Flamingo

Detailed Design of an Emergency Relief UAV

Principal Tutor
P. Roling
Coaches
M. Alharbi
H. Chen
Design Synthesis Exercise Group 6
Rene van den Berg 1515403 Jonas Laeret 1396374
Rinze Bruining 1506773 Pepijn Meeuwissen 1534505
Joep van Genuchten 1369148 Olivier Mulder 1236393
Darsini Kathirgamanathan 1509497 M.A.C. Perera 1551019
Ayesha Khan 1543970 Robin Vermeij 1357263
June 28, 2011
ii Nomenclature
Preface
This report is the fourth and nal progress report of Design Synthesis Exercise Group 6. It describes
the results of the design process that led to the design of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for
emergency relief purposes. The emphasis of the report lies on the design philosophy, the used method-
ologies and the results obtained during the detailed design phase. The main elds of investigation are
the aerodynamics, the structures and the simulation of the UAV.
Readers who are particularly interested in aerodynamic, stability and performance aspects of the
designed UAV should direct their attention to chapter 3. Chapter 4 focuses on an in depth analysis
of various structures of the UAV, whereas chapter 5 deals with the numerical simulation modeling
the behavior of the aircraft while it is performing the vertical attitude take o and landing (VATOL)
maneuver. Chapters 6 and 7 illustrate the subsystems of the UAV and the operations and logistics
respectively.
We would like to express our gratitude to our tutor P. Roling for his continuous guidance and input
during the Design Synthesis Exercise. The same holds for our coaches M. Alharbi and H. Chen. We
also would like to thank M. Abdalla, C. Kassapoglou and J. Hol for their help with the structural de-
sign and analysis. Furthermore, we want to thank M.D. Pavel for her help on the MATLAB program
used in the design of the propellers. Additionally, we would like to thank M. Voskuijl for his input
on the tilt rotor concept design. We are also grateful for the advice given by our oral presentation
lecturer B. van der Laaken. Finally, special thanks are given to E. Mooij. We greatly appreciate his
contributions to the numerical simulation of the VATOL maneuver. Without his help, the simulation
would not have reached the level that it has now.
iii
iv 0 Preface
Summary
The ecient delivery of emergency humanitarian aid can drastically minimize the aftermath of a
natural disaster. This calls upon a system of great exibility that can easily adapt to variable
operating environments. The unpredictability associated with natural disasters often dismisses the
possibility of using conventional means of transport to achieve this objective. Hence, delivery by air
becomes one of the more feasible options creating a demand that is currently met by helicopters.
Helicopters enhanced control and its ability to hover, drastically simplies the delivery process.
However, due to ineciencies in their use with respect to sustainability and fuel consumption, Un-
manned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) can be seen as a viable substitute in the near future.
This particular Design Synthesis Exercise (DSE) project deals with the design of a UAV to pro-
vide humanitarian aid to the residents of areas struck by natural disasters. The UAV should be able
to perform the mission in an ecient, cheap and environmentally friendly manner with respect to a
helicopter.
The analysis of customer and designer based requirements and the exploration of available design
options led to the preliminary design of three dierent concepts. These concepts, a tilt rotor concept,
helicopter concept and a tail sitter xed wing concept, were analyzed in detail. The trade o per-
formed yielded the tail sitter concept as the winning concept that has been designed in detail. The
tail sitter from then on was designated the Flamingo.
The Flamingo UAV is a unique, novel design, which incorporates the attributes of a blended
wing body with a canard type conguration. It includes two wing mounted propellers driven by a
single Wankel engine, Mistral G-200. Flamingo accomplishes the requirement of landing and taking
o vertically by performing a pitch up maneuver. In other words, the UAV pitches up steeply,
transferring the lifting load from its wings to its propellers. It will then slowly descent, where it will
land on its payload. After the releasing of the payload, the UAV will then take o vertically. This
inherently implies that its thrust to weight ratio is larger than one, after the release of the payload.
The UAV also meets the 75% carbondioxide emission reduction requirement with respect to a
conventional helicopter. This illustrates the sustainable nature of the UAV. Furthermore, depending
on the payload weight of the aircraft, the design of the Flamingo allows for total world coverage.
The tail sitter concept can be modeled as a conventional xed wing aircraft during its horizontal
ight regime and as a rotor craft while it is performing the latter part of the pitch up maneuver. This
has a direct consequence for the design of the propellers, in the sense that it is a compromise between
a helicopter rotor and a conventional aircraft type propeller. Blade element momentum theory is used
to compute the thrust and power delivered by the propeller. Furthermore, the induced air velocity by
the propeller is determined using a numerical simulation. The determination of this induced velocity
is vital for modeling the behavior of the aircraft while it is performing the VATOL maneuver, as this
becomes the only airow over the control surfaces allowing for pitch, yaw and roll control in no wind
conditions.
v
vi 0 Summary
A detailed aerodynamic analysis of this novel concept is performed using vortex lattice method (VLM)
using the MATLAB based program TORNADO. TORNADO models the main wing, canard and the
vertical ns of the UAV. The wing blended fuselage is modeled using the NACA 0025 airfoil. This
program outputs the lift distribution of both the wing and the canard. The drag estimation was
computed using both TORNADO and the XFOIL based program XFLR5. The drag coecients of
the cargo pod is computed using XFLR5 and the model in TORNADO gives the drag coecient of
the blended wing body. This output has been corrected using general aerodynamic relation to depict
a more realistic picture.
The main wing is placed as far back as possible with respect to the aircraft, in order to shift
the aerodynamic center back and increasing the stability margin. The stability of the UAV during
conventional and hovering ight with and without payload, is improved by iterating between various
canard sizes and locations. The result is a neutrally statically stable aircraft with payload. Without
payload, the aircraft has a positive stability margin and is therefore statically stable. But more
importantly, the UAV is proved to be controllable during its most critical and challenging ight phase
of the mission, the hovering phase.
All ight derivatives and control deection derivatives that form the input to the simulation of
the VATOL maneuver are computed using TORNADO.
An in depth structural analysis has also been performed on the most critical parts of the UAV.
This analysis was also coupled with nite element modeling using the Generative Structural Analysis
workbench in CATIA.
The internal structure of the wing box is designed in detail to account for numerous possible
failure modes and load types. A numerical simulation is utilized to compute the optimum stringer
and rib pitch. The internal structure of the canard is also sized in a similar manner. The canard
booms are modeled to be clamped at their connection to the engine mount and have been sized for
minimum deections to ensure that the canard position is not hindered due to elastic deformation.
Furthermore, the main landing gear is sized for hard landing conditions, where the UAV lands on a
single wheel with a landing gear load factor of 2. The tail landing gear is sized for the maximum
static load acting on the tail wheel and steers the aircraft while grounded. The main landing gear
consists of a main strut and two side struts. The structure is modeled by one roller and two hinge
supports. The landing gear retracts parallel to the two booms connecting the canard to the aircraft.
The cargo pod is designed to have a payload volume of 1m
3
. It is made of white spruce strengthened
by stieners to withstand the loads during the landing. The cargo pod is made from a biodegradable
material, reinforcing the sustainable benets of this design. The design of the shafts and gearboxes
transferring the power from the engine to the propellers are also analyzed. The gearboxes use a xed
gear ratio, worm gears and bevel gears are used to connect one shaft to another.
The VATOL maneuver performed by the UAV is a critical aspect of the design. This procedure
is modeled using two simulations in MATLAB and Simulink environments. Two simulations were
made such that one can be veried with the other. However, the MATLAB simulation failed to achieve
accurate results within the available time period. The euler angles suer from Gimbal lock while the
UAV is in vertical attitude. Hence, the equations of motion have been determined in quaternion form.
These are used to create a state space system.
Both the simulation utilizes the same Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller, which gener-
ates the gain needed to control the aircraft during the VATOL maneuver. The results of the Simulink
simulation illustrates that the designed UAV can indeed perform the VATOL maneuver, while lim-
iting the descent acceleration to below 2g. Furthermore, it conrms that no stability problems are
faced during the vertical take o, after the cargo is released and thus the center of gravity shifted.
The control surfaces were conrmed to be suciently eective to maintain the stability of the aircraft
during the VATOL phase under the propeller induced velocity conditions.
0 Summary vii
The Flamingo contains a triple redundant autopilot system specically designed for UAVs and in-
corporates a long distance landing sensor for landing site scanning purposes and a short distance
landing sensor. These sensors function during both day and night increasing the exibility of the
UAV. Flamingos communication system bases itself on the use of broadband satellite Internet. Re-
dundancies were considered when designing the fuel system of the Flamingo. Its fuel tank is especially
designed to minimize sloshing, as this can lead to stability issues while the VATOL maneuver is per-
formed.
The maximum take o weight of the amingo is calculated to be 7140N. It has a wing span of
7.45m. The Flamingos stall speed and maximum speed are 28m/s and 77m/s respectively. With a
cruise speed of 55m/s, it is able to perform six missions per day. When the UAV is fully loaded the
range is 590km which is in general large enough for emergency relief operations. During a one week-
operation, the UAS consisting of ten UAVs can provide 20, 000 beneciaries with 5kg of humanitarian
aid.
Flamingo was developed to very high level of detail. Mainly constrained by time, further analy-
sis of the structural parts using nite element models were not possible. Numerous failure modes of
structural parts still need to be analyzed, namely for buckling, fatigue and vibrational loads.
The cargo pod should be designed in much greater detail with respect to aerodynamics. Currently,
only the structural attributes of this is considered. The simulation conrms that the VATOL analysis
can be performed by the Flamingo. The next step is to design an auto pilot for this maneuver based
on the simulation.
viii 0 Summary
Table of Contents
Preface iii
Summary v
List of Symbols xiii
1 Introduction 1
2 Design Aspects 3
2.1 Project objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Emergency relief UAV requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Customer requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Designer imposed requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Considered concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 The helicopter concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 The tiltrotor concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.3 The tailsitter concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.4 Trade-o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Features of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.1 Conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.2 VATOL capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.3 Cargo pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.4 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.5 Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Mission prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.1 Flight mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6.1 Manufacturing the UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6.2 Operating the UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Market analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7.1 Disasters and customer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7.2 Humanitarian relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.7.3 Positioning the product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ix
x Contents
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 15
3.1 Aerodynamic analysis methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1 The vortex lattice method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2 Implementation in the simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.3 The aerodynamic model of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Analysis of the aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1 C
L
and C
L
C
D
curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.2 Main wing lift distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Static stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.1 The stability margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.2 Static stability during horizontal ight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.3 Static stability during hover ight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4 Dynamic stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5 Propeller design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6.1 Performance diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.2 Thrust to weight ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.3 Range and endurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.4 Rate of climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.5 Stall speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.6 Gliding rate of descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.7 Take o eld length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7 Mission performance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.8 Overview of aerodynamic and performance parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 Structural Design & Analysis 29
4.1 Wing box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1.1 Method used to determine normal stresses and shear ows . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1.2 Loads and stresses acting on each cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.3 Rib and stringer spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.4 Finite element analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.5 Material and weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2 Canard design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.1 Shear stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.2 Stieners of the canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.3 Spar anges of the canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2.4 Material and weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3 Cargo pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.1 Centre of gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3.2 Stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3.3 Set up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.4 Material selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4 Cargo release mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5 Landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5.1 Shock absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.2 Main landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.3 Tail landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.6 Booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.6.1 Stress analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.6.2 Material selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.6.3 Boom connection to engine mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Contents xi
4.6.4 Finite element analysis on booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.7 Control surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.7.1 Attaching the aperons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.8 Shafts and gear boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5 VATOL Simulation 57
5.1 Flight dynamics and quaternions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2 Derivation of the linear system of equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.3 Aircraft controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.4 Aircraft guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.5 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.5.1 Assumptions and aerodynamic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.5.2 Simulink implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.6 Results of the simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.6.1 Pitch-up maneuver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.6.2 Vertical take o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6 Subsystem Design 69
6.1 Power system design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Electrical block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.3 Control & navigation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3.1 Autopilot chip set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3.2 Short distance landing sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3.3 Long distance landing sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.4 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.5 Data handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.6 Support system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 75
7.1 Operations & logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.1.1 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.1.2 Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.1.3 Material handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.2 Production plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.2.1 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.2.2 On site assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.3 Cost break-down structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.3.1 Unit production cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.3.2 Direct operating cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.4 Operational benet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.5 Risk map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.6 RAMS analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.6.1 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.6.2 Availability and maintainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.6.3 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.7 Functional ow diagram & functional breakdown structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.8 Future project design and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
8 Conclusions 87
xii Contents
9 Recommendations 89
9.1 Recommendations for the project in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2 Recommendations for aerodynamics, stability and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.3 Recommendations for structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
9.4 Recommendations for the simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
9.5 Recommendations for the subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.6 Recommendations for operations and logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendices
A Technical drawings 97
B State Space System Matrix Inputs 103
C Compliance Matrix 105
List of Figures
2.1 Artist impression of the Helicopter concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Artist impression of the Tilt Rotor concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Artist impression of the Tailsitter concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Artist impression of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Aerodynamic model of the tailsitter using VLM in TORNADO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Aerodynamic model of the cargo pod using XFLR5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 The C
L
curve of the tailsitter UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 The C
L
C
D
curve of the tailsitter UAV, with and without payload . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 The lift distribution of the main wing for = 3

deg and V = 55m/s . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.6 The C
m
curve of the tailsitter UAV with and without payload . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.7 Free body diagram of the UAV in hovering phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 The C
m
,elevon
curve of the tailsitter UAV with and without payload during hover . . . 21
3.9 Hovering pitch angle versus resulting force in X
earth
-direction with and without payload 21
3.10 Angle of attack of the Flamingo during the phugoid motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.11 Velocity of the Flamingo during the phugoid motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.12 Delivered thrust, required power and induced velocity of a single proprotor for varying
pitch angles and velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.13 Performance diagram for the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.14 The thrust to weight ratio versus altitude with payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.15 The maximum hovering altitude versus payload weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.16 The rate of climb versus altitude with and without payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.17 The stall speed versus altitude with and without payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.18 V/a diagram during the take o run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1 Forces acting on the wing box and their locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2 Overview of the variables used for the rib and stringer sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Top view of the rib and stringer distribution on the bottom plate . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4 Bottom view of the rib and stringer distribution on the top plate . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.5 Overview of the outer wing box model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.6 Cross sections of the wing box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.7 Stress distribution in the outer wing box using FEM analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.8 Displacement of the outer wing box using FEM analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.9 General overview of the internal fuselage structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.10 Overview of the displacements of the inner wing box at the extreme ight conditions
case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
xiii
xiv List of Figures
4.11 The wing box cross-section of the canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.12 Moment diagram due to lift (left) and moment diagram due to drag (right) . . . . . . 39
4.13 The cross-section of the stiener and the spar ange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.14 Cargo pod conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.15 Cargo pod fold lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.16 Release mechanism of the cargo pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.17 Sketch of the main landing gear and cross-section of the beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.18 The tail gear location (left) and the cross-section of the beam (right) . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.19 Stress Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.20 Boom stress distribution due to loads encountered during the cruise ight regime . . . 53
4.21 Translational displacements of the boom due to loads faced during cruise . . . . . . . 54
4.22 Boom stress distribution due to worst case scenario loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.23 Control surface design. a) Main design; b) Open section shear ows; c) Closed section with
additional circular shear ows; d) Flaperons support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.24 Shaft and gearbox design. a) Rotations and RPMs; b) Gears and bearings. . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.1 The gains are computed at several instances when using gain scheduling . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Flight Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3 Simulink controller block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.4 Flight Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5 simulink guidance block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.6 Altitude versus distance to target during vertical landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.7 Pitch angle versus time during the vertical landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.8 Velocity versus time during the vertical landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.9 Altitude versus horizontal distance from target during the vertical take o . . . . . . . 66
5.10 Pitch angle versus time during the the vertical take o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.11 Velocity versus time during the vertical take o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.1 Electrical Block Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.2 Satellite Internet coverage of the BGAN network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.3 Satellite Antenna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.4 Data Handling Block Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1 A400M layout where ten UAVs are loaded with support sta and support equipment . 76
7.2 Functional Breakdown Structure of a typical emergency relief mission . . . . . . . . . 83
7.3 Functional Flow Diagram of a typical emergency relief mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.4 Gantt chart for further development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A.1 Isometric view of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
A.2 Top view of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
A.3 Front view of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
A.4 Side view of the Flamingo without cargo pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
A.5 Side view of the Flamingo with cargo pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
List of Symbols
Symbol Unit Meaning Symbol Unit Meaning
A m
2
Area q vector Quaternion vector
B
r
m
2
Boom area r rad/s Yaw rate
C
e

Dimensionless change of
quaternion input
1
R
c

Ratio of actual and crit-
ical stress: compression
buckling
C
d
m/s
2
2D Drag coecient R
s

Ratio of actual and criti-
cal stress: shear buckling
C
D
m/s
2
3D Drag coecient S
t
m Tire deection
C
l
m/s
2
2D Lift coecient S
x
m
3
Statical moment of area
around x-axis
C
L
m/s
2
3D Lift coecient S
y
m
3
Statical moment of area
around y-axis
C
p
Dimensionless p
1
S
z
m
3
Statical moment of area
around z-axis
C
q
Dimensionless q
1
t m Thickness
C
r
Dimensionless r
1
T N Thrust
d m Stiener pitch t
d
m Web thickness
E Pa Youngs modulus u vector Control input vector
e Quaternion input V m/s Speed
e
0
Scalar quaternion input V N Shear force
F
normal
N Normal force V
s
m/s Sink speed
xv
xvi 0 List of Symbols
Symbol Unit Meaning Symbol Unit Meaning
g m/s
2
Gravitational accelera-
tion parameter
W N Weight
H m Height x m Roll-axis
I m
4
Moment of inertia x vector State vector
K Column eective factor y m Pitch-axis
K
c
Buckling constant z m Yaw-axis
L N Lift rad Angle of attack
L or l m Length rad Flight path angle
l
av
m Available length

T
Change in
T
1
M Nm Moment
a
rad Aileron deection
N N Normal force
c
rad Canard deection
n Number of stieners
e
rad Elevator deection
n
s
Shock absorber eciency
r
rad Rudder deection
n
t
Eciency of the tire
T
Thrust setting
P N Normal force rad Pitch angle
p rad/s Roll rate Poissons ratio
P
cr
N Critical buckling force m
1
Curvature
Q N Statical moment of area Pa Normal stress
q rad/s Pitch rate Pa Shear stress
q
s
N/m Shear ow
cr
Pa Critical shear stress
Table 1: List of symbols
1
An additional subscript indicates that the derivate of the parent is taken with respect to the child.
List of Tables
1 List of symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
2.1 Mission performance of the Helicopter conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Mission performance of the Tilt Rotor conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Mission performance of the TailSitter Canard conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Trade o criteria and weights and scores for each concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 R-44 Mission prole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6 Number of beneciaries for a two day operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7 Number of beneciaries for a seven day operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.8 The SWOT analysis of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Properties of the C
L
curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Basic proprotor conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Typical (single) proprotor settings and quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 The range and endurance of the UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5 The total time and fuel consumed for a 200km range, 3000m altitude mission . . . . . 27
3.6 Costs per component of a 200km range, 3000m altitude mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7 Overview of the aerodynamic parameters of the UAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8 Overview of the performance parameters of the Flamingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1 Loads, moments, stresses and shear ows acting on the wing box . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Rib Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3 Loads applied to the FEM of the outboard wing box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4 Material properties of aluminum 7075 T76511 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5 Bending moments, normal stress and normal force on booms at dierent section in the
wing box of the canard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.6 Shear ow and the shear stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.7 Number of stieners needed on the top plate and the rear spar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.8 Dimensions of the legs of the pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.9 Stresses on the leg of the pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.10 Stresses on the pivot of the pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.11 Stieners needed for the plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.12 White Spruce Picea Glauca longitudional properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.13 The normal stress and the shear stress at dierent location in the landing gear . . . . 48
4.14 The stresses in the tail landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.15 Boom diameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
xvii
xviii List of Tables
4.16 Stresses on the booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.17 Stresses on the booms worst case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.18 Epoxy Carbon bre (SMC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.19 Comparison of FEM with analytical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.20 Main sizing parameters, determined analytically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.21 Results of shaft and gear box structural analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1 Dierent components and their masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.1 Flamingo unit cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.2 Direct operating cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.3 Risk map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.1 Flamingo characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C.1 Compliance Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Chapter 1
Introduction
Natural disasters are known to leave devastation in their wake. The unpredictable nature of these
disasters requires ecient ways to distribute humanitarian aid quickly to the sites in question. Cur-
rently, this is achieved by helicopters when conventional means of transport is no longer applicable.
However, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) can be seen as a more sustainable choice for the future.
Furthermore, the absence of human beings in the aircraft increases the range and exibility of the
type of missions that the UAV can perform. This is of paramount importance when it comes to
natural disasters, as the situation can very easily be escalated depending on the surrounding of the
site. As was the case with the recent earthquake to hit Japan that triggered a sequence of events
resulting in the meltdown of a nuclear plant.
This particular Design Synthesis Exercise (DSE) project deals with the design of an Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of areas struck by natural disas-
ters. This report aims to provide a detailed overview of the results obtained from the entire design
process of the DSE. The emphasis lies on the outcomes of the detailed design phase of the project.
The UAV is designed to be more cost ecient and environment friendly with respect to manned
helicopters. The most vital requirements of the UAV include, the ability to perform a vertical take
o and landing maneuver, a reduction in the Carbon Dioxide emission by 75% with respect to a
conventional helicopter and the ability to t 10 UAV units, support system and sta in the A400M
transport aircraft. The designed UAV, Flamingo complies with all customer set requirements and is
designed according to CS-23 regulations.
The structure of the report is as follows. Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of the requirement driving
the design, the market analysis, the sustainable development strategy and the preliminary concepts
that led up to the design of the Flamingo. Chapter 3 describes the aerodynamic, stability and perfor-
mance characteristics of the UAV. A detailed analysis of propeller design is included here. In chapter
4, structural analysis of wing box, canard, cargo pod, landing gear and booms are performed. Finite
element modeling have been incorporated in this analysis. Chapter 5 explains the theory involved
in the computation of the numerical simulation of the VATOL maneuver. Chapter 6 describes the
design of the UAV subsystems, whereas chapter 7 depicts the operations and logistics of the UAV.
Chapters 8 and 9 gives the conclusions and the recommendations respectively.
1
2 1 Introduction
Chapter 2
Design Aspects
This chapter states the design aspects of this project and the basic UAV conguration. First, the
project objective is dened in section 2.1. Then the customer requirements are discussed in section
2.2. The preliminary concepts are shown in section 2.3. Then, the winner of the trade-o is discussed
in section 2.4. Hereafter the mission prole will be elaborated in section 2.5. The sustainibility is
focussed in section 2.6. Market analysis is performed in section 2.7.
2.1 Project objective
The Design Synthesis Exercise is the nal project of the BSc Aerospace Engineering at the TU Delft.
During the exercise, 10 students work full time for 11 weeks on an aerospace related design.
In the design project, it is demonstrated that the students have the basic knowledge and skills
necessary to accomplish a successful paper design of an aerospace system. By completing the project,
the students demonstrate the following (Melkert, 2011).
1. They have technical competence; the ability to apply knowledge.
2. They have design competence: perform conceptual design of an aircraft, integrate life-cycle and sustain-
ability issues in the design.
3. They have eective communications skills: plan, prepare, deliver and assess meetings, oral presentations
and written reports.
4. They show a professional attitude towards each other and their clients.
5. They are able to work in multi-disciplinary teams.
6. They understand contemporary & societal issues in their work.
7. They exhibit life long learning attitudes and abilities.
The nal deliverables of the project include the nal report, a nal review for the tutor and coaches
and a presentation at the design synthesis exercise symposium at the faculty of Aerospace Engineering.
The group-specic assignment for group 6 of DSE spring 2011 is as follows:
Design a cheap and sustainable UAS to supply aid several times a day, to dicult to access disaster
areas, in 11 weeks time within a group of 10 students.
The UAV is designed based on customer and designer imposed requirements. Hence, the requirements
are analyzed in detail with the use of a requirement discovery tree and a requirement traceability table.
This is followed by a more thorough functional analysis. The functions and the requirements of the
UAV help to illustrate what the nal product should be capable of and what the customer expects
3
4 2 Design Aspects
from the product. At this point, the conceptual design phase commences. During the conceptual
design the group is split into three sub-groups, each generating an individual concept. Preliminary
performance calculations are made and engineering drawings corresponding to the conceptual designs
are created. For all concepts an initial risk analysis is performed. The risk analysis is used in the
trade-o, when the most feasible design is chosen. Next to the risk analysis, also a general market
analysis, operations and logistics analysis are performed and a sustainable development strategy is
created. A trade-o is performed, once the concepts have been developed in substantial detail such
that quantiable parameters, especially concerning mission performance, can be compared to choose
the concept that is developed in detail.
When the nal concept of the UAV is known, a detailed design of this concept is performed.
During this phase, emphasis is put on the design of the UAV systems, improved aircraft design,
control and stability, mission simulation and operational return of the UAV.
2.2 Emergency relief UAV requirements
There are two types of requirements that concern the UAS design- Customer requirements as stated
by the customer and designer imposed requirements. This section explains both theses kinds of
requirements as well as top level requirements and children requirements which are a consequence of
top level requirements. The compliance matrix is put in Appendix C.
2.2.1 Customer requirements
This subsection explains the customer top level and children requirements. The UAV should be able
to carry a maximum of 250kg of payload mass and 1 m
3
of payload volume.It should be able to land
on an area of less than 10m by 10m. This implies that the span of the UAV should not exceed 14.14m.
The UAV should also be designed such that it can be disassembled and 10 such units, support system
and sta can t in an A400M transport aircraft which implies that 10 UAV units, support system and
sta should be able to t in a total volume of 340 m
3
. In addition the UAV, when carrying maximum
payload, must be able to travel 200km to deliver the payload and another 200km to go back to the
airport without the payload. Each UAV should conduct at least 4 sorties a day. This maximum range
and mission duration imply that the cruise speed of the UAV should be minimum 32 m/s. Another
customer requirement species that the UAV should be able to take-o in an airport length of 1000
m. Moreover the payload must not be accelerated to more than 2 g which implies that no rockets or
boosters can be used for power systems. The UAV should be able to operate during a wind speed
of more than 7 Beaufort and due to restricted area at the disaster site be able to land and takeo
vertically. The UAV should be able to land on a maximum slope of 10

