SAE Aero Design East Competiton 2021

Design Report

FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

Team 057
Group Members:
Lauren Chin
Joseph Figari
Michenell Louis-Charles
Adrian Moya
Jacob Pifer
Sasindu Pinto
Cameron Riley
Noah Wright
 APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Certification of Qualification
Team Name The Geese Team Number 057

School FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

Faculty Advisor Chiang Shih

Faculty Advisor’s
Email shih@[Link]

Statement of Compliance
As faculty Adviser:

S (Initial) I certify that the registered team members are enrolled in collegiate courses.
______

S (Initial) I certify that this team has designed and constructed the radio-controlled aircraft
______
in the past nine (9) months with the intention to use this aircraft in the 2021 SAE Aero Design
competition, without direct assistance from professional engineers, R/C model experts, and/or
related professionals.

S (Initial) I certify that this year’s Design Report has original content written by members of
______
this year’s team.

S (Initial) I certify that all reused content have been properly referenced and is in
______
compliance with the University’s plagiarism and reuse policies.

S (Initial) I certify that the team has used the Aero Design inspection checklist to inspect their
____
aircraft before arrival at Technical Inspection and that the team will present this completed
checklist, signed by the Faculty Advisor or Team Captain, to the inspectors before Technical
Inspection begins.

Chiang Shih
Signature of Faculty Advisor Date

1/22/2021
Signature of Team Captain Date

Note: A copy of this statement needs to be included in your Design Report as page 2 (Reference Section 4.3)
SAE Aero Design 2021 – Page: 47
Contents

1 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Schedule Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Referenced Documents, References, and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Design Layout Trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1 Overall Design Layout and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1 Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Design Features and Details (Subassembly Sizing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.1 Major Design Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2 Wing Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3 Cargo Hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.4 Airfoil Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.5 Propulsion System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.6 Landing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 Loads and Environment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.1 Design Load Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2 Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1 Analysis Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1 Analytical Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2 Developed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2 Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2
 6.2.1 Runway/Launch/Landing Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2 Flight and Maneuver Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3 Shading/Downwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.4 Dynamic and Static Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.5 Aeroelasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.6 Lifting Performance, Payload Prediction, and Margin . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3 Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.1 Applied Loads and Critical Margins Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.2 Mass Properties and Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7 Assembly and Subassembly, Test, and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

3
List of Figures
1 Final Design of the plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Fall Design Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Spring Design Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Functional Decomposition of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Plane Wing Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6 Xfoil Analysis of Airfoils: CL vs AoA Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7 Thrust Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8 Xfoil Analysis of Airfoils: Aerodynamic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9 Ground Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

10 Downwash effects on the wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

11 Turbulence from the fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

12 CM vs AoA plot about CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

13 The set up for finding the moment and shear forces created by the main wing . . . . 20

14 Moment and shear forces plane wings must endure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

15 Bow tie used to connect pieces of the fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

16 Exploded view of the main wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

17 Woodworking technique used to connect the final pieces of the canards . . . . . . . 23

B-1 Payload Prediction Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

List of Tables
1 Symbols and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Table of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Forces experienced by all wings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 Material strength for forces applied in different directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4
 Table 1: Symbols and Acronyms

Symbol Description
L Lift
D Drag
AoA Angle of attack
V Velocity
CL Coefficient of lift
CD Coefficient of drag
CM Coefficient of moment
θ Aileron deflection
δ Rudder deflection
Θ Elevator deflection
Acronym Description
Society of Automotive
SAE
Engineers
Florida Agricultural and
FAMU
Mechanical University
FSU Florida State University
RC Radio Controlled
PLA Polylactic Acid
CAD Computer Aided Design
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CG Center of Gravity
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord
FBD Free Body Diagram
NP Neutral Point
MPH/mph Miles per hour
LE Leading Edge
TE Trailing Edge

5
1 Executive Summary
The design report discusses the design and manufacturing process of the RC plane made for the

SAE Aero Design Competition 2021 - East. We designed the plane to carry a size 5 soccer ball and a

1 lb cargo plate. Our plane weighs 12.3 lb without cargo and is 64.4 inches long. The team expects

the plane to take off within 60 ft. To make our plane innovative, the team decided to use a canard

wing as a secondary lift-producing wing, which is unusual for a cargo plane. We also decided to

use woodworking techniques and geometric connection methods instead of mechanical fasteners

to connect certain wing sections. Our cargo bay is between the canard and the main wing, closer

to the CG of the plane, which is near the LE of the main wing. We primarily used SolidWorks,

MATLAB, and xFoil for designing, and Cura for 3-D printing. Our goal is to show a different

approach to creating and constructing RC cargo planes instead of using a conventional design

and assembly. The following is the final design of the airplane.

