SAE Aero Design Technical Report

Northern Arizona University

NAU Micro Class

Team #324

Jacob Cabanyog
Devin duBois

Gabriela Liquidano
Iain Pettit

Alexander Veirhout
Alec Zodrow
Certificate of Compliance
2D Drawings
Technical Data Sheet: Aircraft Performance Prediction
Table of Contents
Table of References .................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4
Selection of Aircraft Configuration ............................................................................................................ 4
Critical Performance Factors ...................................................................................................................... 4
Airfoil Selection ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Wing Geometry ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Static/Dynamic Thrust ......................................................................................................................... 7
Aircraft Empty Weight .......................................................................................................................... 12
Aircraft Stability and Control ................................................................................................................ 12
Control Surfaces Analysis ................................................................................................................. 13
XFLR5 Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 16
Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 21
 1

Table of References

[1] “Aileron design Chapter 12 design of Control Surfaces - [Link].” [Online]. Available:
[Link]
esig%20of%20Control%20Surfaces%20(Aileron).pdf. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2023].
[2] “Balancing RC airplanes - how to,” RC Airplane World - Complete Beginners RC Flying
Guide. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]#:~:text=Methods%20of%20Balancing%20RC%20Airplanes%201%20Ballasti
ng%20Up,plane.%20...%203%20Roll%20Balancing%20RC%20Airplanes%20. [Accessed:
05-Feb-2023].
[3] M. Bedding, “Control surface flutter, balance, and Vne,” Motion RC, 13-Oct-2020. [Online].
Available: [Link]
and-vne. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2023].
[4] “Primary flight control surfaces and dual purpose flight control surfaces of a fixed-wing
aircraft,” Aircraft Systems. [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2023].
[5] W. F. Durand, Aerodynamic theory. Internet Archive, 1934.
[6] Tyto Robotics, “Series 1580-1585,” Tyto Robotics. [Online]. Available:
[Link] [Accessed: 11-Nov-2022].
[7] Brezina and S. Thomas, “Measurement of static and dynamic performance characteristics of
Electric Propulsion Systems,” 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, May 2013.
[8] M. Khasyofi and F. Hartono, “Development testing method and analysis static thrust for
propeller based propulsion,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol.
645, no. 1, p. 012015, 2019.
[9] Racerstar Brushless Motor Thrust stand v3 for 11mm-59mm outrunner motor. [Online].
Available: [Link]
[Link]. [Accessed: 09-Dec-2022].
[10] A. Depperois, “About Stability Analysis using XFLR5.” Nov-2010
[11] “Computational Fluid Dynamics,” Computational Fluid Dynamics - an overview |
ScienceDirect Topics. [Online]. Available: [Link]
science/computational-fluid-
dynamics#:~:text=Computational%20fluid%20dynamics%20(CFD)%20is,and%20energy)%2
0governing%20fluid%20motion. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2023].
[12] J. D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher
education, 2012.
 2

Table of Figures

Figure Number Figure Name Page Number

1 Coefficient of Lift vs Angle 5
of Attack
2 Coefficient of Drag vs Angle 5
of Attack
3 Thrust vs RPM 8
4 Thrust vs Power 9
5 Power vs RPM 10
6 Plane Model 16
7 Angle of Attack vs Pitch 18
Moment Coefficient
8 Pitch Moment Coefficient vs 18
Coefficient of Lift
9 Angle of Attack vs 19
Coefficient of Lift
10 Center of Gravity and Neutral 20
Point Diagram

Table of Tables
Table Number Table Name Page Number
1 Coefficients of Thrust and 10
Power
2 Plane Specifications 19
 3

