SAE Aero Design Report

2012
Team AeroNuts

Polytechnic Institute of NYU

Team Number: 213
Team Members:
Pierre Paras
Gleb Doro
Jovan Mayfield
Eric Ho
Tudor Mazgareanu
Sal Quarantino
Avery Moe
Manny Islam

Team AeroNuts Page 1

Team AeroNuts Page 2
Table of Contents

Statement of Compliance ................................................................................................................ 2

Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................... 4
Lift of Symbols and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................... 6
2 Design Process ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Aerodynamics................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Propulsion....................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Fuselage ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Avionics ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Servo Motor Sizing ................................................................................................. 11
2.4.2 Data Acquisition System......................................................................................... 12
3 Calculation ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Aircraft Sizing ................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Performance ................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Drag Analysis.......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Power Plant Performance ........................................................................................ 17
3.2.3 Predicted Performance ............................................................................................ 18
3.3 Stability and Control ...................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Aerodynamic Force Analysis..................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Structural analysis .......................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1 Landing Gear ................................................................................................................ 21
3.5.2 Payload Support .............................................................................................. 22
3.5.3 Wing Support .................................................................................... 23
3.5.4 Results ..................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A-Plans ......................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix B –Payload Prediction Curve ....................................................................................... 29 4

Team AeroNuts Page 3

Lift of Symbols and Acronyms
g Acceleration due to gravity
b Wing span
AoA Angle of attack
Ct Tip chord
e Oswald span efficiency
SVT Vertical stabilizer area
σ Ratio of air densities
SHT Vertical stabilizer area
FEA Finite element analysis
W Gross weight
CG Centre of gravity
WEmpty Aircraft empty weight
Vs Stall velocity
VTO Take off velocity
Re Reynolds number
CLmax Maximum lift coefficient
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
E Lift to drag ratio
Emax maximum lift to drag ratio
ρ Density
TSL Standard sea level air temperature
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
Team AeroNuts
αs Stall angle of attack
Cr Root chord
HP Horse power
S Wing area
ρSL sea level air density
AR Aspect ratio
K Induced drag factor
λ Taper ratio
CM Pitching moment coefficient
Wp Payload weight
CM0 Zero-lift pitching moment coefficient
CD Drag coefficient
CD0 Zero-lift drag coefficient
CL Lift coefficient
PR Required power
MAC Mean aerodynamic chord
ηp Propeller efficiency
T True air temperature
PSL Standard sea level atmospheric pressure
Po Atmospheric pressure
CLmaxTo Lift coefficient at take off
NYU New York University
Page 4
1 Introduction

1.1 Objective
For the past six years, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) club at the Polytechnic

Institute of NYU has sent a team composed of seniors, juniors and sophomores to compete in the SAE

Aero Design competition. Just this past year, the team representing our school competed well and won

first place in the advanced competition. The planes that the previous teams used featured a single engine,

single fuselage design but this year, we plan to use a twin engine, double fuselage design to compete. Our

objective this year to replicate the success of the team from last year while using a completely new

design.

1.2 Requirements
There are several design constraints for the advanced class SAE model airplane. They are as
follows:

1. The airplane will have a gross takeoff weight that must not exceed 55 lbf.

2. The airplane will have an engine that has a total displacement that must not exceed 0.65 in

3. The airplane will have a braking system.

4. The airplane will have a data acquisition system (DAS) which will measure takeoff and landing

distances.

5. The airplane will have a battery pack with a minimum capacity of 700mAh.

6. The airplane will NOT have a metal propeller.

The flight score for each round is determined by using a series of formulas incorporating: DAS

error, DAS Total Record Distance Take-off and Landing by DAS, the weight lifted, and Operational

Availability (Ao).

There is no constraint for take-off; however a shorter take-off distance will result in a better flight

score when included into the flight score equation.

Team AeroNuts Page 5

2 Design Process
Before designing the 2012 aircraft, an extensive research was conducted on all the previous

planes that Polytechnic had entered. We considered what each aircraft did well and what each aircraft did

poorly to learn from the teams’ past experience. The plane from last year performed well and placed first

in the payload lifted but they also had issues with the stability of the aircraft as the payload increased.

Our dual fuselage idea is designed to counter this problem. Even though we learned from the previous

teams, our team also made a lot of changes to our initial design such as adding springs to the landing gear

and changing the initial dimensions of the aircraft. The design of the aircraft was broken up into four

categories: Aerodynamics, Propulsion, Fuselage, and Avionics.

