49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

4 - 7 January 2011, Orlando, Florida

AIAA 2011-840

Design, Construction, and Testing of RC Aircraft for a

Hybrid Propulsion System
Andrew Deschenes,1 Kayleigh Brown,2 Alexandra Sobin,3 and Gregory West4
Daniel Webster College, Nashua, NH 03063

Due to the increasing demand for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), an efficient, high
endurance aircraft is a particular item of interest. Currently, aircraft in industry are
constrained by the amount of fuel carried; hybrid systems could significantly increase the
endurance, thereby expand sortie options. For the purpose of this project, a remote
controlled (RC) electric aircraft will be designed to interchange with a hybrid power plant
system. The hybrid system will incorporate photovoltaic (PV) cells, motor, batteries, and an
internal combustion engine (ICE) into the fuselage structure of the aircraft. The comparison
between the all-electric and hybrid systems will be conducted by three undergraduate teams,
Daniel Webster College (DWC), University of Colorado Boulder (UCB), and University of
Massachusetts Lowell (UML). The desired outcome is to double the endurance of the
aircraft, optimizing a traditional RC aircrafts endurance from an original flight time of 15
minutes to a minimum of one half hour. In a more general scope, the objective of this project
is to accurately determine the difference in power plant configurations and assess the
viability of such a hybrid system. The DWC and UML teams will be required to deliver an
aircraft capable of interchanging their all-electric system with the hybrid power plant
system produced from UCB. Conclusions will be drawn about the practicality of a hybrid
system in todays UAV industry by determining the disparity between an all-electric versus a
hybrid configuration when each team integrates their respective systems and flight test midApril. This paper describes the design, construction, and testing of such an RC airplane that
is optimized with maximum endurance and meets the requirements of both systems.

Nomenclature
CG
DWC
EM
HPS
ICE
LiPo
PV
RC
RPM
SLUF
UAV
UCB
UML

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

center of gravity
Daniel Webster College
electric motor
hybrid propulsion system
internal combustion engine
lithium polymer
photovoltaic cells
remote controlled
revolutions per minute
steady level unaccelerated flight
unmanned air vehicle
University of Colorado Boulder
University of Massachusetts Lowell

I. Introduction

n unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has been steadily increasing in demand for decades and therefore, is an
excellent platform to develop more efficient, future aircraft technologies. The steadily increasing market
demand for UAVs can be seen in the large 17% increase in revenue of UAV sales from 2009 to 2010 that
AeroVironment, Inc. has seen, the first company who developed a man-portable UAV. Others, such as Visiongain,
expected the global UAV market to reach nearly $7.2 billion in 2009. Overall, there is much evidence to show that
1, 2, 3, 4

Undergraduate Aeronautical Engineering Student, 20 University Dr, Nashua, NH 03063, Student Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

UAVs are becoming an integral part of the aviation market and on the rise due to their considerable value
strategically and tactically.
Some research has been conducted by Queensland University of Technology which involved developing and
testing a hybrid powerplant system for a UAV in order to increase their operational platform. They obtained,
through a flight dynamic model, that the hybrid powerplant system could improve the climb rate and endurance 56%
and 13%, respectively. However, these results were through simulation and still need to be verified through
experimental testing. Therefore, it is through this design project, that the feasibility of a hybrid system will be
experimentally tested.
This project is intended to analyze the effects of varying power plant configurations by integrating a hybrid
power plant system into a remotely controlled (RC) UAV. Comparisons between the varying configurations are
conducted by three undergraduate teams from Daniel Webster College (DWC), University of Colorado Boulder
(UCB), and University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML). The DWC and UML teams will deliver the RC aircraft
capable of interchanging their all-electric propulsion system with the hybrid propulsion system (HPS) produced by
the UCB team. The integrated hybrid system combines an internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric motor (EM)
through a mechanically additive gearbox to collaboratively drive the aircrafts propeller. Power to the EM is
provided by batteries and photovoltaic (PV) cells located on the upper surface of the high mounted wing.
Conclusions will be drawn about the practicality of a hybrid system in todays UAV industry by comparing the
disparities between an all-electric or all-fuel aircraft and a hybrid configuration. The objective of this project is to
accurately determine the difference in efficiency for multiple power plant configurations and assess the viability of a
hybrid system that might be scaled up to general aviation systems.
The three teams incorporate material and mechanical design, flight dynamics, aerodynamics, and propulsion to
engineer a hybrid UAV. This project extends from conception and design throughout the fall semester to
implementation and operation during the spring semester using the systems engineering knowledge acquired
throughout the curriculum. DWC, UCB, and UML also face the challenges of integrating effectively across remote
work locations: Nashua, NH, Boulder, CO, and Lowell, MA, a realistic constraint encountered in industry. Such
distributed working relationships are becoming standard in engineering business models. This project signifies the
essence of engineering and team collaboration; a tri-joint project that brings bright minds from across the country
together to apply the knowledge obtained in college for one common goal.

II. Aircraft Design

A. Design Summary
The design of this aircraft was optimized around two specific parameters, weight and endurance. As such, the total
size and drag of the aircraft was minimized to the greatest extent possible. Also, due to the required PV cells, the
aircraft is required to be a high-wing aircraft to give the maximum surface area on which to mount the solar cells. In
order to minimize the drag and weight, the main design consideration is that the aircraft be as small as reasonably
possible. To do this, the aircraft was designed for a limit load of 1.5g over the entire aircraft. This rating allows for
some excess forces on the aircraft due to maneuvering, flight, and environmental conditions while still allowing for
minimal structural weight. The second method used to minimize these two factors was that the aircraft center of
gravity (CG) and center of pressure at the wing coincide, this serves to decrease the moment created about the wing
and thus decrease the force needed at the tail to trim and maneuver the aircraft. The last consideration made to
decrease the weight and drag was to
design the aircraft for belly landings
and not have a landing gear system.
This decision led to the most
significant structural requirements for
the aircraft, namely that the aircraft
must be able to takeoff by hand
launching and survive a belly landing
without damage.
The current design uses an 11.1
foot wing span manufactured from
multiple balsa and plywood ribs,
carbon fiber reinforced spars, and
wrapped with Ultracote. The first
Figure 1. First prototype of DWC and UML aircraft
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

prototype is referenced in Fig. 1. This wing is connected through the use of two extended ribs which are inserted
into the fuselage where they are secured to a mount connected to the fuselage. The fuselage is a bulkhead and
stringer structure with carbon fiber base. A conventional tail design with both a horizontal and vertical stabilizer is
constructed out of foam and covered with a single layer of fiber glass which is connect to the fuselage by a tail
boom. This tail boom, constructed of reinforced carbon fiber tubing, stretches from a connection piece on the
fuselage to the control surfaces. Lastly, the propulsion system for the DWC all-electric aircraft consists of a single
Scorpion motor, foldable propeller, and lithium polymer battery pack. The system is connected such that the
propeller shaft runs through the nose cone to an aluminum and birch mount, attached to the front fuselage bulkhead.
Due to the lack of a landing gear, the propeller must stop in the horizontal position in order to ensure a safe landing
on the belly of the fuselage. Therefore, the nose cone has been designed to stop the foldable propeller horizontally
upon landing and constructed through 3D printing at UML.
B. Wing Design
1. Detailed Design
UCB has required a minimum L/Dmax of 10 (with a target of 12), a wing surface area more than 1300 in2
(approximately 9 ft2), and an airframe weight (excluding power plant weight) of 6 lbs. In addition to these
parameters, the chord of the wing must be chosen with manufacturing feasibility in mind. Due to the airfoil
selection, a chord length of anything less than 12 inches would result in an extremely thin trailing and leading edge.
These requirements and design analysis led to the
finalized design. The geometry of the wing is
rectangular and has a planform area of 11.1 ft2,
with a one foot chord and utilizes an airfoil shape
of S-1223. There is no dihedral, angle of
incidence, or sweep. It is constructed into three
sections, an inboard and two outboard segments.
The ailerons are strip ailerons and use the entire
span of the wing, partitioned at the section joints
and fuselage. Each control surface will have an
individual servo to provide sufficient control
authority. The attachment of the wing to the
fuselage will be two center ribs, unique in
geometry in that they are extended below the wing
and bolted to the sides of the fuselage by a total of
four screws. The wing is shown as designed in
Figure 2. Wing design in SolidWorks
SolidWorks in Fig. 2.
2. Assembly and Construction
In order to provide a means to assemble the aircraft efficiently at the flight testing area as well as for ease of
shipping to UCB, the wing is constructed into three separate segments. The spars in the inboard section have an
inner diameter equal to that of the outer diameters spars of the outboard sections. This allows for the outboard
sections to slide into the inboard sections and pin the two pieces together. A one inch space between ribs at this
joint is where the attachment between sections is placed. A hole is positioned between these ribs in order for a cotter
pin to be placed so movement of the outboard wings is restricted. When at the flight test area, the wings will be
assembled together and 2 inch packing tape (or the equivalent) will be used at this attachment point to act as
Ultracote and ensure laminar flow over the wing during flight. The makeup of the wing includes: 1/8 inch balsa,
3/16 and 1/16 inch birch plywood, 1 mm Depron foam, commercial off the shelf carbon fiber tubes (0.062 inch wall
thickness), Ultracote, and four servos with attachment accessories. As an overview, the ribs, excluding the middle
and outer ribs which are 3/16 inch birch plywood are 1/8 inch balsa. The 1 mm Depron foam is used for structure at
the leading edge of the wing and 1/8 inch balsa is used for the trailing edge. The aileron is made up of 1/16 inch
birch plywood.
3. Control Surfaces
Strip ailerons cover 10% of the wings trailing edge. This value was determined by comparing conventional
ailerons which are normally at the outboard sections of the wing. Strip ailerons have their center of area relatively
closer to the aircrafts CG and therefore produces less adverse yaw. Referring to historical trend lines, ailerons
spanning the entire length of a wing would have an aileron to wing chord ratio of 0.10, therefore 10%. Each side has
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

two servos, all having an output of 126 ounces of force per inch. The servos are positioned in the middle of each
section so that sufficient control authority can be obtained. The servos are mounted to a rib which has been modified
with birch plywood for a structurally rigid attachment point.
C. Tail Design
1. Detailed Design
The detailed design of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers consists of a conventional tail configuration. This
design calls for a single vertical stabilizer attached to two horizontal stabilizer surfaces. Both tail surfaces utilize the
NACA 0012S airfoil, a symmetrical airfoil with low drag at zero incident angle of the surfaces. Initial tail sizing was
developed in the preliminary design phase. The detailed final sizing of the tail used the initial numbers calculated
and adjusted them slightly to compensate for material weakness. The final tail sizes are shown in the following
table, Table 1.

Stabilizer

Root Chord, in

Tip Chord, in

Span, in

Wing LE to Tail LE, in

Actual Weight, lbs

Horizontal

10

42

42.2

0.20

Vertical

12

15

45.3

0.32

2. Construction
The initial construction plans called for a composite shell to be used for the tail surfaces. Over the past few
months the construction method was slightly altered. Instead of a strictly composite shell, the tail surfaces are made
up of a foam core surrounded by a single layer of fiberglass. All of these changes were completed after meeting and
advise from MIT and UML. The first step in the tail construction was to manufacture the foam cores. These foam
cores are how the structure gains its shape. Therefore, any imperfections in the foam will carry through to the final
product. The foam cores used on the first prototype were cut using MITs CNC foam cutter. Tail surfaces for future
prototypes will be cut using a similar CNC foam cutter located in DWCs composite lab. These foam cutters use two
actuated towers to move a hot wire through a foam block, cutting out a smooth shape of the airfoil across the span of
the foam. Once the pieces were cut, limited sanding was performed to smooth rough spots and remove
imperfections.
After the completion of manufacturing the
foam cores, a single layer of fiberglass was
laid up over them. For the first prototype, this
process was done at UMLs composite
laboratory. The foam was covered with a
single layer of fiberglass cloth and then
coated in epoxy. The piece was then placed
in a vacuum bag and set in the oven to cure.
The vacuum bag created a strong bond
between the fiber glass and foam while
removing excess epoxy thus saving weight.
The vacuum bag also ensured a smooth
surface for the finished product. The detailed
SolidWorks model of the tail is referenced in
Fig. 3.
Figure 3. Tail design in SolidWorks
3. Control Surfaces
When the finalized tail surfaces were returned from the UML laboratory it was determined that when attempting to
cut the foam, the fiberglass composite created too much risk of delaminating and weakening the entire structure.
Instead, the design was changed to incorporate a two inch long balsa wood control surface attached at the trailing
edge of the composite structure. This created a much easier build process as well as increasing the tail surface area,
allowing for better control. Note that the added length to the control surface chord is not taken into account in Table
1 above. The servos for the tail control surfaces were inserted into the foam. A hole was drilled out of the surface
and the servo was attached into place. The wiring runs through the tail boom with excess secured to the surfaces
with the use of packing tape to create a smooth surface.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4. Tail Boom Integration

It was documented that a shell empennage would be best. After further research and meeting with MIT, it was
decided to change the design to a tail boom. This decision allowed for easier manufacturing as well as reduced
weight. In order to connect the tail boom with the stabilizers, two composite spars were inserted into each foam
surface. These spars were then glued into place in the foam and on the other end, into the composite tail boom. The
foam adjacent to the tail boom was also glued to ensure a strong connection.
D. Fuselage Design
1. Detailed Design
The fuselage design is based off an internal wooden skeleton manufactured from birch plywood bulkheads and
balsa stringers connected with wood glue and superglue. This skeleton is connected to a carbon fiber underbelly
manufactured at UML. The two components are connected via epoxy joints. The estimated mass of this design from
SolidWorks is 1.11 lbs. The actual weight was measured to 1.09 lbs. Mounting for the UCB plate will be provided
by Lexan pieces attached to the balsa stringers on the floor of the engine compartment. The tail boom is attached to
the rear of the wing box with a Lexan mounting bracket and secured to the rear bulkhead.
2. Design Changes
After gathering advice from MIT, it was reinsured that the composite of base for this design could be secured to
the airframe through the use of epoxy at the joints. A suggestion was also made to not encircle the fuselage with
carbon fiber because it increases difficulty of fabrication. Lastly, it was suggested to look at lightweight plywood for
the significant load bearing structures as opposed to balsa. This lightweight ply is denser than balsa; however, it is
stronger and has the ability to be machined.
Given these suggestions, the airframe was redesigned to allow for simplified manufacture. A few inch balsa
bulkheads were created to match the initial specifications, but it was readily apparent from these test components
that the material would be unable to support the weight of the aircraft while in flight. Due to this, the main structural
components, the bulkheads and wing connection stringers were manufactured from 3/16 inch birch plywood. This
material is stiffer and stronger, leading to higher strength with an effectively negligible weight increase. The balsa
support bulkhead at the engine compartment was replaced with inch hardwood dowels running from the rear of
the wing box to the forward bulkhead. These dowels allowed the Ultracote covering something to adhere to and as
well as providing additional support. Along with the dowels, inch square balsa stringers have been added and run
from the rear of the wing box to the forward bulkhead. The last alteration was to the carbon fiber at the base of the
airframe, it was increased in height to 1.5 inch above the base of the fuselage to increase the rigidity and decrease
the additional stringers required for the Ultracote to adhere to.
Another significant change to the airframe design was the change of the shell tail to a tail boom. This change
allowed for a simplified procurement process for the tail as it could be simply purchased, as opposed to
manufactured through the use of multiple molds and copious amounts of acetone (to remove mold material from
shell as needed). This change necessitated
the design and manufacture of a connector
for the tube. The connector was essentially a
pipe connector attached directly to the rear
of the wing box at the bulkhead. The inner
diameter (ID) of the connector was
machined to be a tight slip fit where the
internal portion of the tail boom would be
glued with epoxy to the connector and
bulkhead. The tail boom was then cut into
two pieces, one internal to the fuselage, and
one external. These were connected by a
ferrule designed specifically to connect the
two pieces. The ferrule was connected to the
exterior boom via epoxy and secured to the
aircraft through means of pins through the
ferrule and inner tube. All of these
Figure 4. Fuselage design in SolidWorks
modifications resulted in the fuselage design
referenced in Fig. 4.
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3. Construction
While the design was being updated, the building of the aircraft had already commenced. The first two actions
undertaken by the group were to manufacture the bulkheads and wing stringers along with the fabrication of the
carbon fiber base. The wood components were manufactured through use of a commercial laser cutting company.
The carbon fiber was made in two distinct increments. The first step was a proof of concept piece, approximately 8
inches in length, manufactured at Daniel Webster. The carbon fiber material used for fabrication was a 3000 thread
plain weave carbon fiber fabric sheet with 60 minute work time (slow cure) epoxy. The fabric was laid out over a
mold manufactured from insulation foam which was then placed in a vacuum bag and cured through use of a
composite oven to rapidly cure the material. This attempt exceeded our manufacturing competence, with some some
small deformity at the edges where the vacuum bag material bunched up on the composite fabric and caused creases.
This was due to the fact that the initial vacuum bag leaked and the part had to be transferred to another vacuum bag
which turned out to be too large for the part.
The second step was to fabricate the actual full size prototype of the carbon fiber underbelly. The underbelly was
constructed at UMLs composite lab. The same composite materials were used for the second attempt. The layup of
the carbon fiber used in this design was a 0-90 / 45-45 / 0-90 layup. This provided maximum strength in the
longitudinal direction while still providing torsional resistance from the center ply. The manufacturing of this
component went as planned and cured without any significant difficulties.
Once the underbelly was manufactured and the structural components were received from the laser cutter, the
construction of the wooden airframe was initiated. This entire assembly was then installed into the carbon fiber
underbelly of the aircraft. Once the load bearing bulkheads have been integrated with the underbelly, the balsa
stringers were attached using superglue. The rear tail boom attachment has been manufactured on the lathe out of
lexan and is screwed onto the rear bulkhead. Since the completion of the first prototype and flight testing, a second
prototype of the aircraft has been completed. The second prototype of the fuselage only included two layers of
carbon fiber to try and decrease weight.
E. Power Plant
1. Detailed Design
The detailed design of the power plant system for this aircraft includes a brushless motor, lithium polymer
batteries, and a foldable propeller. Comparisons between the DWC all-electric and UCB hybrid systems will be
conducted to determine if the hybrid propulsion system increases the overall efficiency of the aircraft twofold. To
make the comparison as accurate as possible, specific requirements have been set by the UCB team for DWC to
follow. The motor weight for the all electric aircraft will be approximately equal to the motor weight in the UCB
system while ensuring the DWC motor will produce enough power to operate the aircraft during flight. Also, to
account for the extra weight supplied by the ICE and gearbox system, dead weight will be placed into fuselage of the
all electric aircraft during flight testing. This may consist of telemetry devices in order to record data values such as
speed, current, and torque. Any dead weight used will compensate for differences between the two power plant
systems. The overall higher efficiency, reliability, and power rating of brushless motors made them a more realistic
option for this project. The Scorpion 4020-12 Brushless Outrunner Motor has been purchased and tested. Based on
the motor selection, it was suggested to use Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries. They have high discharge rates and
energy storage to weight ratios. The overall pack energy density is high due to its shape and binding technique.
Preliminary calculations were completed to determine an estimate of how many individual cells would be needed to
run the motor selected. A pre-packaged battery pack was purchased for testing. This is a 22.2 volt pack rated for
8000 mAh. The detailed design of the aircraft was primarily based on the weight restrictions set by UCB. These
restrictions led to the design choice of no landing gear system. The main concern with this design is the possibility
of propeller strike. This concern directed propeller research to foldable props. A foldable propeller has blades hinged
at the root, keeping the blades in the normal position while the motor is running. When the motor is off, the wind
will push the blades back until they lie flat on the nose. Different propellers produce different power ratings
depending on the motor it is operating with. With the motor purchased, multiple propeller sizes were purchased for
motor testing. This will determine which propeller size would provide the most efficient power to the aircraft with
the motor, propeller, and battery combination. A 16 x 8 propeller was selected after motor testing was completed.
2. Power System Testing
With the completion of power plant selection, fixtures were designed to test each of the three components:
brushless motor, batteries, and foldable propeller. There is a bridge strain gauge arrangement that allows for thrust
output to be calculated while determining the optimal propeller diameter and pitch for the specific motor being
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

testing. A motor mount for bench testing was manufactured and the speed controller was programmed with the
motor. The minimum voltage value has been set; the battery should never be discharged lower than 3 volts/cell for
safety precautions. LiPo batteries can be dangerous if not used appropriately. The first test that conducted was a no
load RPM test with a propeller adapter to determine the motors RPM value. The motor is rated at 542 RPM/volt and
should be comparable with testing. The next test included attaching a 12 x 5 propeller to the motor. To prepare for
motor testing, a program was downloaded that calculates power outputs of the motor purchased. This program was
developed through the company that created the motor itself. By using this program it was determined that smaller
propellers than originally anticipated should be used. To achieve optimal performance out of the motor, a 12 x 6
propeller is suggested to reach peak motor efficiency. This data allowed for a comparison to be made between the
actual motor values and the estimated values from the program. Once this test was completed, a propeller sizes were
increased to a 14 inch diameter and then up to a 16 inch diameter. These tests measured current, thrust, and voltage
values and outputted the data through LabVIEW.
3. Nose Cone Design
The nose cone was designed to the specifications set forth by both UCB and DWC. Finalization of the fuselage
design and UCB power plant system set regulations for the nose cone design. This design followed the shape of the
fuselage design near the base and had a length of UCBs motor shaft. Also worked into the nose cone design was the
idea of the foldable propeller. To ensure the propeller will stop spinning and lay horizontally, divots were designed
into the nose cone. The most feasible manufacturing technique was to make use of the 3D printer at UML.
F. Center of Gravity
1. CG Analysis
Currently, there are two aircraft configurations to be analyzed. The first is the airframe with DWCs all-electric
power system installed. The second configuration is the airframe with UCBs power system installed. The difference
between the two must be analyzed to ensure that flight testing with the DWC power system accurately depicts how
the aircraft will handle when UCBs power supply is installed. The main difference between the two configurations
is the placement of weight. Since the DWC power system is lighter, added dead weight will be used to bring the two
configurations equal to each other. However, the exact weight positions will have to be changed slightly. For
example, the UCB configuration will include solar panels on the wing that will not be there during DWC flights. By
analyzing the two configurations and matching DWC and UCBs configuration CG, the aircraft should perform
similarly with each flight.
With the design of the aircraft becoming more refined, the control and stability characteristics of the design were
looked into. At this point, CG calculations have been made in order to plan out the loading of the aircraft to ensure
longitudinal stability. There are two major factors affecting the longitudinal stability when it comes to loading the
aircraft: the CG and the aerodynamic center. The CG is the single point in space where the force of gravity on all of
the components of the aircraft can be said to be acting. The
aerodynamic center is along the same idea, except it is the point
where the combined lift from all of the surfaces (wing, fuselage,
tail) can be said to be acting.
2. Airframe CG
To calculate the CG of the aircraft, the center of mass for each
subcomponent (tail, fuselage, etc.) was taken from the SolidWorks
models. All of the moment arms were then converted to the same
coordinate system of the aircraft. The airframe itself will be almost
exactly the same between the two configurations. The only
difference between the two configurations, besides the power
system, is the fuselage length. The DWC configuration fuselage
was cut shorter due to a miscalculation. This, however, will not
affect the performance of the aircraft between the configurations
enough to warrant a new prototype. The values for the X, Y, and Z
CG locations are measured from the leading edge of the wing in
the center of the fuselage which is shown in Fig. 5. The red depicts
the X axis, green, the Y axis, and blue, the Z axis. The X axis is
pointing forward to the nose of the aircraft, the Y axis is down the
right wing of the aircraft and the Z axis is pointing down towards

Figure 5. CG analysis in SolidWorks

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the bottom of the fuselage. This point was chosen as the origin as it is simple to dimension the rest of the aircraft
from it. The CG for each of the configurations was obtained from SolidWorks. This method was chosen as it is the
simplest and most accurate. While SolidWorks does not take into account excess weight from glue or material
imperfections, the actual weight of parts, such as the tail sections, were added to the models to obtain the most
accurate
results.
Referencing
Table 1. Airframe CG locations
Table 2, the airframe CG is located
almost at the trailing edge of the
Empty Airframe
wing. This would be far too tail
Weight (lbs)
X Location (in)
Y Location (in)
Z Location (in)
heavy to control in flight. For
stable flight, the CG must be
7.88
-11.09
0
0.04
located somewhere in between
25% and 33.3% of the wings chord. For this coordinate system, that would be between -3 and -4 inches. However,
the weight of each power system is around 11 lbs, more than enough weight to move the CG forward, as will be
seen in the next section. The CG location in the Y axis is centered where it should be and though the Z location is
rather high, located at about the bottom of the wing, this will again change for the better when the power systems are
added.
3. UCB CG
The first configuration that was analyzed was with UCBs system. In this configuration, the X location is within
the limitations for a stable aircraft. Also, the Z location was brought down more into the fuselage. It should be noted
that this CG is when the fuel tank of their system is full. Therefore, the CG will move forward as the flight takes
place. This point was calculated as
Table 2. UCB CG locations
well, assuming 1 lb of fuel in the
tank, as estimated by UCB. The X
UCB Configuration
location with an empty tank is -3.65
Weight (lbs)
X Location (in)
Y Location (in)
Z Location (in)
in, still within the limitations which
is referenced in Table 3.
19.69
-3.78
0.03
1.91
4. DWC CG
The DWC configuration has less initial weight to move the CG. With just the motor and battery of the system the
overall aircraft weight only reaches 12 lbs. Also, the aircraft does not have a forward enough CG to make it
airworthy. To make the aircraft more stable, and to allow for a similar flight conditions as the UCB configuration,
ballast will be added to the aircraft. To start with, a similar base plate that UCB will be using will be recreated for
the DWC configuration. This plate,
Table 3. DWC CG locations
made from heavier materials, will
hold the ballast as well as act as
DWC Configuration
extra weight and support in itself.
Weight (lbs)
X Location (in)
Y Location (in)
Z Location (in)
The added plate does not add
enough weight to bring the two
14.77
-3.48
0
1.65
configurations to the exact same
conditions. This will allow the aircraft to fly stability to test under lower weight conditions in initial tests. Therefore,
more ballast will be added to the plate to bring the weight and location to the exact UCB configuration location. The
DWC location values are referenced in Table 4.
G. Flight Testing
1. Overview
The flight testing schedule for this design will entail a series of specific flight goals with a similar series of flight
maneuvers. The different components of the flight testing include the preflight, run-up testing, initial flight, full
weight test, and altitude test. These tests are designed to ensure that the aircraft performs as intended in Colorado
and is not a hazard to those it is near. The safety precautions always in effect are as follows: that the tests will
always be performed by more than one person, testing of individual components and subsystems will have already
been performed on the airframe, and minimal handling of aircraft will take place during testing, particularly once the
aircraft has been powered up. The aircraft will always be flown below 400 feet above ground level in accordance
with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. A method of communication, such as cellular telephones will also
be carried by at least one party for emergency use if needed.
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2. Preflight Check
The preflight inspection and evaluation is to be performed prior to every flight and will involve the evaluation of
all subsystems for safety. Prior to connecting the battery, the electrical connections will be inspected to make certain
that there is no apparent danger of short circuit or fire. The battery will also be fully charged. Once the battery has
been installed and the aircraft secured for flight, the aircraft will be inspected to make certain that there are no loose
mechanical connections which could be expected to fail during flight. Once this evaluation has been performed, the
aircraft will be powered and the control surfaces evaluated for proper response from control systems. All controls
should reach their full travel during this test. Once this has been performed, the conditions will be reevaluated by
test personnel to make certain that conditions are suitable for the testing being performed and that bystanders are
sufficiently distant to avoid any casualties from incidents during takeoff and early flight.
3. Run Up Check
The run-up testing is intended to evaluate the strength of the fuselage and propeller. This test involves the
aircraft being held stationary, preferably through use of a clamp or other mechanical means with no personnel in
close proximity to the aircraft in the event of any catastrophic failure. The engine will be started following a
preflight check and brought to full RPM and held at full RPM for a short period of time (between 10 and 30
seconds.) The aircraft should show no significant twisting of the airframe or any adventitious sounds. If this test is
concluded with no issues, actual flight testing will commence. Otherwise any issues must be resolved prior to flight.
4. Flight Test
The initial flight test will take place after both a preflight check and initial run up inspection. The flight will
preferably take place at a recognized field. For this test, the aircraft is essentially unloaded. The aircraft will be
carrying the components necessary to power the DWC flight system, and the minimal amount of ballast required to
make the aircraft controllable. The aircraft will take off through a hand launch. The aircraft will climb in straight
flight to a designated test altitude. The suggested altitude is between 50 ft and 150 ft but may be modified on the day
of the flight testing. The first portion of the flight test is to be steady flight in a constant average flight direction (the
pilot may make small turns to get used to response of aircraft, no greater than 10 to 15 bank and 30 from initial
heading). Once the team is satisfied with response, the pilot will make a 90 turn to the aircrafts left at an angle of
bank not to exceed 30. The aircraft will be recovered at the resultant heading and flown in steady level
unaccelerated flight (SLUF) per pilot discretion. The aircraft will then make another 90 turn under the same
conditions as the first and continue in SLUF. The next turn will be a pair of 90 turns to the right of the aircraft.
Once these prescribed maneuvers are completed, the pilot may continue to perform similar maneuvers to better
understand the response of the aircraft. Banks in excess of 30 should not be performed on the initial flight tests to
minimize the potential for catastrophic damage. Once the pilot is satisfied or aircraft has been in the air 10 minutes,
the aircraft will return to the runway and land. Pilot will make certain to stop the engine and attempt to land the
aircraft as gently as possible. The next flight tests will follow a similar pattern to the first. It will, however, be
performed with a different aircraft loading. The second flight test will be performed with the aircraft loaded with
equivalent weight and balance as the UCB power system. The CG location of the aircraft should be very close, if not
the same, as that of the UCB power plant.
5. Actual Tests
Once the first prototype was completed, flight testing took place at a local field, Pepperell Airport. The first
flight test was deemed successful after a completed hand launch and belly landing. The flight time was just under 3
minutes as the speed controller overheated and the motor automatically shut down. Appropriate cooling designs
were implemented into the structure and a second flight test was scheduled. For the second flight, the plane was
ballasted to 24 lbs. This weight is to account for the UCB HPS and the density difference when flight testing occurs
in Colorado. Once again, the aircraft was hand launched and landed successfully. Unfortunately, left outboard
aileron controls were lost during flight so an emergency landing was needed and the flight time of 15 minutes was
once again, not tested. The remaining flight tests will be conducted in Colorado when the teams meet up to integrate
the aircraft and HPS.

H. Team Communication
1. Organization
The DWC team has divided into four groups: Aerodynamics, Power Plant, Control Systems, and Structures.
Each of these groups will focus on their area of expertise over the entire aircraft, rather than sectioning off
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

components (landing gear, fuselage, wing, etc.) individually. This group structure ensures a balance of design and
creates smoother integration between components. Throughout the fall and beginning of spring semesters,
communication between the three teams: DWC, UCB, and UML, has been crucial for project advancement. Weekly
conference calls between DWC and UCB have taken place to hash out any questions, comments, or concerns
developed over the previous week. There have also been weekly teleconferences with the communication liaisons
from Colorado and Daniel Webster. These were developed to help clarify any miscommunications between the two
teams or if quick questions needed to be answered. The two schools have certainly struggled at times with the long
distance communication and lack of face-to-face development; however, the professionalism and dedication put
forth from each team has allowed the project to continue on schedule. Daniel Webster has found it easier to
communicate with UML based purely on school locations. Bi-weekly face-to-face meetings have been set up with
UML to finalize the structural detailed design of the aircraft. More frequent meetings take place if needed for
manufacturing.
2. UCB Collaboration
Working in conjunction with another team 2,000 miles away comes guaranteed with miscommunications and
disagreements. Fortunately both teams have been able to work together to develop negotiations that would satisfy
requirements for each. Both teams are in the testing and fabrication phase of their designs and are currently
preparing for the symposium in April at Boulder, Colorado. DWC has shipped the aircraft to UCB and will be
joining them for flight testing and presentation of the final product early to mid-April. Communication between the
two teams has significantly increased from the fall to spring semester.
3. UML Collaboration
Meetings conducted with the UML have aided in the completion of the structural detailed design. The UML
students have a well rounded understanding for the use and construction of composite materials as well as larger
facilities for production. The fuselage, tail, and nose cone were all produced at their facilities. Both the fuselage and
tail were completed through vacuum bagged wet layups while a 3D printout model of the nose cone was completed
and delivered to DWC. Working with UML has increased productivity for DWC. Aircraft parts such as the nose
cone would have been difficult to produce in any of the DWC facilities. UML was able to 3D print a model
overnight and deliver the next day. One of the team members at UML will be joining the DWC team on their trip to
UCB in April.
4. MIT Collaboration
In order to gain further information on our design options, the team contacted MIT and arranged a meeting with
Brendan Suarez, a first year graduate student studying aeronautical engineering. The DWC team explained the
current design options to Mr. Suarez, who advised DWC on their preliminary design and made comments and
recommendations. Multiple suggestions were exchanged and much progress was made after the meeting. A second
visit was scheduled allowing DWC to cut out the foam core tail pieces on MITs CNC foam cutter. Without their
suggestions, multiple fabrication problems would have occurred.

III. Conclusion
In summary, each component was analyzed structurally and aerodynamically. While the ease of
manufacturability and stability of the aircraft were driving factors, weight reduction played a major role in
developing the detailed design. The final design consists of a bulkhead, stringer, and carbon fiber fuselage, a wing
span of 11.1 feet, a tail boom connecting to the conventional tail, and a 1500W maximum power rated brushless
motor with foldable propeller.
Although the weight of the aircraft was an issue for the first prototype, there were multiple solutions
implemented, such as having obtained more accurate material properties for carbon fiber, weight-saving holes, and
testing so the structure can be reduced in design and engineered to the specified flight envelope of 1.5g. The wing
was the heaviest component of the aircraft and was reduced in weight for the final design. The first prototypes wing
total weight was 4.15 lbs, yet the final weight was 2.97 lbs. The spars at first glance, seemed overdesigned. Since
they were chosen based on manufacturer availability, their maximum strength was too much for the application and
therefore were changed to a smaller diameter and wall thickness for the second prototype. Once flight testing was
completed, prototype two was constructed with new weight saving options applied.
The fuselage section of the second prototype was sent out to UCB on March 29, 2010. The wing of the aircraft
was shipped Friday April 2, 2010. Team members from DWC and one member of the UML team will be flying out
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

to Colorado on April 7, 2010 with the remainder of the aircraft to participate in flight testing. There will be a
symposium held on April 16, 2010 for the design teams to showcase the year-long design project. A final report will
be submitted at the end of the spring semester. Results of flight testing and power system comparisons will be
presented at the conference presentation.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our teammates from UCB and UML as well as our academic advisors: David Guo,
DWC; Jean Koster, UCB; Lakshmi Kantha, UCB; Nick Schott, UML; and Steve Orroth, UML.

References
1

10-Q: AeroVironment Inc. (2010, March 10). Retrieved April 3, 2010, from MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-q-aerovironment-inc-2010-03-10
2
Agarwal, B. D., Broutman, L. J., & Chandrashekhara, K. (2006). Analysis and Performance of Fiber
Composites. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
3
Airfoil Search Engine. (2009, December 6). Retrieved December 10, 2009, from Airfoil Investigation Database:
http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/search?contains=NACA+00
4
Anderson, J. D. (1999). Aircraft Performance and Design. New York, NY: WCB McGraw Hill.
5
Applied Vehicle Technology. (n.d.). Applied Vehicle Technology - Reinforcements. Retrieved October 17, 2009,
from http://avtcomposites.com/reinforcements.php3
6
Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., & DeWolf, J. T. (2006). Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7
Defense
Reports.
(2008,
May
06).
Retrieved
April
3,
2010,
from
Visiongain:
http://www.visiongain.com/Report.aspx?rid=302
8
Glassock, R. R., Hung, J. Y., Gonzalez, L. F., & Walker, R. A. (2009, March 30). Multimodal Hybrid
Powerplant for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Robotics. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/20124/1/20124.pdf
9
Lennon, A. (1996). RC Model Aircraft Design. Ridgefield: Air Age Media Inc.
10
Nicolai, L. M. (2002, June). Estimating RC Model Aerodynamics and Performance. Retrieved November 1,
2009,
from
SAE
Aero
Design
Competition
White
Paper:
http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/rules/aero_nicolai.doc
11
Raymer, D. P. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 4th Ed. Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
12
Team Helios. (2009). Conceptual Design Document. Boulder, CO.
13
Team Helios. (2009, October 18). Preliminary Design Review. Boulder, CO.
14
Team Helios. (2009, September). Preliminary Requirements Document. Boulder, CO.
15
Team Helios. (2009). Project Definition Documents. Boulder, CO.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics