Aircraft Design Project:

A four seater Flying Car

Aliya Valiyff
Craig Collins
Crystal Forrester
Elizabeth Pham
Rebecca Baylis
i
Student ID Signature
Rebecca Baylis 1120906
Craig Collins 1118730
Crystal Forrester 1118686
Elizabeth Pham 1118721
Aliya Valiyff 118581
Group Mark
Criteria Mark (total 100)
1. Research Definition /10
2. Research Activities /15
3. Technical Calculation /25
4. Drawings /25
5. Format of the report /10
6. Novelty of the solution /15
Name Group Mark Peer assessment Final Mark
Rebecca Baylis
Craig Collins
Crystal Forrester
Elizabeth Pham
Aliya Valiyff
ii
Executive Summary
This report details the design of a four seater vehicle, capable of both on-road
operation and aerial travel. It was decided to design the vehicle in such a
manner as to provide a feasible means of travel between Australian capital
cities and regional centres and hence, reduce lengthy road travel or
dependency on chartered flights. The intended market comprised business
people, industry workers, medical staff, and families who need quick and
flexible transport from more densely populated cities to country towns.

To design the airframe a classical approach was used, whereby feasibility
studies and statistical analysis were carried out on the development of
existing flying cars and roadable aircraft. Within these analyses, two main
design constraints were considered important for the commercial success of
the vehicle; the handling qualities of each vehicle configuration and the ease
of conversion between plane and car modes. As well as these constraints,
the interior arrangement was also carefully considered. In order to address
the handling issues, it was decided that the vehicle should be capable of
conventional control while operating in both modes. As such, the vehicle
would drive identically to a conventional automobile in car-configuration, with
only minor modifications necessary to a regular light aircraft controls for flight
mode. Transition between car- and plane-configurations was designed to
take no longer than 10 minutes, with minimal technical expertise or manual
labour required. The interior of the vehicle comfortably seated a pilot with
three passengers at the rear, with room beneath the passenger seats for
baggage.

To fulfil the desired role as a substitute vehicle for regional travel, the total
mission profile was considered as driving from a residence to a nearby airport
before flying to a regional airstrip and driving to the final destination. The
vehicle was capable of takeoff in 700m, landing in 666m, and can achieve a
cruise speed of 210km/hr, with a flight range of 980km, and is powered by a
Continental TSIOL-550A.
iii
Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
2 Literature Review and Market Evaluation ................................................. 3
2.1 Literature Review ............................................................................... 3
2.2 Market Evaluation .............................................................................. 4
3 Conceptual Design ................................................................................... 8
3.1 Technical Task .................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Standard Requirements .............................................................. 8
3.1.2 Performance Requirements ........................................................ 9
3.1.3 Technical level of product ......................................................... 12
3.1.4 Economical parameters ............................................................ 13
3.1.5 Power plant type and requirements .......................................... 13
3.1.6 Main System Requirements ..................................................... 14
3.1.7 Reliability and maintainability ................................................... 14
3.1.8 Unification level ........................................................................ 15
3.2 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Empty Weight ........................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Maximum Speed....................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Wing Loading ........................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Wing Span ................................................................................ 18
3.2.5 Height and Length .................................................................... 19
3.3 Mission Profile ................................................................................. 21
3.3.1 Mission Profile Diagram ............................................................ 21
3.3.2 Mass Fuel Fraction Determination ............................................ 22
3.3.3 Mass Fuel Fraction Determination ............................................ 23
3.3.4 Total Mass Fuel Fraction .......................................................... 23
3.4 Weight Estimation ............................................................................ 24
3.5 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................... 25
3.5.1 Sensitivity to payload weight .................................................... 26
3.5.2 Sensitivity to Empty Weight ...................................................... 26
3.5.3 Sensitivity to Range .................................................................. 27
3.5.4 Sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption .................................. 28
iv
3.5.5 Sensitivity to Propeller Efficiency .............................................. 28
3.5.6 Sensitivity to Lift to Drag Ratio ................................................. 29
3.6 Aircraft Sizing .................................................................................. 30
3.6.1 Sizing Parameters .................................................................... 30
3.6.2 Matching Diagram .................................................................... 32
3.6.3 Design Point ............................................................................. 33
3.7 Configuration Selection.................................................................... 34
3.7.1 Concept 1: Inverted V-Tail ........................................................ 35
3.7.2 Concept 2: Y-Tail ...................................................................... 36
3.7.3 Concept 3: Horizontal Tail ........................................................ 37
3.7.4 Concept Selection .................................................................... 39
3.8 Planform Design .............................................................................. 39
3.8.1 Wing Planform Design .............................................................. 39
3.8.2 Empennage Planform Design ................................................... 42
3.9 Airfoil Selection ................................................................................ 47
3.9.1 Wing Airfoil Selection ................................................................ 49
3.9.2 Empennage Airfoil Selection .................................................... 52
3.10 High Lifting Devices Flap Design .................................................. 55
3.11 Control Surface Design.................................................................... 57
3.11.1 Ailerons .................................................................................... 58
3.11.2 Sizing of Empennage Control Surfaces .................................... 60
3.12 Fuselage Design .............................................................................. 68
3.12.1 Fuselage Shape and Size ........................................................ 68
3.12.2 Cabin Design ............................................................................ 70
3.13 Propulsion System ........................................................................... 77
3.13.1 Method of Propulsion ................................................................ 77
3.13.2 Power Requirements ................................................................ 78
3.13.3 Engine Selection ...................................................................... 79
3.13.4 Propeller Sizing ........................................................................ 80
3.13.5 Propeller Selection ................................................................... 81
3.13.6 Drive-train Design ..................................................................... 82
3.14 Landing Gear Design ....................................................................... 85
3.14.1 City/country driving minimum ground clearances. .................... 86
3.14.2 Wheel/Gear Positioning ............................................................ 87
v
3.14.3 Wheel/Landing Gear Loading ................................................... 90
3.14.4 Wheels ..................................................................................... 92
3.14.5 Shock Absorbers ...................................................................... 94
3.14.6 Conversion mechanism ............................................................ 97
3.15 Conversion System ......................................................................... 99
3.15.1 Control System Conversion ...................................................... 99
3.15.2 Wing Conversion .................................................................... 104
3.16 Tail Conversion .............................................................................. 112
3.16.1 Propeller Conversion .............................................................. 114
3.17 Materials and Construction Methods ............................................. 115
3.17.1 Possible Materials .................................................................. 116
3.17.2 Possible Structural Designs .................................................... 117
3.18 Isometric views of each configuration ............................................ 122
3.19 Exploded Assembly Views ............................................................. 123
4 Weight and Balance Analysis ............................................................... 124
5 Aerodynamic Analysis .......................................................................... 128
5.1 Lift Distribution ............................................................................... 128
5.2 L/D Determination .......................................................................... 129
5.3 Fineness ratio and drag of fuselage .............................................. 131
6 Stability Analysis ................................................................................... 132
7 Performance Analysis ........................................................................... 134
8 Three View Drawings ............................................................................ 137
References .................................................................................................. 138
Appendix A: Mass Fuel Fraction Hand Calculations .................................... 145
Appendix B: Sensitivity Hand Calculations .................................................. 148
Appendix C: Empennage Control Surface Sizing ........................................ 158
Appendix D: L/D Calculations ...................................................................... 161
Appendix E: Longitudinal Stability Calculations ........................................... 162
Appendix F: Weight and Balance Calculations ............................................ 163
Appendix G: Performance Calculations ....................................................... 165
Appendix H: Detailed Drawings ................................................................... 167
vi
List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Aerocar Model 1 (Aerocar, 2002) .................................................. 5
Figure 2-2: Synergy Vehicle (Rapid Regional Travel, 2008) ............................ 5
Figure 2-3: Sokol A400 (Advanced Flying Automobile, 2007) .......................... 6
Figure 2-4: La Biche Aerosapce FSC-1 (La Biche Aerospace, 2008) .............. 7
Figure 3-1: BP Refuelling sites in Australia (Air BP, 2008) ............................ 12
Figure 3-2: Technology Diagram: Empty Weight ........................................... 17
Figure 3-3: Technology Diagram: Maximum Speed ....................................... 18
Figure 3-4: Technology Diagram: Wing Loading ............................................ 18
Figure 3-5: Wing Span ................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-6: Technology Diagram: Height ....................................................... 20
Figure 3-7: Technology Diagram: Length ....................................................... 20
Figure 3-8: Mission Profile Diagram ............................................................... 22
Figure 3-9: Weight Estimation ........................................................................ 25
Figure 3-10: Matching Diagram ..................................................................... 33
Figure 3-12: Inverted V-tail concept ............................................................... 36
Figure 3-13: Y-tail concept ............................................................................. 37
Figure 3-14: Horizontal Tail Concept ............................................................. 38
Figure 3-15: Tail Plane Volume Coefficient .................................................... 44
Figure 3-16: Vertical Tail Plane Coefficient ................................................... 46
Figure 3-17: Drag Polar Wing Airfoil ........................................................... 50
Figure 3-18: Lift Curve Slope Wing Airfoil ................................................... 51
Figure 3-19: Moment Curve Slope Wing Airfoil ........................................... 52
Figure 3-20: Drag Polar- Tail Plane Airfoil ..................................................... 53
Figure 3-21: Lift Curve Slope- Empennage Airfoil .......................................... 54
Figure 3-22: Moment Curve Slope Empennage Airfoil ................................ 55
Figure 3-23: Determination of Maximum Wing Lift Coefficient ....................... 56
Figure 3-24: Required Lift Increment ............................................................. 57
Figure 3-25: Elevator chord fraction statistical analysis ................................. 61
Figure 3-26: Elevator area fraction statistical analysis ................................... 62
Figure 3-27: Proposed elevator locations ...................................................... 62
Figure 3-28: Empennage Design: Vertical and Horizontal Tails ..................... 64
vii
Figure 3-29: Rudder area fraction vs vertical tail area ................................... 65
Figure 3-30: Rudder area fraction vs wing area ............................................. 65
Figure 3-31: Rudder tip chord fraction statistical analysis .............................. 66
Figure 3-32: Rudder root chord fraction statistical analysis ........................... 67
Figure 3-33: Rudder geometry ....................................................................... 68
Figure 3-34: Tail extended for aircraft configuration....................................... 69
Figure 3-35: Tail retracted for car configuration ............................................. 69
Figure 3-36: Pilot and Passenger Seating Layout .......................................... 70
Figure 3-37: Lap and sash seat belts ............................................................. 71
Figure 3-38: Back passenger seats ............................................................... 71
Figure 3-39: Seating layout (Raymer, 2006) .................................................. 72
Figure 3-40: Sketch of back passenger seating arrangement ........................ 73
Figure 3-41: Pilots seat geometry (Torenbeek, 1976) ................................... 74
Figure 3-42: Pilot Vision Diagram for Homebuilt Aircraft (Roskam, 1985) ..... 74
Figure 3-43: Flying car cabin requirements (dimensions in mm).................... 75
Figure 3-44: View from pilots seat ................................................................. 75
Figure 3-45: Fuselage Layout ........................................................................ 76
Figure 3-46: Typical 4WD drivetrain (Jeep Grand Cheroke, 2008) ................ 83
Figure 3-47: Modified Drivetrain ..................................................................... 84
Figure 3-48: Vehicle diagram showing propulsion system ............................. 85
Figure 3-49: Quadricycle gear arrangement (Raymer, 2006) ........................ 85
Figure 3-50: Angles A and B for sizing landing gear (Roskam, 1985)............ 88
Figure 3-51: Landing Gear Angles ................................................................. 88
Figure 3-52: Loads acting on a moving aircraft (Torenbeek, 1976) ............... 90
Figure 3-53: Oleo-pneumatic metered orifice shock- strut (Raymer, 2006) ... 94
Figure 3-54: Oleo Shock absorber makeup ................................................... 95
Figure 3-55: Landing gear conversion ........................................................... 98
Figure 3-56: Landing Gear in Car Mode ........................................................ 98
Figure 3-57: Two possible pedal configurations ........................................... 100
Figure 3-58: F1-style gear change paddles indicated by red arrows............ 102
Figure 3-59: Suggested throttle control (Smith, 2007) ................................. 103
Figure 3-60: Sokol Telescoping Wing (AFA Co, 2007) ................................ 105
Figure 3-61: Sokol partially deployed wing (AFA Co, 2007) ......................... 106
Figure 3-62: Side storage of folding wings ................................................... 107
viii
Figure 3-63: The Haynes Skyblazer folding wing (Haynes-aero, 2007) ....... 107
Figure 3-64: Terrafugia Transition folding wing mechanism ........................ 108
Figure 3-65: Terrafugia folding wing prototype (Terrafugia, 2008) ............... 108
Figure 3-66: Side Top Storage of Wings ...................................................... 109
Figure 3-67: LaBiche FSC-1 folding mechanism.......................................... 110
Figure 3-68: Top Storage of Wings .............................................................. 110
Figure 3-69: Synergy - Hydraulic Folding Wing ........................................... 111
Figure 3-70: Flying car folding wing mechanism .......................................... 112
Figure 3-71: Retractable boom tail ............................................................... 113
Figure 3-72: Folding horizontal tail ............................................................... 113
Figure 3-73: Flying Car Tail Conversion System.......................................... 114
Figure 3-75: Flying Car Propeller Conversion System ................................. 115
Figure 3-76: CentrAl sandwich material (Space Mart, 2007) ....................... 117
Figure 3-77: Wing Internal Structure (Hieserman, 2005) ............................. 118
Figure 3-78: Open truss structure (Private Pilot Ground School, 2006) ....... 120
Figure 3-79: Monocoque construction (Private Pilot Ground School, 2006) 121
Figure 3-80: Proposed Wing Structure ......................................................... 121
Figure 3-81: Iso view of car configuration .................................................... 122
Figure 3-82: Iso view of takeoff configuration .............................................. 122
Figure 3-83: Iso view of plane configuration ................................................ 122
Figure 3-84: Exploded Assembly View (solid bodies) .................................. 123
Figure 3-85: Exploded Assembly View ........................................................ 123
Figure 4-1: CG envelope .............................................................................. 127
Figure 5-1: Lift Distribution for Wing ............................................................. 129
Figure 5-3: Maximum Lift-to-Drag Ratio Trends (Raymer, 2006) ................. 130
Figure 5-4: Effect of fineness ratio on drag coefficient (Roskam, 1985)....... 131
Figure 6-1: Longitudinal X-plot ..................................................................... 133
Figure 7-1: Matching Diagram showing conceptual design point ................. 134
ix
List of Tables

Table 3-1: Performance Parameters .............................................................. 10
Table 3-2: Power plant requirement ............................................................... 13
Table 3-3: Main System Requirements .......................................................... 14
Table 3-4: Parking Bay Dimensions ............................................................... 21
Table 4-1: Mass Fuel Fractions...................................................................... 22
Table 4-2: Mass Fuel Fractions...................................................................... 23
Table 5-1: Propeller Efficiency Values ........................................................... 29
Table 5-2: Wing Planform Parameters ........................................................... 42
Table 5-3: Horizontal Tail Plane Statistics ..................................................... 43
Table 5-4: Horizontal Tail Plane 1 .................................................................. 45
Table 5-5: Horizontal Tail Plane 2 .................................................................. 45
Table 5-6: Vertical Tail Plane Statistics .......................................................... 46
Table 5-7: Vertical Tail Plane Parameters ..................................................... 47
Table 5-8: Wing Airfoils .................................................................................. 49
Table 5-9: Aileron Statistics ........................................................................... 58
Table 5-10: Aileron Area Fraction .................................................................. 59
Table 5-11: Aileron Sizing .............................................................................. 59
Table 5-12: Single Engine Propeller GA Aircraft Horizontal Tail Data............ 60
Table 5-13: Single Engine Propeller Driven GA Aircraft Vertical Tail Data .... 64
Table 5-14: Comparison of suitable engines .................................................. 79
Table 5-15: Ground clearance properties of 4WDs ........................................ 87
Table 5-17: Landing gear position geometry .................................................. 89
Table 5-18: Landing Gear Sizing Parameters ................................................ 91
Table 5-19: Maximum allowable tyre pressure for different surfaces ............. 92
Table 5-20: Selected Tyre Specifications ....................................................... 93
Table 6-1: Materials for wing and fuselage .................................................. 119
Table 7-1 : Component Statistical Percentage of Takeoff Weight ................ 124
Table 7-2: Flying car component weights .................................................... 124
Table 10-1: Compliance with performance parameters ............................... 136
x
Symbols and Nomenclature

Acronyms

AR Aspect Ratio
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations
CG Centre of gravity
CGR Climb Gradient Ratio
MAC Mean aerodynamic chord of main wing
MTOW Maximum takeoff weight
STOL Short Take Off and Landing
VTOL Vertical Take Off and Landing

Symbols

A Area, Aspect ratio
AdB Absorption loss (dB)
b Span of main wing
C Chord length
CD Drag coefficient
CL Lift coefficient of wing
Cl Lift coefficient of aerofoil section
Cla1 Main wing local additional section lift coefficient
Clb Main wing local basic section lift coefficient
CL
o
Lift curve slope
CM Main wing moment coefficient (quarter chord)
Cm Aerofoil section moment coefficient (quarter chord)
D Drag, Diameter
dzi Vertical distance from centroid
e Oswald span efficiency factor
g Gravitational constant, 9.81msF2
I Moment of inertia
xi
Ix Moment of inertia about the x axis
K Drag-due-to-lift factor
KA Aerodynamic Terms
KF Control surface load factor
KT Thrust Terms
kts Knots
KV Motor constant
L Lift
D
L
Lift - drag ratio
n load factor
nm Nautical mile
ns safety factor
P Power, Pitch
q Dynamic pressure
Re Reynolds Number
S Area, planform area, surface area
SG Ground roll distance
SM Static margin
T Torque, Thrust
V Volume, Velocity
W Weight
Xac Neutral point
xcentroid The centroid on the x axis
xh horizontal tail lever arm
xi Longitudinal position
xV Vertical tail lever arm
y Lateral/spanwise position
z Vertical axis, vertical position

Greek Symbols

o Angle of attack of wing
o_installed Installed angle of wing, relative to longitudinal axis of aircraft
xii
Jo_OL Change in zero-lift angle of attack of wing due to flap deflection
Climb angle
Taper Ratio
Friction Coefficient
q Efficiency
L Freestream air Density
M Motor speed

Subscripts
A Aircraft
aerofoil aerofoil
battery battery
centroid centroid of axis
cl climb
cr cruise
des descent
e, E Empty
f final
h, hor horizontal tail
i inital
induced induced
los zero lift produced at wing root
max maximum
motor motor
O zero angle of attack
OL zero lift
p, prop propeller
payload payload
root root
stall stall
static static
TO takeoff
xiii
w main wing
Wet wetted area
wing main wing section
v, vert vertical tail
x x axis (with respect to)
y y axis (with respect to)
z z axis (with respect to)

xiv
Coordinate System Designation
The following figure defines the coordinate system used throughout this
report.

1
1 Introduction
Since the invention of automobiles and aircraft, there has been a desire to
combine the two vehicles in order to achieve the ultimate in adaptable travel;
a flying car. The term flying car is often confused with roadable aircraft, a
term which means an aeroplane capable of travelling short distances on the
road between airports. The more correct definition of a flying car is a vehicle
which is fully capable of travelling extended distances in the sky and on the
road. It is the latter definition that was used to design the aircraft described in
this report.

Several flying car designs have been successfully demonstrated over the last
70 years, and many current designers would have consumers believe current
prototypes are just a few years away from production. While the novelty
aspect of such a vehicle clearly attracts many interested parties, no design
has been successful in the commercial market. The most common factors
associated with the failure to make a flying car commercially attractive are the
high product cost and a convenient conversion system between the two
different modes of operation. Most consumers require a vehicle which is
priced comparably to a light aircraft for personal use, and yet provide a
conversion mechanism that is neither complex, time consuming nor labour
heavy.