2.1 Aerodynamics

Using a dual fuselage design, research had to be done in choosing the most appropriate airfoils

along with the proper wing locations. Initially, the team planned to place the wings below the center of

the fuselage, but after further research it was decided that this would give us an unstable aircraft. With

this knowledge, the team is placing the wings at the geometric center with the leading edge tilted at a

slight angle for a reasonable angle of attack. Compared to an initial wingspan of 135 inches, after further

calculations, the team increased the wingspan to 155 inches. Though an increased wing produces more

drag, it also produces a greater lift. With two fuselages, two different airfoils will be used in this aircraft.

The connecting wing in the middle will have an NACA 8412 airfoil while the two outer wings will have a

tapered Clark Y airfoil with Horner’s tips. These wingtips increase lift by extending the “effective” aspect

ratio while reducing drag induced by vortexes flow (Figure 1). The NACA 8412 provides a higher lift

than the Clark Y, yet it has a higher stall speed. Using a combination of these airfoils, the aircraft should

experience stalls at the center wing before the outer wings. With this, the aircraft will have an ability to

glide or still fly in the case of stalls and possible engine malfunctions. The team will be using a foam core

encased in Balsa wood for the wings’ make-up. Balsa wood and foam is incredibly light; also, having the

foam core provides structural support. This year, the team will be fabricating the fuselage out of carbon

Team AeroNuts Page 6

fiber. With this the team will be constructing the vertical stabilizer as part of the fuselage. In doing so part

of the empennage becomes a part of the fuselage reducing the drag since there will be less edges and the

carbon fiber also makes it much lighter. Included in the empennage are one elevator, two rudders, and a

horizontal stabilizer. Like the wings, the horizontal stabilizer will be made with a foam core and Balsa

wood. The empennage was designed to be as light as possible to avoid a “tail heavy” aircraft and was also

designed to maintain a low drag. This precaution was taken to secure that the CG would have been placed

at a point that secured longitudinal stability. The CG is calculated to be near the leading edge of the

middle wing once the payload is attached.

Hand calculations coupled with analysis from XFLR5 (CFD freeware available online) were used

to determine the overall performance of the aircraft. The team explored different airfoil options for the

stabilizers. The stabilizers are composed of a NACA 0010 airfoil. As of the current moment, the team

does not intend to use any flaps as this would add more servos needed thus increasing the plane weight.

Lastly, to satisfy Requirement 11(Table 1), the team decided to incorporate an airbrake system. An

airbrake was chosen over a pneumatic or parachute system because it would save weight, while having

the ability to deploy and retract the system midair. The airbrake will be constructed out of carbon fiber

and fiberglass; it will be assembled as part of the middle wing.

2.2 Propulsion
In compliance with requirement 3, stated above, the team decided to use two Jett engineering .30

engines. Each engine can produce up to 2.07 Hp at 15000 rpm. A muffler was used to increase the thrust

produced by the propulsion system. The team decided that a rear exhaust coming off the top of the plane

would be best for the constant pressure stream lines that will be flowing over the plane during flight. The

two engines will be mounted at the front of the two carbon fiber fuselages so that all thrust comes from

the front of the aircraft. The propeller chosen for the aircraft is a APC 11”x3” sport propeller which was

chosen based on data provided by the manufacturer and through testing of with the engines. When

ordered the tuning pipes were a longer than expected so through constant testing, it is being manually

Team AeroNuts Page 7

shaved down until a maximum thrust, with the right propellers, is achieved. The team intends to have the

engines provide around 8 lbs of thrust by the time the aircraft is tested.

Figure 1: Vortexes Air Flow at Horner Wingtip (Heintz 1998-2009)

2.3 Fuselage
As stated above, one of the biggest difference between this year’s design and the design of the

previous years is the switch from a single engine, single fuselage airplane to the dual engine, dual

fuselage design. One of the major issues that had plagued the previous teams over the years is the

stability of the aircraft when a payload is added. The advantages of a dual fuselage design is that a dual

fuselage aircraft has better flight stability, structural stability, and can support a larger wing area and

payload. This phenomenon occurs because the additional weight changes the original center of gravity of

the aircraft thus changing the stability of the aircraft. The center of gravity before the payload is designed

to be in the middle of the wing in between the two fuselages and it would shift to the back of the wing as

the payload is increased. By using the dual fuselage design, our team believes that the ability to support a

larger wing area would give the plane a better flight stability and greater lift.

