Georgia Institute of Technology

There Will Be Buzz

AIAA Design/Build/Fly 2010-2011
Design Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 DESIGN PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................................5

1.2 KEY MISSION REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN FEATURES .....................................................................................................5
1.3 PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES OF THE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................6

2. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 TEAM ORGANIZATION................................................................................................................................................7

2.2 MILESTONE CHART....................................................................................................................................................8

3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 MISSION REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................9

3.2 TRANSLATION INTO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................13
3.3 CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDERED .................................................................................................................................14
3.4 COMPONENT WEIGHTING/SELECTION PROCESS............................................................................................................15
3.5 FINAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION ..............................................................................................................17

4. PRELIMINARY DESIGN .................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................18

4.2 DESIGN TRADES ......................................................................................................................................................19
4.3 MISSION MODEL ....................................................................................................................................................23
4.4 AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................................................................23
4.5 STABILITY AND CONTROL ..........................................................................................................................................31
4.6 MISSION PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................................................32

5. DETAIL DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 33

5.1 FINAL DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................33

5.2 STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................................34
5.3 SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN/COMPONENT SELECTION/INTEGRATION/ARCHITECTURE ..................................................34
5.4 WEIGHT AND BALANCE ............................................................................................................................................37
5.5 FLIGHT AND MISSION PERFORMANCE .........................................................................................................................38
5.6 DRAWING PACKAGE ................................................................................................................................................40

6. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND PROCESSES .................................................................................................... 45

6.1 MANUFACTURING PROCESSES SELECTED .....................................................................................................................45

2
 6.2 MANUFACTURING PROCESSES INVESTIGATED ...............................................................................................................46
6.3 MANUFACTURING MILESTONES .................................................................................................................................48

7. TESTING PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 49

7.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCHEDULES .....................................................................................................................................49

7.2 CHECKLISTS............................................................................................................................................................50

8. PERFORMANCE RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 52

8.1 COMPONENT AND SUBSYSTEM PERFORMANCE .............................................................................................................52

8.2. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................................................54

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 58

3
ACRONYMS AND NOMENCLATURE

C.G. Center of Gravity e Oswald Efficiency

M1 Mission One Gr Motor Gear Ratio
M2 Mission Two Kv Motor Voltage Constant (V)
M3 Mission Three n pll Positive Load Limit
FOM Figures of Merit p Dimensionless Rolling Rate
LT Loading Time q Dimensionless Pitching Rate
FT Flight Time r Dimensionless Yawing Rate
NiCd Nickel-Cadmium RA Aspect Ratio
NiMH Nickel-Metal Hydride Re Reynolds Number
NLL Numerical Lifting Line RT Taper Ratio
2
AVL Athena Vortex-Lattice Sw Wing Area (ft )
RAC Rated Aircraft Cost TS Settling Time (s)
TFS Total Flight Score Td Doubling Time (s)
EW Empty Weight W Weight, lbs
~ Airfoil Section Lift Coefficient  Angle of Attack (degrees)
CL
~ 
CD Airfoil Section Drag Coefficient Sideslip Angle (degrees)
~ r
Cm Airfoil Section Moment Coefficient Rolling Coefficient of Friction
CL Aircraft Lift Coefficient d Damped Natural Frequency
CD Aircraft Drag Coefficient n Natural Frequency of Oscillation
Cy Aircraft Side Force Coefficient ζ Damping Ratio
Cn Aircraft Yawing Moment Coefficient
Cm Aircraft Pitching Moment Coefficient
Cl Aircraft Rolling Moment Coefficient
CD,i Aircraft Induced Drag Coefficient
CD,0 Aircraft Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient

4
 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the design, testing, and manufacturing of the Georgia Institute of Technology There
Will Be Buzz entry in the 2010-2011 AIAA Design/Build/Fly (DBF) competition. This aircraft was designed
to successfully complete three hand-launched flight missions: a low weight speed mission, and two
endurance missions with internally carried payloads, all while minimizing empty weight to maximize the
total score.
ONE paragraph said it all
1.1 Design Process

The primary objective for There Will Be Buzz was victory; this would be achieved through the
development of a light, compact aircraft that can fit in a carry-on suitcase. Conceptual design was started
by translating the key mission requirements and mission scoring equations into design requirements.
Next, the team chose a configuration that qualitatively maximized the total score from a wide design
space. In the preliminary design phase, the configuration was further defined by evaluating different
motors, batteries, propellers, and airfoils. Through this process, weight estimates, drag estimates and
aerodynamic coefficients were calculated and introduced into a flight simulation environment that
estimated mission performance. To further reduce the design space, a trade study analysis was
completed using the flight simulation results. After the trade studies were completed, detailed design
finalized all dimensions, airfoils, propulsion system components, and the method for integrating all of
these components.

1.2 Key Mission Requirements and Design Features

A successful system design and high score come from the successful balance of key mission
requirements. Specific design features were developed for each mission requirement and scoring
element to maximize system performance and the overall competition score.

Empty Weight: The aircraft’s empty weight is the most significant total score driver, and is
composed of the weight of the airframe and propulsion system. To minimize weight and increase the
score, the entire aircraft has been designed to be as minimalistic as possible, including structure, sizing,
materials, batteries, motors, and propellers, while completing all three missions.

Storage and Assembly Constraints: The aircraft and all of its components are required to fit in an
FAA legal-sized carry-on. This constraint complements the empty weight scoring by encouraging the most
compact design possible. The largest component of the aircraft is 20” wide, and the total wingspan is only
about 30”. The small number of components both minimizes weight and drives assembly under the five
minute requirement.

5
 Hand Launch Requirement: Instead of the short take off and landing requirements from previous
competitions, the aircraft must now be hand-launched, thereby adding a human element to the design.
Structure, weight, and propeller thrust had to be adjusted to accommodate the launcher. Aerodynamic
performance requirements, including stall velocity, were adjusted due to the lack of a rolling takeoff. The
light, compact design required by other constraints helped the team achieve successful, consistent hand
launches.

Payload Requirements: Two of the three missions require the storage of an internal payload: golf
balls and steel bars. While equivalent in terms of aerodynamic performance, the geometry and structure
were designed to safely accommodate either payload. Additionally, the payload requirement has a large
influence on the Mission 2 and 3 score. The aircraft was designed to carry its own weight in payload and
maximize the mission score.

Flight Time: The first mission requires that the aircraft complete as many laps of the designated
fight path as possible in four minutes to maximize score. Accordingly, the propulsion system was
designed to sustain near full-throttle flight for the entire duration of the four minutes while completing four
to five laps, and still weigh as little as possible.

1.3 Performance Capabilities of the System

All of the specific design features created to maximize the performance of the system can be summarized
by the following performance capabilities:

 Empty weight of 0.6 lbs

 1:1 payload-to-aircraft empty weight
 4 minute high-speed endurance
 4-5 lap capability empty
 Simple, safe hand launches
 Successful assembly under 5 minutes
 Securely store the required payloads
Figure 1.1: Aircraft in flight
 Proven capability through 2 prototypes and
22 test flights to date (as seen in Figure 1.1)

Ultimately, the final design is a compact flying-wing design, with the aircraft designed to simultaneously
minimize weight, size, and assembly time, while maximizing hand-launch, payload, and range
capabilities; the propulsion system is designed to provide enough power to fulfill ambitious performance
characteristics but weigh as little as possible; and the aircraft architecture and testing designed to build on
previous teams’ experience while continuing to push the envelope of practical, minimalistic designs.
There Will Be Buzz is confident that this design solution has been optimized to best accommodate all
performance requirements and maximize the total score.

6
 2. Management Summary
There Will Be Buzz consisted of eleven students: two seniors, three juniors, two sophomores, three
freshmen, and a graduate student. Eight of the eleven were returning members from the 2009-2010
Georgia Tech DBF entry, Down to Buzzness. There Will Be Buzz combines the right amount of
manpower with the continued advantage of a core of experienced members returning to build the teams’
knowledgebase and pass it down to newer members.

2.1 Team Organization

The team used a hierarchal structure to establish leadership and responsibility amongst its senior
members, and have the responsibilities flow down to the team’s newer members, as seen in Figure 2.1.
This hierarchy served as an outline only, as all team members collaborated extensively to reach
deadlines, share ideas, learn the various disciplines, and produce a more successful aircraft. The work
was divided during the design phases into aerodynamics, structures, electrical, propulsion, and CAD,
while during construction, testing and report writing, all team members participated fully.

Very efficient
display of team to
identify
responsibilities

Figure 2.1: Organization chart, with returning members as group leads (italicized)

7
2.2 Milestone Chart

A milestone chart was established at the beginning of the design process to capture design and
manufacturing goals as well as major deadlines. Progress was recorded and monitored by the team
leaders to ensure all major milestones were met. The team worked throughout the entire school year, and
established stringent deadlines early in order to gain testing and flight experience before the April
competition. The team met frequently with faculty advisor Carl Johnson to discuss progress. The
milestone chart is shown below in Figure 2.2, capturing planned and actual timing of major events.