and during night have the

capability to land autonomously, which implies that the sensor system of the UAV should be able to
operate in the absence of sunlight.
Another important customer requirement is regarding costs and emissions. The direct operational
cost of a UAV should not exceed AC500 per sortie while the unit production cost should not exceed
AC250,000. The UAV should operate in an environment friendly manner and have 75% less CO
2
emission compared to a manned helicopter. This implies that the maximum fuel mass per sortie
should not exceed 28.9kg and this fuel mass calculation can be found in section 2.6. Moreover the
UAV should comply with present CS-23 airworthiness regulations and should be designed by 10 people
within 11 weeks of time.
2.2.2 Designer imposed requirements
This subsection explains the designer imposed top level and children requirements. The UAV should
be able to operate in several kinds of environments because disasters are not region specic, should
be able to land on rough surface and be able y at altitudes of about 6000 m because it should be
2 Design Aspects 5
able to reach the highest settlements in the world. The highest altitude for the UAV to y at, without
payload, is the altitude required to y over all parts of the Earth which is 9000m and the UAV should
stay operational within the temperature range of -51

to 57.8

. Moreover the UAV should be able

to operate in very humid environments without the risk of corrosion and should be able to operate
in desert and arid regions. All these imply that the engine of the UAV should be operational at the
stated altitude, ceiling and temperature requirements and also that the payload should be properly
insulated in order to safely reach the disaster site. In addition the material used for UAV should
be able to withstand all possible environments. The design of the UAV should be such that it is
produced, operated and disposed in an environment friendly manner so the use of toxic materials
should be minimized. The UAV should be able to deploy the payload automatically and reach the
disaster site which implies that a proper deployment mechanism is needed to deploy payload and to
bring a UAV to disaster site it should have an accurate reporting status and needs to be equipped
with a proper guidance, navigation and communication system. It should have a sucient power
supply to perform the mission and be able to provide visuals which implies it should have a high
resolution remote sensing system. Besides the UAV should conduct the mission safely which implies
that people and system should be safe.
All these requirements with their unique identier are listed in appendix C. Moreover, the com-
pliance traceability is included in this appendix as well.
2.3 Considered concepts
To give an insight in the initial phases of the design process, this section will give a quick introduction
of the concepts considered before selecting one nal design. Each of these concepts has been developed
up until the class II weight estimation (class II weight estimation is a method to check the operational
empty weight which is calculated by the preliminary weight estimation method) and after that a trade-
o has been made. The description of each of the concepts is as they were designed at the time of
the trade-o, so there will be some discrepancy between the Tailsitter described at that time and the
nal design presented in this report. In this section, after a short description of each of the concepts
a table can be found containing the performance of the aircraft for a design mission of 200km, a
short mission of 150km and a longer mission with reduced payload of 300km. After the concept
descriptions, the trade-o will be discussed and the results can again be found in a table containing
all trade-o criteria and scoring. From this table it will become clear why the Tailsitter is the concept
that has been further developed.
2.3.1 The helicopter concept
One of the concepts is the conventional helicopter. It has a main rotor which is attached to a hub
and a hinge. To counteract the reaction torque on the fuselage which is created by the main rotor a
tail rotor is attached to the boom. There are no horizontal or vertical stabilizers used. To control the
attitude of the aircraft a swash plate is used which translates the reciprocating motion into a rotating
one.
The engine is mounted inside the fuselage and the fuel tank is located in the fuselage as well.
Since the payload is carried externally the fuselage becomes smaller compared to one which carries
the payload internally. The landing gear which is attached to the fuselage is a skid landing gear.
Skids are used mainly because they weigh less than wheels and are cheaper to produce. There are
two gearboxes used, one in the fuselage for the main rotor and the other one in the boom for the tail
rotor. An artist impression of this concept can be found in gure 2.1. The mission performance of
this concept can be found in table 2.1.
6 2 Design Aspects
Figure 2.1: Artist impression of the Helicopter concept
Mission distance (km) Time Taken (min) Fuel Consumed (kg) Cost (AC)
150 120 29.1 79
200 156 34.6 99
300 246 40.1 117
Table 2.1: Mission performance of the Helicopter conguration
2.3.2 The tiltrotor concept
Before developing a specic tilt rotor conguration, the choice was made between a quadcopter tilt
rotor and a twin rotor tilt rotor. The quadcopter concept was discarded because it is less ecient
in hovering, as two large rotors have a greater propulsive eciency than four smaller ones. Also, an
extra engine would be necessary to prevent very complicated gearing systems. The quadcopter does
have a very good stability in comparison to the dual tilt rotor. As a compromise, a dual tilt rotor
with additional fan was chosen.
The payload is placed near the tiltrotors center of gravity. In that case, the shift in center of
gravity after delivering the payload is minimal. The foldable tail is mounted on the aft of the fuselage,
after a small fan which will provide extra pitching stability during hovering. The engine is then placed
in the nose, to shift the center of gravity back on the wing. An artist impression of this concept can
be found in gure 2.2. The mission performance of this concept can be found in table 2.2.
Mission distance (km) Time Taken (min) Fuel Consumed (kg) Cost (AC)
150 101 65.3 101
200 129 85.5 130
300 191 130 195
Table 2.2: Mission performance of the Tilt Rotor conguration
2.3.3 The tailsitter concept
The Tail Sitter concept aims to combine the mechanical simplicity and cruise performance of a xed
wing aircraft with the VTOL capabilities of a helicopter without the complexity of a Tilt Rotor. The
conguration of this concept comprises of a wing under which the payload is carried. The wing caries
2 engines, one on each side. From the wing, two booms run forward which carry a lifting canard.
This concept will perform the mission by taking o horizontally from the airport. When landing
at the delivery site the aircraft will pitch up steeply and slowly transfer the lifting load from the
2 Design Aspects 7
Figure 2.2: Artist impression of the Tilt Rotor concept
Figure 2.3: Artist impression of the Tailsitter concept
wings to the propeller. Once the aircraft is completely hovering it will slowly descent and nally land
on its tail. After having delivered the payload, it will take o vertically again and transfer to cruise.
When back at the airport it will land conventionally again. An artist impression of this concept can
be found in gure 2.3. The mission performance characteristics of this concept can be found in table
2.3.
Mission distance (km) Time Taken (min) Fuel Consumed (kg) Cost (AC)
150 121 29.1 50
200 151 34.6 55
300 211 40.1 62
Table 2.3: Mission performance of the TailSitter Canard conguration
2.3.4 Trade-o
For the trade-o several aspects of the UAVs performance have been considered. Based on how
important these aspects are considered to be, a weight has been assigned to it in terms of a percentage
of the total score. The result of the trade-o can be found in table 2.4. For some of these aspects
no quantitative expression was available at the time of the trade-o (e.g. cargo exibility and
reliability). In such cases the concepts were compared to each other and the highest score was
assigned to what was agreed to be the best conguration and lower scores were assigned accordingly
to the other two concepts. Note that the Tilt Rotor got a 0 score on manufacturing cost as it exceeded
8 2 Design Aspects
Criterion Weight% Helicopter Tiltrotor Tailsitter
200km Mission 24% 4.158 3.844 4.56
150km Mission 8% 3.575 3.17 4.47556
300km Mission 8% 2.82 1.652 3.026
Manufacturing costs 20% 5 0 4.48
Ability to bring back cargo 5% 3 5 3
Maximum altitude 5% 3 3.8 3.6
Reliability 5% 3 2 4
Risk 5% 3 2 4
Cargo exibility 10% 5 5 4.25
Turnaround time 10% 3 3 5
Total weighted score - 3.610 2.448 4.246
Table 2.4: Trade o criteria and weights and scores for each concept
the maximum production cost of AC250, 000.
As can be seen, the Tailsitter concept wins by a signicant margin. This is mostly due to the fact
that it has the lowest operation cost and the fastest turn around time.
2.4 Features of the Flamingo
This section explains the general overview of the humanitarian relief UAV which has won the concep-
tual trade-o. This concept is called the Flamingo and will in the rest of the report also be referred
to as such. First the general conguration is presented after which the VATOL capability and the
characteristics of the cargo pod are explained. The details of the results of the eorts done by the
project team in the past few weeks will be presented in the following chapters.
2.4.1 Conguration
Figure 2.4: Artist impression of the Flamingo
An artist impression of the Flamingo can be seen in gure 2.4. As can be seen, the UAV is an
airplane with a canard and two wing mounted propellers. The propellers are driven by one Wankel
engine in front of the fuselage. Large vertical stabilizers provide lateral stability during ight. The
total span is about 7.5m, the length is about 5m and the height of the UAV without landing gear and
payload is approximately 2m. The airplane has a maximum take o weight of 720kg and a payload
carrying capability of 250kg. The propellers are a compromise between helicopter propellers and
2 Design Aspects 9
conventional airplane propellers and have a diameter of 2.6m and are able to provide a maximum
thrust of 7300N.
Detailed technical drawings can be found in appendix A and a project schedule for the remaining
of the development of the UAV can be found in chapter 7.
2.4.2 VATOL capability
The tailsitter UAV has unique vertical attitude take o and landing, or VATOL, capabilities. VATOL
capable aircraft are usually referred to as tailsitters because they sit on their tail after a successful
landing is performed. The VATOL maneuver enables the UAV to land in areas without a runway,
thus paving the way to humanitarian aid to nearly impossible to reach disaster areas. A VATOL
is performed by making a pitch up maneuver. This means that the landing procedure starts with a
horizontal ight after which a canard deection increases the pitch angle. The pitch angle is increased
until it has reached 90 degrees, the nose of the UAV now points upwards. Now the ight speed is
reduced to zero and hovering ight like a helicopter starts. Attitude control is maintained by the
elevons and rudders which feel an eective propeller induced air velocity. This part of the landing
maneuver requires that the thrust is equal to the weight of the UAV. When a stable hovering condition
is reached, thrust settings can be lowered and a vertical attitude descend can be initiated. When zero
altitude is reached, a gentle touchdown enables the UAV to release its payload and take o again.
The take o maneuver consists of applying maximum thrust, gaining sucient altitude and ight
speed, and then easily pitching down in order to eventually perform conventional ight again.
2.4.3 Cargo pod
The cargo pod is a part which deserves special attention in this section. The cargo pod is able to
contain payload up to 1m
3
and 250kg. Moreover, it is environmentally friendly and serves as a landing
gear during the VATOL maneuver. The pod is made out of white spruce, which is cheap, strong and
easy to process. This is done because the cargo pod is left at the disaster site. After the touchdown
of the VATOL maneuver, the pod with the payload is released and the UAV is able to take o with
a signicantly increased T/W ratio.
2.4.4 Safety
During the VATOL maneuver, the safety of the FLAMINGO and the surroundings of the landing site
must be ensured since this is an uncontrolled environment. Especially because of the propeller height
of 1.5m during this vertical attitude maneuver, it must be ensured that there are no people on the
landing site. A LIDAR system is used to determine the landing site clearance. If the landing site is
clear, the UAV makes sure that the contact with the ground is limited to the minimum time needed
to unlock and release the payload. This can be a matter of seconds. This fast payload deployment
procedure will enable the UAV to quickly hover to a safe transition altitude again.
2.4.5 Flexibility
The cargo pod presented in this report is primarily designed for emergency relief missions. For other
missions, other cargo pods can be designed according to requirements set by that particular mission.
For example, for a long endurance observation mission, a cargo pod which contains an extra fuel
tank and observation sensors can be designed. This cargo pod can be made more expensive and
durable compared to the cargo pod for humanitarian relief missions since it is not disposed during
the mission. Moreover, it can have a more aerodynamic shape, improving the ight characteristics.
Another possibility is the use of the UAV as a light transport aircraft. The Flamingo then has a
durable, aerodynamically shaped cargo pod which can be reused over and over again.
10 2 Design Aspects
2.5 Mission prole
In this section an overview of a typical mission is described. However, the UAS will be capable of
performing various missions, which all might have a dierent prole. In this section mission refers
to an entire operation of the whole UAS, whereas ight mission applies to a sortie of one UAV.
The functional breakdown which describes the main characteristics of one general emergency relief
mission can be found in chapter 7.
Preparations
The main goal of the UAS is to supply aid to disaster stricken areas quickly. This implies that the
mission starts as soon as the help of the UAS is required after a disaster has happened. The UAS must
then be transported to an airport nearby the disaster area quickly. To perform the transport fast,
the total UAS including 10 UAVs, support system and personnel should t in one A400M transport
aircraft.
After the A400M has landed at a normal airport near the disaster site, the preparations for
performing the ight missions are initiated. The support system must be set up, the UAVs need to be
assembled and the cargo pods can be loaded. Before and during the preparation phase, information
can already be acquired about the cargo type and destinations.
2.5.1 Flight mission
As soon as all preparations are nished, the ight missions can be performed. A typical ight mission
is bringing a payload of 250kg to a destination site 200km away from the airport. Before take-o the
UAV systems should be checked to work correctly, after which the UAV can take-o conventionally
from the airport with a cargopod attached, and cruise to the destination.
On site operations
When the UAV approaches the landing destination, it uses its sensor system to create a virtual map
of the environment. A landing area of at least 10m by 10m is then chosen, where the landing will
be performed in a wind speed of up to 7 Beaufort. The VATOL maneuver and cargo pod release
are performed as described in section 2.4. After the VATOL maneuver, the FLAMINGO switches
to conventional ight mode for the cruise back to the airport (without payload). The landing at the
airport will be conventional again, after which the UAV can be prepared for another ight mission.
The ight mission with respect to performance parameters is presented in section 3.7.
Additional mission characteristics
According to the requirements in section 2.2 this typical mission may not cost more than AC500 per
sortie. This cost comprises mainly of fuel, cargopod and communication data handling costs. During
the mission there should be 75% reduction in CO
2
-emission when compare to a manned helicopter
performing the same mission.
2.6 Sustainable development
A sustainable UAS is desirable for both ideological and practical reasons. Especially reducing the
amount of fuel consumed for delivering emergency goods can be vital as fuel will be extra scarce in a
disaster stricken area. The cargo pod, which is to be left behind on the landing site is another consid-
eration. This section will discuss all the aspects considered to make this aircraft a more sustainable
alternative as compared to conventional ways of transporting emergency goods.
2 Design Aspects 11
Mission phase Time required Fuel required
take o and landing 20 minutes 22.7l
cruise 111 minutes 126l
total 131 minutes 148l
75% CO
2
reduction N.A. 37.1l
Flamingo 149 minutes 36.5l
Table 2.5: R-44 Mission prole
2.6.1 Manufacturing the UAV
When designing the aircraft, attention is paid to the materials chosen. As will be discussed in chapter
4, most of the Flamingo is designed using metals. Only the booms carrying the canard and the cargo
pod are made of other materials. Primarily metals are used because metals can relatively easily be
recycled at the end of life of the Flamingo
1
. The alternative would have been composite materials,
however, until this moment, there are no real recycling possibilities for those materials.
2.6.2 Operating the UAV
The CO
2
emissions should be reduced with respect to a conventional helicopter by 75%. This is
given by requirement E.1. The Robinson R-44 is used as a benchmark. This helicopter has a similar
payload capacity to this UAV and is relatively cheap and will therefore form a good comparison. The
fuel consumption of R-44 is 68 liters per hour (Robinson Model R-44, 11-05-2011). It is assumed that
a 75% reduction in fuel use will also result in a 75% reduction in emissions.
It is assumed that the 68 liters per hour is an average value for normal ight. The time the R-44
requires to perform the cruise is found using the R-44s cruise speed of 216km/h (R44 Raven/Clipper
Series Helicopters, 17-05-2011). The time it will require this helicopter to take o and land at both
the airport and the delivery site is assumed to be 5 minutes for each phase, 20 minutes in total.
The results for the fuel used for a typical mission performed by an R-44 can be found in table 2.5.
Flamingos performance is also given. The calculation of the mission performance will be elaborated
in section 3.7. As can be seen, the Flamingo meets this requirement with a small margin.
The cargo pod used to carry the payload is made out of white spruce. The structural reasoning
will be elaborated in section 4.3. The advantages for sustainability of the operation of the UAV is
that wood is naturally biodegradable or can be burned by the people on the disaster site with no
danger of toxic fumes.
2.7 Market analysis
The market analysis is performed in order to investigate the commercial potential of the UAV. First,
an example of a natural disaster and its characteristics are explained as well as the potential cus-
tomers. Then a market orientation is performed in which the capabilities of the UAS with respect to
these natural disasters are explained. Finally the positioning of the product with respect to possible
competitors is explained.
2.7.1 Disasters and customer
This section examines the practical application of the UAS after the catastrophic earthquake on
January 12, 2010 in Haiti. Since the earthquake caused several oods many areas became dicult to
access by conventional means of transport. The U.S. military sent 23 Navy ships, 10 Coast Guard
1
Regulations impose that recycled metals may not be used for aircraft anymore, however there are many other
industries where these recycled metals can still be used
12 2 Design Aspects
ships, 264 xed-wing aircraft and 57 helicopters to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
During the whole Haiti operation by the U.S. military, they supplied a total of 21 million kilogram of
humanitarian aid consisting of water, food, radios and shelters Narrative History of Operation Unied
Response (2010). By assuming that every helicopter performed one operation a day, supplying aid
weighing half the payload capacity of the helicopter, the helicopters supplied around 2 million kilogram
of the total aid. When put into perspective of the UAV considered in this report, an A400M would
be able to land on three airports in Haiti located in Port-au-Prince, Jacmel and Cap-Haitien. From
these three airports every place in Haiti is accessible within a range of 200 kilometers which means
that the UAV would be able to supply aid to every location in the disaster area.
Three main players can be distinguished when potential customers for a humanitarian relief UAV
for situations described above are investigated. These players are:
International organizations
Governmental institutions
Non-governmental organizations and companies
There are several international institutions that could be interested in an emergency relief UAS.
Institutes that quickly come to mind are for instance the UN, the NATO and the Red Cross. These
institutes regularly send emergency relief aid to disaster areas. Organizations of this size often have
a separate body that is specically assigned to quickly react in case of disaster and this UAS can
help them to react faster. Similar to the international institutes, individual governments might
be interested in the UAS. Often emergency relief is coordinated through the defense ministry. Also
countries with vast remote areas like the US, Canada, Russia and China might benet from a UAS that
can operate in remote areas, and archipelagos with small communities on dierent islands could have
a use for this UAS. Finally, large NGOs and companies intervene in many dierent types of emergency
relief missions. A UAS that costs about the same as one helicopter could be very attractive for these
organizations. However this UAS is capable of more than just emergency relief. Oil companies for
example, might be attracted by the UASs capability of delivering supplies to their remote drilling
sites. For similar reasons it might prove to be an eective transportation platform between remote
research centers for instance at the Antarctic Peninsula and the Arctic regions.
2.7.2 Humanitarian relief
In order to calculate what the UAS is capable of, the amount of beneciaries in a specic area, the
beneciary needs and the performance parameters of the UAS are taken into account (see section-
sec:performanceoverview).
A beneciary, a victim of a natural disaster, needs 0.75 kg of aid a day. This amount consists of
0.6kg of food and 0.15kg of medicines and water purifying tablets. It is assumed that within a week,
the stricken area will become accessible by other means of transport. So the UAV must be able to
provide humanitarian aid for a week, which gives a total of 5.25kg humanitarian aid per beneciary
per week.
As one UAV is capable of providing 250 kg of humanitarian aid, within a range of 150km six times
a day, this means that one UAS consisting of 10 UAVs is able to provide 30, 000kg per day within an
area of 70, 000km
2
. To determine the number of beneciaries which can be reached the population
density of the area is used.
Table 2.6 gives the number of beneciaries which can be reached for a two day operation. Two
days is a typical time span which a human being is able to survive without (clean) water. Table 2.7
shows the amount of beneciaries which can be reached in a week. It is assumed that conventional
infrastructure can be repaired within a week. In case the mission is extended for example for two
weeks, then accordingly the number of beneciaries will double. It must be kept in mind that above
numbers are applicable for average missions by one UAS consisting of 10 UAVs and operating from
2 Design Aspects 13
Population Density Possible beneciaries Possible beneciaries
[people/km
2
] [% of total population]
10 5714 0.45%
50 5714 0.09%
100 5714 0.05%
Table 2.6: Number of beneciaries for a two day operation
Population Density Possible beneciaries Possible beneciaries
[people/km
2
] [% of total population]
10 20000 1.59%
50 20000 0.32%
100 20000 0.16%
Table 2.7: Number of beneciaries for a seven day operation
one base only. For a disaster of a larger scale, for example the 2008 oods in Pakistan, more bases
are needed to provide total coverage of the disaster area. It might be more convenient then to either
use more UAVs and/or spread the UAVs over multiple bases.
2.7.3 Positioning the product
For market analysis there are certain areas that need to be assessed, namely strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. They determine the position of the product and represent all aspects
of the UAV design. Strengths and opportunities reect the positive aspects of the UAV while the
weaknesses and threats represent the downside. They are collectively termed as SWOT.The SWOT
analysis for the UAV is given in table 2.8 and is explained below.
Strengths Weaknesses
Ability to reach remote areas Can carry limited amount of payload
Flexible Can help limited number op people
Cheaper than alternatives No experience relief method
Faster than alternatives High risk design
Opportunities Threats
support helicopter missions Less trust in UAV development
Growing interest for other missions Competitions with reliable systems
Regulations
Table 2.8: The SWOT analysis of the Flamingo
Strengths
The strengths of the UAV include the ability of a UAV to reach remote areas that are inaccessible
by road and rail. Due to disasters people might be stuck in these regions and be in urgent need
of survival supplies. UAV in this situation is a very practical solution. The UAV is also relatively
cheap when compared to manned helicopters which are used for emergency relief purposes. This is
a very important aspect as potential customers would want a system that costs less and fullls the
missions objective. Moreover, the Flamingo is also able to y faster than conventional helicopter and
will therefore reach disaster site more quickly. Flexibility is a very attractive aspect for the customer
because it implies that the UAV is not restricted to perform only one kind of mission and can be
adapted depending on the mission need.
14 2 Design Aspects
Weaknesses
A UAV can only carry a limited amount of payload. The size of a UAV is small which restricts the
amount of payload that can be carried by it. On the other hand helicopters can be very large and
deliver a large quantity of payload which is very useful in regions that are densely populated. Since a
UAV can carry less payload the number of people that can be helped is less. This is also a downside
of a UAV especially in situations when many people are in need of aid. Moreover, the design of a
UAV is a novel process and designers dont have any major prior experience. This increases the risks
on UAV design.
Opportunities
A UAV can provide support to helicopter missions. In emergency situations it could be possible that
all available helicopters are not sucient to provide aid, UAVs could then be used additionally to
complete the mission. Or if the usage of helicopters is very costly they can be replaced by UAVs
to make the mission more economical which increases the interest of potential buyers. In addition
the concept of UAV appeals to the customer because a UAV system can be used for various kinds
of missions. For example a UAV could be used to supply aid but could also be used for observation
missions.
Threats
As UAV is a novel concept, many organizations may not trust it enough to readily implement it in
their mission. Besides, very reliable systems are available like helicopters thereby the customer is
more prone to the use of known and reliable alternatives than a new concept that has almost no
experience. Moreover, the UAV design has to be tested with respect to EU regulations. This is very
time consuming and till date there are not many regulations concerning UAVs.
Chapter 3
Aerodynamics, Stability and
Performance
This chapter discusses the investigation and optimization of the aerodynamic and static stability
characteristics of the UAV as well as the performance characteristics. The combination of the canard
conguration, the VATOL capabilities and the vast change in weight after releasing the payload
impose several challenges.
Section 3.1 explains the methodology used for the aerodynamic analysis after which section 3.2
discusses the aerodynamic characteristics of the UAV determined by this method. The static and
dynamic stability for both conventional ight and hovering are discussed in sections 3.3 and 3.4
respectively. The design of the propeller is elaborated in section 3.5. When all aerodynamic analysis
is performed, the performance parameters and the mission prole characteristics can be determined.
This is done in section 3.6 and 3.7. A nal overview of all aerodynamic and performance parameters
is given at the end of the chapter in section 3.8.
The outcomes of the aerodynamic and stability analysis are used for further structurally designing
the UAV and simulating the VATOL maneuver.
3.1 Aerodynamic analysis methodology
In order to analyze and optimize the UAV layout and ight characteristics the MATLAB based
program TORNADO (Melin, 2000) and the XFOIL based program XFLR5 (M. Drela, 2011)are used.
While this section gives a general overview of the method and the aerodynamic model used, the
precise aerodynamic parameters used can be found in section 3.8.
3.1.1 The vortex lattice method
The vortex lattice method (VLM) is used to investigate and enhance the aerodynamic characteristics
of the UAV. The vortex lattice method divides the lifting surfaces of the aircraft in a number of
horseshoe vortices creating a lattice of vortices used for lift and drag calculations. During the build
up of the aerodynamic model, it has been taken into account that the vortex lines are not coinciding
with a vortex lattice point. Otherwise it is not possible to mathematically analyze the aerodynamics
of the model. The use VLM implies several assumptions, namely:
Homogeneous propeller induced velocity eld
The cargo pod has no inuence on the ight derivatives
Inviscid, incompressible and irrotational ow
15
16 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
Thin lifting surfaces
The assumptions used have the implication that the method is only valid for small angles of attack
and do not deal with stall characteristics. Please note that the ow is inviscid and therefore the
parasite drag is underestimated by TORNADO.
3.1.2 Implementation in the simulation
The VLM aerodynamic model is used to determine the UAV ight coecients which are input for
the simulation for a given state (e.g. airspeed, angle of attack). Because of the non conventional
maneuvering done with the UAV and the accompanying (propeller induced) velocity eld, the normal
ight model cannot always be used. During hovering, the canard does not experience an eective
incoming air ow, thus it will not inuence the ight derivatives. To implement the absence of the
inuence of the canard in the simulation, an aerodynamic model without the canard will be used for
these ight regimes and a propeller induced velocity eld is assumed. The rest of the model will be
exactly the same as the model used for conventional ight. See chapter 5 for more details on the
implementation of the VLM model in the simulation.
3.1.3 The aerodynamic model of the Flamingo
First, the initial sizing done in the mid term design was used to build op the aerodynamic model of
the UAV. After several iterations the nal layout was determined as can be seen in gure 3.1. Below
the dierent parts are described.
Figure 3.1: Aerodynamic model of the tailsitter using VLM in TORNADO
Main wing design
Since the fuselage of the tailsitter UAV is blended within the wing, the main wing is modeled as a
blended wing body. To provide adequate space for the engine and the systems, the body has a NACA
0025 airfoil and spans 1.04m. A transition phase of 24.4cm is used to merge the body with the main
wing. The main wing has a S4022 airfoil and aperons spanning 2.2m and 25% of the local chord
length. The total span of the main wing is 7.45m and the wing tip has a twist of one degree.
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 17
Vertical stabilizer design
The size of the vertical stabilizers is, somewhat counterintuitive, not mainly determined by the aero-
dynamic characteristics during the VATOL maneuver. Three conditions determine the shape of the
vertical stabilizers. These are the location of the wing box of the main wing, the necessity to function
as the rear landing gear and the wish to put it as far after the center of gravity as possible to provide
adequate yaw control during hovering. The rst two conditions already lead to a surface area large
enough to provide sucient yaw control during hovering. The airfoil used for the vertical stabilizers
is a common used NACA 0018 airfoil. A 25% of the chord length is reserved for control surface.
Canard design
The canard size and location are optimized for stability and controllability. Just as on the main wing,
a S4022 airfoil is used. The canard is not tapered and the span and chord of the canard are 2.6m
and 0.4m respectively. The canard is located 30cm above the chord of the main wing to reduce the
interference during conventional ight.
Cargo pod design
The payload cargo pod is not directly modeled in TORNADO. Instead, a 3D model is made in XFLR5
from which the drag coecient is determined, see gure 3.2. Further details of the cargo pod can be
found in section 4.3.
Figure 3.2: Aerodynamic model of the cargo pod using XFLR5
3.2 Analysis of the aerodynamics
This section discusses the outcomes of the aerodynamic model from the former section and concludes
with an overview of the main aerodynamic characteristics of the UAV.
3.2.1 C
L
and C
L
C
D
curves
The C
L
curve of the UAV determined by TORNADO can be seen in gure 3.3. This gure shows
the curves for both the apped and the unapped wing. The main characteristics of the C
L

curves can be found in table 3.1. Since TORNADO is limited to linear aerodynamic design the C
L
max
and
stall
are approximated using the DATCOM method (D.E. Ellison, 1965) while the exact stall
characteristics are to be determined with more advanced modeling or experimental methods.
The C
L
C
D
curve with and without payload can be seen in gure 3.4. The drag is estimated
using two methods. One is the direct output of TORNADO, the other method is calculating the drag
using C
D
i
= C
2
L
/Ae. As can be seen in the gure, the VLM analysis gives lower drag coecients
for higher values of C
L
. In order to not underestimate the drag, during the computation of the
performance parameters the drag coecients from the general known equation for induced drag are
used. The Oswald factor is assumed to be 0.9 for the main wing and 0.85 for the canard (Anderson,
2005). The zero lift drag coecients with and without payload are 0.0235 and 0.0092 respectively,
18 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
C
L
Alpha [deg]
C
L
-alpha curves
Re =3.1e+6
C_L-alpha
C_L-alpha,
flapped
Figure 3.3: The C
L
curve of the tailsitter
UAV
-0.3
0
0.3
1
1.3
2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
!
"
#
!
$#
!
"#
%#!
$
#&'()*#
C_L-C_u w/o payload -
1C8nAuC
C_L-C_u w/o payload -
performance equaLlons
C_L-C_u wlLh payload -
1C8nAuC
C_L-C_u wlLh payload -
performance equaLlons
Figure 3.4: The C
L
C
D
curve of the tailsitter
UAV, with and without payload
Unapped wing 20