Table of Nomenclature
𝑅𝑒 Reynold’s Number
𝜈 Kinematic Viscosity
𝑉&𝑉𝑇 Velocity of Aircraft
𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑔 Average Characteristic Length
𝐹𝐿 Force of Lift
𝐶𝐿 Coefficient of Lift
𝐶𝐷 Coefficient of Drag
𝜌 Air Density
𝐴𝑝 Wing Planform Area
𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 Instantaneous Velocity at Takeoff
𝐹∞ Applied Pressure of Working Fluid
𝐴𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 Wetted Surface Area
𝜃 Angle of Deflection
𝐹𝑇 Torque
𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑚 Servo Lever Arm
𝐿𝐴 Rolling Moment
𝑆 Reference Area
𝑞 Dynamic Pressure
𝐶𝑙 Rolling Moment Coefficient
𝑏 Wingspan
𝑇𝑉 Tail Volume Coefficient
𝐿𝐴𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣 Moment Arm of Elevator
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣 Area of Elevator
𝑀𝐴𝐶𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 Mean Aerodynamic Cord
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 Area of Wing
𝑋𝑁𝑃 Position Neutral Point
𝑋𝐶𝐺 Position Center of Gravity
𝑃 Power
𝐴 Current
𝑉 Voltage
𝐶𝑇 Coefficient of Thrust
𝑇 Thrust
𝑛 Angular Velocity
𝐷 Propellor Diameter
𝐶𝑝 Coefficient of Power
𝑃𝑝 Propellor Power
 4

Executive Summary

This technical design report outlines the design and manufacturing process of Northern Arizona

University’s 2023 SAE Aero Design Team. This team is competing in the Micro Aero class, which is a

design competition that entails designing and manufacturing a brushless motor driven remote controlled

(RC) aircraft capable of carrying cargo. The team will be scored on their design’s payload capacity as well

as their flight speed. Per competition requirements, the aircraft will be limited to a takeoff distance of 8

feet and will have to fly an additional 300 feet before making a 180-degree turn. The team must then fly

at least another 300 feet before making a second 180-degree turn. The aircraft must land within 200 feet

of the designated landing area. The aircraft is limited to a battery that supplies no more than 450 Watts of

power to the propulsion system and must have a wingspan that does not exceed 36 inches. This year’s

team will focus on reducing empty weight of the plane to increase acceleration and weighted payload

capacity of the plane. The finalized design will be carrying a single 12”x12”x2” payload box to maximize

the final flight score at competition. This report will outline the thought process of the team throughout

the project and explain how the team was able to optimize aircraft weight, thrust, lift, and drag.

Team Strategy

Selection of Aircraft Configuration

Critical Performance Factors

To begin the process of designing aircraft features such as the wings, the team first determined critical

performance factors that will be the team’s working conditions when in flight. Determining the critical

Reynolds Numbers, the Reynolds Numbers at takeoff and at max cruising speed, was the design teams

first step. This Reynolds Numbers for the wings were calculated using Equation 1 shown below.
 5

𝑉∗𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝑅𝑒 = (1)
𝑣

Using the anticipated velocity at takeoff and the kinematic viscosity in Fort Worth, Texas air conditions,

the team found the takeoff Reynolds number to be approximately 17,000. Substituting our anticipated

cruising velocity of 40 ft/s, the Reynolds number was found to be approximately 193,000. Now knowing

these critical parameters, the team was able to compare different airfoil geometries to determine an

expected coefficient of lift.

Airfoil Selection

To select the airfoil geometry needed to generate enough lift to takeoff with the competition takeoff

parameters, the team analyzed a series of different airfoils using an online airfoil plotter that allowed a

comparison of different geometry performances at our critical Reynolds Numbers. The Selig S-1223

airfoil was chosen by the team for its high coefficient in comparison to other airfoils. Plots comparing

both the CL and the CD for the S-1223 airfoil are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.

2 Coefficient of Lift v Angle of Attack

1.5
Coefficient of Lift

Re = 17000
0.5
Re = 193000
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
Angle of Attack

Figure 1: Coefficient of Lift vs Angle of Attack

 6

0.14 Coefficient of Drag v Angle of Attack

0.12

Coefficient of Drag
0.1

0.08

0.06 Re = 17000

0.04

0.02

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Angle of Attack

Figure 2: Coefficient of Drag vs Angle of Attack

With a maximum coefficient of lift of 2.2919, the team concluded that this airfoil would provide the most

flexibility with general wing geometry, considering the limitations to wingspan per competition

constraints.

Wing Geometry

To allow for larger fuselage volume cargo capacity, the team wanted to design around a large wing chord

length, to allow space for the 12”x12”x2” cargo box to fit below the wings. The aircraft wing geometry

features a tapped leading edge towards the tips of the wing to reduce induced drag on the wing as well as

reducing the empty weight of the aircraft. The chord length is taped from its maximum of 14” down to a

5” chord length: an average chord length of 9.5”.

To ensure that these dimensions will provide enough lift at takeoff, the team calculated the 2-D

approximation of lift generated by the wings using Equation 2 below:

𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 2
𝐹𝐿 = 𝐶𝐿 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝐴𝑝 ∗ (2)
2

An approximate lifting force on the plane at takeoff was calculated to be 3.06 lbs.
 7

Static/Dynamic Thrust

The Avian 4250-800Kv Outrunner Brushless Motor was selected for the single-prop design Which is rated

for a maximum continuous current of 925 Watts. The aircraft utilizes the required power limiter to bring

this continuous wattage down to the competition limit of 450 Watts. To understand the performance of

our propulsion system, a static thrust comparison was performed to compare, and contrast thrust outputs

of this motor combined with different sized propellers.

The team performed a series of tests to measure the static thrust on three separate propellers. To further

optimize the teams current design, this experiment compared the performance of three different propellers.

The experiment was performed using a dynamometer and a tachometer. The dynamometer provided the

team with the thrust force generated by the propellers spun by the team’s brushless motor. The

dynamometer was also used to measure the voltage and amperage of the motor to provide the team with

means to calculate power draw. The tachometer was used to measure the rotational speed of the motor by

placing reflective tape of the spinning shaft of the motor. This enabled the team to create correlations

between the rotational speed of the blades and their thrust generation and power consumption.

The measurements taken from the dynamometer are taken to find the power in Watts for each propeller,

as well as compare the thrust to each propeller. The tachometer is used to measure the rpms to be plotted

against the thrust and power. The measurements are also used to calculate the coefficient of thrust and

power to see which propeller has the best coefficients.

To solve for the power [W], Equation 3 is used, which is the current [A] multiplied by the voltage [V].

𝑃 =𝐴⋅𝑉 (3)

To solve for the Coefficient of thrust, Equation 4 is used, shown below.

 8

𝑇
𝐶𝑇 = 𝜌𝑛2𝐷4 (4)

To solve for the Coefficient of power, Equation 5 is used, shown below.

𝑃
𝐶𝑝 = 𝜌𝑛2𝑝𝐷5 (5)

These equations will allow the team to solve for the power and coefficients of thrust and power of each propeller.

Using these values to plot against the other propellers to see which type of propeller will be most beneficial to use.

Measuring at around the same rpms for each propeller at 5 different rpms, increasing after each measurement. The

first measurement was around 1750 rpms and had 4 more measurements that went up to around 7500 rpms. The

first test was the 13” diameter propeller and ran the test twice to get accurate data. Then repeating the process with

the 12” diameter propeller, and then the 8” diameter propeller.

Using the dynamometer to collect the data, the team plotted thrust generation against motor rotational

speed ranging from 2000 rpm up to 7840 rpm. The relationship between thrust and rpm is displayed in

Figure 3 below.
 9

Figure 3: Thrust v RPM

The team concluded that as the rotational speed of the motor was increased, the thrust generated by the

propeller grew exponentially for all three propellers. The 13” propeller generated the largest thrust forces

in comparison to the smaller diameter propellers. The 13” propeller generated a maximum thrust force of

2050 grams at a rotational speed of 7840 rpm. The thrust generated by this propeller was 13.22 times

greater that the thrust generated at the same rotational speed by the 8” propeller, confirming that a larger

diameter propeller does generate more lift. To ensure that our plane will generate enough lift considering

this limitation, thrust generation was compared against power consumption in Figure 4.
 10

Thrust v Power
2500

2000 y = -0.0047x2 + 7.2841x

R² = 0.9885

Thrust (g)
1500
13" Propeller
y = -0.0069x2 + 7.1493x
1000 12" Propeller
R² = 0.9981
8" Propeller
500 y = 0.0076x2 + 3.8954x
R² = 0.9991
0
0 100 200 300 400
Power (W)