Design Month Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11

Aircraft Design > Estimated

Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design > Actual
Preliminary Review x 19-Oct-10 > Completion Date
Detailed Design
Design Freeze x 20-Jan-11

Manufacturing
Aircraft Prototypes
Prototype 1
Prototype 2
Prototype 3
Final Aircraft

Flight Testing
Proof of Concept
Competition Laps
Competition Payload
`
Endurance Testing
Final Aircraft

Report
Draft
Editing
Due Date x 1-Mar-11
Design-Build-Fly 15-Apr-11 x

Figure 2.2: Aircraft design milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of objectives – major
deadlines are marked by Buzz, Georgia Tech’s mascot.

8
 Opening sentences are most important
3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
The Conceptual Design phase was used to evaluate the competition rules, translate them into design
metrics, and produce a feasible design configuration that maximizes the score. The team performed a
quantitative scoring analysis in order to pinpoint scoring drivers, and a qualitative translation of specific
mission requirements and rules into characteristics that a successful aircraft must possess. These were
combined in Figures of Merit (FOMs), a metric applied to weigh different design choices against each
other. The FOMs were applied to a design space of over 55,000 possible aircraft configurations, and
yielded a single conceptual design that There Will Be Buzz is confident will be the best aircraft. The
resulting configuration is a lightweight flying wing with a tractor propeller.

3.1 Mission Requirements Note Equation format and numbering

3.1.1 Mission and Score Summary
The AIAA Design/Build/Fly 2011 Competition consists of three flight missions and the design report. The
total score for each team is calculated as seen in Equation 3.1:

𝒐 𝒑𝒐 𝒐 (3.1)

Where TFS stands for the Total Flight Score from all three missions, calculated using Equation 3.2:

(3.2)

Missions 1-3 are each weighed differently, as discussed further below. The last component of the score is
RAC, or Rated Aircraft Cost, a term describing the highest empty weight (EW) of the aircraft in any of the
missions, as seen in Equation 3.3:

𝒙 (3.3)

Therefore empty weight is a direct score driver, whereas various performance factors of the design are
lumped into TFS, comprising of Missions 1-3. All missions are flown along the same distance and pattern:

Figure 3.1: Competition flight course split into flight sections

9
The individual portions of the flight pattern seen in Figure 3.1 are as follows:

1. Successful hand launch

2. Climb to safe altitude
3. 180º U-turn, 500 feet from the start/finish line
4. 1000 feet downwind
5. 360º turn along the backstretch
6. 180º U-turn
7. 500 feet upwind / Successful landing

Each lap is approximately 2000 feet long, or roughly half of a mile when accounting for the turns involved.
A complete successful lap is defined as beginning and finishing across the start/finish line while still in the
air. The pattern is flown a different number of times for Missions 1-3, and each of the missions is weighed
differently.

Mission 1 – Dash to Critical Target – the aircraft must complete as many laps as possible during
4 minutes, with the time beginning when the aircraft leaves the launcher’s hand. The number of laps is
counted to the last full lap completed within the four minute interval. To yield a score, the number of laps
is normalized by the maximum number of laps completed by any team flying Mission 1, as seen in
Equation 3.4:

𝑵𝒖𝒎𝒃 𝒐𝒇 𝑳 𝒑𝒔 (3.4)
𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 = ×
𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑵𝒖𝒎𝒃 𝒐𝒇 𝑳 𝒑𝒔
Mission 2 – Ammo Re-Supply – the aircraft must complete three laps while flying with a team
supplied minimum 3”x4” steel bar Payload stored internally. This includes hand-launching with the extra
payload. The score is calculated as the weight of the payload divided by the flight weight (gross takeoff
weight) of the aircraft, reflecting the aircraft’s lift-to-weight ratio. Mission 2 is weighed the most of all three
missions, as seen in Equation 3.5:
𝑷 𝒚𝒍𝒐 𝒅 𝒊𝒈𝒉 (3.5)
𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 = ×
𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉 𝒊𝒈𝒉
Mission 3 – Medical Supply Mission – the aircraft must complete three laps while flying with a
team selected number of golf balls stored internally. This includes hand-launching with the extra payload.
The number of golf balls carried is normalized by the maximum number of golf balls carried by any team
successfully completing Mission 3, as seen in Equation 3.6. This mission is weighed less than M2, but
both payload missions are weighed more than M1.

𝑵𝒖𝒎𝒃 𝒐𝒇 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒇 𝑩 𝒍𝒍𝒔

𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 = × (3.6)
𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑵𝒖𝒎𝒃 𝒐𝒇 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒇 𝑩 𝒍𝒍𝒔

10
 It is essential to mention in any design
project, sometimes they are dictated by the
3.1.2 Aircraft Constraints nature of the application
The competition rules stipulate specific constraints on the design’s size and storage, propulsion system,
and payload:

Size and Storage – the aircraft and all components necessary for its assembly and operation
must be stored inside an FAA legal sized soft-case carry-on suitcase. The FAA legal size is a case that
does not exceed 45 dimensional inches (height + width + length), with no single dimension exceeding
22”. This means that no single solid component of the aircraft may exceed 22”, and must actually be even
smaller to fit inside the carry-on. There is no requirement that the aircraft be unassembled; however, if the
team determines some dimension, for example wingspan, must exceed 22”, then tool storage in the case
and assembly time must be considered. There is a five-minute assembly limit. The radio transmitter does
not need to be stored in the case.

Propulsion System – the aircraft must be propeller driven and electrically powered, with all
components of the propulsion system commercially available. These include the motor, propeller, speed
controllers, receivers, and batteries. The battery selection is limited to NiCd or NiMH, but may be of any
cell count, voltage, or capacity. The entire propulsion battery may weigh no more than 3/4 of a pound,
and is limited by a blade style fuse to a 20 amp current draw.

Payload – the aircraft’s payloads for Missions 2 and 3 must be stored fully internally to the mold-
lines of the airframe. The golf ball payload will be provided by the competition administration. The steel
bar payload will be team provided, but the dimensions must be at least 3”x4”. Choice of thickness is left
up to the team to use in determining payload weight. Both payloads must be securely fastened to the
aircraft’s structure so that they do not shift or come loose during flight.

3.1.3 Scoring Sensitivity Analysis Georgia Tech sophistication ... we have a much simpler
scenario
The scoring sensitivity analysis of Figure 3.2 visualizes the driving score factors in Missions 2 and 3, both
three-lap payload missions, which represent 5/6 (83%) of the possible TFS. Included in the score is the
normalization by RAC. The ranges were selected based on the Team’s estimate of competitive and
realistic aircraft configurations. The term “Payload Factor” is used in order to non-dimensionalize the
lifting capability of the aircraft relative to its own empty weight, similar to Mission 2 scoring. For Mission 3,
the maximum number of golf balls is defined as the maximum payload, or the highest Empty Weight
multiplied by the highest Payload Factor, so the sensitivity analysis reflects its own ranges.

The vertical Score axis is normalized as a percentage of the best combined M2+M3 Score, not
necessarily reflecting the maximum possible score of five points, because DBF is an exercise in
performing trades to optimize combined performance. The optimum is therefore obtained by minimizing
Empty Weight while combining a high Payload Factor. Either an increase of 0.10 lbs. in Empty Weight or
a decrease of 0.06 Payload Factor cause a 10% loss of the maximum combined M2+M3 Score.

11
 Figure 3.2: Missions 2 and 3 scoring sensitivity analysis

The remaining 17% percent of the score is in Mission 1, the speed ferry mission. Although it only
represents a small fraction of the score, in order to compete with the best teams overall, Mission 1 would
also have to be competitive. Its scoring sensitivity is seen in Figure 3.3. The maximum realistic number of
laps completed by any team was estimated to be 8, reflecting an average flight speed of approximately 90
feet per second for four minutes. Every lap under 8 is a loss of 0.125 points out of the single possible
point for M1, or only 2.1% percent of the maximum possible TFS of 6 points. Additionally, every lap under
8 means the propulsive system needs to generate the equivalent of 10 ft/s less thrust, possibly saving
weight.

White space, is good to have but bad to be

in excess ... section 3.1.4. could have been
moved here

12
 Figure 3.3: Mission 1 score sensitivity analysis

3.1.4. Understanding the Hand Launch Requirement

Since the hand launch requirement adds a human factor to the aircraft’s design and takeoff performance,
the team sought to gain a firm understanding of the requirement before translating it into design. Using a
store-bought glider, various team members practiced a hand-launched takeoff in the style stipulated by
the competition rules. The team gained a conceptual grasp of the ergonomics and structural requirements
of hand-launching an aircraft.

3.2 Translation into Design Requirements

3.2.1 Qualitative Design Requirements

The competition rules and scoring requirements were translated into qualitative design metrics that could
be used to evaluate and choose an aircraft configuration. These are summarized in Table 3.1:

Table 3.1: Translation into Design Requirements

Mission/Scoring Requirement Design Requirement

Hand Launch Low stall speed, good grip design
Low flight times High thrust, low drag
High payload High lift
Internal payloads Internal bays
Low weight Efficient structure
Case storage Compact structure

13
The final configuration needs to fulfill requirements which clearly divide into two components, as follows:

 Performance: high lift-to-drag ratio (L/D), high thrust, and low stall speed
 Structure: a compact, efficient structure with internal payload bays, and a good hand grip

3.2.2. Figures of Merit

From the quantitative scoring sensitivity analysis in Section 3.1.3 and the qualitative translation into
design requirements in the section above, There Will Be Buzz was able to select and quantify specific
metrics that will be used in the down-selection of aircraft configuration, Figures of Merit. These were
assigned an importance of 0 through 5, with 5 being the most important factor and 0 being a non-factor in
design, as seen in Table 3.2. Weight was determined to be the most critical scoring factor (FOM = 5), and
the hand launch a design factor critical to any successful flight (FOM = 3). Both speed and storage were
assigned FOMs of 2, because speed does not impact score as significantly, and component storage is a
relatively flexible design feature.
Table 3.2: Figures of Merit

Figure of Merit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Weight 5
Speed 2
Hand Launch 3
Storage 2

3.3 Configurations Considered

After determining the FOMs and requirements, the next step of Conceptual Design was establishing a
design space that considered all possible aircraft concept configurations. The Matrix of Alternatives
contained five major categories: wings, fuselage, empennage, propulsion, and landing gear. With all
component alternatives considered, the design space contained over 55,000 different potential
configurations, shown in Table 3.3:
Table 3.3: Complete Matrix of Alternatives

Components Alternatives
Wing Layout Flying Wing Biplane Conventional Tandem Wing
Wing Attachment Low Middle High Blended
Fuselage Shape Blended Rounded Circular Square
Number of Fuselages 0 1 3 4
Tail Type V-tail Conventional H-Tail T-Tail
Tail Attachment One Boom Two Booms On Fuselage
Number of Engines 1 2
Engine Location Pusher Tractor Both
Landing Gear Skids Tricycle Tail Dragger

14
3.4 Component Weighting/Selection Process

To downsize the design space from all possible configurations presented in the Matrix of Alternatives,
qualities of different options were measured against each other with each Figure of Merit multiplied by a
Scoring Value, described in Table 3.4. The alternative with the highest total quality was then selected for
further stages of the design.

Table 3.4: FOM and alternatives weighting values

Score Value
1 Inferior
3 Average
5 Superior

3.4.1 Wing Layout

Four wing configurations were compared to each other based on the FOMs as seen in Table 3.5. The two
main FOMs that make a flying wing superior to a conventional wing layout are weight and storage. With
Conceptual Design being a qualitative analysis, the team built upon its experience from previous
competitions and determined that flying wings are in general a lighter design, due in part to the lack of
empennage. The tail-less aircraft would also be simpler to store in the carry-on and assemble, since there
would be no need for a removable tail assembly or control lines to be connected to an empennage’s
control surfaces.
Table 3.5: Weighting for number and style of wings

Wing Layout

FOM Weight Flying Wing Biplane Conventional Tandem Wing

Weight 5 5 1 3 3
Speed 2 3 3 3 3
Hand Launch 3 3 1 3 3
Storage 2 5 1 3 1
Total 12 50 16 36 32

The design choice of a flying wing automatically excluded the following alternatives: wing attachment,
fuselage shape, number of fuselages, tail type, tail attachment, and the tail dragger landing gear option
from further consideration. There was therefore no need for qualitative selection in the eliminated
categories.

15
3.4.2 Propulsion
Number of Engines: Two options for the number of engines were compared to each other based
on the FOMs as seen in Table 3.6. A single engine proved to be the superior alternative, owing to the
weight savings, thereby maximizing score.

Table 3.6: Weighting for number of motors

Number of Engines
FOM Weight One Two
Weight 5 5 1
Speed 2 3 5
Hand Launch 3 3 5
Storage 2 3 1
Total 12 46 32

Engine Location: With a flying wing design, engine location is an important decision, depicted in
Table 3.7. Only one of the selected FOMs was affected by the location of the single motor/propeller
combination, hand launching. This is due to the fact that when the aircraft is thrown, a pusher propeller is
likely to strike the hand of the thrower unless specific safeguards are made. Moreover, a flying wing
design would probably be swept aft, and a Pusher may interfere with that design. The Tractor propeller
was therefore the clear choice.

Table 3.7: Weighting for engine location

Engine Location

FOM Weight Pusher Tractor

Weight 5 3 3
Speed 2 3 3
Hand Launch 3 1 5
Storage 2 3 3
Total 12 30 42

16
3.4.3 Landing Gear
Two options for the landing gear configuration were compared to each other based on the FOMs as seen
in Table 3.8. A skid proved to be an only slightly better alternative, so the option of using a tricycle gear
remained open to later analysis and testing.

Table 3.8: Weighting for landing gear style

Landing Gear

FOM Weight Skid Tricycle

Weight 5 3 3
Speed 2 3 3
Hand Launch 3 3 3
Storage 2 3 1
Total 12 36 32

3.5 Final Conceptual Design Configuration

At the conclusion of the Conceptual Design, There Will Be Buzz reached a configuration designed to
maximize the total score. The design is a compact, lightweight flying wing with a tractor propeller. All of its
configuration choices were made on the basis of maximizing score by successfully completing all three
missions of the competition and producing a practical airplane that can be hand-launched. Combined with
the sensitivity analysis, the configuration’s design point was set at 0.6 lbs empty weight, 0.6 lbs of
payload for Missions 2 and 3, and 4-5 laps completed for Mission 1. The design point was chosen based
on the team’s realistic estimate of the configuration’s implementation. Figure 3.4 below displays a concept
sketch of the proposed design, drawn in Vehicle Sketchpad (VSP).

17
 Figure 3.4: Conceptual aircraft design showing major components

4. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The goal for preliminary design was to further narrow the design space. To do this, design/sizing trades
for the system were evaluated. Next, airfoil selections, weight estimates, drag estimates, motor, propeller,
and battery data, and aerodynamic coefficients were calculated and introduced into a flight simulation
environment that estimated mission performance for all three flight missions. After evaluating the
successful configurations that completed each mission, a preliminary propulsion system was selected and
preliminary geometry was finalized.

4.1 Design Methodology

4.1.1. Aerodynamic Parameters

Three major propulsion parameters needed to be considered:
Wing Span: The carry-on requirements limit the span of any piece to a maximum of 22 inches, as
discussed in Section 3.1.2. If more wing area is required, the wing could be broken into more than one
piece, but connections and joints add weight, which reduces the score.

Wing Area: With a fixed wing span, wing area becomes only a function of chord length. Increased
wing area decreases wing loading for a fixed weight, resulting in decreased stall speed for hand launch,

18
but a smaller wing area reduces drag, resulting in increased flight speed, and reduces weight, increasing
score.

Airfoil Selection: A flying wing requires special considerations to balance the natural pitching
moment produced by the wing. Airfoils with reflex camber lines reduce this moment. A high lift airfoil
increases payload capability, but increases drag during flight.

4.1.2 Propulsion Design

Three major propulsion parameters need to be considered:

Motor Selection: A larger motor has increased power, increasing flight speed and payload
capabilities, but weighs more, increasing the empty weight and thus the RAC. Since the highest empty
weight of any mission is used to calculate RAC, choosing a heavier, more powerful motor in one mission
would defeat the purpose of choosing a lighter, less powerful motor in other missions. The single motor
selected should therefore be selected to optimize the total mission score.

Propeller Selection: A large diameter propeller spinning at slow speeds produces similar thrust to
a small diameter propeller spinning at fast speeds. A large pitch-to-diameter ratio is most efficient at high
airspeeds and a small pitch-to-diameter propeller is most efficient at lower airspeeds. Different missions
will require different propeller performance, and since propeller selection can vary between missions, the
best propeller can be selected for each.

Battery Selection: Lower capacity batteries are lighter and help produce a greater RPM and
voltage, but higher capacity batteries can store more energy and are able to endure greater current
draws. Also, more batteries have more power, allowing the aircraft to fly faster or with a heavier payload.

4.2 Design Trades

4.2.1 Hand Launch Study

Since the hand launch requirement was a new challenge in aircraft design for the There Will Be Buzz
team, a study was conducted to determine the possible velocities the aircraft would experience upon
leaving a person’s hand. To perform this study, a small glider was constructed to better simulate the style
of throwing that would be expected on the team’s actual aircraft, as opposed to throwing an object such
as a baseball. The glider was weighted to the target Mission 2/3 weight of 1.2 lbs. Some members of
There Will Be Buzz took turns throwing the glider while being video recorded in front of a striped
measurement screen, with each stripe separated by 2 inches. By using a High Definition video camera,
recording at 30 frames per second, the amount of frames it took the glider to travel the distance of a stripe
was used to estimate the glider’s velocity. Figure 4.1 shows an example image from this process, and
Figure 4.2 shows the plot of each member’s attempts and the achieved velocities.

19
 Figure 4.1: Testing hand-launch velocities

50

45
Launch Velocity, ft/s

40

35 Launcher 1
Launcher 2
30 Launcher 3
Launcher 4
25
Launcher 5
20

15
1 2 3 4 5
Throw Number

Figure 4.2: Hand-launch velocities for various team members

From this plot it is clear that a speed of 30 ft/sec is achievable from a hand powered launch of a vehicle
weighing 1.2 lbs.

4.2.2 Wing Area Study

A critical component of the aircraft’s design was the hand launch requirement. The aircraft would have to
be sized such that it would not stall immediately after launch. A graph of stall speed versus wing area for
a range of full launch weights was plotted in Figure 4.3.

20
 50.0 Launch Weight
0.4 lbs 0.8 lbs
45.0
1.2 lbs 1.6 lbs
40.0 2.0 lbs
Stall Speed, ft/sec

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Wing Area, sq ft

Figure 4.3: Stall speed versus wing area for various launch weights

The stall speed was selected as 30 ft/sec because of the information gathered by the hand-launch trade
study discussed previously in Section 4.2.1. With a target launch weight of 1.2 lbs, representing 0.6 lbs of
empty weight and six golf balls, the wing area had to be about 1.7 square feet.

4.2.3 Propulsion System Selection

A full factorial simulation was created to evaluate the effectiveness of different propulsion systems. This
involved creating a database of a variety of components: 318 motors, 55 electronic speed controllers, 54
propellers, 4 battery capacities, and 11 different battery cell quantities. In total, 41,556,240 system
combinations were considered. Using Goldstein's vortex theory from Phillip's Mechanics of Flight to
evaluate propeller performance and a physics-based electric motor model, a MATLAB simulation was
used to determine the full thrust profile for a given propulsion system. Combinations of components that
do not work are automatically filtered from the analysis, such as when a speed controller or motor cannot
handle the current draw from the batteries. Since there was such a wide range of results and weight was
determined to be the most important factor for scoring, only the top performing motors of the lowest
weight were kept. The static thrust of each combination was then plotted against the total weight of that
propulsion system, shown in Figure 4.4.

21
 1.5
Battery Type
1.4
160 mAh Pareto
ParetoFrontier
Frontier
1.3

1.2 400 mAh

lbs
Thrust,lbs

1.1 700 mAh

Selected Alternative
Selected Alternative
StaticThrust,

1
1500 mAh
0.9
Static

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
50 75 100 125 150 175 200

TotalPropulsion
Total Propulsive System
SystemWeight,
Weight,grams
grams
Figure 4.4: Propulsion analysis results with Pareto frontier of static thrust

From this data, it appears that combinations which use 400mAh batteries would be an ideal design point.
However, there are more constraints for the propulsion system beyond system weight. The battery
capacity needs to last at least 4 minutes to successfully complete Mission 1, and longer to ensure a
successful landing. Figure 4.5 shows the remaining systems after those cases that could not last for 4
minutes and 30 seconds were filtered out.

1.5

1.4 Battery Type

160 mAh
1.3 Pareto
ParetoFrontier
Frontier

1.2 400 mAh

Static Thrust, lbs
Static Thrust, lbs

1.1 700 mAh

1 Selected Alternative
Selected Alternative
1500 mAh
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
50 75 100 125 150 175 200

TotalPropulsion
Total Propulsive System
SystemWeight,
Weight,grams
grams
Figure 4.5: Propulsion analysis results after filtering for battery duration

22
From these results it is clear that many of the 400mAh batteries fall short of being viable options. It was
decided to select a propulsion system with an empty thrust to weight ratio of about 1 to minimize weight
while ensuring sufficient thrust. The final selection consists of a Hacker A10-9L, 6 cell 700mAh NiMH
battery pack, a Phoenix 10 electronic speed controller, and a 9x4.7 propeller. This combination will
develop approximately 0.64 lbs of thrust while pulling about 45 Watts from the battery.

4.3 Mission Model

4.3.1 Description and Capabilities

The mission was simulated via a set of first order differential equations (Equations 4.1-4.3) defining the
position and orientation of the vehicle throughout the flight. By integrating these equations over time using
th
a 4 Order Runge-Kutta approach in MATLAB with some simple logic defining each of the required
mission segments, it is possible to define the position, velocity, and orientation of the vehicle over time.
The equations are listed below. The thrust (T) is defined as a function of velocity with the relationship
defined by the same propulsion analysis tool used in the propulsion system selection. The drag (D) is
represented via a parabolic drag relationship. The load factor is explicitly defined for each turn segment,
but if it exceeds the estimated maximum lift coefficient it is limited to that value.

𝒙=𝑽 (4.2)

−𝑫
𝑽= (4.1)
𝒎

𝒈 𝒏 − (4.3)
𝝍=
𝑽
4.3.2 Uncertainties
The approach described above has specific limitations and uncertainties. The lack of a vertical dimension
means that it cannot capture any aerodynamic effect due to altitude changes, or for the energy required
or saved due to climbing or diving. The lack of any wind model discounts any additional drag due to
sideslip in flight, or changes in velocity depending on traveling with or against the wind. The flight path
defined for each lap assumes an idealized flight path, with the pilot turning perfectly after each 500 foot
leg and the turns being optimal turns. Finally, there are additional uncertainties in the mission predictions
due to any errors or inaccuracies in the thrust and drag predictions.

4.4 Aerodynamic Characteristics

4.4.1 Airfoil Selection

As a flying wing design, selection of an airfoil to fulfill unique requirements is critical. These requirements
are explained in Table 4.1:

23
 Table 4.1: Flying wing constraints on airfoil selection

Parameter Requirement Rationale

Cm0 ~0 Reduce elevon workload
Increase elevon effectiveness
Cmɑ ~0
Minimize servo force
L/D High Maximum performance

Using an estimated Reynolds number of 200,000 in cruise conditions for There Will Be Buzz, candidate
airfoils were analyzed and plotted for sectional lift coefficient, lift to drag ratio, neutral pitching moment
coefficient and manufacturability using XFOIL. Drag, lift, and pitching moment coefficient curves for top
performing airfoils were constructed. To achieve the low pitching moment requirement, only reflex airfoils
were considered. A reflex airfoil is defined as having a camber line that follows a shallow S-curve, with
the trailing edge turned upwards. The airfoil coordinates were obtained from the UIUC Airfoil Coordinates
Database. The lift curves and moment polars are compared in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7, respectively.
The small amount of waviness in the graphs is due to numerical instabilities in XFOIL at low Reynolds
numbers.

1.6

1.4

1.2
Lift Coefficient, CL

0.8
GOE741 200k
0.6
MH80 200k
0.4
Fauvel 200k
0.2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Drag Coefficient, CD

Figure 4.6: Drag polars for several reflex airfoils

24
 Pitching Moment Coefficient, Cm 0.06

0.04

0.02

-0.02 GOE741 200k

MH80 200k
-0.04 Fauvel 200k

-0.06
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Angle of Attack, deg

Figure 4.7: Pitching moment curves for several reflex airfoils

The examination of the drag polar show that the GOE741 airfoil has a slightly better lift coefficient but the
lower pitching moment of the Fauvel lends itself favorably for a flying wing design.

Airfoil Manufacturability: Complex airfoil geometry, as shown in Figure 4.8, can result in
manufacturing error and any imperfections will negatively affect vehicle performance. On reflex airfoils
especially, this means ensuring the manufactured trailing edge holds the curve as designed. To reduce
manufacturing difficulty and get the desired performance out of an airfoil, that airfoil must not have high
camber or a sharp trailing edge. The airfoil must also be of sufficient thickness to make the internal
structure lighter and/or stronger, as the geometric stiffness of the structure is increased with thickness. An
airfoil that would be easier to manufacture correctly is shown in Figure 4.8:

Difficult to manufacture

Figure 4.8: Geometry of airfoils and manufacturing properties

Wing Airfoil Thickness: In addition to manufacturing difficulty, an airfoil with a low thickness will
suffer stall effects at a smaller angle of attack, reducing the effectiveness of the elevons. For such an

25
airfoil, there would be little to no buffer between flying at the maximum section lift coefficient and stalling.
The Fauvel airfoil was selected because of its combination of high maximum C L, low pitching moments,
manufacturability, and a high thickness to chord ratio of ~14%.

Centerbody Airfoil Thickness: The Fauvel airfoil was also selected for the centerbody. However,
the airfoil had to internally store two golf balls chord-wise and maintain enough thickness to still allow for
structure. To accommodate this, and because the airfoil chord was limited by storage constraints, the
airfoil thickness was increased to 20%.

4.4.2 Aerodynamics
Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) was used to model the lifting surfaces of the aircraft to compute the induced
aerodynamic characteristics of the entire aircraft. AVL models lifting surfaces as an infinitely thin sheet of
discrete vortices to compute the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. The geometry of the aircraft
was developed inside AVL to provide stability while matching the predetermined wing area. The
centerbody size was constrained by the internal payload requirements, so the wing span and chord were
adjusted. During the design process, the addition of winglets was also considered to improve the
aerodynamic and stability characteristics of the aircraft. The airfoil selection, stability and geometric
constraints resulted in a wing planform with a span of 28 inches, sweep of 30 degrees and a wing chord
of 8 inches. A visualization of the lifting surfaces as discretized in the AVL model for the final aircraft
configuration with winglets is shown in Figure 4.9. The AVL-calculated lift coefficient distribution of the
final configuration aircraft is shown in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.9: Aircraft AVL Virtual Model (with winglets)

26
 you can use a
similar figure to
calculate the This figure is
stresses on the BAAAAD because
wing any figure in a
professional report
Cl should have a
white background
Cl*c/cref

Figure 4.10: AVL predicted lift distribution of the aircraft (with winglets)

Once the sizing was complete, the AVL model was used to calculate elevon-balanced aerodynamic
parameters. The lift curve and induced drag polar are shown below in Figure 4.11.

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Lift Coefficient, CL
Lift Coefficient, CL

0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 CL
C 0.2
L
0.1 0.1
Trimmed CL
CL
0 0
These are 2 out of 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
3 important figures! Angle of Attack, ɑ Induced Drag Coefficient, CD,i
But, where is
theCm-alpha? Figure 4.11: Drag polar and trimmed and non-trimmed lift curves

The lift curve is shown for both trimmed and untrimmed conditions. The lift coefficient at 15 degrees is
~0.7, near the vehicle max lift coefficient. Because the flying wing configuration has no tail or vertical
surfaces, the addition of winglets was necessary to improve the yaw stability derivative (Cn,β) for a
minimum level of directional stability. The final configuration of the aircraft has a yaw stability derivative of
0.0469.

27
4.4.3 Drag
A preliminary parasitic drag estimate was computed by summing each component’s drag contributions,
approximated using Hoerner’s experimental data in Fluid Dynamic Drag, and then normalizing each
component according to the wing reference area. Table 4.2 shows the contributions of the main aircraft
components, with Figure 4.12 displaying the same data as a percentage breakdown.

Table 4.2: Summary of drag estimates

Component CD,0
Wing 0.019
Wing Tip Skids 0.018
Landing Gear
0.015
(Mono Wheel)
Winglets 0.01
Total 0.062

Figure 4.12: Graphical representation of drag estimates

Wing: Due to its flying wing configuration, the largest single component of There Will Be Buzz is
the wing, so it was the largest contributor of drag. The drag coefficient for the wing was calculated using
Hoerner’s method as seen in Equation 4.4:

𝟒
𝒘 𝒘
𝑫,𝟎 = 𝒘𝒇 𝑳 𝒇𝒘 + 𝑳′ + 𝟎 (4.4)

where is the wing fuselage interference factor (assumed to be equal to 1, since the wing is the

fuselage), is the lifting surface correction, which is a function of the sweep angle of the wing, is
the turbulent plate friction coefficient of the wing, which is a function of Mach number and Reynolds
number, is the airfoil thickness location factor, is the thickness-to-chord ratio, is the wetted
area of the wing and is the wing reference area. The total CD,0 contribution by the wing was calculated
to be 0.019.

Winglets: The winglets were modeled as flat plates and their drag contributions were calculated
based on Reynolds number. Since the maximum speed of the aircraft is very low, Schlichting’s formula for
skin friction drag was used directly to calculate the skin friction drag coefficient without any correction for
compressibility effects, as seen in Equation 4.5:

𝟎. 𝟒𝟓𝟓
𝒇 = .𝟓𝟖 (4.5)
(𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝟎 𝑵 )

28
Where is the cruise Reynolds number of the aircraft which was estimated to be 200,000. The C D,0
contributions of both the winglets combined was 0.010.

Landing Gear and Wing Tip Skids: The landing gear and wing tip skids are significant contributors
to the overall drag of the aircraft. Continuing with the two landing gear alternatives considered in Section
3.4.3, CD,0 was calculated for a dual wheel gear and a mono wheel gear, both depicted in Figure 4.13.
The dual wheel was modeled as a pair of cylinders with wheels at the ends; the mono wheel was
modeled as a wheel, a cylinder, and two flat plates; while the wing tip skids (common to both
configurations) were modeled as cylinders.

Figure 4.13: Comparison of prototype aircraft with different styles of landing gear

The result of applying Hoerner’s methods to the dual wheel landing gear configuration is a C D,0 of
approximately 0.037, even larger than the wing. In contrast, the mono wheel resulted in a C D,0 of
approximately 0.015. Therefore, an aircraft configured with the mono wheel has 30% less drag than an
aircraft with the dual wheel gear. This is further conveyed in Figure 4.14, which shows a comparison in
drag break down between the two landing gear configurations. Note that drag contributions due to the
wing and the winglets remain constant, while there is a significant reduction in the drag contribution due
to the landing gear and the wing tip skids when using the mono wheel.

29
 Figure 4.14: Graphical comparison of drag contributions from different styles of landing gear

AVL was used to model the lifting surfaces of the aircraft to compute the induced drag. The estimated
Oswald’s efficiency was 0.87 for the full configuration. The full drag polar is displayed in Figure 4.15, and
was calculated using the induced drag from AVL and the parasitic drag from above.

0.8

0.7

0.6
Coefficient of Lift, CL

0.5
It doesn't hurt to re-
0.4 use a figure
because of its
0.3 importance
0.2

0.1

0
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
Coefficient of Drag, CD

Figure 4.15: Full drag polar

30
4.5 Stability and Control

To ensure that the aircraft would be able to successfully complete the missions in the air, both static and
dynamic stability were analyzed. The fastest speeds, slowest speeds, heaviest weights, lightest weights,
cruise, climbs, and turns were all considered.

4.5.1 Static Stability Analysis

Static stability was evaluated using the vortex lattice method as implemented in AVL. The most important
stability derivatives are given for the scenario shortly after launch in Table 4.3. After launch for M3 is the
most demanding flight condition for stability. Static stability analysis for all cases showed that the aircraft
is statically stable. Since the flying wing design is controlled through the use of a control surface acting as
both aileron and elevator, elevator deflection is referring to a symmetric control deflection, and aileron
deflection refers to an asymmetric deflection. No extreme deflections are required for any control surface
and all coefficients are within a normal range.

Table 4.3: Relevant stability coefficients and derivatives for elevator-balanced trim conditions

Parameter AVL Results

Inputs W total(lbs) 1.2
V(ft/s) 24
Deflections δelevator (deg) -1.58
δaileron (deg) 0.0
Aerodynamic Parameters CL 0.522
α (deg) 9.9
β (deg) 0.0
Stability Derivatives Cl,β (1/rad) -0.176
CL,ɑ (1/rad) 3.068
Cm,α (1/rad) -0.225
Cn,β (1/rad) 0.057
Damping Derivatives Cl,p (1/rad) -0.287
Cm,q (1/rad) -0.875
Cn,r (1/rad) -0.026
Control Derivatives Cl,δa (1/degree) 0.002
Cm,δe (1/degree) -0.004
Static Margin % Chord 7.3

4.5.2 Dynamic Stability Analysis

Having found the trim conditions as a part of the static stability analysis, the next step was to take the
aerodynamic derivatives about the trim conditions described earlier and investigate the dynamic behavior
of the airplane. The stability and control derivatives were obtained from the AVL, the mass properties
from the CAD file, and the stability characteristics calculated from the full twelve by twelve 6 DOF

31
linearized differential equations found in Phillips’ Mechanics of Flight section 9.8. The eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the matrix showed the stability of each of the five dynamic modes, revealing that the
aircraft is stable in the Short Period, Dutch Roll and Roll modes, while unstable in Phugoid and Spiral
modes. The doubling time for the Phugoid and Spiral modes are long enough to be easily handled by the
pilot, and the stability was therefore deemed acceptable. The flight conditions used were the same as
used in the static stability section, listed in Table 4.3. The dynamic stability characteristics are tabulated
below in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Dynamic stability analysis for least stable case

Longitudinal Modes Lateral Modes

Mode Short Period Phugoid Dutch Roll Roll Spiral
Damping Rate (1/s) 12.91 -0.0204 1.768 24.49 -0.189
Time to double/half (s) 0.053 33.9 0.392 0.028 3.67
Damping Ratio 0.647 -0.0124 0.127
Damped Natural Frequency (1/s) 15.23 1.642 13.79
Undamped Natural Frequency (1/s) 19.96 1.642 13.9

4.6 Mission Performance

The lap trajectory was calculated using the mission simulation described in Section 4.3 using the
propulsion and aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane. The velocity profile for the first two laps using
a 9x4.7 propeller is shown in Figure 4.16 for Mission 1 and Figure 4.17 for Mission 2/3. The velocity
deficits correspond to the required turns over the course of each lap. The maximum velocity estimated for
the Mission 1 is 28.2 mph (41.6 ft/s), and the maximum velocity for Mission 2/3 is 27.8 mph (40.8 ft/s).
The estimated lap times using the initial propeller is shown in Table 4.5 for both mission configurations.

30
Lap 1 Lap 2
Velocity (mph)

25

20

15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
Figure 4.16: Simulation of Mission 1 lap trajectory

32
 30
Lap 1 Lap 2
Velocity (mph)

25

20

15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (s)

Figure 4.17: Simulation of Mission 2 lap trajectory

Table 4.5: Simulated mission times

Mission Propeller Lap Time(s)

M1 9x4.7 52.8
M2/3 9x4.7 61.7

5. DETAIL DESIGN
5.1 Final Design

After all optimization was completed, the final dimensional parameters are listed in Table 5.1. The
dimensions of the aircraft did not vary between the preliminary design and detailed design stages. The
final aircraft was designed for flight stability, simplicity, and to fit inside the carry-on by detaching the outer
5 inches of each wing from the centerbody.

Table 5.1: Final aircraft dimensional parameters

Wing Elevon
Span 28 inches Span 5 inches
Wing Chord 8 inches Chord 2.4 inches
Root Chord 11.5 inches δe, max 35 degrees
Sweep 30 degrees Reference area 22.8 inches2
Aspect Ratio 3.2
Wing Area 245 inches2 Winglet
Airfoil Fauvel Reference area 25 inches2
Static Margin 8% chord Airfoil Flat Plate

33
5.2 Structural Characteristics

The structure of the airplane was designed to withstand a 2.5 g loading in the maximum payload
configuration of 1.2 lbs. This translates into a maximum load limit of 5 g in the empty configuration of 0.6
lbs. It was also assumed that negative loading was a maximum of 1 g fully loaded and therefore 2 g when
empty. Using these loadings and the maximum lifting capability of the airplane the operational flight
envelope was defined as shown in the V-n diagram in Figure 5.1. The maximum velocities were
calculated using the method explained in section 5.6.1. does this section exist?

5
Mission 1
4
Mission 2/3 load limit
3
Load factor (g)

2 positive stall limit

1

-1
negative stall limit
Vmax
-2

-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.1: V-n Diagram for all missions

5.3 System and Subsystem Design/Component Selection/Integration/Architecture

To finalize the aircraft design, the following subsystems were analyzed with greater detail: radio
controller, servos, main wing, centerbody, propulsion system, landing gear, and the structural
architecture/assembly of each of these components.

5.3.1 Receiver/Controller Selection

The receiver selected is the Spektrum 6255, as it provides the required failsafe mechanism with minimum
weight. There Will Be Buzz will use a JR PCM10X radio controller to communicate with the Spektrum
receiver.

34
5.3.2 Propulsion System
The propulsion system was selected using the analysis from section 4.2.2. The final selection consists of
a Hacker A10-9L, 6 cell 700mAh NiMH battery pack, a Phoenix 10 electronic speed controller, and a
9x4.7 propeller.

5.3.3 Centerbody Structure/Payload Bay

The aircraft centerbody is constructed from a combination of spanwise and chordwise balsa wood ribs
that connect together in interlocking slots. The CAD model was used to design the ribs such that they fit
together like a jigsaw. This interlocking method allows for distribution of loads across the entire structure,
as well as more efficient manufacturing. The interior of the centerbody is open, allowing for the payloads
of steel bars or golf balls to fit internally. The joints between the spanwise and chordwise ribs have
hemispherical cutouts to provide constraints for the payloads, and eliminate motion in flight without
additional structure.

5.3.4 Wing Structure

The inner wing sections are connected to the centerbody via spars and stringers. The outer wing sections
are constructed in a similar manner, with ribs connected by stringers. The outer wing sections connect to
the inner sections by wood pins, the servo casing, and are held together by tape. Although the joint is
very small, it is sufficient to transfer the load from the relatively small outboard wing area. The location of
the joint allows the aircraft to easily fit into the carry-on. A picture of this joint is shown in Figure 5.2.

Wood pin and servo casing

transfer load from outboard
wing section

Figure 5.2: The joint between outboard and inboard wing sections

5.3.5 Control Surfaces

Elevons are attached to the wing using conventional CA hinges. These control surfaces are controlled
with pushrods that are attached to servos located in the wings.

35
5.3.6 Servo Selection/Integration
The servos selected for the elevons were Futaba S3114. These servos were selected by analyzing hinge-
moments for each control surface using AVL and then finding servos that had sufficient control power to
handle the calculated moments, with the lightest weight possible.

5.3.7 Motor Mount

In keeping with the team design goal of minimizing system weight to maximize overall score at the
competition, an integrated solution that combined the leading edge of the centerbody airfoil with the motor
th
mount was implemented. Experimental results indicated that a 1/8 inch piece of birch plywood was
sufficient to withstand the torque and static thrust of the motor.

5.3.8 Landing Skid/Launch Grip

The landing skid is made from two pieces of birch plywood attached to the centerbody via the two main
ribs. The spacing enables the skid to double as the grip when hand-launching the aircraft. A wheel is
attached on an axle spanning the two parts of the grip to enable ground roll upon landing.

Figure 5.3: Detail views of the landing gear and winglet

5.3.9 Winglets/Wingtip Skids

The winglets are made of Depron, a low density foam, cut to the shape seen in Figure 5.3. The wingtip
skids are bent metal wires that are attached directly to the winglets. This structure is then attached to the
ribs on the outboard sections with epoxy glue.

5.3.10 Suitcase
The suitcase selected is a standard commercially available carry-on suitcase. The external dimensions of
the suitcase are 21 by 8.25 by 14 inches. The internal dimensions are 20.5 by 8 by 13. The sum of the
external dimensions is 43.25, within the 45 inch limit. The rules require that the aircraft must fit inside this
suitcase, as shown in Figure 5.4.

36
 Figure 5.4: The aircraft unassembled to fit in the suitcase

5.3.11 Component Summary

The full list of selected components for There Will Be Buzz is tabulated below in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Selected components

Components Description
Motor Hacker A10-9L
Battery 6 cell 700mAh
Speed Controller Phoenix 10
Receiver Spektrum 6255
Transmitter JR PCM10X
Servos Futaba S3114

5.4 Weight and Balance

An important aspect of stability is correct C.G. measurements. To measure the C.G., a simple calculator
was created that consisted of a list of all components, the weights of all components, and the locations of
the components along the various axes. The weight and balance was first estimated using the CAD
model and then confirmed with the prototype. The moments of inertia were calculated in similar fashion.
The results for empty and loaded scenarios are given in Table 5.3. The x-axis was measured positive aft
of the nose of the aircraft. The predicted C.G. location from the CAD is shown in Figure 5.5.

37
 Table 5.3: Weight and balance chart

Empty Weight Steel Bar Payload

CG location CG location
Weight Moment Weight Moment
Component (in.) Component (in.)
(lbs.) (in.-lbs) (lbs.) (in.-lbs)
(x-direction) (x-direction)
Center Section 0.230 3.681 0.847 Aircraft 0.604 2.593 1.566
Wing Sections 0.012 8.076 0.097 Steel Bar
0.600 3.725 2.235
Ailerons 0.001 11.987 0.012 Payload
Servos 0.010 8.753 0.088 Total 1.204 3.157 3.801
Motor 0.051 0.336 0.017
Batteries 0.167 2.065 0.345 Golf Ball Payload
Receiver 0.012 1.138 0.014 CG location
Weight Moment
Receiver Battery 0.053 1.330 0.071 Component (in.)
(lbs.) (in.-lbs)
Speed Controller 0.015 1.388 0.021 (x-direction)
Aircraft 0.604 2.593 1.566
Landing Gear 0.022 2.553 0.056
Golf Balls 0.600 3.452 2.071
Propeller 0.009 -0.268 -0.002
Winglets 0.022 10.393 0.229 Total 1.204 3.021 3.637
Aircraft Total 0.604 2.593 1.566

Figure 5.5: C.G. Location on CAD model

5.5 Flight and Mission Performance

5.5.1 Flight Performance

The flight performance of the aircraft is described by point performance of the vehicle. The maximum
velocity of the aircraft occurs at the point when the thrust required is equal to the thrust available. The
thrust available was calculated from the MATLAB simulation and propulsive system selected earlier in
Section 4.2.2. Multiple propellers were selected to evaluate their effectiveness at higher velocities. The
thrust required curve was calculated from Equation 5.1, where CD,0 and k were calculated in Section 4.4.3.

= 𝝆𝒗 𝑫,𝟎 +𝒌 (5.1)
𝝆𝒗

The graph of the thrust available/required versus velocity is shown below in Figure 5.6.

38
 0.7
Thrust Available or Required, lbs 8x4.3
0.6 8x6
9x4.7
0.5
Treq M2/3
0.4
Treq M1
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Velocity, fps

Figure 5.6: Thrust available and thrust required vs. velocity

This data was used to find the maximum velocity for each mission. Stall speed was calculated from the
value of CLmax along with the maximum load factors determined in Section 5.2. Using maximum velocity,
the turn radius and time for a 360° could be calculated for each mission. The values are tabulated in
Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Aircraft mission performance parameters

Mission 1 Mission 2/3

Vstall (ft/sec) 21 29.7
Vmax (ft/sec) 48 46
Load Factor 5.0 2.5
Turn Radius (ft) 14.6 28.6
Time for 360° (s) 1.91 3.9

5.5.2 Mission Performance

The lap trajectory was calculated using the mission simulation described in the previous section using the
final propulsion system and aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane. The velocity profile for the first
two laps of Mission 1 using an 8x6 propeller is shown in Figure 5.7. The velocity deficits correspond to the
required turns over the course of each lap.

39
 35
Lap 1 Lap 2

30
Velocity (mph)

25

20

15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s)

Figure 5.7: Velocity profile prediction for Mission 1 with an 8x6 propeller

The estimated average lap time for each mission configuration using each different propeller option is
displayed in Table 5.5. From the table it is clear that using the 8x6 propeller is best for minimizing lap time
in the first mission and maximizing scoring potential.

Table 5.5: Predicted mission performance for various aircraft-propeller combinations

Lap
Mission Propeller
Time(s)
M1 8x4.3 53.6
M1 8x6 47.4
M1 9x4.7 52.8
M2/3 8x4.3 63.6
M2/3 8x6 55.9
M2/3 9x4.7 61.7

5.6 Drawing Package

The following four pages illustrate the detailed CAD of There Will Be Buzz. A three-view diagram and
payload configuration with relevant dimensions of the aircraft is shown. Exploded views are also included
to show the internal structure of the aircraft.

40
Misplaced views, needs revisiting
 6. MANUFACTURING PLAN AND PROCESSES
Correct materials and manufacturing techniques, alongside appropriate build planning, are the essential
steps between design and fly. Following a qualitative investigation, the team selected manufacturing
processes that would accurately translate the design discussed above into a successful aircraft.

6.1 Manufacturing Processes Selected

There Will Be Buzz sought to further refine and push the envelope of the manufacturing techniques
developed in previous years, and to transfer construction knowledge to newer team members. Built-up
balsa was selected as the manufacturing process, detailed in Table 6.1:

Table 6.1: Built-up balsa manufacturing technique

Manufacturing Component Material / Technique

Principal material Competition Grade balsa wood
Other materials Local fiber reinforcements
Adhesive CA, or epoxy if needed
Coating Ultracote
Part manufacture CAD-guided laser cutting
Part assembly Designed-to-fit jigsaw pieces

The manufacturing process in Table 6.1 was selected because of the team’s confidence and proven
capability to not only produce the aircraft to specification, but also to build a very light structure, which the
team outlined as one of the design requirements. Further reasons for choosing built-up balsa over other
techniques are detailed in the next section.

Of the many different ways to apply built-up balsa, the team chose specific techniques and materials that
would minimize the aircraft structure’s weight without compromising its strength. These strategies are:

Selective material use: since balsa wood can vary significantly in density and strength, the team
sorted its entire stock of balsa by weight. The lightest pieces were selected for construction and were sent
to the team’s in-house laser cutter, with lightest of those being reserved for the final competition aircraft.

Local reinforcements: because very low density balsa was used, the structure lacked strength in
several key locations. Rather than over-building the entire aircraft to compensate, these locations were
reinforced with composites or additional balsa, adding strength at minimal penalty in weight.

Light sheeting: the leading edge of the airfoil must be sheeted in order to maintain its shape while
being coated. Since this process covers a large area with balsa wood, adding weight, the team used

45
1/16” sheeting instead of thicker sheets, as seen in Figure 6.1. The thinner sheeting offered sufficient
leading-edge definition and structural torsional stiffness with little weight penalty.

Figure 6.1: The team fitting balsa sheeting to the aircraft

Lightening holes: because the team uses a very concentrated, localized structure, most other
members do not experience significant loading. Where possible, the team laser-cut lightening holes into
ribs and bulkheads to reduce weight with little losses in the overall stiffness of the aircraft.

Coating: most balsa aircraft are coated with Monokote, which is durable and easy to handle.
However, the team chose to use the more delicate Ultracote because it is much lighter.

6.2 Manufacturing Processes Investigated

Although the team had a well-established technique in built-up balsa, other manufacturing processes
were investigated as well. That is because every new set of rules requires team members to re-think
conventional designs and materials to produce a winning design. The candidate aircraft manufacturing
processes were qualitatively compared using Figures of Merit, detailed below and summarized in Table
6.2.

Weight: similarly to conceptual design, weight is still the most important factor for any design
decision, and is assigned a FOM of 5.

Reparability: with the new hand launch requirement, and ever-present unknown factors, the
reparability of the aircraft in case of an accident or a crash had to be accounted for, and was assigned a
FOM of 2.

46
 Ease of Manufacture: the ability to produce the aircraft to specification is critical to it performing
according to predictions, and is directly related to Ease of Manufacture; it was therefore assigned a FOM
of 3.

Experience: the team’s knowledge was given some weighting because it relates to the ability to
produce good results effectively and quickly, as well as to refine existing techniques. However, since the
team is always willing to learn new techniques, Experience was only assigned a FOM of 2.

Cost: keeping in mind that the team has limited resources, Cost was inevitably added as a FOM.
However, since the team emphasizes winning above all, Cost was assigned a FOM of only 1.

Table 6.2: Manufacturing FOM weighting

Figure of Merit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Weight 5
Reparability 2
Ease of Manufacture 3
Experience 2
Cost 1

The manufacturing processes and materials common to remote control aircraft construction that were
investigated are:

Built-up Balsa: stocks of competition grade balsa wood are laser cut from CAD parts and are
glued together using cyanoacrylate (CA) adhesive to form the skeleton of the aircraft. It is then locally
reinforced with fiberglass or carbon fiber if necessary, and coated with Ultracote heat shrink film.

Foam Core Composite: large blocks of foam are cut with a hot-wire or CNC router to form the
basic shape of the aircraft. Structural reinforcements are locally added if needed, and the entire foam-
core is coated in fiberglass or carbon fiber, adding strength as a monocoque.

Molded Composite: this process is similar in principle to a foam core; however, the foam parts are
only used to mold the composites and are then removed, with the fiberglass or carbon fiber also acting as
a monocoque structure.

The processes were evaluated against each other by assigning each FOM a score, with 5 indicating a
superior choice, 3 an average choice, and 1 an inferior choice. All methods were assumed to result in an
aircraft designed for an identical load. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 6.3:

47
 Table 6.3: Weighting for various manufacturing techniques

Manufacturing Process
Built-up Foam Core Molded
FOM Weight
Balsa Composites Composites
Weight 5 5 3 5
Reparability 2 3 1 1
Ease of Manufacture 3 3 3 1
Experience 2 5 3 3
Cost 1 5 3 1
Total 13 55 35 37

This table shows that built-up balsa is the clear choice for the construction of the compact flying wing
design. Moreover, the wide margin of superiority of balsa over other processes indicates that personal
experience was not the only differentiating factor in the choice of manufacturing process.

6.3 Manufacturing Milestones

A milestone chart was established at the beginning of aircraft manufacture to ensure a logical, consistent
order was followed during construction. Progress was recorded and monitored by the team leader to
ensure all major milestones were met. The milestone chart is shown below in Figure 6.2, capturing
planned and actual timing of major events.

Design Week 20-Feb-11 27-Feb-11 6-Mar-11 13-Mar-11 20-Mar-11

Prototype 3 Aircraft Assembly > Estimated

Laser Cut Parts
Main Section Assembly > Actual
Sub Wing Assembly
Attach Landing Gear
Insert Servos and Wiring
Assemble Ailerons
Ultracote

Final Aircraft Assembly

Laser Cut Parts
Main Section Assembly
Sub Wing Assembly
Attach Landing Gear
Insert Servos and Wiring
Assemble Ailerons
Ultracote c

Figure 6.2: Aircraft manufacturing milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of objectives

48
 7. TESTING PLAN
The goal of testing is to determine whether the aircraft and its various subsystems are capable and
operable in line with the theory that guided the various design phases. Moreover, this section details the
planning and main objectives of the various tests performed, with methods and results discussed in
Section 8.

7.1 Objectives and Schedules

The testing was broken up into three main categories: propulsion, structures, and performance. The
propulsion and structures subsystems were tested before flying the whole aircraft if possible; this was in
order to gain knowledge and set realistic and useful objectives at each test flight. The testing breakdown
with objectives and dates is detailed in Table 7.1:

Table 7.1: Testing objective and schedules

Category Component Objectives Dates

Determine discharge curves
Batteries 10/6 – 11/4
Find battery resistance
Propulsion
Determine static thrust
Propeller 11/5 – 11/22
Validate propeller theory model
Wings Satisfy 2.5g wingtip test 11/7 – 12/10
Structures
Landing Gear Achieve successful landing 11/8

Verify mission capability

Performance Record flight data to validate 11/8 –
Whole Aircraft
(Flight Test) mission models 4/15/2011
Gain pilot 'stick-time'

The testing schedule is better visualized in the following Gantt chart, shown in Figure 7.1:

49
 Design Month Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11

Subsytem Testing > Estimated

Battery Testing
Propeller Testing > Actual
Structural Testing

Prototype 1 Flight Testing

Proof of Concept
Test Motor Capability
Test Propeller Capability
Mission 1 Timings

Prototype 2 Flight Testing

Test Alternative Landing Gear
Test Alternative Propellers
Test Increasing Payload Weight

Prototype 3 Flight Testing

Test Launch Capability
Test Laps for Mission 1
Test Max Payload for Mission 2
Test Golf Ball Max for Mission 3

Final Aircraft Flight Testing

Test Launch Capability
Test Laps for Mission 1
Test Max Payload for Mission 2
Test Golf Ball Max for Mission 3

Figure 7.1: Aircraft and subsystem testing milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of
objectives

7.2 Checklists

Various tests have specific procedures which must be followed accurately down to the last step in order
to produce the desired objectives and ensure safety. This section lists the checklists utilized by There Will
Be Buzz while conducting tests that required a significant amount of steps, such as propulsion and flight
tests.

7.2.1 Propulsion Test Checklist

The checklist in Figure 7.2 was created to ensure safety while dealing with propellers and electrical
equipment, and to make sure the test is not wasted due to some mistake in preparation. It applies to both
battery and propeller tests, since both utilize an identical setup.

50
 Propulsion Test Checklist

1. Batteries peaked?

2. Receiver off?

3. All plugs secured?

4. Propeller secured?

5. Motor mount secured?

6. Data system on?

7. Receiver on, throttle down?

8. All clear of propeller plane?

Figure 7.2: Propulsion test checklist

7.2.2 Flight Test Checklist

The checklist in Figure 7.3 was created with the extremely important goal of preventing any system from
malfunctioning in mid-air, which could lead to the aircraft crashing; its thorough execution is paramount to
the team’s success, and it will be used in the DBF event as well.

Pre-Flight Checklist
Electrical Payload
Main Batteries:
Correct weight? Securely fastened?
Charged? Hot?

Receiver Batteries: Aircraft

Charged? Hot?
CG correct? Propeller secure?
Secure connections:
All receiver slots? All power plugs? Wing sections secure?

Data systems?

Final Checks Signatures

Chief Engineer _____________________
Receiver On? Control surfaces work?

Pilot _____________________
Lid secure? CG re-verified?

Faculty Advisor _____________________

Hand grip functional? Visual inspection OK?

Figure 7.3: Pre-flight checklist

51
 8. PERFORMANCE RESULTS
8.1 Component and Subsystem Performance

8.1.1 Propulsion
Batteries: Two different battery packs were tested on the propulsion test stand with the data for
each run recorded using a data acquisition system. Both battery packs were run at full throttle using the
Hacker motor with an 8x4.3 propeller until they were exhausted. The resulting data for power and RPM is
plotted in Figure 8.1. It is clear from the graph that the 400mAh pack provides grossly insufficient capacity
to complete the 4 minutes of flight time at full throttle required to maximize the number of laps for Mission
1. This testing data supports the MATLAB simulation performed in Section 4.2.2 and validates the
propulsion system selected.

9000 50
6 Cell 700mAh – RPM
48
8500 7 Cell 400mAh – RPM
46
6 Cell 700mAh – Power
8000 7 Cell 400mAh – Power 44

42

Power (W)
7500
RPM

40
7000
38

6500 36

34
6000
32

5500 30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Time (s)

Figure 8.1: Power discharge curves and RPM data for various battery packs

Propeller: A range of propellers were also tested on the propulsion test stand to verify the static
thrust predictions made in Section 5.5.2 of the report. For each test the 6 cell 700mAh battery pack was
used with the Hacker motor. The results of this testing are compared to the previous predictions in Figure
8.2 and Table 8.1. The analytical results are quite good, except that the thrust is slightly under predicted
for the 8x6 propeller. This underprediction could be due to the higher pitch-to-diameter ratio for the 8x6
resulting in decreased accuracy in the analytical tool.

52
 0.7
Predicted Thrust
0.6
Actual Thrust
0.5
Static Thrust (lbs)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
8x4.3 8x6 9x4.7
Propeller

Figure 8.2: Comparison of predicted to actual thrust for various propellers

Table 8.1: Numerical comparison of thrust for various propellers

Measured Predicted %
Propeller
Thrust (lbs) Thrust (lbs) Difference
8x4.3 0.50 0.51 -3%
8x6 0.46 0.41 13%
9x4.7 0.60 0.60 1%

8.1.2 Structural Tests

Wing Testing Results: The full size airplane was subjected to the required wing tip testing
specified in the rules as part of the technical inspection process. This was done by loading the payload
bay with the maximum expected payload of 0.6 lbs, corresponding to 6 golf balls, and lifting the airplane
by the wing tips. The successful test is shown in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3: Wingtip structural test with full payload

53
 Landing Gear Testing Results: The two landing gear options were tested via full flight test. Both
the dual and single wheel options were successful in landing without payload. Under full payload
conditions the dual wheel landing gear suffered plastic deformation in the wires, which in combination
with the substantial drag penalty involved in the dual wheel design led the team to select the single wheel
option for the final design.

8.2. System Performance

As of the time of this report, twenty-two flight tests have been performed on two different airplanes. On a
number of these flights a data acquisition system taking ten measurements each second was added to
the airplane to record data on the propulsion system and trajectory. An example of a full lap trajectory is
displayed in Figure 8.4 superimposed on satellite imagery using Google Earth.

Figure 8.4: Trajectory of aircraft during competition laps from GPS data

The velocity profile for a Mission 1 flight is shown in Figure 8.5. The GPS speed corresponds to ground
speed, such that there is a significant difference depending on if the airplane is flying with or against the
wind. From this graph it can be estimated that the approximate wind speed during that flight was ~7-8
mph, assuming the airplane was flying at approximately its top airspeed for each straight line mission
segment. Another note to make is that the GPS speed is artificially low during turns, as the data refresh
rate is not high enough to characterize the tight turns of the airplane. The figure also shows the airplane
completing five laps in four minutes and twenty seconds. The airplane should therefore have no difficulty
finishing four laps, but will most likely be unable to complete a fifth.

54
 60

50

40
GPS Speed (mph)

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (s)

Figure 8.5: Velocity profile for Mission 1 flight test

The power output of the electrical motor throughout the flight was also recorded, as shown in Figure 8.6.
The pilot maintained full throttle throughout the flight, excepting a small period near the end, and this is
borne out by the results shown in the graph. The average power output of approximately 39 Watts is fairly
close to the predicted power output of ~45 Watts.

60

50

40
Power (W)

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (s)

Figure 8.6: Power output of propulsion system during Mission 1 flight test

55
A comparison of the velocity profile for just the first lap is compared with the predicted trajectory in the
detailed design section of the report in Figure 8.7. They are similar, but the predicted lap time is
approximately 8 seconds shorter than the actual. This can be explained by the theory ignoring the effect
of wind, any imperfections in the pilot trajectory relative to an ideal path, and any uncertainties in the
predictions for the aerodynamic or propulsion estimates used to develop the predictions.

50
45
40
Ground Speed (mph)

35
30
25
20
GPS Speed
15
Predicted Speed
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)

Figure 8.7: Graphical comparison of predicted Mission 1 flight profile to actual

The average lap times for a range of propellers for different missions is shown in Table 8.2 from both
flight test results and the performance predictions. The predicted lap times are uniformly shorter than the
actual, due to the reasons mentioned above.

Table 8.2: Numerical comparison of predicted mission lap times to actual

Actual Lap Predicted Lap

Propeller
Times (s) Time (s)
8x4.3 63.8 53.6
Mission 1 8x6 52.5 47.4
9x4.7 61.3 53.8
Mission 2/3 8x4.3 73.5 63.6

56
 Figure 8.8: Example of hand-launched flight test

57
 9. REFERENCES

th
Anderson. J. D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 4 edition, McGraw Hill.

Bauchau, O. A., & Craig, J. I. (January 7, 2009). Aerospace Structural Analysis. Springer.

Drela, M., & Youngren, H. (2008, 08 04). AVL. Retrieved 01 10, 2009, from
[[Link]

Drela, M., & Youngren, H. (2008, 04 07). XFOIL. Retrieved 10 01 2008, from Subsonic Airfoil
Development System: [[Link]

nd
Hoerner, Sighard F. Fluid Dynamic Drag. 2 . Published by author, 1965.

Katz, Joseph and Maskew, Brian. “Unsteady low-speed aerodynamic model for complete aircraft
configurations,” Journal of Aircraft. Vol. 25, pp. 302-310. Apr. 1988.

McDaniel, Katie et al. (2008). Georgia Institute of Technology Team Buzzed. Editor: Johnson, Carl.

Phillips, Warren F. Mechanics of Flight. 1st. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004.

Roskam, Jan. Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls Part I. Darcorp, 2007.

Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design Part VI. Darcorp, 2000.

Selig, M. (2008, 02 19). UIUC Airfoil Data Site. Retrieved 10 01, 2008, from [[Link]/m-
selig/[Link]].

58