P10232: UAV Airframe C
/public/

Select Product Concept(s)

Table of Contents

Air Frame Concept Selection

Aircraft Type

Plane Dirigible Helicopter Rocket
Design 0 + - - +
Cost (initial) 0 - 0 +
Cost (sustainable) 0 - - 0 - -
Controllability 0 - - - - *
Transport 0 - - + +
Flight Time 0 ++ - *
Payload 0 - - - -
Airspeed 0 - - - ++
Total 0 -7 -6 N/A

A plane was found to be the most practical way of meeting all of our specifications.

* Rocket fails to meet time and controllability specifications

Airframe design

Monoplane Bi-plane Delta Flying Wing Tandem Wing Split Body Boom Tail
Design 0 - - - - - - - - -
Cost (initial) 0 - 0 + - - - - +
Piloting Difficulty 0 - - - - - - + 0
Transport 0 + - - - - +
Flight Time 0 0 0 ++ + + 0
Payload Flexibility 0 0 - - - ++ - -
Payload Weight 0 0 0 + ++ + 0
Airspeed 0 - + - 0 - 0
Total 0 -3 -3 -4 -2 -3 -1

A monoplane design was chosen as it is most likely to provide a reliable and predictable aircraft. It also has the largest working knowledge among the R/C community.

Landing Gear Concept Selection

Conventional Tricycle Skid Plates Pontoon/Floats Skis
Flight Drag 0 + + - - 0
Ground Control 0 0 - - - 0
Nose Over 0 ++ - 0 0
Ground Loop 0 + - 0 0
Cost 0 - + + -
Load Handling 0 - + + 0
Risk of Prop Damage 0 - - - 0
Cargo Protection 0 - - - 0 0
Operational Environment Restrictions 0 0 - - - - -
Total 0 0 -5 -4 -3

A conventional tail dragger design was chosen for its reliably safe performance and simple implementation.

Power System Concept Selection

Glow/Nitro Gasoline Electric
Initial Cost * 0 0
Running Cost 0 0 +
Controllability 0 0 +
Power * 0 - -
Weight 0 0 - -
Design Flexibility 0 0 ++
Fuel/Battery Consumption 0 0 0
20 min Flight Time * 0 0
Vibration 0 0 +
Reliability - 0 ++
Maintenance 0 0 ++
Total N/A 0 5

An electric motor was selected as it provides the most reliable operation, with minimal service requirements. It is the simplest to work with and design around. Given a 20 minute flight time the weight and duration becomes comparable to that of gasoline based systems.

*Glow engines of the size required would need to be a custom made part, as such they are not available for our use

Tail Concept Selection

Cambered H-Tail V-Tail T-Tail Crucifix Tail
Stability 0 + + - -
Design Difficulty 0 - - - - - - -
Weight 0 - + - -
Controllability 0 + - + +
Drag 0 + + 0 0
Flight Envelope 0 0 0 + +
Cost 0 - - - -
Total 0 0 -1 -3 -3

A conventional tail was selected as none of the alternatives stood out as having any significant enough advantages to warrant the additional complexities.

Flight Control Actuation System Concept Selection

Electric (servo) Electric (stepper) Pneumatic Hydraulic EHA
Difficulty of Design 0 - - - --
Complexity 0 -- - - --
Quick Connect Compatible 0 0 -- -- 0
Weight 0 - - -- 0
Power output 0 0 + ++ ++
Maintenance 0 0 - - -
Cost (initial) 0 - 0 - --
Cost (sustained) 0 - 0 - -
Total 0 -6 -5 -7 -6

A tradition servo system was chosen as there are commercially available systems that meet all our design requirements.

Airfoil Selection

High Camber- Flat Bottom High Camber - Under Cambered Low Camber Reflex Symmetric
Lift 0 + -- -- --
Drag 0 + + - -
Stall Angle 0 + - - 0
Stall Speed 0 + - - 0
Moment 0 - + ++ +
Structure 0 - 0 0 0
Total 0 2 -2 -3 -2

An under cambered airfoil was found to be the best overall high lift airfoil design.

Home