TRILOBUZZ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 5
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Acronyms and Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................ 7
1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Design Process ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Key Mission Requirements and Design Features ......................................................................... 8
1.3 System Performance Capabilities ................................................................................................. 9

2 Management ....................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Team Organization ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Milestones ................................................................................................................................... 10

3 Conceptual Design .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Mission Requirements ................................................................................................................. 11

Mission and Score Summary .............................................................................................. 11

Estimated Maximum Mission 2 and Mission 3 Scores ........................................................ 14
Aircraft Constraints .............................................................................................................. 15
Flight Score Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 16

3.2 Translation into Design Requirements ........................................................................................ 19

3.3 Configurations Considered .......................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Component Weighting and Selecting Process ............................................................................ 21
3.5 Final Conceptual Design Configuration ...................................................................................... 22

4 Preliminary Design .............................................................................................................................. 23

4.1 Design Methodology ................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Design Trades ............................................................................................................................. 23

Constraint Sizing ................................................................................................................. 23

Propulsion System Selection .............................................................................................. 24

4.3 Mission Model ............................................................................................................................. 25

Description and Capabilities ................................................................................................ 25

Uncertainties ....................................................................................................................... 26

4.4 Aerodynamic Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 26

Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................ 27

Lifting Surface Analysis ....................................................................................................... 29
Drag Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 29

2
 4.5 Stability and Control .................................................................................................................... 31

Static Stability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 31

Dynamic Stability Analysis .................................................................................................. 33

4.6 Mission Performance .................................................................................................................. 33

5 Detail Design ....................................................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Final Design – Aircraft ................................................................................................................. 34

5.2 Structural Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 35

Layout and Design .............................................................................................................. 35

Operating Envelope ............................................................................................................ 35

5.3 System and Subsystem Design and Implementation ................................................................. 36

Wing Body and Payload Bays ............................................................................................. 36

Vertical Stabilizer................................................................................................................. 37
Elevons ................................................................................................................................ 37
Receiver and Transmitter Selection .................................................................................... 38
Propulsion System .............................................................................................................. 38
Servo Selection ................................................................................................................... 39
Landing Gear ....................................................................................................................... 40
Passenger Seat and Payload Blocks .................................................................................. 40

5.4 Weight and Balances .................................................................................................................. 41

5.5 Performance ................................................................................................................................ 42

Flight Performance .............................................................................................................. 42

Mission Performance .......................................................................................................... 43

5.6 Drawing Package ........................................................................................................................ 44

6 Manufacturing...................................................................................................................................... 49

6.1 Processes Investigated ............................................................................................................... 49

6.2 Processes Selected .................................................................................................................... 50

Airframe Structure ............................................................................................................... 51

Control Surfaces and Vertical Tail ....................................................................................... 51
Rapid Prototyping ................................................................................................................ 51

6.3 Manufacturing Milestones ........................................................................................................... 52

7 Testing Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 53

7.1 Objectives and Schedule ............................................................................................................ 53

7.2 Structural Testing ........................................................................................................................ 54

3
 7.3 Flight Testing ............................................................................................................................... 54
7.4 Checklists .................................................................................................................................... 55

Propulsion Test Checklist .................................................................................................... 55

Flight Test Checklist ............................................................................................................ 55

8 Performance Results ........................................................................................................................... 56

8.1 Component and Subsystem Performance .................................................................................. 56

Propulsion ........................................................................................................................... 56
Structural Tests ................................................................................................................... 57

8.2 System Performance ................................................................................................................... 58

9 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 60

4
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Aircraft in flight ............................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2.1: Team organization chart ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2: Aircraft design milestone chart showing planned and actual progress .................................... 11
Figure 3.1: Competition flight course .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.2: Wind speed versus maximum speed required ......................................................................... 17
Figure 3.3: Physics-based scoring analysis of the design space ............................................................... 18
Figure 3.4: Scoring sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.5: Considered configurations: monoplane (left), full delta (center), clipped delta (right) .............. 20
Figure 3.6: Final clipped delta configuration ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 4.1: The team's preliminary design methodology highlighting the multidisciplinary iterations ........ 23
Figure 4.2: Constraint sizing design point selection ................................................................................... 24
Figure 4.3: Vortex lift conceptualization by Anderson [1] ............................................................................ 27
Figure 4.4: Maximum lift coefficient of various planforms [2] ...................................................................... 27
Figure 4.5: Lift estimation for clipped delta planform; wind tunnel data from Lamar [7] ............................. 28
Figure 4.6: Pitching moment estimation for clipped delta planform; wind tunnel data from Lamar [7] ....... 28
Figure 4.7: Final design VORSTAB lift curve .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.8: Breakdown of various sources of drag ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.9: Drag coefficient prediction using vortex lift calculation ............................................................. 31
Figure 4.10: Moment coefficient derivative versus angle of attack at the CG ............................................ 32
Figure 4.11: Simulation of lap trajectories for M1 (left) and M2/M3 (right) ................................................. 34
Figure 5.1: Load paths of major forces ....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.2: V-n diagram showing loading as a function of velocity for all flight missions ........................... 36
Figure 5.3: Trilobuzz body CAD .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 5.4: Elevon attachment mechanism................................................................................................. 37
Figure 5.5: Motor mount .............................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.6: Removable servo prototype ...................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.7: Landing gear ............................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 5.8: Prototype passenger seat with and without a passenger ......................................................... 41
Figure 5.9: CAD Predicted CG Location ..................................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.10: Thrust available and thrust required versus velocity .............................................................. 43
Figure 5.11: Simulation of lap trajectories for M1 (left) and M2/M3 (right) ................................................. 44
Figure 6.1: Airframe during construction ..................................................................................................... 51
Figure 6.2: Multiple prototype aircraft before a flight test ............................................................................ 52
Figure 6.3: Aircraft manufacturing milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of objectives ....... 52
Figure 7.1: Aircraft and subsystem testing milestone chart with planned and actual timing of objectives . 53
Figure 7.2: Thrust test rig ............................................................................................................................ 54

5
Figure 8.1: Battery discharge rates ............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 8.2: Predicted thrust versus actual thrust for different propellers .................................................... 57
Figure 8.3: Wingtip test ............................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 8.4: Trajectory of aircraft during competition laps from GPS data ................................................... 59

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Ground Mission stage 1 die roll outcomes ................................................................................. 13
Table 3.2: Ground Mission stage 2 die roll outcomes ................................................................................. 13
Table 3.3: Estimated highest M2 and M3 performance .............................................................................. 14
Table 3.4: Passenger specifications and distribution .................................................................................. 15
Table 3.5: Rules and requirements translated into design requirements ................................................... 20
Table 3.6: Figures of Merit .......................................................................................................................... 21
Table 3.7: Configuration scoring values ...................................................................................................... 21
Table 3.8: Aircraft configurations' Figures of Merit ..................................................................................... 22
Table 4.1: Preliminary power and wing area............................................................................................... 24
Table 4.2: Motor specifications ................................................................................................................... 25
Table 4.3: Breakdown of various sources of drag ...................................................................................... 30
Table 4.4: Relevant stability coefficients and derivatives for static stability ................................................ 32
Table 4.5: Dynamic stability characteristics ................................................................................................ 33
Table 5.1: Final aircraft dimensions ............................................................................................................ 34
Table 5.2: Selected propulsion and electronics components ..................................................................... 38
Table 5.3: Weights and balances ................................................................................................................ 42
Table 5.4: System flight performance parameters for each mission........................................................... 42
Table 5.5: Aircraft mission performance parameters .................................................................................. 44
Table 6.1: Manufacturing FOM Weighting .................................................................................................. 49
Table 6.2: Example airframe manufacturing process selection .................................................................. 50
Table 7.1: Propulsion testing checklist ........................................................................................................ 55
Table 7.2: Pre-flight checklist ...................................................................................................................... 56
Table 8.1: LRU replacement times ............................................................................................................. 58
Table 8.2: Comparison of predicted and actual performance averages ..................................................... 59