Figure 4: Thrust v Power

The relationship shows that once again, the 13” propeller outperformed the smaller propellers. As

displayed in Figure 4, the 8” propeller and the 12” propeller were unable to reach the same maximum

power consumption as the 13” propeller. This is because it takes less energy to spin a smaller propeller at

the same rotational speed than a larger propeller. Since the motor has a maximum rotation rate, the same

power draw was not achievable for all three configurations. At 356.4 W of power consumption, the 13”

propeller was able to generate 2050 gram of thrust. However, there is a tradeoff to take note of. As the

rotational speed is increased, the power consumption also increases exponentially, as demonstrated with

Figure 5 below.
 11

Power v RPM
400
350 y = 8E-06x2 - 0.0163x
R² = 0.9904
300
y = 7E-06x2 - 0.0106x

Power (W)
250 R² = 0.9943
200 13" Propeller
150 12" Propeller
y = 7E-07x2 - 0.0001x
100 8" Propeller
R² = 0.9991
50
0
1500 3500 5500 7500 9500
RPM

Figure 5: Power v RPM

The 8” propeller had the best performance when comparing power against rotational speed. At a rotational

speed of 7344 rpm, the power consumption was only 37.60 W. For comparison, at the same rotational

speed, the 13” propeller would be consuming 311.77 W.

Using both Equation 4 and Equation 5, the team found these coefficients to remove the effects of air

density, rotational speed, and propeller diameter. This allowed the team to analyze the true performance

of each propeller, negating the effects of the mentioned variables. The average of the ten trials for each

propeller was found and compiled into Table 1.

Table 1: Coefficients of Thrust and Power

Propeller Average Coefficient Average

of Thrust (CT) Coefficient of
Power (CP)
8” Propeller 0.0456 0.0722

12” Propeller 0.0853 0.0607

13” Propeller 0.0703 0.0385

 12

Surprisingly, the 12” propeller had the highest coefficient of thrust at an average value of 0.0853. The 8”

propeller had a much smaller average value of 0.0456. This leads the team to the conclusion that without

the effects of propeller diameter and rotational speed, the 12” propeller was the most effective at

generating thrust. With reducing power consumption being a design goal for the team, the 13” propeller

would meet that goal the best with a coefficient of power of 0.0385.

The selected airfoil was the 13” diameter propeller for its high thrust generation as well as its low

coefficient of power. Our static thrust test produced an expected maximum thrust output from our

propulsion system of 4.519 lbs.

Aircraft Empty Weight

After generating an approximate lifting force of 3.06 lbs, the initial maximum weight for the plane was

set to three pounds. This weight would allow for the plane to fly given the lifting force was greater than

three pounds. After the conclusion of the thrust analysis, a more accurate weight goal could be set to

optimize the planes thrust to weight ratio. The optimal thrust weight ratio selected was two. Given a thrust

of 4.519 lbs, the final empty weight goal of the plane was 2.25 lbs. As parts were manufactured, they were

weighed and inserted into our SOLIDWORKS using a mass override feature. This ensured that our total

plane weight accurate and gave the team an accurate position of our center of mass to assist in a stability

analysis within XFLR5.

Aircraft Stability and Control

Control for a fixed-wing aircraft takes place around the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical axes. The

ailerons, which are attached to the trailing edge of both wings move the aircraft about the longitudinal

axis causing it to roll. The elevators, on the other hand, are attached to the trailing edge of the horizontal

stabilizer and when moved, it alters the aircrafts pitch. This causes the plane to move about the lateral

axis. Lastly, the rudder is hinged to the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer and when its position is
 13

changed, the plane rotates about the vertical axis. It is critical for the primary flight control surfaces to be

balanced so they do not vibrate or flutter in the wind. [4]

The team found that an aircraft’s successful performance heavily relies on its maneuverability. This

implies thrust, aircraft mass moment of inertia and control power. Since the ailerons cause the aircraft to

steer along its three-dimensional flight path to a specified destination, the team found that an aileron’s

main goal is roll control. To properly design an aileron, the team must determine four parameters. These

parameters include the aileron area, chord/span, maximum and minimum deflection, and the location of

the inner edge of the aileron along the wingspan. Based on extensive research, the group found that 5 to

10 percent of the wingspan is devoted to the aileron. 15 to 25 percent is the aileron to wing chord ratio

and 20-30 percent is the aileron to wingspan ratio. Lastly, 60 to 80 percent is the inboard aileron span.

Given these statistics, the team’s CAD model seems to correlate respectively with each percentage. [1]

Another critical note the team must take into consideration is the aircraft’s balance and flutter. Flutter is

essentially instability due to the aircraft’s interaction with aeroelasticity. Balancing the control surfaces

will help reduce the effects of flutter. By balancing the aircraft correctly, this will also reduce the load on

the servo gear. By calculating the forces applied on the control surfaces, the team may be able to navigate

any potential flutter before competition. This will allow the team to ensure their servos are properly sized

or if they need to purchase a different size. [3]

Control Surfaces Analysis

To be able to estimate the forces applied on each control surface, some assumptions about the conditions

of the aircraft were made. The first assumption is that at the leading edge of each control surface, the air

is flowing parallel to the surface. This implies that when the control surfaces are not angled away from
 14

their cruising position, there is no pressure applied from the working fluid. This also implies that the

largest resulting force from the fluid will occur when the control surfaces are deflected at their maximum

angle from their resting position. The team also assumed standard sea level air conditions to accurately

represent flying conditions in Fort Worth, Texas which has an average elevation of 500 feet.

The rudder and elevator are located on the tail portion of the plane. The elevator is a long strip that spans

the backend of the horizontal stabilizer. The elevator has a chord length of 1.4 inches and a span of 11.4

inches. The rudder is located along the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. The rudder has a chord length

of 1.4 inches, with a span of 3.77 inches.

The first step in analyzing the effectiveness of our control surfaces was calculating the force that would

be applied by the air. To do this, this team first identified our load case by defining our maximum speed

as 12.192 m/s. The max stress on the control surfaces would occur at this load case speed and would also

occur at our maximum angle of deflection from each surface’s resting point. The maximum angle that our

surfaces would be deflected to is 30 degrees. With our load case defined, Equation 6 was used to calculate

the applied pressure of the working fluid.

1
𝐹∞ = ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2 ∗ 𝐴𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∗ sin (𝜃) (6)
2

The wetted area of each control surface was found using the surface area measuring tool within

SolidWorks. The next step to validate our control surface design is to calculate the amount of torque on

the servo motors. These torque values for the aileron, rudder, and elevator servos are found using

Equation 7 below:

𝐹𝑇 = 𝐹∞ ∗ 𝐿𝑎𝑟𝑚 (7)
 15

The servo arm lengths were found using the length measurement tool within SolidWorks. This length is

defined as the length from the servo motor to the resultant force of the fluid on the control surface. Once

these values are found, they can be compared to the industry rated maximum torque values that our servo

motors can handle. If our current servo motors are incapable of performing, an adequate servo must be

found that can deflect our control surfaces to the desired 30 degrees.

When analyzing the effectiveness of the aircraft’s ailerons, the team had to assess its rolling moment. This

is the force that causes the plane to roll about its longitudinal axis. This is critical information as the rolling

motion increases the angle of attack from the lowering wing whilst decreasing the angle of attack for the

rising wing. The rolling moment can be characterized using Equation 8 below:

𝐿𝐴 = 𝑞̅𝑆𝐶𝑙 𝑏 (8)

𝑞̅ is the dynamic pressure which is the pressure exerted perpendicular to the direction of the flow. The

team found that the dynamic pressure came out to 91.04 pascals which was found using Equation 9 below:

1
𝑞̅ = 2 𝜌𝑉𝑇2 (9)

Where rho is the air density and V is the aircraft’s airspeed which was calculated at 12.192 m/s. S in

Equation 5 signifies the wing area, b signifies the wingspan, and 𝐶𝑙 is the rolling moment coefficient. As

a result, the team found that the rolling moment around the longitudinal axis is about 0.39 N*m.

Using a MATLAB code, the force applied on each control surface was calculated. The resulting force

from the working fluid on each aileron was calculated to be 0.4643 N. With an arm length of 0.2567 m,

the torque applied to the servo motor is 0.1192 Nm per aileron. This servo will be experiencing double

that amount of torque due to our current configuration, which has one centrally located servo motor control
 16

both ailerons in series. The applied force on our elevator was found to be 0.4913 N, giving us a torque of

0.0699 Nm. The applied force of the fluid on the rudder was calculated to be 0.1639 N. With a servo arm

of only 0.0711 m, the torque acting on this servo motor is 0.0117 Nm. The servo motors that will be

utilized for the plane’s elevator and rudder are rated at 0.1412 Nm, and the servo motors utilized for our

ailerons are rated above 0.2384 Nm. Therefore, these servo motors will provide enough torque to deflect

our control surfaces to the maximum deflection angle.

XFLR5 Analysis

The use of the computational flow dynamics (CFD) software XFLR5 will ensure that the plane is statically

stable during its max cruise speed, while also producing positive lift. The positioning and sizing of the tail

relative to the main wing is critical for stability during flight. The horizontal tail controls the pitch axis of

the plane, and the moment arm it generates depends on how big its planform area is and how far it is from

the center of gravity. This can be quantified by the Tail Volume coefficient.

This analysis utilizes CFD software that is based on the Navier Stokes Equations. These are a set of partial

differential equations that describe the flow of a fluid. The software meshes a 3-D model of the plane and

computes the state of the fluid flow at each section using numerical methods. To do this it must first

linearize the Navier Stokes Equations and then solve them using LU Decomposition. The use of numerical

methods means that the software can only output approximations and never exact answers. This is

acceptable as the approximations are very accurate and are only off on a very small scale.

One major assumption made during the CFD analysis was inviscid flow. This assumption was made

because only pitch moments and lift/weight forces are being considered. The shear forces generated from

viscous flow are negligible to pitching moments because the direction of the force causes drag and yaw

moments.
 17

To conduct a flow simulation, specific airfoils had to first be imported to model the wing and tail

configuration. Each airfoil needed to be analyzed over a range of Reynolds Numbers to generate plots for

each one, so the software knows how they react to flow. The main wing uses a S1223 foil, and the elevator

uses a NACA 2412 foil. The plane can then be modelled using XFLR5. The body of the plane was not

included in this model because the software makes a note to not include it. The resulting model can be

seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Plane Model

The loading scenario analyzed is at the max cruise speed, which has been assumed to be 12.2 m/s. To get

initial approximations of the dimensions, the tail volume was utilized which is a measure of the elevator’s

capacity to balance the wing’s self-pitching moment. The tail volume allowed us to find an appropriate

lever arm. To begin an initial tail volume coefficient was assumed to be 0.7. This was pulled from Aircraft

Performance and Design by John D. Anderson [12]. A MATLAB code was utilized to turn this coefficient

into dimensions for the elevator and the placement of it. This was done using Equation 10 [10].

𝐿𝐴 ∗𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣
𝑇𝑉 = 𝑀𝐴𝐶 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣 (10)
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔∗𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔
 18

The dimensions came out to 7 inches in chord length and 12 inches in width, with a 16” distance between

the quarter chord points of the wing and tail. The neutral point of an aircraft is the point along its axis

where the pitching moment coefficient is not dependent on angle of attack. This sets the rear limit for the

center of gravity [10]. This can be found through XFLR5, by iterating different center of gravity locations

until the resulting moment coefficient vs. angle of attack graph has a slope of 0. Once this is determined,

more iterations need to be conducted until the center of gravity is placed in a manner that the moment

coefficient vs. angle of attack graph has a negative slope. By having a negative slope, it shows the plane

is in stable static equilibrium, meaning that the pitching moment is balanced, and the plane can fly steadily

[10]. The size and positioning of the tail are also iterated to allow for the center of gravity to be in an

easily designable position.

