Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the design and development of an airframe for a fixed wing Micro Air Vehicle that has a maximum
linear dimension restricted to 300 mm. The preliminary estimate of the weight is based on the commercially available
components including the autopilot and payload. Based on the wing loading and power loading data, a flying wing
configuration has been chosen as the most optimum solution for the airframe. Numerical codes X-Foil and XFLR5
available as a freeware were used to analyze and optimize the airfoil and planform in terms of static stability and
aerodynamic efficiency. The Eppler 61 was chosen as seed airfoil for optimization as it provided the highest aerodynamic
efficiency in low Reynolds number flow regime. However, the higher pitching moment values and its oscillatory nature
necessitated the modification of the airfoil geometry to obtain a better longitudinal stability. The new airfoil thus
designed (SM-4308) using the seed airfoil is found to provide a better stability at a marginal loss of aerodynamic
efficiency. The planform optimization carried out using the numerical codes and the cropped delta planform with the
above airfoil showed to provide the optimum aerodynamic coefficients. Eigen mode analysis carried out for lateral and
directional stability using Athena Vortice Lattice method (AVL) showed the stability in Dutch roll and Spiral mode. The
prototype MAV with the designed wing flown in fully autonomous mode is found to perform well against high wind gusts
(up to 13m/s) and has a typical endurance of 20 minutes. The Designed MAV is named as Golden Hawk.
Key words: MAV, Low Reynolds Number, VLM and 3-D Panels, Longitudinal stability, Lateral-Directional stability.
INTRODUCTION
NOMENCLATURE Interest in Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) systems
Cd = Sectional drag coefficient (2D-Airfoil) arises from both military application and scientific
Cl = Sectional lift coefficient (2D- Airfoil) intrigue [1]. As relatively an emerging field it provides
CD = Drag coefficient (3D-Wing) great opportunities and challenges in many disciplines
CL = Lift coefficient (3D- wing) of aeronautical engineering. The small size and weight
Cdmin = Minimum drag Coefficient and the relatively high atmospheric gusts under which
CLmax = Maximum lift coefficient the vehicle need to fly in fully autonomous mode make
CLmin = Minimum lift Coefficient the development of MAVs a technological challenge.
The development of MAV is a highly multi
Cm = Pitching moment coefficient disciplinary and a highly technology driven activity. In
Cmo = Zero Angle Pitching moment coefficient the area of airframe design the aerodynamics plays an
CmC = pitching moment about the quarter-chord important role. Due to the limited size and low flying
4 velocity, it operates at significantly lower Reynolds
CLα = Lift-Curve slope number ranging between 50,000 – 200,000 based on
L/D = Lift-to-Drag Ratio the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) and cruise
CG = Center of Gravity velocity. Wings of such low aspect ratios exhibit
unique aerodynamic properties such as high stall-
t/c = Thickness to Chord Ratio
angles of attack and nonlinear lift versus angle of
α = Angle Of Attack attack curves. Due to low Reynolds number, complex
*
flow phenomena such as laminar separation bubbles,
Project Engineer. laminar to turbulent transition and bubble bursting may
+
Scientist, Experimental Aerodynamics arise. The aerodynamic characteristics of the wing and
Division other components in turn affect the static, dynamic and
© Shashank Mishra, G. Ramesh, Sajeer Ahmed aero elastic stability of the entire vehicle. The highly
SAROD 2009 three-dimensional low Reynolds number flows and
Published in 2009 by Macmillan India Ltd. lack of experimental database to understand the flow
around the wing body requires fundamental research of
the phenomena.
1
2 Shashank Mishra, G. Ramesh, Sajeer Ahmed
The schematic outline of the methodology of Selection of airfoil for the MAV is the crucial
the design process for the fixed wing micro air vehicle task as the flying wing design has to provide inherent
is shown in Figure 1. stability as there is no conventional tail that balances
the moment. The factors for the selection of airfoil
The methodology has three levels; basic level include high aerodynamic efficiency, increased Clmax,
consists of aerodynamic force models and profile low Cdmin, higher stall angle, negative and near zero
selection, the second level consists of design constant pitching moment etc [4 and 5]. The airfoil
optimization and third level consists of flight testing of should have minimum thickness and moderate camber.
the prototype. The tests can be used as a feedback Various low Reynolds number airfoils such as Eppler
module for the design optimization. 61, MH45, NACA 4415, S4083, Eppler184 and the
Aerodynamic Force Models
Weight Airfoil Planform Control Surface S5020 airfoil were analyzed and aerodynamic
Estimation Selection Selection Sizing characteristics has been obtained through the XFLR5.
Analysis was carried out under the viscid mode at
Reynolds number of 160000 corresponds to cruise
velocity of 11m/s for an AOA ranging from -5o to 3o
and aerodynamic characteristics are plotted in Figure 2.
Design Optimization
Stability Analysis Wind Tunnel Testing Structural /CFD
Test Environments
Endurance Testing Prototype / Autonomous Flight Testing
Symposium on Applied Aerodynamics and Design of Aerospace Vehicle (SAROD 2009)
December 10-12, 2009, Bangalore, India
1.6
As seen from the above plots though the Eppler 61
0.05
Angle of Attack
-8 -4 00 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
-0.1
1.4
Eppler 184 1.2
0.5 Eppler 61
NACA 4415 1
Selig 4083
Selig 5020 0.8
MH 45
0 0.6
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Cd 0.4 Eppler 61
SM-4308
0.2
-0.5
0
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
(c) Drag Polar Curve -0.2 Angle of Attack
-0.4
Eppler 184
80 Eppler 61
NACA 4415 (a) Coefficient of Lift Vs angle of Attack
Selig 4083
Cl/Cd
60 Selig 5020
MH 45
40 Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30
0
20
-0.05
-4 00 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Angle of Attack -0.1
Cm
-20
Eppler 61
-0.15 SM-4308
(d) Lift-to-Drag Ratio Vs Angle of Attack
-0.2
Figure 2 Aerodynamic Data of Different
Low Reynolds Number Airfoils
(b) Pitching Moment Coefficient Vs Angle of
Attack
Table1
4 Shashank Mishra, G. Ramesh, Sajeer Ahmed
Airfoil Camber (%) t/c (%) Cd0 Cm,c/4 (Cl/Cd )max Clmax
Eppler 61 6.69 5.67 0.02381 -0.1897 87 1.5
S4083 3.45 8.00 0.00912 -0.0896 67.22 1.221
Eppler 184 1.20 8.32 0.01102 -0.0093 36.79 0.849
S5020 2.62 8.40 0.0114 -0.007 59.67 1.19
NACA 4415 4.01 14.99 0.0134 -0.107 63.69 1.401
MH45 1.71 9.84 0.0.1102 -0.0093 53.48 1.114
SM-4308 3.69 7.84 0.02432 -0.0078 56.67 1.26
80
Table2
60
Geometric Properties of Designed MAV wing
Cl/Cd
Eppler 61
SM- 4308
40
Span 300mm
20 Area 0.06m2
Aspect Ratio(AR) 1.5
00
-4 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 Mean Aerodynamic 201.67mm
Angle of Attack
chord (MAC)
Root Chord 240mm
Tip Chord 140mm
(c) Lift to Drag Ratio Vs Angle of Attack Sweep Angle 20o
C.G Location 45mm from LE*
Figure 4 Comparison of SM4308 airfoil Aerodynamic Centre 60mm from LE
with Eppler 61 Airfoil Winglet/Fin area 0.01m2
Height of winglets 60mm
Planform Selection is added to counter the moment caused by propulsion
system. NACA0006 airfoil is used in fin/tail because of
The main design consideration for the MAV symmetry and thickness of the airfoil. The geometric
is the weight and dimension i.e. the chord and span of properties are tabulated in Table 2
the wing. The calculations were performed for different
aspect ratio, velocity, lifts coefficient, etc., and
optimized result was chosen as the design requirement
specification of the MAV. Increasing the aspect ratio
could lead to a very low wing area permitting the MAV
to carry only less weight, so the aspect ratio was varied
between 1 and 1.5. The various planform like
Zimmerman, Inverse Zimmerman, Modified 3-Circle, *LE = Leading Edge of the Wing
Delta Planforms were analyzed to choose optimally
best planform for the Golden Hawk (GH). The cropped 1.2 Modeling and Meshing of wing in XFLR5
delta planform was selected due to high aerodynamic
efficiency and moderate stall [6]. Single vertical fin/tail
Symposium on Applied Aerodynamics and Design of Aerospace Vehicle (SAROD 2009)
December 10-12, 2009, Bangalore, India
x Section 1
6
the tip vortices influence is also low for the angle of
4 attacks up to 10 degree. The streamline distribution
2
over the wing creates the weak trailing edge vortices
which create less drag over the operating range of
00 10 20 30 40 50 angle of attack which is shown in the Figure 8.
Angle of attack
-2
1.5
Coefficient Of Lift (CL)
0.5
GH_SM-4308 Airfoil
GH_Eppler 61 Airfoil
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Coefficient of Drag (CD)
-0.5
(a) Pressure Distribution at α = 50
(d) Drag polar Curve
Table 4
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Designed MAV
Wing
CLmax 1.34
CDmin 0.133
Cmo -0.007
(b) Vorticity distribution at α = 50
Stall angle 30o
(CL/CD)max 9.075
CLα 0.006 / deg
3/2
(CL /CD)max 7.40
Cruise Angle 8o
Rate of climb 2.5 m/s
Angle of climb 15o
Symposium on Applied Aerodynamics and Design of Aerospace Vehicle (SAROD 2009)
December 10-12, 2009, Bangalore, India
References
8 Shashank Mishra, G. Ramesh, Sajeer Ahmed