Earlier designs for flying cars, notably the Aerocar series by Aerocar
International, attempted to overcome this last concern, by having the aircraft
attachments (wings, tail, and propellers) completely separate and towed
behind the car in a trailer, ready to be easily connected when ready for flight.
Current proposed designs utilise jet engines to make the vehicle capable of
Vertical or Short Takeoff and Landing (VTOL or STOL), and some even use
large ducted fans to provide hovering abilities.

Prior to undertaking an extensive design process, existing flying car concepts
were compared, the different configurations were examined, and the most
2
viable option was selected.The aerodynamic and stability qualities and overall
performance of the vehicle was investigated, before a final design was
proposed and supported by engineering drawings.

This report does not include a description of manufacturing or testing, as this
is a paper based exercise and such detail is considered beyond the scope of
this project.

3
2 Literature Review and Market Evaluation
2.1 Literature Review
The conceptual design of the flying car required extensive research into the
current prototype vehicles, single engine propeller driven aircraft and design
techniques. This involved a literature review of existing texts and references
on these subjects.

In order to gain a better understanding of this novel concept, a comprehensive
investigation was carried out, which yielded a number of useful references
including textbooks, published reports, databases and websites. These
sources will be discussed in the following sections and include those used for
airplane design, structure, configuration and sizing.

During the feasibility study and statistical analysis, numerous flying car
projects were referenced for statistical data and design methods. Of
particular interest were the Aerocar and the Terrafugia Transtition. Websites
documenting conceptual design were available for both of these projects and
were consulted for configuration selection.

For the general embodiment design, several text and reference books were
used; namely the Airplane Design series, Vol. I- VII (Roskam, 1985) and
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach (Raymer, 2006). The Roskam series
provided an incremental approach to the design of an aircraft, which was
adapted to suit the requirements specific to the flying car. In contrast,
Raymers text offered a more classical approach to design with detailed
theory and general equations of motion for aircraft. To supplement these
general design references, Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design
(Torenbeek, 1976) was used for cabin design.

Aerofoil selection was aided through the use of several comprehensive online
databases, including the UIUC Airfoil Coordinate Database (UIUC, 2002). As
4
the name suggests, this database provided a considerable selection of
aerofoils designed and recommended for use in general aviation aircraft.

For aerodynamic analysis, a number of sources were referenced. Of
particular note was the Theory of Wing Sections by Abbott and von Doenhoff,
which provided extensive theory of wing properties and several methods of
determining lift loading.

2.2 Market Evaluation

A market evaluation of existing flying cars was undertaken in order to gain
knowledge of this type of vehicle. A summary of some of the flying cars that
were found is provided below.

Aerocar
The first Aerocar, also known as Taylor Aerocar after its designer, Moulton
Taylor, was built in 1949. This roadable aircraft requires one pilot and can
accommodate for one passenger. The wing span is 10.4m and the length of
the vehicle measures 6.6m. The Aerocar I is powered by a 135hp Lycoming
O-290 engine, whilst the Aerocar II uses a slightly more powerful Lycoming O-
320 143ho engine. The maximum takeoff weights for Aerocars I and II are
955kg (Wikipedia, 2008). One of the original models of Aerocar 1 was rebuilt
by redesigning the cabin to have a more streamlined profile. Although six
examples were built, the Aerocar never entered production.

5
Figure 2-1: Aerocar Model 1 (Aerocar, 2002)

Synergy
The Synergy vehicle by Aeromaster is an 884kg flying car, currently in the
prototype stage. The vehicle seats a total of four people and allows for
unobstructed side visibility in the automobile configuration due to the folding
wing mechanism. The aerodynamic design enables high cruise speeds to be
reached whilst allowing for a relatively slow stall speed which increases the
safety of the vehicle, and reduces demand on the pilots skill (Rapid Regional
Travel, 2008). The Synergy is designed to achieve a top speed of 378 km/hr
(Rapid Regional Travel, 2008), which makes this vehicle appealing to
customers requiring fast transport for regional travel.

Figure 2-2: Synergy Vehicle (Rapid Regional Travel, 2008)

6
Sokol A400
The Sokol A400 is a dual mode vehicle that seats four people in the
automobile configuration, and two people in the aircraft configuration. The
maximum takeoff weight for this flying car is approximately 1451kg, and the
vehicle can achieve a flight range of 800km. The empennage and propeller
are stowed within Sokol A400 whilst the wings are folded using a telescoping
mechanism. These flight components allow conversion between
configurations and are automatically deployed through the push of a button
(Advanced Flying Automobile, 2007). The Advanced Flying Automobile
Company intend to have built an operational prototype by 2010; and a number
of experimental vehicles by 2012 once sufficient funding has been secured.

Figure 2-3: Sokol A400 (Advanced Flying Automobile, 2007)

La Biche Aerospace FSC-1
The La Biche Aerospace FSC-1 is a flying car that features a fully automated
conversion system. The vehicle weighs a total of 1724kg and is designed for a
top speed of 483 km/hr (Wikipedia, 2008). The vehicle is proposed to have a
conversion time of 30 seconds (La Biche Aeropsace, 2008). Currently, a
developmental prototype of the vehicle is being tested; however scaled
models of the La Biche have been successfully flown. A pilot and drivers
license is a requirement for flying the La Biche, however, a satellite navigation
flight system that allows hands free flight is awaiting approval by the Federal
7
Aviation Administration. Approval of such a system will mean that there is no
longer a need for a pilots license to operate the La Biche.

Figure 2-4: La Biche Aerosapce FSC-1 (La Biche Aerospace, 2008)

8
3 Conceptual Design
The development of the flying car concept required numerous iterations of
design and calculation, and was defined by the technical requirements of the
vehicle. The following sections discuss the development of the flying car
design from initial configuration selection, through to planform design, airfoil
and control surface selection, fuselage sizing, and propulsion system
selection. The integration and conversion between car and aircraft systems is
discussed in detail, and some materials and structure arrangements are
suggested. The resultant design is brought together in the three view
drawings.

3.1 Technical Task
The purpose of this design is to develop a paper based concept for a flying
car as part of undergraduate studies in Aircraft Design at the University of
Adelaide. Flying cars are dual mode vehicles that provide a means of
transport on the road, and after some modification, offer the convenience of
an aircraft. The aircraft can then be flown across metropolitan and regional
areas to avoid congestion in city traffic, and long distance driving in between
the city and country. The flying car was designed to seat four passengers
including the driver/pilot, allowing the vehicle to be used as a convenient
mode of transport for family holidays to regional areas, as well as for doctors
and business people working in remote areas of Australia. The vehicle is to
be controllable by one pilot/driver holding full automobile and light aircraft
pilots licenses.

3.1.1 Standard Requirements
The design must be compliant with the requirements outlined in the Australian
Design Rules (ADRs) when in the automobile configuration, which specify
standards for vehicle safety, anti-theft and emissions. These must be met in
9
order for a vehicle to be accepted for use on Australian roads. The design
must also comply with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which
specifies the requirements for all civil aircraft to be used in Australia, and
covers standards for performance parameters such as climb rate, safety and
design factors, testing and operational procedures. The design must comply
with CASA regulations in order for the vehicle to be accepted for use as a civil
aircraft in Australia. CASA regulations frequently refer to the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), in particular to FAR 23 which covers the airworthiness
requirements for all normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes
(which includes the proposed flying car design), and FAR 91, which covers
general operating and flight rules (including minimum flight altitudes).
Although audited, controlled and updated by the Federal Aviation Authority
(FAA) in the US, it is recognised as an international standard in most
countries, including Australia. Hence FAR 23 and 91 will also be referred to
for standard requirements for the flying car (whilst in airplane-configuration).

3.1.2 Performance Requirements

Most performance parameters are a result of either ADRs, CASA or FAR, or a
combination of all three. The main parameters of performance for the flying
car are listed below, and there follows a discussion from where these
parameters came.

10
Table 3-1: Performance Parameters
Parameter Value
Maximum on road speed 130 km/hr
Maximum on road width 2.2m
Maximum on road length 6.5m
Maximum on road height 2.1m
Driving radius 400km
Payload Weight 400kg
Maximum In-flight speed 270 km/hr
Cruise In-flight speed 210 km/hr
Cruise Altitude 6000ft
Flight Range 980 km
Landing/Takeoff Requirements
Runway width = 15 m
Runway length = 900m
Rate of Climb 5 m/s
The maximum on-road speed limit for most Australian States and Territories is
110 km/hr, with the exception of the Northern Territory, which has a maximum
limit of 130hm/hr. Thus the maximum on road speed should be 130km/hr, to
allow for overtaking on most Australian open roads.

The on-road lengths, widths and heights are motivated by the recommended
size of parallel public carparks in Australia; the width is 2.3m and length is
6.7m. So to allow for doors to open and occupants to exit the vehicle, the
vehicle should be no wider than 2.2m (allowing for 10cm either side between
one vehicle and the next adjacent vehicle for doors to open). The maximum
length of the vehicle should be kept within 6.5m, to keep the tail end clear
from passing cars and pedestrians. The minimum height of public car parks
11
roofs is 2.1m, so the vehicle should be no higher than this to allow access
(DSE Victorian Government, 2007).

The driving radius requirement (400km) is motivated by the need to travel
from one location to nearby airport/airstrip, then from the next airport/airstrip
to the desired regional destination. It was based on travelling from an
Adelaide suburban residence to either the Adelaide Airport (for Southern
suburbs residents), or to Parafield airport (for Northern suburbs residents),
and then from a regional airstrip to a nearby town/property/industrial site
where there is no airstrip.

The payload requirement of 400kg comes directly from the need to carry 4
passengers and their luggage; allowing for each passenger to weigh 85kg
(average weight of an adult civilian commonly used in passenger aircraft
design), and to carry 15 kg of luggage each.

FAR 91, Section 117 states that no person may operate an aircraft below
10000ft MSL at an IAS (indicated airspeed) of more than 250 knots (463
km/hr). To comply with this requirement, while observing the predicted
maximum speeds that proven flying cars and four seater aircraft are capable
of (see statistical analysis section to follow), a maximum speed was chosen
as 280 km/hr.

The cruise altitude is governed by the requirements in FAR 23 Part 91,
Section 119, which states that the minimum flight altitude over congested
areas (such as cities or industrial areas) is 1000ft, and 5000ft for over other
than congested areas, except over open water/sparsely populated areas.
Since the highest point in South Australia is 1000ft above sea level (Mt
Woodroffe), to comply with this requirement, the cruise altitude was specified
to be 6000ft. This altitude also means in general the flying car will be clear of
other larger transport aircraft (which cruise at much higher altitudes) and since
the flying car will not fly higher than 10000ft, the cabin does not need to be
pressurised or have oxygen supply, simplifying the design.

12
The flight range was based on the need to fly from an Australian city to a
regional area, and Adelaide to Ceduna was selected as a baseline for this
purpose. The maximum flight range on one tank is 781 km, plus 25% for a
safety factor, giving 980km as the flight range. It was assumed that if the
commuter needed to travel to a further destination in rural Australia, that there
would be refuelling stops to accommodate for this. The approximate locations
of refuelling stations in rural centre are illustrated in the map below (Figure
3-1).

Figure 3-1: BP Refuelling sites in Australia (Air BP, 2008)

3.1.3 Technical level of product
This vehicle is not intended to be an acrobatic aircraft; it is merely intended to
be a replacement for charter aircraft which would normally service remote
13
areas, which are usually infrequent and expensive. It is intended that this
aircraft be flown by a single pilot with full drivers and light aircraft licenses.

3.1.4 Economical parameters
This aircraft should be affordable to those in the light aircraft and the speciality
automobile market. It is intended that this vehicle be a replacement for a light
aircraft for personal/business use, while still servicing as a functional car. As
such, the price of outright purchasing of the flying car should be no greater
than $500, 000 (AUD) as this price is comparable to that of a high end sports
car or personal light aircraft, and it is that consumer market which the flying
car is aimed at.
The price of operation and maintenance should be no greater than $200/hr of
operation. This is based on the average cost of operation for VFR General
Aviation Operators (which would include the proposed flying car design), as
according to a CASA report on Standard Economic Values in 2007.

3.1.5 Power plant type and requirements

Table 3-2: Power plant requirement
Parameter Details
Engine Standard high performance aircraft piston engine; while
in aircraft-configuration there will be a pusher propeller
fitted.
Fuel Type AvGas or Jet Fuel
Engine Life Cycle Time Between Overhaul (TBO) s2000 hrs (average TBO
for light aircraft)
14
3.1.6 Main System Requirements

Table 3-3: Main System Requirements
Parameter Details
Landing gear No additional landing gear; the standard car wheels are
intended for use as landing gear
Airconditioner An airconditioner should be provided for use in both car
and plane configurations for both heating and cooling.
GPS Navigation
System
A GPS Navigation system should be fitted to the vehicle.
Blackbox Recorder A safety precaution in the case of the plane crashing.
Seat belts Seat belts should be provided for all passengers and pilot,
and should include dual shoulder straps and a waist belt
that are fully adjustable to ensure the safety of all
occupants.
Airbags Airbags should be fitted to the vehicle, but should be only
functional when the vehicle is in car mode to prevent
accidental deployment due to turbulence.
Communication
Systems
A VHF radio system should be fitted in the cabin in reach
of the pilot, and it should be used on the 108 MHz and
137 MHz band whilst in flight (the airband), and could be
used for rural communication in car-mode.
3.1.7 Reliability and maintainability
To be no less frequent than those for a light aircraft or automobile; TBO is
recommended to be 2000hrs (an average value for aviation piston engines).
15
All maintenance and services should be carried out by a certified aircraft
mechanic who is familiar with the vehicle.

3.1.8 Unification level
The cabin of the vehicle should be similar to the cabin of an automobile; it
should seat comfortably a pilot with one front passenger and three rear
passengers, plus baggage. In the case of less than four passengers,
occupants and baggage should be distributed throughout cabin so as to
provide stability about the centre-of-gravity.
In future design iterations, the passenger capacity could be increased, to
convert the flying car to a bus. Alternatively, the number of passengers
could be reduced, and a tray top added to convert into a utility design, to be
marketed to the consumers on rural properties who need to transport
stock/supplies from city to country.
16
3.2 Statistical Analysis

In order to find a basis for parameters of the aircraft to be designed, a trade
study of existing and proven flying car designs was undertaken. However, it
was noted that the number of past and present flying car designs was very
limited, and so in order to improve the reliability of such statistics, several light
aircraft, of comparable size and performance were also examined. The
results of the statistical analysis and trade study are detailed in the following
sections, and were utilised in the previous section Technical Task,
particularly in the sections specifying performance and dimensions of the
flying car.

3.2.1 Empty Weight

The empty weights of a statistical group of flying cars and four seater
homebuilt and light aircraft were compared against their quoted takeoff
weights, to gain a better understanding of how the empty and takeoff weights
are related for such aircraft. The results are plotted below (Figure 3-2:
Technology Diagram: Empty Weight).

17
Figure 3-2: Technology Diagram: Empty Weight
The technology diagram for empty weight shows the statistical trend of how
empty weight varies with takeoff weight. A linear trendline was fitted to the
data set and used to determine the takeoff weight required for a payload
weight of 400kg. Using the equation obtained from the trendline, the following
weights were found to be:
W
To
= 2337 kg
W
e
= 1937 kg

Although the statistical trend indicates that a high takeoff weight is required to
carry a payload weight of 400kg, the results of the weight estimation will be
used for the matching diagram.

3.2.2 Maximum Speed

The maximum speeds of various flying cars, four seater homebuilts and light
aircraft were used to find a statistical relationship to maximum takeoff weight.
Data for the three groups of aircraft researched is displayed in the graph
below. A trendline was fitted to the data and used to determine a maximum
speed of 74m/s, based on a takeoff weight of 1182kg.

18
Figure 3-3: Technology Diagram: Maximum Speed

3.2.3 Wing Loading

Wing loading values for the various flying cars and four seater light aircraft
were researched and plotted, as seen in Figure 3-4 below. Wing loading data
for the four seater homebuilt aircraft was difficult to source, however the data
points for the flying cars and four seater light aircraft were fairly evenly
distributed. Using the trendline fitted to these points, the wing loading was
determined to be 80 kgm
-2
.
Figure 3-4: Technology Diagram: Wing Loading

3.2.4 Wing Span

19
The following graph (Figure 3-5) shows the distribution of span with takeoff
weight for the three different types of aircraft. It is to be noted that the outlier
is due to the Moller M400 Skycar which is a type of flying car without wings
that uses ducted fans for propulsion. The span value for the Skycar plotted
against the corresponding takeoff weight is actually the width of the flying car
rather than the span, which is why the value is much lower than the general
trend for the majority of flying cars and four seater aircraft. The outlier was
omitted and a trendline fitted to the remaining data points, resulting in a span
of 10 metres. This value for span, obtained through statistical data provides
an indication of how big the span of the flying car should be, based on
previous flying cars and four seater aircraft. However, the span for the design
will be determined through the matching diagram; and is also restricted due to
design constraints such as the folding mechanism of the wing.

Figure 3-5: Wing Span

3.2.5 Height and Length

20
The same method was employed to obtain the relationships between height,
length and takeoff weight, shown in the following plots, Figure 3-6 and Figure
3-7.

Figure 3-6: Technology Diagram: Height

Figure 3-7: Technology Diagram: Length

21
The trendlines obtained were used to determine the length and height values
to be 5.79m and 2.2m respectively. Although the statistical data has indicated
these values for length and height, the maximum dimensions of the flying car
are constrained by the parking bay dimensions as outlined in the technical
task which have been summarised again in Table 3-4: Parking Bay
Dimensions, below.

Table 3-4: Parking Bay Dimensions
Maximum on road width 2.4m
Maximum on road length 5.4m
Maximum on road height 2m
3.3 Mission Profile
The mission profile for the flying car was divided into two sections; the flight
phase and the driving phase. It was assumed that the flying car would carry a
full load of fuel on any given trip, meaning that refuelling facilities would be
available prior each to takeoff and after each landing. This was for two main
reasons, the first of which was weight reduction as refuelling prior to takeoff
reduced the amount of fuel which needed to be carried. Secondly, it
introduced a margin of safety as it would be unadvisable to takeoff without a
substantial amount of fuel, which may happen if refuelling was not required. It
was also assumed that the performance of the flying car in automobile mode
would be akin to that of a regular sedan and as such, weight analysis was
unnecessary for the driving phase of operation.

3.3.1 Mission Profile Diagram

Having the technical requirements, such as range and cruise speed, the
mission profile diagram was constructed to aid in calculation of the mass fuel
fractions for each phase of the mission. This is shown in Figure 3-8 below.
22
Figure 3-8: Mission Profile Diagram

3.3.2 Mass Fuel Fraction Determination

It was decided that, as the intention of the flying car was to replace a small
regional aircraft, the performance should be comparable to a light
chartered/personal plane. With this assumption, mass fuel fractions for each
stage of the mission, excluding cruise and loiter, were obtained from Airplane
Design Part I (Roskam, 1985). A summary of these values is presented in
Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Mass Fuel Fractions
Flight Segment Mission Point Ratio Mass Fuel Fraction
Start Up/Warm Up W
o
/W
1
0.995
Taxi W
2
/W
1
0.997
Takeoff W
3
/W
2
0.998
Climb W
4
/W
3
0.992
Descent W
7
/W
6
0.993
Landing/Taxi/Shut Down W
8
/W
7
0.993
Adapted from (Roskam, 1985)

23
3.3.3 Mass Fuel Fraction Determination

Mass fuel fractions for both loiter and cruise flight segments were required to
be calculated. This was carried out using the method outlined in Roskam I.
The hand calculations can be seen in Appendix A: Mass Fuel Fraction Hand
Calculations, and the fuel fractions shown below in Table 3-6: Mass Fuel
Fractions.

