Aeronautical Engineering II

Design of a Two Seat Standard Glider for Maximum Endurance

Dafydd Hayward 1105759 Grace Hynd 1086473 Michael Kontou 1120774 Jarrod Mutton 1104863

Aeronautical Engineering II

Conceptual Design
Weight

Calculation

Sensitivity Analysis Aircraft Sizing

Conceptual Design Weight Calculation

Aeronautical Engineering II

Data
We (Ibs) Schempp hirth ventus Advances aviation Sierra Schweizer SGS 2-33A Maupin woodstock one Maupin carbon dragon Marske monarch Rollanden schnieder LS-1 Marske pioneer II Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-13 Akafleig Hannover AFH 24 Schleicher ASW-20 Akaflieg Karlsruhe AK-5 standard Hanle H 101 salto Akaflieg braunshweig SB-12 Glaser dirks DG-400 517 154 598.4 234.3 119.9 220 506 358.6 594 528 572 539 400.4 523.6 682 Wto (Ibs) 1155 398.2 1038.4 448.8 299.2 448.8 858 649 957 1100 998.8 1067 616 990 1012

Conceptual Design Weight Calculation

Aeronautical Engineering II

Takeoff Weight Calculation

1000

Empty Weight (Ibs)

We = 0.566*Wto - 17.649

100 100

1000 Takeoff Weight (Ibs)

10000

Conceptual Design Weight Calculation

Aeronautical Engineering II

Aircraft Take-off Weight

3.20

3.00

2.80 log(Takeoff) Weight

logWto = 0.7861*logWe + 0.8328

2.60

2.40

2.20

2.00 2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

log (Empty Weight)

Conceptual Design Weight Calculation

Aeronautical Engineering II

Glider Weight Estimation 3000

2500

Take-Off Weight (lbs)

2000

WTO 1100lbs WE 600lbs

1500

1000

500

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 Empty Weight (lbs)

1400

1600

1800

2000

Conceptual Design Seinsitivity Analysis

Aeronautical Engineering II

Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Payload Weight

WTO WPL

= BWTO [ D C (1 B )WTO ]1 = 0.8328 1100[ 440]1 = 2.082

Conceptual Design Sensitivity Analysis

Aeronautical Engineering II

Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Payload Weight

WTO 1 inv W A B = BW [ log{(log ) / ] TO TO WE = 0.83281100 [invlog{(log 1100 0.7861 ) / 0.8328 ]1 = 2.082

Conceptual Design Sensitivity Analysis

Aeronautical Engineering II

Sensitivity of Take-off Weight to Other Parameters

WTO 2 C = {CWTO (1 B ) D}1 BWTO y y M ff C = (1 + M res ) y y = 0 because therefore WTO y M ff y = =0 0

now

Aeronautical Engineering II

Aircraft Sizing
Matching Diagram
100 90 80 70 60 W/hp 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 W/S (psf) 60 80 Stall Speed Take Off Distance Landing Distance FAR 23.65 RC FAR 23.65 CGR FAR 23.77 CGR Cruise Speed

Aeronautical Engineering II

Configuration Design
Design Considerations Control Surface Sizing Aerofoil Selection Empennage Configuration Landing Gear Material Selection Weight & Balance Analysis Stability & Control Analysis
Wing

Configuration Design Wing Design

Aeronautical Engineering II

Comparison of Wing Geometries and Take-off Weights for Standard Gliders

600

500 Schempp Hirth Ventus 400 Rollanden Schnieder LS-1 Schleicher ASW-20 Akaflieg Braunschweig SB-12 Glaser Dirks DG-200 SZD 56 Diana PZL 100

300

200

0 Wto (kg) Wing Loading (kg/m^2) Aspect Ratio Wing Area (m^2)

Configuration Design Control Surface Sizing

Aeronautical Engineering II

The calculation for the aileron sizing is shown below:

MAC % MAC CA

= 0.74m = 25% = 0.74 x 0.2 = 0.185m

Based on the Aeronautical Engineering II notes the ailerons will extend from 60% to 90% of the wingspan. This relates to a length of 2.25m per aileron.

Configuration Design Aerofoil Selection

Aeronautical Engineering II

Comparison of NACA "6 digit" aerofoil at Re 1 000 000 and 3 000 000 (Soaring Australia, 2006)

Comparison of old section and "6 digit" NACA section (Soaring Australia, 2006)

Aeronautical Configuration Design Empennage Configuration Engineering II

Glider with T-tail Empennage Configuration (Glossary of Glider Parts, 2007)

Horizontal Tail with Elevator (Frati 1946)

Directional Stability of Aircraft Showing Side-force Lift (Frati 1946)

Aeronautical Configuration Design Empennage Configuration Engineering II

Vertical tail surface area, SV

= (VV S MAC) xV = (0.12 10 0.74) 4.2 = 0.211 m2

Horizontal tail surface area, SH

= (VH S MAC) xH = (1.1 10 0.74) 4.4 = 1.85 m2

Configuration Design Landing Gear

Aeronautical Engineering II

Longitudinal Tip-over Criterion for Taildraggers (Roskam 2004)

Ground Clearance Criteria for Gear Placement (Roskam 2004)

Configuration Design Landing Gear

Aeronautical Engineering II

WTO Main Gear Tail Gear Pt Pm lm lm + lt lt

Pm = 483 N

Pt = 17 N

Configuration Design Landing Gear

Aeronautical Engineering II

Main Gear Tyre

Tail Gear Tyre

Diameter, Dt (in.)

12

Width, bt (in.)

3.4

Pressure, p (psi)

45

25

Configuration Design Material Selection

Aeronautical Engineering II

Composites

Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Aramid Fibre Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)

Aeronautical Configuration Design Weight & Balance Analysis Engineering II

Centre of Gravity Position The CG of the aircraft in the x-direction can be found using the following equation:

X CG =

W X
i =1 n i

W
i =1

Equation 3-2: CG position in x-direction Therefore the position of CG in the x-direction is:
85.05 2.243 + 121.5 3.315 + 21.5 7.75 + 2.77 6.94 + 12.15 2.7 243

X CG =

The CG of the aircraft in the y-direction can be found using the following equation:

YCG =

W Y
i =1 n

i i

W
i =1

Equation 3-3 CG position in y-direction Therefore the position of CG in the y-direction is:

YCG =

85.05 1.4 + 121.5 1.4 + 21.5 2.0 + 2.77 1.75 + 12.15 1.0 243

Aeronautical Configuration Design Stability & Control Analysis Engineering II

Vertical X-Plot
0.0025

0.002

0.0015 Directional Stability (degrees^-1)

0.001

0.0005

0 0 -0.0005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-0.001

-0.0015

-0.002 Vertical Tail Area m^2

Aeronautical Engineering II

Conclusion