The CFD analysis allowed us to iterate the wing and tail configuration to achieve an angle of attack that

produces zero pitch moment and generates lift. This was accomplished by running several simulations and

analyzing the plots generated. For each iteration, we first analyzed the pitch moment coefficient vs the

angle of attack. Figure 7 shows that when the pitch moment is equal to zero (balanced flight) the angle of

attack is approximately 0.5 degrees. Figure 9 suggests that the plane generates lift at this angle of attack

and therefore flies. Figure 8 further validates this claim by displaying a positive coefficient of lift at the

zero-pitch moment position. The center of gravity and neutral point are position 0.183 meters and 0.195

meters away from the nose respectively. The mean aerodynamic chord length is 0.286 meters. The tail

chord length is 0.178 meters. The tail width is 0.305 meters. The moment arm is 0.64 meters. The tail

volume coefficient is 0.889. These dimensions were used to achieve the graphs depicted in Figures 7-9

and are listed in Table 2.

 19

Figure 7: Angle of Attack vs Pitch Moment Coefficient

Figure 8: Pitch Moment Coefficient vs Coefficient of Lift

 20

Figure 9: Angle of Attack vs Coefficient of Lift

Table 2: Plane Specifications

Center of Neutral Mean Tail Tail Tail Tail

Gravity Point Aerodynamic Chord Width Moment Volume
(m) (m) Chord (m) Length (m) Arm Coefficient
(m) (m)
0.183 0.195 0.286 0.178 0.305 0.640 0.889

A common margin to measure the moment arms of the plane is through static margin. This is a ratio

between the distance between the neutral point and center of gravity and the mean aerodynamic chord of

the main wing. This is shown in Equation 11 below [10].

𝑋𝑁𝑃 −𝑋𝐶𝐺
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 = (11)
𝑀𝐴𝐶𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔

The static margin came out to 4.2% in the empty case. This is relatively low compared to numbers used

in Aircraft Performance and Design by John D. Anderson [11]. The book referenced that it normally is

about 10%. This is not ideal, but it is functionable. The center of gravity was pushed as far forward as

possible with the geometry of the model, so some mass engineering is needed to move it forward. For the
 21

loaded case the static margin ended up being 13.1% with a center of gravity 6.2 inches away from the

nose. This provides a much more stable flight and is ideal for flight conditions. The analysis was able to

determine the sizing and placement of the tail as well as the static margin of the aircraft. The elevator was

found to need a chord length of 7 inches and a width of 11.8 inches. It also has a moment arm of 25 inches.

The center of gravity must be designed to be 7.2 inches away from the nose of the plane.

Manufacturing

To reduce cost and increase ease of assembly, the final aircraft is designed in a way to be mostly 3D-

printed. Using Polylactic Acid (PLA), the team was able to quickly modify and manufacture parts when

needed. Going with this path of manufacturing allowed the team to utilize our engineering knowledge to

maximize geometry strength rather than relying on material strength. Having 3-dimensional control over

part geometry allowed the team to ensure proper fittings and sizing of all parts, while keeping the empty

aircraft weight around our final target weight. With control over infill densities of each part, the team was

able to add part strength and shift the center of mass when needed. While most of the plane was able to

be printed, the plane required multiple high strength support beams. Carbon Fiber tubes with varying

thicknesses were utilized to support the wings as well as the tail because carbon fiber has the highest

strength-to-weight ratio out of all the materials available to the team. They are also machine very

accurately, which ensured that all of their fittings were aligned correctly. Not shown in the 2D drawings,

is an aerodynamic shrink wrap, called that will cover all the surfaces of the plane. This will allow the team

to reduce the final weight of the plane, as this is a very thin layer of plastic.

Conclusion

Through the process of optimizing their aircraft’s weight, thrust, lift, and drag, Northern Arizona

University’s 2023 SAE Aero Design Team have designed and manufactured a competition ready

aircraft. By analyzing the different systems and load cases of the plane, the team was able to analytically
 22

determine exactly how the plane will perform during competition. The team believes in the feasibility of

their design and hopes the efforts will translate into success.