Figure 1: Final Design of the plane

6
2 Schedule Summary
We focused on research of different aircraft configurations and manufacturing processes in Septem-

ber and selected our concept in early December. While some team members were developing the

CAD, others were focused on the electrical and mechanical components such as the motor circuit

and control surface servo selection. Our main build material is slated to arrive by January 15th,

following which we started printing the nose and fuselage. Assembly is slated to begin by the end

of January, likely beginning with the fuselage and nose of the aircraft. Electronics installation and

wing assembly will take place simultaneously. Assembly is expected to be finished by the third

week of February.

Figure 2: Fall Design Schedule

Figure 3: Spring Design Schedule

7
3 Referenced Documents, References, and Specifications

Table 2: Table of References

Reference Description

[Link]. (2020). Retrieved Purpose(s): C M , CL and CD values for

November 2020, from: airfoil profiles
[Link] Section(s): 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 6.2.1

Anderson, J.D. (2011). Fundamentals of Purpose(s): Lift and drag equations,

Aerodynamics. 5th Edition New York, static and dynamic stability
NY. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Section(s): 5.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6

ColorFabb: LW-PLA Natural. (2020). Purpose(s): LW-PLA material properties

Retrieved October 2020, from: https: Section(s): 6.3, 7, 8
//[Link]/lw-pla-natural
Flite Test: How Ground Effect Vehicles
Work. (2018) Retrieved January 2021, Purpose(s): Ground effect information
from [Link] Section(s): 6.2.3
articles/ground-effect
Lennon, A. (1999). Basics of RC model Purpose(s): Wing design research,
aircraft design: practical techniques for control surface configuration research
building better models. Ridgefiled, CT. Section(s): 6.2.2, 6.2.5
Air Age Inc.

Sadraey, M.H. (2013). Aircraft Design: Purpose(s) Control surface

A Systems Engineering Approach. 1st configuration research, lift and drag
Edition. Nashua, NH. John Wiley and equations
Suns Ltd. Section(s): 6.2.1, 6.2.2

The Engineering ToolBox: Air

Properties. (2020). Retrieved December Purpose(s): Air pressure at different
2020, from altitudes to calculate air density
[Link] Section(s): 6.2.6
com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_
[Link]

8
4 Design Layout Trades

4.1 Overall Design Layout and Size

Following research and calculations, we decided to use a canard - main wing - tail wing layout.

Our team decided to install the canard as a mid wing to improve its effect on the CG, and the main

wing as a high wing to reduce the effect of the wake from the canard. We decided to use a t-tail

configuration for the tail section of the plane, as this would reduce the effect of the wake from the

canard and the main wing on the horizontal section of the tail wing. While a bigger main wing

would produce more lift, in have a canard layout, we needed the aspect ratio of the canard to be

lower than the aspect ratio of the main wing. Lower aspect ratios result in a higher stall angle,

which is what we desired with our canard. We decided to add ailerons to each main wing for roll

control, a rudder to the horizontal part of the tail wing for yaw control, and an elevator that spans

across the entire length of the horizontal part of the tail wing for pitch control. The Aileron span is

12.25 in, while the elevator and rudder spans are 47.5 in and 8 in respectively. Our propeller size

is 18 × 10E.

4.2 Optimization

4.2.1 Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis

We decided to not taper the wings of our plane to maximize lift. This was possible as we have

two lift producing wings, hence each one does not have to be very large. However, we decided

to change the wingspans and the chord lengths to optimize the stability of our design and to fit

our printer restrictions. We optimized the tail wing chord and wingspan to get the CG position to

within 25% of the distance between the MAC of the canard and the main wing. Furthermore, we

accounted the locations of the soccer ball and the 1 lb weight plate to ensure that the CG position

will remain within the stability margin. For our design, the CG position had a margin of 2 in

forward and 6 in backwards.

9
4.3 Design Features and Details (Subassembly Sizing)

Figure 4: Functional Decomposition of the Project

We created the above functional decomposition to determine the systems we need to take into

account in the design [Link] was created following research on aircraft design and function-

ality. The major systems of our plane describe the key functions of our plane: takeoff, cruising,

landing, and carrying a payload. The minor systems describe the actions our plane need to do

to achieve major system functions. Based on these major and minor systems, we continued our

design work.

4.3.1 Major Design Elements

With an eye for innovation, the team decided to add a canard to the plane. Our university’s planes

haven’t taken off in previous years so the team went outside the box to create extra lift. The team

decided to model the plane after the Rutan Quickie Q2. Through research it was found that our

original design of the plane was unstable. To solve this issue a tail wing was added, which will be

discussed further in the Stability Section (6.2.4)

4.3.2 Wing Layout

Our team’s aircraft has three lift surfaces consisting of canards, a main wing, and a t-tail. The

canards of our aircraft are straight and rectangular. We decided to add a canard to reduce the lift

10
load of the main wing and also to create a positive moment from the front of the plane during

takeoff, which will reduce the workload of the elevator. The canards are strictly lift surfaces so

they do not include any control surfaces. Furthermore, the addition of the canard reduced the

wingspan of the main wing, which makes the wing less susceptible for flexing. The main wing

of our aircraft is also straight and rectangular in shape. This lift surface will include ailerons to

control rotation about the roll axis. After running preliminary stability calculations, a t-tail was

included in our aircraft’s design. The t-tail’s purpose is to increase the stability of our aircraft and

to re-position the center of gravity closer to the back of the aircraft. This reduces the wake on the

horizontal section of the tail wing.

Figure 5: Plane Wing Dimensions

4.3.3 Cargo Hold

Due to the two wing layout, a top loading mechanism was designed. To do this a hatch was placed

on top of the fuselage between the canards and the main wings. In putting it here, the cargo will

placed at the plane’s CG. This in turn will not make the plane unstable.

4.3.4 Airfoil Selection

Given the canard-main wing-tail wing layout, we decided to use asymmetric profiles for the ca-

nard and the main wing as they are predominant lifting wings, and a symmetric profile for the

11
tail wing as it is a stabilizer. We decided to use high lift profiles for the canard and the main wing

to increase lift, while making sure that the canard has a lower stall angle of attack and a lower

zero-lift angle of attack compared to the main wing. For the tail wing, we decided to use a profile

with a high angle of attack as the tail wing is designed to stabilize the plane even when the canard

and/or the main wing are near stall. We decided to use Eppler E214 airfoil for the canard, Eppler

E197 airfoil for the main wing, and Eppler 168 airfoil for the tail wing. Based on the CL vs AoA

Plot below (figure 6), our canard goes into stall before the main wing. Therefore, our airfoil profile

selection is valid for our wing layout.

Figure 6: Xfoil Analysis of Airfoils: CL vs AoA Plot

4.3.5 Propulsion System

The battery and motor were the two most important parts assessed for propulsion. The Onyx

22.2V 4000mAh 6S 30C LiPo Battery and E-flite 22.2V 5000mAh 6S 40C Thrust VSI LiPo Battery.

These batteries have the same voltage, however the E-flite offers more current and a higher dis-

charge rate. The Onyx is lighter, and was ultimately selected for financial reasons, as it is strong

enough and was already owned by the college. Two motors were analyzed as well, the E-flite

Power 90 Brushless Outrunner 325Kv and the E-flite Power 160 Brushless Outrunner 245Kv. Hav-

ing the same manufacturer, the Power 160 is a stronger model, that comes with more weight at

12
a higher price. The team believed the Power 90 strong enough for our plane, and was selected

for budget reasons as well, because it was already owned by the university. Before finalizing the

components a thrust test was conducted with our equipment, as shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Thrust Test Setup

This setup features our motor, *an E-Flite Power-90*, attached to a fulcrum with two identi-

cal arms; one of the arms attached to the motor and the latter placed on a scale to measure the

outputting thrust force. This was done to ensure that there was no mechanical advantage in play.

Not shown in the figure but used in the setup were an electronic speed controller, a power lim-

iter(limiting 1000 W to the motor as per the rule book), a receiver, and a red arming plug for safety.

This setup was used to test a variety of different propellers to see which one generated the most

thrust. Through this testing we found that the 18x10E propeller provided the most thrust at 222

lbf, which is higher than our necessary thrust calculated in section 5.2.3.

4.3.6 Landing Gear

We considered tail-dragger and front tricycle landing gear configurations. Through considering

what is required at the competition, we selected the front tricycle configuration. Since the com-

petition requires the plane to be steerable on the ground, having the single wheel at the front of

the plane will make this easier for the operator. Having the single wheel ahead of the planes CG

13
also helps in keeping the plane from falling forward and breaking the propeller. The CG in this

location helps correct the direction of the plane as well. If it is behind the single wheel, the iner-

tia of the plane keeps it moving in the desired direction. We decided to distribute the weight 1:4

between the front and rear landing gears, as the rear landing gear is closer to the CG.

5 Loads and Environment Assumptions

5.1 Design Load Derivatives

Based on calculations, the team expect the plane to produce 31.4 lbf of drag. For our propeller,

with the aforementioned drag, we expect an acceleration of 11.24 ft/s for our plane. We decided to

use aluminum for our landing gears. With stall speed for our plane being 9.23 mph, with a safety

factor of 1.3, our plane generates a total impact force of 465.84 lbf, with half of that applied to each

rear landing gear, which We expect aluminum landing gears to withstand.

5.2 Environmental Considerations

We used typical cross-wind conditions expected in Lakeland,FL (9.6 mph average velocity) for yaw

stability calculations during landing. However, given that the team does not expect to fly at a high

altitude, air conditions considered for the majority of the calculations are standard air properties

at sea level. Based on our thrust analysis, our plane can withstand a 10 mph headwind during

takeoff. Therefore we expect our plane to withstand normal wind conditions in Lakeland.

14
6 Analysis

6.1 Analysis Technique

6.1.1 Analytical Tools

We decided to use MATLAB and Solidworks in conjunction for the analysis process, including the

CFD tools in SolidWorks, and xFoil to evaluate lift and drag properties of the wings.

6.1.2 Developed Models

We used takeoff, flight maneuvering and landing models for the performance calculations done

using MATLAB. The take off and landing model was analysed for standard sea level conditions,

while maneuvering was done for equilibrium AoA of the plane at a 31.4 ft altitude.

6.2 Performance Analysis

6.2.1 Runway/Launch/Landing Performance

For our aircraft CL /CD value, which is considered the aerodynamic performance value for an

aircraft, is maximum around 5° as shown in figure 8 below. Hence, we decided to use 5° as the

takeoff angle of attack for our plane. For the maximum drag generated by the plane (31.4 lbf at

25 mph) we expect our plane to reach the desired 25 mph speed in 3.27 seconds, and 59.8 ft from

the launch position. We have designed the plane to achieve its desired 5 ° AoA with 25 ° elevator

deflection. The plane is expected to reach the desired flying altitude of 40 ft 12.48 seconds after

launch. We included crosswind conditions expected in Lakeland, FL for landing analysis. Our

plane takes 20.4 seconds to land, and travels 358.6 ft during approach. Once on the ground, we

expect the plane to decelerate at 1.9 ft/s with just drag force, coming to a complete stop in 364.5 ft

15
 Figure 8: Xfoil Analysis of Airfoils: Aerodynamic Performance

6.2.2 Flight and Maneuver Performance

We will be using ailerons on each main wing while the rudder can be used to supplement aileron

motion. We decided to use differential control for our ailerons, to avoid yaw instability in roll

motion. We designed for 1:2.5 differential setting, with the maximum deflection angle (upwards)

of an aileron been 20 °. The roll rate of our plane is 8.7 deg/s.

6.2.3 Shading/Downwash

In ground effect, during takeoff as the angle of attack increases the coefficient of lift increases;

however, as the angle of attack increases the coefficient of drag increases as a squared effect. To

avoid our airplane abruptly sinking to the runway once ground effect is left, we had to ensure

that our airplane was producing enough thrust to maintain stable airspeed for climbing. Based

on figure 9 below, our plane has relatively low vortices causing airflow disturbances. Therefore,

we determined that clearance between our propeller and the ground is sufficient. We estimate

our propeller to produce 222 lbf of static thrust through testing. The required thrust to reach our

desired takeoff speed is 154 lbf of thrust; and the net thrust we are able to produce including drag

16
is 196 lbf. Based on these values, we concluded that there is sufficient thrust to escape ground

effect using the reduced induced drag of the phenomena to our advantage.

Figure 9: Ground Effects

Figure 10: Downwash effects on the wings

To further analyse downwash effects, we studied CFD across the wings as shown in figure 10.

The turbulence for our design is relatively small, with a turbulence intensity of under 2%. Even

at that intensity, downwash effect from the canard on the main wing is not significant as shown

above. We decided to analyse the flow over the fuselage to determine the turbulence created by

the fuselage. The main turbulence region is behind the plane as shown below. Furthermore, this

validates the design consideration in placing the tail wing on the top of the vertical section of the

tail, as downwash from the canard and the main wing is not effecting the horizontal tail wing.

17
 Figure 11: Turbulence from the fuselage

6.2.4 Dynamic and Static Stability

We calculated stability about the center of gravity (CG) of the plane. We decided to vary the

battery location to get CM vs AoA plot that has a positive trim and a negative gradient. Positive

trim means that our plane will have a positive moment even when the AoA is zero. A negative

gradient leads to a decrease in CM , which means that the moment about CG of the plane will be

zero at a positive AoA. We plotted CM vs AoA initially for a canard-main wing layout without

a tail wing. However, for the proportions and the design considered, we did not get a negative

gradient for the plot. To get the desired value, we decided to add a tail wing for the plane. As the

takeoff AoA was 5°, we desired a equilibrium angle of attack below that value. Following multiple

adjustments to the tail wing and the battery location, we ended up with the following CM vs AoA

plot for our design. Based on the plot below, we get a positive moment coefficient of 0.17 at 0°

AoA. Our equilibrium AoA is 3.125°. For differential ailerons discussed in section 6.2.2, our plane

reach roll stability at 10 ° roll angle. We added a dorsal fin to improve yaw stability (discussed in

6.2.1). We calculated the neutral point (NP) of the plane at different angles of attack to ensure that

the plane is stable, and NP for our design is behind the CG position before equilibrium AoA as

desired.

18
 Figure 12: C M vs AoA plot about CG

6.2.5 Aeroelasticity

As our plane is light weight, and that our maximum Reynolds number is 1.8 × 106 , we expect

large aerodynamic forces on our plane. Aerodynamic forces could cause the AoA of our plane

to change, which is called divergence. We considered this in pitch stability calculations, which

led to the addition of a tail wing and adjusting the dimensions of the canard and the main wing,

Control surface movement cause a change in induced drag, which would cause a aerodynamic

moment, creating a yaw instability. We considered this control reversal in setting the control

surface deflection angles, which led to the 2.5:1 differential setting for our ailerons’ deflection

angles. Aerodynamic forces could cause vibrations on the plane, especially on the wings. We

decided to include 2 spars going through the entire length on each wing to reduce this vibration

effect, fluttering. Furthermore, this would reduce flexibility of the wings.

6.2.6 Lifting Performance, Payload Prediction, and Margin

We assumed that the lift generated by the fuselage is small relative to lift produced by the wings.

We expect our plane to produce 15.9 lbf of lift at equilibrium (3.125° AoA) and 20.9 lbf of lift during

take off (at 5° AoA). We predicted the payload for our plane using equilibrium AoA and air density

19
at different altitudes. Lift from all 3 wings were considered as the plane AoA is not zero. As lift is

a function of dynamic pressure, which is a function of air density, we used this varying air density

to get payload prediction at different altitudes. Accordingly, we plotted payload prediction for our

plane (in Appendix B). We expect our plane to can carry a 13 lb weight at about 100 ft. Therefore,

we expect our plane to fly with our 2 lb cargo load at the 40 ft altitude we plan on flying.

6.3 Structural Analysis

6.3.1 Applied Loads and Critical Margins Discussion

Figure 13: The set up for finding the moment and shear forces created by the main wing

When using additive manufacturing to build something that must endure some sort of load, the

direction the parts are printed must be heavily considered. 3D printing can be thought of as layers

of filament that are stacked on top of each other. With this being the case it can be very easy to

break a part when a force is applied perpendicular to the printing direction. All that would need

to happen for failure to occur would be two layers separating. Because of this the direction parts

were printed in was heavily considered throughout the design of the plane. Arguably the most

vulnerable parts of the plane are the wings. To test the forces each set of wings must endure,

the wings were modeled as beams attached to a wall, with a distributed load under the beam as

20
shown in the force diagram above (figure 13). This was to simulate a single wing attached to the

fuselage of the plane, with the distributed load (0.1101 lb/in)being the lift created by the wing. The

setup for the main wings is shown above. Once the figures were created, the shear moment forces

experienced at the connection point of the wing the fuselage were found.

Figure 14: Moment and shear forces plane wings must endure

In the graphs, the x-axis is the length of the wing. 0 is the tip of the wing and 37.5 in the connection

point at the fuselage. This calculation was made for each set of wings. The table below shows the

magnitude of the forces each set will experience.

Table 3: Forces experienced by all wings

Wing: Moment (lb x in): Shear (lb):
Canard: 77.414 4.129
Main: 38.938 3.115
Tail: 19.178 1.615

A three point bending test and a torsion test were both done on samples of our printing filament.

These were done since these are the two main stresses the plane will have to endure. The tests were

done using samples printed at the same settings the plane parts will be printed at. The results of

the tests are shown bellow. The stress direction refers to the direction the stress was applied with

21
respect to the printing direction of the sample.

Table 4: Material strength for forces applied in different directions

Stress Direction: Shear Strength (psi): Flexural Strength (psi):
Perpendicular 3,380 471
Parallel 6,120 552

As shown in the table, printing direction must be heavily considered. For easier assembly and

more strength, the wings are also assembled using two 6061 Aluminum spars per wing set. With

this being the case, the team is confident the wings will remain intact during flight.

6.3.2 Mass Properties and Balance

The weight of our plane without a cargo load is 10.8 lbs. and the CG position is 33 in from the

leading edge of the nose and 3.3 in from the top of the fuselage. As the CG is just in front of the

main wing, we expect the lift produced by the main wing of the plane to counter the majority of

the weight of the plane, as desired during the planning stage.

7 Assembly and Subassembly, Test, and Integration

Figure 15: Bow tie used to connect pieces of the fuselage

Due to size constraints in 3D printing the plane, the aircraft was broken down into modular pieces.

To connect pieces of the fuselage, small parts named bow ties were made to screw the parts to-

gether. The figure above shows one. To use the bow tie, screw threads had to be soldered into the

parts of the fuselage being connected. A screw was then put through the holes of the bow tie and

22
screwed into the threads in the plane body. This added minimal weight to the plane and made

it possible to assemble the fuselage. Each set of wings has 2 spars running from one tip to other

other to increase rigidity of the wings as explained in section 6.3.1. Small crosses were also made

to help lock the parts of the wings in place. These pieces again added minimal weight to the plane

but helped in keeping the prints of the wing in place. This is shown in the exploded view below.

Figure 16: Exploded view of the main wing

The same assembly method was done for the canard and the tail. We divided the main wing

into 5 pieces on each side, and we divided the canard into 3 pieces on each side. As the tail wing is

on top of the tail section of the plane, we divided the entire tail wing into 7 pieces. For the canards,

the final piece of the wing was connected using a dove tail joint. This is a common woodworking

technique, and the team decided to explore the possibility of doing this in making RC planes. The

figure below shows how the pieces connected.

Figure 17: Woodworking technique used to connect the final pieces of the canards

The joint consists of a male female end on the parts. The male end is slid into place from the

front of the wing. As the plane will only be moving forward during flight, this keeps the wing part

23
locked in place. This connection method was only used on the final piece to validate its usability.

8 Manufacturing
Using additive manufacturing to build an RC airplane is a nontraditional construction method.

When doing so, a person must make sure the parts designed to assemble the plane are printable.

Arguably the most important decision is what filament to use. The team considered PLA and

light weight PLA (LW-PLA). PLA is a very common material used in additive manufacturing, as

it is easy to use, relatively cheap, and prints accurately, but heavy. LW-PLA is a newer printing

material made by the company colorFabb that foams when it leaves the printing nozzle, reducing

the density and weight of the part. As we want a lighter plane, LW-PLA was chosen for print-

ing. This material however can be difficult to print with. If the wrong printing settings are used

warping can occur, resulting in a bad print. colorFabb has recommendations regarding things like

printing temperatures and print speed to keep warping from happening. Between the company’s

recommendations and advice from last year’s team, the plane’s parts were printed at a tempera-

ture of 230°C and a speed of 30 mm/s. The Lulzbot printers used for this project were also placed

in plastic containers to keep changes room temperature or humidity from affecting the prints as

well. In doing so parts we were able to print accurately with the benefits of LW-PLA.

9 Conclusion
Following research on various designs and initial calculations, we decided to go with a canard-

main wing-tail wing layout. The dimensions were adjusted to improve stability of the plane, while

staying within the stability margin. Other than the addition of a canard, we decided to use wood-

working techniques for assembly. We decided to include the cargo plane between the canard and

the main wing to further improve stability. Overall, we believe that these design decisions have

made our plane unique while producing a stable plane that can fly.

24
Appendix A - Backup Calculations

A-1
A-2
A-3
Appendix B - Technical Data Sheet
Team Name: The Geese Team Number: 057

School: FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

The following is the payload prediction plot we generated. Steps we had taken to generate the

plot and its outcomes are discussed in section 5.2.6

Payload Prediction Curve Density Altitude

16
14
12
Payload (lbs)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Density Altitude (ft)

Figure B-1: Payload Prediction Plot

B-1
 4 3 2 1

SERVO 1
2 3 SOCCER
BALL

SUMMARY DATA WEIGHTED

WINGSPAN 75 1 PLATE
EMPTY WEIGHT 23 SERVO 3
Plane Drawing

BATTERY CAPACITY 6S LIPO 4000 MAH 5

MOTOR E-FLIGHT Power 90
B MAKE/MODEL BRUSHLESS B
MOTOR KV 325
PROPELLER APC 18X10E
SERVO KST X10
A
SERVO 4
6
DETAIL A
4
SERVO 2

C-1
CG LOCTION 64.30
STATIC MARGIN FROM DATUM A
UNLOADED 0.15 34.8 in
LOADED 0.13 34.2 in 26.61

A WEIGHT AND BALANCE A

X DISTANCE FROM MOMENT FROM DATUM UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: NAME DATE
ITEM DATUM A (IN) WEIGHT (LB) (LB-IN) DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DRAWN BY AM 1/25/21
SUBASSEMBLIES SERVO 1 34.8 0.0625 2.175 TOLERANCES:
FRACTIONAL 0.08 in REVISED BY TITLE:
BALLOON #: ITEM SERVO 2 34.8 0.0625 2.175
SERVO 3 60.2 0.0625 3.763 REVISED BY
1 NOSE SERVO 4 61.3 0.0625 3.831 REVISED BY
Assembly
2 CANARD ESC 3.5 0.1656 0.580 MATERIAL: REVISED BY
RECIEVER 3.5 0.0175 0.061
TEAM NAME: TEAM NUMBER:
3 MAIN WING MOTOR 2.5 0.9880 2.470 LIGHTWEIGHT PLA
AND ALUMINIUM THE GEESE 57 SIZE DWG. NO. REV
4 FUSELAGE BATTERY 40.0 1.2750 51.0
PAYLOAD (SOCCER BALL) 23.3 1.000 23.3
5 RUDDER SCHOOL NAME: B 1 1
PAYLOAD 45.1 1.000 45.1 FAMU-FSU COLLEGE OF
6 TAIL WING (WEIGHTED PLATE) ENGINEERING SCALE: 1:12 WEIGHT: 10.8LBS SHEET 1 OF 1

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only.

4 3 2 1