AIAA 2015-2858

AIAA Aviation
22-26 June 2015, Dallas, TX
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference

A Launch System Design Methodology for

Small Unmanned Aircraft Applications
Aaron J. Patterson1 and Andrew S. Arena, Jr.2
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK

Unmanned Aircraft Systems are becoming more common in academic and

commercial fields. Some small groups may not have access to UAS facilities and require a
catapult launch system for field deployment. Launch systems are available commercially,
but may be too expensive or not suitable for custom aircraft. They can be quickly and easily
designed using basic system modeling. “Launch Efficiency” is a simple concept that can be
used to compare launch designs. Proper sizing for takeoff velocity and aircraft loads is
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

necessary to cater to a particular UAV. Different systems for small unmanned aircraft
include weight and pulley, spring, and pneumatic systems. A well-designed catapult launch
system can make deploying a new UAV easy and affordable.

Nomenclature

𝐴 = piston cross-sectional area

𝐴𝑜 = orifice or valve area
𝐷 = pipe diameter
𝐹 = force
𝑓𝑘 = frictional force
𝐺 = G-loading, or gravity-specific force exerted on the aircraft
𝑔 = gravitational constant (32.174 lbs/slug, 9.81 N/kg)
ℎ𝑊 = drop height for weights in a weight and pulley launch system
𝑘 = spring constant
𝐿 = stroke length, the powered length of a launch system
𝑀 = Mach number
𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 = atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi, 101 kPa)
𝑃𝑜 = initial tank pressure (gauge)
𝑅 = specific gas constant
𝑇 = temperature
𝑡 = time
𝑉 = velocity
𝑉𝑜 = tank volume
𝑊 = weight
𝑥 = stroke position, the position of the aircraft along the length of the stroke
𝑥𝐺 = stroke position of maximum G-loading
𝜂𝐿 = launch efficiency
𝜂𝑝 = pulley ratio
𝛾 = specific heat ratio (1.4 for air)

1
Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 218 Engineering North, AIAA Student
member
2
Professor and T.J. Cunningham Endowed Chair, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 218
Engineering North, AIAA Associate Fellow

Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 I. Introduction

C atapult launch systems have a long history, preceding even that of aircraft. The concept of taking an aerodynamic
object and imparting kinetic energy to it can be traced back to the hunting bow developed before recorded history.
The Wright Brothers made use of a weight and pulley system to launch the first heavier-than-air flight in 1903.
Today, aircraft carriers commonly launch aircraft using steam catapults 1 and recently, electromagnetic catapults.2,3
Small unmanned aircraft generally weigh less than 200 lbs.4 The launch systems in this paper may be applied to
larger aircraft according to the discretion of the designer. The reasons to catapult launch a UAV are various and may
include:

 The aircraft’s reduced range requires it to be deployed near an area of interest where there is not a suitable
runway.
 A proper runway may not be a luxury available to the developer.
 The aircraft’s configuration may preclude the gear required for conventional takeoff.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

An aircraft catapult launch system seeks to accomplish two goals: impart sufficient kinetic energy to the aircraft,
and do so without compromising the structural integrity of the aircraft.5 The primary launcher types investigated in
this paper include weight and pulley launchers, spring launchers, and pneumatic launchers. Weight and pulley launch
systems are distinguishable by their relative simplicity, generally do not require a dissipation system, and are suitable
for very small aircraft. Spring launchers are usually lightweight and also relatively simplistic, but are also only suitable
for very small aircraft. Pneumatic launchers can drive heavy aircraft to high speeds with a lighter system weight than
a weight and pulley system and a gentler load than spring based systems. Understanding the interaction of these launch
systems with the aircraft is key to designing a compact, robust launch system. While much work has been done on the
design of electromagnetic launch systems,6-11 they may be too expensive or require too many custom parts for smaller
UAS operators.

II. Trade Study

Many launch systems for UAS are already commercially available. Fig. (1) is a table of common available
launchers and their manufacturers.12-17 In cases where the manufacturer did not specify a system parameter, it is
listed as “N/S”.