Table 3-6: Mass Fuel Fractions
Flight Segment
Mission Point
Ratio
Mass Fuel
Fraction
Cruise W5/W4 0.901
Loiter W6/W5 0.995
3.3.4 Total Mass Fuel Fraction

Once fuel fractions were determined for all flight segments, the total mass fuel
fraction was calculated as the product of each of the individual fuel fractions.
The resultant total mass fuel fraction was calculated to be
M
ff
= 0.868
The associated calculations are presented in Appendix A: Mass Fuel Fraction
Hand Calculations.

24
3.4 Weight Estimation

After performing the statistical analysis to determine rough estimates of the
aircraft parameters, a more measured approach was taken to estimate the
empty weight to takeoff weight relationship. The statistical data was
compared to a trade study of theoretical empty and takeoff weights, based on
the design criteria for a 400kg payload capacity. The fuel weight was also
included, using the following equation:

W
TO
= W
e
+ W
PL
+ W
F
The upper limit for the empty weight was set to 2000kg, as the empty weight
would never exceed maximum takeoff weight for flying cars found during the
statistical analysis, accounting for a 400kg payload. The design point
corresponds to the intersection of the two graphs and was used to determine
a preliminary takeoff weight for the car, as can be seen in Figure 3-9. This
gave the following values:

W
To
= 1615.1 kg
W
e
= 1048.1kg

It is important to note that the majority of the flying cars used in the statistical
analysis were actually 1 or 2 seater vehicles, which may have skewed the
results towards lighter takeoff weights.

25
Figure 3-9: Weight Estimation

3.5 Sensitivity Analysis
A number of parameters, such as aspect ratio and lift to drag ratio, were
initially selected on the basis of statistical trends. By conducting a sensitivity
analysis, this allows the designer to gain an understanding of how takeoff
weight is affected by changes in the aircrafts main parameters. In doing so, it
will be determined which parameters drive the design and give an indication
of the limitations of the main parameters. The sensitivities of the following
parameters to takeoff weight will be examined in this section:

payload weight
empty weight
range
specific fuel consumption
propeller efficiency
lift to drag ratio

26
All sensitivity calculations can be found in Appendix B: Sensitivity Hand
Calculations of this report.

3.5.1 Sensitivity to payload weight

The following equations were used to determine the sensitivity of takeoff
weight to payload weight:

TO
TO
PL
TO
W B C D
BW
W
W
) 1 (
=
c
c
Where 87336 . 0 = B , found from statistical data relevant to flying cars and four
seater homebuilt and light aircraft.

Funusable ff res
M M M C + = ) 1 )( 1 ( 1
TO ff res res
W M M W ) 1 ( =
,
ff
M was derived from the Mission Fuel Fraction
calculations
TO
Funusable
W
W
Funusable
M
=
,
Funusable
W
was assumed to be 5% of the
total fuel weight.
crew PL
W W D + =
It was found that
37 . 6 =
c
c
PL
TO
W
W
, meaning that for a 1kg increase in payload
weight, the takeoff weight is required to be increased by 6.37kg.

3.5.2 Sensitivity to Empty Weight

Statistical parameters A and B were used to find the sensitivity of takeoff
weight to the aircrafts empty weight:
27
)
log
(
10
B
A W
TO
E
TO
TO
BW
W
W

=
c
c
A sensitivity of =
c
c
E
TO
W
W
1.35 was obtained, showing that for a 1kg increase in
payload weight, the takeoff weight is required to be increased by 1.35kg.

3.5.3 Sensitivity to Range
Various parameters were required to be used when calculating the sensitivity
of takeoff weight to range. The values of specific fuel consumption, propeller
efficiency and lift to drag ratio were chosen to be conservative and are as
follows:

hr hp lbs c
P
/ / 15 . 0 =
7 . 0 =
P
q
8 =
D
L
The effects of the above values on takeoff weight are analysed later in this
section.

The partial derivative relationship between takeoff weight and range is given
by:

1
) 375 (

=
c
c
D
L
Fc
W
W
P P
R
TO
q ,
where
D B CW
M M BW
F
TO
ff res
TO

+
=
) 1 (
) 1 (
2
28
It was found that =
c
c
R
TO
W
W
0.411kg/km (1.68lbs/nm). This value seemed very
low, however a low C
p
value of 0.15lbs/hp/hr was used. This indicates that an
engine with good fuel consumption will lead to a lesser increase in takeoff
weight with increasing range.

According to Roskam (1985), the range of propeller driven aircraft does not
depend on speed, ie. 0 =
c
c
V
R
. Therefore, only the sensitivity of takeoff weight
to range needs to be considered.

3.5.4 Sensitivity to Specific Fuel Consumption

The following equation describes the sensitivity of takeoff weight to specific
fuel consumption:

1
) 375 (

=
c
c
D
L
FR
c
W
P
P
TO
q , where F was previously defined.

A sensitivity of 2681.8 kg/lbs/hp/hr was calculated. From this, it can be
determined that if the specific fuel consumption was increased from
0.15lbs/hp/hr to 0.2lbs/hp/hr for example, this would require the takeoff weight
to be increased by 134kg.

3.5.5 Sensitivity to Propeller Efficiency

Propeller efficiency, expressed as a percentage, indicates the ability of a
propeller to convert brake horsepower into thrust. For example, a propeller
efficiency of 0.7 indicates that 70% of the engines brake horsepower is
converted into thrust. A factor that affects the value of propeller efficiency is
29
the mission phase of the aircraft. For a single piston engine aircraft, Roskam
gives propeller efficiency values as tabulated below.

Table 3-7: Propeller Efficiency Values
Single Engine Aircraft Propeller Efficiency Roskam values
Loiter Cruise
0.7 0.8
A propeller efficiency value of 0.7 was chosen to be conservative. The
sensitivity of this parameter was then determined using the following equation
to find the effects of the propeller efficiency value.

1 2
) 375 (

=
c
c
D
L
FRc
W
P
p
P
TO
q
q
A sensitivity of =
c
c
P
TO
W
q
574.66kg was calculated. Using this result, it can be
found that by increasing propeller efficiency to 0.8, this would result in a
takeoff weight decrease of 57.5kg. Therefore, the choice of 0.7 for propeller
efficiency is conservative by effectively increasing the takeoff weight by
57.5kg.

3.5.6 Sensitivity to Lift to Drag Ratio

Lift to drag ratio gives an indication of the aerodynamic efficiency of an
aircraft. The flying car was not expected to have a high lift to drag ratio due to
several reasons such as the non-streamlined profile of the vehicle and fixed
landing gear. Therefore, a lift to drag ratio of 8 was chosen when determining
the mass fuel fraction. The sensitivity of this choice of lift to drag ratio was
then analysed using the following equation:
30
2
) ( 375
D
L
FRc
D
L
W
p
p
TO
q

=
c
c
A sensitivity of =
c
c
D
L
W
TO
-50.3kg was found. Therefore, if the lift to drag ratio
were to be increased from 8 to 10, this would result in a takeoff weight
decrease of 100.6kg.

3.6 Aircraft Sizing

The flying car due to its maximum take off weight and specific performance
requirements was sized accordingly to FAR23. The design requirements
consisted of takeoff distance, stall speed, cruise speed and climb
performance to mention a few. The sizing process is explained in further detail
below.

3.6.1 Sizing Parameters

Stall Speed
For stall speed requirements, it was noted that in steady level flight that
weight must equal lift;
W = L = q
stall
S C
Lmax
= V
2
stall
S C
Lmax

Rearrangement of this equation indicates that wing loading at stall is
independent of the thrust loading of the vehicle.

W/S = V
2
stall
C
Lmax

Take off
Sizing for take off distance required the estimation of the takeoff lift coefficient,
C
LTO
, the takeoff parameters for FAR23, TOP
23
, and the Takeoff Ground Run
31
S
TOG
. The estimation of the take off ground run is reliant on the take of
distance. Thus the aircraft was initially sized for a few different lengths in
order to optimise the vehicles performance.

C
LTO
= C
LmaxTO
/1.21
S
TOG
= S
TO
/1.66
S
TOG
= 4.9*TOP
23
+ 0.009* TOP
23
2
Through the above mentioned parameters a relationship between wing
loading and power loading at take off was found

(W/S)
TO
= TOP
23
*$ * C
LTO
*(P/W)
TO

Landing
The sizing process for landing distance involved initially calculating the
landing stall speed V
SL
,
V
SL
= 1.395* sqrt( S
L
)
(W/S)
L
= 0.5* * V
SL
2
* C
LmaxL

Landing and take off performances of an aircraft are interrelated. If an
aircrafts landing weight is less than the take off weight, then the wing loading
during landing is less than at take off. For an aircraft under emergency
conditions, its better for aircraft to land at low wing loading. Thus, the wing
loading at landing is related back to the take off wing loading
Thus,
(W/S)
TO
= (W/S)
L
= 0.5* * V
SL
2
* C
LmaxL
For most propeller driven aircraft, take off and landing weight taken as 1:1.

Cruise
For aircraft, cruise is sized at a particular power index, such that a given
vehicle is able to achieve and sustain a certain cruise speed at some rated
power. For propeller driven aircraft, at cruise the relationship between wing
and thrust loading is linear in nature. Cruise performance was sized through
32
the statistically generated relationship between power index v cruise speed
provided in Roskam Part I

(W/S) = (W/P)* $ *Ip
3
Climb
Climb sizing to FAR23 requires the sizing to be undertaken for 6 individual
scenarios. They are FAR 23.65 AEO (all engines operating) for climb gradient
and rate of climb; and FAR 23.77 AEO climb gradient. In the estimation of the
drag polar, statistical data provided for single engine propeller driven aircraft
was used, as such data could not be found specifically for flying car
configuration.
(W/P) = 18.97* +
p
* $
1/2
/ (CGRP*(W/S)
1/2
)
3.6.2 Matching Diagram

The matching diagram is a tool used in classical aircraft design, to optimise
the performance of the aircraft. For each of the deisgn requirements stated
above, the power loading was plotted against the wing loading, thus
producing the matching diagram for the flying car.

In order to generate the matching diagram certain values were assumed,
these consisted of stall speed (V
stall
< 61 knots, FAR23), aspect ratio, oswald
efficiency factor and propeller efficiency (0.7 fixed pitch propeller).

The power index, Ip was estimated using the Roskam figure 3.29 for fixed
gear configuration, for a velocity of 210km, 130.5mph Ip value of 1.1 was
obtained.

The matching diagram developed for the flying car is shown below in Figure
3-10
33
Matching Diagram
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 25 45
W/S (lbs/ft^2)
W
/
P
(
l
b
s
/
h
p
)
Cruise Take off Cl=1.6 Take off Cl=1.8 Take off Cl=1.9
Climb FAR 23.65 (RC) Climb FAR 23.65 (CGR) Climb FAR 23.77 (CGR) Landing Req Cl=1.8
Landing Req Cl=2.0 Landing Req Cl=2.2 Design Point
Figure 3-10: Matching Diagram

3.6.3 Design Point

The design match points that give optimal aircraft configurations of low power
to low wing area are positioned at vertices of the MET area. As can be seen
there are two possible vertices at which the matching point could theoretically
be positioned. However, the leftmost point would have required a very large
wing area (small wing loading) and an unreasonably small landing distance.
Therefore the design point indicated in the diagram above was chosen.

For landing and takeoff the design constraints were based on the minimum
rural landing strip which had a field length of 900m. This meant that the flying
car had to takeoff and land in a distance less than this value. For the initial
matching diagram it was required that a suitable landing and take off
distances be found.

34
In order to find the optimum take off and landing field lengths three distances
of 500m, 700m and 900m were used in sizing for takeoff and landing and
plotted on the matching diagram, this can be seen in Figure 3-10 above. The
three options were considered by comapring the met areas and match points
of the different combinations of landing and takeoff distances, until an
acceptable match point was found.

Once the landing and takeoff distances were selected a second matching
diagram was generated to compare the different lift coefficients for take off
and landing. This allowed the effect and dependence on the lift coefficient to
observed. Thereby the lift coefficient value resulting in an optimised design
was selected, C
lmaxL
=1.8 and C
lmaxTO
=1.6.

The selected design point, resulted in the following value of power and wing
loading.

W/S = 25.9 lbs/ft
2
W/P = 10.61 lbs/hp

3.7 Configuration Selection

In the initial stages of design, it was established that there were three distinct
configurations; conventional (with tail), tailless, and canard. Tailless and
canard designs offer the advantage of no added length from the need to have
a tail, giving more flexibility to the design of the length of the vehicle.
However, the stability analysis for canard and tailless designs is very
complicated and involved, and this project was never intended to become an
extensive study in the stability of canard and tailless designs. With this in
mind, a conventional tailed design was chosen for the configuration of the
35
flying car, in order to dedicate more time and resources to the overall design
of the flying car (rather than concentrating on stability requirements).

To begin, several different conventional configurations were considered and
compared on their various merits. The initial sketches of these designs are
shown below, complete with a brief description of each idea. All three designs
will have retractable/folding wings of some description; this is considered to
be independent of the configuration design and will be discussed in a later
section.

3.7.1 Concept 1: Inverted V-Tail

Tail to be mounted on telescopic booms to be retracted in car-
configuration.
May create problems in terms of clearance height; would need to have
the height of the tail within the 2.1m allowed for the car (not shown in
the sketches), or be removal for car-configuration.
Inverted V-tail provides vertical stabiliser, but may be difficult to fit with
control surfaces.

36
Figure 3-11: Inverted V-tail concept

3.7.2 Concept 2: Y-Tail

Similar to the inverted V-tail design in terms of advantages and
disadvantages; provides vertical stabiliser, but would need to have
limited height (to fit within the 2.1m height restrictions) or be detachable
for car-mode.
The Y-tail would also be difficult to fit with control surfaces due to the
orientation of the tail.
37
Figure 3-12: Y-tail concept

3.7.3 Concept 3: Horizontal Tail

Utilises a conventional horizontal tail connected to the raised rear end
of the vehicle.
38
Depending on the span of the horizontal tail required, the tail may need
to be retracted and/or folded to fit within the 2.2m width restrictions of
the car-mode.
Tail can be fitted with control surfaces, and is within the height
restrictions of the car-mode.

Figure 3-13: Horizontal Tail Concept

39
3.7.4 Concept Selection

Of the concepts described above, the most feasible concept is the horizontal
tail. The inverted-V tail and the Y-tail both require detaching for use in the
car-mode (due to height restrictions), or a significant limit in the height at
which they can be installed if they are to be permanent fixtures. Neither the
inverted-V nor the Y-tail can be fitted with control surfaces, such as flaps or
elevators, because of their orientation, and so this limits the degree of control
achievable through the use of such tail configurations.

The horizontal tail on the other hand, can be installed at such a height that in
car mode the vehicle is still within height restrictions. If the tail span is beyond
the 2m width allowable for the car-mode, a similar mechanism would need to
be implemented to that used to retract/fold the wings. Thus no complicated
mechanism would need to be designed, installed or maintained, simplifying
the design and its use.

The exact details of wing and tail span, aspect ratios and other dimensions
will be discussed in the sections to follow on wing and fuselage design.

3.8 Planform Design
Prior to the design layout, a number of parameters must be selected; among
these are the wing and empennage geometries.

3.8.1 Wing Planform Design

The selection of three important parameters dictate wing planform design;
these consist of wing loading, aspect and taper ratios. Each of these
parameters and the selected magnitude of these values are explained below.
In addition, a summary of the wing planform is provided.

40
Wing Loading

Through the matching diagram presented in the previous section, the
operational area of the aircraft as well as the most favourable operational
point was deduced. In deriving the wing planform, the corresponding wing
loading of the selected design point was reassessed to predict whether such
design could be feasible from the perspectives of both manufacturing and ride
quality.

The manufacturing and production costs of high wing loading aircraft are more
expensive than the manufacture of low wing loading aircraft. At high wing
loading the vehicle structure is required to resist higher accompanying
stresses. In this specific case the wing loading of the vehicle was restricted to
the higher end of the spectrum, due to its dual purpose to serve both as an
airborne and an on road vehicle. For instance, the overall take off weight of
the vehicle was higher than any other single propeller driven aircraft in service
and yet the planform area needed to be similar to these aircraft, in order to
function efficiently as an on road vehicle.

However, the high wing loading was an advantage for the ride quality aspect
of the vehicle. Aircraft with lower wing loading are highly sensitivity to changes
in angle of attack, which detracts from the ride quality as passengers onboard
experience more noticeable effects of disturbances during flight compared to
an aircraft with high wing loading. Another added benefit of high values for
wing loading means that the cruise lift coefficient of the aircraft is in close
proximity to the design lift coefficient.

As a result, a design point corresponding to a wing loading of 25.9 lbs/ft^2
was selected.

41
Aspect Ratio

High aspect ratios lead to steeper lift curve slopes such that aircraft are more
sensitive to variations in angle of attack. As a result, the ride quality of the
aircraft is reduced. A steeper lift-curve slope also results in low stall angles of
attack.

In addition, high aspect ratio wings are accompanied by the additional weight
penalty resulting from higher spans. However, high aspect ratios are a must
on certain aircraft to allow for adequate runway visibility from the cockpit.

The low aspect ratio designs exhibit improved aero-elastic and lateral stability
characteristics. Therefore, an aspect ratio of 6 was selected for this aircraft.
The aspect ratio of 6 resulted in a reasonable wing span which could be
stowed away during the on road operation of the vehicle.

Taper Ratio

Wing taper ratio is the ratio of the tip chord to the root chord. A wing planform
with a taper ratio of one is the easiest and cheapest to manufacture. However,
tapering a wing has several advantages. By reducing the taper ratio of the
wing, a decrease in weight can be achieved.

In addition, taper ratio influences the lift distribution of the wing. The ideal
wing planform shape is in that of an ellipse, as this results in an elliptical lift
distribution and minimum induced drag. A reduced tip chord means that the lift
generated at the tips, and hence structural loading on the wing is reduced
compared to a greater tip chord for wings with higher taper ratios. Stall
characteristics of the wing can be improved by tapering the wings. By
increasing the taper ratio, the tip chord length is increased, which reduces the
local lift coefficient, and hence tip stall is delayed. Furthermore, large taper
ratios are used to increase the amount of space of the wings that can be
utilised to house fuel.

42
In this specific case, a taper ratio of 0.8 was selected. The simple rectangular
wing planform design allowed for the implementation of a simpler conversion
system.

Table 3-8: Wing Planform Parameters
Parameters
Wing Area
12.75 m
2
Aspect Ratio 6
Wing Span 8.7m
Taper Ratio 0.8
Root Chord 1.6m
Tip Chord 1.28m
MAC 1.45m
Position-MAC 2.09m
Incidence Angle 2.7 deg
3.8.2 Empennage Planform Design

Normally, the horizontal and vertical tail planes are sized through stability
analysis. The moments about the aircraft centre of gravity are taken in pitch
and yaw and the area of the empennage surfaces are then sized accordingly.
In this case due to the time constraints of the project, the tail planes were
sized from statistics of aircraft with similar wing dimensions and
characteristics. In order to size the empennage surfaces, the tail volume
coefficients for the horizontal and vertical stabilisers needed to be determined.
The tail volume coefficient is an indicator of the effectiveness of the tail in
counteracting the moments from the wing and is the product of the tail
planform area and the tail moment arm.
43
W
T T
H
W W
T T
V
S c
S L
V
S b
S L
V

=
=
There is a direct relationship which exists between the wing planform area
and profile and the tail planform area and this trend was used in establishing
the tail volume coefficients.

Horizontal Tail Plane Design
Due to the novelty of concept, statistics related specifically to the flying car
empennage surfaces could not be found. Thus, statistics on tail volume
coefficients of aircraft with similar wing planform area and MAC were
gathered. The tail volume coefficients were then plotted against the
corresponding wing planform area.

Table 3-9: Horizontal Tail Plane Statistics
Name S
W
(ft
2
) MAC Vh Xh (ft)
Skylane RG 174 4.52 0.71 14.3
Warrior Turbo
Saratoga
170 4.44 0.48 13.5
Tiger Rockwell 140 4.44 0.76 12.6
Commander
Trago Mills
152 4.58 0.49 10.9
SAH 1 120 3.92 0.83 17.8
Scottish
Aviation
Bullfinch
129 3.97 0.63 11.9
procter Petrel 135 4.54 0.52 12.2
With MAC of 4.2ft and wing planform area of 137ft
2
the specifications of this
design closely matched that of the Tiger Rockwell, Procter Petrel and Scottish
Bullfinch aircraft, thus a tail volume coefficient of 0.65 was selected. The
design point is shown below.

44
Horizontal Tail Plane Volume Coefficient
Skylane RG
Warrior Turbo
Tiger Rockwell
SAH-1
Commander
Trago
Scottish
Bullfinch
Procter Petrel
Design Point
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Wing Planform Area (ft
2
)
T
a
i
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Figure 3-14: Tail Plane Volume Coefficient

In order to reduce the associated drag in its on road configuration, it was
necessary to have a small horizontal tail plane area of approximately 1.25m
2
.
The small area was also a necessity for the implementation of the conversion
system which stowed away a portion of the tail plane surfaces during its on
road usage. Thus, the tail moment arm needed to be much bigger than those
listed for single engine propeller aircraft to obtain the volume tail coefficient of
0.65. The booms of the boom tail configuration were therefore made to be
telescopic to obtain the large tail moment lever arm of approximately 6m.

With low aspect ratio, the stall angle is increased and thereby stall is delayed,
thus low aspect ratios are used in tail plane design. The low aspect ratio
allows for the tail to stall after the wings, such that a nose up moment is
generated by the tailplane to stabilise the aircraft. For low aspect ratio wings,
aspect ratio in the range of 2.5-3 is recommended. Therefore, aspect ratio of
3 was selected. While for the taper ratio, although a range of 0.3-0.5 is
45
recommended, for this particular design the recommended taper ratios could
not produce the required tail plane area as constraints were placed on the
root chord. As a result, two different tail planes were designed; one was
placed within the bounds of the vertical stabilisers and another placed outside
it.

Below is the summary of the horizontal tail plane planform.

Table 3-10: Horizontal Tail Plane 1
Parameters
Tail Plane Area 0.85 m
2
Aspect Ratio 3
Taper Ratio 1
Croot 0.5 m
Span 1.7 m
Table 3-11: Horizontal Tail Plane 2
Parameters
Tail Plane Area 0.4 m
2
Aspect Ratio 2.5
Taper Ratio 0.6
Croot 0.5 m
Span 1
Vertical Tail Plane Design
A similar procedure to that outlined above for the horizontal tail plane sizing
was followed. Tail volume coefficients for aircraft with similar wing planform
area and span were collected and are presented in the table below.

46
Table 3-12: Vertical Tail Plane Statistics
Name S
W
(ft
2
) Span Vv Xv (ft)
Skylane RG 174 35.8 0.047 15.8
Warrior Turbo 170 35 0.026 13.2
Tiger Rockwell 140 31.5 0.024 12.6
Commander
Trago
152 32.8 0.039 11.4
SAH 1 120 30.7 0.086 18.6
Scottish
Bullfinch
129 33.8 0.062 11.9
Procter Petrel 135 30 0.033 11.4
Sequoia 300 130 30 0.055 13.2
Ord-Hume 125 25 0.027 12.5
With wing planform area as stated above of 137ft
2
and wing span of 25ft, a
conservative estimate of 0.04 was selected for the vertical tail volume
coefficient, as can be seen from Figure 3-15.

Vertical Tail Plane Coefficient
Skylane RG
Warrior Turbo
Tiger Rockwell
SAH 1
Procter Petrel
Sequoia 300
Ord-Hume
Commander
Trago
Scottish
Bullfinch
Design Point
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Wing Planform Area (ft
2
)
T
a
i
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Figure 3-15: Vertical Tail Plane Coefficient
47
Once again, in order to preserve the on road integrity of the vehicle, the
vertical tail plane could not exceed a certain span. The span of the rudder
needed to be minimal in order to satisfy the height limit in its overall vehicle
configuration. Thus, the estimated area was spread over three vertical tail
planes, this is summarised in Table 3-13: Vertical Tail Plane Parameters
below. An aspect ratio of 1 and taper ratio of 0.8 were utilized, for similar
reasons outlined above.

Table 3-13: Vertical Tail Plane Parameters
Parameters
Tail Plane Area 1.1 m
2
Aspect Ratio 1
Taper Ratio 0.8
Croot 0.5 m
Span 2.4 m
3.9 Airfoil Selection

Airfoil selection is paramount in aircraft design. It affects the overall handling,
efficiency and stability of the vehicle during all phases of flight. In order to
select a suitable airfoil, a number of factors were considered and they consist
of

Design Lift Coefficient
The design lift coefficient is the point at which the best lift to drag ratio is
achieved. For a well designed airfoil, the drag at the design lift coefficient
is approximately equivalent to skin friction drag. Thus aircraft are designed
to achieve a lift coefficient in the vicinity of the design lift coefficient at
cruise. In selecting an appropriate airfoil, the maximum L/D ratios were
considered, high L/D ratios lead to an efficient vehicle.
48
Stall Characteristics
The stall characteristics of an airfoil are another critical parameter which
has a strong influence on the controllability of an aircraft. Some airfoils
have a steep lift curve slopes and exhibit a rapid loss of lift during stall
accompanied by a rapid change in pitching moment, while in others there
is a gradual reduction in lift. Airfoils with thickness to chord ratios of 14%
and above stall from the trailing edge and they experience gradual loss in
lift and small fluctuations in pitching moment. The stall characteristics of
thin airfoils can be improved by utilizing wash out.

Thickness Ratio
Thickness to chord ratios of airfoils have a direct impact on drag,
maximum lift, stall characteristics and structural weight. Although thick
airfoils exhibit good stall characteristics, they leads to increased structural
weight and drag due to increased separation.

Reynolds Number
Some airfoils are designed specifically for a given Reynolds number and
thus their behaviour at Reynolds numbers outside the design range can
lead to different characteristics.

Moment Coefficient
For this specific design, an airfoil with low pitching moment is required to
reduce torsional loads and induced drag. Airfoils with near constant
pitching moments also add to the overall stability of the vehicle. While for
the empennage surfaces, a symmetric airfoil is required, as these surfaces
must be able to provide lift in either direction.

Drag Coefficient
The drag associated with the airfoil profile dictates to a degree the
performance of the final vehicle as well as it overall efficiency. For
49
instance, to obtain good climb characteristics, high lift and low drag are
required at the desired climb altitude. The lower the associated drag of the
airfoil selected, the better the performance of the final product.

3.9.1 Wing Airfoil Selection

The Reynolds number for this aircraft is in the range of 2 to 7 million. Thus
only airfoils designed for this range were considered. Aircraft with similar
specifications were also considered and the below four airfoils were deduced
to be the most suitable.

Table 3-14: Wing Airfoils
Airfoil Aircraft
NACA-2412 Cessna 120
Cessna Skyhawk
NACA-65415 Scottish Bullfinch
Piper PA-32 Cherokee 6
SD7032 Piper PA-20 Pacer
HS522 Vickers VC-10
The corresponding drag polar, lift and moment curve slopes were obtained
and compared. The plot below shows the drag polar of the four airfoils.

50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
C
D
C
L
NACA-2412
NACA-65 415
SD7032
HS522
Figure 3-16: Drag Polar Wing Airfoil

From above it can be seen that NACA 65-415 has the least amount of
associated drag at angles of attack below the stall angle. The drag of the
other three airfoils are quiet similar. Furthermore, NACA 65-415 is also the
airfoil with the highest lift to drag ratio, the highest aerodynamic efficiency.
However, due to the high lifting nature of the airfoil, the design lift coefficient
of NACA 65-415 and SD7032 are around 0.8, while the lift coefficient of the
aircraft at cruise is approximately 0.4. The airfoil with the design lift coefficient
closest to the cruise lift coefficient of the aircraft is NACA 2412 at lift
coefficient of 0.45.

Presented below is the lift curve slope comparison of the four airfoils. NACA
65-415 and SD7032 have lift curve slopes smaller then the NACA 2412 and
the HS522. However, this difference is quiet small, with slope for the SD7032
being 0.1123 and 0.1157 for the NACA 2412.

51
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Angle of Attack (Deg)
C
L
Linear (NACA-2412)
Linear (SD7032)
Linear (NACA-65 415)
Linear (HS 522)
Figure 3-17: Lift Curve Slope Wing Airfoil
The associated moments of the airfoils NACA 65-415 and the SD7032 were
larger than the other two airfoils and at certain angles of attack; they were an
order of magnitude larger. For conventional aircraft, there are no strict limits
on the magnitude of the airfoil moment coefficients as any nose down moment
is counteracted by the horizontal stabiliser. However, in this case due to the
unique configuration of the vehicle, there were restrictions placed on the area
of the horizontal stabiliser. Any large surfaces would adversely affect the
performance and efficiency of the vehicles on road performance. Thus, by
selecting an airfoil with small moment, the area of the horizontal stabiliser
required to trim the aircraft would be reduced. As can be seen, HS522 has
almost neutral moment. However, the maximum lift coefficient of the wing in
the clean configuration is required to be 1.2 and thus an airfoil with maximum
lift coefficient 20% greater than this value was needed.

52
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Angle of Attack (Deg)
C
M
NACA-2412
NACA-65 415
SD 7032
HS522
Figure 3-18: Moment Curve Slope Wing Airfoil

Thus, for the above reasons NACA 2412 was decided upon as the airfoil of
choice for this design. In addition, its thickness to chord ratio is also smaller
than the two high lifting airfoils at 12%. By selecting this airfoil the additional
weight penalty which would have been incurred from NACA 65-415 and
SD7032 was eliminated.

3.9.2 Empennage Airfoil Selection

Airfoils selected for the horizontal and vertical stabiliser were required to
satisfy a set of requirements different to those listed for the main wing. The
main objective of the empennage surfaces is to generate lift forces to create
the required moments in pitch and yaw respectively to trim the aircraft. This lift
generated, however, does not contribute to the overall lifting capacity of the
vehicle.

Some of the main requirements are listed below.

Operational Reynolds number in the range of 10
5
to 10
8
.
53
Small thickness to chord ratio to reduce drag and weight contributions.
Small aerofoil moment

An analysis was conducted on a range of low moment and thin aerofoils,
consisting of NACA0012, NACA0006, NACA001 and NACA0008. The four
digit NACA airfoils were best suited to the Reynolds numbers stated above
and showed the least deviations from the predicted performance at these
Reynolds numbers. They were also considered to have good stall
characteristics and small centre of pressure movement across a lager speed
range.

As the main objective of the empennage surfaces is to trim the aircraft, the
choice of airfoil was mainly dictated by the associated induced drag rather
than the maximum lifting capacity.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
C
D
C
L
NACA0012
NACA0006
NACA001
NACA0008
Figure 3-19: Drag Polar- Tail Plane Airfoil

54
From the drag polar comparison presented above of the four airfoils, the
thinner airfoils such as the NACA0008 and NACA0006 had the smallest
associated drag. The drag to lift ratio of the two airfoils were quiet similar.

However, the NACA0006 was slightly more sensitive to changes in angle of
attack the NACA0008 as can be noted from the plot provided below. While
the moment curve slopes of the all four airfoils were within the proximity of
one another. Given the above comparison between the above four airfoils, it
was realised that either of the NACA0006 and 0008 would suit this particular
design. NACA0008 was selected due to its slightly higher maximum lift
capacity.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Angle of Attack (Deg)
C
L
NACA0012
NACA0006
NACA001
NACA0008
Figure 3-20: Lift Curve Slope- Empennage Airfoil

55
-0.025
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (Deg)
C
m
NACA0012
NACA0006
NACA001
NACA0008
Figure 3-21: Moment Curve Slope Empennage Airfoil

3.10 High Lifting Devices Flap Design

From the matching diagram, it was noted that maximum lift coefficients of 1.6
and 1.8 were necessary in order to meet take off and landing requirements
respectively. In order to size the flaps to produce this lift increment, the
method outlined in Airplane Design Part II (Roskam, 1985) was followed. The
sizing procedure consisted of two steps,

The wing planform obtained form the preliminary sizing process was
checked for consistency with the required value of clean Cl
max

assumed in the generation of the matching diagram.

Once the wing planform area was verified, the flaps were sized to
satisfy Cl
maxTO
and Cl
maxL
.
As the maximum lift coefficient of the wing in its clean configuration is to a
large extent determined by the maximum sectional lift coefficients, the lift
56
distribution for the above wing planform was obtained, based on the method
outlined in Theory of Wing Sections (Abbott et al, 1959). The lift coefficient
of the wing was increased until the lift distribution curve was tangent to the
maximum sectional lift coefficient i.e. the maximum coefficient of the airfoil, to
determine the maximum lift coefficient for the wing.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Span Location (y/(2b))
C
L
Maximum Wing Lift Distribution
Maximum Sectional Lift
Coefficient
Figure 3-22: Determination of Maximum Wing Lift Coefficient

The maximum lift coefficient of the wing in the clean configuration for the
described wing planform was estimated to be 1.31. The Cl
max clean
assumed in
the generation of the matching diagram to meet design requirements was 1.2.
As can be seen above the assumed value is within 5% of the wing maximum
lift coefficient as recommended in Airplane Design Part II (Roskam, 1985). In
order to size the flaps, the lift increment between the clean configuration and
the use of flaps needed to be established. Once these values were
determined the flap to chord ratio, type of flaps and flap deflection angle were
determined through the plots provided in Airplane Design Part II (Roskam,
1985). The figure presented below gives the lift increments required to obtain
the maximum lift coefficients with the use of flaps.

57
Required Lift Increment
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (deg)
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Flaps Down
Flaps Up
Del Cl
Max
Del Cl
Figure 3-23: Required Lift Increment

For the above maximum lift and lift at zero angle of attack ratio of 0.8, using a
single slotted flap, the following flap planform was deduced.

=
=
=
25
% 35
% 15
max
f
f
f
c
c
b
b
o
3.11 Control Surface Design

The following sections describe the design processes used in the
determination of the wing and tail plane control surfaces, and the resultant
designs are discussed.
58
3.11.1 Ailerons

Normally control surface areas are sized through the stability analysis, by
estimating the amount of moment required to trim the aircraft at flight
configurations outside steady level flight. In this case, due to the project time
constraints, ailerons were sized based on statistics as outlined in Airplane
Design Part II (Roskam, 1985).

Statistical data relating to aileron chord span and area fractions were obtained
for aircraft with similar planform area and wing span.

Table 3-15: Aileron Statistics
Name S
W
(ft
2
) Span Sa/S Span (in/out) Chord (in/out)
Skylane RG 174 35.8 0.11 0.47/0.96 0.17/0.24
Warrior Turbo 170 35 0.078 0.48/0.96 0.27/0.24
Tiger Rockwell 140 31.5 0.055 0.56/0.92 0.24
Commander
Trago
152 32.8 0.072 0.64/0.97 0.27/0.36
SAH 1 120 30.7 0.08 0.58/0.97 0.25/0.29
Scottish
Bullfinch
129 33.8 0.073 0.61/0.95 0.23/0.3
Procter Petrel 135 30 0.097 0.62/0.98 0.26
Sequoia 300 130 30 0.085 0.6/0.95 0.29
Ord-Hume 125 25 0.11 0.35/0.91 0.2
From the spread of data for aileron area ratio against wing planform area, the
aileron area was approximated to be 9% of the wing planform area, for wing
area of 137 ft
2
.
59
Warrior Turbo
Tiger Rockwell
Commander
Trago
Scottish Bullfinch
Procter Petrel
Sequoia 300
Design Point
Skylane RG
SAH 1
Ord-Hume
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Wing Planform Area (ft
2
)
A
r
e
a
R
a
t
i
o
(
A
a
i
l
e
r
o
n
/
A
w
i
n
g
)
Table 3-16: Aileron Area Fraction

Ailerons on conventional aircraft extend anywhere from 50% to 90% of the
wing span. From statistics for aileron to wing area ratio of 9%, in and out
board positions of the ailerons were approximated to 65% to 95%
respectively. For ease of installation the taper ratio of 0.8 as used for the
wings was selected.

In addition, the chord ratio was also selected from statistics for an area ratio of
9% and was taken to be 25% of the wing root chord.

Table 3-17: Aileron Sizing
Parameters
Aileron Area 1.15 m
2
Taper Ratio 0.8
Croot 0.4 m
Span 3.48 m
60
3.11.2 Sizing of Empennage Control Surfaces

Horizontal Tail
The horizontal tail is positioned on extendable booms, and the geometry is as
described in Empennage Planform Design.
The flying car has a wing area of 137.2ft
2
, and from Aircraft Design Part II
(Roskam, 1985), there are several other single engine, general aviation
aircraft with comparable wing spans. These are listed below with their
respective horizontal tail parameters. It is important to note that while the
horizontal tail areas are significantly larger than the flying cars tail area, due
to the large extension boom which results in a larger lever arm being
achieved, reducing the area required to achieve the necessary moment for
stability.

Table 3-18: Single Engine Propeller GA Aircraft Horizontal Tail Data
Aircraft
Wing
Area
[ft
2
]
Horizontal
Tail Area
[ft
2
]
Se/Sh
(area ratio
of elevator
to tail)
Elevator Chord
[root/tip as
fraction of tail
chord]
Grumman Tiger 140 37.6 0.28 0.39
Rockwell
Commander 152 31.2 0.34 0.43
Trago Mills SAH-1 120 22 0.46 0.46
Scottish Aviation
Bullfinch 129 27.5 0.58 0.45
Adapted from (Roskam, 1985)

These aircraft were compared in terms of their wing area and elevator chord
ratio Ce/Ch, and the statistical results are shown graphically below.

61
Tail elevator chord fraction vs Wing Area
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
110 120 130 140 150 160
Wing area [ft^2]
c
e
/
c
h
general aviation
single engine
flying car design
point
Figure 3-24: Elevator chord fraction statistical analysis

The data showed a linear distribution, and was fitted with a linear function,
which predicted an elevator chord fraction of 0.4362 based on the flying car
wing span. This agrees with the trend recommended for general aviation
single engine aircraft of Ce/Ch = 0.45 (Raymer, 2006). It is also usual
practice to taper the elevator to match the taper of the horizontal tail, to
ensure that the spars are straight (the elevator hinges are most easily
attached to the spars, ensuring structural integrity).

The elevator area ratio was also compared for the above aircraft (see Figure
3-25 below), and the predicted area fraction for the flying car was found to be
0.4026, which gives a total elevator area of 0.5033 m
2
based on the total
horizontal tail area.

62
Tail elevator area fraction vs wing area
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
110 120 130 140 150 160
Wing Area [ft^2]
S
e
/
S
h
general aviation
single engine
flying car design
point
Figure 3-25: Elevator area fraction statistical analysis

The positioning of the vertical stabilisers across the horizontal tail make it
difficult to have elevators which span the majority of the tail, and the end
sections are too small to have the elevators on just those sections alone.
Thus the elevators need to be split into sections across the horizontal tail and
in-between the vertical tails, as illustrated in red in the figure below.

Figure 3-26: Proposed elevator locations

By iteration, it was found that the largest elevator area that the end sections
could hold, based on a chord fraction of 0.45 (initial sizing showed that a
chord fraction of 0.436 would result in elevator span which was too large to be
(b
end
)/2 (b
end
)/2 (b
mid
)/2
(b
mid
)/2
C
roo
C
tip
63
fitted between the vertical tails; refer to Appendix C: Empennage Control
Surface Sizing for details), and taper ratio of 0.6, was 0.165 m
2
, which
corresponded to a span of 0.95m. For areas larger than this, the resultant
span was too wide for the end sections. This resulted in the mid section
needing to house the remaining 0.333m
2
. The overall dimensions were (refer
to the figure above for symbol definition);
End Sections;
o Total span, b
end
= 0.94m
o Root chord C
root
= 0.225m
o Taper ratio = 0.6
o C
tip
= 0.135m
o S = 0.17m
2
Mid Section;
o Total span, b
mid
= 1.48m
o C
root
= 0.225m
o S = 0.333m
2
Vertical Tail
The vertical tail consists of three vertical surfaces, positioned along the
horizontal tail as shown in Figure 3-27. Each vertical surface has the
following dimensions;
b= 0.6m
= 0.6
C
root
= 0.5m
C
tip
= 0.3m
S = 0.24 m
2
64
Figure 3-27: Empennage Design: Vertical and Horizontal Tails

The total vertical tail area was 0.72 m
2
= 7.751 ft
2
. The following data, as
seen in Table 3-19, was used for a statistical analysis of vertical tail control
surface sizing.

Table 3-19: Single Engine Propeller Driven GA Aircraft Vertical Tail Data
Aircraft
Wing
Area
[ft
2
]
Vert Tail
Area [ft
2
]
Sr/Sv
Cr/Cv
root
Cr/Cv tip
Grumman Tiger 31.5 8.4 0.43 0.36 0.46
Rockwell
Commander
32.8 17 0.28 0.3 0.46
Trago Mills
SAH-1
30.7 17.1 0.4 0.35 0.54
Scottish
Aviation
Bullfinch
33.8 22.7 0.39 0.35 0.56
Adapted from (Roskam, 1985)

65
The rudder area ratio of the above aircraft was plotted against the vertical tail
area, and also versus the wing area. The results are shown graphically in the
figures below (Figure 3-28 and Figure 3-29).

Rudder Area Fraction vs Vertical Tail area
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.45
5 10 15 20 25
Vertical Tail Area [ft^2]
S
r
/
S
v
Single engine
prop aircraft
Flying Car Design
Point
Figure 3-28: Rudder area fraction vs vertical tail area

Rudder Area Fraction vs Wing Area
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.45
110 120 130 140 150 160
Wing Area [ft^2]
S
r
/
S
v
Single engine
prop aircraft
flying car design
point
Figure 3-29: Rudder area fraction vs wing area

66
Each statistical analysis predicted fairly similar results for the flying cars
rudder area fraction; the vertical tail area comparison found Sr/Sv = 0.3751,
while the wing area comparison found Sr/Sv = 0.4064. It was decided to use
the larger estimate, to provide more control surface area, and thus require the
rudder to have smaller deflection angles. Thus the total rudder area was
required to be 0.293m
2
.
The rudder root and tip chord fractions were also analysed statistically for the
above aircraft, and the results are shown below.

Rudder Tip Chord Fraction vs Vertical Tail Area
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
5 10 15 20 25
Vertical Tail Area [ft^2]
(
C
r
/
C
v
)
_
t
i
p
Single Engine Prop
driven aircraft
Flying Car Design
Point
Figure 3-30: Rudder tip chord fraction statistical analysis

67
Rudder Root Chord Fraction vs Vertical Tail Area
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
5 10 15 20 25
Vertical Tail Area [ft^2]
(
C
r
/
C
v
)
_
r
o
o
t
Single Engine Prop
driven aircraft
Flying Car Design
Point
Figure 3-31: Rudder root chord fraction statistical analysis

The statistical analysis showed the flying car was to have a predicted rudder
tip chord ratio of 0.35, and root chord ratio of 0.45. These values agreed with
the general trend of rudder chord fraction being 25-50% of the tail chord. The
resultant dimensions were found for the rudder, and are shown graphically in
the figure to follow for one vertical tail;
Total span of rudders = 0.73m
Individual rudder span b
rudder
= 0.24m
Total are of rudders = 0.293m
C
rudder tip
= 0.105m
C
rudder root
= 0.225m

68
Figure 3-32: Rudder geometry

3.12 Fuselage Design

The following sections detail the design of the fuselage, including the shape,
size and interior layout. The overall design was motivated by the need to fit
the vehicle within the required dimensions, and by the FAR regulations for
pilot and passenger seating arrangements.

3.12.1 Fuselage Shape and Size
Based on the initial concept sketches, the overall shape of the fuselage was
to be similar to a car body, with a raised tail end to act as a vertical and to
position the horizontal tail and propeller. However, after initial sizing of the
wings, tails and stability calculations, it became clear that the raised car tail-
end would not provide the necessary area for the horizontal and vertical tail.
To overcome this problem, whilst maintaining the compact size required for
car configuration, it was decided to modify the design to incorporate an
extendable boom-tail, as illustrated below in extension and retracted
configurations. The boom would be completely retracted when in car-
configuration, as close as possible to the rear, without hitting the blades.

C
rudder root
C
rudder tip
b
rudder
69
Figure 3-33: Tail extended for aircraft configuration

Figure 3-34: Tail retracted for car configuration

The main dimensions of the fuselage were governed by the requirements for
parking bays and underground parking in Australia, as defined in the technical
task. To provide a tapered, more aerodynamically efficient nose, the
positioning of the pilot and passengers were experimented with until it was
decided to have the pilot sit centred and alone in the front of the cabin, with
the three passengers seated in a row behind. This meant the fuselage could
be tapered at the nose because there was only one seat to fit, rather than the
two in a conventional car layout. The fineness ratio of the aircraft and
motivation for shape are further discussed in section 5.3.

The wings were to be folded back along the side of the fuselage (further
discussed in Section 3.15.2. While the position of the wings when folded back
blocks direct access to the passengers seats, there was to be a large door on
70
each side at the front with sufficient room for passenger to climb in past the
pilots seat to the rear seats.

3.12.2 Cabin Design

The interior of the vehicle needed to comfortably seat four adults each with 15
kg of luggage, and meet FAR 23 requirements. The pilot should be able to
communicate with their passengers, and with airfield operators, through two
way radio. The cabin was to be an open-plan, with no partition between the
pilot and passengers, as in a normal car. While it was desirable to keep the
layout similar to a conventional car, during the sizing iterations, it was realised
that the tapering of the nose for improved aerodynamic performance, coupled
with the length restrictions, forced the layout to be the pilot centred at the
front, with the three passengers in the rear, as shown below.

Figure 3-35: Pilot and Passenger Seating Layout

Seat Belts
Each seat and seatbelt must be capable of supporting a passenger weighing
at least 215 pounds when subjected to the maximum load factors, multiplied
by a safety factor of 1.33 (FAA, 2008). Although not verified in this report,
such loads should be checked before production of the flying car. The
seatbelts must meet Australian Design Rules to be certified for driving on
71
Australian roads, and as such all seats are required to have lap-and-sash
seatbelts, as shown below. The seat belts should be automatically retracted
when released from the buckle, to prevent the belts interfering with flight
operations or passengers trying to disembark in an emergency.

Figure 3-36: Lap and sash seat belts
(2carpros Professional Mechanics Online, 2008)

Passengers
Unlike a conventional car backseat, the passengers should be seated in
individual seats rather than a bench seat, as individual seats provide more
support and comfort than bench seats. However, due to space constraints,
these individual back passengers seats should be positioned next to each
other, while allowing for an adult to sit comfortably, as shown in the figure
below.
Figure 3-37: Back passenger seats
(Flightline Aviation, 2008)
72
Figure 3-38: Seating layout (Raymer, 2006)

The figure above shows the configuration of passenger seating in an aircraft.
For high density cabin (noting that there will be no aisle and hence aisle width
and height were not needed);
the pitch of the seating should measure 30-32in
the seating width should measure 16-18 in
for economy, headroom should be greater than 65 in (Raymer, 2006)

Based on these suggested sizes, the pitch of the back passengers was to be
30 inches to allow adequate leg room, the headroom should be 65 inches (the
car cannot exceed 2m for clearance in public carparks), and the seats should
be 18 inches wide (for maximum comfort). It was noted that in normal
passenger aircraft that passengers should be able to stand comfortably, and
hence the aisle height is generally greater than the headroom. However since
the car had height restrictions, as previously mentioned, and the issue of CG
travel in such a small aircraft, the passengers would not be permitted to stand
and move around the cabin, much like in a normal car. Thus the aisle height
was to be 65 in, the same as the headroom. These dimensions are illustrated
below.

73
Figure 3-39: Sketch of back passenger seating arrangement
(Left: top view, Right: front view)

Seats
The seats were estimated to each weigh 82 pounds (37.2 kg) (Elliot, 2005),
and this value was used in the weight and balance analysis. The material for
the seats was not considered to be a primary design issue, and could be
selected by the customer upon purchasing (eg choice of leather, fabric, with
removable covers, etc). All seats should be capable of reclining; the pilots
seat should be able to vary between 5 and 18 degrees, while the passenger
seats should be reclinable between 15 and 38 degrees (Torenbeek, 1976),
provided the reclining action does not interfere with any controls or access
during flight.

All seats are to be on tracks, such that the pilot can adjust their position at the
controls, and so that the passenger seats can be moved for ease of access.
The pilot needed to be positioned such that they could have visual and
physical access to all the relevant controls and instruments. The
instrumentation configuration is discussed in section 3.15.1. The diagram
below shows the suggested alignment of the pilots seat for best access to
controls and comfort.
Seat width
=48in
Back of
pilot seat
Pitch = 30
Headroom
=65in
Roof height
74
Figure 3-40: Pilots seat geometry (Torenbeek, 1976)

Figure 3-41: Pilot Vision Diagram for Homebuilt Aircraft (Roskam, 1985)

Due to the layout of the cabin being primarily that of a car, the pedals and
steering wheel were positioned to that of a car, however aircraft dimensions
were used for the chair, headroom and pilot line of sight (as illustrated above).
75
The steering wheel was also dimensioned such that the motion when in
aircraft mode satisfied aircraft requirements. The cabin dimensions are
shown in Figure 3-42 (all dimensions are in millimeters), and were
incorporated into the overall design. The view from the pilots seat of the
controls and front window are shown in Figure 3-43: View from pilots seat.

Figure 3-42: Flying car cabin requirements (dimensions in mm)

Figure 3-43: View from pilots seat

76
Luggage Stowage
The pilot and each of the three passengers were permitted to bring 15kg of
luggage onboard, which needed to be restrained in the cabin or a luggage
compartment. While smaller items like magazines or water bottles could be
restrained by the seats in pouches and pockets, all larger items were
proposed to be stored under the three back passenger seats, including the
pilots luggage (it is unsafe to store luggage under the pilot seat). This
negated the need for a separate luggage compartment, and provided more
room for seating and space for the engine and fuel tank at the rear (as shown
below).

Figure 3-44: Fuselage Layout

Safety Equipment
Standard automobile airbags were to be installed in the front dash and sides
of the cabin, to protect the occupants in the case of a crash, and should be
sufficiently sensitive such that they are not triggered by turbulence or wind
gusts whilst in aircraft configuration. There was to a black box recorder
installed in the cabin, such that in the event of an air accident, the final pilot
77
commands and communications are recorded for the purpose of CASA
investigations. UHF communication equipment is to be installed in the front of
the cabin, and is to be used whilst in car configuration for communicating with
other country drivers, and whilst in aircraft configuration, for the purposes of
communicating with air traffic controllers and other pilots.

3.13 Propulsion System

The flying car was required to be run on Jet Fuel A or similar and have a
single engine and method of propulsion (to make maintenance simpler and
the overall weight of the aircraft lighter). This section discusses the main
power requirements for the vehicle, engine and propulsion method selection,
and also describes the method of conversion between the engine powering
the car and aircraft.

3.13.1 Method of Propulsion

There were numerous designs that could have been generated for a flying car
concept; a helicopter style vehicle, a hover-craft inspired fan-powered vehicle,
a more conventional-propeller driven, and even a jet powered VTOL vehicle.
The pros and cons of each of these concepts were compared and are
discussed below.

A helicopter-style vehicle would be very convenient to take-off and land in
rural areas, as it would not require a runway. However, helicopters are
significantly more difficult to fly and control than conventional aircraft, and so
would require an experienced pilot, which would restrict most customers. In
terms of converting from plane to car configuration, the main and tail rotor
blades would be difficult to fold and store within the vehicle size restrictions.

While being high in novelty-value, the hover-craft would be as difficult to fly as
a helicopter, without extensive automatic control systems, which would
78
significantly increase the price. It would again have the advantage of not
requiring a runway, but as hovering craft are a relatively undeveloped
technology, it is not known whether such a vehicle would be capable of
achieving the required cruise speeds.

Conventional propeller driven aircraft are a proven technology having been
used on light aircraft since the testing of the first powered aircraft in 1903 by
the Wright Brothers. There are two distinct types of propeller driven aircraft;
pusher propellers which a situated at the rear of the aircraft and push the
aircraft, and tractor propellers, which are positioned at the nose of the aircraft
and pull the aircraft.

3.13.2 Power Requirements

From the Matching Diagram, it was known that the flying car required 335.63
hp (250.3 kW) of power. Raymer (2006) recommends sizing the engine by
means of statistics in table 10.4 (Piston and turboprop statistical models), to
find a nominal engine size, and then locate a closely matching engine on the
available market. The most common piston engine used in aircraft these
days, according to Raymer (2006), is the horizontally opposed piston engine.
According the statistics for such an engine, a suitable engine should have the
following dimensions;

Weight = 3.12*(Power)
0.78
= 232 kg
Length = 0.11*(power)
0.424
= 1.14 m
Width ~0.8 to 0.9m
Height~ 0.6 to 0.7m
Typical Propeller rpm ~ 2770
Applicable power range: 45-370 kW
79
3.13.3 Engine Selection
The preliminary sizing of the flying car showed that a power loading of 10.61
lbs/hp was required, thus for a maximum takeoff weight of approximately
1615kg (3561.1lbs), this meant the aircraft required an engine capable of
producing roughly 335.6 hp of power. It is to be noted that from the technical
task, the flying car was also required to incorporate an aircraft engine, rather
than an automobile engine, as aircraft engines are aircooled, rather than
water cooled.

Based on these requirements, an extensive literature review was undertaken,
to examine possible engines for the flying car. The survey focussed on those
engines capable of producing more than 330 hp, and the results are tabulated
below.

Table 3-20: Comparison of suitable engines
Engine
Lycoming
IO-720B
Continental
TSIO-550-B
Continental
TSIOL-550A
Continental
TSIOL-550C
Power [hp] at
[rpm]
400 at 2650 350 at 2700 350 at 2700 350 at 2600
Fuel Type Avgas
100/100LL
Avgas
100/100LL
Avgas
100/100LL
Avgas
Dry weight
[lbs]
593 442 401.5 415.4
Dimensions
[in
3
]
20.88x 34.25
x 47.97
33.5x 42.5 x
42.57
33.5 x 42.5 x
42.57
30.5 x 39.3 x
46.1
Fuel
Consumption
256 L/h 83 L/hr 83 L/hr 83L/hr
TBO [hrs] 1800 1600 2000 2000
80
Adapted from (BASI, 2008), (Teledyne Continental Motors, 2005), (Lycoming,
2006)

It was desired that the engine be as light as possible, without sacrificing
power or fuel consumption. From comparing the engines above, it can be
seen that this requirement is met by the Continental TSIOL-550A, which is the
lightest of the four engines, however has one of the best fuel consumption
rates and has a long time between overhaul (TBO).

These specifications agreed with that suggested by (Raymer, 2006), and so
were considered reasonable.

3.13.4 Propeller Sizing
The sizing of the propeller involves selecting a pitch and diameter for the
propeller, based on engine data, speed and power requirements. A propeller
may be sized for climb or for cruise, or be a variable pitch (constant speed)
propeller which performs well in both flight regimes. A climb propeller is one
with small pitch (i.e. a lower blade angle of attack) and is characterised by the
ability to quickly reach the required speed by good acceleration, but requires a
great deal of power to maintain that required speed. In comparison, cruise
propellers have coarser pitch (i.e. a higher angle of attack of the blades), and
while having poor acceleration qualities, require less effort from the motor to
maintain the desired speed. For the flying car, it is desirable to be capable of
quick climb as the vehicle might be taking off from airfields surrounded by
buildings or scrub, and so should be clear of these obstacles as soon as
possible. The vehicle would also need to be capable of maintaining a fairly
high speed without putting too much stress on the motor, and so the propeller
was selected as a variable pitch/constant speed propeller.
81
The diameter of the propeller can be sized using two relations, according to
Raymer (2006); the tip speed, and the power available from the motor, and
the smaller of the values from these methods was used.
For the tip speed, should note that the tip of a propeller follows a helical path
given by;
(V
tip
)
helical
= 8(V
2
tip
+ V
2
), with V= aircraft speed = 74 [m/s]
Where V
tip
= tnD
and n= rotational rate from engine data =2700 rpm = 45 [rev/s], D=propeller
diameter [m].
It is recommended that at sea level the helical tip speed should be no greater
than 290m/s for a metallic propeller, or 213m/s if noise disturbances are an
issue.
Assuming noise levels are not of major concern, the maximum diameter was
found to be 1.98m.
The second method gives a predicted diameter by using the engine power;
D = Kp
4
8(Power in hp),
Where Kp = 1.7 for three blades.
Thus, for an engine power of 350 hp, the predicted propeller diameter was
7.35 ft (2.24m). Comparing this to the maximum predicted diameter found by
the tip speed method, it could be seen that the smaller of the two was 1.98m
(78in), and so this was used for preliminary sizing.

3.13.5 Propeller Selection
In selecting an actual propeller from an existing manufacturer, the rpm and hp
ratings were noted. For the propeller diameter, most manufacturers claim to
82
be able to custom make a propeller to the customers requirements, and so
most will only publish propeller specifications in terms of power and rpm
ratings. One such manufacturer is Aero Composites (Aero Composites Inc,
2008), which provides information on a number of their propellers (with
recommended diameter range of 68-80in), including the 3350 model, which
has three blades and is rated to a maximum of 3000rpm and 350hp. These
operating conditions and the propeller diameter range agree with the sizing
calculations from the previous section.
This propeller is also recommended for use with the Continental TSIO-550
(the selected engine), and had a quoted weight of 50lbs (Aero Composites
Inc, 2008). This weight was used in the following sections on weight and
balance. The propeller kit available from Aero Composites also includes a
spinner, which, in addition to improving propeller air intake, will act to protect
the propeller from damage from rear-end impacts when in car configuration.
3.13.6 Drive-train Design

In order to satisfy the requirement of weight reduction, only one engine was
selected for propulsion of the flying car in both the onroad and airborne
phases. As a result, a drive-train system was required to be designed which
would allow the power generated by the engine to be diverted to the wheels or
propeller as necessary. The operation of this drive-train and the switching
process was required to be automatic in order to comply with the technical
requirement of a fully automated phase-changing flying car.

Existing Technology Assessment
In order to satisfy the above design points, an investigation into current drive-
train technology was performed. This investigation largely focussed on the
switching mechanism in automobiles, the transfer case, which can convert the
automobile form two-wheel drive to four-wheel drive on command. The layout
for a basic 4WD drivetrain, featuring a transfer case, can be seen below in
Figure 3-45. Essentially, the transfer case receives the power input from the
83
engine transmission and transfers this power to both a front and rear
driveshaft, hence driving of all four wheels simultaneously.

Figure 3-45: Typical 4WD drivetrain (Jeep Grand Cheroke, 2008)

Technology Modification
Recently, this relatively simple technology has been adapted to include the
ability to switch between providing power to either one of the shafts, or both
shafts simultaneously. In automobiles, this has been primarily used as a fuel-
conservation measure allowing the switching between 2WD, with a lower
power requirement, and 4WD. It is believed that this technology would be
suitable for providing power to both the wheels and propeller in the flying car.
The modification of the typical system shown in Figure 3-45 would involve a
redirection of the power on the rear drive shaft; instead of driving the rear
wheels, the rear drive shaft would power the propeller through a series of
gears, chains or other mechanical connections. Such a modification is shown
in Figure 3-46; although for the flying car configuration the engine would likely
be mounted either centrally or towards the rear. This would allow for a front-
wheel drive car in the automobile mode and a pusher-propeller configuration
in the aircraft mode. With little adaptation of current automobile technology,
the ability to switch from drive to flight mode from within the cabin would be
easily achieved, although the design of this mechanism is considered beyond
the scope of this course.
84
Figure 3-46: Modified Drivetrain
Adapted from (Jeep Grand Cherokee, 2008)

Propeller Connection
As previously mentioned, the rear drive shaft would transmit power to the
propeller through a series of gears and/or chains. Such a configuration would
be required to undergo a significant design process with an emphasis on
reliability and safety, due to the nature of driving the propeller. Such a
detailed design is considered beyond the scope of this report; however, a
simplified diagram of such a drive system can be seen the figure below.

Rear Gear (to propeller shaft)
85
Figure 3-47: Vehicle diagram showing propulsion system

3.14 Landing Gear Design

The car and aircraft configurations were very different in their design and
requirements, and so each influenced the design of the wheels, landing gear
and suspension system in different ways. In Australia it is required that road
vehicles have at least 2 pairs of wheels, that is a minimum of 4 wheels, and
thus the flying car required a quadricycle wheel arrangement (see Figure
3-48).

Figure 3-48: Quadricycle gear arrangement (Raymer, 2006)

86
Quadricycle configuration allows for a low ground clearance, however it also
requires very low takeoff and landing angles, which was achievable for the
flying car through the implementation of flaps.

The aircraft mode of the flying car required a high chassis ground clearance to
allow for take off and landing angles, and to facilitate country driving and
travel over rough terrain. Due to the height restriction (2.1m) the flying car
needed to have two different clearances, one for driving and one for takeoff
and landing.

3.14.1 City/country driving minimum ground clearances.

There are strict standards for the ground clearance in Australian street based
cars. Ground clearance is the minimum distance from any point on the
underside of the motor vehicle to the ground, not including any points on the
wheel, wheel hub, tyre, flexible mudguard, mudflap or brake backing plate
(Transport SA, 2003).

There are three main requirements for the minimum ground clearance of
motor vehicles;
a. For any point within 1m of the wheel; 100mm clearance
b. The midpoint between the two axels; 0.033 times the distance
between the axels
c. For any other point; for a peak in the road with gradient 1:15, the
car must be able to clear the obstacle, if the front and back wheels
are only just on the slopes either side of the peak.

Thus, for the flying car;
a. For any point within 1m of the wheel; 100mm
b. The midpoint between the two axels; 0.033*2261mm = 74.6 mm
c. For any other point; 2261/(2*15) = 75.37 mm

87
Although country driving in general requires greater clearance than city
driving, to prevent damage to the flying car from rough terrain, and for ease of
construction and maintenance, it was decided to have one clearance for both
city and country driving. The clearance value of 265mm was selected by
comparing several 4WDs of similar size, as listed below.

Table 3-21: Ground clearance properties of 4WDs
Make Length
(mm)
Wheel
Base
(mm)
Minimum
clearance
(mm)
Toyota Camry 4806 2776 130
Nissan Tiida sedan 4420 2600 115
Subaru Impreza
WRX hatch
4415 2620 155
Nissan Patrol 4950 2970 230/210
Toyota Landcruiser 4950 2850 220-225
(unladen)
Adapted from (Nissan, 2008), (Toyota Australia, 2008) (Toyota Motor Sales,
2008), (Subaru, 2008)

3.14.2 Wheel/Gear Positioning

For an aircraft to takeoff, the vehicle must angle upwards to the correct angle
of attack so that enough lift is generated for the aircraft to become airborne.
For this angle of attack to be achieved, the centre of gravity of the aircraft
must be closer to the rear wheels than the front wheels, but not so far that the
aircraft over balances. For sufficient takeoff angle without the risk of over
balancing, the angle A between the CG and the rear tyres should be slightly
larger than the takeoff angle of attack (refer to the figure below) (Roskam,
1985). For most general aviation aircraft, this angle is 15 degrees. Angle B
must be greater than or equal to angle A, such that when the aircraft angles
towards the takeoff angle of attack, the back of the aircraft does not hit the
ground.

88
Figure 3-49: Angles A and B for sizing landing gear (Roskam, 1985)

The angle of attack at takeoff for the flying car was 9 to 10 degrees, and
through iteration it was determined that the optimal value for both A and B
was 15 degrees. The geometry of the vehicle, as shown in the figure below,
was used to derive equations for landing gear positions.

Figure 3-50: Landing Gear Angles

From geometry; tan (u
1
) = y/(l CG
x
x)
89
Which rearranges to;
y = (l CGx x)* tan (u
1
)
Equation 3-1

Similarly, tan (u
2
) = x/( CG
Z
y)

And therefore,
x = (CGz + y)* tan (u
2
)
Equation 3-2
Substituting Equation 3-1 into Equation 3-2 and rearranging for x gives;

)) tan( ) tan( 1 (
) tan( ) tan( ) 1 ( ) tan(
2 1
2 1 2
u u
u u u
+
+
=
x z
CG CG
x Equation 3-3

this was then substituted back into Equation 3-1 to obtain the length y.

For the flying car, the following data was used (assuming the CG z position
was at the centre point of the fuselage),

Table 3-22: Landing gear position geometry
CG position x (from nose) = 1792mm
z (from car floor) = 750mm
Vehicle length L (from nose to rear) = 4200 mm

degrees radians
angle1: tail ground clearance = 15 0.261799
angle2: wheel to CG = 15 0.261799
Using the equation described above with these values gave;
x = 349 mm
y = 552 mm
90
Thus the landing gear strut length was (y radius =) 287 mm

3.14.3 Wheel/Landing Gear Loading

Once the wheels/landing gear had been positioned, the static and dynamic
loads on the wheels were calculated by moment and force equations. Figure
3-51 shows the main parameters for calculating P
n
, the force on the nose
gear, and P
m
, the force on the rear gear.

Figure 3-51: Loads acting on a moving aircraft (Torenbeek, 1976)

Equating the forces in the z direction gives:
W L - 2*P
m
2*P
n
= 0
Equation 3-4
Equating the moments about the CG gives:
2*P
m
*l
m
+ 2**P
m
*h
CG
2*P
n
*l
n
= 0
Equation 3-5
where is the braking coefficient, l
m
is the horizontal distance from the CG to
the rear landing gear, l
n
is the horizontal distance from the front landing gear
to the CG, and h
CG
= y + CG
z
is the vertical distance from the base of the
tyres to the CG.
Rearranging (1) for P
m
gives :
P
m
= (w L 2*P
n
)/2
91
Equation 3-6
Substituting this into (2) and rearranging for P
n
, gives,
P
n
= 0.5*(W L) * [(l
m
+ *h
CG
) /( l
m
+ l
n
+ *h
CG
)]
Equation 3-7
The braking coefficient, , can be found using the FAR requirement equation
for wet asphalt and a tyre pressure of 50 psi, as follows (FAA, 1998);

859 . 0
100
403 . 0
100
683 . 2
100
673 . 2
100
050 . 1
100
1470 . 0
2 3 4 5
max /
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|
=
V V V V V
g t

Equation 3-8

The following data was used in all calculations;

Table 3-23: Landing Gear Sizing Parameters
Aircraft
mm m
Front wheel to CG 592 0.592
CG to centre of wheel 348.81 0.349
height grounnd to CG 1301.759526 1.302
Car country
mm m
Front wheel to CG 592 0.592
CG to rear wheel 1668.81 1.669
height ground to CG 1015 1.015
Length 4200 mm
V_TO 33.8328 m/s
Weight 15843.15 N
Thus the wheel loading for the flying car was:
= 0.299

92
Static loading: (L=0), no friciton
aircraft car (country)
Front Wheel (each) P
n 2936.939143 5847.282197
Rear Wheel (each) P
m 4984.635857 2074.292803
Dynamic loading: (Laircraft=2/3*L_TO), Lcountry=0
aircraft car (country)
Nose Wheel (each) P
n 2247.245102 3115.047117
Main Wheel (each) P
m 5674.329898 4806.527883
3.14.4 Wheels

The allowable wheel inflation was dictated by the landing surface. If the tyres
were inflated too high, the contact area with the ground would be too small
and the landing surface would not able to take the concentrated landing loads.
This could have damaged the landing surface and, in the case of rural
airstrips, could cause the aircraft to become bogged. Airplane Design
(Roskam, 1985) suggests that one of the main failure mechanisms for
unprepared or simply prepared surfaces is severe ruts due to excessive tyre
loads. To avoid these problems, the suggested allowable tyre inflation values
for different landing surfaces were observed, as seen in Table 3-24 below.

Table 3-24: Maximum allowable tyre pressure for different surfaces
Max allowable tyre pressure
Surface texture Kg/cm^2 psi
Hard Desert Sand 2.8 4.2 40 60
Poor foundation small tarmac 3.5 5.0 50 70
Good foundation small
tarmac
5.0 6.3 70 90
Large well maintained concrete 8.5 14.0 120 200
Adapted from (Roskam, 1985)
93
The most critical surface, in terms of maximum tyre pressure, is hard desert
sand. As it is likely that a flying car pilot would encounter hard desert sand in
rural airstrips, the tyres were sized to these requirements. The tyre for the
flying car therefore had a pressure between 40 and 60 psi.

As the flying car needed to be a fully functional car, all the wheels had to be
common, such that in the case of a puncture, only one tyre type is required.
The wheels needed to meet the following requirements:
Speed : V= 130 km/h = 80.77 mph (Maximum on-road)
Loading: P= 5861 kg.m/s^2 = 1281.4 lbf (maximum wheel loading)
Inflation: Infl=40-60 psi

These requirements were met by Type III tyres, which have low internal
pressure and wide tread. Using tyre data for Type III tyres (Raymer, 2006),
tyre specifications were found that satisfy the requirements, and are listed
below.

Table 3-25: Selected Tyre Specifications
Size 7.00-8
Speed [km/h] 193.12
Max. Load [kg m/s
2
] 9786
Inflation [psi] 46
Max. Width [mm] 185.4
Max. Diameter [mm] 529.6
Rolling Radius [mm] 210.8
Rim Diameter [mm] 203.2
Number of plies 6
Adapted from (Raymer, 2006)

94
3.14.5 Shock Absorbers

The landing gear, including tyres and shock absorbers were required to
absorb the landing shocks and provide smooth travel when taxiing and
driving. The primary loading experience by the shock absorbers is due to the
aircraft landing, and hence aircraft shock absorbers were used. However, the
type of aircraft shock absorbers that could be used was limited, as the wheels
needed to be positioned on the fuselage and needed to be able to extend for
the different configuration heights of car and takeoff/landing modes. A
commonly used shock absorber which satisfied these requirements was a
variation on the Oleo-pneumatic metered orifice shock-strut, as shown in
Figure 3-52.

Figure 3-52: Oleo-pneumatic metered orifice shock- strut (Raymer, 2006)

The oleo shock absorbers are the most efficient and most common shock
absorbers used. With efficiencies up to 0.9, these shock absorbers use both
air and oil to dampen and absorb the shock of landing, as illustrated in Figure
3-53.

95
Figure 3-53: Oleo Shock absorber makeup
(Maziar, 2008)

As the piston moves upwards under landing shock, the oil is compressed
through a small orifice, dissipating some of the energy due to friction. The oil
then compresses a pocket of compressed air which acts as a spring and
further absorbs the shock. The oleo shock absorber used in the flying car is a
metered orifice version, which as the name suggests contain a metering pin
which can vary and control the amount of oil which flows through the orifice,
effectively increasing the shock absorption.

The oleo shock absorber is to be connected to an air compressor which
increases or decreases the amount of air in the top of the shock absorber. As
the amount of air in the top of the tube changes, the maximum distance that
the piston could travel in the tube also changes, thus changing the minimum
clearance of the vehicle easily and efficiently. The piston in the flying car
shock absorber is to be telescopic, to allow greater variation in the length of
the struts between the car and aircraft modes.

When the aircraft lands, both the shock and the tyre deflect to absorb some of
the load; this deflection distance is called the stroke. In calculating the stroke,
96
the absorption efficiencies of both the wheel and the shock absorber are
used. The values are taken from Table 11.4 (Raymer, 2006);
Shock absorber efficiency: ] = 0.85
Tyre absorber efficiency: ]
T
= 0.47

In calculating the tyre strut (S
T
) it is assumed that the maximum deflection of
the tyres is the rolling radius (RR), therefore,
S
T
= D/2 RR
where D is the outside diameter of the tyre.

The vertical approach velocity V
vert
can be found from the approach angle and
the approach velocity, where the approach velocity is taken to be 1.3*V
stallL
.
The V
vert
is found using the equation,
V
vert
= V
appr
*sin(u
appr
)
A vertical velocity of approximately 3m/s is required for most aircraft, for
passenger comfort (Raymer, 2006). FAR 23 requirements state that the
vertical component should be between 7fps (2.13m/s) and 10 fps (3.05 m/s).
For the flying car these requirements were,
V
appr
= 43.589m/s
u
appr
= 4 deg
V
vert
= 3.04 m/s

The shock absorber strut S was calculated using the equation,
S = V
vert
2
/(2*g* ] *N
gear
) (]
T
/ ])*S
T
where V
vert
is the vertical component of the landing velocity and N
gear
is the
gear load factor. The gear load factor is the average load for all the shock
absorbers divided by the landing weight; it also indicates the amount of load
that is passed to the fuselage by the gear. According to FAR23 regulations,
N
gear
can be assumed to be a constant value of 3, while the value obtained for
the stroke should be increased by 3 cm as a safety margin (Raymer, 2006).

97
Using these equations, the tyre and shock absorber strokes were found to be,
S
T
= 54 mm
and S = 176 mm

Therefore the total Oleo length was
S+ y = 728mm

3.14.6 Conversion mechanism

The restraints on the positioning of the landing gear during landing/takeoff
meant that the flying car had a very small wheel base with the rear wheels
almost in front of the fuselage midpoint. While this configuration would have
been acceptable for an aircraft, the configuration was considered very
unstable for driving in car mode, especially if the car was required to go over
any hills or inclines. Originally it was thought that the flying car would have
had six wheels; that is, an extra set of wheels at the very rear of the fuselage
that would be used in car mode. For this configuration, the central wheels
were required to be fully retracted into the fuselage when in car mode, to
allow for the required ground clearance. However this design was found to be
very cumbersome and visually unappealing.

The second concept, and selected configuration, had four wheels positioned
as required for takeoff and landing. For conversion from aircraft to car, a
support beam would telescopically extend from the rear of the car until it was
touching the ground. Once the support beam was in place, the central wheel
strut and shock absorber would rotate 90 anticlockwise, and the strut would
telescopically extend until the wheels were in the position. These wheels
would lock in place, and the front wheel and support beam would lower the
car to the ground and lock into place, providing the required clearance and
wheelbase for the car mode (refer to the illustrations below).

98
Figure 3-54: Landing gear conversion

Figure 3-55: Landing Gear in Car Mode
99
3.15 Conversion System

The dual nature of the flying car presented many design problems as a
reliable, autonomous conversion method between the two configurations was
required. For flight, large wings, tails and a propeller were required however,
these would need to be packed away when in the car configuration due to the
strict size limitations. To be road worthy and able to park in city carparks the
flying car could not exceed 6.5 m in length, 2.2 m in width and 2.1 m in height
whilst in car configuration. It was also required that when in the car
configuration and during conversion, the wings and other critical lifting areas
were not easily damaged. Consideration was also made for the safety of the
user and any third parties, maintainability, reliability, product lifetime and
product cost. Arguably the most important requirement was that there could
be no possibility of conversion, for any system, whilst the engine was running.
This requirement prevented many safety issues that could arise if a system
was accidentally changed midair or whilst driving.

The four main sections that will be discussed in regards to conversion
methods are, control system, wing conversion, tail conversion and propulsion
system.

3.15.1 Control System Conversion

The control system was required to be easily converted between the driving
and flying modes without infringing on driver or passenger safety and comfort.
To reduce instrument clutter and increase ease of use for the pilot/drivers, the
flying car had a touch screen instrument panel situated behind the steering
wheel on the dashboard. The touch screen allowed for easy view change
between driving and aircraft modes and also allowed for some electronic
touch control of the flight surfaces and power. In each mode all relevant
instrument panels were displayed. This solution presented many additional
options such as GPS navigation sections, or close up images from rear and
100
front cameras situated on the flying car. This technology is being used in the
military sectors such as in the F35 Joint Strike Fighter developed by Lockheed
Martin (Kathryn Fitch, 2002), and reduced the confusion and complication of
having car and aircraft controls and instruments on the one dashboard.

Many configurations were considered for control of the car and aircraft modes
and it was determined that the cockpit became over crowded if all
conventional pedals and leavers were to be included. For example, the car
required a brake, accelerator and gear system, while rudder pedals, aileron
control, flap control and pitch control were required in aircraft mode. These
numerous pedals/levers meant lack of space, poor ergonomics for the pilot,
and increased risk of using the wrong lever/pedal in a stressful situation.

Two possible pedal configurations were considered, and are illustrated in
Figure 3-56: Two possible pedal configurations.

Figure 3-56: Two possible pedal configurations

Configuration 1 required braking with the left foot and while this is possible,
many people do not have adequate coordination and are not used to using
the left leg for braking. This also posed safety issues due to bad ergonomics,
and automatic use of the right foot to brake,. In comparison, configuration 2
required narrow brake and accelerator pedals, while the two rudder pedals
B= Brake LR= Left Rudder
A=Accelerator RR= Right Rudder
B A LR RR B A LR RR
Configuration 1 Configuration 2
101
were spaced far apart. These configurations also required that an additional
hand lever be included to enable power control whilst having both feet on
rudder pedals to control the aircraft motion. This would require an electronic
accelerator and power control lever rather than the traditional mechanical
systems.

Neither the rudder-brake-accelerator configurations or their variants were
found to be acceptable. For ease of use and conversion it was decided to
install an automatic gear system and power steering for the driving mode and
a fly-by-wire system for the flight mode. This configuration allowed for easiest
pilot/driver usage and simplified cabin arrangement.

Whilst in the driving mode the standard steering wheel, acceleration pedal
and brake pedal were to be used and positioned in the same way as those for
any normal car. The automatic gearbox and hand brake were situated on a
console adjacent to the drivers seat, as in most standard cars. The steering
wheel was conventional in appearance however an adjustable steering
column was included to allow forward and back movement for pitch control in
the flight mode. Whilst in car mode the shaft was locked to prevent any
forward or backwards movement and, as with all conversion systems, was not
be able to convert whilst the engine was running. Control of left and right
turning when in the car mode was achieved by turning the steering wheel; this
motion was electronically transmitted to adjust the wheels.

Whilst in aircraft mode, the flying car would be controlled using a fly-by-wire
system. Electronic actuators were to control the control surfaces
electronically. Pitch was controlled by moving the steering column of the
wheel, the motion would then be interpreted by the fly-by-wire system, in turn
adjusting the ailerons, elevons and flaps appropriately. To perform a left or
right turn, requiring roll and yaw control, the steering wheel wouldbe turned as
in car mode. This motion would then be transmitted by the fly-by-wire system
to adjust the rudder, flaps, elevons and ailerons to the appropriate positions.

102
There were also three settings on the main consol; the first indicated taxi,
takeoff and climb configurations, the second indicated cruise configuration
(including en-route climb and descent), and the third indicated landing and
taxi. These three settings would adjust any flaps and control surfaces
accordingly. The fly-by-wire system also required a dual system for
redundancy in the case that there was an error or fault in one of the systems.

In addition to the fly-by-wire system, manual rudder control was required
which could be employed during extreme take off and landing conditions such
as strong crosswinds. The manual rudder control was in the form of a sprung-
to-centre, double-acting rocker switch which controlled by two finger paddles
situated just behind the wheel. This setup was the same as that used in the
finger control gearshift paddles in Formula 1 racing cars (Peter Wright, 1999).

Figure 3-57: F1-style gear change paddles indicated by red arrows
(Eurocar Motorsport, 2008)

The paddles would be designed such that pulling the left paddle would turn
the nose towards the left and similarly for the right. The use of either paddle
could be used to turn the aircraft from, or return the aircraft to, a straight
trajectory. This paddle technology is now in use in many modern day cars for
gear changes (refer to the figure above).
103

For throttle control whilst in aircraft mode, three different control systems were
considered. The first system involved slackening of the brake cable in the
handbrake and the motion of the handbrake to control the RPM of the engine.
As the handbrake was pulled upwards an electronic sensor would detect the
motion and final position of the brake and increase the RPM accordingly. The
second system used a similar design to the throttle control of many
helicopters. This mechanism contained a rotating head on the handbrake,
again combined with an electronic sensor. When the head was rotated
outboard the engine RPM was increased, rotating the head inboard would
decrease the RPM, as seen in Figure 3-58

Figure 3-58: Suggested throttle control (Smith, 2007)

The third and selected system consisted of an option on the touch screen
panel whereby running your finger up or down the power indicator increased
or decreased the power respectively. This option was chosen as it contained
no mechanical parts, unlike the first two systems, which would require
servicing and repair as well as the risk of mechanical failure. The third system
104
also reduced complexity and clutter in the system and cockpit design and
worked in conjunction with with a fly-by-wire system.

3.15.2 Wing Conversion

The primary considerations in choosing a conversion system was that the
maximum car dimensions were not exceeded, and that the design had the
best possible aerodynamic capabilities Three main ideas for an automatic
wing conversion system were considered; telescoping wings, folding wings,
and hydraulic rotation.

Telescoping Wing
The concept of telescoping wings is not new, however proven technologies
are scarce. One application of such technology is extendable wing sections
which increase the chord length, surface area or camber and are similar to an
extendable flap configuration. Another design is based on extension of the
wing from the fuselage, similar to a telescope. The telescoping wing can
consist of one section which extends from a point along the wing or numerous
segments which extend sequentially. This idea is currently under research by
Raytheon to develop a telescoping wing for cruise missiles (Weiss, 2003) and
is also used in the Sokol A400 flying car developed by the Advanced Flying
Automobile Company (AFA Co, 2007), as shown below in Figure 3-59.

105
Figure 3-59: Sokol Telescoping Wing (AFA Co, 2007)

This design utilises the telescoping technology on its main wing, horizontal tail
and vertical tail, allowing for a much more compact design (see Figure 3-60).
The wings consist of 6 segments, each containing ribs, two spars and a
covering skin. The sections are joined using recirculating ball bearings while
the wings extend and compress using the spars as the main weight bearing
members with a skin which will cover each segment.

106
Figure 3-60: Sokol partially deployed wing (AFA Co, 2007)

The extension mechanism can be controlled by many different techniques
such as electronic control, hydraulics or heated segments such as in the
United States Patent 6834835 by Gareth Knowles and Ross Bird. This patent
presents a new technology which deploys the wings through the use of a by a
heat activated actuator. This actuator is made of heat activated memory alloy
which when heated converts from Martensite to Austenite, thus extending the
wing via compression. When cooled the alloy returns to the Martensite form,
thus retracting the wings (Bird et al, 2004).

While the telescoping wing is very convenient, it was decided not to use this
mechanism for the flying car due to complexity of the design. This complexity
would likely increased the risk of mechanical failure or sticking, required
extensive maintenance and be very costly to fix, should failure occur.

Folding Wings
The folding wing is utilised in a number of flying car concepts due to its
compact nature without the associated mechanical complexity of the
telescoping wing. The folding wing is very versatile and comes in many
different configurations and designs, some of which hide the wing within the
fuselage. Having folding wings also adds to the marketability of the flying craft
as there is considerable interest in the novel design of wings which unfold at
the touch of a button.

107

Side Storage of Folded Wings
The first configuration considered was to have the wings folded vertically,
flush with the sides of the car. The wings would be mechanically concertinaed
vertically onto the sides of the vehicle. There was also the option of stowing
the wings the fuselage through the use of a strategically placed door which
would allow the wings to fold into the fuselage. (see Figure 3-61).

Figure 3-61: Side storage of folding wings

This mechanism was the most simple folded wing design and similar
mechanisms are used in both the Haynes Skyblazer (Haynes-aero, 2007) and
the Terrafugia (Terrafugia, 2008) flying cars. The Haynes Skyblazer folds the
wings into the fuselage with doors covering them such that the wings are fully
protected from any

Figure 3-62: The Haynes Skyblazer folding wing (Haynes-aero, 2007)

108
The Terrafugia Transition uses a similar folding mechanism as the Skyblazer,
see Figure 3-63, however the wings remain on the outside of the vehicle,
allowing the fuselage to be shorter and more aerodynamic (Terrafugia, 2008).

Figure 3-63: Terrafugia Transition folding wing mechanism
(Terrafugia, 2008)

The Terrafugia flying car group has also built a working model of the folding
wing, proving that the technology for this and similar folding wing conversion
systems is current and available. An operational test of the folding wing
technology can be seen in Figure 3-64 below.

Figure 3-64: Terrafugia folding wing prototype (Terrafugia, 2008)

Side Top Storage of Folded Wings
This configuration is similar to the side storage mechanism, however instead
of folding vertically the second half of the wing is folded underneath the first
109
half (horizontally). Doors in the side of the fuselage open allowing the folded
wing to move along runners, until half of the wing is inside the fuselage. The
wing is then rotated inside the fuselage until it is parallel with the fuselage
sides. Finally the doors are closed and the wing is concealed.

Figure 3-65: Side Top Storage of Wings
A similar mechanism was used in the LaBiche FSC-1 car design, where the
wings are folded beneath the cabin, see Figure 3-66. However it was decided
that this mechanism was too complicated and would have had a critically
weak point at the pivot which was required to bear high load.

110
Figure 3-66: LaBiche FSC-1 folding mechanism
(LaBiche Aerospace, 2008)
Top Storage of Folded Wings
The third configuration was to fold the wings onto the roof of the car, allowing
easy access to the doors and requiring very little storage space. For this
design the wings were concertina-folded to the side of the vehicle, as in the
side storage design. The wings were then rotated 270 degrees until they were
resting on the top of the vehicle.

Figure 3-67: Top Storage of Wings
111

To fit on the top of the car and remain within the 2.2m vehicle width restraint,
the two wings would also have needed to be folded into sections no bigger
than 1m each. This would have allowed the wings to meet at the centreline of
the vehicle when stowed on the roof, however with a single wingspan of 5m,
there would have need to be 4 folds (5 segments) per wing. This added
considerable complexity to the design, thus reducing one of the major
advantages of the folding wing. Another disadvantage of this design was that
the weight of the large wings would be concentrated on a relatively small area
of the roof. To allow for this weight, the roof would need to be highly
reinforced again, adding to the overall weight of the flying car.

Rotating/Folding Wings
A folding wing design was used in the final flying car configuration and was
similar to that of the Aeromaster Innovations Synergy Roadable Aircraft. The
conversion mechanism was primarily a hydraulic mechanism which first
rotated the wings 90 degrees, then moved a support rod from underneath the
wing backwards, folding the wings close to the sides of the aircraft
(Aeromaster Innovations, 2008). This progression can be seen in Figure 3-68.

Figure 3-68: Synergy - Hydraulic Folding Wing
(Aeromaster Innovations, 2008)

It was decided to use this folding mechanism for the flying car, as it allowed
the wings to fold such that the car mode remains within the required
dimensions. This mechanism was also very simple and required minimal
components, thus making the mechanism cheaper and more reliable with
112
lowering maintenance costs. The images below show the folding wing design
implemented in the flying car.

Figure 3-69: Flying car folding wing mechanism

3.16 Tail Conversion

There were two components to the tail conversion mechanism; the first was
the boom tail extension and the second was the outermost part of the
horizontal tail.

The required distance between the aerodynamic centres of the vertical tail
and wing needed to be greater than 4m in order to obtain longitudinal stability
113
and sufficient control. As the flying car was required to be less than 5m in
length and the wings were to be situated 1.282m from the nose of the craft,
the tail needed to extend. This was achieved by using a double boom tail
which extended through the use of hydraulics, and can be seen in Figure
3-70. Whilst in the aircraft mode, the wing would be secured in place by pins,
ensuring that it did not come loose mid-flight.

Figure 3-70: Retractable boom tail

At 2.7m, the span of the horizontal tail was also outside the required
dimensions for the car configuration. To meet these restrictions, the outside
0.5m on either side would fold upwards using hydraulics, to sit flush with the
outermost of the vertical tails. Once in the vertical position, the rotation
mechanisms would be locked in place ensuring that the tail did not unfold until
required (see Figure 3-71).

Figure 3-71: Folding horizontal tail
114

The illustrations below show the flying car retractable tail design; the
extendable boom tail retracts to the rear of the fuselage, then the outer parts
of the horizontal tail fold upwards, to endure the car can fit in the required
dimensions.

Figure 3-72: Flying Car Tail Conversion System

3.16.1 Propeller Conversion

The propeller blades, when installed on the rear of the vehicle, extended
above the 2.1m height restriction, and thus a method to fold or retract the
blades was considered. The ability to completely retract the blades into the
fuselage was an attractive option as this would protect the blades from rear
end impact whilst in car configuration. However this would require a
complicated mechanism, and sufficient space at the rear of the vehicle to
enclose the propeller. Due to size restriction whilst in car configuration, this
option was not viable.

115
By altering the spinner mechanism that comes standard with the selected
propeller, it was proposed that, after releasing a safety lock, the three blades
be capable of free rotation about the centre axis, such that all three could be
positioned to hang vertically downwards. This reduces the height of the
propeller in car configuration to be below the 2.1, restriction. The propeller in
car configuration is as illustrated below.

Figure 3-73: Flying Car Propeller Conversion System

3.17 Materials and Construction Methods

It should be noted that while this project was intended to be a comprehensive
design of a flying car, the vehicle was never intended to be manufactured, or
flown or driven. As such, a detailed analysis of the structural loads and
material properties was deemed too time-intensive to be undertaken. The
following sections suggest some suitable materials for the wings and
fuselage, and possible manufacturing techniques, but are not intended to be a
detailed analysis.

116
3.17.1 Possible Materials
Materials previously used in aviation include wood, aluminium, steel, titanium,
and fibre reinforced composites (Megson, 1999). However, wood is not used
as extensively these days, as it has the tendency to warp if exposed to large
variations in humidity, which the flying car would be exposed to during trips
between cities and country areas in Australia.

Steel and aluminium are still used extensively in aircraft structures these
days. While aluminium is much lighter than steel, higher strength, stiffness
and resistance to wear make steel a more attractive option in some
applications, particularly for undercarriage pivot brackets, wing-root
attachments, fasteners and tracks (Megson, 1999). Titanium alloys are also
lighter than steel (comparable to aluminium), and while possessing desirable
strength and corrosion resistance, titanium alloys are much more expensive
than aluminium alloys.

While plastics are commonly used for windscreens and windows, it is the
composite materials, particularly fibre reinforced plastics which are currently
used in aircraft structures, namely in wing and tail construction, due to its
highly durable and light weight nature. Some commonly used fibres include
fibreglass, carbon fibre, and Kevlar. New materials are constantly being
researched and invented, for example a new aluminium composite material is
CentrAl, which consists of a layer of fibre metal laminate between several
aluminium layers, and it is claimed that the material has very high strength
and fatigue resistance, and is easy to repair (Science Daily, 2007).

The material for the wings and fuselage needed to be capable of withstanding
the aerodynamic loads during flight, but also be light enough to allow the
wings to be easily folded back during car-configuration (and light enough to
ensure the overall weight of the aircraft was kept as low as possible). The
selected materials and manufacturing techniques also needed to be
affordable, in order to keep the overall price of the vehicle aimed at the
117
desired market, and needed to be strong enough to not be destroyed in an
on-road crash.

Based on a literature review, it was decided that the airframe should be
constructed from the new aluminium composite CentrAl (see Figure 3-74),
which would provide the structural integrity needed, while still having a lighter
weight. CentrAls developers at the Delft University of Technology also claim
that it has a much higher fatigue and impact resistance (making it particularly
useful for the plane-car combination), and is also cheaper to perform repairs
on and manufacture.

Figure 3-74: CentrAl sandwich material (Space Mart, 2007)

While this technology has not yet been fully proven, given the actual
development time required for a flying car, it is proposed that CentrAl would
be commercial viable by the time the flying car would be ready for production.

3.17.2 Possible Structural Designs

The materials used for the internal wing and fuselage structure must be able
to withstand all loads experienced during flight, namely, tension, compression,
shear, bending and torsion. The wing structure in particular must be able to
withstand the loads whilst maintaining the aerodynamic shape of the wing.

118
In the past, aircraft skin covering has been made from riveted sheets of
aluminium. However, to reduce weight, composite materials have been used
to replace the traditional riveted aluminium. As a composite skin does not
require rivets, the overall drag of the aircraft is reduced.

As shown in the following figure, the wing internal structure consists of a
framework of spars, ribs and stringers that enables the wing to support the
loads.

Figure 3-75: Wing Internal Structure (Hieserman, 2005)

Spars form the main structural component of the wing, and have been made
from L or T Aluminium brackets which are attached using welds or rivets
(Aeronautics Learning Laboratory for Science, Technology and Research,
2004). However, with advancements in material technology, spars are now
made from uni-directional graphite/epoxy composite materials which offer
reduced weight and increased strength.

Ribs are placed between the spars extending from the leading to the trailing
edge of the wing, which act to support the skin covering and reduce wing
twist. As the ribs are shaped as the aerofoil profile at a particular wing station,
ribs act to support and maintain the shape of the wing under the given loading
conditions, in addition to transmitting some of the loads to the spars. As with
119
many wing components ribs are traditionally made from aluminium, however
advanced thermoplastic composites are increasingly being used due to their
light weight and favourable strength properties. These composites include
both carbon fibre and glass fibre based composites. (AZOM, 2008)

Stringers are longitudinally attached to the wings skin and support the skin
covering by increasing its buckling strength. Stringers are made from many
lightweight materials such as aluminium alloys and steels (Aircraft Spruce &
Speciality Co, 1995). Newer aircraft such as the Airbus A380 are using
Carbon-fibre and epoxy composite materials for the stringers as these are
lighter than the conventional metals (Brosius, 2003).

The following table shows the main structural components of the wing and
fuselage, with corresponding materials (Aerospaceweb, 1997).

Table 3-26: Materials for wing and fuselage
Material Usage Advantages Disadvantages
High strength
unidirectional
graphite/epoxy
Spar High strength, low
weight
High cost, low impact
resistance, difficult to
manufacture
High modulus 45
graphite/epoxy
Skin (w/foam
core), Shear
web, Wing ribs
High strength, low
weight, low surface
roughness, stealth
characteristics
High cost, low impact
resistance, difficult to
manufacture
Aluminum 7075-T6 Bulkheads,
Longerons
Low cost, ease of
manufacture, good
sturctural efficiency
Low strength, not
weldable
Various configurations for the internal structure of the fuselage will now be
discussed.
An open truss structure for the fuselage provides support whilst allowing room
for items to be stowed within the fuselage. The members of the truss structure
are made from either steel or aluminium tubing, however in order to reduce
weight, aluminium is commonly used. The structural components of the truss
120
structure consist of longerons as well as diagonal and vertical members,
which support the fuselage in bending and torsion. The open truss structure is
shown in the diagram below.
Figure 3-76: Open truss structure (Private Pilot Ground School, 2006)

In order to achieve a more streamlined fuselage, a monocoque or semi-
monocoque structure is used. This type of fuselage structure consists of a
stressed skin structure, called a monocoque which acts to support a great
majority of the fuselage loads and must provide sufficient strength to
contribute to the rigidity of the fuselage. In addition to the monocoque, formers
and bulkheads are incorporated for the purpose of providing and maintaining
the shape of the fuselage under the given loading conditions. The monocoque
design is illustrated in the following figure.
121
Figure 3-77: Monocoque construction (Private Pilot Ground School,
2006)

Due to the need for the monocoque structure to provide sufficient rigidity to
the structure, this results in a trade off between added weight and extra
strength. The proposed wing structure is shown below, including spars, ribs,
skin and control surfaces.

Figure 3-78: Proposed Wing Structure

122
3.18 Isometric views of each configuration

Figure 3-79: Iso view of car configuration

Figure 3-80: Iso view of takeoff configuration

Figure 3-81: Iso view of plane configuration

123
3.19 Exploded Assembly Views

Figure 3-82: Exploded Assembly View (solid bodies)

Figure 3-83: Exploded Assembly View

124
4 Weight and Balance Analysis

The location of the aircrafts centre of gravity, in particular, the longitudinal
coordinate, was required to be determined in order to find the static margin of
the aircraft. To determine the CG location, individual component weights were
required. Raymer (2006) presents two levels of weight estimation that can be
used. The first provides a crude estimate based on a component build-up
approach which uses statistical percentage ranges of the aircrafts gross
takeoff weight for the following components:

Table 4-1 : Component Statistical Percentage of Takeoff Weight
Aircraft component Statistical percentage
of takeoff weight
W
fuselage
30-40%
W
wing
30-40%
W
empennage
5-10%
W
gear
10-15%
Adapted from (Maziar, 2008)

Due to the lack of such statistical data for existing flying cars, the statistical
percentages given in the Aircraft Design Lecture notes (Maziar, 2008) were
used as guidance and the component weights of the flying car consisted of;

Table 4-2: Flying car component weights
Aircraft Component
% of takeoff
weight
W
fuselage
, including crew, passenger, baggage 44%
W
wing
27.7%
W
empennage
, including weight of booms 5.6%
W
gear
5%
W
propulsion
12.7%
W
fuel
including empty weight of tank and trapped fue/oil weight 5%
125
The first level of weight estimation was used to find a rapid estimation of the
aircrafts CG. The approach used to estimate the centre of gravity involved
determining the individual centres of gravity for the major components of the
aircraft, and items to be stowed within the aircraft during operation. Items
considered for the calculation were:

-Pilot, Front and Rear Passengers
-Seats
-Luggage
-Fuel Tank and Fuel
-Wings
-Landing Gear
-Engine
-Propeller
-Boom Rods
-Horizontal Tail
-Vertical Tails

The centre of gravity of each component used in the estimation was assumed
to be located at the geometrical centre. Although this assumption is only valid
for components of symmetrical geometry and uniform density, the CG
locations obtained were deemed sufficient for a conceptual design analysis.
Once the individual centres of gravity of the major aircraft components were
determined, the location was referenced with respect to a defined coordinate
system, and the following equations were used:

=
i
i i
CG
m
m x
X ,

=
i
i i
CG
m
m y
Y ,

=
i
i i
CG
m
m z
Z
The coordinate system was located at the nose of the aircraft where x was
defined to be the longitudinal direction, y was in the lateral direction and z was
in the vertical direction.

126
The second level of weight estimation (Raymer, 2006), utilises several
detailed statistical equations for several components. However, due to the
time constraints of the project, the first level of weight estimation was deemed
sufficient for the conceptual design of the flying car.

A CG-envelope establishes whether the CG location remains within the most
forward and aft ranges as determined by the stability and control analysis. It is
essential that the CG location at any time of the aircrafts mission profile falls
within these limits in order for the aircraft to maintain stability.

The most forward and aft CG locations were required to determine the effects
of CG travel. These locations were found by considering different loading
conditions and determining the CG position as a percentage of the wing mean
aerodynamic chord. The configurations used to determine the most forward
and aft CG locations were as outlined in Airplane Design Part II (Roskam,
1985):

-W
empty

-W
empty
+ W
crew
, corresponding to operational empty weight
- W
empty
+ W
crew
+ W
fuel
-
W
empty
+ W
crew
+ W
fuel
+ W
payload

The aircraft components corresponding to each loading configuration are
described by the following equations, and can be found in Appendix F: Weight
and Balance Calculations.

=
=
6
1 i
i E
W W ,

=
=
8
1 i
i OE
W W ,

=
=
13
1 i
i TO
W W
The most forward CG location when the aircraft is operational was found to be
X
CG
= 1.305m from the nose, whilst the most aft CG occurred when the
aircraft is at maximum takeoff weight where X
CG
= 1.792m from the nose.

127
The following diagram shows the CG Envelope with the locations of most
forward and aft CG positions. Static margin is defined as the difference
between the aircraft neutral point and the location of most aft CG. The
Stability Analysis section of the report dictated that the static margin required
was 10% of the MAC, shown on the CG envelope below.

Figure 4-1: CG envelope

128
5 Aerodynamic Analysis

The following section discusses the aerodynamic properties of the flying car;
in particular the lift distribution of the wing, the lift to drag ratio, and the
fineness ratio.

5.1 Lift Distribution

A necessary part of the conceptual design of the flying car was to ensure that
sufficient lift could be produced by the wings in order for the aircraft to takeoff,
and sustain flight. The Theory of Wing Sections (Abbot et al, 1949) presents a
method of estimating the lift distribution which describes the total lift
generated by the wings to consist of a basic lift component and an additional
lift component.

The local basic section lift coefficient is described by a function of
aerodynamic twist, effective lift-curve slope, wing area, chord, taper ratio and
aspect ratio:
b
e
b
L
cb
S a
cl
c
=
The local additional section lift coefficient is dependent on the wing area,
chord, span, taper ratio and aspect ratio, as shown by the following equation:
a a
L
cb
S
cl =
1
The coefficients L
b
and L
a
were found in tables in Theory of Wing Sections
(Abbott et al, 1959), for the specific aspect ratio, taper ratio and spanwise
station of the wing section under consideration.

This method was used to estimate the lift distributions for cruise and takeoff,
shown in the figure below.
129

Figure 5-1: Lift Distribution for Wing

The lift distribution resulting in the minimum induced drag and thereby the
most efficient distribution is the ideal elliptical lift distribution. In order to
optimise the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle, the taper ratio was
selected in such manner to achieve the closest possible lift distribution while
keeping within the bounds of the design requirements.

5.2 L/D Determination

The lift to drag ratio of an aircraft provides a good indication of the
aerodynamic efficiency. For the mission fuel fraction calculations carried out
early in the project, a pessimistic lift to drag ratio of 8 (for cruise) was
assumed as it was anticipated that the flying car configuration would not
exhibit favourable aerodynamic efficiency due to the non-streamlined profile
and partially retracted landing gear characteristics of the vehicle. As the
dimensions of the flying car had been determined at this point in the
conceptual design, a more accurate estimate of the lift to drag ratio was
130
found. This value was then used for subsequent performance analysis
equations.

In order to estimate the lift to drag ratio of the Flying Car, the ratio of wetted to
reference wing area was calculated, refer to Appendix D: L/D Calculations.
The wetted area was taken to be all wing and fuselage surfaces that are
exposed to the moving air. The reference area was taken to be the lower
surface area of the wing including the area of fuselage over which the wing
extends. The aspect ratio and ratio of wetted to reference areas were then
used to determine the wetted aspect ratio:

Wetted Aspect Ratio = b/(S
wet
/S
ref
) = 6/3.03 = 2

For a wetted aspect ratio of 2, and a Fixed-gear prop aircraft, L/D
max
of 12.5
was achieved, as illustrated below (Raymer, 2006).

Figure 5-2: Maximum Lift-to-Drag Ratio Trends (Raymer, 2006)
131

5.3 Fineness ratio and drag of fuselage

The length of the fuselage was selected to be 4.2m, with maximum diameter
of 1.6m, this resulted in a fineness ratio of 2.625, which was considered to be
sufficiently low to keep the fuselage drag coefficient to approximately 0.1, as
found from the plot below (Roskam, 1985). The shape and dimensions of the
fuselage were dictated by the on road requirements of vehicle, Increasing the
length of the fuselage or reductions in the diameter could have increased the
finesse ratio thereby decreasing the associated drag. However this was not
possible as the diameter of the fuselage was dictated by the much needed
room for head clearance .Thus the achieved fineness ratio was considered
reasonable considering the design constraints.

Figure 5-3: Effect of fineness ratio on drag coefficient (Roskam, 1985)

The wings were to be folded back against the side of the fuselage to reduce
drag whilst in car configuration. The advantages and disadvantages of such a
configuration are discussed in Section 3.15.2 Wing Conversion.
132

6 Stability Analysis

A significant portion of an aircrafts flight envelope is under steady flight
conditions such as cruise, climb or glide, for which the principles of static
equilibrium apply. Static stability is concerned with the initial response of the
aircraft to a disturbance (Nelson, 1998) and thereby only aerodynamic loads
and the associated moments should be considered. Due to the symmetry of
aircraft along its centre-line, longitudinal stability can be treated independently
of roll or yaw, as small changes in angle of attack do not influence the
directional or lateral components of stability.

Due to the time constraints of the project only longitudinal stability was
assessed. During the analysis of the longitudinal stability, consideration of the
force and moment contributions from the different parts of the aircraft were
required. In this case, the analysis was limited to contributions from the wing.

Static margin (SM) is critical in the assessment of longitudinal stability, and is
defined as the distance between the neutral point and centre of gravity
position, expressed as a percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC)
(Nelson, 1998).

|
|
|
.
|

\
|
X X =

cg np SM

The neutral point is defined as the point where the moment of the vehicle
does not vary with angle of attack. In order to estimate the neutral point, the
lift curve slopes of the wing and horizontal tail plane were estimated, for the
accompanying hand calculations refer to Appendix E: Longitudinal Stability
Calculations.
133
o
|
o
o
| |
t
|
Lw
L
Lw
C
C
A k A
C =
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
A
+
= .
2
) (cos
1 2
2 1
2
2 2
Under the assumption that the wing aerodynamic centre is located at 25% of
the MAC, neutral point was estimated to be 49% of the MAC. To design a
stable trimmed aircraft two conditions need to be met; the aircraft neutral point
is ahead of the centre of gravity (CG); and zero net moment around the CG.

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
X
=
X

o
c
q
o
o
o
o
d
d
C
C
V
C
C
c c
w
t
f
L
L
H
L
m
ac
np
1
Due to the centre of gravity travel associated with the vehicle and as
recommended for general aviation aircraft, static margin was taken at 10% of
the MAC, the x-plot below shows the variation in static margin with variations
in the horizontal tail plane area.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Horizontal Tail Area
X
a
c
&
X
c
g
Xac
Xcg
Desired SM=10%
Figure 6-1: Longitudinal X-plot
134
7 Performance Analysis

The takeoff weight resulting from the conceptual design was 3582.45 lbs
(1625 kg), as found by weight estimation. The wing area was adjusted slightly
to be 137.25 ft
2
(12.75m
2
) and the selected engine is capable of producing
350hp (261 kW). Thus the wing and power loading were found to be;
W/S = 26.1 lbs/ft
2
W/P = 10.24 lbs/hp

Thus it can be seen that both the wing and power loading have been reduced
from that found from the preliminary sizing from the matching diagram (see
figure below).

Matching Diagram
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 25 45
W/S (lbs/ft^2)
W
/
P
(
l
b
s
/
h
p
)
Cruise Take off Cl=1.6 Take off Cl=1.8 Take off Cl=1.9
Climb FAR 23.65 (RC) Climb FAR 23.65 (CGR) Climb FAR 23.77 (CGR) Landing Req Cl=1.8
Landing Req Cl=2.0 Landing Req Cl=2.2 Design Point
Figure 7-1: Matching Diagram showing conceptual design point

135
This reduction in W/P and W/S results in lower required values for C
L
takeoff
(1.6) and Cl landing (1.8), which agree with that achievable by the designed
flaps and ailerons. The reduced power loading means the engine doesnt
need to work to achieve the necessary speeds for cruise and takeoff, because
the engine is rated to a higher maximum power output.

The reduced wing loading also means the flying car is more manoeuvrable
but also means that flight in turbulence and during wind gusts will be less
comfortable for passengers, however it was assumed that such a vehicle
would not be flown on bad weather days, and thus the effect of lower wing
loading on passenger comfort is not considered of great concern.

From recalculating the cruise speed, from the power index I
p
3
/
/
P W
S W
I
P
o
=
it was found that the new I
p
value was 1.45 (refer to Appendix G: Performance
Calculations) , resulting in a maximum achievable cruise speed of 362 km/hr,
calculated for the maximum power output from the engine. Thus it can be said
that the vehicle will easily achieve the required cruise speed of 210 km/hr,
without overworking the engine.

The range and endurance were also recalculated (refer to Appendix G:
Performance Calculations), and were found to have improved to 1502 km and
0.3615 hrs, respectively. This was due to the improvement of L/D
max
to 12.5,
as found in Section 5, Aerodynamic and Stability Analysis.

The vehicle was designed to meet the following criteria, as per the technical
task, and the compliance is detailed below.

136
Table 7-1: Compliance with performance parameters
Parameter Value
Compliance
Maximum on road
speed
130 km/hr
Engine capable of
achieving this speed
Maximum on road
width
2.2m

Maximum on road
length
6.5m

Maximum on road
height
2.1m

Driving radius 400km
Engine and fuel tank
capable of this range
Payload Weight 400kg
Designed to carry four
average adults (85kg) with
15kg payload
Maximum In-flight
speed
270 km/hr
Engine and propeller
easily achieves this max
speed
Cruise In-flight speed 210 km/hr
Engine and propeller
easily achieves this max
speed
Cruise Altitude 6000ft
Designed to climb to and
cruise at this altitude
Flight Range 980 km
Designed to carry
adequate fuel for this
range
Landing/Takeoff
Requirements
Runway width =
15 m
Runway length =
900m
Takeoff distance of700m
and landing distance of
666m.
Rate of Climb 5 m/s
Used in sizing the aircraft
Engine
Standard high
performance
aircraft piston
engine; while in
aircraft-
configuration
there will be a
pusher propeller
fitted.
Engine: Continental
TSIOL-550A, 350hp at
270rpm, Aero Composites
3350, rated to 3000rpm
and 350hp. Propeller fitted
as pusher; blades to fold
down in car configuration.
Fuel Type
AvGas or Jet
Fuel
Continental TSIOL-550A
runs on 100/100LL Avgas
Engine Life Cycle
Time Between
Overhaul (TBO)
s2000 hrs
Continental TSIOL-550A
has an TBO of 2000hrs
137
8 Three View Drawings

138
References

2carpros Professional Mechanics Online Free Automotive Repair Advice by
Certified ASE Technicians, viewed on 13 May 2008
<www.2carpros.com/how_does_it_work/seat_belt.htm>

4WD Australia 2008, Buying a 4WD, viewed 20 May 2008,
<http://www.4wdaustralia.com.au/Vehicle/Choices/Buyinga4WD.aspx>

Abbott, IH, von Doenhoff, AE 1959 Theory of Wing Sections, Dover
Publications, N.Y

Advanced Flying Automobile, Sokol 400, viewed on 1 June 2008
<http://www.afaco.com/>

Advanced Power Train Cutaway Diagrams viewed 3 May 2008
<http://www.advancedpowertrain.co.uk/Cutaway.html>

Aerocar The Aerocar Homepage, viewed on 1 June 2008,
<http://www.aerocar.com>

Aero Composites Inc. 2008 Propeller Models viewed 3 May 2008
<http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&pag
e_id=E36FDA21-5004-D739-A5792799EC7B5445>

Aeromaster Innovations 2008, Synergy viewed 30 March 2008
<http://www.dual-use.com/index.html>

Aeronautics Learning Laboratory for Science, Technology and Research
Structure of an Airplane viewed on 24 May 2008,
<http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/flight12.htm>

139
Aerospace Web Structural Design viewed on 24 May 2008
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/ucav/structures.shtml>

AFA Co 2007, Advanced Flying Automobile - Sokol A400, Advanced Flying
Automobile Company, viewed 23 March 2008, <http://www.afaco.com/>

Air BP 2008 Aircraft Refuelling Guide 2008 viewed on 26 May 2008
<http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/australia/corporate_australia/STA
GING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/r/127954_Refuelling_Cover.pdf>

Aircraft Spruce & Speciality Co Metals and Plastics Aluminium, viewed on
24 May 2008, <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/stringer.php>
AllStar Network Section 1.2 The Wings viewed on 24 May 2008
<http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/flight12.htm>

AutoWeb 2006 The Audi Q7 V12 TDI, viewed on 4 May 2008
<http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_107485/title_The-Audi-Q7-V12-
TDI/newsarticle.html>

AZOM, Thermoplastic Composites An Introduction, A to Z of Materials,
viewed on 23 May 2008 <http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=85>

BASI INVESTIGATION REPORT 9403314, viewed on 11 May 2008
<http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/AAIR/pdf/aair
199403314_001.pdf>

Bird, R, and Knowles, G 2004 Telescopic wing, United States Patent
6834835, viewed 27 March 2003
<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6834835.html>

BP Australia Pty Ltd 2006 Submission by BP Australia Pty Ltd on the price of
petrol in Australia to Senate Economics Legislation Committee viewed on 3
May 2008
140
<http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/australia/corporate_australia/STA
GING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/pq/020806_Final_Senate_submission_on
_Petrol_Pricing.pdf>

Brosius, D (2003), Advanced Pultrusion Takes Off In Commercial Aircraft
Structures, Composites world, viewed on 23 May 2007 at
<http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2003/September/205>

Carr G 2003 Flight Safety Australia November- December 2003, viewed on 3
May 2008 <http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/nov/56-57.pdf>

Dodson viewed on 13 May 2008
<http://www.dodson.com/new_inventory_cessna_tan_seats.htm>

DSE Victorian Government 2007 Draft Particular Provisions- Clause 52.06
viewed on 13 May 2008
<http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/3E6AF0A863194B96CA25
734500098EFB/$File/Recommended+52-06_Aug2007_.pdf>

Elliot C 2006 International Herald Tribune Ready for takeoff? Even if it's
standing room? viewed on 13 May 2008
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/25/business/Seats.php>

Eurocar Motorsport 2008, My BMW E46 M3, viewed 26 April 2008,
<http://www.eurocarmotorsport.com/my_m3/10.jpg>

FAA 1998, Part 25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
Federal Aviation Administration, viewed 30 May 2008
<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/5
203312685ADE2DC85256672004898F1?OpenDocument&Highlight=braking
%20coefficient>

141
Fitch, K 2002, JSF Simulator on tour, Air Force News viewed 18 May 2008
<http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4705/topstories/story02.h
tm>

Flightline Aviation 2008 Single Piston Engine 2007 Cessna Turbo 182T
Skylane <http://www.flightline.co.nz/cessna_aircraft/cessnaturbo182.asp>

Haynes-aero 2007 Skyblazer viewed 30 March 2008 <http://www.haynes-
aero.com/Netscape/frames.html>

Jeep Grand Cherokee WJ Four-Wheel Drive Systems viewed on 12 May
2008 <www.wjjeeps.com/tcases.htm>

LaBiche Aerospace 2008, LaBiche FSC-1 viewed 2 April 2008,
<http://www.labicheaerospace.com/>
Lycoming 2006 Service Instructions, viewed on 12 May 2008
<http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-
instructions/pdfs/SI1009AS.pdf>

Maziar, A 2007 Aeronautical Engineering I: Course Notes, The School of
Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Australia

Maziar, A 2008 Aircraft Design: Course Notes, The School of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Australia

Megson T H G 1999 Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students Elsevier
Science, MA

Nelson R.C 1998, Flight Stability & Automatic Control Second Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Boston

Nissan 2008, Nissan Patrol 0412 Specifications, viewed 20 May 2008
<http://www.nissan.com.au/specpdf/PAT0412_A4specs%20Jan08.pdf>
142

Nissan 2008, Nissan Tiida 0140_A4 Specs, viewed 20 May 2008,
<http://www.nissan.com.au/specpdf/Tii0140_A4specs%20May08.pdf>

Private Pilot Ground School, Aircraft Structure, viewed on 24 May 2008,
<http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/aircraft-
structure.html>

Raymer, D 2006 Aircraft Design: A conceptual approach 4
th
Ed., American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Virginia
Rapid Regional Travel, Synergy Vehicle, viewed on 1 June 2008,
<http://www.dual-use.com/synergy_vehicle.html >

Roskam, J 1985 Airplane Design Parts I to VIII, Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corporation, Kansas

R V Marine Inc. Viewed on 13 May 2008
<http://www.rvmarineinc.com/Pages/Product%20Price.html>
ScienceDaily 2007 New Material For Aircraft Wings Could Save Billions
viewed on 3 May 2008
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070926094727.htm>
Serious Wheels 2005 Audi A8 4.2 TDI Quattro, viewed on 3 May 2008
<http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2005-Audi-A8-TDI-Quattro.htm>

Smith, D 2007, Helicopter Lesson Guides Controls chapter 4, viewed 24
April 2008, <http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/hlesson6.htm>

Space Mart 2007 New Delft Material Concept For Aircraft Wings Could Save
Billions
<http://www.spacemart.com/reports/New_Delft_Material_Concept_For_Aircraf
t_Wings_Could_Save_Billions_999.html>

143
Subaru 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Hatch Specifications viewed 20 May 2008
<http://www.subaru.com.au/models/impreza/wrx/hatch/specifications/all/>

Teledyne Continental Motors 2005 Continental Motors Specification Sheet
viewed on 11 May 2008
<http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF>

Terrafugia 2008 Transition viewed 2 April 2008
<http://www.terrafugia.com/vehicle.html>

Torenbeek, E 1976 Synthesis of subsonic airplane design, Delft University
Press, Netherlands

Toyota Australia 2008, Toyota Landcruiser 200 GXL 4D Wagon V* Turbo
Diesel 6 Auto Specifications, viewed 20 May
<http://www.toyota.com.au/toyota/vehicle/Specification/0,4668,5114_1912_46
9,00.html>

Toyota Motor Sales 2008, Toyota Camry Performance & Specs, viewed 20
May 2008 <http://www.toyota.com/camry/specs.html>

Transport SA 2003, Modifications to passenger cars, car type
utilities and panel vans in Information Bulletin 3, Government of South
Australia, viewed 20 March 2008,
<http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/personal_transport/light_vehicles_pdfs/I
nfo_bulletin_3.pdf>

UIUC 2002 UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database, viewed on 12 May 2008
<http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jps7/D8%20website/UIUC%20Airfoil%20Coordinate
s%20Database.htm>

Weiss, P 2003, Wings of change: shape-shifting aircraft may ply future
skyways - Cover Story, viewed 23 March 2008,
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_23_164/ai_111850337/pg_3>
144

Wikipedia- The Free Encyclopedia, Aerocar ,viewed on 1 June, 2008,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar>

Wikipedia-The Free Encyclopedia 2008 LaBiche FSC-1, viewed on 1 June
2008, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSC-1>

Wikipedia- The Free Encyclopedia 2008 List of Volkswagen engines viewed
on 3 May 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_engines>

Wright, P 1999 Formula 1 steering wheels, viewed 29 April 2008,
<http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00347.html>

145
Appendix A: Mass Fuel Fraction Hand Calculations
146
147
148
Appendix B: Sensitivity Hand Calculations
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Appendix C: Empennage Control Surface Sizing

159
160
161
Appendix D: L/D Calculations

162
Appendix E: Longitudinal Stability Calculations

163
Appendix F: Weight and Balance Calculations

164

X coordinate of CoG (m) -1.791691023
Y coordinate of CoG (m) 0.011766188

165
Appendix G: Performance Calculations
166
167
Appendix H: Detailed Drawings

168

169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189