Flapped wing
C
L
max
1.60 1.94
C
L,=o
0.37 0.75

L=0
4.5

9.0

stall
15.9

15.9

Table 3.1: Properties of the C

L
curve
this dierence is calculated using the cargo pod model in XFLR5. (C
L
/C
D
)
max
with payload is equal
to 14.8 and without payload is equal to 23.8. Please note that the zero lift drag coecients are too
low, this can be explained by the fact that TORNADO assumes that the ow is inviscid as mentioned
before. The ratio
_
C
3
L
/C
2
D
_
max
is 200 with payload and 321 without payload.
3.2.2 Main wing lift distribution
The main wing lift distribution can be found in gure 3.5. The curve shows clearly the inuence of
the fuselage (between 0.5m and 0.5m wing span) and the canards (at 2.5m and 2.5m wing span)
on the main wing lift distribution. The lift distribution does not take the inuence of the payload into
account. This would make the lift between 0.5m and 0.5m wingspan less. Integrating the curve for
the whole wing span gives the total lift of L = 6972N. Adding the positive canard lift gives a total
lift of L = 8175.
3.3 Static stability
The static stability during ight is elaborated in this section. Unlike conventional airplanes, the
UAV considered must also be statically stable during hovering ight. The release of the payload
on the landing site causes a great change in weight and a shift of the center of gravity which both
inuences the stability behavior of the UAV. In order to gain a good insight in the static stability,
the conventional ight and the hover ight stability is investigated both with and without payload.
3.3.1 The stability margin
The location of the center of gravity with and without payload and the aerodynamic center can be
found in the technical drawings in appendix A. The locations of the center of gravity are determined
by the most up to date weight estimation. These include the weights of the dierent structural
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 19
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Lift [N]
Span location [m]
Lift distribution main wing, alpha=3deg, V=55m/s, Re = 5.5e+6
Lift distribution
main wing
Figure 3.5: The lift distribution of the main wing for = 3

deg and V = 55m/s

parts, the engine, and all other UAV subsystems and their relative location. The payload causes the
center of gravity to shift backward by 14.5cm, thus decreasing the stability margin. The location of
the aerodynamic center is determined using TORNADO and shifts slightly with changing angle of
attack. The main wing is located as far back as possible in order to increase the stability margin.
The center of gravity and the aerodynamic center were varied using dierent canard locations and
sizes until an optimum was reached. The UAV is designed such that the stability margin is around
zero with payload. A neutral or slightly unsteady equilibrium is allowed because the ight controller
(see section 5.5.2) is able to cope with such a situation. The stability margin without payload allows
for better stability and is x
sm
/ c = 0.12.
3.3.2 Static stability during horizontal ight
Figure 3.6 shows the C
m
curve both with and without payload. This gure shows two interesting
facts. First of all, for the UAV with payload C
m

is around zero, which indicates a neutrally stable

ight. Secondly, around = 3

the UAV shows a statically unstable behavior. This is due to the

eect of the canard on the main wing. At this angle of attack, the main wing is exactly in the wake of
the canard. This unstable behavior at this angle of attack causes the UAV to go back to a stable angle
of attack region again. Moreover, any unwanted instabilities can be canceled by the aforementioned
ight controller by deecting the elevons and canard.
3.3.3 Static stability during hover ight
To obtain static hovering stability, the free body diagram of the UAV during this phase is made, see
gure 3.7. It is assumed that there is no wind, the canard does not have a inuence during hovering
and the propeller induced velocity is homogeneous, constant and only has a vector in the UAV x-
direction. The forces acting around the center of gravity are the thrust force by the propellers and
the lift force by the main wing. The moment coecient around the center of gravity by the main
wing is calculated for a range of elevon deections using an aerodynamic model without a canard in
TORNADO at a ight speed of 17m/s, the propeller induced airspeed. The moment coecient due
to the thrust is taken constant with the thrust assumed equal to the weight.
The moment coecient around the body m-axis as a function of elevon deection is plotted in
gure 3.8 with and without payload. This gure includes the moment coecient induced by the thrust
C
m,thrust
, which is equal to 0.06 and 0.35 with and without payload respectively. It was desired to
have the thrust vector in line with the center of gravity of the UAV with payload because the wing
already creates a moment around the center of gravity which is not negligible. As can be seen, there
20 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
C
m

[
-
]

alpha [deg]
Stick fixed static stability
Stick fixed static
stability with payload
delta_can=-2.7 deg
Stick fixed static
stability w/o payload
delta_can = -5.5 deg
Figure 3.6: The C
m
curve of the tailsitter UAV with and without
payload
Thrust Thrust
Lift
CG
Weight
Figure 3.7: Free body
diagram of
the UAV
in hovering
phase
exists no moment around the center of gravity for
elevon
= 10

(with payload) and

elevon
= 10

(without payload). However, this elevon deection causes the lift force acting on the body to have
a X
earth
-component. This component has to be counteracted by the thrust using a pitch angle of
= 90

. Figure 3.9 shows the pitch angle needed to counteract the lift force in X
earth
-direction with
and without payload, which are 89

and 85

respectively. Of course, the propeller induced velocity

will change because of the inclination of the UAV (the thrust is not aligned with the weight any more,
so T > W), thus shifting the C
m
,elevon
-curve causing the elevon deection to be slightly less.
The dynamic stability will be investigated by using the simulation (see chapter 5) since thrust is
not used as a variable in the aerodynamic model.
3.4 Dynamic stability
The dynamic stability during horizontal ight is investigated for one eigenmotion, the phugoid. This
is only done for the phugoid to illustrate the aircraft behavior without controls. In reality, the control
surface deections will continuously be corrected by the ight controller.
The angle of attack and the velocity during the phugoid are plotted in gures 3.10 and 3.11 for
a time span of 100 seconds. After 5 seconds trimmed ight a small negative canard deection of
0.03

is initiated. The plots show the unstable behavior of the UAV after that control input. At
approximately 90s the maximum ight speed of 77m/s is almost reached while the maximum angle
of attack during this eigenmotion is 3.2

and occurs at approximately 70 seconds.

3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 21
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-40 -20 0 20 40
C
m

[
-
]

Elevator deflection [deg]
Hovering stick fixed stability
Hovering stick fixed
stability with payload
Hovering stick fixed
stability w/o payload
Figure 3.8: The C
m
,elevon
curve of the tailsit-
ter UAV with and without payload
during hover
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
80 85 90 95 100
F
X
,
e
a
r
t
h

[
N
]

Pitch angle [deg]
Hovering pitch angle
Hovering pitch angle
with payload
Hovering pitch angle
w/o payload
Figure 3.9: Hovering pitch angle versus result-
ing force in X
earth
-direction with
and without payload
Figure 3.10: Angle of attack of the Flamingo
during the phugoid motion
!"
!#
$"
$#
#"
##
%"
%#
&"
&#
'"
" (" $" %" '" )""
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
"
()$*"#&'"
+,-./)0"1*&2/3&*"
*+,-./0
1234.532
Figure 3.11: Velocity of the Flamingo during
the phugoid motion
3.5 Propeller design
The proprotors play an important role for the tailsitter aircraft. They should provide thrust during
cruise ight like a propeller aircraft, but also provide thrust to hover during the VATOL maneuver
like a rotorcraft. The most important dierence between these two phases is the velocity of the undis-
turbed air relative to the aircraft: during hover this velocity is really low and maybe even negative,
whereas during cruise ight the relative velocity can roughly vary between 40 and 60 m/s. The airfoil
that is selected is the VR7, which is an airfoil especially designed for VTOL aircraft.
There are quite some widely used theories involving the rotor hovering performance of a helicopter and
the propeller cruise performance of airplanes, but for the tailsitter the theories need to be combined.
To do so, it is chosen to use the Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory for propellers during the
cruise phase and the BEM theory for rotors during the hovering phase. Also statistical data and the
actuator disc theory are used for validation and verication. For the transitional phase, the required
power, delivered thrust and induced velocity are interpolated between the two phases.
The Blade Element Momentum theory discretizes the proprotor blades and calculates the local an-
gle of attack at every section. Then, using the airfoil C
L
- and C
D
-curves the lift and drag contribution
of all parts is calculated. Hereafter, the thrust and power are calculated.
Optimization is performed for shaft RPM, pitch angle, twist angle, taper ratio and solidity. A
higher solidity turns out to improve the propeller performance signicantly. From reference data of
22 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
Radius 1.3 [m] Twist hub 48 [

] Taper ratio 1.0 []

Solidity 0.11 [] angle tip 0 [

] No. of blades 3 []
Table 3.2: Basic proprotor conguration
Phase
RPM Pitch angle Required power Delivered thrust Induced velocity
[rev/s] [

] [kW] [N] [m/s]

VATOL 1400 10.0 75.6 3522 17.29
cruise 1000 23.5 20.23 222 0.455
VATOL wind 1400 10.0 78.3 3300 12.68
Table 3.3: Typical (single) proprotor settings and quantities
proprotor aircraft like tiltrotors a solidity of up to 0.11 seems feasible. When assuming a xed gear
ratio between the engine and the proprotors some constraints are set between the cruise and VATOL
RPM of the proprotors. Now by an iterative process, a twist angle and a taper ratio are found that
are able to satisfy the needs for both ight phases. For the CO
2
requirement as stated in section 2.2
(see requirement E.1), it is important that the required cruise power is kept low. For the VATOL
maneuver it is important that the required power does not exceed the available power as provided by
the engine in high performance setting and a Rich On Peak mixture.
After the iterative process, the basic proprotor conguration was determined as stated in table
3.2. For the two typical ight phases, the corresponding proprotor settings are shown in table 3.3
with their corresponding required power, delivered thrust and induced velocity.
For the wind speed of 7 Bft requirement as stated in section 2.2 (see requirement D.5), hovering
is also considered with a 17 m/s wind. The basic theory behind this is that the vehicle will have
to change its attitude to compensate for the drag: this changes the orientation of the thrust vector
and decreases the frontal area with respect to the wind. Using the previously described hovering
performance calculations without wind, the conguration in windy weather is calculated. It turns
out that the thrust and power demands are only slightly higher during VATOL with wind. This is
mainly because the canard is providing lift during hovering with wind.
The engine needs to be slightly oversized in consultation with the engine manufacturer, to fulll
the power demands as stated in table 3.2. However, for these calculations, the in-ground eect has
not been taken into account, which has a positive eect on the required power above the ground.
The simulation program as discussed in chapter 5 requires an input of airspeed and pitch angle,
an output of required power, delivered thrust and induced velocity. To do so, air speed and pitch
angle were varied and combined into three graphs. These graphs can be seen in gure 3.12. The
RPM setting is 1400 during VATOL and 1000 during cruise for this graph. The simulation program
is now able to interpolate between these data points. Note that within the range of 0 to 15 m/s, no
accurate simulation data are available and this range is therefore purely interpolated. Note also that
only relevant data points are shown: data points that are out of the range of interest are not shown.
The propeller eciency varies during the ight. To give an indication: during cruise, the maximum
propeller eciency that can be achieved is 0.88 at 50 m/s. At the typical cruise speed of 55 m/s,
the propeller eciency is 0.76. The propeller eciency continues to decrease rapidly for higher cruise
speeds. During hover, it is common to express the eciency using the Figure of Merit. For the
Flamingo UAV, the FoM is 0.71.
3.6 Performance
The determination of the performance parameters follows from the aerodynamic and propeller anal-
ysis. In section 3.6.1 the performance diagram is presented. The thrust to weight ratio diagram, of
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 23
Figure 3.12: Delivered thrust, required power and induced velocity of a single proprotor for varying pitch
angles and velocity
prime importance during hovering, is presented in section 3.6.2. The rate of climb, stall speed, gliding
rate of descent, ight envelope and take o eld length are determined in subsections 3.6.4, 3.6.5,
3.6.6 and 3.6.7. All performance parameters in this section are determined using performance theory
and equations from Ruijgrok (Ruijgrok, 1996).
3.6.1 Performance diagram
From the C
L
C
D
-curve in section 3.2 and the total power available determination in section 3.5, the
performance diagram can be determined for dierent altitudes (Ruijgrok, 1996). The performance
diagram, see gure 3.13, shows the power curves with and without payload. From these curves, the
power and velocity, which is the true airspeed (TAS), for maximum range and maximum endurance
are determined. Theoretically, the maximum ight speed can be determined from this diagram by
determining the intersection point between the power available and power required. For the case of
ying at 5000m altitude without payload, this would be over 150m/s. However, since the tailsitter
is heavily overpowered for cruise ight the maximum ight speed is determined by the structural
limitations rather than the maximum power available, which is chosen to be 77m/s. Please note that
the power available in reality decreases when the altitude increases but since the engine is overpowered
it will not aect the performance of this UAV.
3.6.2 Thrust to weight ratio
The amount of thrust decreases with altitude, therefore the maximum hovering altitude can be de-
termined by plotting the maximum thrust to weight ratio versus the altitude without payload. The
T/W diagram can be found in gure 3.14. As can be seen, the maximum hovering altitude is 900m
with payload. This takes into account the fuel weight during VATOL of a typical mission described
in section 2.5. When calculating the maximum hovering altitude for a range of payloads up to the
zero-payload situation, the maximum hovering altitude can be determined. The result of this analysis,
which is done for maximum fuel weight, is in gure 3.15. Only altitudes up to 3000 are in the graph,
since we would often only operate in this altitude range, and the results are less accurate when higher
altitudes are taken into account. Using extrapolation, this analysis gives an estimated maximum
hovering altitude without payload of 8700m.
3.6.3 Range and endurance
The range R and the endurance E are given by equation 3.1 and 3.2, respectively in which the
propulsive eciency
j
= 0.45 (see section 3.5) and the specic fuel consumption c
P
= 6.98E
24 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
Figure 3.13: Performance diagram for the Flamingo
!"##
!"$
!"$%
!"$&
!"$'
!"$#
(
("!%
("!&
("!'
! )!! (!!! ()!! %!!! %)!!
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
$
*+'(',-.$/01$
!"#$%&'()$2.%3,3$&+'(',-.$
*+,-./012
3104-5/672/8
*+,9(
Figure 3.14: The thrust to weight ratio versus
altitude with payload
Figure 3.15: The maximum hovering altitude
versus payload weight
7N/Whr (given by the engine manufacturer). W
1
and W
2
are the begin and end weights of the UAV
respectively.
R =

j
c
P
_
C
L
C
D
_
max
ln
_
W
1
W
2
_
(3.1)
E =

j
c
P

_
_
C
3
L
/C
2
D
_
max
2
S
_
2

W
2

W
1
_
(3.2)
The maximum values for (C
L
/C
D
) and (C
3
L
/C
2
D
) can be found in section 3.2. The range and endurance
at sea level can be found in table 3.4.
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 25
With payload Without payload
Endurance [hr] 4.1 5.2
Range [km] 589 944
Table 3.4: The range and endurance of the UAV
3.6.4 Rate of climb
The quasi steady rate of climb RC
s
is determined by dividing the excess power by the weight of the
UAV. The excess power is calculated by the dierence between P
a
en P
r
in gure 3.13. Thus equation
3.3 is used for a range of ight speeds. The results, again with and without payload are plotted in
gure 3.16. As can be seen, with payload the maximum rate of climb at sea level is 12m/s with a
ight speed of 35m/s. For climbing with payload, the ight speed stays the same but the rate of
climb almost doubles to 22.5m/s. With increasing altitude, the maximum rate of climb decreases
while the ight speed increases. Please note that the ight speed is the true airspeed (TAS).
RC
s
=
P
a
P
r
W
(3.3)
Figure 3.16: The rate of climb versus altitude
with and without payload
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Flight speed [m/s]
Stall speed versus altitude
Stall speed
with payload
Stall speed
w/o payload
Figure 3.17: The stall speed versus altitude
with and without payload
3.6.5 Stall speed
The stall speeds for the UAV for dierent altitudes can be found in gure 3.17 and are determined by
using equation 3.4. The stall speeds take into account the maximum lift coecient of the 20

apped
wing. The zero altitude stall speeds are 22m/s and 28m/s without and with payload, respectively.
With increasing altitude, also the stall speed increases because of the decreasing air density.
V
stall
=

2W
SC
L,max
(3.4)
3.6.6 Gliding rate of descent
When an engine failure occurs, the gliding rate of descent RD
gliding
of the UAV and the ying altitude
determines the distance which still can be own to a safe landing area. The glide ratio is determined
using equation 3.5 and assumes cos
d
= 1 for the ight path angle during descend
d
.
RD
gliding
=

W
S
2

_
C
2
D
C
3
L
_
(3.5)
26 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
The rate of descent for minimum drag is obtained for maximum C
3
L
/C
2
D
. This ratio with and without
payload is determined in section 3.2. The corresponding gliding ratios are RD
gliding
= 2.7m/s with
payload and RD
gliding
= 2.2m/s without payload.
3.6.7 Take o eld length
Because of the huge amount of power available, the required runway length for take o is not de-
termined by the maximum thrust during take o but the maximum moment the thrust is allowed
to generate around the front landing gear. Assuming the most critical situation during the take
o maneuver (without payload and at the beginning of the take o run) for the thrust T holds
T < Wx
lg
/z
lg
with x
lg
and z
lg
the distances of the main landing gear to the center of gravity (see
appendix A). Furthermore, with assuming a rolling friction coecient of 0.05 for asphalt/concrete
runways, the V/a-V diagram can be plotted from which the runway eld length can be determined
(see gure 3.18). Integrating the V/a-a diagram from zero to the lift o speed gives the total take
o eld length required. The lift o speed V
LOF
is given by equation 3.6 under the condition L = W
and W = MTOW, and is equal to 27.7m/s. The total required take o eld length then becomes
615m.
V
LOF
=

2W
SC
L,max
(3.6)
Figure 3.18: V/a diagram during the take o run
3.7 Mission performance analysis
With all performance parameters known, the mission prole in section 2.5 can be investigated in more
detail. The goal of this section is to present the ight time, the fuel consumption and the total mission
costs. During the calculation of these characteristics, a discretized mission prole, a constant rate of
climb and rate of descent and a fuel price of 2.74AC/liter (Rotterdam airport, 27-3-2011) are assumed.
The mission prole consists of the take o and landing maneuver, climbing and descending, cruising
at 3000m altitude and the VATOL maneuver. The rate of climb and rate of descent are not equal
to the maximum values determined in section 3.6.4, while the power setting during cruise is slightly
lower than the setting for maximum range. This is both done in order to reduce fuel consumption at
a cost of total ight time. The table 3.5 gives the ight time and fuel consumed during one 200km
3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance 27
range mission. The total costs, which include the fuel, the cargo pod and the communication data
handling are in table 3.6. A data transfer cost of AC2.94 per MB is used (BGAN Service Rate Pricing
from Ground Control, 16-06-2011).
maneuver required time [min] fuel consumed [kg]
Take o and landing 6.0 1.1
climb and descend 30.0 2.4
cruise 108.5 20.8
VATOL 5.0 4.2
total 149.5 28.4
Table 3.5: The total time and fuel consumed for a 200km range, 3000m altitude mission
component costs [AC]
fuel 100
cargo pod 36
communication 15
total 151
Table 3.6: Costs per component of a 200km range, 3000m altitude mission
3.8 Overview of aerodynamic and performance parameters
In tables 3.7 and 3.8 an overview of all aerodynamic and performance parameters of the Flamingo
are given.
28 3 Aerodynamics, Stability and Performance
Parameter value
Wing span b 7.45m
Wing area S 7.58m
2
Taper T 0.56
Root chord c
r
1m
Tip chord c
t
0.5m
Mean aerodynamic chord MAC 1.42m
Wing span canard b
can
2.6
Wing area canard S
can
1.04m
2
chord canard c
can
0.4m
Wing span vertical stabilizer b
vert
2.04m
Wing area vertical stabilizer S
vert
1.06m
2
Root chord vertical stabilizer c
r,vert
0.80m
Tip chord vertical stabilizer c
t,vert
0.24m
Parasite drag C
D
0
0.009
Parasite drag coecient with cargo pod C
D
0
,cargo
0.0234
Maximum lift coecient C
L,max
1.60
Maximum lift coecient, apped C
L,max,flapped
1.94
(C
L
/C
D
)
max,withpayload
14.8
(C
L
/C
D
)
max,withoutpayload
23.8
_
C
3
L
/C
2
D
_
max,withpayload
200.1
_
C
3
L
/C
2
D
_
max,withoutpayload
320.5
Stall angle of attack
stall
15.9

Table 3.7: Overview of the aerodynamic parameters of the UAV

Parameter value
MTOW 7140N
Empty weight 4150N
T
B
-ratio 1.04/1.72
Wing loading 909/582N/m
2
Maximum hovering altitude h
hover
900/8700m
Maximum cruise altitude h
cruise
17500/22000m
Range R 589/944km
Endurance E 4.1/5.2hr
Maximum rate of climb RC 12/22.5m/s
Climb speed V
climb
35m/s
Stall speed V
stall
28/22m/s
Rate of descend during glide RD
glide
2.7/2.2m/s
Take o eld length s
takeoff
615m
Table 3.8: Overview of the performance parameters of the Flamingo
Chapter 4
Structural Design & Analysis
In this chapter the structural design and analysis of the Flamingo will be discussed. First the design
of the wing box will be explained in section 4.1. Followed by the structure of the canard in section
4.2. Section 4.3 describes the design of the cargo pod and the release mechanism will be discussed in
section 4.4. Then, the landing gear will be explained in section 4.5 followed by the description of the
booms between the wing and the canard in section 4.6. The control surfaces are explained in section
4.7. Finally the shafts and gear boxes are described in section 4.8.
4.1 Wing box
In this section the design of wing box will be explained. The wing box is designed in such a way that
it is able to carry all the loads during a worst case scenario, which is assumed ying at a velocity
of 77m/s at an angle of attack of 5 degrees. In this case the load factor is approximately 3 so this
situation can be compared to a turn with a 70 degrees bank angle.
4.1.1 Method used to determine normal stresses and shear ows
The rst step is to determine all the forces that are acting on the wing. From the aerodynamic model
made in TORNADO the lift and drag distribution on the wing were obtained for this situation. The
total lift and drag force are respectively 8540N and 853N from the wing tip to the root. The class
II weight estimation gave an indication of the weight of every component on the wing. The thrust
and torsion moment coming from the propeller were obtained using BEM theory. Figure 4.1 shows
half the wing plus fuselage and gives an indication of the forces that are acting on the wing box.
The wing box is also drawn in this gure on which every boom has been assigned with a number. In
addition, the gure shows where the cross sections are located and the reference frame that is used.
Please note that forces are not drawn on the right scale and the reference frame selected is dierent
from the standard in gure 4.1.
After determining the loads, the wing box was sized to t inside the wing. The wing box consist
of a rear and front spar and a top and bottom plate with four spar caps in each corner. The front
spar is located at 0.1c and the rear spar is located at 0.4c where c is the local chord length. One
should note that at the fuselage the wing box is not located between 0.1c and 0.4c but from section
C the dimensions increase with the same taper angle as between the wing tip and section C. Figure
4.1 shows the location of the wing box. For calculating the normal stresses in the wing box idealized
boom theory (Megson, 2007) is used to convert the spars and plates into four booms. Since the wing
box is tapered the boom area increases from the wing tip to the root. Next, the wing is divided in
multiple cross sections which are shown in gure 4.1, and for each of these cross sections is checked
whether the normal stresses are critical or not. This is done because since the wing box is tapered
29
30 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.1: Forces acting on the wing box and their locations
the highest stresses are not necessarily found at the wing root. The normal stresses are caused by
the moment of the forces acting in the y-direction and by the moment of the forces acting in the
x-direction. The normal stress (
z
) in each boom at all the cross sections is found using equation 4.1.
Here, M is the bending moment, I is the moment of inertia and x and y are the distances between
the boom and the local CoG of the cross section.

z
=
_
M
y
I
xx
M
x
I
xy
I
xx
I
yy
I
2
xy
_
x +
_
M
x
I
yy
M
y
I
xy
I
xx
I
yy
I
2
xy
_
y (4.1)
As expected the upper two booms experience a compressive stress and the lower two booms a tensile
stress because the wing wants to bend upwards due to the high lift forces. Then the spar caps can
be sized in such a way that they do not buckle under these compressive forces. Using equation 4.2
the critical buckling forces (P
cr
) for the spar caps were found. Here, I is the moment of inertia,
L indicates the length between the fasteners which connect the spar caps with the skin and E the
youngs modulus which is 71GPa for the aluminium 7050 T76511 that is used. The reason why this
material is chosen is because it is commonly used for aircraft structural parts as plates, stringers
and ribs. By iterating, the necessary amount of fasteners was found to prevent the spar caps from
buckling where also a safety factor of 1.5 is taken into account. This is present to guarantee that the
aircraft can not only handle the limit loads but also the ultimate loads. Henceforth, the design will
be somewhat over sized to ensure safety.
P
cr
=