Manufacturer Type of Launcher Supported TOW Stroke Length Velocity

UAV Factory Pneumatic 77.2 lbs 13.1 ft 41.4 mph
UAV Factory Pneumatic 132.2 lbs 19.7 ft 41.4 mph
Eli Military Simulations Pneumatic 44 lbs 13.12 ft 34.9 mph
Arcturus UAV Pneumatic 200 lbs 16 ft N/S
Insitu Inc. Pneumatic N/S 17.83 ft N/S
Insitu Inc. Pneumatic N/S 14.43 ft N/S
Aeromao Spring 11.8 lbs 9.2 ft N/S
Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation Spring 17.6 lbs N/S 33.4 mph
Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation Pneumatic 330 lbs N/S 62.7 mph
Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation Pneumatic 660 lbs N/S 76.4 mph
Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation Pneumatic 1102 lbs N/S 145.2 mph
Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation Pneumatic 882 lbs N/S 156.8 mph
Figure 1. Catapult Launch System Trade Study
Other manufacturers offering launch systems included UAV Solutions,18 Robonic,19 and Unmanned Systems
Source,20 but they provided no specifications for their launch systems. It is noteworthy that none of the
manufacturers provided specifications for loads experienced by the aircraft. For a given stroke length and velocity,
the loads can be calculated using the formulae presented in this paper.
Another interesting thing to note is the scarcity of spring launch systems and weight and pulley launch systems.
Weight and pulley launch systems are commonly custom built since they are more suitable for the smallest aircraft.
Spring launchers are scarce due to their inefficiency, which will be demonstrated later in this paper.

-2-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Idealized Launch System
Before applying mechanical properties and principles to a launch system, it is helpful to develop an ideal, general
model for launch systems in order to gain a baseline understanding of system requirements and a metric for comparing
various launch methods. There are two general approaches to launch system analysis: an impulse-momentum approach
and a work-energy approach.4,5
The impulse-momentum approach is generally grounded in the time domain. The fundamental idea behind the
impulse-momentum approach is that a force occurring per unit time causes a change in momentum. This can be
expressed in equation form:

𝑡
𝑊
∫ 𝐹(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 = ∆𝑉 (1)
𝑔
0

While this approach is compatible with dynamics modeling and time dependent sensors, the force imparted by a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

launch system as a function of time is rarely available immediately and is generally found experimentally or indirectly
through mathematical means.
The other approach, which is predominantly used in this paper, is the work-energy approach. The fundamental
idea behind a work-energy approach is that a launch system produces useful work which is converted into kinetic
energy. This is expressed by the following equation:
𝐿
1𝑊
∫ 𝐹(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝑉2 (2)
2𝑔
0

L represents the length of stroke of the launcher, and x represents the aircraft’s position along the length of the
stroke. Many mechanical systems may be readily described by force as a function of position, notably springs:21
1
𝐹𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑥) = 𝑘(𝐿 − 𝑥)2
2

This equation accomplishes the first goal of launch system design, imparting sufficient kinetic energy to the
aircraft. The second goal of launch system design is to obtain this kinetic energy without compromising the structural
integrity of the aircraft. System-wide aircraft loads are most often described in terms of the overall G-loading, or the
dimensionless ratio of the force experienced by the aircraft to the force of gravity exerted on the aircraft. It is desirable
to limit the maximum G-load experienced by the aircraft during the launch to some pre-designed limit. The maximum
G-load of any launch system is a function of the maximum force exerted by the launch system and the weight of the
aircraft:

𝐹(𝑥𝐺 )
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (3)
𝑊

𝑥𝐺 is the stroke position at which the maximum launch force is exerted and thus the maximum G-load. With
these two equations, an ideal launch system can be described.
An ideal launch system is one in which the launch force is constant. A constant launch force will produce the
maximum amount of kinetic energy for the maximum allowable G-loading. The launch profile for an ideal system is
graphed in Fig. (2). Deviations from a constant force will require the launcher to have a longer stroke in order to attain
the same kinetic energy while staying below maximum G-loading. This deviation can be quantified and termed
“Launch Efficiency.” Launch efficiency is not to be confused with energy efficiency, but is the efficiency with which
a launcher creates kinetic energy for a maximum allowable G-loading. This can be quantified by taking the ratio of
the kinetic energy developed by a given launcher and the kinetic energy that would have been gathered at maximum
G-loading.
𝐾𝐸
𝜂𝐿 =
𝐾𝐸𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

-3-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 2. Ideal Launch Profile

For a constant stroke length, the ratio of kinetic energies is equal to the ratio of average G-loading to maximum
G-loading:

𝐾𝐸 ∫ 𝐹(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 𝐹𝑎𝑣𝑔 ∙𝐿 𝑊∙𝐺𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝐺𝑎𝑣𝑔

𝜂𝐿 = = = = =
𝐾𝐸𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙𝐿 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙𝐿 𝑊∙𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

Note that by this standard, a constant force launcher has a 100% launch efficiency. For other launchers where the
average G-loading is not immediately apparent, it can be calculated:

𝐿
𝐹(𝑥)
∫ 𝑑𝑥
𝐿
0
𝜂𝐿 = (4)
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥

By examining the results of this equation

graphically in Fig. (3), one can gain a certain
intuition about how easy or difficult it will be to
launch an aircraft using a particular system
driver.
This graph was generated by holding a
constant stroke and varying the force profile.
However, in practice the stroke would be
extended in order to maintain the required
takeoff speed. This means that an inefficient
launcher will require additional stroke length to
reach the required takeoff speed for a given G-
load limit. In fact, the additional stroke required
is proportional to the efficiency. A 25% efficient
launcher would require four times the stroke
length that an ideal launcher would.
Therefore, in the interest of keeping a short
stroke for compactness of a launcher, it is
desirable to maximize launch efficiency
whenever possible. Figure 3. Launch Profiles of Various Efficiencies

-4-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Weight and Pulley Launch Systems
Weight and pulley launch systems have the advantage of being very simple to model and easy to adjust in the
event of miscalculations or changes. The energy source of a weight and pulley system is the gravitational potential
energy stored in a hoisted weight. The fall of the weight transfers the potential energy to the kinetic energy of the
aircraft.
The force output by a weight and pulley launch system is modeled by the equation:

𝐹(𝑥) = 𝑊𝑊 𝜂𝑝

where 𝑊𝑊 is the heavy weight, and 𝜂𝑝 is the pulley ratio. Notice that the force is not actually a function of
stroke position 𝑥 and is constant for the duration of the stroke. This means that a weight and pulley launch system
has a launch efficiency 𝜂𝐿 = 100%. The stroke length for a weight and pulley system is the minimum stroke length
for which the G-limit is maintained.
Using the launch energy equation:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

𝐿 1 𝑊𝐴
∫0 𝐹(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 2 𝑉2
𝑔

𝐿
1 𝑊𝐴 2
∫ 𝑊𝑊 𝜂𝑝 𝑑𝑥 = 𝑉
0 2 𝑔

1 𝑊𝐴 2
𝑊𝑊 𝜂𝑝 𝐿 = 𝑉
2 𝑔

The pulley ratio is the ratio of the height of the weight dropped to the launch stroke length:

ℎ𝑊
𝜂𝑝 =
𝐿

The system requirements are then defined:

1 𝑊𝐴
𝑊𝑊 ℎ𝑊 = 𝑉2 (5)
2 𝑔

Only the aircraft weight and takeoff velocity is required to determine the weight and height requirements for a
weight and pulley launcher. The weight and height may then be chosen so that their product creates the required
launch velocity. The weight and height may be chosen for various reasons. For example, it may be considered
unsafe to hoist heavy weights above a particular height. On the other hand, if the launch system is mobile, there may
be stringent requirements on the allowable weight.
The maximum G-load of an existing system is equal to the maximum force exerted by the weight and pulley
launch system:
𝐹(𝑥𝐺 ) 𝑊𝑊 𝜂𝑝 𝑊𝑊 ℎ𝑊
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = =
𝑊𝐴 𝑊𝐴 𝑊𝐴 𝐿

By choosing a maximum G-loading, the stroke length may be determined:

𝑊𝑊 ℎ𝑊
𝐿=
𝑊𝐴 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

The numerator is the potential energy from the earlier equation:

1 𝑊𝐴 2
( 𝑉 )
2 𝑔
𝐿=
𝑊𝐴 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

-5-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 𝑉2
𝐿= (6)
2𝑔𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

It is interesting to note that the stroke length does not depend on aircraft weight. Both the energy and stroke
parameters, however, vary as a function of 𝑉 2 . A weight and pulley launcher is highly sensitive to velocity.
Mistakes in velocity calculation are not easily reconciled by varying max G-loading or aircraft weight. The weight
may be made easily variable by using a container of dense fluid, such as water.

V. Spring Launch Systems

Spring launch systems are usually lightweight and highly mobile, owing to the high energy density of steel
springs. While many types of springs exist, linear springs are the most common and are therefore the springs
modeled in this section.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

The force generated by a spring is proportional to how far it has been stretched:

𝐹(𝑥) = 𝑘𝑥

From the force equation, the launch efficiency can be calculated:

𝐿
𝐿 𝐹(𝑥) 1 1
∫0 𝑑𝑥
𝐿
∫0 𝑘𝑥𝑑𝑥 | 𝑘𝑥 2 | (𝑘𝐿2 − 𝑘02 ) 1
𝐿 2 0 2
𝜂𝐿 = = = = =
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐿 ∙ 𝑘𝐿 𝑘𝐿2 𝑘𝐿2 2