The major disadvantage of using a dual fuselage design is the significant weight gained by the

aircraft. This was countered by the choice of material that the fuselages would be built from. The

aircrafts from the previous year used plywood as the main material in the construction of the fuselage.

This year, the two fuselages would be constructed entirely from carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is an

extremely strong material that is also extremely lightweight. The major problems of carbon fiber are the

cost of the material and the difficulty of molding the fabric into the shape that we want. Before the

construction of the fuselage, an extensive research to the fabrication, construction, molding and the

Team AeroNuts Page 8

properties of carbon fiber itself was conducted to gain a better understanding of the material. Also,

previous teams have used a boxlike design for the fuselage. Since carbon fiber can be molded and shaped,

this year the design will be circular and attached at only two seams. The fuselages will even exemplify an

airfoil in its design. In using this, both fuselages are going to be more aerodynamic as supposed to a

boxed design. Also, the lengths of both fuselages were increased from 63 inches to 68 inches allowing for

greater moment to be achieved during turning.

The fuselages, as in all airplanes, will be designed to hold all parts together. Both fuselages will

carry an engine at the nose with a “ribcage” structure providing more strength and stability. The wings

and middle wing along with the tail will be attached to both fuselages using bolts and carbon fiber tubes.

Two tubes will attach the outer wings while another tube will attach the middle wing and both fuselages.

Four landing gears will be attached underneath both ends of the fuselages (two in the front and two in the

back). Our initial design of the landing gear is that it would be a solid bar with a wheel attached to the

bottom. Intuitively we believed that this would create an impact load that would resonate throughout the

entire aircraft. As a result, the team decided to include springs in the design of the landing gear to help

minimize the damage of the impact load. The springs are designed to behave very much in the same

manner as shocks in a car or shocks in a mountain bike. The inside of the fuselage will contain the DAS

and the control system (radio receiver and servos). Beneath the middle connecting wing a place will be

reserved to place the payloads.

2.4 Avionics
The aircraft consists of a 2.4 GHz radio receiver (Requirements 12), servo motors for every

moving component, a Data Acquisition System, and a power supply. Our pilot drives the aircraft from the

ground using a JR9503 radio transmitter.

Team AeroNuts Page 9

2.4.1 Servo Motor Sizing
There are eight outputs on the radio receiver to control all the onboard servo motors. The

total of eight servo motors onboard are used for: both throttle control, a pair of ailerons, elevator,

the airbrake, and both rudders. In choosing the right servo motors, each component was analyzed

to find the required torque. The deflection angle, area, free airstream velocity, and air density is

used to find the force acting on the control surface. The control rod is not fixed at the center of

the airbrake, so the force required for it is found by balancing the moments about the hinge. This

shows a higher force required resulting in a stronger servo motor. The torque required to

maintain a control surface at a fixed position is found from the force acting on the surface and

length of the servo motor horn.

Torque
Control Surface Area (in2) Angle (˚) Force (lbs) Torque (lb-in)
(oz-in)
Aileron 74.4 35 3.75 7.50 120.11

Airbrake 167 50 11.25 55.43 886.99

Elevators 69 35 3.48 6.96 111.39

Rudder 97 45 6.03 12.06 193.06

Table 1: Required Torques for Singular Pieces

These results were calculated for airspeed conditions at 73 ft/s and a maximum deflection angles, because

if weaker servo motors are used, they might malfunction any point during flight.

2.4.2 Data Acquisition System

The data acquisition system is developed around an Arduino platform that consists of mechanical

and electrical components. The system consists of an Arduino prototype board, an Arduino

Team AeroNuts Page 10

microcontroller, an encoder, a limit switch, a custom fabricated wheel hub, a LCD display, and a

momentary push button. The wheel hub will be manufactured to connect to the encoder’s rotating shaft.

The current plan is to physically attach the shaft to the wheel hub so they rotate simultaneously. The

microcontroller has been programed to read the voltage signal from the encoders. This would read the

total amount the shaft is rotated translating it to the total distance travelled. The limit switch will be

activated when the weight on wheel equals to zero. Due to this, the limit switch must be calibrated

beforehand. Once the engine is started DAS will not start recording until the hub, along with the encoder

shaft starts rotating. It will then stop recording data, when the pressure sensor is at zero equating to

complete lift off. Upon landing, when the pressure reading is greater than zero, the DAS will be

programmed to automatically start recording the hub rotations once more. The DAS will be placed

beneath the landing gear due to a more stabilized structure. The data that is retrieved from the Arduino

board will display the take-off distance and the landing distance respectively on the LCD display. The

push button switch allows for quick reset of the system between each flight trials. Further testing will be

done weekly enhancing the quality of the system. Further refinement must still be done therefore small

specifications of the Data Acquisition System are still subject to change (i.e. the use of pressure sensors

and the way the shaft is attached to the wheel hub) due to more research and testing at greater speeds.

3 Calculation

3.1 Aircraft Sizing

Several airfoils were considered to determine whether NACA 8412 is still the best choice to use. The

following airfoils were considered: Clark Y, Clark W, NACA 8412, GOE 623 and NACA 4516.

Team AeroNuts Page 11

 Figure 2: CL vs. AoA for main wing airfoils

Figure 3: CL vs. CD for main wing airfoils

Based on the preceding 2-D drag polar chart, NACA 8412 is still the best choice for our aircraft.

In the CL vs. AoA chart (Figure 2), NACA 8412 has the greatest CL compared to the other airfoils and

most AoA‟s. NACA 8412 also has higher stall angle than Clark W and GOE 683. In the CL vs. CD chart

(Figure 3), NACA 8412 seemed to have a CL at lower CD. Hence, the team decided to use NACA 8412.

Team AeroNuts Page 12

 For the stabilizers, the team considered using NACA0006, NACA0009, and NACA0010. The

team decided to use NACA 0010 because it provides high enough lift while maintaining low drag.

The team then decided on geometric dimensions after several iterations on XFLR5 (Table 3). Drag polar

chart for the 3-D plan form was obtained through XFLR5 (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

Horizontal Vertical
Wing
Stabilizer Stabilizer

Cr (in) 16 10 13

Ct (in) 8 10 8

C average 12 10 10.5

Λ 0.5 0 0.3

b (in) 155 40 10

S (in) 1840 400 105

AR 13.05707 4 0.952380952

K 0.025661 0.08376576 0.35181619

MAC (in) 5.98 3.56 3.22

Table 3: Plan form Geometry Dimensions

Team AeroNuts Page 13

 Figure 6: Cl vs. Cd at different Reynolds Numbers

Figure 7: Lift and Drag Polar for NACA 8412

3.2 Performance

The following section is a study conducted to determine the total drag coefficient, performance

prediction and power plant performance of the concept. The teams decided to calculate the performance

for an aircraft that weighs the maximum allowable weight of 55 lbs. The wing loading of the aircraft is

therefore 1.35 lbm/ft3

Team AeroNuts Page 14

3.2.1 Drag Analysis

The first set of data provided in this study is the drag characteristics of the aircraft

Table 4: Area and Reynolds Numbers

Plan form Area Wetted Area

Item Re
(in^2) (in^2)

Both Fuselages 680 1740.8 2,691,540

Wing 1840 3848.2 633,303

Horizontal Tail 400 826.18 395,814

Both Vertical

Tail 105 218.82 514,559

Figure 8: L/D vs. CL

Team AeroNuts Page 15

 Figure 9: Cl vs. Cd

3.2.2 Power Plant Performance

The following data was provided courtesy of Landing Products, manufacturers of APC Propellers. The

propeller chosen (11x 3W) was tested against a 13x6 and a 15x4 and found to have had the greatest static

thrust.

9
8 Static Thrust (lb)
Static Thrust (lb)

7 12x4
6
11x4
5
4 11x3
3 10x5
2
9x6
16 18 20 22 24
L* i[n] (length of tuned pipe from glow plug to end of pipe

Figure 10: Static Thrust (lb)

Team AeroNuts Page 16

 18000
16000
RPM
12x4
14000

RPM
11x4
12000
11x3
10000
8000 10x5
16 18 20 22 24 9x6
L* i[n] (length of tuned pipe from glow plug to end of pipe

Figure 11: RPM

3.2.3 Predicted Performance

The final portion of this study was to predict the performance of the aircraft. The performance

parameters of great importance include take-off velocity and distance, predicted best flight score and

maximum level flight velocity. The team predicted the total weight to be 55 lbs., the propeller efficiency

to be 80%, the power to be 2.08 hp, and the CLmax TO to be 1.5. The take-off velocity and distance of

the aircraft is

VTo= = = 73.17 ft/s D= ( ) 1.5 = 330 ft

Payload Weight vs. Density

Altitude
50
Payload Weight (lb)

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Density Altitude (ft)

Figure 12: Payload Weight vs. Density Altitude

Team AeroNuts Page 17

Using the predicted takeoff distance and corresponding payload weight, the best flight score was plotted

as a function of payload weight. It is assumed the error function is 0.99.

Using the propeller data provided by Landing Product and data obtained from the first two

sections, an available and required P/W chart was built to find the maximum velocity for level flight

(Figure 14). The following formula was used to find the required P/W ratio:

Team AeroNuts Page 18

The maximum velocity for level flight was 88 mph or 129 ft/s.

3.3 Stability and Control

The 3-D drag polar data received from XFLR5 also assisted in determine the static stability of the

concept per Figure 15. The objective was to have the aircraft stabilize the aircraft longitudinally at AOA

of 5.3° in order to maintain the lift coefficient at 1.22 during flight. To achieve this, the main wing is

tilted at a 5.5 angle of incidence; the horizontal stabilizer is tilted at a 2 angle of incidence, and the aircraft

to have an MAC percentage of 32%.

Team AeroNuts Page 19

 *****

3.4 Aerodynamic Force Analysis

Upfront CF design was used to evaluate the overall lift and drag forces on the airplane

design. Due to computer processing capabilities the simulation model does not include the payload

shell. Symmetry was used to reduce the number of nodes and elements. The air speed at inlet was

considered to be 45 mph. Pressure at outlet is 0 psi gage and the right wall has a slip/symmetry

condition. The simulation was run for 160 iterations for both laminar and turbulent flow with an

Advent 3 setting.

Figure 16: Simulation Model (left), Mesh of the Model (right)

Team AeroNuts Page 20

 Figure 17: Section Plane Showing Velocity Magnitude (top) and Static Pressure (top)

Lift (lbf) Drag (lbf)

Laminar 85.8 -11.3

Turbulent 94.7 -16.8

Table 5: CFD Simulation Results

Team AeroNuts Page 21

3.5 Structural Analysis

3.5.1 Procedure

ANSYS Workbench was used to analyze the Von-Mises stress (equivalent stresses) and

deflections for three areas of interest on the aircraft. Those are the landing gear, payload support

and the outer wing support. The landing gear is made of AISI 4340 steel and both the payload

support and wing support are made of Carbon-Epoxy composite tubes. A theoretical analysis is

performed to roughly validate the Workbench results. Table 1 lists material properties for the

two components.

Density Young’s Modulus Elastic Limit

Poison Ratio
(lb/in3) (ksi) (psi)
AISI 4340 Steel,
0.284 29700 0.29 141000
normalized
Carbon-Epoxy
0.058 10200 N/A 82700
composite
Table 6. Material Properties for Landing Gear and Tube Supports.

3.5.2 Landing Gear

The landing gear used consists of two struts that each incorporate a spring with a constant

of 20 lbf/in and have a 3.5in diameter wheel attached at the end. The diameter of a strut is

0.625in and the length during analysis was considered to be 9in. The landing gear height may be

downsized up to 5in on the final model. For theoretical calculations the strut can be treated as a

column in compression. The force acting on one of the struts is 27.5 lbf. This is half of the

maximum permitted weight of the plane. The plane is expected to experience 2 to 3G forces

during landing. A 2.4G force was considered in the analysis. This gives an apparent down force

of 66 lbf. The following equations are making use of the quantities mentioned.

Team AeroNuts Page 22

 When calculating equivalent stress, Workbench is also taking in consideration bending

stress and shear stress due to the placement of the wheel at the end of the strut.

To the left of Figure 1 the simulation model along with boundary conditions is shown.

The wheel is fixed, the strut is allowed to move only downward and a force of 66 lbf is acting on

top of it. A fine mesh was used to generate results and this is shown to the right of Figure 1.

Figure 18. Simulation Model (left), Model Mesh (right).

The graphical representation of total deformation is highly exaggerated in Workbench to

give the interpreter a better understanding on how the model behaves. Figure 2 shows total

deformation on the left and equivalent stress on the right.

Figure 19. Total Deformation (left), Equivalent Stress (right).

Team AeroNuts Page 23

 For the purpose of this simulation the spring was considered to be fully compressed. The

role of the spring is to absorb some of the shock during landing. A concern is the recoil effect.

The team is relying on the pilot to have a smooth landing. The wheel will also help attenuate the

bounce effect since it has a Styrofoam core. We do not expect a bounce higher than 3in due to

low stored potential energy of the spring. When fully compressed the cylinder of the strut travels

1.2in until the spring is fully compressed. This yields a potential energy of 14.4 lbf/in.

3.5.3 Payload Support

The payload is attached under the center wing of the plane. Figure 3 shows the method of

attaching it.

Figure 20. Payload Attachment Method and Final Design (bottom right corner).

The payload is attached to a 36 in long carbon tube. The tube has a 1in outer diameter and

0.196in inner diameter. The tube is placed inside the wing which is made of Styrofoam. Caps are

cut on top and bottom of the wing and 3x1.6in plank of poplar plywood covered in carbon fiber

is placed against the tube. Afterwards the caps are glued back into place and the entire wing is

covered in balsa wood and monocoat. Same procedure is used to place servomotors inside other

parts of the airfoil. Finally the shell containing the payload is bolted to the support that is resting

on the tube.

Team AeroNuts Page 24

 Figure 4 shows the simulation model and the model mesh. The two sets of supports to the

left and right of the payload are meant to represent the edges of the fuselages. The distance

between the two fuselages is 25in and each fuselage is 4in wide.

Figure 21. Simulation Model (left), Model Mesh (right).

For simulation purpose only the section of the wing contained between the plywood is included

in the model. Again considering a 2.4G force and 39 lb worth of load the force experience by the

tube during landing would be 93 lbf. The four supports representing the edges of the fuselages

are fixed in space and the tube is allowed to move only vertically under load. Figure 5 shows the

total deformation and equivalent stress for this setup.

Figure 22. Total Deformation (left), Equivalent Stress (right).

Hand calculations for payload support

Team AeroNuts Page 25

 Figure 23: Free Body Diagram of Tube Supporting Payload

Maximum Bending Moment Moment of Inertia

Static Bending Stress Impact Loading Stress (for a bounce of h=3in)

Deflection at Midpoint

3.5.4 Wing Support

There are three carbon tubes used in our design. The top of Figure 6 is showing how

these tubes are used in the plane. The front tube is 36in long and is used to support the payload.

The two back tubes are 30in long and are meant to support the outside wings since the one that is

supporting the load is too short to serve both purposes.

Figure 24: Tube Arrangement (top), Distributed Lift Force on Wing (bottom).

The equation used to calculate lift per unit span is:

Team AeroNuts Page 26

The wing was modeled as a cantilever beam under a linear distributed load, which can be expressed

as .

Applying the root and tip lift values as boundary conditions, the coefficients, a and b, were

found to be -1.06 lb/ft and 7.4 lb/ft respectively. The shear force and bending moment at the root was

found using static equilibrium.

These values were used to run a Workbench simulation. Force was applied only on the rear

tube because the front one can be neglected since it inserts only 1.5in inside the outer wing.

Figure 25: Carbon Tube deflection (left) and Equivalent Stress (right) due to Lift Force on Wing

The stress acts mostly on the side of the fuselage. Maximum deflection is quite high with 5 in at

the tip. This is because of fixed support condition, but during flight the fuselage will move with the wing.

Part Elastic Limit (psi) Maximum Stress (psi) Maximum Deformation (in)

Landing Gear 6720 0.005

141000
Payload Support 17542 0.027
82700
Wing Support 82700 2.9 5.6

Table 7: Summary of Results for Structural Analysis

Team AeroNuts Page 27

Works Cited

1. AID. Airfoil Investigation Database. January 22, 2011.

http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/483 (accessed 1 5, 2011).

2. Hale, Francis. Introduction to Aircraft Performance, Selection and Design. Danvers, MA:

Wiley, 1984.

3. Heintz, Chris. "Anatomy of STOL Aircraft." 1998-2009.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design/design.html (accessed 01 30, 2009).

4. MatWeb, LLC. 5. 1996-2011. http://www.matweb.com/ (accessed 1 30, 2011).

5. Torenbeek, Egbert. Sythesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Acedemic Publishers, 1982.

Team AeroNuts Page 28

Team AeroNuts Page 29
Team AeroNuts- Polytechnic Institute of New York
University

Payload Weight vs. Density

Altitude
45

40

35
Payload Weight (lb)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Density Altitude (ft)

Wmax = 39.9 - .0019hdenisty

Team Number 213

Team AeroNuts Page 30