2
EI
(KL)
2
(4.2)
Thereafter, the torsion moment acting on the wing box was determined. The total torsion moment,
which is the moment around the z axis, at each cross section is calculated by multiplying all the force
components with their arm to the center of gravity of the wing box. Then by inserting the shear
4 Structural Design & Analysis 31
forces in the x and y direction the shear ows acting on each web were calculated using equation
4.3. Here, S is the shear force, I the moment of inertia, t
d
the web thickness, x and y the distances
between the boom and the local CoG of the cross section and B
r
the boom area.
q
s
=
_
S
x
I
xx
S
y
I
xy
I
xx
I
yy
I
2
xy
_
_
_
s
0
t
d
xds +
n

r=1
B
r
x
r
_

_
S
y
I
yy
S
x
I
xy
I
xx
I
yy
I
2
xy
_
_
_
s
0
t
d
yds +
n

r=1
B
r
y
r
_
+q
s,0
(4.3)
4.1.2 Loads and stresses acting on each cross section
Table 4.1 gives an overview of all the loads, moments, stresses and shear ows that are acting on the
wing box as each cross section. Please note that the safety factor of 1.5 is not taken into account. As
Cross section A1 A2 B C D E F
Cross section z-distance (m) 0.00 0.328 0.660 0.745 1.44 2.19 2.95
Chord length (m) 2.40 2.40 2.40 1.00 0.897 0.784 0.670
Thickness front spar (mm) 3.56 3.40 3.24 3.20 2.87 2.51 2.14
Thickness rear spar (mm) 3.56 3.40 3.24 3.20 2.87 2.51 2.14
Thickness top plate (mm) 3.34 3.12 3.04 3.00 2.69 2.35 2.01
Thickness bottom plate (mm) 2.78 2.66 2.53 2.5 2.24 1.96 1.68
Front spar length (mm) 66.7 63.8 60.8 60.0 53.8 47.1 40.2
Rear spar length (mm) 94.5 90.3 86.1 85.0 76.2 66.7 57.0
Top plate length (mm) 334 319 304 300 269 235 201
Bottom plate length (mm) 334 319 304 300 269 235 201
Shear force, F
x
(kN) 0.427 0.389 0.350 0.340 0.260 0.174 0.0851
Shear force, F
y
(kN) 8.92 9.52 8.62 6.38 4.69 2.95 1.30
Bending moment, M
x
(kNm) 15.2 12.6 9.98 8.78 4.93 2.07 0.368
Bending moment, M
y
(kNm) 0.745 0.649 0.539 0.508 0.232 0.130 0.0313
Torsion moment, M
z
(kNm) 0.587 2.77 2.63 0.0150 0.0221 0.245 0.00182
Normal stress boom 1,
z
(MPa) 82.6 78.3 71.5 65.2 51.0 33.3 9.57
Normal stress boom 2,
z
(MPa) 104 98.5 90.0 82.3 64.0 39.3 11.2
Normal stress boom 3,
z
(MPa) 138 131 119 109 85.1 54.9 15.8
Normal stress boom 4,
z
(MPa) 126 120 109 100 77.9 47.9 13.6
Shear ow web 12, q
12
(N/mm) 18.0 37.9 36.6 22.6 18.2 13.6 7.05
Shear ow web 23, q
23
(N/mm) 219 262 250 182 149 108 55.5
Shear ow web 34, q
34
(N/mm) 3.04 21.2 20.7 10.8 8.49 6.64 3.48
Shear ow web 41, q
41
(N/mm) 231 241 228 175 144 103 53.1
Table 4.1: Loads, moments, stresses and shear ows acting on the wing box
expected the internal forces and moments increase as the cross section approaches to the root. Table
4.1 also shows that the normal stresses in the two upper booms are compressive since they have a
negative sign and the lower two booms are in tension. This is, as mentioned before, expected since
the wing wants to bend upwards due to the high lift force. This also explains the high shear ows in
web 23 and web 41, because the top plate is completely loaded in compression and the bottom plate
completely in tension. The shear ows in web 12 and 34, which are the spars, are lower since the
stresses change from compression in tension along these webs.
Also the number of fasteners required for the spar caps to prevent them from buckling were
calculated. Using equation 4.2, it is found that after each 22cm a fastener is needed on the spar cap
at boom 1 and after each 15cm at boom 4. However, the number of fasteners might increase because
the spar cap should also be able to transfer the loads from the skin to the spars. Based on the results
coming from those calculations also the number of fasteners required for the spar caps at boom 2 and
32 4 Structural Design & Analysis
a
b
ds
t
Figure 4.2: Overview of the variables used for the rib and stringer sizing
3 can be determined. This is however, because of time constrains, not done during this design phase
and is recommended to be done in the future.
4.1.3 Rib and stringer spacing
As discussed above wing box inside carries all loads acting on the wing. This wing box is a long,
aluminum box, which is reinforced by stringers in the longitudinal direction, and ribs perpendicular
to them. The length of the outer wing box considered, is 2.94m. The cross section decreases from
roughly 29.2 x 7.3cm to 20 x 4.8cm. To calculate the optimal amount of stringers and ribs, a MATLAB
program was written.
The input for the MATLAB program comes from analytical calculations performed in section 4.1.
As explained in that section the stresses and forces are calculated at several locations on the wing.
These locations are depicted in gure 4.1. Every section is assumed to have a constant width. The
width taken is the largest width of the section, to size it for the worst case, as larger plates are more
prone to buckling than smaller plates.
The MATLAB code is rst used to compute the rib and stringer spacing on the top plate. After
that, a similar program computes the maximum stringer spacing for the bottom plate of the wing
box. The equations used come from (Bruhn, 1973) and (Megson, 2007).
Top plate
First, the program picks a thickness t, rib spacing a and stringer spacing ds. The maximum value for
a is the segment length L, and the maximum value for ds is the distance between the front and rear
spar b (see gure 4.2). For this combination of a, ds and t the critical buckling stress is calculated.
This is done by rst calculating the buckling coecient k for both normal and shear stresses, which
is a function of a and ds. The critical buckling stress is then given in equation 4.4, where k can be
replaced by k
s
in order to get the critical shear buckling stress.

cr
=

2
kE
12(1
2
)
_
t
b
_
2
(4.4)
The ratio of the actual stresses and the critical stresses is then calculated, R
c
for compression buckling
and R
s
for shear buckling. To have an optimal sizing they have to meet R
c
+R
s
2
= 1. A higher value
would lead to buckling, a lower value leads to an oversized structure. The program then loops for
many combinations of a, ds and t and saves all combinations for which yields that 0.99 R
c
+R
s
2
1.
From this list the optimum solution is selected by calculating the volume of material needed using an
assumed rib and stringer thickness.
At this point it is calculated that the plate itself does not buckle under the loads, but it should
be checked that the stringers themselves do not buckle as well. It can be found that the force in
the stringers is distributed according to the ratio of the cross sectional area of the stringers and the
4 Structural Design & Analysis 33
Top plate Bottom plate
Section t a
max
No. ribs ds
max
No. stringers t ds
max
No. strs
[mm] [mm] [-] [mm] [-] [mm] [mm] [-]
C-D 1.9 100 6 70 4 1.6 100 2
D-E 1.9 70 11 90 2 1.6 105 2
E-F 1.9 110 7 120 1 1.6 120 1
F-tip 1.9 390 3 160 1 1.6 140 1
Table 4.2: Rib Spacing
Figure 4.3: Top view of the rib and stringer distribution on the bottom plate
skin. Using the Euler buckling equation it is veried that the forces in the stringers do not exceed
the critical buckling force.
Bottom plate
For the bottom plate almost the same procedure is used. The biggest dierence is that the rib spacing
is predened, because they were already determined for the top part. Furthermore the bottom plates
are loaded in tension and shear, instead of compression and shear. However, they can still buckle due
to the shear loads. From (Bruhn, 1973) it follows that the equations for nding the optimum stringer
spacing does not change, but R
c
will now become negative due to the tensile loads.
Results
The nal rib and stringer distribution is listed in table 4.2. According to the minimum rib and stringer
spacing an optimal distribution was made manually, i.e. it was tried to make the stringers continuous
and decrease the rib spacing to a minimum at heavy loaded parts. This is visualized in gures 4.3
and 4.4.
4.1.4 Finite element analysis
The stresses in the wing structure mentioned thus far have been calculated utilizing idealized boom
theory. In an attempt to verify the aforementioned analytical results, various nite element models
were built. Expertise in the eld of nite element analysis was consulted to nd the optimum software
to be used prior to nite element modeling. Patran was the more accurate software choice, which
makes use of MSC Nastran to analyze the nite element model (FEM). But due to its complexity
of usage and due to the (relatively) low level of detail of the computed models during this project,
CATIAs Generative Structural Analysis workbench was chosen. For the goal of verifying analytical
Figure 4.4: Bottom view of the rib and stringer distribution on the top plate
34 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.5: Overview of the outer wing box model
Figure 4.6: Cross sections of the wing box
results, this program is accurate enough. Please note that buckling analysis using nite element mod-
els are beyond the scope of this project, so only deections and stress distributions will be computed.
In order to perform nite element analysis in CATIA, an accurate three dimensional model of the
internal structure of the wing box was made. The analysis is performed for half the wing span be-
cause of symmetry. Three nite element models are used to analyze the entire wing box. The rst
FEM analyzes the outboard wing box, indicated as Section C to the wing tip in gure 4.1. The
two remaining nite element models analyze the inboard wing box given by Section A1 to Section
C in gure 4.1 for two dierent loading cases. One at the most extreme ight case and another at
the moment of impact during landing. Here, emphasis is put on making a structurally sound engine
mount to minimize its displacement under loading.
Finite element analysis of the outboard wing structure
The three dimensional CATIA model of the outboard wing box was made in detail. It includes the
assembly of all stringers and ribs in the tapered wing structure. As mentioned in section 4.1.3, the
amount of ribs and stringers were calculated using a numerical simulation to ensure that the skin
and the stringers do not buckle under the loads present. It was tried to make the model as realistic
as possible, e.g. by making holes in ribs for stringers to pass through and the anges for the ribs to
connect to the skin. The overall illustration of the wing box made in CATIA can be seen in gure
4.5. Figure 4.6 illustrates a typical cross sectional view of the outboard wing box model. All the ribs
and stringers were connected to the corresponding outer skins of the wing box using surface contacts
in CATIA Assembly. When the three dimensional model is imported in to the Generative Structural
Analysis workbench, these surface contacts are further dened as fastened connections. During the
actual production process, various types of rivets and bolts will be used to connect the surfaces
together. Due to the already complex nature of the CATIA model and due to time constraints, it was
decided not to include this type of connections in the model, but merely use fastened connections.
This implies that inter rivet buckling properties are not considered in this analysis. However, test
models were made to compare the stress distributions due to a fastened connection and due to rivet
4 Structural Design & Analysis 35
Figure 4.7: Stress distribution in the outer wing box using FEM analysis
connection. The overall stress distributions and deections of both models were almost equal, except
for stress concentrations in the close proximity of the rivets. These results further reinforced the
decision to model rivets as fastened connections.
Note that due to issues with constraints present in CATIA, it was not possible to transfer the
forces acting on the ribs directly to the spar webs, but rather the forces will be transferred through
the top skin. This will not alter the results of the FEM signicantly, as the model does not take in
to account the buckling of ribs.
All analytically computed loads are incorporated in the outboard wing box FEM. CATIA allows
the application of a distributed load to a surface. As the upper skin was modeled as one surface,
a total lift force of 7000N was distributed on the top plate instead of the detailed lift distribution
illustrated in gure 4.1. As the force is distributed equally over the area, due to taper of wing the
force will increase on every segment closer towards the root. Because the applied force is not zero
at the wingtip in the model, the analysis is done for a worse case than in reality. All loads applied
to the FEM are listed in table 4.3. Please note that these loads derive from the analytical solution
explained in Section 4.1.1.
The wing box at cross section C, gure 4.1, is modeled as a clamp and the aforementioned loads
are applied in the CATIA FEM at their corresponding lengths from the tip. The results can be seen
in the gures below. Figure 4.7 illustrates the stress distribution along the length of the outboard
wing box. Figure 4.8 illustrates the displacements of the wing box due to the applied loads. These
results are obtained after several iterations, where the mesh size has been rened to reduce the error
of the result (as estimated by CATIA). This error has been reduced to 12%. This error may seem
high, but due to the complex nature of the model, it is very dicult to reduce this error further.
Still, the maximum stresses are almost half the yield stress of the material, so the margin for plastic
deformation to occur is very high.
Type of force Force [N] Distance from tip [m]
Lift 7000 -
Propeller and n weight 240 1.50
Wing weight 241 1.96
Drag 323 1.52
Thrust 700 1.50
Table 4.3: Loads applied to the FEM of the outboard wing box
Please note that the maximum stress of 248MPa occurs at the interaction point of the top skin and
the web of the spar. Such high loads are probably not an accurate indication of the true stresses in
36 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.8: Displacement of the outer wing box using FEM analysis
the wing box, but originate from errors caused by discretizing the structure in a mesh by CATIA.
The FEM also shows a high variation of stress through the height of the spar webs as shown by gure
4.7. This is due to the aforementioned remark about the ribs not being directly connected to the spar
webs but being connected to the upper and lower skin of the wing box.
The stresses in both the top plate and the bottom plate are the highest in Section CD, as the
bending moment is highest there. From the nite element analysis, the average stresses at Section
C range from 110MPa to 135MPa in the top and bottom plate respectively. The analytical results
yield the maximum compressive stress at section C to be 100MPa in the booms of the top skin and
the maximum tensile stress to be 109MPa in the booms of the lower skin. The dierences in the
results derive from the theory used in the computations. In the analytical approach stresses are only
calculated in the booms, whereas the FEM analysis calculates the stresses at every location on the
cross section of the wing box. However, the results are in the same order of magnitude, from which it
can be concluded that the idealized boom theory is applicable in this case. Analytical solution makes
use of idealized boom theory and in doing so approximates the area of the top skin and the bottom
skin by two booms. Because this idealization does not take ribs into account, it needs a larger cross
sectional area to carry the loads. The FEM model uses a more accurate model with a smaller cross
sectional area, which causes higher stresses. Another source of errors between the models derives
from the fact that an average lift distribution was used in the FEM, where as the analytical model
utilized a more accurate lift distribution.
The maximum deection is calculated to be 130mm at the wing tip. Please note that this is only the
deection of the outboard wing section. The deection of every part of the wing box can be found in
gure 4.8.
Finite element analysis of the engine mount and internal wing structure
The wing box of the inboard wing section (Section A1 to C) must not only carry the loads listed in
table 4.3, but also loads from the engine, canard and the landing gear. Note that only the weight of
the engine is considered. The vibrational loads are assumed to be minimal, especially with engine
being a Wankel engine. As mentioned before, a FEM analysis will be performed for two cases: one
at extreme ight conditions (maximum loads coming from the canard) and another during landing.
The emphasis of these nite element models lies in ensuring that the engine mount is structurally
sound and displaces very little due to the loads. The internal fuselage structure was not designed in
detail, but a general overview can be seen in gure 4.9. Two booms are attached to the wing box at
one side, and will support the canard booms at the other side (not visible). At the middle and the
front of the fuselage two cross bars connect the booms. They reinforce the structure by transferring
4 Structural Design & Analysis 37
Wingbox
Engine
Cross bars
Booms
Figure 4.9: General overview of the internal fuselage structure
Figure 4.10: Overview of the displacements of the inner wing box at the extreme ight conditions case
loads between the booms, and act as engine mount as well. Focus will be put on the booms mounted
to the wing box, as they support the engine and should displace minimally. A large deection of the
engine from its original location could cause a failure of the gearbox or shafts.
The representation of the inner structure in the FEM model can be seen in gure 4.10. The di-
mensions were derived from analytical calculations. The wing box starts at the root (Section A1) and
is modeled to be clamped there. The wing box continues until the beginning of the outboard part
(Section C). This is wing section that was excluded from the previous FEM. As can be seen by gure
4.10, the nite model includes the connection of the boom (symmetrical analysis) to the front spar
of the wing box and attachment points for the landing gear struts. The attachment of the engine is
modeled at one point (its CoG). Ribs have been added at the attachment points of the landing gear
and the boom, to transfer loads from the front spar to the rear spar. In addition, the connection
point of the boom to the front spar is strengthened. Please note that in reality the booms must be
properly connected to the wing box, e.g. using a bracket. For the sake of the FEM analysis this was
not necessary.
The FEM at the extreme ight condition phase models no landing gear force on the wing box,
as the UAV is in the air. A shear force and a bending moment are modeled at the tip of the boom.
These loads represent the most extreme lift loads created by the canard. In addition the weight of
the engine is added at its center of gravity position. Since, this force acts downwards, it has the eect
of relieving the moment at the root of the wing and at the boom connection to the front spar of the
wing box.
The maximum stresses at the extreme ight condition are 227MPa and the maximum deection
47.9mm (illustrated in gure 4.10). This is within the strength limits of the material, however the
displacement is rather large. In reality it will probably be smaller, as the displacement is mainly
38 4 Structural Design & Analysis
caused by bending of the booms. The mounting of the engine at several locations on the booms will
however make the entire structure stier, which will decrease the total displacement.
Next, a FEM analysis is performed for the landing gear. In this case the forces acting on the landing
gear at moment of impact are modeled in CATIA as calculated in section 4.5. The canard is assumed
to generate equal forces as during cruise ight.
For this conditions, the maximum stress is 400MPa. This is very close to the yield strength of
the used material. The maximum deection in the landing case is calculated to be 22.8mm. Due to
time constraints, further iterations were not possible. Thus, it can be concluded that the wing box
needs to be reinforced in the center. This could be done by adding stringers to the top and bottom
plate.
It is clear that the model of the inboard wing is in no means as accurate as the model developed
for the outboard wing box. This is due to time constraints. Some simplications made, include the
modeling of stringers as increased skin thicknesses in the top and bottom plates. This simplied
model should be developed further, by computing the number of stringer and ribs required to ensure
that the top skin does not buckle and that other wing box failure modes are not met. Furthermore,
the total engine load was assumed to act at the center of gravity location of the engine.
Henceforth, the results maybe of low accuracy. However, these results show that a feasible solution
could be developed for the conguration of the UAV, without the need for an extremely heavy
structure.
4.1.5 Material and weight
The whole wing box, including the ribs and stringers, is made of aluminum 7075 T76511. Aluminum
is notable for being a lightweight metal and of the aluminum series the 7075 T76511 type has the
highest strength among aluminum alloys. Moreover, it is commonly used in aircraft structural parts.
Table 4.4 shows the material properties for this type of aluminum. From the detailed CATIA drawing
Material Characteristics Values
Density 2810 kg/m
3
Price 1.33AC/kg
Youngs modulus 71 GPa
Poissons ratio 0.33
Tensile strength 469MPa
Compressive strength 441MPa
Table 4.4: Material properties of aluminum 7075 T76511
of the wing box from cross section C to the wing tip, gure 4.1, a weight was found of 17.2kg. The
internal part weighed 7.9kg. Based on this value an estimation of the total weight of the wing box of
50kg was made.
4.2 Canard design
In this section the structural design of the canard will be explained in detail. The canard is designed
for the same worst case scenario as the wing. The span of the canard is 2.6m and the geometric chord
length is 0.4m. Since the canard is not tapered the geometric chord is the same through out the whole
span. The canard is connected to the booms which are connected to the wing by two hinges each at
a location of 1/4 of the span of the canard (at 0.65m) from the tip. These hinges are connected to
the rear spar of the wing box of the canard. The forces acting on the canard are lift, drag and the
weight of the canard. The lift and the drag distribution on the canard are obtained from the program
4 Structural Design & Analysis 39
Figure 4.11: The wing box cross-section of the canard
Figure 4.12: Moment diagram due to lift (left) and moment diagram due to drag (right)
TORNADO. Now the forces acting on the canard are known, the internal structure of the canard can
be designed. Inside the canard, a wing box is placed which has a front and back spar, top and bottom
plates and spar anges at each corner of the cross section to connect the spars with the plates. The
front spar is placed at 0.1c and the rear spar is placed at 0.4c. In the wing box cross section of the
canard idealized boom theory is used to convert the area of spars, plates and the spar anges into
four booms. So at each corner there is a boom placed and it is assumed that all direct stresses are
carried by the booms while the skin is eective only in shear. The cross sections of the wing box of
the canard for real and the idealized case are given in gure 4.11.
Since the canard is not tapered the boom area remains the same through the whole section. Now
the cross section of the wing box of the canard is known, the direct stresses can be calculated at each
boom at dierent sections in the span of the canard. The canard is cut at 1.3m and the calculations
are done only in the rst 1.3m, since the other part is symmetric. The section 1.3m is further cut
into four section each at a length of 0.325m and normal stresses acting at the cross-section of each of
these length are calculated using equation 4.1 which is given in section 4.1. The bending moment is
caused by the lift and the drag forces. As expected the bending moment is high right before the hinge
and it remains the same right after the hinge. The moment diagrams due to lift and drag are given
in gure 4.12. In table 4.5 the normal stress at each boom, the boom area and the normal forces at
dierent section are given. The calculated normal stresses are multiplied by a safety factor of 1.5.
4.2.1 Shear stress
As mentioned before the skin carries the shear stress. The shear stress at dierent section should be
calculated since the shear web can buckle due to higher shear stress than the critical shear stress.
40 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Section M
x
M
y
Boom 1.5 F
normal
[m] [Nm] [Nm] [-] [MPa] [MPa] [N]
0.325 5.84 3.35
1 0.760 1.14 144
2 -0.530 -0.800 -102
3 0.840 1.26 131
4 -1.10 -1.65 -173
0.65 171 13.41
1 20.0 30.1 3.8210
3
2 -19.1 -28.6 -3.6510
3
3 28.9 43.3 4.5010
3
4 -29.8 -44.7 -4.6710
3
0.975 38.8 3.35
1 4.56 6.84 868
2 -4.3 -6.47 -826
3 6.54 9.80 1.0210
3
4 -6.77 -10.2 -1.0610
3
Table 4.5: Bending moments, normal stress and normal force on booms at dierent section in the wing
box of the canard
The shear stress is calculated by calculating the shear ow rst and dividing that by the thickness
of the skin. The shear ow is calculated using equation 4.3. The lift and the drag forces are acting
at the aerodynamic center. To calculate the constant shear ow q
s,0
the moment is taken at the
center of gravity of the cross-section and the shear forces are placed at the center of gravity from the
aerodynamic center. In this case there will be two torque acting at the center of gravity which are
created by these two shear forces since these shear forces are moved from the aerodynamic center and
during the calculation of the shear ow, these two torques are also taken into account. The shear
stresses are given in table 4.6. The shear stress is multiplied by a safety factor of 1.50.
Sect. S
y
S
x
t
thickness
q 1.5q
[m] [N] [N] [mm] [N/mm] [N/mm] [MPa]
0.325 297 20.6
rearspar : 1.00 5.33 7.99 7.99
bottomplate : 1.50 0.130 0.190 0.130
frontspar : 1.00 4.41 6.62 6.62
topplate : 1.50 0.390 0.580 0.390
0.650 588 41.3
rearspar : 1.00 10.3 15.4 15.4
bottomplate : 1.50 0.520 0.780 0.520
frontspar : 1.00 9.01 13.5 13.5
topplate : 1.50 0.18 0.26 0.18
0.975 191 20.6
rearspar : 1.00 3.36 5.04 5.04
bottomplate : 1.50 0.190 0.290 0.190
frontspar : 1.00 2.93 4.40 4.40
topplate : 1.50 0.0230 0.0340 0.0230
Table 4.6: Shear ow and the shear stresses
4.2.2 Stieners of the canard
Due to lift the top plate of the wing box will be in compression and the bottom part will be in tension.
Due to compression the top plate of the wing box of the canard will buckle. To prevent buckling
there are number of stieners placed. The number of stieners dier per section of the wing box since
the normal load is not constant through out the whole canard. The normal force at each stiener
is calculated and compared with the buckling force to check whether the stiener will buckle. The
4 Structural Design & Analysis 41
Figure 4.13: The cross-section of the stiener and the spar ange
buckling force is calculated using equation 4.2 and when the buckling force is higher than the normal
force acting on each stiener, the stiener will not buckle. The material that is chosen for the stiener
is aluminum 7050-T76511 and the youngs modulus is equal to 71GPa (CES Edupack Software, 2011).
The bottom plate is in tension and the number of stiener that are needed on the bottom plate is
calculated using equation 4.5.
= PL/HA (4.5)
In equation 4.5 P is the tensional load, L is the length of the stiener, H is the height of the wing
box which is equal to 0.031m (average height since the wing box cross section of the canard is not
symmetric), and A is the cross-sectional area of the stieners and the skin together. The tensional
strength of aluminum 7050-T76511 is 469MPa (CES Edupack Software, 2011). Once the total area
is known the skin area is subtracted from it which gives the total stiener area. In gure 4.13 the
cross-section of the stiener is given. By dividing the total stiener area by the cross-sectional area of
the stiener the number of stiener can be found. The shear web can also buckle if the shear buckling
stress is less than the shear stress acting on it. This critical shear stress on the web can be found
using equation 4.6 (van Baten and G.N.Saunders-Smits, January 2004)

cr
= 8.5E(t/d)
2
(4.6)
In equation 4.6, t is the thickness of the web and d is the stiener pitch on the shear web. In table
4.7 the number of stieners at the top plate and the rear spar are given.In table 4.7 a is the number of
stieners in the top plate and the b is the number of stieners in the rear spar. The stieners in the
bottom plate are calculated as follows. If the canard is cut at 0.325m, 0.65m and 0.975m, there are
only stieners needed on the bottom plate between the section 0.325m0.975m since the tensional
forces are high here because the hinge is placed in this section and from the calculation it is obtained
that there are 2 stieners needed with a length of 0.65m. So in total there are 4 stieners of a length
of 0.65m needed in the bottom plate of the canard. The cross-sectional area of this stiener is given
in gure 4.13. Number of stieners in the front spar is the same as rear spar. Number of stieners
Sec. F
comp
F
cr,stif
a F
stif,top

max

cr
b
[m] [N] [N] [m] [N] [MPa] [MPa] [m]
-0.325-0.325 172 115 1(length = 0.650m) 15.6 7.99 12.5 3
0.325-0.650 4.67 10
3
459 2(length = 0.325m) 211 15.4 18.6 2
0.65-0.975 4.67 10
3
459 2(length = 0.325m) 211 15.4 18.6 2
0.975-1.30 1.06 10
3
459 1(length = 0.325m) 95.9 5.04 5.71 1
Table 4.7: Number of stieners needed on the top plate and the rear spar
42 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.14: Cargo pod conguration
needed on the top plate is 10 with a length of 0.325m and 1 stiener with a length of 0.65m, on
the bottom plate 4 stieners with a length of 0.65m, on the front spar 12 stieners with a length of
0.031m and on the rear spar 12 stieners with a length of 0.031m. The number of ribs needed is 6.
4.2.3 Spar anges of the canard
The spar anges are placed at the corner of the wing box cross-section and it is important to check
whether they buckle due to the normal force acting on it. Using equation 4.2 the buckling force on
the spar ange is calculated. In equation 4.2 the L is the length where a rivet is placed. To spar
anges not to buckle in section 0-0.325m a rivet is placed at 0.325m, in section 0.325m 0.975m, a
rivet is placed at each 0.093m and in section 0.975m1.3m, a rivet is placed at each 0.1m.
4.2.4 Material and weight
The material that is chosen for the wing box, stieners and the spar anges is aluminum 7050-
T76511. This material has very high strength coupled with high resistance to ex-foliation corrosion
and stress-corrosion cracking, high fracture toughness and fatigue resistance. The youngs modulus
of this material is 71GPa, the density is equal to 2180 kg/m
3
and its cost is AC 1.21 per kilogram.
The top plates length, width and the thickness are 2600mm, 121mm and 1.50mm, respectively
(gure 4.11) The bottom plates length, width and the thickness are 2600mm, 120mm and 1.50mm,
respectively (gure 4.11). The width of the top plate and the bottom plate dier since the wing box
of the canard is not symmetric. The front spars length, width and the thickness are 2600mm, 24mm
and 1mm, respectively and the rear spars length, width and the thickness are 2600mm, 36mm and
1mm, respectively. The volume of the wing box of the canard is 0.0011 m
3
and the weight is 3.1kg.
The length of the stieners are given in the section 4.2.2 and the cross-sectional area is 18 mm
2
. By
including the stieners, spar anges and the rivets weights, the total material weight of the wing box
of the canard is equal to 4.1kg.
4.3 Cargo pod
In this section the structural analysis of the cargo pod is explained in detail. The cargo pod needs
to be designed such that it can transport payload safely and can handle stresses that may occur in
the worst case scenario that is under the load factor of 2. Moreover, the pod needs to be as light as
possible, easy to manufacture, cheap and as it is left behind at the disaster site it should not have a
negative environmental impact and be biodegradable. The cross section of the pod and the respective
dimensions are illustrated in gure 4.14. Each plate has a thickness of 4mm. The highest loads occur
during landing. In a normal situation, the cargo pod lands on one of its surfaces which will be called
the pivot in the rest of this chapter and two legs which can be considered to be the landing gears.
The location of the legs can be seen in gure 4.14. The dimensions of the leg are given in table 4.8.
The load is therefore evenly distributed during landing between the pivot and the legs. However in
the worst case scenario the pod might only land on its pivot or one of its legs. Therefore the pivot
and the legs should be designed such that they can individually handle the loads.
4 Structural Design & Analysis 43
Parameter Value(mm)
Outer diameter 22
Inner diameter 10
Length 325
Table 4.8: Dimensions of the legs of the pod
4.3.1 Centre of gravity
One needs to ensure that the centre of gravity of the pod lies between the legs so that the pod does
not tip over. This also needs to be ensured at a 10

slope. Calculations for the center of gravity show

that it lies within the acceptable range and does not tip over even at a slope of 10

.
4.3.2 Stress analysis
The forces that act on the pod include the weight of the loaded pod which is 5128N and the drag
force due to side wind of 7 Beaufort which is 86.7N. The weight of the loaded pod is obtained by
multiplying the weight of the payload with a load factor of 2 for the worst case scenario and drag
force is computed by using equation 4.7 where C
D
is the drag coecient of the pod and is 1.
D = C
D
1
2
V
2
S (4.7)
When the pod lands on one of its legs the normal stress is given by equation 4.8 while shear stress is
given by equation 4.9.
=
F
A
(4.8)
=
V Q
It
(4.9)
The stresses computed are multiplied with a safety factor of 1.5 before they are checked for buckling.
This ensures that the structure is able to handle not only the limit loads but also the ultimate loads.
The buckling stress for the legs is computed by using (Bruhn, 1973) equation 4.10. The table 4.9 lists
the results of the computations.

cr
=

2
K
c
E(
t
l
)
2
12(1
2
)
(4.10)
Since the direct stress is below the critical stress the legs do not buckle. Moreover the shear stress in
Stress Value(MPa)
Normal stress 4.2
1.5 normal stress 6.4
Shear stress 3.6
1.5 shear stress 5.4
Critical stress due to compression 12.5
Table 4.9: Stresses on the leg of the pod
the leg is lower than the shear strength of the material and the tensile stress is lower than the tensile
strength of the material. Thus the structure does not fail in any way. On the other hand, if the pod
lands on pivot only, the stresses calculated are listed in table 4.10 . However since in the plate holes
are present due to rivets stress concentrations occur and the increased stress at the hole boundary is
given by (Calister, 2006) equation 4.11.
44 4 Structural Design & Analysis

m
= 2

d
2(
1

)
(4.11)
The critical stresses are again determined by using equation 4.10 where l now represents the length
of the shorter dimension of the at rectangular plate. The results are summarized in table 4.10. As
Stress Value(MPa)
Normal stress 1.2
1.5 Normal stress 1.8
Shear sress 2.2
1.5 Shear stress 3.2
Normal Stress around hole edges 2.5
1.5 Stress around hole edges 3.7
Critical stress due to compression top plate 0.57
Critical stress due to compression bottom plate 0.98
Critical stress due to compression side plate 1.11
Table 4.10: Stresses on the pivot of the pod
the critical stress is below the stresses acting the plates will buckle. There are two possibilities to
ensure the material does not buckle either by using a material with a much higher Youngs modulus
or by adding stieners. The number of stieners that are needed to prevent buckling are determined
by (van Baten and G.N.Saunders-Smits, January 2004) equation 4.12. is the highest stress acting
on the structure multiplied with the safety factor.
n =
l
av
_
1.9Et
2

(4.12)
The table 4.11 lists the number of stieners for each plate of the pod. Thus the total number of
Plate Number of stieners
Top plate 8
Bottom plate 6
Side plate I 6
Side plate II 8
Table 4.11: Stieners needed for the plates
stieners needed per pod is 42. The stieners are L shaped with length 10mm, width 9mm and
thickness 1mm.
4.3.3 Set up
The pod consists of thin rectangular plates which have inbuilt stieners as calculated above. The
plates can be folded along the fold lines as shown by gure 4.15. Thus the pod does not take a lot
of space in the A400M. During assembly the adjacent plates are rotated to the required extent and
riveted together by personnel. This can be done rather quickly and easily by means of a rivet gun.
15 rivets on each side are used to connect two adjacent plates of the pod. The top plate is not riveted
but is locked by means of a conventional locking mechanism. The pod in total weighs 13kg. Thus the
pod can be set up very quickly and loaded with payload. To prevent the payload from moving the
pod is lled with plastic air sheets or air bags. This restricts the center of gravity location in the pod.
Due to riveting one needs to determine the stresses because of the rivets. The highest stresses are the
4 Structural Design & Analysis 45
Figure 4.15: Cargo pod fold lines
rivet/plate bearing stress which are determined by equation 4.13 and is determined to be 21.4MPa.
Thus the material needs to be able to sustain the increased stresses due to riveting.

bearing
=
F
axial
tdn
(4.13)
4.3.4 Material selection
White Spruce Picea Gauca (longitudinal) is a type of wood that will be used for the pod. The reason
being it has a small density when compared to others, is biodegradable, can be landlled and can be
combusted for energy recovery. Spruce has been used for aerospace before and can be used within
the temperature range of the mission. Moreover this type of wood is acceptable according to MIL-
S-6073 military specication concerning aerospace structures made of wood (Military Specication
MIL-S-6073, 06-11-1945). The properties of this wood are listed in table 4.12. The table 4.12 lists
the characteristics of the stated material.
Material Characteristics Values
Density 360 kg/m
3
Price AC0.491/kg
Youngs modulus 9800 MPa
Poissons ratio 0.35
Tensile strength 5430 MPa
Compressive strength 3210 MPa
Minimum service temperature 73

C
Maximum service temperature 140

C
Table 4.12: White Spruce Picea Glauca longitudional properties
4.4 Cargo release mechanism
In this section the release mechanism of the cargo pod will be explained. For the stability of the
Flamingo it is very important that the cargo pod is not allowed to move during the whole ight.
Especially during the pitch-up maneuver the cargo pod should not move at all. Another thing that
should be looked at is that for aerodynamic reasons the top plate of the cargo pod should be positioned
against the fuselage. To meet these requirements a support system was designed where four L-shaped
hook proles stick slightly out the bottom skin of the fuselage. On the top plate of the cargo pod
four rectangular shaped supports are placed which have the same dimensions as the bottom part of
46 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.16: Release mechanism of the cargo pod
the hooks. Then, when the cargo pod is positioned at the right location underneath the fuselage the
bottom part of the hooks will go through the rectangular shaped support. Next, all hooks will be
rotated 90

by an actuator. This is done in such a way that cargo pod can not move in any direction.
Figure 4.16 shows the top plate of the cargo pod. Here, the bottoms of the hooks are already rotated
and they are indicated with the slightly curved black rectangles. These proles are curved so it
decreases the possibility that the corners get stuck behind the rectangular supports on the top plate.
Then, when the Flamingo has reached the target area and has landed on site the actuator will be
used to rotate the hooks back to its original condition. After the hooks are shifted upwards inside the
fuselage the cargo pod is no longer supported and the Flamingo can take o with leaving the cargo
pod behind. This movement of the hooks towards the fuselage will only by around a centimeter since
the thickness of the hooks is in the order of millimeters. As can be seen in gure 4.16 the lower hooks
have to be rotated before the upper ones because else there is a possibility that the cargo pod moves
down a little which has as a consequence that the lower hooks can not be shifted towards the fuselage
anymore.
To distribute the loads coming from this support system to the wing box four booms were designed.
The two booms that are connected to the front spar have a outer and inner radius of respectively
18 and 14 mm and the booms that are connected to the rear spar have an outer and inner radius
of respectively 9 and 8 mm. The dierence between these booms are caused by the fact that the
distance between the upper two supports and the front spar is much larger compared to the lower
two supports. In addition, the upper two supports needs to carry the full weight of the cargo pod
since the lower to supports are released earlier as mentioned before.
4.5 Landing gear
The Flamingo has two dierent landing gears: main landing gear and the tail landing gear. The
main landing gear is attached to the wing and the tail landing gear is attached to the vertical ns.
4 Structural Design & Analysis 47
The landing gear is designed for a worst case scenario; during hard landing the aircraft lands on one
wheel with a landing gear load factor of 2 and a side force. To design the shock absorbers the landing
impact is taken into account, this is explained in section 4.5.1. The main landing gear is placed under
a certain angle and the wheel is placed about 200mm in front of the center of gravity position to
prevent the aircraft from tipping over.
4.5.1 Shock absorber
The basic considerations that aect the shock absorber are the sink speed, the load factor on landing
gear, the stroke and the shock absorbers. According to CS-23 regulations, the small aircraft should be
able to withstand the shock of landing at a sink speed of 3.0m/s at design landing weight and 2.1m/s
at maximum gross weight (EAS, 2003). Since in this case, the landing gear is designed for worst case
scenario the aircraft lands with the maximum gross weight, so the sink speed of 2.1m/s (7 ft/s) is
used. The landing gear load factor for a small utility aircraft is 2-3 (Currey, 1988). In this case,
the landing gear is sized for a load factor of 2. The shock absorber that is used in the main and the
tail landing gears are rubber shock absorbers. The reason why this shock absorber is used while the
Oleo-Pneumatic shock absorbers have highest eciency and the best energy dissipation is because of
the simplicity, low cost and minimizing the precision machining. Besides, this shock absorber is used
for light weight aircrafts, which is the case here. The rubber shock absorbers eciency is 60%. The
rubber is used in the form of disks and the thickness of each disk is limited by the thickness that can
be vulcanized to the plates or washers used to seperate the disks in the stack. So the thickness should
not be more than 1.5 inch (0.038m) (Currey, 1988). By using a central tube all the rubber disks are
kept in line. The hole in the center of each disk is lined with fabric. During compression, these holes
become smaller and the fabric contacts the tube and thereby absorbing some of the energy by way of
friction.The stroke is roughly a linear function of the load factor and is the vertical distance moved
by the wheels. The stroke distance calculation of the main landing gear is given in section 4.5.2.
4.5.2 Main landing gear
In this section rst the shock absorber is sized and then the main landing gear is sized. The stroke
distance and the strut length of the shock absorber are sized for the landing impact. The stroke
distance can be calculated based on the fundamental work/energy relationship: change in kinetic
energy is equal to work done. Applying that to a landing gear, a change in kinetic energy is equal to
reduction of vertical velocity from sink speed to zero. In equation 4.14 the change in kinetic energy is
given in the left side of the equation and the work done by dierent components is given in the right
side of the equation.
0
WV
s
2
(2g)
= S n
S
NW S
t
n
t
NW +W(S +S
t
) L(S +S
t
) (4.14)
In equation 4.14 the rst term on the right side of the equation is the work done by the strut, the
second term is the work done by the tire, third term is the work done by the gravity and the fourth
term is the work done by wing lift. According to CS-23 regulations the lift created throughout the
landing impact is two third of the gross weight (EAS, 2003). In equation 4.14 the term S is the stroke
(vertical wheel travel) in [m], n
s
is the shock absorber eciency which is equal to 0.60 (Currey, 1988),
N is the load factor which is equal to 2, W is the gross weight [N], S
t
is the tire deection and that is
equal to 0.33 feet (0.10m) for small tires (Currey, 1988),n
t
is the eciency of the tire which is equal
to 0.47 (Currey, 1988), L is the lift [N], V
s
is the sink speed which is equal to 2.1[m/s] and the g is
the gravitational acceleration [m/s
2
]. When these values are substituted in equation 4.14 the stroke
distance becomes equal to 7.78 inch (0.20m) and adding a 1 inch to the stroke for the inaccuracies the
stroke distance becomes equal to 0.22m. The strut length of the rubber shock absorber is 2.5 times
the stroke distance and that is equal to 0.56m (Currey, 1988).
48 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Parameters Unit At E in EG At T in AE At S in AE Strut DB Strut HC
F
normal
[kN] 5.40 11.0 19.9 24.2 10.8
1.5F
normal
[kN] 6.15 16.5 29.9 36.3 16.2
L
cuts
[m] 0.1 1[m] 0.74 0.79[m] 0.93
F
cr
[kN] 5.8510
3
388 1.8210
3
50.2 26.6

A
[MPa] -318 -151 415 74.1 -41.4

B
[MPa] 288 119 -442 74.1 -41.4

C
[MPa] 228 400 84.6 74.1 -41.4

D
[MPa] -257 -433 -112 74.1 -41.4

A
-due F
z
[MPa] 68.2 5.53 26.2 0 0

A
-due F
y
[MPa] 34.3 14.2 3.78 0 0

C
-due F
z
[MPa] 42.9 3.67 16.5 0 0

C
-due F
y
[MPa] 54.6 21.4 6.01 0 0

C
-due torsion [MPa] 0 4.5 0 0 0
R
1,inner
[m] 0.0150 0.0300 0.0300 0.0100 0.0100
R
2,outer
[m] 0.0200 0.0350 0.0400 0.0160 0.0150
Table 4.13: The normal stress and the shear stress at dierent location in the landing gear
In gure 4.17 the main landing gear is sketched. The main landing gear is composed of a beam,
two side struts, 2 hinges and a roller support. The beam and the struts are circular tubes. The beam
is connected to the wing by a hinge, the front strut is connected to the wing by a hinge and back
strut is connected to the wing by a roller support. These two side struts are two force members.
The front strut prevent the landing gear to move due to side forces and the back strut prevents the
landing gear to move due to normal force and the ground drag. When the landing gear retracts the
front sidestrut rotates with the main beam and remains at the same place. The back strut works
as a slider; during retraction it slides to the front and pushes the beam to go up (works as an actuator).
Since the landing gear is sized for the hard landing case, the landing gear load factor is equal to
2; this means that the weight acting on the landing gear is twice the aircraft weight. As mentioned
before the lift is 2/3 of the maximum gross weight (EAS, 2003). The normal ground force acting on
the wheel is equal to 8.68kN (N
g
= W L). According to CS-23 certication, tire sliding coecient
of friction should be 0.8 so the ground drag force is equal to 6.95kN (D
g
=
r
N
g
). CS-23 is also
stating that this drag force should not be less than 25% of the vertical force on the wheel (EAS,
2003). In our case the ground drag is 80% of the vertical force. The side force should be equal to 0.83
times the maximum gross weight (EAS, 2003) and that is equal to 5.40kN. These forces create normal
forces, bending moments, torsional moments and shear forces in the structure which creates, direct
stress and shear stresses. It should be checked how high these stresses are and whether the landing
gear material will be able to carry them without failure. First the unknown forces are calculated by
taking moment and forces equilibrium at the hinge point. Once the forces are known, the structure
can be cut at dierent location and the stresses can be calculated. The normal stresses are high at
the edges of the cross-section, so at each cross section the normal stresses are calculated at 4 points
(two vertical and two horizontal).The normal stress is calculated using equation 4.15 (R.C.Hibbeler,
2005). At each of these points the shear stress is also calculated and the equation used to calculate
the shear stress due to shear force is given in equation 4.9 in section 4.3 and the equation used to
calculate the shear stress due to torsion is given in equation 4.16 (R.C.Hibbeler, 2005).
In equation 4.15 N is the normal force [N], A is the cross-sectional area [m
2
], M is the bending
moment [Nm], I is the moment of inertia [m
4
] and the y is the distance from the center of gravity to
the edge [m].
4 Structural Design & Analysis 49
Figure 4.17: Sketch of the main landing gear and cross-section of the beam
=
F
A

My
I
(4.15)
=
Tr
J
(4.16)
In equation 4.16 T is the torsion, r is the distance from center to stressed surface in the given position
and J is the polar moment of inertia of a hollow section. The points in each cross-section where the
stresses are calculated are given in gure 4.17. In table 4.13 the normal stress and the shear stress at
dierent location are given. In table 4.13, the minus sign represents the compression. The material
that is chosen for the landing gear is aluminum 7075-T73. The reason why this material is chosen
is because this material has high strength, virtually immune to stress corrosion and most often used
for the landing gear structures. This material has a youngs modulus of 72.5GPa, yield strength of
446MPa, tensile strength of 510MPa and a compressive strength of 448MPa. The density is equal to
2.8110
3
kg/m
3
. By calculating the volume in each section of the main landing gear the total volume
is found and that is equal to 0.00325m
3
. The weight is equal to 9.14kg. By giving a weight of 4kg for
the tire the total weight of one main landing gear is 13.1kg and the weight of the two landing gear is
equal to 26.2kg.
4.5.3 Tail landing gear
The tail landing gear is attached at the vertical n. The airfoil thickness of the bottom part of the
vertical n is increased slightly above the tire width and the wheel is placed inside the vertical n.
This wheel is attached to a beam which is connected to the rear spar of the wing box of the main
wing by a hinge in such a way the wheel moves with the vertical n when the vertical n is deected.
The beam has a length of 1.022m. The tail landing gear is sized for the maximum static load acting
on it. To calculate the maximum static load, gure 4.18 is used. The maximum static load on the
tail wheel is calculated as shown in equation 4.17 (Currey, 1988).
N
static,max
strut
=
W(F L)
2F
(4.17)
In this equation W is the maximum gross weight. The calculated maximum static load in one tail
gear is equal to 624N. The forces acting on the tail landing gear is the normal ground force, ground
drag and the side forces. According to CS-23.499 certication the normal ground force acting on
50 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.18: The tail gear location (left) and the cross-section of the beam (right)
Parameters Values Unit Parameters Values Unit
F
normal
1.40 [kN] M
X
drag
-1.1510
3
[Nm]
1.5F
normal
2.11 [kN] M
Y
sideforce
1.0010
3
[Nm]
F
critical
41.5 [kN]
A
-due F
y
8.70 [MPa]

A
-510 [MPa]
A
-due F
x
4.70 [MPa]

B
503 [MPa]
C
-due F
y
5.30 [MPa]

C
440 [MPa]
C
-due F
x
7.60 [MPa]

D
-447 [MPa] R
1,inner
0.0100 [m]
R
2,outer
0.0170 [m]
Table 4.14: The stresses in the tail landing gear
the tail wheel should be 2.25 times the static load which is equal to 1.40kN, the side force should
be 0.7 times the normal ground force which is equal to 983N and the drag force should be equal to
0.8 times the normal ground force which is equal to 1.12kN. These forces are transfered through the
beam and the hinge to the wing box. The forces that are acting on the beam create stresses and
these stresses should be calculated to check whether the landing gear can handle these forces without
resulting in structure failure. The beam is cut at 1.021m from where the hinge is placed to nd the
highest moment and the stresses are calculated in this cross section at four dierent points. These 4
points at the cross section are given in gure 4.18. The results obtained from the stress calculation
are given in table 4.14.
In table 4.14 the minus sign represents the compressive stresses. The material that is used for the
landing gear is aluminum 7075-T6. This material has a high strength and is often used for aircraft
structures (CES Edupack Software, 2011). This material has a youngs modulus of 76GPa, yield
strength of 530MPa, tensile strength of 580MPa and a compressive strength of 530MPa. The
density is equal to 2.8310
3
kg/m
3
. The weight of one strut is 1.70kg. By giving a weight of 2kg for
the tire the total weight of one tail gear is 3.70kg and the weight of the two tail landing gear is equal
to 7.40kg. The total weight of the landing gear (main +tail) is 33.7kg.
4 Structural Design & Analysis 51
4.6 Booms
In this section the structural analysis of the booms will be explained in detail. Two booms run forward
from the aircraft body to the canard. They are detachable from both ends. They are clamped at the
aircraft body and are connected to the canard by means of hinges giving canard freedom to rotate.
Therefore, they are designed such that they can sustain the loads from the canard. Since the canard
is 0.3m above the aircraft wing, it implies that the booms run not only forwards but also upwards
carrying the lifting canard. The length of the booms is 2.3m each. The outer and inner diameters of
the boom are decided by initially giving random values. After this stress distribution and deection
of the booms is determined. Once these computations are done, an iteration is performed by changing
the inner and outer diameters of the boom such that the stresses at all cross sections remain below
the critical stresses and also to limit the deection of the booms to about 1

. The procedure carried
out is as follows. First the deection and stresses in the booms are determined under the forces in
normal ight. Then the booms are checked if they do not fail in the worst case scenario. This is
done by nding the stress distribution under worst case scenario forces and comparing them with the
yield strength of the material. To prevent booms from failing the stresses at the cross sections need
to be below the yield strength of the material. The iteration of boom diameters is done to prevent
oversizing the structure. The inner and the outer diameters should just be sucient to prevent the
booms failure and to restrict the deection. The table 4.15 lists the inner and outer diameters of the
boom.
Location Value [mm]
Outer diameter 70
Inner diameter 40
Table 4.15: Boom diameters
4.6.1 Stress analysis
This sub section explains stress calculation at dierent cross sections of the booms under normal
conditions. The forces from the canard on the booms are 24N along the boom axis and 430N normal
to boom axis. The side force due to 7 Beaufort wind is not taken into account for calculations because
the force is very small.
The force normal to boom axis creates a moment at dierent cross sections. Therefore the stress
at each cross section is the sum of the normal stress and the bending stress due to moment created,
which can be determined by using equation 4.15 in section 4.5. A positive result from equation 4.15
represents tension while the negative represents compression. One knows due to forces the upper part
of the booms will be in compression while the lower part will be in tension. This can be veried by
the results which states negative stresses for the top of the booms and positive stresses for the bottom
of the booms. The stress is determined at the top and bottom surface of the boom. In the table 4.16
the forces and stresses at cross sections are listed. The calculated stresses are multiplied by a safety
factor of 1.5. The compression stress due to force parallel to boom is much smaller than the critical
stress. Thus the booms do not break or fail.
The stress distribution is illustrated in gure 4.19 for both the top and bottom surface.
The stress distribution increases in the worst case scenario. The forces from the canard in the
worst case scenario are 1353N perpendicular to boom axis and 97N parallel to boom axis. Equation
4.15 is used again to determine the stress distribution at dierent cross sections of the booms. The
table 4.17 illustrates the results obtained for the worst case scenario. From the results obtained one
can see that the stresses at each cross section remain below the yield strength of the material and
thereby the structure does not fail.
52 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Z M I
XX

top

bot
1.5
top
1.5
bot

cr
[m] [Nm] [mm
4
] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
2.307 993 1052924 -33 33 -50 50 52
1.73 745 1052924 -25 25 -37 37 92
1.153 497 1052924 -17 17 -25 25 207
0.576 248 1052924 -8 8 -12 12 832
Table 4.16: Stresses on the booms
Figure 4.19: Stress Distribution
Z M I
XX

top

bot
1.5
top
1.5
bot

yield
[m] [Nm] [mm
4
] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
2.307 993 1052924 -104 104 -156 156 221
1.73 745 1052924 -78 78 -117 117 221
1.153 497 1052924 -52 52 -78 78 221
0.576 248 1052924 -26 26 -39 39 221
Table 4.17: Stresses on the booms worst case
4 Structural Design & Analysis 53
4.6.2 Material selection
This section explains the detail of a suitable material selection for the booms. In the class II weight
estimation of the mid term design, the weight of the booms were approximated to be 5 kg each.
The suitable material for booms should therefore have a high youngs modulus to allow minimum
deection of the booms, high strength to prevent buckling and low density to give light weight. In
addition the cost should comply with the unit production cost. It is rarely a case for a material to
have all these qualities. The material selected for the booms is (CES Edupack Software, 2011) epoxy
carbonbre (SMC). This material is strong enough for the booms and less dense than other materials
which makes it ideal. Moreover the material can handle the extreme expected temperatures of the
mission, is self extinguishing and is already used for lightweight structures in aerospace. The weight
of each boom is approximately 8.4 kg and the cost is AC118. The properties of this material are listed
in table 4.18.
Material characteristic Value
Density 1400 kg/m
3
Price 14.1 AC/kg
Youngs modulus 69000 MPa
Yield strength 221 MPa
Tensile strength 276 MPa
Compressive strength 207 MPa
Minimum service temperature 123

C
Maximum service temperature 166

C
Table 4.18: Epoxy Carbon bre (SMC)
4.6.3 Boom connection to engine mount
The booms are clamped to the wing by means of steel clamps. The canard booms are attached to the
booms of the engine mount. A steel clamp is used for this connection. One can tighten the clamp to
the desired extent to ensure the booms are well connected.
4.6.4 Finite element analysis on booms
The deections due to the applied forces on the boom are of vital importance, as it directly aects
the canard position. An FEM model is made of the boom. Please note that the booms are modeled
as a beam with isotropic material properties. However, each layer of carbon ber should be modeled
with separate elements in the nite element model. This is not pursued due to its complex nature.
The end connecting to the boom of the engine mount is modeled as a clamp and the other end is
loaded by the highest load experienced by the canard during a conventional cruise ight regime of the
aircraft. The booms are sized, such that these loads do not deect the boom tip (canard connection
point) by more than 40 mm, which results in a canard deection of 1.0deg. The booms are further
sized to make sure that the worst case scenario loads (not occurring during conventional missions) do
not lead to plastic deformation. This is done by ensuring that the maximum stress at the clamped end
of the boom is lower than the yield stress of the material. Since this is a relatively simple structure
the mesh is rened to attain a solution with an error of around 3.1%, estimated by CATIA.
Figure 4.20 illustrates the stress distribution of the boom due to loads present during cruise and
gure 4.22 illustrates the stress distribution of the boom due to the worst case scenario of loading.
Figure 4.22 conrms that plastic deformation will not occur, as the maximum stress at clamped end
of the boom is 159MPa, which is lower than the yield stress, 221MPa of epoxy carbon ber. The
condition of the maximum displacement is also met at loads during cruise. Figure 4.21 conrms this.
54 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Figure 4.20: Boom stress distribution due to loads encountered during the cruise ight regime
Figure 4.21: Translational displacements of the boom due to loads faced during cruise
Table 4.19 lists the maximum stresses calculated using the FEM and analytical computations due to
loads acting on the boom during cruise and the worst case scenario.
4.7 Control surfaces
The control surfaces needs to be designed and analyzed into more detail. The cross section of the
control surfaces was rst dened as a triangle with a semicircle connected to it, as is shown in gure
4.23a. The triangular section is the actual control surface, the circular section is there to make
sure that the ow can transition from xed parts to movable parts smoothly and also provides some
additional reinforcement to the control surface structure.
Figure 4.22: Boom stress distribution due to worst case scenario loads
4 Structural Design & Analysis 55
Load Type
Maximum Stress [MPa]
Analytical Solution FEM
Cruise 49.5 49.8
Worst Case Scenario 155.6 159
Table 4.19: Comparison of FEM with analytical solution
Figure 4.23: Control surface design. a) Main design; b) Open section shear ows; c) Closed section with
additional circular shear ows; d) Flaperons support.
It should be noted that the design of the aperons and rudders have the same basic design and
will therefore be treated together. On the other hand, the attachment of the aperons to the wing
box needs some additional attention, and will be treated seperately in Section 4.7.1.
To perform the structural analysis analytically, a thin-walled cross section is assumed. The pres-
sure distribution over the control surface is replaced by a single discrete force. The shear ows are
calculated by rst making two cuts, then the rst shear ows contributions can be calculated and
afterwards the structure is closed again. This is shown in gures 4.23b and 4.23c. Closing the struc-
ture means that both of the cells get an additional circular shear ow contribution. To solve these
two unknown, two additional equations are required. The rst equation states that the twist angles
of both cells should be equal and the second equation states that internal and external forces and
stresses should result in moment equilibrium around an arbitrary point. Hence, the shear ows and
stresses can be calculated.
The deection of the control surface due to the pressure distribution was calculated by assuming
that the control surface acts like a thin walled beam and a constant lift distribution is acting over the
entire control surface span. Using these simplications the deection is calculated.
4.7.1 Attaching the aperons
The aperons need to be attached to the rest of the aircraft. This is done by means of hinges on
beams which are connected to the wing box. This is illustrated in gure 4.23d. There is a signicant
distance between the hinge point of the aperons and the sidewall of the wing box. Therefore a sti
and relatively strong connection is required between hinge and wing box. A beam is designed to do
so, and using the thin-walled beam theory the beams are sized.
4.7.2 Results
The main sizing parameters as determined by these methods are shown in Table 4.20. The support
beams have square thin-walled cross-sections: the dimensions in the table indicate the wall widths.
The vertical ns act like a landing gear, which put some extra requirements on the design of
the vertical ns. Due to time constraints, this has not been designed into further detail, but it is
recommended to do so in the future.
56 4 Structural Design & Analysis
Entity Unit
Inboard Outboard
Rudder
Flaperon support
aperon aperon Inboard Outboard
Wall thickness [mm] 1.8 1.8 0.75 1.0 0.6
Cross-section dimension [mm] - - - 12 8.0
Table 4.20: Main sizing parameters, determined analytically
Unit
Main Engine Propel- Bea- Worm Bevel
Total
shaft shaft ler shaft ring gear gear
Amount [] 1 1 1 8 1+1 2+2 -
Length [m] 4.62 0.5 0.75 - - - -
Radius [mm] 10 10 10 - - - -
Mass* [kg] 6.5 0.7 1.1 3.0 2.0 1.0 37.37
Cost* [ AC] 65.79 7.04 10.66 9.00 15.00 4.00 189.30
Table 4.21: Results of shaft and gear box structural analysis.
4.8 Shafts and gear boxes
The power of the engine in the fuselage needs to be transferred to the proprotors located on the wings.
This is done using shafts and gear boxes. To save weight, it is chosen that the gear boxes have a xed
gear ratio. The chosen gear ratios and rotations are shown in Figure 4.24a.
As is shown in Figure 4.24b, in the fuselage a worm gear is used to drive the main shaft. On
both ends of the main shaft, bevel gears are used to drive to proprotors. The shafts are supported by
self-aligning ball bearings, to ensure the friction is kept to a minimum.
The shafts are made of titanium, which is a strong and light material. The main shaft is located
aft of the wingbox. The propeller shafts intersect the front and back wall of the wingbox. All relevant
results of the structural analysis are shown in Table 4.21. Cost and mass for the gears are indicated
per couple of gears.
Figure 4.24: Shaft and gearbox design. a) Rotations and RPMs; b) Gears and bearings.
Chapter 5
VATOL Simulation
Since the VATOL maneuver is not a common one, a ight dynamics model is made to verify that the
Flamingo can actually perform this maneuver. The simulation is performed using a non linear model
programmed in Simulink. The simulation uses a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) for control. How
this simulation works will be discussed in this chapter. The translation between the dierent frames
of reference is discussed in section 5.1. The equations of motion and linearized equations used will
be discussed in section 5.2. The aircraft controller is discussed in section 5.3, the guidance system is
discussed in 5.4. The simulation is discussed in section 5.5. Finally, the results will be discussed in
section 5.6.
5.1 Flight dynamics and quaternions
During the VATOL maneuver the aerodynamic angles , and can take almost any value between

2
rad and

2
rad. This means that the Euler angles conventionally used in ight dynamics cannot
be used as they have a singularity in either =

2
rad, =

2
rad or =

2
rad, depending on the
order of the transformation; this is also known as Gimbal lock. The Euler angles can represent any
orientation of any frame of reference but when trying to translate the forces and moments associated
to that frame into another frame of reference, singularities are met when a plane is rotated such that
it coincides with another one (which happens at the angles mentioned above).
q =
_

_
e
0
e
x
e
y
e
z
_

_
(5.1)
A solution to this problem is found in the quaternion representation. A quaternion is a vector with
four inputs which together represent an axis of rotation and the magnitude of the rotation about that
axis (Phillips, 2004). The basic quaternion relation used for the simulation can be found in equation
5.1.
In equation 5.1 e
0
is a scalar input describing the magnitude of the rotation, and e
x
, e
y
, e
z
describe
the so called Euler axis which is the axis about which the rotation takes place
1
.
1
For further information about quaternions and ight dynamics, please refer to (Mooij, 1994) and (Phillips, 2004)
57
58 5 VATOL Simulation
5.2 Derivation of the linear system of equations
In this section the derivation of the linear system of equations from the equations of motion will be
discussed. Since this model is based on quaternions rather than Euler angles, the equations of motion
are dierent from the conventional equations of motion which are based on the Euler angles. The
equations of motion in terms of quaternions can be found in equations 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (Phillips, 2004).
Equation 5.2 relates the time rates of change of the velocity components to the change in the di-
rection of the gravitational pull, the aerodynamic forces in their respective direction and the roll,
pitch and yaw rates.
Equation 5.3 relates the time rates of change of the pitch, roll and yaw rates to the mass moment of
inertia, the angular acceleration, the aerodynamic moments and the angular rates.
_
_
u
v
w
_
_
= g
_
_
2(e
x
e
z
e
y
e
0
)
2(e
y
e
z
+e
x
e
0
)
e
2
z
+e
2
0
e
2
x
e
2
0
_
_
+
g
W
_
_
X +T
x
b
Y
Z
_
_
+
_
_
rv qw
pw ru
qu pv
_
_
(5.2)
_
_
p
q
r
_
_
=
_
_
I
xx
0 I
xz
0 I
yy
0
I
xz
0 I
zz
_
_
1
_
_
_
_
0 h
z
b
h
y
b
h
z
b
0 h
x
b
h
y
b
h
x
b
0
_
_
_
_
p
q
r
_
_
+
_
_
l + (I
yy
I
zz
)qr +I
xz
pq
m+T
x
b
z
bp
+ (I
zz
I
xx
)pr +I
xz
(r
2
p
2
)
n + (I
xx
I
yy
)pq I
xz
qr
_
_
_
_
(5.3)
_

_
e
0
e
x
e
y
e
z
_

_
=
1
2
_

_
e
x
e
y
e
z
e
0
e
z
e
y
e
z
e
0
e
x
e
y
e
x
e
0
_

_
_
_
p
q
r
_
_
(5.4)
Equation 5.4 relates the time rate of change of the quaternion to the pitch roll and yaw rates.
For the simulation, these equations need to be represented in a state space formulation of the form

x = Ax +Bu (5.5)
with vectors x =
_
u v w p q r e
0
e
x
e
y
e
z

T
and u =
_
c a e r T T

T
.
Where T is a change in total thrust and T is dierential thrust setting between the two propellers.
Elaborating the equations of motion gives expressions for u, v, w, p, q, r, e
0
, e
x
, e
y
and e
z
. Using
a rst order Taylor expansion, these equations can be linearized about an equilibrium point. These
linearizations contain terms that relate to the current state of the UAV and terms that relate to the
control inputs (e.g. deections and thrust settings). The former terms can be found in the A matrix
(equation 5.6), the latter ones in the B matrix (equation 5.7).
5 VATOL Simulation 59
A =
_

_
C
X
u
0 0 0 0 0 C
X
e0
C
X
ex
C
X
ey
C
X
ez
0 C
Y
v
0 0 0 0 C
Y
e0
C
Y
ex
C
Y
ey
C
Y
ez
0 0 C
Z
w
0 0 0 C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
0 0 0 C
p
p
C
p
q
C
p
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
q
p
C
q
q
C
q
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
r
p
C
r
q
C
r
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
e0
p
C
e0
q
C
e0
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ex
p
C
ex
q
C
ex
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ey
p
C
ey
q
C
ey
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ez
p
C
ez
q
C
ez
r
0 0 0 0
_

_
(5.6)
The linearization of the system of equations results in a decoupling of the system of equations. This
can be clearly seen in the A matrix as any rotational state does not aect any translational state and
vice versa. This assumption is a valid one as the so-called cross coupled terms are much smaller
than the decoupled ones.
B =
_

_
0 0 0 0 C
X
T
0
0 0 0 C
Y
r
0 0
C
Z
c
0 C
Z
e
0 0 0
0 C
l
a
0 0 0 0
C
m
c
0 C
m
e
0 0 0
0 0 0 C
n
r
0 C
n
T
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_

_
(5.7)
The B matrix is also simplied. Any control surface deection causes an increased drag, however,
this is assumed to be small and therefore set to zero as can be clearly seen in the rst row in equation
5.7. This prevents the simulation of getting confused, as it could otherwise decide that a change in
velocity can also be realised by generating extra drag through a control surface deection. In theory
this is ofcourse possible, but it makes no physical sense to do so. Any change in velocity should be
realized through a change in thrust only. In other words, the B matrix only relates deections of
control surfaces and engine settings to the rates in which they have a primary eect.
5.3 Aircraft controller
Most aircraft employing an advanced y-by-wire system make use of a digital controller. A typical
controller is a feedback system that takes deviations from a nominal state and transforms them into
a control response to correct for these. Aircraft with relaxed stability can often be made stable by
use of a controller that corrects for the deviations that would otherwise make the state diverge.
The Simulink implementation of the aircraft model uses a linear quadratic controller to control the
attitude and translational motion. A feedback controller based on an LQR takes a set of linear
dierential equations, the equations of motion, and minimizes the cost associated with controlling the
system. The cost is expressed in terms of the deviations of the control mechanisms from their typical
values. The aircraft equations of motion derived in section 5.2 can be expressed in the state space
form, as shown by equation 5.5. In this equation the deviation from the nominal state of the aircraft
is expressed as x, while its derivative is

x. The control vector, u, contains the control parameters.
60 5 VATOL Simulation
Figure 5.1: The gains are computed at several instances when using gain scheduling
The appropriate control response to a deviation from the nominal state is determined by equation
5.8.
u = Kx (5.8)
In this equation K is the control gain. This gain is found by minimizing the control function. For
the innite-horizon case, where the time for the system to react is suciently large, the cost function
is given as:
J =
_

0
(x
T
Qx +u
T
Ru)dt (5.9)
The R- and Q-matrix are the control engineers only tools for tuning an LQR-controller. They are
square matrices with their input variables as inverse squares on the diagonal. According to Brysons
rule (Mooij, 1997), typical values for these parameters are related to the maximum deections of the
control surfaces and typical allowable deviations from the nominal state, respectively. An R-matrix
with high r
i
values will allow for large deections of control surfaces. For small q
i
values the system
will react very sudden, and might overshoot the target state when correcting.
The LQR method requires a set of linear dierential equations. As the original equations of motion are
non-linear, they need to be linearized, as shown in section 5.2. When linearizing the equations about a
nominal point, the aircraft is placed in an equilibrium state. This means that as the aircraft deviates
from this point, as it does when pitching up, the linearization will become invalid. For this reason
the aircraft is linearized again at a new nominal point, and a new controller gain is determined. The
controller gains can then be interpolated to produce a smooth transition. This method is called gain
scheduling and is illustrated in gure 5.1. To realize when the aircraft must be relinearized various
scheduling variables are employed. These are state parameters that are monitored to determine when
the aircraft has deviated suciently from the nominal point to be outside the validity region. These
variables should not have the same value twice in the same region considered by the algorithm as
then the guidance will get confused and will think it is in a dierent part of the maneuver.
5 VATOL Simulation 61
The numerical simulation of the VATOL maneuver is controlled by a controller written in MAT-
LAB. It is possible to use native MATLAB functions to determine the gain matrices automatically
from the A, B, Q, and R matrices.
The controller is adjusted to several dierent ight phases to account for the dierences in behavior
exhibited by the aircraft.
The aircraft state vector x and control vector u are are shown in equations 5.10 and 5.11. The control
vector entries have been divided into the relevant deections. The aperons serve as both elevators
as well as ailerons, this functionality has been separated in the vector and is added together to give
the total deection. The thrust given by the various propellers has also been divided into a general
translational thrust and a dierential thrust that aects the yaw.
x =
_

_
u
v
w
p
q
r
e
0
e
x
e
y
e
z
_

_
(5.10)
u =
_

T
_

_
(5.11)
The gains are generated in a separate function. This is done before the simulation starts. Calculating
a gain involves linearization of the equations of motion around a new point. These linearized equations
then describe the deviations from this point in which the aircraft is in equilibrium. The gain matrix
is produced by using the MATLAB function lqr(A,B,Q,R). Once the gains are determined the control
response can be determined through equation 5.8. Here x is the error of the state vector with respect
to the nominal case. The control vector and the state error is used in equation 5.5 to determine
the change in state vector. To determine the full state this change is multiplied by the time step
and added to the overall state. The state error for the translational motion and rotational rates was
determined as follows:
x
err
= x x
c
(5.12)
Where x
c
is the commanded state. The quaternion error, however, cannot be simply subtracted.
To determine the error rotation in quaternion form one must divide the current attitude by the
commanded attitude.

Q
err
=

Q
c
(5.13)
5.4 Aircraft guidance
The current guidance system is basic guidance system but performs well with the pitch up maneuver.
During the pitch up maneuver there are 3 phases in the Simulink model. First there is a trim phase
which lasts 20 seconds. In this phase the aircraft is directed to y straight ahead with a constant
62 5 VATOL Simulation
velocity. After which a phase starts in which the pitch up maneuver is performed. In this phase the
aircraft is commanded to increase its pitch to about 90 degrees while reducing its airspeed. Lastly
the hover phase starts where the aircraft also slowly descents to the target location. Each phase has
its gain which are all calculated before the simulation runs.
During the take o the Guidance system rst commands to increase speed while maintaining a
near vertical pitch. After reaching screen height the aircraft rotates to reduce the pitch and ies away.
5.5 Simulation
In this section the simulation will be discussed. First the assumptions will be explained in section
5.5.1. Next the Simulink model will be discussed in section 5.5.2 and nally the result of Simulink
model will be discussed in section 5.6.
5.5.1 Assumptions and aerodynamic data
The main assumptions made by the simulations implementation were:
Flat, non-rotating earth
No gyroscopic eects
Steady atmosphere
Sea level, standard atmosphere conditions
Induced velocity is equal to mean induced velocity and is evenly distributed over main wing
The assumption that the induced velocity obtained from the propellers is equal to the mean induced
velocity is likely to be the assumption with the greatest impact on the accuracy of the simulation. It
was not possible to accurately determine the velocity prole over the wing in the time span available.
However since each propeller covers roughly an entire half-wing, the assumption was accepted.
The aerodynamic characteristics for both models were determined from Tornado citeptornado,
and assembled into tables which the simulations could access. All the aerodynamic coecients were
calculated for a range of angles of attack, pitch rates and canard deections. This information was
stored in 3D matrices from which the simulations can interpolate the coecients needed.
The information about the induced velocity from the proprotors was generated using the BEM
analysis discussed in section 3.5. These tables were made with as input the propeller thrust and
velocity and as output the induced velocity. Another table was made to calculate the maximum
thrust available at dierent ight speeds.
5.5.2 Simulink implementation
In this section the Simulink implementation of the aircraft model will be discussed. First a general
overview will be given on how the model works. After that, the three main functions of the model
are discussed namely: the ight model, the guidance system and the controller.
Overview of the Simulink model
In gure 5.2, a top level overview of the Simulink model is shown. The model in Simulink consists of
several blocks which are connected to each other. The ight model block outputs the current state to
the bus. This information is fed into the control and guidance systems where the new control surface
deection and thrust settings are calculated. Also the visualization is connected to this bus but this
does not inuence the simulation.
5 VATOL Simulation 63
Figure 5.2: Flight Model
Thrust
2
Control Surfac
1
Turn Q off
K
To Workspace1
Thrust
To Workspace
control
Subsystem1
Bus
State Vector
State Vector1
V
Subsystem
State Vector
Gain
Velocity
Thrust Right
Thrust Left
Canard
Alleron
Elevator
Rudder
Quaternion
Division
q
r
q/r
gain
3
Guidance
2
Bus
1
Thrust Right
Thrust Left
Canard
Alleron
Elevator
Rudder
Figure 5.3: Simulink controller block
Simulink model
In gure 5.4 the Simulink ight model is shown. This model propagates in time and uses the thrust
and control settings from the controller as an input. The 6DoF (Quaternion) block from the
Simulink aerospace toolbox calculates the velocities, rotations and position. The output of this block
is used as an input for the next time step.
In the Eect of Thrust block the induced velocity is calculated. This is done by entering the
current thrust and velocity into a table after which the induced velocity is return. In the Flight
Conditions block the current ight conditions are calculated. The dynamic pressure is calculated
by adding up the velocity in the body axis and the induced velocity which only acts in the body x
direction. This induced velocity is used together with the V
body
to calculate the dynamic pressure.
In the Aerodynamics Coecients block the aerodynamic coecients are looked up from the
tables. After which they are fed into the Forces and Moments block. Here they are converted to
the forces and moments acting on the UAV.
In gure 5.5 the guidance system for the landing is shown. Using switches the controllers are
chosen.
In gure 5.3 the controller is shown. From the bus the current ight conditions are extracted after
which the desired state is subtracted. This leaves the error which is multiplied with the gain after
which gives the deections.
Controller
The controller uses the gain matrix supplied by the guidance system and the error in the state. Using
this information the control surface deections and thrust settings are calculated as explained in
64 5 VATOL Simulation
Figure 5.4: Flight Model
Gain
2
Desired State
1
gain 2
K2
gain 1
K
Trim
In1
Out1
Out2
Switch6
>= 0
Switch1
>= 0
Switch
>= 0
Pitich Up
In1
Out1
Out2
Hover and descent
In1
Out1
Out2
Bus
1
Figure 5.5: simulink guidance block
5 VATOL Simulation 65
!"
#!"
$!!"
$#!"
%!!"
%#!"
&!!"
&#!"
'$(!!" '$$!!" '(!!" '$!!"
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
(
,-.$/01'($2($/34'$()*+(
Figure 5.6: Altitude versus distance to target during vertical landing
!"
!#$"
!#%"
!#&"
!#'"
("
(#$"
(#%"
(#&"
(#'"
!" )!" (!!" ()!" $!!" $)!"
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
&
,
-
'
.
/
&
0"1+&,2/&
Figure 5.7: Pitch angle versus time during the vertical landing
section 5.3. The maximum deection of the control surfaces and the rate at which they deect are
limited. The thrust settings and the rate at which the thrust can change are limited too.
5.6 Results of the simulation
In this section the results of the simulations will be shown. In the rst section the landing is discussed,
and in the second section the take o will be discussed. From these results it can be concluded that
the proposed maneuver is feasible.
5.6.1 Pitch-up maneuver
The results of the simulation in the Simulink model look very promising about the stability during
the pitch up maneuver and landing. In gure 5.6 the distance to target and altitude position are
shown over time. This graph clearly shows the maneuver the Flamingo makes when it lands at its
destination. In gure 5.7 the pitch angle is shown versus time. As can be seen the pitch remains
constant during hover however is not exactly vertical, but approximately 89
o
. It should be noted
that the aircraft can be guided to the target location by slightly changing the pitch angle. Lastly in
gure 5.8 the absolute velocity is shown over time. This gure shows clearly shows that the pitch up
maneuver starts with changing controller as the aircraft rst pitches down. As soon as the aircraft
pitches up, it loses speed due to the gravitational pull even though the propellors provide more thrust.
It should be noted that the graph shows the absolute velocity in the earth reference frame this causes
the small bumps when the velocity nears zero.
66 5 VATOL Simulation
!"
#!"
$!"
%!"
&!"
'!"
(!"
!" '!" #!!" #'!" $!!" $'!" %!!"
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
&
*
)
+
"
,
-
'
.
/
0
&
-
"
%
1
$
*
)
2
3
4
5
6
)
7&3")256)
Figure 5.8: Velocity versus time during the vertical landing
0
50
100
150
200
250
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Distance from target [m]
Altitude versus distance
Figure 5.9: Altitude versus horizontal distance from target during the vertical take o
5.6.2 Vertical take o
Also the simulation o the vertical take o works well. Shown in gure 5.9 is the X location versus
the Z location. In gures 5.10 and 5.11 the pitch and absolute velocity are plotted versus time. The
initial bumps can be explained by the fact that, as the aircraft is tipping over, it does not have enough
speed to generate enough lift to counter the pitch down moment and the controller has to aggressively
correct here. The second bump in the plot betrays the switch of gains in the climb phase.
5 VATOL Simulation 67
!"
!#$"
!#%"
!#&"
!#'"
("
(#$"
(#%"
(#&"
(#'"
!" (!" $!" )!" %!" *!" &!"
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
&
,
-
'
.
/
&
0"1+&,2/&
!"#$%&3+-242&51+&
Figure 5.10: Pitch angle versus time during the the vertical take o
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

i
n

X
e
a
r
t
h
-
d
i
r
e
c

o
n

[
m
/
s
]
Time [s]
Figure 5.11: Velocity versus time during the vertical take o
68 5 VATOL Simulation
Chapter 6
Subsystem Design
In this chapter the subsystems will be discussed. The systems discussed in this chapter are; the power
system in section 6.1 this is followed by the electrical block diagram giving an overview of all the
electrical systems in section 6.2, the control and navigation system is discussed in section 6.3, the
communication system in section 6.4, the data handling in section 6.5 and nally the support system
discussing everything that is not on the Flamingo itself, will be discussed in section 6.6.
6.1 Power system design
In the powers system design, three dierent components have been considered: the engine, the elec-
trical power system and the fuel tank and tubing.
The engine chosen is the Mistral G-200. This is a 1960cc, 200hp wankel engine that runs on avgas and
mogas(The rotary engine for 21
st
century general aviation G-200, n.d.). This engine has been chosen
for its relatively small dimensions, its reliability and its performance in terms of fuel consumption at
high altitudes.
The electrical power system consists of a battery, actuators for the control surfaces, wiring and the
sensor package. The electricity is generated by the generator which comes with the engine. It is then
fed to the battery which feeds it to the aircraft. The battery is sized such that it can supply all the
electrical systems of the aircraft during the hover maneuver and for a duration of 15 minutes at full
capacity after complete failure of the engine.
The three aspects that determined the design of the fuel system the most are the volume of the tank
the position in the aircraft and the fact that for the VATOL sloshing should be kept at a minimum.
A tank volume of 60 liters is chosen. This allows for extended missions up to 300km requiring
53l and leaves sucient volume for loitering. For redundancy reasons it is chosen to divide this over
two tanks which both have separate tubing connecting the tanks to the engine. The design allows
the aircraft to y back with cargo if a fuel pump (or part for the fuel system) fails during any part of
the mission except for during the VATOL maneuver.
The tanks are placed in the fuselage next to the engine. Placing the tanks in the wings has been
considered, however, there is not enough space there due to the large control surfaces and the shafts
that drive the propellers. Placing the fuel tanks close to the center of gravity improves maneuverability
as the mass moment of inertia about the X
b
and Z
b
axis reduces.
Sloshing is an important consideration for this aircraft. During the VATOL manouver large dis-
placements of fuel could lead to stability issues and fuel might no longer be able to reach the engine.
To solve this problem, a special type of fuel tank is designed. This tank with triangular cross section
69
70 6 Subsystem Design
Generator
Charge circuit
Battery
Onboard Flight
Computer
Payload Release
System
Control &
Navigation System
Canard actuators
Communication
system
Backup battery
Regulator
Figure 6.1: Electrical Block Diagram
consists of a bladder divided into compartments
1
. This bladder is glued to two sti plates on the
adjacent side and the hypotaneous of the triangle. As there will be no air in the bladder the tank
shrinks as fuel is consumed. The fuel is distributed evenly over the tank by the sti plates, even in
hovering ight and in soing so, reducing sloshing.
Table 6.1 shows the dierent components and their weights.
component mass [kg]
engine 132
battery and wiring 10
actuators 10
fuel tank and tubes 10
Table 6.1: Dierent components and their masses
6.2 Electrical block diagram
The electrical block diagram gives a clear overview of the electrical components inside the UAV. The
components that are generating or using electrical power are listed in blocks, the arrows represent
the connections between the dierent subsystems.
For the UAV the electrical block diagram is shown in Figure 6.1. The heart of the diagram
is the electronic regulator. This unit distributes the available power to the right places. Usually
electrical power will come from the generator. The generator is integrated in the engine and converts
mechanical power into electrical power. The electricity out of the generator is than used to charge
a battery through a charger circuit. In case the battery is fully charged and the generator produces
enough electrical power, the energy can be distributed to the subsystems directly. If however the
generator is not providing enough power, e.g. when all power of the engine is required for hovering,
the subsystems use power of the battery. As soon as less power is required for propulsion, the battery
is charged again.
Furthermore a backup battery is present in case the main power supply fails. This battery will
not be attached to the charge system to reduce the probability that both batteries are damaged due
to a failure in the charger. The backup battery has a limited capacity and can only supply electric
1
Similar to an air mattress.
6 Subsystem Design 71
power for a short time period, thus the UAV will have to perform an emergency landing as soon as
possible after failure.
6.3 Control & navigation system
The control & navigation system is very important for the UAV, as the vehicle has to perform its
mission autonomous. The control & navigation systems of the UAV consist of a chip set and additional
sensors to nd an appropriate landing site and to monitor the ground during landing. They will be
treated separately in the following sections.
6.3.1 Autopilot chip set
The MicroPilot MP21283X has been selected as the UAV autopilot. Previous autopilots by the same
manufacturer have already been used by NASA and MASS. The latter one has even used it for a tail
sitter UAV. Therefore this chip set seems a good choice (MicroPilot MP2128, 14-06-2011). The main
advantages of the chip set are listed below.
1. triple redundancy: three independently operating auto-pilots
2. 3 gyros: pitch, roll and yaw rate measurements for attitude determination
3. integrated GPS: used for global positioning
4. multiple communication links: e.g. radio communication
5. lightweight and small: the mass is only 28 g and it is 10 x 4 cm in dimension
6.3.2 Short distance landing sensor
For the depth sensing during landing, PrimeSensor technology is used(PrimeSense: Motion Control
Beyond the Kinect, 16-06-2011). It projects a grid of infrared light on the surroundings, and the
reections are observed by a infrared sensing camera. The system is also equipped with a conventional
camera. The sensor is able to see depth during day and night within a reasonable distance.
6.3.3 Long distance landing sensor
For landing site scanning of the ground the RIEGL LMS-Q160 laser radar is used. It is lightweight
and especially designed for UAVs (RIEGL LMS-Q160, 14-06-2011). It enables the Flamingo to make
a detailed scan of the surrounding environment and identify human beings on the landing site.
6.4 Communications
The Flamingo has a need to communicate with the operators in order to make sure missions go
according to plan or to change the mission during ight. The range requirement of 200 km limits the
options available as most communication systems have a far shorter range.
A communication system based on broadband satellite Internet is chosen. This is done for the
following reasons. First the Internet connection gives great exibility on the location of the operator.
Second satellite Internet connection works almost everywhere as shown in gure 6.2. For the antenna
the Explorer 727 is chosen and is shown in gure 6.3 . This is a small dome about 46 cm in diameter
in which the antenna can continuously track the satellite. The antenna is mounted on the rear of the
aircraft behind the engine.
This system is augmented with a short range relay system in which the UAVs can send data via
each other to base of operation. This system uses a Ku band antenna with a line of sight range of
about 50km. This means that for every mission distance increase of 50km, starting from 50km, at
72 6 Subsystem Design
least one extra Flamingo is needed. This relay system is preferred for data transfer as the satellite
Internet connection is more expensive for sending data.
When the aircraft is hovering the satellite antenna is not pointed towards the air and therefore
can not connect to the satellite. If communications are deemed necessary, the Flamingo can send its
signal via the Ku band antenna to a nearby Flamingo which in turn can either relay the data either
to the satellite or through the relay system.
Figure 6.2: Satellite Internet coverage of the BGAN net-
work Figure 6.3: Satellite Antenna
6.5 Data handling
In this section the data handling is explained in detail. The data handling subsystem carries and
stores data between various units and the ground segment. For the concerned mission an on board
camera takes pictures of the surroundings, which are needed to determine a suitable landing spot. A
suitable camera for this mission is a CCD camera (charged couple device), because it produces high
quality image data. The data handling block diagram is illustrated in gure 6.4. The camera takes
pictures and the transceiver of the system will transmit the images to the ground station, so that
the images can be displayed on a monitor. The camera with two degrees of freedom is set up on a
servo platform which provides control of a desired operation through the use of feedback. Through
navigation the UAV knows its attitude and location. This information is transferred to on board
computer memory. The driver of the servo platform will download this le and determine the relation
between the body frame coordinates of UAV and line of sight of the camera. Once a suitable landing
location is detected, the servo moves the camera to pin point to the target location by using the two
degrees of freedom movement.
6.6 Support system
One single UAV is always a component in a larger system necessary to successfully perform a mission.
This includes control stations, equipment and tooling, communication links, and other hardware.
Crew requirements are considered separately as a part of the operations and logistics, in chapter 7.
The support system is designed to manage 10 aircraft at any given time. To do this the control station
needs to be able to control 10 aircraft simultaneously. This puts high demands on the design so as
to ensure sucient overview, while also providing details on each aircraft, for the pilot. A detailed
design of the support system is beyond the scope of this report, but a general description will be
given.
Being the most critical component of the support system the actual control system is double
redundant. This is achieved by having a pilot and copilot operate independent systems that each can
6 Subsystem Design 73
Figure 6.4: Data Handling Block Diagram
operate the entire eet independently. Under normal conditions direct pilot control is not necessary,
only ight plan uploading and monitoring. Each of the control systems consists of three screens
providing sensor data and imagery from selected UAVs, as well as ight data. Pilot control is achieved
by inserting the destination after which the UAV will y to the destination autonomously.
Spare parts and tooling has also been considered a part of the support system. Parts that have
a higher risk of damage, or are more susceptible to wear, have replacements brought to site with the
system, so as to reduce possible downtime in an emergency situation. Carbon-bre and resin is also
brought for eld repair of non-structural composite parts.
The following list summarizes the contents of the support system:
Control system components
Air conditioned tent
Diesel-powered generator
Antenna rack
Computer rack with chair
Human interface
Tooling
Rivet gun for cargo pods
General tools for mainentance
Field lay-up tools
Jig for attaching cargo
Spare parts
Propellers
Landing gear
Booms
Assorted carbon ber and resin
74 6 Subsystem Design
Chapter 7
Operations, Logistics & System
Engineering
In this chapter, some relevant topics not directly concerning the technical design UAV itself are
treated. In section 7.1, the operations & logistics of the UAS will be explained. Then, in section 7.2
the production plan is discussed. A cost estimation is performed in section 7.3. In section 7.4 the
operational return is elaborated. Thereafter the risk map of the UAS is shown in section 7.5. Then,
the RAMS characteristics of the UAS are described in section 7.6. Finally, the FFD and FBS are
shown in section 7.7. Future project design and logic is shown in 7.8.
7.1 Operations & logistics
In order to meet the requirements of the customer, the ow of goods and services from the point
of operation to the point of delivery needs to be managed. The logistics involve a combination of
transportation, material handling, warehousing, stocking, packaging and sometimes also security. The
details of operations and logistics are provided in the section below.
7.1.1 Transportation
The aspect of transportation involves not only the transport of UAVs, personnel and support equip-
ment to the site before the mission and taking it back when the mission completes but it also involves
the transportation of payload to the UAVs from the nearest hangars or warehouses if available.
Transportation in A400M
For emergency relief missions, the UAS is rst brought to the airport that is closest to the disaster site.
An A400M is used for transportation. One of the requirements is that ten UAVs, support equipment
and support sta should be able to t in this A400M. Therefore the UAV has been designed such
that some components can be disassembled rather easily. The way individual components are put
in A400M is illustrated in gure 7.1. The cargo bay has a width of 4m, its length is 17.7m and the
height is 4.2m. The presence of the cargo door gives additional space which is also used.
The booms, vertical n, rotor hub and the rotor blades are detachable. After these components
are removed from the aircraft, ve aircraft are placed on top each other in a rack. The height of
one rack containing 5 aircraft amounts to 3.6m, leaving a 20cm clearance between the top of the
aircraft and the roof of the A400M. Ten canards are placed on top of each other. The booms are
stacked in another rack by pair, one rack supporting ten booms. There are 20 vertical ns which are
stacked as shown in gure 7.1. During each sortie the cargo pod is left behind at the disaster area. To
provide aid for three days, there are 180 cargo pods needed (ten UAVs, each performing 6 missions
75
76 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
Figure 7.1: A400M layout where ten UAVs are loaded with support sta and support equipment
per day during three days). To t this amount of cargo pods in A400M, the cargo pods are folded
in dierent ways and stored at dierent locations in the cargo bay. The placement of the cargo pods
can again be found in 7.1. Number of personnel needed is 15 and these 15 people and their luggages
are also transported by A400M. One persons luggages length, height and depth are 70cm x 40cm x
40cm, respectively. In A400M there is also enough space given for the support equipments and these
support equipments are explained in section 6.6. During the transportation it is made sure that all
the components are tted in such a way that they do not move or fall. When the mission is complete
all the UAVs and support equipment are disassembled and transported back in the same manner. It
is possible to take avgas for the missions. There is sucient space allocated to store fuel for the 180
missions.
Transportation of payload
It is assumed that a warehouse or hangar will be present in the vicinity of the airport and the
organization for which the mission is performed will have ensured that there is always a continuous
supply of commodities. The payload is then transported by either cranes or forklifts to the UAS
station from where it can be loaded in the pods and attached to the UAV.
7.1.2 Personnel
Trained personnel is needed to operate UAVs in order to accomplish the mission. The amount of
personnell as wel as their required capabilities and expertise are elaborated in this section.
Amount of personnel
One can determine the amount of personnel needed by calculating the operational hours of a UAV
and the work hours per person. The number of people needed are calculated as follows. Total mission
time of one UAV is calculated in table 3.6 in section 3.7 and that is equal to 2.49hr. The UAV is
performing six sorties per day. To control the ten UAVs during the mission time of six sorties requires
three people. Except to control the UAVs there are people needed to attach the payload and for the
maintenance. By taking a duration of fteen minutes to attach the payload and one hour for the
maintenance per sortie this amounts to 75 man hours (1.25hrs times 6sorties times 10UAV s). If
one person works eight hours per day, ten people can perform the tasks of attaching payload and
maintenance of the aircraft (
75
8
= 9.375). There is also personnel needed to perform other tasks, like
administration work. It is assumed that two people are enough for these tasks. There are in total
fteen people needed on board.
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 77
Training and experience
The UAS personnel needs to have an appropriate training to accurately and safely operate a UAS. The
UAS personnel should be able to perform several dierent kinds of jobs which include coordinating
and planning ground and ight operations and executing them, brieng and debrieng, managing
resources and ensuring ground and ight safety.
7.1.3 Material handling
Material handling involves storage, control and protection of materials through all the processes of
manufacturing, consumption and disposal.
Storage
Storage of materials, before a UAS is send to a disaster area, is usually done in warehouses. Material
is received in the warehouse, inspected, stored and nally dispatched to the site when needed. It is
assumed that there will be no warehouse available in the vicinity of the airport. Storage at the airport
will either take place in an available hangar at the airport or in tents which are to be brought with
the A400M. Moreover, spare parts and necessary maintenance equipment like lubricants also need to
be stored which might be done in the same hangars or tents.
Disposal of Payload containers
During operation, the cargo pods are left behind at the disaster site. Since mission needs to be
fullled in an environment friendly manner, the pods will be made of white spruce, which is a natural
material and can safely be burned by the people on site. Choosing a wooden cargo pod ensures that
there is no toxic waste as a result of delivering goods and that there will be no toxic fumes created
when burning the pod.
7.2 Production plan
This section will discuss which manufacturing methods will be used to produce the Flamingo as well
as the on site assembly.
7.2.1 Manufacturing
The material used for most of the structural parts is aluminum 7075. First, the wing box will be
discussed. The wing box consists of four plates, four spar caps, stringers and ribs. The plates have
an increasing width when looking from the wing tip to the root. This can be manufactured by rolling
where a block of aluminum is passed through a pair of rolls, which are moved towards each other
to obtain a decreased thickness. Because the plate has a constant width the plate has to be cut
afterwards to obtain a tapered plate. Since the spar caps also have an increasing width, it can be
manufactured in the same way. However, since the spar caps have an L-shape they also need to be
bent afterwards. The stringers are not tapered and have a common geometry so they will come o
the shelf. The ribs can also be made using rolling only the edges need to be cut at the end in such a
way that the ribs t into the wing box. There are several booms used in this structure. Booms are
used to connect the engine mounting and the landing gear with the front and rear spar. Since the
separate booms have a simple shape they will be o the shelf as well.
The booms that connect the canard to the main wing are made form carbon ber composites. These
booms are generally available in a wide range of diameters and thicknesses and will come o the shelf
as well.
Since the wing box is the primary structural component the wing box will be assembled rst.
Thereafter the shaft and gear box will be located along the wing box. Then, the skin can be placed
78 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
on the wing after which the ns and the ailerons can be connected. Next, the engine mount and
the support booms of the canard, cargo pod and landing gear can be assembled. As one of the last
components the engine will be assembled. Finally, the last part of the assembly is to connect the
canard and the propellers.
7.2.2 On site assembly
On the operating airport, the Flamingos are to be assembles before operation. First the two booms
will be connected to the fuselage after which the canard can be attached. Now, the UAV is ready for
operation and can thus be fueled and loaded. In order to prepare the payload, the cargo box must
be unfolded, riveted and loaded with relief. It can be attached to the aircraft using a forklift or jig.
7.3 Cost break-down structure
Requirement D.10 states that the unit production cost of the Flamingo should be less than AC 250000.
Requirement D.9 states that the direct operating cost should be less than AC500 per sortie. From
structural analysis and chosen subparts it is now possible to estimate the unit production cost. In
section 7.3.1 the unit production cost is given. In section 7.3.2 the direct operating cost is computed.
7.3.1 Unit production cost
The unit production cost is given in table 7.1. The cost that is calculated for the structural parts of
the aircraft is the cost of the material that is used. For example, for the wing, the cost of the material
that is needed to build the wing box is calculated. It is important to note that the manufacturing cost
of these parts is not included as they are dicult to approximate and also depend on the location
of production. The cost of the material per kilogram is found from CES edupack (CES Edupack
Software, 2011). From the detailed CATIA drawing of the wing box from cross station C (see gure
Aircraft component Cost [AC] Reference
Engine 27000
Wing box 67
wing box of canard 6
Landing gear 756 AirSuppliers (15-06-2011)
Two booms 236
Vertical ns ...
Gears and bearings shafts 190
satellite communications 15858 Ground Control (15-06-2011)
computers for aircraft 200
Lidar 30000 Aplique Kit (16-06-2011)
Primesense sensors [5x] 530 PrimeSense: Motion Control Beyond the Kinect (16-06-2011)
Auto pilot: MP2128
3x
9780 MicroPilot MP2128 (14-06-2011)
Electrical sub system 500
deployment mechanism system 500
Unit cost 86000
Table 7.1: Flamingo unit cost
4.1) to the wing tip a weight was found of 17.2 kg. Based on this value an estimation of the total
weight of the wing box was made which equals 50kg. Since the price per kilogram for the aluminum
used is 1.33 AC/kg the total price for the aluminum required for the wing box equals AC67. The
material cost of the wing box of the canard is unrealistic. Since the weight of the wing box of the
canard was 4.1kg (see section 4.2), it gives us low material cost. The wing box of the vertical ns are
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 79
not calculated. Since the cost of the wing box of the wing and the canard look unrealistic, it is hard
to give an estimation for the cost of the wing box of the vertical ns. The cost of the deployment
mechanism that is given is an estimation, since the references for the deployment mechanism were
hard to nd. It should be noted that the low value for the unit production cost does not mean that
the requirement D.10 is met. Since the cost, like manufacturing cost, overhead cost, waste material
cost are hard to estimate, they are not included.
Since the UAV is controlled from the ground, there should be a support system on the ground.
The cost of the support system is estimated to be AC36996 (Hardy Diesel Generators, 16-06-2011).
7.3.2 Direct operating cost
In table 7.2 the direct operating cost is given. The direct operating cost calculation can be found in
section 3.7. From table 7.2, it can be seen that the total direct operating cost per sortie is less than
Aircraft component Cost [AC]
fuel 100
cargo pod 36
communication 15
Total 151
Table 7.2: Direct operating cost
AC 500 which is stated by the requirement D.9 and it means that the requirement is met. It must be
beard in mind that these costs do not include maintanance and crew salaries.
7.4 Operational benet
This section compares the costs involved in performing a conventional mission of delivering a payload
of 250kg to a range of 200km using the designed UAV and the benchmark helicopter Robinson R-44.
The operational return attained by the user are then estimated. Please note that an in depth anal-
ysis of maintenance costs and long term operating costs are not considered due to lack of time and
reference data. The communication costs are assumed equal for the Flamingo and helicopter and are
therefore not taken into account.
Section 3.7 estimated the operational cost of the Flamingo UAV without communications to be AC136.
This cost is composed of a fuel cost of AC100 and the cargo pod cost of AC36. Section 2.6 estimates
the fuel used by the Robinson R-44 to be around 148l. At an Avgas fuel price of 2.74AC/liter
1
, this
results in an operative cost of AC405. It is assumed that this helicopter does not require an external
cargo pod that will be left at site. Please note that the costs of personnel required for the operation
of the UAV and the cost of the helicopter pilot have not been taken in to consideration due to lack
of reference data.
The UAV results in a lower operational cost of AC269 compared to the benchmark helicopter, a 66%
reduction. However, it must be noted that this benet only applies in comparisons with helicopters
having a similar payload. Hence, the designed UAV will be most benecial when a relatively small
payload is to be delivered to numerous areas, whereas a helicopter excels in delivering a large payload
to one location.
1
Rotterdam airport, 27-3-2011
80 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
7.5 Risk map
A risk map has been composed for the detailed UAV design. The risk map is a convenient tool to
perform risk analysis and mitigation. The distinguished types of failure are listed below. The risk
map is shown in table 7.3.
1. Single engine failure: the UAV design rst consisted of two engines at the wings, but now it only
consists of a single engine in the fuselage. The risk was mitigated this way, because having two engines
did not improve the consequence of a single engine failure, while the probability of failure worsened due
to having two engines.
2. Landing gear failure: the conventional landing gear is retractable for aerodynamic reasons. During
vertical landing, the UAV lands on the cargo pod. When the conventional landing gear fails to go down,
the UAV is still able to land vertically on the cargo pod. If the cargo pod is already released and the
landing gear fails to go down, then an emergency landing has to be performed. Landing conventionally
is not an option as this will damage the propellers and the torque rods in the wingbox and potentionally
even the engine. In this case the aircraft should therefore make a VATOL maneuver again and land on
its ns. The worst case scenario is now that the control surfaces will be damaged.
3. Payload release failure: if the payload release mechanism fails, the UAV might not be able to get back
to the airport because in certain cases the UAV will not be able to take o. This risk can be mittigated
by instaling a check mechanism that allows to check if the release mechanism works before the VATOL
maneuver is initiated.
4. Stability due to wind and wind gusts: during VATOL, computer power is necessary to keep the
UAV stable. However, the autopilot chip set is triple redundant.
5. Wing or proprotor blade breaking: When a wing or a proprotor blade (partly) breaks, for example
due to supersonic tip speeds, it is likely that more parts break of due to heavy vibrations. Calculating
these vibrations is beyond the scope of the project and has not been looked into.
6. Failure due to debris on site: the chance of debris getting sucked into the proprotors is quite high on
rough terrains. However the chance that this debris is large and heavy enough to signicantly damage
the UAV is extremely small. This only has consequences for the maintenance rate and not so much for
complete loss of the system.
7. Failure due to bird strike: bird strikes are quite likely to occur from time to time, however the
involved consequence is marginal. Risk mitigation can be done by chasing away birds using sounds. The
noise of the proprotors will probably frighten o birds in the neighborhood.
8. Injuring people on site: the proprotors are not shielded, so collision with humans might be lethal.
Risk mitigation can be performed by using visual and sound signals, which will notify the people of the
danger. Also the noise of the proprotors itself might scare them o.
9. Damage to the UAV due to people on site: the vertical landing, payload release and vertical take o
do not require people near the aircraft. The extensive sensor system makes sure that the Flamingo only
performs the landing maneuver if there is absolutely no human being on the landing site. Additionally,
people might already be scared o by the measures as described before. Therefore the likelihood of
people damaging the UAV is rather small.
7.6 RAMS analysis
In this section the Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) will be discussed. The
analysis of the RAMS characteristics are important for mission design and to get an idea as to what
could be considered proper use of the UAV.
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 81
L
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
o
f
f
a
i
l
u
r
e

Feasible
in theory
Working laboratory
model
Based on existing
non-ight engineering
3
Extrapolated from
existing ight design
Proven ight
design
2,6,7,8 1,9 4,5
Negligible Marginal Critical Catastrophic
Consequence of failure
Table 7.3: Risk map
7.6.1 Reliability
This UAV uses a single 200hp Wankel engine as a powerplant. This means that single engine failure
is critical. To mitigate this risk, very strict reliability demands have been put on the powerplant. As
the Wankel engine has very few (and relatively slow) moving parts, the risk of failure is far lower for
this engine type than a piston engine. Additionally if a Wankel engine loses compression, overheats,
or experiences any other form of typical engine failure it will still continue to produce a reduced
amount of power. Since the fuel system is split in two independant systems, the aircraft will be able
to continue to y at reduced power setting on the remaining fuel in the working system. This means
that, even if one of the pumps fails the aircraft can still make it back safely. Imbalance of the aircraft
due to this unsymmetric fuel tank usage can be counteracted up by the ight controller with use of
the control surfaces.
7.6.2 Availability and maintainability
The engine requires limited checking and maintenance, comparable to a small aircraft. Especially
because the engine is not running at maximum power during a large part of the mission. The actual
maintenance man hours per ight hour (MMH/FH) will have to be determined in a later stage of the
design process.
7.6.3 Safety
UAVs are inherently safer than manned aircraft in the sense that they do not carry people on board.
However, since this aircraft will have to land in an uncontrolled environment, there might be non
specialized people around who can be harmed during payload deployment. Especially since the
propellers are relatively close to the ground, people standing too close to the aircraft might get
injured. It is therefore very important to only select landing sites where bystanders can move away
easily. An accident like that will most likely also damage the UAV severely as it is most vulnerable
during the VATOL maneuver.
7.7 Functional ow diagram & functional breakdown structure
To illustrate the tasks required by the system to perform a mission, a Functional Flow Diagram (FFD)
and Functional Breakdown Structure (FBS) are made. These are shown in gure 7.3 and gure 7.2.
The FBS shows the general tasks which have to be performed during a humanitarian relief mission.
It therefore includes the loading of the A400M and the transport to the operation base. Extra emphasis
82 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
is put on the delivery of the payload because that is the phase where the UAS diers from conventional
methods of providing emergency relief.
The FFD indicates the order in which the tasks of the operate UAS-block of the FBS must be
performed into much more detail. This also includes the more technical steps of the procedure and
therefore also shows the technical characteristics of the Flamingo.
7.8 Future project design and logic
In gure 7.4 a Gantt chart is shown on what the future project might look like. First the aerody-
namic and structural design needs to be nished. With the preliminary results some parts may be
manufactured and a prototype should be built which can be used for testing and certication. The
entire development time is estimated to be little over 2 years. After which the Flamingos can be built
and sold.
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 83
O
p
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

F
l
a
m
i
n
g
o
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

t
h
e

U
A
S

t
o

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

b
a
s
e
P
r
e
p
a
r
e

U
A
S

f
o
r

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
e

U
A
S
L
o
a
d

t
h
e

A
4
0
0
M

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

U
A
S
F
l
y

t
h
e

A
4
0
0
M

t
o

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
e
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e

U
A
V
s
S
e
t

u
p

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
P
r
e
p
a
r
e

c
a
r
g
o

p
o
d
s
F
u
e
l

a
n
d

l
o
a
d

t
h
e

U
A
V
s
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

f
l
i
g
h
t

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r

s
i
t
e
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t

s
t
a
t
u
s

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
D
e
l
i
v
e
r

p
a
y
l
o
a
d
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

f
l
i
g
h
t

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
s

t
o

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

b
a
s
e
R
e
f
u
e
l

a
n
d

r
e
l
o
a
d

U
A
V
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

m
a
i
n
t
a
n
a
n
c
e
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t

s
t
a
t
u
s

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

l
a
n
d
i
n
g

s
i
t
e

u
s
i
n
g

L
I
D
A
R
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

l
a
n
d
i
n
g

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
R
e
l
e
a
s
e

p
a
y
l
o
a
d
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

t
a
k
e

o
f
f

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
Figure 7.2: Functional Breakdown Structure of a typical emergency relief mission
84 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

p
r
e
-
f
l
i
g
h
t

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
i
z
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
T
a
k
e

o
f
f
C
r
u
i
s
e

t
o

d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
L
a
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
U
n
l
o
a
d

c
a
r
g
o
T
a
k
e

o
f
f

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
C
r
u
i
s
e

b
a
c
k

t
o

a
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
a
n
d

a
t

a
i
r
p
o
r
t
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a

p
o
s
t
-
f
l
i
g
h
t

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
C
o
n
d
u
c
t

p
r
e
-
f
l
i
g
h
t

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
n
s
p
e
c
t

a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
i
z
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
T
a
k
e

o
f
f
L
a
n
d

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
U
n
l
o
a
d

c
a
r
g
o
T
a
k
e

o
f
f

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
C
h
e
c
k

o
i
l

a
n
d

c
o
o
l
a
n
t

l
e
v
e
l
s
R
e
f
u
e
l

a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
S
t
a
r
t

e
n
g
i
n
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
i
z
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
C
h
e
c
k

p
o
w
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
s
T
e
s
t

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

l
i
n
k
T
a
x
i

t
o

r
u
n
w
a
y
R
e
q
u
e
s
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

t
a
k
e

o
f
f
A
p
p
l
y

f
u
l
l

e
n
g
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r
R
o
t
a
t
e

c
a
n
a
r
d

a
n
d

f
l
a
p
e
r
o
n
s

t
o

p
i
t
c
h

u
p
C
l
i
m
b

t
o

c
r
u
i
s
e

a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
A
p
p
l
y

f
u
l
l

e
n
g
i
n
e

p
o
w
e
r
R
o
t
a
t
e

c
a
n
a
r
d

t
o

p
i
t
c
h

u
p

u
n
t
i
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

z
e
r
o

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
R
e
d
u
c
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h

t
o

d
e
s
c
e
n
d

u
n
t
i
l

t
o
u
c
h

d
o
w
n
R
e
l
e
a
s
e

p
a
y
l
o
a
d

l
o
c
k
s
R
e
d
u
c
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h

t
o

p
r
o
d
u
c
e

0
.
5
*
m
a
x
T
h
r
u
s
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h

u
n
t
i
l

l
i
f
t

o
f
f

i
s

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
R
o
t
a
t
e

f
l
a
p
e
r
o
n
s

a
f
t
e
r

r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

s
c
r
e
e
n

h
e
i
g
h
t

t
o

p
i
t
c
h

d
o
w
n
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e

c
a
r
g
o

p
o
d
A
t
t
a
c
h

c
a
r
g
o

p
o
d

t
o

a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
U
s
e

c
a
m
e
r
a
s

a
n
d

L
I
D
A
R

t
o

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

l
a
n
d
i
n
g

s
p
o
t
R
e
d
u
c
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h

a
n
d

r
o
t
a
t
e

c
a
n
a
r
d

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
C
l
i
m
b

t
o

c
r
u
i
s
e

a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
L
a
n
d

a
t

a
i
r
p
o
r
t
R
e
c
e
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

l
a
n
d
R
e
d
u
c
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h
,

r
o
t
a
t
e

c
a
n
a
r
d

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

a
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
D
e
f
l
e
c
t

f
l
a
p
e
r
o
n
s
R
e
d
u
c
e

p
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
r

p
i
t
c
h

t
o

b
r
a
k
e

a
i
r
p
l
a
n
e
P
e
r
f
o
r
m

p
o
s
t
-
f
l
i
g
h
t

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
I
n
s
p
e
c
t

a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

f
o
r

d
a
m
a
g
e
T
a
x
i

o
f
f

r
u
n
w
a
y
1
.
0
2
.
0
3
.
0
4
.
0
5
.
0
6
.
0
7
.
0
8
.
0
9
.
0
1
0
.
0
R
e
f
.

1
.
0
R
e
f
.

2
.
0
R
e
f
.

3
.
0
R
e
f
.

5
.
0
R
e
f
.

6
.
0
R
e
f
.

7
.
0
R
e
f
.

9
.
0
R
e
f
.

1
0
.
0
1
.
1
1
.
2
1
.
3
1
.
4
1
.
5
1
.
6
2
.
1
2
.
2
2
.
3
3
.
1
3
.
2
3
.
3
3
.
4
3
.
5
5
.
1
5
.
2
5
.
3
5
.
4
5
.
5
5
.
6
6
.
1
7
.
1
7
.
2
7
.
3
9
.
1
9
.
2
9
.
3
9
.
4
9
.
5
1
0
.
1
Figure 7.3: Functional Flow Diagram of a typical emergency relief mission
7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering 85
ID Task
Mode
Task Name
1 Design and development
2 Perform detailed aerodynamic design
3 Perform detailed structural design
4 Design flight software
5 Manufacturing
6 Manufacture parts
7 Assemble prototype
8 Manufacture UAV
9 Testing
10 Perform static testing
11 Perform flight testing
12 Perform hover testing
13 Certification
14 Perform certification
15 Perform marketing
16 Perform detailed market analysis
17 Perform marketing
18 Sell UAV
19 Operation
20 Operate UAV
21-3 30-5 8-8 17-1026-12 5-3 14-5 23-7 1-1010-1218-2 29-4 8-7 16-925-11 3-2 14-4 23-6 1-9 10-1119-1 30-3 8-6 17-826-10 4-1 14-3
21 March 11 August 1 January 21 May 11 October 1 March 21 July 11 December 1 May 21 September 11 February 1 July 21 November
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
Page 1
Project: schedule
Date: Fri 17-6-11
Figure 7.4: Gantt chart for further development
86 7 Operations, Logistics & System Engineering
Chapter 8
Conclusions
This chapter concludes the DSE report of group 6 on the design of a UAV for emergency relief pur-
poses. During this project, the Flamingo came to life. After two weeks of system engineering and
requirement analysis; initial designing of the preliminary concepts commenced. The tail sitter, now
known as Flamingo was deemed the winning concept and was designed further during the detailed
design phase of the DSE. Due to the fact that the Flamingo needs to perform the VATOL maneuver,
many man-hours were spent on making a successful simulation of this procedure in order to verify
the stability and control of the aircraft.
The designed UAV meets all customer based requirements and most of the designer set require-
ments. It is capable to operate in environments all over the world as well as being in contact with
the support system via a worldwide Internet connection. The Flamingo can land on areas of 10 by
10 meters, using a vertical attitude take o and landing maneuver, deploy its payload and y back
to the base again, autonomously. Special care was taken to make the design as cost ecient and as
sustainable as possible. This was done by choosing a Wankel engine and minimizing the material and
components cost. Doing so makes the Flamingo signicantly more fuel ecient and more sustainable
than the main competitor, the manned helicopter. The most critical structural components, such
as the the wing box, landing gear, engine mount, canard, cargo pod and the booms connecting the
canard to the main wing are designed in detail. Further, nite element modeling is used to design
the wing box and the booms in greater detail. The results from the aerodynamic model, using the
vortex lattice method, and the ight dynamics simulation conrm that the aircraft is marginally
dynamically unstable. However, the controller keeps it stable throughout the cruise and the duration
of the VATOL maneuver.
One amingo is capable of providing 300 beneciaries with humanitarian aid during one mission.
All beneciaries now do have supplies for one week. A eet of ten UAVs is able to provide 20000
disaster stricken people with emergency aid during 420 missions in one week. It does this at a cost
of AC151 per mission. Table 8.1 lists some of the main characteristics of the Flamingo.
87
88 8 Conclusions
Aspect Value
Preliminary production Cost UAV
1
AC86000
Cost for one mission AC151
Fuel used for one mission 28.4kg
Number of missions per day 6
Number of crew required at airport 15
MTOW 7140N
Empty weight 4150N
Maximum payload (excl. cargo pod) 250kg, 1m
3
Max altitude VATOL (250kg payload) 900m
Max altitude VATOL (100kg payload) 5200m
Range (with payload) 590km
Range (without payload) 940km
Maximum mission range 300km
Cruise altitude 3000m
Cruise speed 55m/s
Take o length 615m
Time for VATOL maneuver 5min
T
W
-ratio 1.04(MTOW)/1.72(w.o. payload)
Span 7.45m
Total length 4.8m
Table 8.1: Flamingo characteristics
It can be concluded that the Flamingo UAV and the UAS of which it is a part, are feasible and could
form a useful tool in future humanitarian emergency relief. Especially because of its low production
and operation cost, it is a cheap alternative to the manned helicopter. Its small size and payload
will prove to be useful in reaching smaller communities in remote areas more cost eciently. At the
same time being able to reach many dierent places in a short period of time thus providing a better
geographical distribution of aid with respect to a conventional helicopter.
The project objective statement of this group is:
Design a cheap and sustainable UAS to supply aid several times a day, to dicult to access disaster
areas, in 11 weeks time within a group of 10 students.
The contents of this report clearly illustrate that this objective has been accomplished.
Chapter 9
Recommendations
During this project many aspects of the Flamingo have been designed and developed. However, due
to the time constraint of this project many more aspects still need to be looked in to. In this chapter
a list recommendations for the further development of this UAV is given. First, the recommendations
regarding the organization of the project are given in section 9.1. Then, further recommendations
for the actual design will be made. In section 9.2 the recommendations for the aerodynamic design,
the aircraft stability and the performance are discussed. Section 9.3 the recommendations for the
structural design will be mentioned. In section 9.4 the recommendations for the simulation will
be discussed. The recommendations for the subsystem design are discussed in 9.5 and nally the
recommendations for the operations and logistics can be found in section 9.6.
9.1 Recommendations for the project in general
Even though the project was well organized there is always room for improvement. During the nal
design much work was inter depended, so communication about design progress was very important.
Even though daily meetings were held, some unnecessary work was done because design changes are
not communicated through instantaneously. A better system for managing these variables and their
status, for example a notication board, is therefore recommended.
9.2 Recommendations for aerodynamics, stability and performance
Recommendations concerning aerodynamics are mainly aimed at higher levels of accuracy. The
VATOL maneuver is heavily dependent on the propeller induced air velocity. When introducing a
propeller induced velocity eld, which takes into account the non-homogeneous velocity eld in the
body X-direction and the rotational component due to the propeller rotation; more accurate lift
distributions and aperon/rudder deection derivatives can be obtained. Moreover, the body can
be modeled using the actual body shape instead of a NACA0025 airfoil for better results. Due to
the TORNADO method, it is impossible to investigate the stall characteristics of the aircraft. It is
advised to use more advanced, analytical methods for further research incorporating the viscid nature
of airows. These methods can also enhance the drag estimation, especially that of the cargo pod.
The eects of winglets are not investigated during the project. The winglets may turn out benecial
when the characteristics of the aerodynamic performance, structural design and cost are combined.
Finally, the cargo pod will have a signicant inuence on the ight characteristics of the Flamingo.
Further extensive research must be done in order to investigate the inuence of the cargo pod and
optimize its shape.
Investigation of stability can also be enhanced using the aforementioned recommendations. In-
troducing wind will also give better results concerning static hovering stability. The static stability
89
90 9 Recommendations
of the Flamingo during conventional ight must be investigated further in order to reach equilibrium
with smaller canard and aperon deections.
As always during aircraft design, the weight must be kept as low as possible. As, the proprotors are
a compromise between cruise and hovering ight; the maximum hovering altitude is limited. In order
to increase this maximum hovering altitude and enable worldwide emergency relief coverage with
full payload, the UAV weight must decrease. In this report, the mission performance is calculated
using for example a constant value for the rate of climb and constant cruise altitude. More advanced
discretized modeling of the mission will optimize the mission performance and increase the accuracy
of the fuel consumption and total ight time estimation.
For the proprotor design, it is recommended to look deeper into the transitional phase. Now,
cruise ight and hovering are considered separately and the transitional phase is interpolated. To
achieve higher accuracy, it is recommended to revise the aerodynamics of the proprotors during the
transitional phase. Blade Element Theories for xed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft were used for the
proprotor design. For more accuracy, it is recommended to look into other advanced theories or
theories with a dierent approach, such as the vortex theory.
9.3 Recommendations for structures
The structural parts of the Flamingo has already been designed in high levels of detail. However, there
are several things which have not been considered due to time constrains. Especially, the connections
between dierent parts of the structure have not been looked in to in detail. It is assumed that the
loads are transferred between the parts but the actual manner and the mechanisms involved have
not been looked in to. Furthermore, the structural strength is veried for only one part of the ight
envelope, while it should be checked for further critical scenarios dependent on both the load factor
and velocity.
For the wing box in particular, the required strength to weight ratio of the top and the bottom
plate was optimized using a numerical simulation, such that it resulted in the minimum possible
weight. This is achieved by applying ribs and stringers. The spars however have not been optimized
for weight, but merely veried to ensure that they do not fail under the applied loads. Further iter-
ations should be performed on all wing box computations to ensure the structure is not over sized.
Moreover, the number of fasteners used for the spar caps have now been sized for buckling loads to
ensure no plastic deformation. The fasteners are also used to transfer the loads from the top and
bottom plate to the spars, hence they should be sized for this as well.
The nite element models should be analyzed in much greater detail to include failure modes, such
as buckling and vibrational analysis. In this case, the use of PATRAN must be recommended over
CATIA, as it allows for better mesh control and does not limit itself to solid nite element model-
ing. Furthermore, PATRAN allows for more accurate load application. Especially, the nite element
model of the booms connecting the canard to the main wing should be re-analyzed in greater detail.
Currently, they are treated as metal structures, where as each layer of carbon bers should be modeled
with separate elements.
Further improvements to the nite element models computed during this project include applying
a temperature eld and modeling its eects on the structural parts. Inter rivet buckling failure mode
should also be looked in both analytical and FEM computations. In FEM, it can be achieved by
using rivets to connect two solids in the CATIA model, rather than using surface contacts.
9.4 Recommendations for the simulation
The simulation that has been performed needs to be further developed as it will be the basis for the
autopilot. Currently the model is based on the following assumptions:
9 Recommendations 91
Flat, non-rotating earth
No gyroscopic eects
Steady atmosphere
Sea level, standard atmosphere conditions
Induced velocity is equal to mean induced velocity and is evenly distributed over main wing
These assumptions allowed to simplify the model while still allowing to verify the VATOL ma-
neuver. This is not sucient for the auto pilot. Of all these assumptions, only the at, non-rotating
earth assumption will mostly be valid. All the other assumptions will prove to change the actual ight
dynamics of the Flamingo. In the further development, these assumptions should either be validated
or need to be incorporated in the model. Especially the static atmosphere needs thorough modelling
as, requirement D.5states that the Flamingo should be able to land in 7Bft wind conditions. Also
the ISA atmospheric conditions should be considered, since the aircraft will also have to perform the
VATOL maneuver at higher altitudes. The eect of the induced velocity eld behind the propeller
on the ight dynamics should be investigated aswell.
Perhaps the most important recommendation is to investigate the possibility to perform the tran-
sition to vertical ight at constant altitude. The current pitch up maneuver brings the Flamingo to
a relatively high altitude. This greatly increases the time in vertical ight. A constant altitude tran-
sition to vertical attitude ight could greatly reduce the fuel consumption in the VATOL maneuver.
9.5 Recommendations for the subsystems
The subsystems have not been developed in detail in this project and require further design. Many
components are available o the shelf but their interaction has to be elaborated on. The fuel tanks
should be designed in further detail, especially as their layout is rather novel. An important detail
that should be further analyzed is how the fuel quantity should be measured in this novel bladder
type fuel tank. A proposed method is to include a system that can weigh the fuel tank, while taking
the load factor in to account. This information can then provide an estimate of the remaining fuel in
the tank. For the communication system, more research should be done in to the relay of information
between the UAVs. Currently, there are no details on how this system should work. The autopilot
requires thorough testing. Finally the sensor choice and position should be scrutinized. It is very
important that they give enough information to perform a controlled ight and landing.
9.6 Recommendations for operations and logistics
The operations and logistics are essential for the use of the UAS and for the success of the mission
in terms of emergency relief. It is safe to say that lives depend on it. This report veries that 10
UAVs can t within a A400M. However, the details of how this is done with respect to restraining
the motion of the equipment during ight and the most ecient way of loading and unloading needs
to be developed further. Also, the training of the personnel and how they will operate on the airport
needs to be looked into. It is currently assumed that the A400M delivers the UAS and that the actual
goods to be delivered to the disaster site will be transported in another aircraft or made available
through other means. The details of organizing this and how the goods are packed in the cargo boxes
has to be developed. Another aspect of the logistics that needs to be considered is how a group of
aircraft will y with respect to each other. All UAVs should not land at the same time as the current
support system will not be able to handle this. It will be interesting to see if two Flamingos might
be able to take o and land at the same time, reducing the pressure on a busy airport in emergency
situations.
92 9 Recommendations
Bibliography
AirSuppliers (15-06-2011), http://www.airsuppliers.com/Cessna_(Textron)_tires.htm.
Anderson, J. D. (2005), Introduction to Aerodynamics, 5 edn, McGraw-Hill.
Aplique Kit (16-06-2011), www.swri.org/4org/d10/its/ivs/pdfs/MARTIApplique.pdf.
BGAN Service Rate Pricing from Ground Control (16-06-2011), http://www.groundcontrol.com/
BGAN_rate_plans.htm.
Bruhn, E. (1973), Analysis & Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Jacobs publishing.
Calister, W. D. (2006), Materials Science and Engineering, Wiley.
CES Edupack Software (2011).
Currey, N. S. (1988), Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
D.E. Ellison, L. M. e. a. (1965), Usaf stability and control datcom, Technical report.
EAS (2003), CS-23 (Normal,Utility,Aerobatic,and Commuter Aeroplanes).
Ground Control (15-06-2011), http://www.groundcontrol.com/Explorer_727_Thrane_Thrane_
BGAN.htm.
Hardy Diesel Generators (16-06-2011), http://www.hardydiesel.com/
diesel-generators-35-115-kw.html.
M. Drela, H. Y. e. (2011), Xr5 v6.03, http://xr5.sourceforge.net/xr5.htm.
Megson, T. (2007), Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, Elsevier.
Melin, T. (2000), Tornado, a vortex lattice matlab implementation for linear aerodynamic wing
applications, Masters thesis.
Melkert, J. (2011), Ae3200 design synthesis, Aeropace Engineering BSc Study Guide.
MicroPilot MP2128 (14-06-2011), http://www.micropilot.com/products-mp21283x.htm.
Military Specication MIL-S-6073 (06-11-1945), http://www.westcoastpiet.com/images/
Construction/Military%20Specification%20MIL-S-6073_%20%20Aircraft%20Spruce.pdf.
93
94 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mooij, E. (1994), Motion of a vehicle in a planetary atmosphere, Technical report, Delft University
of Technology.
Mooij, E. (1997), Linear quadratic regulator design for an unpowered, winged re-entry vehicle, Tech-
nical report, Delft University of Technology.
Narrative History of Operation Unied Response (2010), http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/
factFilesLarge.php?id=138.
Phillips, W. F. (2004), Mechanics of Flight, Wiley.
PrimeSense: Motion Control Beyond the Kinect (16-06-2011), http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/
2011/05/primesense_motion_control_beyo.php.
R44 Raven/Clipper Series Helicopters (17-05-2011), http://www.robinsonheli.com/rhc_r44_
raven_series.html.
R.C.Hibbeler (2005), Mechanics of Materials, Prentice Hall.
RIEGL LMS-Q160 (14-06-2011), http://www.riegl.com/products/airborne-scanning/
produktdetail/product/scanner/8/.
Robinson Model R-44 (11-05-2011), http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/robinson-44.
php.
Ruijgrok, G. (1996), Elements of Airplane Performance, Delft University press.
The rotary engine for 21
st
century general aviation G-200 (n.d.).
van Baten, T. and G.N.Saunders-Smits (January 2004), AE1-005STR-Aerospace Engineering Project,
TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering.
Appendices
95
Appendix A
Technical drawings
97
98 A Technical drawings
Figure A.1: Isometric view of the Flamingo
A Technical drawings 99
Figure A.2: Top view of the Flamingo
100 A Technical drawings
Figure A.3: Front view of the Flamingo
A Technical drawings 101
Figure A.4: Side view of the Flamingo without cargo pod
102 A Technical drawings
Figure A.5: Side view of the Flamingo with cargo pod
Appendix B
State Space System Matrix Inputs
A =
_

_
C
X
u
0 0 0 0 0 C
X
e0
C
X
ex
C
X
ey
C
X
ez
0 C
Y
v
0 0 0 0 C
Y
e0
C
Y
ex
C
Y
ey
C
Y
ez
0 0 C
Z
w
0 0 0 C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
C
Z
e0
0 0 0 C
p
p
C
p
q
C
p
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
q
p
C
q
q
C
q
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
r
p
C
r
q
C
r
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
e0
p
C
e0
q
C
e0
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ex
p
C
ex
q
C
ex
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ey
p
C
ey
q
C
ey
r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
ez
p
C
ez
q
C
ez
r
0 0 0 0
_

_
(B.1)
C
X
u
= 2C
L

tan()q
dyn
S
mV
C
X
e0
= 2ge
y
0
C
X
ex
= 2ge
z
0
C
X
ey
= 2ge
0
0
C
X
ez
= 2ge
x
0
(B.2)
C
Y
v
= 2C
Y

q
dyn
S
mV
C
Y
e0
= 2ge
x
0
C
Y
ex
= 2ge
0
0
C
Y
ey
= 2ge
z
0
C
Y
ez
= 2ge
y
0
(B.3)
C
Z
u
= 2C
L

q
dyn
S
mV
C
Z
w
= C
L

q
dyn
S
mV
C
Z
e0
= 2ge
0
0
C
Z
ex
= 2ge
x
0
C
Z
ey
= 2ge
y
0
C
Z
ez
= 2ge
z
0
(B.4)
C
p
p
= C
L
p
q
dyn
I
zz
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
Sb
2
+C
n
p
q
dyn
I
xz
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
C
p
r
= C
l
r
I
zz
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
Sb
2
C
q
q
= C
m
q
1
I
yy
q
dyn
S c
C
r
p
= C
n
p
q
dyn
I
xx
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
Sb
2
C
r
r
= C
m
r
q
dyn
I
xx
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
Sb
2
+C
l
r
q
dyn
I
xz
I
zz
I
xx
I
2
zx
Sb
2
(B.5)
103
104 B State Space System Matrix Inputs
C
e0
p
=
1
2
e
x
0
C
e0
q
=
1
2
e
y
0
C
e0
r
=
1
2
e
z
0
C
ex
p
=
1
2
e
0
0
C
ex
q
=
1
2
e
z
0
C
ex
r
=
1
2
e
y
0
C
ey
p
=
1
2
e
z
0
C
ey
q
=
1
2
e
0
0
C
ey
r
=
1
2
e
x
0
C
ez
p
=
1
2
e
y
0
C
ez
q
=
1
2
e
x
0
C
ez
r
=
1
2
e
0
0
(B.6)
B =
_

_
0 0 0 0 C
X
T
0
0 0 0 C
Y
r
0 0
C
Z
c
0 C
Z
e
0 0 0
0 C
l
a
0 0 0 0
C
m
c
0 C
m
e
0 0 0
0 0 0 C
n
r
0 C
n
T
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_

_
(B.7)
The values in the B matrix are computed using the aerodynamic model, discussed in chapter 3.2
except for the engine coecients, those can be found in equation B.8. Note that T and T take
values between 1 so these coecients are multiplied by the maximum thrust.
C
X
T
=
T
max
m
C
n
T
=
T
max
l
y
eng
I
zz
(B.8)
Appendix C
Compliance Matrix
ID Requirement Value Com
1
Justication
A.1 Non toxic materi-
als
- Yes The materials used for structures are all non
toxic as explained in chapter 4.
A.2 Recycling - No Except for the cargo pod and booms all other
structures are made of a material that can be
recycled as explained in chapter 4.
B.1 Payload delivery - Yes The UAV is able to carry payload and deploy
it autonomously.
B.1.1 Deployment
mechanism
- Yes The deployment mechanism is explained in sec-
tion 4.4.
B.1.2 Guidance system - Yes Information on guidance system is explained in
section 5.4.
B.1.2.1 Navigation sys-
tem
- Yes Navigation system is explained in detail in sec-
tion 6.3.
B.1.3 Report status - Yes This is explained in detail in section 6.4.
B.1.3.1 Communication
system
- Yes The detailed information on communication
system is explained in section 6.4.
B.1.4 Power supply - Yes The explanation of power supply is explained
in section 6.1.
B.2 Provide visuals - Yes The UAV is capable of taking pictures to de-
cide a suitable spot to land as explained in sec-
tion 6.5.
B.2.1 Remote sensing
equipment
- Yes The UAV is equipped with several sensors as
explained in section 6.3.
B.3 Mission safety - Yes The UAV can perform mission safely.
B.3.1 Safety of people - N.A. Ensuring the safety of the people on the land-
ing site should be further considered 2.4.
B.3.2 Safety of system - Yes The system stays safe during the UAV opera-
tion.
B.4 Land on rough
surface
- Yes The pod can land on a reasonably rough sur-
face.
C.1 Maximum Pay-
load mass
250 kg Yes The structures have been analysed such that
they can handle loads when carrying a payload
of 250kg as explained in chapter 4.
1
Compliance: Yes, No or Not Applicable (N.A.)
105
106 C Compliance Matrix
C.2 Maximum Pay-
load volume
1 m
3
Yes The pod is designed such that it can store 1m
3
volume as explained in section 4.3.
C.3 Land area size 10 m by
10 m
Yes The UAV can land in 10m by 10m area.
C.3.1 Maximum Span <14.14 m Yes The span of the wing is 7.454m which is quite
below the maximum span allowed.
C.4 Transport UAS
and support
system
10 UAVs
+ SS
2
in
A400M
Yes An A400M can transport 10 UAV units, sup-
port equipment and sta to disaster site as ex-
plained in chapter 7.
C.4.1 Total UAS vol-
ume
340 m
3
Yes The total volume of all 10 UAVs components
is less than 340 m
3
. meaning it can t in a
A400m
D.1 Range at maxi-
mum payload
>400 km Yes The UAV is able to travel 200 km with payload
to disaster site and then travel another 200km
back to the airport without payload.
D.2 Sorties per day >4 Yes Each UAV can perform 6 sorties a day.
D.2.1 Cruise speed >
32 m/s
Yes The cruise speed of the UAV is 55m/s.
D.3 Take o length <1000 m Yes The takeo length is 615m as computed in sec-
tion 3.6.7.
D.4 Maximum pay-
load acceleration
<2 g Yes The load factor is below 2g as explained in
chapter 5.
D.4.1 Power systems - Yes The engine used is a rotary engine and no rock-
ets or boosters are used as explained in section
6.1.
D.5 Wind speed >7 Bft Yes All analysis was performed taking into account
winds of 7 Beaufort.
D.6 VTOL - Yes The UAV can perform the vertical takeo and
landing which is explained in detail in chapter
5
D.7 Ground slope 10

Yes The pod is capable of landing on a slope of 10

without tipping over as explained in section 4.3

D.8 Landing during
night
- Yes The UAV can land during night as explained
in section 6.3.
D.8.1 Sensor system - Yes The UAV is equipped with appropriate sensors
to land at night as explained in section 6.3.
D.9 Cost per sortie <AC500 Yes This is explained in section 3.7.
D.10 Unit production
cost
<AC250,000 Yes It is explained in chapter 7
D.11 World coverage - Yes The UAV can remain functional in very dier-
ent environments.
D.11.1 Service ceiling 6000 m No The maximum altitude for the UAV to hover
is 5200m with a payload of 100kg so it is not
possible to reach the highest settlements in the
world as explained in section 3.6.
D.11.2 Maximum alti-
tude
9000 m Yes The maximum altitude to in cruise with pay-
load is 17500m as explained in section 3.6.
2
Support System
C Compliance Matrix 107
D.11.3 Temperature
range
-60

C to
60

C
N.A. The material for each structure has been se-
lected such that it can operate in an as wide
temperature range as possible, but especiall
the electrical systems need to be varied at
these temperatures.
D.11.4 Maximum humid-
ity
80% N.A. This has not been looked into detail due to
time constraints.
D.11.5 Sand tolerance
3
1 g/m
3
N.A. The material has not been checked for sand
tolerance due to time constraints.
D.11.1.1 Power system - Yes The rotary engine can operate without compli-
cations under stated conditions as explained in
section 6.1.
D.11.1.3 Material choice - Yes The materials used for the UAV can function
in all possible environments.
E.1 CO
2
emission re-
duction
>75 % Yes The 75 % CO
2
reduction is explained in section
2.6.
E.1.1 Maximum fuel
mass per sortie
29.4 kg Yes The fuel mass used per sortie is 28.4kg which
means the UAV meats up with the CO
2
reduc-
tion as explained in section 3.7.
F.1 Certication
4
- N.A. Except for the landing gear it has not been
looked in detail due to time constraints.
G.1 Manpower 10 people Yes The design and analysis is a collaborative eort
of 10 people.
Table C.1: Compliance Matrix
3
ISO 12103-1 A4/A2
4
CS-23 / FAR-23
108 C Compliance Matrix