𝜂𝐿 = 50%

All linear springs are only 50% efficient. For their light weight and mobility, spring launchers pay the price of
having twice the launch stroke of most launch types.
Inputting spring force into the launcher energy equation:
𝐿
1 1𝑊 2
∫ 𝐹(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝑘𝐿2 = 𝑉
0 2 2𝑔

Inputting spring force into the launcher G-loading equation:

𝐹(𝑥𝐺 ) 𝑘𝐿
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = =
𝑊 𝑊

These two equations form a system of two linearly independent algebraic equations. Solving them for the spring
constant and the stroke length yields complete design parameters:

𝑉2
𝐿= (7)
𝑔𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

2
𝑊𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑔
𝑘= (8)
𝑉2

Contrary to popular belief, the need for more takeoff velocity should not be addressed by increasing the spring
constant. This only results in unfavorable G-loads being achieved. Higher velocities require much longer stroke
lengths. One of the greatest weaknesses of spring launchers is the long stroke length, so spring launchers are best
suited to large wing aircraft with low takeoff speeds. The velocity and G-loading are driven by stroke length, and the
spring constant may then be varied to account for changes in aircraft weight.

-6-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 VI. Pneumatic Launch Systems
Pneumatic launch systems consist of a large air tank, a release valve, and a long tube with a piston in it. When
the valve is released, the pressure of air or nitrogen stored in the tank drives the piston forward. The piston may
either be directly or indirectly connected to the aircraft through mechanical means. Generally the launcher has low
flow-speed characteristics and may be modeled using gas expansion equations. The expansion takes place quickly,
without time for substantial heat transfer. Therefore, the launch may be modeled as an adiabatic expansion. For
practical application, all pressures here will be given in gauge units.
For an adiabatic expansion:22

(𝑃 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉 𝛾 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡.

Where 𝛾 is the specific heat ratio, or 1.4 for air. The force on the piston at any time is:

𝜋𝐷2
𝐹(𝑥) = 𝑃(𝑥)𝐴 = 𝑃(𝑥)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Where 𝐴 is the cross-sectional area of the pipe, and 𝐷 is the piston diameter. For the duration of the launch, the
control volume will be increasing as the piston travels the length of the launch tube. This means that the highest
pressure is experienced during the initial moment of expansion when the release valve is actuated and the volume is
the smallest. The aircraft will experience the highest amount of force during the initial actuation, making it the
design point for maximum G-loading.
Maximum force on the piston:

𝜋𝐷2
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑃0
4

This force accelerates aircraft. By taking the force and dividing it by the system weight, we determine the
aircraft’s g-loading:

𝑃0 𝜋𝐷2
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4𝑊𝐴

This equation is interesting because it may not be particularly intuitive. Note that the G-loading does not depend
on the reservoir volume or on launch tube length. G-loading is most sensitive to pipe diameter, as it is squared.
Typically, G-loading is determined during structural analysis of the aircraft, and pressure is chosen to reflect
discrete values available in industry. For small aircraft, keeping pressure below 200 psi will ensure compatibility
with a variety of compressors, valves, hoses, and fittings. The G-loading equation is primarily used to determine the
required pipe diameter:
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑊𝐴
𝐷 = 2√ (9)
𝜋𝑃0

The solution to this equation represents the maximum allowable pipe diameter to stay below a particular G-
loading. The diameter should then be rounded down to the nearest discrete industry value as a function of nominal
pipe size, pipe schedule, and pipe material.
To determine the launch velocity, the pressure as a function of position must be found. Recall the adiabatic
expansion equation:

(𝑃𝑜 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉 𝛾 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡.

𝛾 is the air specific heat ratio, or 1.4. For any plunger position x along launch tube length L, this equation holds
true. The constant may be determined by initial conditions, and then the pressure may be found at any point during
the launch stroke as a function of position x:
𝛾
(𝑃(𝑥) + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉(𝑥)𝛾 = (𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0

-7-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 𝛾
(𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0
𝑃(𝑥) = 𝛾 − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝜋𝐷2
(𝑉0 + 𝑥)
4

Recall that the force on the aircraft is the net pressure times the piston area:

𝛾
(𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0 𝜋𝐷2
𝐹(𝑥) = 𝑃(𝑥)𝐴 = ( 𝛾 − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 ) ( )
𝜋𝐷2 4
(𝑉0 + 𝑥)
4

This force may then be placed in the launch energy equation:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

𝐿
1 𝑊𝐴 2
𝑉 = ∫ 𝐹(𝑥)𝑑𝑥
2 𝑔 0

1 𝑊𝐴 2 𝜋𝐷 2 𝛾
𝐿
1 𝐿
𝜋𝐷 2
𝑉 = (𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0 ∫ 𝛾 𝑑𝑥 − ∫ 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝑑𝑥
2 𝑔 4 0 𝜋𝐷2 0 4
(𝑉0 + 𝑥)
4

1−𝛾 𝐿
𝜋𝐷2
1 𝑊𝐴 2 𝜋𝐷 2 (𝑉0 + 𝑥) 𝜋𝐷2
𝛾 4
𝑉 = (𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0 || |
| − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝐿
2 𝑔 4 𝜋𝐷2 4
(1 − 𝛾)
4 0

𝛾−1

1 𝑊𝐴 2 (𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0 1 𝜋𝐷2

𝑉 = 1−( ) − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝐿
2 𝑔 𝛾−1 𝜋𝐷2 𝐿 4
1+
( 4 𝑉𝑜 )

At this point, it is helpful to isolate the behavior of certain variables. It is apparent that the stroke length 𝐿 and
tank volume 𝑉𝑜 are factors in selecting the aircraft’s velocity, but their relationship is not particularly apparent.
Consider the tank volume, 𝑉𝑜 . For large tank volumes, the change in volume occurring in the pipe is small,
meaning the pressure is relatively constant. Because changing the tank volume does not change the pressure, there
must be some large volume for which the change in pressure is negligible and the aircraft velocity no longer depends
on the tank volume.
Taking the limit as 𝑉𝑜 approaches infinity:

1 𝑊𝐴 2 (𝑃0 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 ) 𝜋𝐷2 𝜋𝐷2

lim 𝑉 = (𝛾 − 1)𝐿 = (𝑃𝑜 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 ) 𝐿
𝑉𝑜 →∞ 2 𝑔 𝛾−1 4 4

This presents a minimum value for stroke length:

2𝑊𝐴 𝑉 2
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 2 ( 10 )
𝜋𝐷 𝑔(𝑃𝑜 +𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )

In fact, this stroke length corresponds to 𝜂𝐿 = 100%. This means that larger tank volumes require shorter stroke
lengths. However, infinite tank volumes are not possible, so it is best to oversize the stroke by a certain amount and
determine the volume required to achieve the desired launch velocity. If the calculated required volume is too large,

-8-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 iteratively increase the stroke until an acceptably small tank size is found. Tank size can be verified by inputting it
into the launch velocity equation.
The launch velocity may be determined by solving the energy equation:

𝛾−1
2𝑔 (𝑃0 +𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 )𝑉0 1 𝜋𝐷2
𝑉=√ [ (1 − ( 𝜋𝐷2 𝐿
) ) − 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝐿] ( 11 )
𝑊𝐴 𝛾−1 1+ 4
4 𝑉𝑜

VII. Accounting for Losses

It is possible to analyze any launch system design and mathematically estimate the deviation of a launcher from
the ideal equations demonstrated above. However, a simpler approach is to slightly overbuild a launch system and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

determine the losses from testing. The easiest way to overbuild the launch system is to input a higher takeoff
velocity than is required for flight. Increasing takeoff velocity by ten to twenty percent in the model should be
sufficient to overbuild the launcher. In the event that this is insufficient, it may be necessary to test the first launch
system as a prototype and overbuild for losses during the second design cycle. For more expensive launch systems
of course, the designer should add losses to the summation of energies used in the development of the launch
equations above and consider models more complex and accurate than those presented in this paper.
Special loss considerations should be given to pneumatic launch system designs. During a pneumatic launch, it
is possible for flow from the gas reservoir into the launch tube to become choked, severely limiting the launcher’s
performance. In this case, increasing the launch pressure will not compensate for the losses incurred by choked flow.
Choked flow, when it occurs, will occur at the smallest cross-sectional flow area between the gas reservoir and the
launch tube. If choked flow is avoided, the adiabatic expansion equations derived above remain valid.
The minimum cross-sectional area required to avoid choking can be determined by evaluating the flow
continuity between the gas reservoir and the launch tube. The velocity at the orifice between volumes can first be
calculated:

𝐷𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑉(𝑥)𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑉𝑜
𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 = ( )
𝐷𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑉𝑜 + 𝑥𝐴𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛

This assumes that the initial volume present after the flow orifice is small. Once the flow velocity is calculated,
the Mach number is the ratio of the flow velocity to the speed of sound in the gas, which is a function of
temperature. Temperature decreases as the gas expands as a function of stroke position.

𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤
𝑀= =
√𝛾𝑅𝑇(𝑥)
𝑉 + 𝑥𝐴𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 1−𝛾
√𝛾𝑅𝑇𝑜 ( 𝑜 )
𝑉𝑜

Typically, the maximum Mach number occurs at the conclusion of the launch stroke. To calculate the maximum
value simply replace stroke position 𝑥 with stroke length 𝐿. Keeping the Mach number below 0.7 will ensure that the
flow remains unrestricted. Aircraft launch speeds are usually very small compared to the speed of sound, so a small
orifice is usually possible. Often, the smallest cross-sectional area occurs at the main flow valve and minimizing the
size of the valve reduces the monetary cost of the launch system.
When choosing a valve, it is important that it opens quickly and has a clear flow path to avoid localized
increases in Mach number. A diaphragm valve or sprinkler valve is commonly used in t-shirt and potato cannons,
but the flexible diaphragm does not facilitate adequately free flow. Butterfly valves, fast-acting ball valves, and
piston valves provide the most wide-open flow paths.

VIII. Sled Design Considerations

In order for a completed launch system to launch the aircraft, there must be a means of transferring the energy
from the launch system to the aircraft. This energy transfer is facilitated through a sled or cradle, which both
supports the aircraft’s weight and transfers the force of the launch into the aircraft.

-9-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 When designing a sled to conform to a particular aircraft, the designer needs to consider the six degrees of
freedom of the aircraft. The aircraft needs to be constrained by the sled in roll, pitch, yaw, longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical degrees of freedom. In addition, the designer must consider the best structural attachment points on the
aircraft. Generally, the main wing spar, landing gear, engine firewall, and the wing box inside the fuselage are the
strongest natural places to drive the launch force. Attaching the drive point ahead of or near the aircraft’s center of
mass can help to prevent mechanical elastic instabilities caused by the flexibility of aircraft and sled components.
As an example, observe this sled design in Fig. (4). Two steel hooks extend up into slots on the underside of the
wing. The hook’s profile is an L-shape, so the base of the L supports the aircraft’s weight on the main wing spar,
and the top of the L pushes on the back of the main wing spar to launch the aircraft.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 4. Example Sled Configuration

The aircraft is constrained in all six degrees of freedom. Two hooks push on the wing spar on either side of the
plane, so the aircraft is constrained in yaw and the longitudinal axis. The two hooks support the aircraft’s weight on
either side of the plane, so the aircraft is constrained in roll and the vertical axis. The tail wheel sits in a channel on
the back of the sled, constraining the aircraft in pitch. The hooks are locked into place laterally, so they constrain the
aircraft laterally. Since the hooks interface with the aircraft at the wing spar, their load is very near the aircraft’s
center of mass and prevents adverse torques during the launch. The only way the aircraft may disengage the sled is
by moving forward at the conclusion of the launch stroke, where the hooks rotate forward and slide out of the slots
on the underside of the wing.
Once the sled has concluded the launch stroke, it may or may not need to be decelerated, depending on the
design. The Arcturus launcher, for example, simply launches its sled ballistically at the same speed as the aircraft 14.
The sled must be retrieved some distance away after each launch. Aircraft carrier catapults, on the other hand, stop
the launch shuttle at the end of the stroke with a water brake.1
Fig. (5) shows the decelerator used on the sled shown in Fig. (4). For this sled decelerator, a rope is attached to
the back of the sled and wound around an aluminum wheel rim with a hydraulic brake caliper. The brake’s
deceleration strength can be adjusted by tightening the master cylinder to control brake fluid pressure. Slack is
purposefully included in the rope before launch so that the powered portion of the launch stroke remains unhindered,
and the braking force engages to stop the sled in six feet at the conclusion of the launch stroke. The advantage of
using a brake caliper is that the deceleration is relatively constant and places the minimum load on the sled to bring
it to a stop, not unlike how a constant launch force places the minimum load on the aircraft to accelerate it to takeoff
speed.

- 10 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 5. Example Sled Decelerator

Other methods of deceleration include fluid dampers and spring plates. Fluid dampers like the one used on US
Navy aircraft carriers have the disadvantage that stopping force is proportional to velocity squared. The force profile
of a fluid damper has relatively high loads with a low amount of kinetic energy removed, so a fluid damper will
require a very long stroke to stop a sled compared to a constant force decelerator. Spring plates are simply plates
with springs at the end of the launch stroke that bounce the sled into reverse, and the friction of travelling backwards
along the launch stroke is relied on to stop the sled. Spring plates are made more effective by adding damping
elements in conjunction with the spring, but they are generally a violent form of stopping the sled and rely on the
launch stroke as a whole having many losses associated with friction. Using a fluid damper with a spring plate can
have the effect of artificially increasing the deceleration stroke, as the distance travelled through the fluid damper
may be doubled when the spring plate reverses the sled’s direction of travel.
Other requirements of good sled design include:
 The sled must orient the aircraft at the proper angle of attack for liftoff. If the aircraft is launched at an
incline, this may be negated. Gravitational potential energy must be added to the work equations
presented earlier.
 The sled must disengage the aircraft at the end of the launch stroke without damaging the aircraft. If
possible, the sled should disengage from every point of contact at the same time to avoid tipping the
aircraft over at the conclusion of the launch.
 In the case of non-electric aircraft, the sled must hold the aircraft in place while the aircraft throttles up
for takeoff. This can be accomplished by using shear pins or specially designed mechanisms.

If possible, the aircraft’s structural design should integrate the sled beforehand. Integrating a sled after the fact
is complicated and increases the risks of damaging the aircraft. A good sled can even mitigate the violence of a
launch if it is designed with shock-absorbing properties. Sled design often makes the difference in the overall
reliability and effectiveness in the entire launch system.

IX. Pneumatic Launcher Experimental Results

A launch system was required for the Alias aircraft. The Alias exhibits the following characteristics:

 Maximum Takeoff Weight: 80 lbs

 Maximum G-Loading: 5 G’s
 Takeoff Velocity: 40 mph

The aircraft is large enough that a weight and pulley system would be too heavy, and a spring launcher would
have required too long of a stroke to be easily field deployable. A pneumatic catapult was chosen.

- 11 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 It was desirable to stay below 200 psi in order to be compatible with most air compressors and keep cost of
other components to a minimum. To leave room for losses adjustment, calculations were made using 120 psi. With
only 120 psi, the pressure can be turned up significantly in the event that takeoff speed is out of reach. The launch
load was to be transmitted directly through the main wing spar via slots on the underside of the wing, and the
pneumatic force was to be transmitted to a sled via a long, straight piston. The sled was assumed to weigh 30 lbs,
bringing the total launch weight to about 110 lbs. Based on 120 psi and a 5 G load limit, pipe diameter was chosen
using Eq. (9). Optimal pipe diameter
for these conditions is 2.42”. A steel,
schedule 80, 2 ½” pipe has an ID of
2.323”.
Once pipe diameter was
established, stroke length needed to be
determined using Eq. (10). The
minimum stroke length for a takeoff
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

velocity of 40 mph in the above

conditions is 10.3 ft. This was rounded
up to 12 ft in order to use two 6 ft
sections of pipe, coupled in the middle.
Then the tank volume was determined
by plotting Eq. (11), as in Fig. (6).
Based on the plot in Fig. (6), it is
understood that the minimum tank
volume is approximately 15 gallons.
Note that if higher velocities were
required, the stroke would have to be
longer. A tank volume of 24 gallons was
chosen because it was 200 psi ASME
rated, had appropriate fitting sizes, and
would have a margin for leaks and other
losses. Figure 6. Tank Selection for Alias Aircraft
The final component for selection
was the launch valve. The valve had to be 200 psi rated, and it was decided to actuate it pneumatically so that an air
hose could be run to a remote control box. An angle seat piston valve was selected, shown in Fig. (7). Once the
threshold pressure on the actuator is reached, the valve opens completely and instantaneously and has a relatively
wide flow channel.

Figure 7. Angle Seat Valve

- 12 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Once the components were all selected, they were purchased and assembled as shown in Figs. (8,9).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 8. Assembled Tank and Valve

Figure 9. Alias Pneumatic Launch System

At this point, launch testing with a structural dummy began. While 80 lbs was the maximum takeoff weight, the
Alias would operate anywhere between 50 and 80 lbs. These differences in weight would be accounted for by
adjusting the launch pressure. A pressure chart for various takeoff weights can be made by rearranging Eq. (11).
This pressure equation generates the solid line in Fig. (10). In order to account for losses due to friction and flow
drag, a 5 mph margin was added by increasing the pressure. This is represented by the dotted line in Fig. (10).

- 13 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 10. Pressure vs. Takeoff Weight

Then, testing was performed with the structural model, as shown in Fig. (11).

Figure 11. Pneumatic Launcher Test Configuration

Testing was successful. The aircraft velocity matched the velocities predicted by the model, and the 5 mph
adjustment for losses was adequate. Velocity was observed by means of tape marks in 1 ft increments along the
launch rail and recording by high speed camera, as shown in Fig. (12).

- 14 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

Figure 12. Velocity Measurement Still

The results from the high speed camera are shown in Fig. (13).

Figure 13. Pneumatic Test Results

The primary shortcoming of the launcher was structural weakness in the sled. After much trial and error,
however, the sled was made strong enough to handle the launch loads. The aircraft’s behavior and orientation on the
launcher were determined to be very sensitive, as bad orientations could lead to the aircraft pitching over and hitting
the ground. Column buckling analysis was important to reliably transmit the load from the piston to the sled.
Choosing to have a level launcher as opposed to an inclined rail proved to add a factor of safety: if the aircraft
launch fails, it had the opportunity to ground roll and recover.

X. Conclusion
This study began by developing a model for an ideal launch system. Based on that launch system, a metric was
then developed for comparison of different launcher types and termed “Launch Efficiency”. Once a metric was
established, mathematical models were developed for several launch system types and design guidelines were
established. A weight and pulley launcher can work for small aircraft and requires few parts. Spring launchers also
work well for small aircraft and are very lightweight, but tend to have a long stroke. Pneumatic launchers can be
easily and accurately modeled using an adiabatic expansion. Finally, the pneumatic design section was validated by
designing and constructing a launch system for the Alias aircraft. The desired results were achieved by adhering to
the principles presented in the pneumatic launch design section.

- 15 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 References
1 Milestones and developments in US naval carrier aviation-part II. Lawrence, J. Thomas. s.l. : AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2005.
2 Evaluating Fixed Wing Aircraft in the Aircraft Carrier Environment. Senn, C. P. Seville : AGARD, 1991.
3 Electromagnetic aircraft launch system-EMALS. Doyle, Michael R. 1, s.l. : Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, 1995, Vol.

31.
4 Gundlach, Jay. Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach. Reston, Virginia : American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2012.

5 Dickard, H. E. Mini-RPV Launch System Conceptual Study. Fort Eustis, VA : Applied Technology Laboratory, U.S. Army

Research and Technology Laboratories, 1978.

6 First design study of an electrical catapult for unmanned air vehicles in the several hundred kilogram range. Reck,

Bernhard. 1, s.l. : Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, 2003, Vol. 39.

7 Design and simulation of an electromagnetic aircraft launch system. Patterson, D., et al. s.l. : 37th IAS Annual Meeting,

2002. Industry Applications Conference. Vol. 3.

8 Design and comparison of linear synchronous motor and linear induction motor for electromagnetic aircraft launch

system. Stumberger, Gorazd, et al. Washington DC : IEEE International, 2003. Electric Machines and Drives Conference.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on May 29, 2016 | [Link] | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-2858

9 Design and simulation of an electromagnetic aircraft launch system. Bertoncelli T., et al. s.l. : IEEE 33rd Annual, 2002.

Power Electronics Specialists Conference. Vol. 3.

10 Electromagnetic aircraft launch system development considerations. Bushway, Richard R. s.l. : IEEE transactions on

magnetics, 2001. Vol. 37.1.

11 Analysis and deseign criteria of a tubular linear induction motor for a possible use in the electromagnetic aircraft launch

system. Musolino, Anonino, et al. s.l. : IEEE, 2012. Electromagnetic Launch Technology (EML), 2012 16th International
Symposium on.
12 UAV Factory. 6 kJ Portable Pneumatic Catapult. UAV Factory Web site. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.]

[Link]
13 ELI Group. UAV pneumatic catapult. ELI Military Simulations. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.]

[Link]
14 Arcturus UAV. Arcturus Portable Launching System. Arcturus UAV Web site. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.]

[Link]
15 Insitu Incorporated. Launchers. Insitu Web site. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.] [Link]

and-recovery/launchers.
16 Aeromao. UAV Launcher. Aeromao Web site. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.] [Link]
17 Aries Test Systems & Instrumentation. UAV Launchers. Aries Testing. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.]

[Link]
18 UAV Solutions, Inc. Ground Support Equipment. UAV Solutions. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.] [Link]

[Link]/ground-support-equipment/.
19 Robonic Ltd. Robonic Company Profile. Robonic UAV Launching Systems. [Online] Duunari Ltd. [Cited: May 5, 2015.]

[Link]
20 Unmanned Systems Source. UAV Launcher. Unmanned Systems Source Web site. [Online] [Cited: May 15, 2015.]

[Link]
21 Palm, William J III. System Dynamics 2nd Ed. New York : The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2010.
22 Moran, Michael J. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 7th Ed. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011

- 16 -
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics