Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ME 628 Aerodynamics
December 14, 2016
Group B1
Nathan Gladfelter
Chandler Klamm
Caleb Shunatona
Introduction
As part of ME 628 Aerodynamics, we were assigned a team project in which
groups of 3 or 4 would design a build a working glider. Our task was to construct a
glider to meet several objectives. Our glider must carry a 3 in by 2.5 in by 2.5 in
payload that could weigh from 4 to 18 oz. Our goal was to carry this payload
approximately 200 ft. from a starting height of 18.5 ft. while achieving a minimum
glide angle and maximum payload ratio. Payload ratio is determined by the
payload weight divided by the empty weight. In addition, our glider must be
within the following constraints. The sum height, weight, and length of the glider
must not exceed 180 in. The payload must fit within the glider and be easily
accessed and removed. The glider cannot have any active control such as onboard
servos, mechanisms, or electronics. Our team must construct the glider without
help from commercially available kits. Failure to meet these constraints would
result in a penalty to the final score of the glider. Our team was allotted $50 from
the Mechanical Engineering Department to make purchases on supplies and
construction materials.
Our glider was hand launched from a starting height of approximately 18.5
ft. in Weber area with a target distance of 200 ft. The following equation would
be used to determine our score.
= (1 + )
Where d is the ground distance measured diagonally and is the free fall
distance determined by the following equation.
2
=
Where U is nominal forward glide speed, h is height (18.5 ft.), and g is
acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft./ 2 ). Each team would be given multiple
attempts to achieve a maximum score.
With these goal and constraints, we decided to make a glide with a high lift
to drag ratio while keeping weight as low as possible to attempt to achieve the
maximum distance.
Glider Design
With the design of our glider, we decided to follow the basic airplane
design approach. We started with beginning to estimate the very basic
parameters including the cruising speed, cruising, altitude, and weight of what
our finished glider would have on test day. After a little research we decided that
the nominal speed of our glider should be around 15mph or 22ft/s. The altitude
could be assumed to be zero and since the test would be happening around the
middle of December around temperature of 32F we estimated an air density of
0.0765 lbm/ft^3. We weighed most of our supplies intended to be used and
estimated that we would have a rough total empty weight of 3lbs. The variables
are listed below:
= 22
= 0.0765
3
= 3
We decided on an Eppler 562 airfoil to be used as the profile for our wing.
We choose this because of its high lift to drag ratio and thickness. We wanted an
airfoil that wasnt too thin so that it could be easily constructed using foam and a
hot wire cutter and wouldnt easily break after construction. Some of the
important airfoil data on this profile was found on an online database and is
shown below (Airfoil Tools, 2016):
6.5866 2
= = = 0.7409 (8.89 )
12
1.4848 2
= = = 0.4975 (5.97 )
6
1.0605 2
= = 3 = 0.4161
+ 1.0605 2 + 6.5866 2
= = 3 0.4161 = 2.5840
n.p. = 13.743 in. behind nose
After the neutral point of our glider was found, we needed to calculate the
center of gravity of our glider to be able to see if this design would be initially
stable. We can also see if the weight that we assumed earlier on will be a close
estimate of what are final glider will be. We started this process by setting out
rough volumes for the different parts of our glider:
Glider Section Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Height (ft.) Volume (ft^3)
Wing 8.50 0.750 0.100 0.6375
Horizontal Tail 3.16 0.500 0.062 0.0980
Vertical Tail 0.79 0.500 0.100 0.0395
Fuselage 2.25 0.330 0.250 0.1856
Tail Connector 3.00 0.125 0.042 0.0158
Figure 4: Volume Calculation for Glider Sections
With the glider section volumes found, we found the density of the
different parts of the sections to be able to find the total weight of the sections
and the overall glider. We found that the density of the foam we are going to use
is 1.9 and the density of the wood we are going to use is 15 .
3 3
Fuselage
Based on its shape, our fuselage has a coefficient of drag of approximately
.3. With this we can calculate the drag force from the fuselage with the
above equation. With an air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.125
2 , we found the fuselages drag to be .022 lbf.
Vertical tail
Because our vertical tail is a symmetrical airfoil we can approximate its
coefficient of drag to be .12. Using this with and air density of .0765
/ 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.066 2 , we found drag force to be .005 lbf.
Wing
At an attack angle of 4 degrees, the e562-il airfoil has a section drag
coefficient of approximately .02. With the following equation we can
calculate the coefficient of drag of our wing.
2
= +
With CL=.792 and AR=11.3 we find CD=.038. We can then find the drag
force using air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft./s, S=6.375 2 which
turns out to be 0.139 lbf.
Tail
Our tail had an angle of attack of -5 degrees. This gives it a section drag
coefficient of .025. With CL=-0.129 and AR=3.17 we get CD=.027. Then
using air density of .0765 / 3 , V= 22 ft/s, S=.792 2 we find a drag
force of .012 lbf.
Total:
By summing each drag force, we get a total drag force of .178 lbf.
2 2(0.456)
2
= = = 19.594
1
(0.0765 3 ) ( )
32.2
2
( ) =
0.178
= 1 ( ) = 3.40
3
Preliminary Testing
After we had assembled our glider and picked it up, we noted that the
wings sagged significantly. As a result, we chose to tape the wings to the fuselage
to increase the stability of the wings. In addition, we added tape to the tail and
major joints to make them sturdier.
After adding the tape to the glider we noted that the center of gravity
shifted back to approximately 16.5 in from the front of the glider. This is behind
our estimated neutral point so we decided to do a flight test to make sure it was
still stable. We were unable to throw the glider for long distances or from large
heights, however, when we first threw our glider we noted that it stalled quickly.
Afterwards, we moved our tail back slightly and also threw the glider at a steeper
downward angle. In our second test after these adjustments, we noted that it
appeared to fly level and smooth. However, due to having too small of a distance
to fly, these were not accurate tests for our larger actual flight distance and
therefore did not completely fix our stability issues.
Results
Analysis of Results
Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve our estimated flight distance.
This was mainly due to the glider being unstable and stalling. After we added
electrical tape to the tail for sturdiness, the center of gravity was shifted to far
back. The center of gravity ended up being 16.5 in from the front of the glider
instead of the 13.5 in we estimated. With our neutral point being 14 in from the
front, our glider ended up being unstable. The glider quickly stalled during each
flight and was unable to correct itself. Had the center of gravity been where we
estimated it would be, we would have likely seen the glider fly much closer to
how we predicted.
Although much of this shortness of flight can be associated with center of
gravity being behind the neutral point and causing stall, we can also assume that
some of the shortness of flight was caused by the wings flexing and creating a
greater wing dihedral angle than we expected and reducing lift. We use the
following equations to calculate the angle that the wings flexed to:
= 90 sin1
tan
0.178
= 90 sin1 = 84.1
3 tan 30
From these equations we see that the wings should have flexed to 84.1
degrees above horizontal. This number seems too big to be reasonable, however,
we must take a few flight characteristics into consideration. During our flight, the
wings flexed unevenly, causing the glider to curve back around and crash into the
stands rather than fly straight and land on the ground. This created a significant
reduction in our flight distance. So, our actual glide angle may have been
significantly less than 30 degrees and therefore the flex angle may have been
closer to 60 degrees than the seemingly high calculation of 84.1 degrees.
References
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=e562-il