

• Lift Limit is the highest load factor that may be achieved at a specific speed; if exceeded, a stall
might happen.
• Diving Speed assists in determining the highest safe diving speed in order to prevent going above
structural limitations.
• Dynamic Pressure concerns the maximum aerodynamic forces an aeroplane encounters at a given
speed.
• Safety Margin specifies the operating bounds that an aircraft can fly inside without risk.

To ensure a conservative and safe design, it is generally recommended to choose load factors towards the
lower end of the range. This provides a greater margin of safety and helps account for uncertainties in
operational conditions and potential load variations.

67
Chapter 12

Final Summary

Parameter Value
Cruise Speed 18 m/s
Max Speed 22.5 m/s
Stall Speed 10 m/s
Rotation Speed 11 m/s
Take off Speed 12 m/s
Climb Speed 11.51 m/s
Max Climb Rate 2 m/s
Max Climb Angle 12 Deg
Absolute Ceiling 100m
Cruise Altitude 80m/40m
Propeller Efficiency 0.5
L/D 19.48
Battery Capacity 18000 mAH
Tail arm 1.2 m

Table 12.0.1: General UAV Specifications

Parameters Value
Wing Area 0.96 m2
Wing Span 2.82 m
Taper Ratio 1
Root Chord 0.34 m
Tip Chord 0.34 m
Aspect Ratio 8.3
Twist Angle 0 Deg
Sweep Angle 0 Deg
Dihedral Angle 2 Deg
Wing Setting Angle 1 Deg
Aerofoil GOE 553
Alieron Area 0.048 m2
Alieron Chord 0.085 m
Alieron Span 0.564 m

Table 12.0.2: Wing Specifications

68
 Parameters Value
Tail Area 0.42 m2
Tail Span 1.5 m
Taper Ratio 1
Root Chord 0.28 m
Tip Chord 0.28 m
Aspect Ratio 5.0
Twist Angle 0 Deg
Sweep Angle 0 Deg
Dihedral Angle 0 Deg
Tail Setting Angle 2 Deg
Aerofoil NACA 0014
Elevator Area 0.105 m2
Elevator Chord 0.07 m
Elevator Span 1.5 m

Table 12.0.3: Horizontal Tail Specifications

Parameters Value
Tail Area 0.14 m2
Tail Span 0.4 m
Taper Ratio 1
Root Chord 0.35 m
Tip Chord 0.35 m
Aspect Ratio 1.14
Twist Angle 0 Deg
Sweep Angle 0 Deg
Dihedral Angle 0 Deg
Tail Setting Angle 0 Deg
Aerofoil NACA 0014
Rudder Area 0.042 m2
Rudder Chord 0.105 m
Rudder Span 0.4 m

Table 12.0.4: Vertical Tail Specifications

Parameter Value
Length 1.2 m
Diameter 0.250 m
Width 0.2m
Radial Tolerance 5.00 %
Axial Tolerance 10.00 %
Radial Tolerance 5.00 %
Axial Tolerance 10.00 %

Table 12.0.5: Fuselage Specifications

Parameters Value
MTOW 9.85 Kg
Max Payload Weight 2.0 Kg
Design Payload Weight 1.5 Kg
Powerplant Weight 2.27 Kg
CG location (from nose) 0.5 m

Table 12.0.6: Weights

69
 Parameters Value
CLmax 1.56
CLT akeOf f 1.21
CLStall 1.42
CLClimb 1.31
CLCruise 0.46
Oswalds Efficiency factor 0.8113
CD0 0.03
Wing Loading 90 N/ m2

Table 12.0.7: Aerodynamic Characteristics

70
Chapter 13

Appendix

13.1 First Weight and Power Estimate Calculation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math

# Data Collection
#Wo = np.array([13.5, 10.0, 6.8, 16.5, 24, 2.5])
Wo = np.array([13.5, 16.5,6.8, 24, 2.5]) # List of all Full Weight for collected UAV data
#We_Wo = np.array([0.58, 0.44, 0.48, 0.54, 0.34, 0.84])
We_Wo = np.array([0.6, 0.7, 0.55, 0.34, 0.84]) # List of all Empty Weight Ratios for
collected UAV data
cols = len(Wo)

#Regression Curve Fitting

x = np.column_stack((np.log(Wo), np.ones(cols)))
y = np.log(We_Wo)
B = np.linalg.lstsq(x, y, rcond=None)[0]
L = B[0]
A = math.e**B[1]
print(f"L = {L}, A = {A}")
MSE = (1/cols)*np.sum((np.square(np.subtract(We_Wo,A*Wo**L))))
print(f"MSE = {MSE}")

Wo_x = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(10, 300)])

We_Wo_y = A*Wo_x**L

# Iteration
W_pay = 2 # kg
W_batt = 2 # kg
Woi = 8 #initial total weight guess
We_Wo_est = [1 - W_batt/Woi - W_pay/Woi]
Wo_est = [W_pay/(1 - W_batt/Woi - We_Wo_est[0])]

print(f"Initial W_o = {Wo_est[0]}, Initial W_e/W_o = {We_Wo_est[0]}")

j = 0
for i in range(0,50):
We_Wo_est_i = A*Wo_est[-1]**L
#Wo_est_i = (W_pay/(1 - (W_batt/Wo_est[-1]) - We_Wo_est_i))
Wo_est_i = ((W_pay+W_batt)/(1 - We_Wo_est_i))
print(f"Iteration {i+1}")
print(f"W_o = {Wo_est_i} kg, Empty Weight Fraction = {We_Wo_est_i}, Battery Weight
Fraction = {W_batt/Wo_est[-1]}")
if not math.isnan(We_Wo_est_i) and not math.isnan(Wo_est_i) and (Wo_est_i > 0):
We_Wo_est.append(We_Wo_est_i)
Wo_est.append(Wo_est_i)

71
 j = j+1
else:
print(We_Wo_est_i)
print(Wo_est_i)
#break

print(f"Final Estimation: W_o = {Wo_est[-1]} kg, Empty Weight Fraction = {We_Wo_est[-1]}")

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)
plt.plot(np.log(Wo_x), np.log(We_Wo_y))
plt.scatter(np.log(Wo), np.log(We_Wo))
plt.scatter(np.log(Wo_est), np.log(We_Wo_est))
plt.xlabel("log($W_o$)")
plt.ylabel("log($W_e/W_o$)")
plt.show()

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)
plt.plot(Wo_x, We_Wo_y)
plt.scatter(Wo, We_Wo)
#plt.scatter(Wo_est, We_Wo_est)
plt.xlabel("$W_o$")
plt.ylabel("$W_e/W_o$")
plt.show()

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)
plt.plot([i for i in range(0,30)], Wo_est[:30])
plt.xlabel("No of iterations")
plt.ylabel("Final Weight $W_o$ (kg)")
plt.show()

# Power Calculation
AR = 8.89 # Initial Aspect Ratio Estimate
S = 0.76 # m^2, Initial Wing Surface Area Estimate
h = 0.050 #ground clearance
b = 2 #wingspan
phi = (((16*h)/b)**2)/(1+((16*h)/b)**2)#ground effect

CLmax = 0.8
CDo = 0.03 # Initial CD,o Estimate
e = 0.8 #oswald efficiency

rho = 1.225 #kg/m^3, Sea Level Density

g = 9.81 # m/s^2, Acceleration due to gravity
mass = Wo_est[-1] # kg, First Weight estimate
W = Wo_est[-1]*g # N

angle_of_climb = 10*math.pi/180 # Initial Angle of Climb estimate of 10 deg

V_cruise = 18 #m/s, Initial Cruise Velocity Estimate
V_climb = 2/(math.sin(angle_of_climb)) #m/s, Initial Climb Velocity Estimate
V_stall = math.sqrt((2*W)/(rho*S*CLmax))
V_takeoff = 1.3*V_stall

Voltage = 9 # V, Battery Power Supply

CD_cruise = CDo + (1/(math.pi*e*AR))*(W/(0.5*rho*(V_cruise**2)*S))**2

CD_climb = CDo + (1/(math.pi*e*AR))*(W/(0.5*rho*(V_climb**2)*S))**2
CD_takeoff = CDo + phi*(1/(math.pi*e*AR))*(W/(0.5*rho*(V_takeoff**2)*S))**2

P_cruise = 0.5*rho*(V_cruise**3)*S*CD_cruise
P_climb = 0.5*rho*(V_climb**3)*S*CD_climb + W*math.sin(angle_of_climb)*V_climb
P_takeoff = 0.5*rho*(V_takeoff**3)*S*CD_takeoff

T_takeoff = 10/(60*60)

72
T_climb = 5/60
T_cruise = 1
sf=1;

mAh = sf*(P_takeoff*T_takeoff+P_climb*T_climb+P_cruise*T_cruise)*1000/Voltage
print(f"P_cruise = {P_cruise} W, P_climb = {P_climb} W, P_takeoff = {P_takeoff} W")
print(f"Total Watt Hour = {P_takeoff*T_takeoff+P_climb*T_climb+P_cruise*T_cruise} Wh, {mAh}
mAh Battery, {Voltage} Voltage")

73
13.2 T/W Calculation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math

rho = 1.21; #approximate density at height range 50-100m

eta = 0.000018; #approximate coefficient of viscosity at height range 50-100m
c = np.array([0.136,0.22,0.0543]); #list of chord length
v = np.array([18.88,17,20]) #30,16.67,16,16,20]); #cruise speed of UAV
Re = rho*c*v/eta
print("Reynolds Number = ",Re)
Cf = 0.074/(np.power(Re,(1/7)))
print("Skin friction coefficient = ",Cf)

k = 1;#k is a constant that depends on the aircraft configuration and Reynolds number.
Swet = np.array([1.2206,0.50549,0.845]);#wetted area of aircraft
Sref = np.array([0.9248,0.39257,0.555]);#reference area of aircraft
Cdo = k*Cf*(Swet/Sref);#zero lift drag
print("Cdo = ",Cdo)

AR = np.array([13.6,12.32,11.255]); #list of aspect ratios of all UAVs

eo = 0.8; #efficiency factor of wing planform
e = 1/(1.05+0.007*math.pi*AR); #Oswald efficiency
twmin = np.sqrt((4*Cdo)/(math.pi*e*AR)); #calculation of T/W min
twmin = np.append(twmin,np.array([1/20.6875,1/14,1/26,1/19.05]))
L_D = 1/twmin;
print("(L/D)_max = ",L_D)
print("(T/W)_min = ",twmin)
print("Oswald Efficiency: ",e)

v=np.append(v,np.array([16,16,20,30]));
print("v_cruise = ",v);
AR=np.append(AR,np.array([4,6,8.89,5.55]))

cols = len(L_D)
x = np.column_stack((np.log(v), np.ones(cols)))
y = np.log(L_D)
B = np.linalg.lstsq(x, y, rcond=None)[0]
L = B[0]
A = math.e**B[1]
#print(f"L = {L}, A = {A}")
MSE = (1/6)*np.sum((np.square(np.subtract(L_D,A*v**L))))
#print(f"MSE = {MSE}")

V_plot = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(1,500)])

L_D_plot = A*V_plot**L
print(f"Design L/D = {A*17**L} to {A*19**L}")
#L/D vs v_cruise
plt.figure(1, dpi = 100)
plt.plot(V_plot, L_D_plot)
plt.plot([18 for i in range(8,30)],[i for i in range(8,30)])
plt.scatter(v, L_D)
plt.scatter([17,19], [A*17**L, A*19**L])
plt.xlabel("V_Cruise")
plt.ylabel("L/D Max")
plt.show()
ldmax=A*18**L
print("L/D max plot= ",ldmax)
print("T/W min plot= ",1/ldmax)

74
x = np.column_stack((np.log(AR), np.ones(cols)))
y = np.log(L_D)
B = np.linalg.lstsq(x, y, rcond=None)[0]
L_ar = B[0]
A_ar = math.e**B[1]
#print(f"L = {L_ar}, A = {A_ar}")
MSE = (1/6)*np.sum((np.square(np.subtract(L_D,A*AR**L))))
#print(f"MSE = {MSE}")

AR_plot = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(1,500)])

L_D_plot = A*AR_plot**L
#L/D vs AR
plt.figure(1, dpi = 100)
plt.plot(np.sqrt(AR_plot), L_D_plot)
plt.plot([i for i in range(0,10)],[19 for i in range(0,10)])
plt.scatter(np.sqrt(AR), L_D)
plt.xlabel(" AR ")
plt.ylabel("L/D Max")
plt.show()
print(" AR plot: ", (1/L)*math.log(ldmax/A))

pw=np.multiply(np.cos(7*math.pi/180)*twmin,v)

# Power Calculation
S = 4 # m^2, Initial Wing Surface Area Estimate
CLmax = 0.8
CDo = 0.03 # Initial CD,o Estimate
e = 0.8 #oswald efficiency

rho = 1.225 #kg/m^3, Sea Level Density

g = 9.81 # m/s^2, Acceleration due to gravity
W = 9.61*g # N

angle_of_climb = 5*math.pi/180 # Initial Angle of Climb estimate of 10 deg

V_cruise = 18 #m/s, Initial Cruise Velocity Estimate
V_climb = 2/(math.sin(angle_of_climb)) #m/s, Initial Climb Velocity Estimate
V_stall = math.sqrt((2*W)/(rho*S*CLmax))
V_takeoff = 1.3*V_stall

tw=max(twmin)
P_cruise = tw*W*V_cruise
P_climb = tw*0.5*rho*S*CLmax*V_climb**3 + W*math.sin(angle_of_climb)*V_climb
P_takeoff = tw*W*V_takeoff

print(f"P_cruise = {P_cruise} W, P_climb = {P_climb} W, P_takeoff = {P_takeoff} W")

75
13.3 W/S Calculation for Multiple Phases of Flight

Estimation of W/S
% Define the function for W_P in terms of W_S
W_P = @(W_S) (1 - exp((2.8264 / W_S))) / ...
(0.03 - (0.03 + 2.925 / W_S) * exp((2.8264 / W_S))) * 0.04167;

% Define the target value of W/P

target_W_P = 0.0177;

% Define an anonymous function for the difference between the target and actual W/P
diff_W_P = @(W_S) abs(W_P(W_S) - target_W_P);

% Find the value of W/S that minimizes the difference

W_S_solution = fminsearch(diff_W_P, 1); % Start with an initial guess of 1 for W_S

% Calculate the corresponding W/S value

W_S = W_S_solution;
W = 0.0177 * W_S;

disp([’The value of W/S at W/P = 0.0177 is: ’, num2str(W_S)]);

disp([’The corresponding value of W is: ’, num2str(W)]);

For graph
% Generate W/S values
W_S_range = linspace(1, 50, 100); % Adjust range as needed

% Calculate W/P for each W/S

W_P = (1 - exp((2.8264 ./ W_S_range))) ./ (0.03 - (0.03 + 2.925 ./ W_S_range) .*
exp((2.8264 ./ W_S_range))) .* 0.04167;

% Create the plot

figure;
plot(W_S_range, W_P , ’b-’); % Blue line
xlabel(’W/S (Wing loading)’);
ylabel(’W/P (Power loading)’);
title(’W/P vs W/S’);
grid on; % Add grid lines for better readability

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math

rho = 1.225
S = 0.9
CDo = 0.04
e_ = 0.8
AR = 9
m = 7.8
g = 9.81
W = m*g
K = 1/(math.pi*e_*AR)
n_prop = 0.8
L__D_max = 19.48
# CDo = 1/(4*K)*(1/L__D_max)**2
# L__D_max = math.sqrt(CDo/K)/(2*CDo)
CLmax = L__D_max*2*CDo
print(f"L/D max = {L__D_max}")
print(f"CDo = {CDo}, L__D_max = {L__D_max}, CL_max = {CLmax}")

76
# Stall Speed
V_stall = 10
W__S_stall = 0.5*rho*V_stall**2*S*CLmax
print(W__S_stall)
W__S_stall = np.ones(7)*W__S_stall
W__P = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(0,7)])

# Cruise Speed or Max Speed

V_max = 18
# CD = CDo + K*(2*W/(rho*V_max**2*S))**2
W__S = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(1,1000)])
W__P_sl = n_prop/(0.5*rho*V_max**3*CDo/W__S + 2*K*W__S/(rho*V_max**2))

# Take Off Run

V_TO = V_stall*1.2
nu = 0.03 # Friction Coeff
CLto = 0.8*CLmax
CDto = CDo + 0.009 + 0.005 + K*CLto**2
CDg = CDto - nu*CLto
Vr = 1.2*V_stall
Sto = 100
CLr = 2*W/(1.225*0.8*Vr**2)
W__P_TO = (1-np.exp(0.6*rho*g*CDg*Sto*1/W__S))/(0.04 -
(0.04+CDg/CLr)*(np.exp(0.6*rho*g*CDg*Sto*1/W__S)))*0.5/V_TO

# ROC
ROC = 2
W__P_ROC = 1/(ROC/0.5+1.155/(L__D_max*0.5)*np.sqrt(2*W__S/(rho*math.sqrt(3*CDo/K))))

plt.figure(1, dpi = 100)

plt.plot(W__S_stall/g, W__P)
plt.plot(W__S/g, W__P_sl)
plt.plot(W__S/g, W__P_TO)
plt.plot(W__S/g, W__P_ROC)
plt.xlabel("W/S WING LOADING (kg/m^2)")
plt.ylabel("W/P POWER LOADING (N/Watt)")
plt.legend(["Stall Speed", "Cruise Velocity", "Take Off Run", f"Rate of Climb = {ROC} m/s"])
plt.show()

77
13.4 Second Weight Estimate Calculation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math

# Data Collection
Wo = np.array([13.5, 10.0, 6.8, 16.5, 24, 2.5]) # List of all Full Weight for collected UAV
data
We_Wo = np.array([0.58, 0.44, 0.48, 0.54, 0.34, 0.84]) # List of all Empty Weight Ratios
for collected UAV data
Wb_Wo = np.array([0.34, 0.24, 0.37, 0.28, 0.43, 0.2]) # List of all EBattery Weight Ratios
for collected UAV data
cols = len(Wo)

# Regression Curve Fitting

x = np.column_stack((np.log(Wo), np.ones(cols)))
y = np.log(We_Wo)
B = np.linalg.lstsq(x, y, rcond=None)[0]
L = B[0]
A = math.e**B[1]
print(f"L = {L}, A = {A}")
MSE = (1/cols)*np.sum((np.square(np.subtract(We_Wo,A*Wo**L))))
print(f"MSE = {MSE}")

Wo_x = np.array([0.1*i for i in range(10, 300)])

We_Wo_y = A*Wo_x**L

# Iteration
W_pay = 2.0 # kg
W_batt = 1.5 # kg
W_motor = 550/1000 #kg
W_prop = 54.2/1000 #kg
W_pp = W_batt + W_prop + W_motor ; #kg
We_Wo_est = [0.5]
Wo_est = [(W_pay + W_pp)/(1 - We_Wo_est[0])]
print(f"Initial W_o = {Wo_est[0]}, Initial W_e/W_o = {We_Wo_est[0]}")
j = 0
for i in range(0,40):
We_Wo_est_i = A*Wo_est[i]**L
print(f"Iteration {i}")
print(f"W_o = {Wo_est[i]} kg, Empty Weight Fraction = {We_Wo_est[i]}, Powerplant Weight
Fraction = {W_pp/Wo_est[i]}")
# print(f"Battery Ratio : {W_batt/Wo_est[i]}")
Wo_est_i = (W_pay + W_pp)/(1 - We_Wo_est_i)
if not math.isnan(We_Wo_est_i) and not math.isnan(Wo_est_i) and (Wo_est_i > 0):
We_Wo_est.append(We_Wo_est_i)
Wo_est.append(Wo_est_i)
j = j+1
else:
break
print(f"Final Estimation: W_o = {Wo_est[-1]} kg, Empty Weight Fraction = {We_Wo_est[-1]}")

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)
plt.plot(np.log(Wo_x), np.log(We_Wo_y))
plt.scatter(np.log(Wo), np.log(We_Wo))
plt.scatter(np.log(Wo_est), np.log(We_Wo_est))
plt.xlabel("log(W_o)")
plt.ylabel("log(W_e/W_o)")
plt.show()

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)

78
plt.plot(Wo_x, We_Wo_y)
plt.scatter(Wo, We_Wo)
plt.scatter(Wo_est, We_Wo_est)
plt.xlabel("W_o")
plt.ylabel("W_e/W_o")
plt.show()

plt.figure(1,dpi=100)
plt.plot([i for i in range(0,j+1)], Wo_est)
plt.xlabel("No of iterations")
plt.ylabel("Final Weight W_o (kg)")
plt.show()

79
13.5 Fuselage Length Estimation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import curve_fit

# Define the power law function

def power_law(W, a, c):
return a * np.power(W, c)

# Example data (replace this with your actual data)

weights = np.array([35,20,13.5,7.8]) # W
lengths = np.array([2.8,2.06,1.26,1.3]) # L

# Fit the power law curve to the data

popt, pcov = curve_fit(power_law, weights, lengths)

# Extract the fitted parameters

a_fit, c_fit = popt

# Print the fitted parameters

print("Fitted parameter a:", a_fit)
print("Fitted parameter c:", c_fit)

# Generate points on the fitted curve for plotting

weights_curve = np.linspace(min(weights), max(weights), 100)
lengths_curve = power_law(weights_curve, a_fit, c_fit)

# Plot the data points and the fitted curve

plt.figure(figsize=(8, 6))
plt.scatter(weights, lengths, label=’Data Points’)
plt.plot(weights_curve, lengths_curve, label=’Fitted Power Law Curve’, color=’red’)
plt.xlabel(’Weight ($W_0$)’)
plt.ylabel(’Length (L)’)
plt.title(’Power Law Fit: L = a$W_0$^c’)
plt.legend()

# Choose a point on the curve

chosen_weight = 8.8
chosen_index = np.where(weights_curve<chosen_weight)[-1][-1]
chosen_length = lengths_curve[chosen_index]
plt.scatter(chosen_weight, chosen_length, color=’green’, label=’Chosen Point on Curve’)
plt.annotate(f’({chosen_weight:.2f}, {chosen_length:.2f})’, (chosen_weight, chosen_length),
textcoords="offset points", xytext=(5,5), ha=’center’)
plt.legend()

plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

80
13.6 Conceptual Horizontal Tail Area Sizing Calculation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

alpha = np.linspace(-7, 13, 100)

CM_w = -0.2-0.02*alpha

n = 0.9
CL_a = 0.08
i_w = 1
i_t = -3
e_o = 1.73
de_da = 0.34

V_H = np.array([0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3])
S_w = 0.96
l_t = 1.159
c_w = 0.34
S_t = V_H*S_w*c_w/l_t
CM_Total = []
print(S_t)
for v_h in V_H:
CM_t = n*v_h*CL_a*(i_w+e_o-i_t) - n*v_h*CL_a*alpha*(1-de_da)
CM_total = CM_w + CM_t
CM_Total.append(CM_total)
# plt.figure()
# plt.plot(alpha, CM_total)
# plt.plot(alpha, CM_w)
# plt.xlim([0,13])
# plt.legend(["total", "wing"])
# plt.show()

plt.figure()
plt.plot(alpha, CM_w)
for cm in CM_Total:
plt.plot(alpha, cm)
plt.xlim([0,13])
plt.legend(["only wing", "V_H = 0.4, St = 0.114m^2", "V_H = 0.5, St = 0.144m^2", "V_H =
0.6, St = 0.172m^2", "V_H = 0.7, St = 0.2m^2",
"V_H = 0.8, St = 0.23m^2", "V_H = 0.9, St = 0.258m^2", "V_H = 1.0, St =
0.287m^2", "V_H = 1.1, St = 0.316m^2",
"V_H = 1.2, St = 0.344m^2", "V_H = 1.3, St = 0.373m^2"])
plt.xlabel("alpha")
plt.ylabel("CM_total")
plt.show()

81
13.7 Drag Polar Calculation

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Define parameters
rho = 1.21; #approximate density at height range 50-100m
CLmax = 1.75
AR = 8.3
b = 2.82 # (m)
S = b**2/AR # (m^2)
W = 8.8 # (kg)

n_pos = 3 # Positive limit load factor

n_neg = -1 # Negative limit load factor

V_c = np.sqrt((2*W*n_pos)/(rho*S*CLmax)) # Cornering velocity (ms)

V_b = np.sqrt((2*W*-n_neg)/(rho*S*CLmax))
V_d = 22.5 # Maximum structural limit velocity (m/s)

V_s = np.sqrt((2*W)/(rho*S*CLmax))
print("V stall = ",V_s) # Stall speed (m/s)

# Define range of velocities

V_range = np.linspace(0, V_d, 100)
Vc_range= np.linspace(0, V_c, 100)
Vb_range= np.linspace(0, V_b, 100)

nc = (0.5*rho*S*CLmax*Vc_range**2)/W
nb = -(0.5*rho*S*CLmax*Vb_range**2)/W

# Create V-n diagram plot

plt.figure()
plt.axhline(y=n_pos, color=’r’, linestyle=’--’, label=’Positive Limit’)
plt.axhline(y=n_neg, color=’b’, linestyle=’--’, label=’Negative Limit’)
plt.axvline(x=V_c, color=’g’, linestyle=’--’, label=’Cornering Velocity’)
plt.axvline(x=V_s, color=’m’, linestyle=’--’, label=’Stall Speed’)
plt.axvline(x=V_d, color=’c’, linestyle=’--’, label=’Max Structural Limit’)

plt.plot(Vc_range,nc,’k’)
plt.plot(np.linspace(V_c, V_d, 100),[n_pos for i in range(100)],’k’)
plt.plot([V_d for i in range(100)],np.linspace(n_neg, n_pos, 100),’k’)
plt.plot(np.linspace(V_b, V_d, 100),[n_neg for i in range(100)],’k’)
plt.plot(Vb_range,nb,’k’)

plt.xlim((-5, 30))
plt.ylim((-2, 4))

plt.xlabel(’Velocity (m/s)’)
plt.ylabel(’Load Factor (n)’)
plt.title(’V-n Diagram’)
plt.legend(loc=’center right’)
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

82
Bibliography

[1] Blue Shark F250 4hrs Long Endurance 2500mm Wingspan Electric VTOL UAV
[2] The E384 Mapping Drone
[3] Baykar Bayraktar Mini UAV
[4] Raven B RQ-11
[5] Skywalker X5 Pro
[6] ALBATROSS
[7] JOUAV CW-007
[8] Blue Shark F320
[9] JOUAV CW-015
[10] Mini Shark UAS
[11] DT26M
[12] The Tempest
[13] Puma LE
[14] Rolta Mini UAV
[15] Workswell Wiris Enterprise - Integrated Thermal and Optical Sensor
[16] Prana PM2.5 - Air Quality Monitor
[17] LiPo Battery
[18] Aircraft Performance - Climbing Flight
[19] Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach - Daniel P Raymer
[20] A procedure for Power consumption estimation of multi-rotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
[21] Power required conversion to battery charge
[22] Gimbal for optical stabilization
[23] Deciding the geometric and aerodynamics parameters for UAV
[24] First Weight Estimate Calculation Code
[25] Estimation of Lift and Drag Characteristics of UTM Elang-1 UAV
[26] T-MOTOR AT7215
[27] TF16*8 Propellers
[28] Aircraft design: A Systems Engineering Approach - Mohammad H. Sadraey
[29] Aerodynamics of Finite Wings

83