6
ACRONYMS AND NOMENCLATURE
����� Number of Laps flown Θ wind Wind Direction
����� Number of Passengers Carried n Load Factor
����� Wetted Area of the Wing RT Taper Ratio
�0 Gravitational Acceleration AR Aspect Ratio
��� Takeoff Safety Factor Re Reynolds Number
�� Takeoff Distance �̇ Velocity Derivative with respect to time
�⁄� Thickness to Chord Ratio T Thrust
AVL Athena Vortex-Lattice m Mass
C.G. Center of Gravity ��
�� Flight Time
CD Aircraft Drag Coefficient MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
CD,0 Aircraft Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient � Density
Cfw Turbulent Plate Friction Coefficient ���
Wing Fuselage Interference Factor
of the Wing
CL Aircraft Lift Coefficient �̇ Time Derivative of Heading
Cl Aircraft Rolling Moment Coefficient K1 Drag Constant
Cm Aircraft Pitching Moment Coefficient ��� Lifting Surface Correction
Cn Aircraft Yawing Moment Coefficient  Sideslip Angle (degrees)
CY Aircraft Side Force Coefficient  Angle of Attack (degrees)
ESC Electronic Speed Control W Weight (lbs)
EW Empty Weight e Oswald Efficiency
FOM Figures of Merit S Reference Area (ft2)
L’ Airfoil Thickness Location Factor V Velocity(ft/s)
LRU Line Replacement Units MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
M1 Mission One P Power
M2 Mission Two ��� Takeoff Speed
M3 Mission Three KA/KB Weight Regression Coefficient
NiCad Nickel-Cadmium �̇ Position Derivative with respect to time
NiMH Nickel-Metal Hydride D Drag
RAC Rated Aircraft Cost ����� Propeller Efficiency
TMS Total Mission Score �� Thrust Required

7
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the design, testing, and manufacturing of Georgia Institute of Technology’s Trilobuzz
entry in the 2017-2018 AIAA Des ign/Build/Fly (DBF) competition. The objective of the 2017-2018 American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Design/Build/Fly (DBF) contest is to simulate the design of
a dual purpose regional and business aircraft and is designed to include:

• Passenger compartment: to carry super balls with sizes ranging from 27mm to 49mm
• Longitudinal Aisle: minimum width and height of 2 inches running the length of the passenger
compartment
• Payload bay: that carries a payload block with L(in)+ W(in)+ H(in) greater than or equal to 9 inches
• Line Replacement Units (LRUs): certain components must be modular for quick maintenance

The aircraft is designed to complete the following 4 tasks:

1. The Ground Mission: removal and replacement of two Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) chosen at
random
2. Empty Flight of the Trilobuzz
3. Flight of the Trilobuzz with passengers carried in the passenger compartment
4. Flight of the Trilobuzz with passengers carried in the passenger compartment and payload block
carried in the payload bay

1.1 Design Process

Georgia Institute of Technology approaches every competition with the desire to maximize score and
achieve victory. Conceptual designs that translate key mission requirements and scoring equations into
design concepts were developed to achieve this goal. The team then chose a configuration from a range
of possible concepts that maximized score. In the preliminary design phase, the design was further refined
by evaluating different wing and control surface configurations, lightening methods, motors, and propellers.
Throughout the process, weight estimates, drag estimates and aerodynamic coefficients were calculated
and introduced into a flight simulation environment that simulates mission performance. A detailed design
with dimensions was then created, prototyped, and subsequently flight tested to validate the assumptions
made during the design phase. Through the analysis of flight scoring and aircraft contribution to RAC, it
was determined that minimizing empty weight and wingspan was critical for this year’s de sign.

1.2 Key Mission Requirements and Design Features

Balancing key mission requirements was the basis for a successful system design. Design metrics were
developed for each mission requirement and scoring factor to maximize system performance and overall
competition score.

8
 Empty Weight: The aircraft’s empty weight is a significant driver of total score as a function of Rate d
Aircraft Cos t (RA C). Us e of the lightes t materials possible was combined with a highly efficient truss
structure to de sign a n a ircraft that was as light as possible without compromising the ability to complete all
three flight missions.
Wing Span: The wingspan is another component of RAC that was considered vital for maximizing
score. Therefore, a delta wing configuration was identified as the highest scoring configuration.
Replaceable Components: For the completion of the ground mission, the aircraft had to contain
Line Replacement Units (LRUs). To this end, components not deemed necessary were not included in the
aircraft design. This design choice also helped in lowering the empty weight. It was determined that elevons
were the only control surfaces required for completion of all missions.

1.3 System Performance Capabilities

All features designed to maximize the performance of the system can be summarized by the following
performance capabilities:

• Empty Weight of 1.19 lbs and MTOW of 1.34 lbs

• Reliable takeoff and landing
• Top speed of 90.72 ft/s
• Secure storage of a single passenger
• Proven capability through 5 iterations and 20 test flights, as shown in Figure 1.1.
• Estimated RAC of 14.01 and final score of 0.219.

Figure 1.1: Aircraft in flight

The final design is a clipped delta wing aircraft with one motor and one set of control surfaces. The aircraft
is designed to minimize weight and wingspan while still satisfying the requirements of carrying a passenger,
having an aisle, and carrying a payload block in a separate payload bay. The team chose an unconventional
and ambitious design to maximize the total score.

9
2 MANAGEMENT
2.1 Team Organization
A hierarchical structure was used in the completion of the Trilobuzz, with leadership established amongst
senior members and flowing down to the newer members of the team as shown in Figure 2.1. The work
was divided into Manufacturing, Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Structure, Aerodynamics, Electrical
and Propulsion, and Payload. During the design, construction, and testing phase, each member contributed
extensively to the rapid prototyping process to construct the planes, meet deadlines, share new ideas, and
write the report.

Faculty Advisor
Carl Johnson

Chief Engineer Project Managers Pilot

Jacob L., Sr Mitchell H., Jr Matthew W., Grad

CAD and Structure Aerodynamics Manufacturing Electrical/Propulsion Payload

Yana C., Fr Jacob L., Sr MoWei T., So Arun P., So Lansing W., Grad

Ogun K., Jr Frank K., Jr Isaac C., Jr Des M., Jr

Nicolas L., Jr Ogun K., Jr
Daniel S., Jr Scott N., Jr Mary O., Jr
Noah Lewis., Jr
Sean O., Jr
Yash P., Jr
Tyrese H., Fr

Figure 2.1: Team organization chart

2.2 Milestones
A milestone chart was established at the beginning of the design process to capture major deadlines of
design and manufacturing goals. Progress was monitored by the project manager to ensure all major
milestones were met. The team worked throughout the entire academic year and established stringent
deadlines early to ensure testing and flight experience before the competition in April. The team met
frequently with the faculty advisor to discuss progress. The milestone chart is shown in Figure 2.2, capturing
planned and actual timing of major events.

10
 9/1 10/1 10/31 11/30 12/30 1/29 2/28 3/30
Create Preliminary Design
Construct Prototype
Flight Test Prototype
Update Design
Construct Intermediate Prototypes
Test Intermediate Prototypes
Write Report
Construct Competition Aircraft
Test Competition Aircraft

Figure 2.2: Aircraft design milestone chart showing planned and actual progress

3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
In this early phase of design, the team analyzed the competition rules to produce a feasible design that
maximized score. The rules were distilled into design requirements and scoring factors. Quantitative
analysis was performed to pinpoint key scoring drivers and constrain the design space. These scoring
factors were then translated into Figures of Merit (FOM) and used to evaluate aircraft configurations and
design decisions. This process in its entirety is presented in the following sections.

3.1 Mission Requirements

Mission and Score Summary
The AIAA Design/Build/Fly 2017/2018 competition consists of three flight missions, a ground mission, and
a design report. The total score for each team is calculated using Equation 3.1.

���
�
�= ��
���
�
���
����
��
���∗ ���
/��� (3.1)
Equation 3.2 breaks down the Total Mission Score (TMS). The TMS is the sum of the three mission flight
scores. Equation 3.3 breaks down the Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC). The RAC consists of the maximum empty
weight of the aircraft recorded at competition (EW max) in pounds, and longest distance between wingtips in
inches, measured perpendicular to the fuselage axis (WS).

���
= �1 + �2 + �3 (3.2)

���
= ��
���∗ �� (3.3)

It was determined during sensitivity analysis that the scoring equation is more sensitive to changes in RAC
than TMS. TMS can range from approximately three to nine (assuming all missions are completed),
whereas RAC can vary greatly depending on aircraft configuration. Equation 3.3 shows that minimizing
aircraft weight and wingspan minimizes RAC. Increasing aircraft performance for faster mission times
necessarily requires an increase in weight and size, which results in a greater RAC.

All flight missions are flown along the same distance and pattern per lap. For flight missions, the individual
portions of the flight pattern seen in Figure 3.1 are as follows:

11
 1. Successful takeoff of aircraft
2. Climb to safe altitude
3. 180º U-turn, 500 ft. upwind from the start/finish line
4. 1000 ft. downwind
5. 360º turn along the backstretch
6. 180º U-turn
7. 500 ft. final approach with a successful landing

Figure 3.1: Competition flight course

Each lap is roughly 2500 ft when accounting for the three turns involved. A complete lap is defined as
crossing the start/finish line, completing the defined pattern, then crossing the start/finish line while still in
the air. The required number of laps is defined by each mission. The ground mission must be completed
before the second flight mission.
Mission 1 Demonstration Flight: For this mission, the aircraft must takeoff within the prescribed field
length. The team must complete three laps within a five-minute time window, and then complete a
successful landing to receive a score. Time starts when the throttle is advanced for the first takeoff attempt
and ends when the aircraft completes three laps. Landing is not part of the five-minute window. The scoring
for Mission 1 (M1) is binary; a successful mission is scored 1.0 and a failed mission is scored 0.0.
Ground Mission: The ground mission is comprised of two stages and must be successfully
completed before attempting Mission 2. Three team members may participate in this mission: two crew
members and the pilot. One line-replaceable unit (LRU) must be replaced during each stage within eight
minutes total. The Stage 1 LRU is selected at random by the roll of a die and must be replaced within the
first three minutes of the eight-minute period. Once successfully replaced, the team may immediately begin
replacing the second LRU, also selected randomly by the roll of a die. Stage 2 must be completed within
the remainder of the eight-minute period. The results of the first and second die roll are listed in Table 3.1
and Table 3.2, respectively.

12
A functional demonstration of the replaced LRU must be performed to complete a stage and continue. The
aircraft must be flight ready at the start and finish of the ground mission. The ground mission is considered
successful if all the above conditions are met. Failure to meet any of the above criteria will result in a failure
for the ground mission. There is no score for completion of the ground mission.

Table 3.1: Ground Mission stage 1 die roll outcomes

Roll LRU
1 Servo
2 Receiver battery
3 Main propulsion battery
4 Control pushrod or pull-pull cable
5 Landing gear wheel
6 Propeller

Table 3.2: Ground Mission stage 2 die roll outcomes

Roll LRU
1 Electronic speed control (ESC)
Control surface (chosen at random with additional roll)
1: left aileron/elevon
2: right aileron/elevon
2 3: (left) elevator
4: (right) elevator
5: rudder, upper rudder, left rudder, or left ruddervator
6: rudder, lower rudder, right rudder, or right ruddervator
3 Receiver
Main landing gear (if required chosen at random with additional roll)
4 Odd: left
Even: right
5 Motor
6 Roll again

Mission 2 Short Haul of Max Passengers: The payload for Mission 2 (M2) is passengers (super
balls). The aircraft is to be loaded with a team-chosen number of passengers that does not exceed the
maximum number of passengers declared at technical inspection. All passengers must be carried internally.
The team must complete three laps within a five-minute time window, and then complete a successful

13
landing to receive a score. Time starts when the aircraft throttle is advanced for the first takeoff attempt and
ends when the aircraft completes three laps. Landing is not part of the five-minute window. Points are
awarded based on Equation 3.4.
⁄���
(����� �)
�2 = 2 ∗ ����
(3.4)
(�����
/���
�)
���

“�����
” refers to the number of passengers carried, “Time” refers to the flight time, subscript “Buzz” refers
to the parenthetical value for Trilobuzz, and subscript “Max” refers to the maximum value of the
parenthetical quantity across all teams for M2.
Mission 3 Long Haul of Passengers and Payload: The payload for Mission 3 (M3) is passengers
(super balls) and payload blocks. The number of passengers must be at least 50% of the number of
passengers carried during M2. At least one payload block must be carried but may not exceed maximum
number of payload blocks declared at technical inspection. Both passengers and payload must be carried
internally. The team must complete the mission within a ten-minute time window, and then complete a
successful landing to receive a score. Time starts when the aircraft throttle is advanced for the first takeoff
attempt and ends when the aircraft crosses the start/finish line on the final lap. Landing is not part of the
ten-minute window. The mission score for M3 is a function of the number of passengers, the total weight of
payload blocks, and the number of laps completed. The awarded score is described by Equation 3.5.
(�����
∗�����
���∗��
���)
�3 = 4 ∗ ����
+2 (3.5)
(�����
∗�����
���∗��
���) ���

“�����
” refers to the number of passengers carried, “�������
�” refers to the total weight of the payload blocks

in ounces, “�����” refers to the number of laps completed, subscript “Buzz” refers to the parenthetical value
for Trilobuzz, and subscript “Max” refers to the maximum value of the parenthetical quantity across all teams
for M3.

Estimated Maximum Mission 2 and Mission 3 Scores

Mission 2 and Mission 3 scores are both dependent on the score of the highest performing team at the
competition. Thus the sensitivity of the score to design variables is dependent on the estimate for the
highest performing team. Table 3.3 contains the estimated performance values that were used to calculate
preliminary mission scores for Trilobuzz. The maximum number of passengers and M3 laps were estimated
based on trends from past competitions. Maximum payload was estimated based on the assumption that
the highest scoring team would contain an equal weight of passengers and payload. The lap time was
estimated from the team’s experience with the class of high capacity aircraft that are expected to lead the
scoring in missions 2 and 3.
Table 3.3: Estimated highest M2 and M3 performance

M2 Max Passengers M2 Min Time (s) Max Payload (oz) M3 Max Laps
35 90 39.2 20

14
 Aircraft Constraints
The competition rules stipulate design constraints that all competing aircraft must adhere to, including
requirements for ground rolling takeoff, propulsion system, passengers, payload, and serviceability:
Ground Rolling Takeoff: All aircraft must independently takeoff and land on a runway, with a takeoff
field length of 150 feet. This is a requirement for all three missions.
Propulsion System: The aircraft must be propeller driven and electrically powered, with all
components of the propulsion system commercially available. These include the motor, propeller, speed
controllers, receiver, and batteries. The battery selection is limited to NiCad or NiMH, but may be of any
cell count, voltage, or capacity. There is no limit to the weight of the battery packs. The entire propulsion
system must be armed by an external safety plug or fuse. The arming device must be mounted on the
exterior of the aircraft and be accessible from behind.
Passengers: Passengers, represented by various sized super balls, are payload for M2 and M3.
Passengers must be secured sufficiently to assure safe flight without possible variation of center of gravity
(CG) outside of the aircraft design limits. Passengers will be provided in technical inspection and on the
flight line and will be randomly selected from a pool of passengers according to the distribution described
in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Passenger specifications and distribution

Diameter (mm) Weight (oz) Distribution (%)

27 0.40 15
32 0.67 20
38 1.12 30
45 1.85 20
49 2.39 15

Each passenger must have its own seat with an individual restraint system that accommodates all
passenger sizes. Additionally, all passenger seats must be on one level, planar surface, with a minimum
spacing of 0.25 inches between the largest passenger size. There may not be more than four seats in any
given row. There must be a longitudinal aisle with height and width no less than 2.00 inches running the
length of the passenger compartment. The aisle may be on either side of the seats if only one or two
adjacent seats are in a row.
Payload: The payload will be made up of cuboid blocks with length, width, and height dimensions
summing to greater than or equal to nine inches, with no dimension measuring less than two inches. Teams
are to supply their own payload blocks. All payload blocks for each team must be the same size, with no
more than 0.25-inch variation per side. The weight of each payload block may be determined by the team
and each block may have a different weight. Payload bay(s) must be a separate, enclosed compartment
behind and/or below the passenger compartment.

15
 Serviceability: All aircraft must be designed to be serviceable by allowing for the removal and
replacement of several aircraft components. The components that must be replaceable are outlined in the
Ground Mission description in Section 3.1.1.

Flight Score Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis on the flight scoring drivers was performed to understand the design trades and
mission objectives that maximize TMS as divided by the RAC. Mission scores are functions of payload
capacity, flight speed, and endurance of the aircraft. The RAC is a function of the aircraft empty weight and
the maximum wingspan. This analysis was conducted to examine the design space and determine the
general scoring trends.
Empty Weight: Aircraft empty weight was divided into propulsion and structural components. The
propulsion system weight is proportional to the number of battery cells used. Based on previous team
experience, 1500 mAh NiMH cells were selected as representative batteries, weighing 0.05 lbs each. Based
on testing of battery discharge rate, the average current draw is 15 amps. The electric motor weight was
estimated at 0.5 lbs / kW from past experience, and speed controllers that met the pack voltage were
cataloged. The propulsion weight assessment is summarized by Equations 3.6 and 3.7.
�
���
��� = �����
��� × 15���
�(1.2 ���� �
) (3.6)

�
�� �
��
������
�
����= ����� ) + ���
�(0.05 ���� ��� (0.5 ��) + ����
��� (3.7)

Structural weight was estimated using the team’s experience, with a baseline minimum weight which
increases with wing area. The coefficients KA and KB in Equation 3.8 were adjusted to match past years’
Design/Build/Fly planes, and Equation 3.9 summarizes the empty weight assessment.

��
��� �= ������
��� + ��(�
��� −�
���� �����)
��� (3.8)

��= ��� �+ �������

��� ���� (3.9)

Maximum Speed: The maximum speed directly effects the scoring of M2 and must be high enough
for the aircraft to complete three 2,500 ft lap lengths within five minutes with the assumed wind conditions.
The maximum speed was calculated using simple power-required calculations that stem from the drag polar
and the power available from the propulsion system, as seen in Equation 3.10.

3 1 2�
� −�
��� ��= ( ��
������,0 + ) − ���
��������
��� =0 (3.10)
2 ��
�����
���
Analysis was conducted of Wichita, Kansas weather trends for the month of April to determine what
airspeeds should be expected during competition. Based on the analysis and team experience, 15 mph
winds are expected, with an extreme weather condition of winds upwards of 45 mph, so a flight speed
requirement of 61 mph was set.

16
 60

Required A/c Speed (mph)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wind Speed (mph)

Figure 3.2: Wind speed versus maximum speed required

Takeoff: The power-to-weight ratio necessary for takeoff in the prescribed takeoff distance of 150
ft must be considered when selecting a propulsion system. Equation 3.11 describes power-to-weight for a
rolling takeoff, and includes such terms as the takeoff distance, �
�, gravitational acceleration, �0 , and wing

loading, �/�. The takeoff safety factor, ���, was set to 1 due to the clipped delta configuration that was
selected. Clipped delta aircraft run into flight performance issues such as reduction of aerodynamic
efficiency before they achieve stall angle of attack, so ���can be set to 1, representing confidence in takeoff
safety. More detail as to why a clipped delta configuration was chosen is provided later in Section 3.4.
2
� ��� �
= ( )� (3.11)
� � �� � � ��
� 0 �

Approach: Wing loading is the only concern when considering landing approach. A maximum ��
value at this condition constrains the sizing of the aircraft. Using this �� value, wing loading can be
calculated using Eq. 3.12.
� 1
= ��2 ������ (3.12)
� 2

The relationships discussed above can be used to determine the RAC as a fallout of the aircraft speed and
payload capacity for a conventional configuration. To isolate the effect of speed and payload, these
parameters are analyzed independently. The scoring sensitivity in Figure 3.3 shows the estimated flight
score for a combination of wing area and battery cell counts. The plot represents a physics-based tradeoff
between speed and aircraft weight, as governed battery count and wing area. The white area represents
configurations that cannot meet the speed requirements. The M3 score is assumed to be fixed.

17
 Stall speed
too high

Max speed
too low

Figure 3.3: Physics-based scoring analysis of the design space

The maximum score occurs when wing area and the battery cell count is minimized. The chosen design
point is marked with Buzz at a battery cell count of six and wing area of 1.35 ft2. The chosen design point
should result in a maximized competition score. The scoring sensitivity to changes in payload weight, aspect
ratio, empty weight, and lap time was analyzed to determine the importance of each factor. The percent
change in score as a response to the percent change of these variables is plotted in Figure 3.4. It is clear
that empty weight and aspect ratio should be minimized at all costs, and that lap time and payload weight
are insignificant in comparison. This analysis assumes that wing loading is constant, and that wing area is
independent of aspect ratio. Based on this analysis, it was determined that a single passenger should be
carried for M2 and M3, and a single payload block with minimal weight should be carried for M3 so that
aircraft size factor could be minimized, and score maximized.
20
Wingspan
15
Percent Change in Score

Empty Weight
10 Payload Weight
Lap Time
5

-5

-10

-15
-10 -5 0 5 10
Percent Change in Design Variable

Figure 3.4: Scoring sensitivity analysis

18
 3.2 Translation into Design Requirements
The scoring analysis revealed that the overall flight score is driven principally by the RAC. Several aspects
were of particular importance:
Empty Weight: Any configuration that fails to be as light as possible will not be competitive. Effort
must be made to reduce the aircraft empty weight. However, the structure must be able to withstand the
expected loads. Such considerations must be carefully balanced to secure the passengers/payload and
decrease empty weight.
Wing Span: Besides empty weight, wing span is the other component of RAC. The lowest wing
span for the chosen design must be determined to reduce RAC and keep the aircraft competitive.
Decreasing wing span has adverse effects on aircraft stability and aerodynamic efficiency, thus reducing
possible M2 and M3 scores, but as scoring sensitivity has shown, RAC has a much stronger impact on
score than the individual mission scores.
Speed: As per Missions 2 and 3, the aircraft top speed has a significant impact on the mission
score. Mission 2 score is dependent on the time the aircraft takes to finish three laps. The faster the aircraft
finishes three laps, the higher the Mission 2 score will be. However, increasing top speed increases
propulsion system weight and must be balanced against the empty weight requirement.
Passengers: As per Missions 2 and 3, the aircraft must carry at least one passenger. The
passenger cabin must contain an individual “seat” for each passenger and have an aisle that measures 2
inches in width and height running its length. The passenger cabin must therefore have a great enough
volume to contain the selected number of passengers and a “seat” mechanism to totally secure passengers.
Payload: As per Mission 3, the weight of payload carried by the aircraft has a significant impact on
the mission score. M3 score is dependent on the number of laps flown and the weight of the payload carried.
Increasing payload weight implies increasing score. However, increasing weight requires more propulsion
system weight, and therefore must be balanced with empty weight requirements.

The analysis conducted in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 were translated into qualitative design metrics that were
used to evaluate and select an aircraft configuration, summarized in Table 3.5.

19
 Table 3.5: Rules and requirements translated into design requirements

Mission/Scoring
Design Requirement
Requirement
The aircraft structure shall be robust but made from minimal material to
Low Empty Weight
reduce weight.
The aircraft shall have the smallest wing span possible while maintaining
Low Wing Span
the ability to complete all mission requirements.
The propulsion system shall be powerful enough so that the aircraft can
High Top Speed fly at expected competition windspeeds and complete M2 and M3 in
minimal time without sacrificing overall aircraft weight.
The aircraft shall have passenger seats that totally restrain passengers in
Passenger Cabin flight and a volume great enough to contain a seat for every passenger
and a 2”x2” aisle in the passenger cabin.
The aircraft shall have sufficient interior volume to contain the number of
Payload Bay
payload blocks determined by the team.

3.3 Configurations Considered

The analysis conducted in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 shows that minimizing the wingspan and reducing the
empty weight are the most critical design considerations. Configurations taking advantage of vortex lift were
considered. Vortex lift is a unique kind of lift generation detailed in section 4.4. Three low aspect ratio
configurations, the monoplane, full delta, and clipped delta emerged as possible choices. An alternative
biplane configuration was ruled out due to excessive weight, drag, and inferior maximum lift. All three
configurations ensure minimal wingspan and enable the examination of the extremes of leading edge
sweep on flight performance.

Figure 3.5: Considered configurations: monoplane (left), full delta (center), clipped delta (right)

The first configuration in Figure 3.5 shows a short-span monoplane examined by the team. This
configuration has no leading-edge sweep but maximum wing area of the three configurations for the same
wing span and chord length. The CG location needed to maintain static longitudinal stability was found to
be very far forward, which complicates integration of the payload and propulsion battery.

The full delta configuration of Figure 3.5 has the maximum leading-edge sweep of the three configurations,
which is understood to be aerodynamically beneficial. However, the team’s experience with heavily swept
designs has shown that a full delta configuration can have difficulties with roll stability and control authority.
The full delta configuration also has reduced static longitudinal stability at high angles of attack. The
extreme leading edge sweep complicates the storage of passengers and payload blocks into the front of
the aircraft.

20
The clipped delta configuration shown in Figure 3.5 has approximately 60° leading-edge sweep and a chord
length intermediate between the box delta and full delta for the same wing area. The C.G was expected to
be in a more feasible location and the internal volume more closely matched what was necessary to contain
all required components.

3.4 Component Weighting and Selecting Process

To assess each configuration from a quantitative standpoint, Figures of Merit (FOM) were created based
on the most important configuration factors. The FOM are shown in Table 3.6. Each FOM was assigned an
importance of 0 through 5, with 5 being the most important factor and 0 being a non-factor in design.

Table 3.6: Figures of Merit

Figure of Merit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Weight 5
Stability 3
Speed 2
Payload Integration 3

Due to the strong effect of RAC on scoring, weight and wingspan were determined to be the overwhelmingly
critical design factors. The stability of the aircraft was a significant design factor due to the need to reliably
complete flight missions. The speed of the aircraft was considered significant as well to complete flight
missions within the time window. Passenger and payload carrying capacity was determined to be a non-
factor due to the understanding that reducing RAC is always more important than increasing mission score.
For final selection, each configuration was given a scoring value for each figure of merit, and that rating
was then multiplied by the FOM value. The scoring values are shown in Table 3.7. The configuration with
the highest total quality was then selected for further analysis in the design process.

Table 3.7: Configuration scoring values

Score Value
1 Inferior
2 Below Average
3 Good
4 Very Good
5 Superior

The three configurations discussed previously are shown in Table 3.8 with their respective scores for each
of the relevant FOM. These results, combined with those from the qualitative analysis, lead to the team’s
choice of configuration for the Trilobuzz aircraft system. Table 3.8 shows that the clipped delta has the
highest FOM score.

21
 Table 3.8: Aircraft configurations' Figures of Merit

Aircraft Configurations

FOM Value Monoplane Full Delta Clipped Delta

Weight 5 5 3 5
Stability 3 1 3 5
Speed 2 2 4 3
Payload
3 2 2 4
Integration
Value N/A 38 38 58

3.5 Final Conceptual Design Configuration

The final configuration is a clipped delta wing aircraft with a vertical stabilizer, two elevons, and a single-
engine tractor propulsion system, as shown in Figure 3.6. This configuration offers maximum efficiency with
regards to wing span and intrinsically low weight when compared to any conventional aircraft. Issues with
stability and reliability were mitigated over the course of a rapid prototyping process that is discussed later
in this report.

Figure 3.6: Final clipped delta configuration

22
4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The preliminary design phase was performed to identify limiting factors and constrict the design space.
Trade studies of the wing area and propulsion system were performed to identify a combination capable of
meeting important mission and environmental requirements. Weight, drag, power, propeller performance,
battery data, and aerodynamic coefficients were calculated and combined to estimate mission performance
for all three flight missions.

4.1 Design Methodology

The team approached the design process with an iterative, performance-focused, multidisciplinary analysis.
Constraint sizing was performed to select a weight-normalized design point that satisfies objectives for all
three missions. From these design points, the team analyzed possible propulsion systems, system
aerodynamic characteristics, built mission models, and compared them to estimates generated as part of
the sizing process. Stability and mission performance calculations were made using these more detailed
models. Georgia Tech’s iterative preliminary design methodology, shown in Figure 4.1, details the roughly
sequential process through which information coalesces in advance of the detailed design process. An
example of the iteration process is modifying the wing area at constant wing-loading if propulsion weight is
lower than expected, re-evaluating stability and mission performance, or modifying the propulsion system
to meet pilot requests. The design shown in this report is the final product of a more complex, iterative
procedure that seeks to maximize the overall score at every stage.

Figure 4.1: The team's preliminary design methodology highlighting the multidisciplinary iterations

4.2 Design Trades

Constraint Sizing
The performance requirements in terms of wing loading and power to weight ratio were essential to
selecting an appropriate design point. Empty weight and wingspan, the two factors of RAC, were influenced
by these two variables. Therefore, a constraint sizing analysis was conducted on these variables to reveal
a design space capable of meeting all requirements, with results shown in Figure 4.2. Landing and takeoff
constraints were found by restricting the aircraft to 20° angle of attack and 24 mph. The other mission-
based constraint is the takeoff distance of 150 feet, which is rendered inactive by the environmental
requirement to be capable of flight at 61 mph. A design point in this space was chosen based on a very
conservative estimate for the wing loading due to the risks associated with extremely low aspect ratio
designs.

23
 100
Power to Weight Ratio (watt/lb) 90
80
70
60 Cruise: V=61mph
50 Takeoff: s=150ft
Approach: V=24mph
40
Design Point
30
20
10
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Wing Loading (lb/ft2)

Figure 4.2: Constraint sizing design point selection

The results of this process allowed for a preliminary calculation of power, weight, and wing area,
summarized in Table 4.1. The power requirement listed represents the power needed to satisfy all
requirements at the chosen wing loading, while the power selected represents the power requirement of
the design point, including desired margins and propulsion systems availabilities.

Table 4.1: Preliminary power and wing area

Parameter Preliminary value

Wing loading (psf) 0.989
Power loading (watt/lb) 18.86
Estimated weight (lb) 1.34
Wing surface area (ft2) 1.35
Power required (watts) 84.9
Power selected (watts) 90

Propulsion System Selection

A fixed pitch folding propeller was selected to reduce operational complexity and to fit inside the cargo bay.
A propeller efficiency of ~60% and a motor efficiency of ~70% was assumed from past experience, leading
to a power requirement of around 85 watts for the propulsion system. From the analysis performed in
Section 3.1.4, it was determined that a 6-cell 1500 mAh battery minimizes RAC, while also providing margin
for the cruise requirements. A direct-drive brushless out-runner motor with a high motor constant (Kv) was
selected to draw more power out of a 6-Cell battery. Motors were researched that fit these criteria and a

24
database was created, containing over 50 motors from various companies, including Hacker, Tiger,
Scorpion, Cobra, and AXI.

A propeller database was also generated based on airplane size and speed. The propellers tested were
9x6, 9x7, 9.5x6, 10x5, 10x6, 10x7, 10x9, 11x6, 11x7, and 11x8 Aeronaut folding propellers. MotoCalc, a
commercially available motor analysis tool, was then used to estimate the motor efficiency, static thrust,
and thrust at 30 mph for each motor and propeller combination. Feasible combinations were sorted by
weight and selected for further analysis.

The top motor-battery-propeller combinations were analyzed and their variation with speed was graphed,
allowing the team to evaluate the most effective propulsion system to meet takeoff and max speed
requirements. Three motor combinations were selected and purchased for testing, as shown in Table 4.2.
Section 8.1.1 will go into further detail regarding these tests.

Table 4.2: Motor specifications

Propulsion
Battery Current Best Static
Motor Kv System
(Cells) (Amps) Propeller Thrust (lb.)
Weight (lb.)

Cobra 2217-12 1550 6 (1,500 mAh) 26 10x7 1.50 0.20

Scorpion SII-2212-18 1850 6 (1,500 mAh) 24 9x6 1.32 0.15

Hacker A30-22S 1440 7 (1,500 mAh) 20 11x8 1.80 0.24

4.3 Mission Model

Description and Capabilities
The three missions were simulated via a set of first order differential equations (Equations 4.1-4.3) defining
the position and orientation of the vehicle throughout the flight. By integrating these equations over time
using a 4th Order Runge-Kutta approach in MATLAB and logic defining each of the required mission
segments, it is possible to define the position, velocity, and orientation of the vehicle over time. The thrust
(T) is defined as a function of velocity, with the relationship defined by MotoCalc, the analysis tool used in
the propulsion system selection. The drag (D) is represented via a parabolic drag relationship. The load
factor is explicitly defined for each turn segment, but if it exceeds the estimated maximum lift coefficient, it
is limited to that value.

25
 �
̇ =� (4.1)

̇ = �−�
� (4.2)
�

�√� −1 2
�̇= (4.3)
�
Uncertainties
There are limitations to the approach used above. The lack of a vertical dimension in the equation means
that the approach cannot model the aerodynamic effect of changing altitude. The energy required, saved,
and lost by climbing and diving is also not included. The lack of any wind model discounts any additional
drag due to sideslip, or the acceleration of the aircraft as due to headwinds or tailwinds. The flight path used
for each lap assumes an ideal course, with the pilot achieving perfect, uninterrupted turns between each
1000 ft. leg. Finally, there are additional uncertainties in the mission predictions due to any errors or
inaccuracies in the thrust and drag predictions.

4.4 Aerodynamic Characteristics

The results of the conceptual design show that substantial improvements in mission score can be achieved
by minimizing aspect ratio. Therefore, configurations with very low aspect ratios were exclusively
researched, analyzed, and tested. For aircraft with aspect ratios less than 2, potential flow calculations
began to deviate from actual lift measurements due to a nonlinear component of lift called vortex lift. At the
tips of all aircraft wings, high-pressure air from the lower surface curls around the side edge of the wing to
reach the low-pressure air above the wing surface, creating wingtip vortices. If the edge is thin and sharp,
the flow will tend to separate. In delta wings, this separation induces the flow to curl around the edge and
reattach itself to the upper wing surface along primary and secondary attachment lines, creating a vortex
as shown in Figure 4.3 by Anderson [1]. The upward bevel on the leading and side edges of the wing helps
to generate flow separation and direct flow into the vortices. The vortices are also more energized than
ordinary flow, allowing the delta-wing to achieve dramatically higher angles of attack before stall. The
vortices persist to a degree after stall, which results in very gentle stall behavior.

26
 Figure 4.3: Vortex lift conceptualization by Anderson [1]

Within the class of planforms specialized for vortex lift there exist major differences in the leading and
trailing edge sweep angles, as well as the overall taper ratio (RT). Wind tunnel tests for a variety of possible
such flat plate planforms were obtained by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics by Tosti [2].
Figure 4.4 shows a comparison of various wing planforms, along with corresponding maximum coefficient
of lift, CL, Max, and aspect ratio, AR, from the NACA Technical Note. The clipped delta configuration with the
highest CL, Max was selected for further analysis.

1.4
Maximum Lift Coefficient CL, Max (~)

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0 1 2 3
Aspect Ratio AR (~)

Figure 4.4: Maximum lift coefficient of various planforms [2]

Analysis Methods
Since traditional potential flow theory does not account for vortex lift, analysis tools and techniques
dependent on potential flow theory are not valid for this kind of aircraft. The accuracy of three different
vortex lattice applications were evaluated against experimental wind tunnel data to identify the tool best

27
able to predict the aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio aircraft. The first tool is Athena Vortex
Lattice by Drela & Youngren [3], or AVL. This tool has been used by the team to model conventional aircraft
in the past with great success. The second tool is VORSTAB [4], a quasi-vortex lattice program that uses
the Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy to determine total lift from potential flow. The Leading-Edge-Suction
Analogy is a theory developed by Edward Polhamus in 1966 to mathematically model vortex lift using lifting
surface methods [5]. VORSTAB is capable of analyzing vortex lift resulting from leading edge vortices
reattaching to the top of the wing, generating more lift than sole potential flow predictions. VORLAX,
developed by Miranda et al. in 1977, is a robust application for modeling traditional vortex lattice theories
while also accounting for leading edge suction [6]. Lamar published wind tunnel data of a planform that has
an AR of 0.84 and Taper Ratio, RT, of 0.5, very similar values to that of Trilobuzz with an AR of 0.72 and
RT of 0.62 [7]. This data is shown compared to the analytical tools in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6.

1.2
VORSTAB
1
Wind Tunnel
Lift Coefficient CL (~)

0.8 VORLAX
AVL
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack α (deg)

Figure 4.5: Lift estimation for clipped delta planform; wind tunnel data from Lamar [7]

0.02
Pitching Moment Coefficient

-0.02

-0.06
Cm (~)

VORSTAB
-0.1
Wind Tunnel
-0.14 VORLAX
AVL
-0.18
0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack α (deg)

Figure 4.6: Pitching moment estimation for clipped delta planform; wind tunnel data from Lamar [7]

28
The comparison to wind tunnel results showed that VORLAX and AVL under-predicted the lift, while
VORSTAB accounted for the added effect of vortex lift, especially on the sides of the wing. The wind tunnel
results in Figure 4.6 show that the slope of the pitching moment curve increases in magnitude as the angle
of attack is increased, a well-known feature of vortex lift producing wings. Only VORSTAB succeeded in
modeling the nonlinear pitching moment characteristics and matching the wind tunnel data. Thus,
VORSTAB was selected for use in all key aerodynamic analysis.

Lifting Surface Analysis

The final design configuration was analyzed with VORSTAB to generate the lift versus angle of attack plot
in Figure 4.7 for the clipped delta planform. This method cannot predict stall behavior or stall angle but is
suitable for most flight regimes. The results show that vortex lift can make up more than half of the lift
contribution at high angles of attack, creating a much more useful lift coefficient.

1.2
Total Lift
1.0
Potential Flow
Lift Coefficient

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Angle of Attack (deg)

Figure 4.7: Final design VORSTAB lift curve

Drag Analysis
Preliminary parasitic drag estimates were obtained by summing each component’s drag contributions,
computed using the semi-empirical methods from Hoerner’s Fluid Dynamic Drag [8], and then normalizing
each component according to the wing reference area. Table 4.3 shows the contributions of the major
aircraft components, with Figure 4.8 showing the same data as a percentage breakdown at 0 and 10
degrees angle of attack. The relatively large landing gear creates most of the zero-lift drag, though the
highly turbulent flow over the wing becomes the largest contributor as the angle of attack is increased.

29
 Table 4.3: Breakdown of various sources of drag

Component CD,0 CD,10°

Wing 0.0154 0.0859
Tail 0.00184 0.00184
Landing Gear 0.018 0.018
Total 0.0353 0.106
α=0° Gear α=10°
17.0%
Tail
Wing 1.7%

Gear 43.7%
51.1%

Wing
Tail 81.2%
5.2%

Figure 4.8: Breakdown of various sources of drag

Wing: The zero lift drag coefficient of the wing was found using the semi-empirical Hoerner’s method
as seen in Equation 4.4:
′ � 4 ����
��,0 = ������
���
(1 + � ) + 100( �
( ⁄� ⁄�) )∙ �
(4.4)
�

where ��� is the wing fuselage interference factor (assumed to be equal to 1, since the wing is the

fuselage), ���is the lifting surface correction, which is a function of the sweep angle, �
��
is the turbulent
′
plate friction coefficient of the wing, which is a function of Reynolds number (Re), � is the airfoil thickness

location factor, �
⁄�is the thickness-to-chord ratio, �
���
�
is the wetted area of the wing, and �is the wing
reference area.
Tail: The vertical tail was modeled as a simple wing, and its drag was determined using Hoerner’s
method. A wing interference factor of 1.04 was used to reflect the perpendicular joint between the tail and
the wing.
Landing Gear: The landing gear components are significant contributors to the overall drag of the
aircraft. The main gear and nose gear drag contributions were calculated separately, but both were modeled
as a wheel and a flat plate.

The drag polar was calculated as the combination of the wing normalized CD,0 values estimated using
Hoerner’s method for each component, and the lift dependent drag predicted by VORSTAB. The drag
predicted by VORSTAB corresponds only to the increased drag on the wing, because it was assumed that
the drag on other components is independent of angle of attack. Figure 4.9 shows the resulting drag polar.

30
 0.8

0.6
Drag Coefficient

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Lift Coefficient

Figure 4.9: Drag coefficient prediction using vortex lift calculation

The wing exhibits a very shallow lift-curve slope due to the 0.72 aspect ratio. The maximum angle of attack
and maximum lift coefficient were defined using the drag polar in Figure 4.9, above. No distinct upper limit
on angle of attack exists for wings taking advantage of vortex lift. However, a combination of flight test
results and pilot consultations show that the aircraft is difficult to control at angles of attack above 30°. As
a result, the aircraft flight envelope is limited to angles of attack less than 30°.

4.5 Stability and Control

Static and dynamic stability were analyzed to ensure that the aircraft would be able to successfully complete
the flight missions. The fastest speeds, slowest speeds, heaviest weights, lightest weights, cruise, climbs,
and turns were all considered, with results presented only for the critical flight condition.

Static Stability Analysis

The only condition for static longitudinal stability is for the center of gravity to be located in front of the
neutral point. VORSTAB was used to identify the neutral point and calculate stability and damping
derivatives. It is a well-known property of vortex lift that the neutral point moves backward as angle of attack
increases. This increases the restoring moment, which makes the aircraft very stable at high angles of
attack. Figure 4.10 shows the pitching moment derivative curve at the CG, 5.3 inches from the datum.

31
 0.0

-0.1

Cm,a (rad-1)
-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Angle of Attack (deg)

Figure 4.10: Moment coefficient derivative versus angle of attack at the CG

The most demanding flight condition for trim was at the highest weight and lowest speed. Stability
derivatives for these flight conditions are given in Table 4.4. The aircraft was designed to be trimmed at this
condition with minimal elevon deflection. VORSTAB assumes a symmetric airfoil configuration, and
therefore does not consider the moment offset generated by the circulation of flow around what is
essentially a negatively cambered fuselage. Flight tests, however revealed that minimal trim is needed
when the CG is located 5.3 inches from the datum. The elevon deflection requirements for each case were
found to be within acceptable limits, in large due to the sizable elevons which composed 30% of the total
wing area. The aircraft was found to be longitudinally, statically stable at all necessary cases, with a static
margin of 4.1% at 0° and 17.8% at 20° angle of attack.

Table 4.4: Relevant stability coefficients and derivatives for static stability

Parameter VORSTAB Results

Wtotal (lbs.) 1.34
Inputs
V (ft/s) 40
CL 0.718
Aerodynamic Parameters α (deg.) 20
β (deg.) 0.0
Cl,β (rad-1) -0.26
CL,ɑ (rad-1) 2.67
Stability Derivatives
Cm,α (rad-1) -0.38
Cn,β (rad-1) 0.13
Cl,p (rad-1) -0.18
Damping Derivatives Cm,q (rad-1) -0.87
Cn,r (rad-1) -0.28
Static Margin (α=0°) % Chord 4.2
Static Margin (α=20°) % Chord 17.8

32
 Dynamic Stability Analysis
Having found the trim conditions as a part of the static stability analysis, the next step was to take the
aerodynamic derivatives about the trim conditions described earlier and investigate the dynamic behavior
of the airplane. The stability and control derivatives were obtained from the VORSTAB, the mass properties
from the CAD file, and the stability characteristics calculated from the full 12×12 6-DOF linearized
differential equations found in Phillips’s Mechanics of Flight, Section 9.8 [9]. The eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the matrix showed the stability of each of the five dynamic modes, revealing that the aircraft
is stable in all dynamic modes, except spiral. The flight conditions used were the same as used in the static
stability section, listed in Table 4.4. The dynamic stability characteristics are tabulated in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Dynamic stability characteristics

Longitudinal
Lateral Modes
Modes
Short Dutch
Mode Phugoid Roll Spiral
Period Roll
Damping Rate (s-1) 2.66 0.577 0.357 3.099 -0.451
Production Time to double/half (s) 0.261 1.2 1.94 0.224 1.54
Aircraft
Damping Ratio (~) 0.299 0.271 0.0389 - -
Damped Natural Frequency (s-1) 8.46 2.05 9.18 - -
Undamped Natural Frequency (s-1) 8.87 2.13 9.18 - -

4.6 Mission Performance

Predicting the performance of the aircraft is essential for verifying that the aircraft can complete all missions.
Lap trajectories were estimated using the equations listed in Section 4.3, propulsion characteristics from
MotoCalc and the aerodynamic properties found using VORSTAB and Hoerner’s method. The flight
performance was calculated with a 10x7 propeller, a Cobra 2217-12 motor and a 6S 1500 mAh NiMH
battery pack. Missions 2 and 3 are virtually identical in single lap performance due to the weight of the
payload block being less than 5 grams, and therefore negligible. Therefore, the estimated velocity profile
of a single lap of mission 2 or 3 is plotted in Figure 4.11. The performance targets for Mission 1 should also
be met for any aircraft capable of completing mission 3, due to the reduced wing loading with no passenger.
The maximum velocity when loaded with a passenger was found to be 60.8 mph and the lap time was
estimated to be 35.8 seconds. Therefore, the aircraft should be capable of completing all missions in the
necessary time. Takeoff distance was estimated to be 14.96 feet.

33
 70 70
60 60

Velocity (mph)
Velocity (mph)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 4.11: Simulation of lap trajectories for M1 (left) and M2/M3 (right)

5 DETAIL DESIGN
5.1 Final Design – Aircraft
Generally, structural analysis, layout, component selection, weight-balance calculations, and flight testing
did not indicate major changes were required to the aircraft between preliminary and detailed design stages.
Control surfaces were designed to achieve a balance between controllability of the aircraft and size of the
surface. These dimensions, along with the dimensions of the rest of the aircraft, are in Table 5.1. The final
aircraft was designed for flight stability, simplicity, and structural efficiency.

Table 5.1: Final aircraft dimensions

Dimension
Span (in) 11.8
Mean Chord (in) 16.85
Root Chord (in) 19.43
Tip Chord (in) 12.08
Aircraft
Leading Edge Sweep (deg) 64.5
Aspect Ratio 0.72
Wing Area (ft2 ) 1.35
Static Margin (%) at =0° 4.2
Span (in) 11.8
Chord (in) 5
Elevon
Max δ�(deg) 35
Reference Area (in2) 59
Span (in) 3.5
Vertical
Chord (in) 5
Stabilizer
Reference Area (in2) 17.5

34
 5.2 Structural Characteristics
Layout and Design
The structural layout was created to ensure that all loads were accounted for and have an adequate load
path to the major load bearing components. The team divided the loads the aircraft would see into three
categories.
Thrust Loads: Includes thrust, torque, and sustained vibrations. Components should be made of
harder, quasi-isotropic materials such as plywood, and all fasteners must be locked.
Aerodynamic Loads: Includes wing and control-surface lift, drag, and moment, which translate to
bending and torsion. Components can be anisotropic for added strength in the load direction.
Ground Loads: Includes aircraft weight and landing impact. Struts should be metal, which sustains
impact by bending, not breaking.

The high structural loads on Trilobuzz contributed to the short wingspan and highly integrated components.
Ground loads and thrust loads are directly transferred into the surrounding main structure. Aerodynamic
loads applied to the aircraft by the main control surfaces during maneuvering, such as during takeoff or the
turns, are also transferred directly to the main structure. These loads are shown in Figure 5.1.

Thrust Loads
Chordwise Loads
Bending Loads

Figure 5.1: Load paths of major forces

Operating Envelope
With the loads mapped and layouts complete, the aircraft structures were designed to withstand the design
load of 5g at the maximum gross weight of 1.34 lbs. This translates to a 78.5° bank angle for sustained,
level turns. The 5g design load limit at small deflections was retained as the maximum positive load
envelope. The negative design loading was designed at a maximum of -3g fully loaded and therefore -3.38g
when empty. The defining structural limits were combined with aerodynamic performance limits to construct
a V-n diagram, shown in Figure 5.2. The aircrafts weight change between missions 2 and 3 can be assumed
negligible and are therefore represented by the same line in the V-n diagram. The 0.15 lbs. weight difference
between the unloaded aircraft in mission 1 and the loaded aircraft in mission 2 and 3 results in a slight
change in the aircrafts stall limits, structural load limits and max velocity.

35
 8
Mission 1 Structural
Load Limit
6 Mission 2&3
Load Factor (g)
4 Positive
Stall Limit

2
VMax

-2 Negative
Stall Limit

-4
0 20 40 60 80 100

Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.2: V-n diagram showing loading as a function of velocity for all flight missions

5.3 System and Subsystem Design and Implementation

To finalize the aircraft design, the following subsystems were analyzed with greater detail: radio controller,
servos, flight surfaces, propulsion system, and landing gear. The structural architecture/assembly for each
of these components: wing body and payload bays, wing tips, motor mount, elevons and vertical stabilizer,
receiver and transmitter, propulsion, servos, and landing gear was also further examined.

Wing Body and Payload Bays

The wing body and payload bays are primarily made from 1/8” balsa wood running spanwise and chordwise
that interconnect in a jigsaw fashion. This method allows for the grain direction of the balsa wood to increase
the strength and load transfer across the structure while also leading to efficient manufacturing. Lightening
holes were designed to minimize weight, while balsa rods and capping are added to increase strength at
high stress areas. The center sections of Trilobuzz’s body are hollow to allow for the passenger and payload
bays, as well as batteries and other essential parts. These payload bays are fully contained on all sides by
the structure of the body, with one side acting as a removable lid designed with a friction fit and secured
with adhesive material. The CAD model (Figure 5.3) shows the interconnection of balsa pieces, the hollow
passenger and payload bays, as well as the other design choices.

36
 Figure 5.3: Trilobuzz body CAD

Vertical Stabilizer
The vertical stabilizer is attached via an interface spar that meshes with a spanwise rib, with the rib being
reinforced by 1/32” pieces of plywood on either side of the balsa rib. The vertical stabilizer has no rudder
due to the design of the airplane’s controls. The vertical tail is designed with a typical wing structure
including several ribs in the shape of a NACA 0012 airfoil attached to a load bearing spar at the quarter-
chord. Additionally, 1/32” balsa sheeting is used along the leading edge to maintain the airfoil shape.

Elevons
The elevons are 3D control surfaces constructed out of laser cut 1/8-inch balsa, reinforced with nylon
carbon-fiber for torsional stiffness. The elevons are designed so that their leading edge is the same
thickness as the trailing edge of the mean airframe. Hinge tape with lateral and longitudinal threading is
implemented to attach the elevons to the airframe, while still allowing the full range of motion necessary for
the aircraft to maneuver. Servos mounted near the trailing edge of the main airframe are connected to the
elevons by metal wire push-rods. The elevons are the only control surfaces on the aircraft. They allow the
aircraft to pitch and roll, but do not directly allow for yawing motion. To change orientation on the inertial
XY-plane, the aircraft must perform a combination of pitch and roll. By limiting the aircraft to only two control
surfaces, the wingspan and empty weight of the aircraft is minimized. An installed elevon attached is shown
in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Elevon attachment mechanism

37
To satisfy the Ground Mission LRU requirement for control surfaces, the elevons can be removed by cutting
the hinge tape used to attach them, disconnecting the servo pushrod from the now free control surface, and
reattaching the pushrod to the replacement elevon, before applying fresh hinge tape.

Receiver and Transmitter Selection

The selected receiver is the OrangeRx GA7003XS, as it provides the required failsafe mechanism with
minimum weight. The receiver is securely attached to a plywood plate in a forward electronics bay, where
it is easily accessible. The receiver also contains a rate gyro system to provide additional roll damping in
which the low aspect ratio configuration is deficient. When the receiver detects an angular velocity along
the roll axis of the aircraft, it automatically deflects the elevons to produce a restoring roll moment. The
magnitude of this moment can be altered with screws on the top of the receiver. A Futaba T8FG radio
controller was used to communicate with the Futaba-compatible receiver. The receiver is accessible
through the electronics access panel. Should the receiver be the randomly selected LRU in stage 2 of the
Ground Mission, it can be quickly disconnected and replaced within the requisite time.

Propulsion System

A Maxxpacks E1506S-3 1500 mAh NiMH battery pack was selected to minimize weight while maintaining
enough power to achieve mission requirements. The Thunderbird 36 speed controller was selected for its
light weight and compact form factor. The speed controller connectors were altered to the appropriate size
to fit through the airframe. A variety of motors and propellers were analyzed using the MotoCalc program,
as described in Section 4.2.2. Two were selected for further testing, as described in Section 8.1.1. The
Cobra C-2217/12 1550 kV motor was chosen for its weight, size and static thrust. The Aeronaut 10x7
propeller was chosen for its desired ratio between performance at high speed and ample static thrust. The
final selected propulsion system components are listed in Table 5.2. Figure 5.5 shows a CAD rendering of
the motor mounted to the airframe. All of the components that make up the propulsion system are
candidates to be replaced in the Ground Mission. Each is capable of being replaced within the requisite
time period, accessed either externally or by removing the appropriate access panel.

Table 5.2: Selected propulsion and electronics components

Components Description
Motor Cobra C-2217/12 1550 kV
Battery Maxxpacks E1506S-3
Speed Controller Thunderbird 36
Receiver OrangeRx GA7003XS
Transmitter Futaba T8FG
Tail Servos Futaba 3114
Propeller Aeronaut 10x7

38
 Figure 5.5: Motor mount

Servo Selection

The Futaba 3114 was selected as the elevon servo. These servos were selected by analyzing hinge-
moments for each control surface using VORSTAB and then finding servos that had sufficient control power
to handle the calculated moments, with the lightest weight possible.

Servos create a unique challenge, in terms of the Ground Mission. They are Stage 1 Ground Mission
candidates, meaning they must be replaceable within three minutes, but they must also be secure enough
to reliably manipulate control surfaces. The solution to this design challenge was to create a removable
servo and servo platform that is bolted directly to the airframe. Using blind nuts embedded into the airframe
structure, each servo can be removed and replaced by removing two bolts. Once the servo platform is
disconnected, the entire system can be removed, disconnected from the pushrod, and replaced. This
operation is the same method that will be used to replace pushrods. By removing the servo first, the push
rod can be detached at one end from the servo, and then is easily removed from the elevon control horn.

Figure 5.6: Removable servo prototype

39
 Landing Gear

The height of the landing gear was chosen to provide enough clearance so that the propeller does not strike
the ground. The rear landing gear was sized to be the same width as the payload bay to provide the highest
stability through having the mounting points as wide as possible. The rear landing gear was placed at a
location behind the CG, but sufficiently close enough to enable takeoff rotation. The front landing gear is
attached off to one side of the airplane centerline at the front of the plane and bolted to the same plywood
piece that the motor is mounted to. The landing gear is made from 1/8” thick aluminum sheeting bent to the
desired shape of straight vertical pieces attached to the wheels. The configuration of the landing gear can
be seen in Figure 5.7. The landing gear is attached with external bolts and embedded blind nuts to allow
for fast replacement during the Ground Mission. The wheels are secured with lock nuts and washers that
can be removed with a ratchet wrench. Landing gear LRUs can be replaced well within the requisite time.

Figure 5.7: Landing gear

Passenger Seat and Payload Blocks

Successful completion of M2 and M3 requires that the chosen number of passengers are secured in
individual seats with a 2-inch by 2-inch aisle. Trilobuzz is designed to carry a single passenger, so a single
seat mechanism is implemented into the aircraft design. A prototype of the passenger seat mechanism is
in Figure 5.8. Two elastic bands are attached to the base plate of the mechanism and feed through a top
plate. The bands secure the passenger in the lateral and longitudinal direction, and the top plate
compresses the passenger, securing it vertically. With this mechanism, a passenger of any size can be
secured without making any modifications. The right image in Figure 5.8 shows the largest size passenger
in the seat. The base plate of the mechanism and passenger cabin are sized so that the required 2-inch
aisle is always available, regardless of passenger size. This mechanism has been integrated into the
structure of the airframe to reduce aircraft thickness and passenger loading complexity for competition.

40
 Figure 5.8: Prototype passenger seat with and without a passenger

One payload block was selected as the maximum number of payload blocks for Trilobuzz to carry. The
dimensions of the block were determined according to the volume available in the airframe after accounting
for the fixed volumes of electrical components and the passenger cabin. Since the payload block
dimensions may be selected by the team, creating a payload bay and payload block with matching volume
dimensions was simple. The single payload block is 3.95 in. by 3.12 in. by 2.05 in. These dimensions satisfy
the requirement that all payload dimensions be no less than two inches and sum to at least nine inches.

5.4 Weight and Balances

To maintain stable flight, it is important to know that the center of gravity (CG) is in the correct location. To
estimate the CG, component weights and locations were individually measured and entered into a simple
spreadsheet calculator. The CAD model was also used to estimate the CG. The predicted location of the
CG is shown in Figure 5.9.

5.31”

Figure 5.9: CAD Predicted CG Location

Table 5.3 shows the weight and balances of Trilobuzz. X-axis location is measured aft positive relative to
the nose, and y-axis location is measured starboard positive.

41
 Table 5.3: Weight and balance

Component X-CG Location (in) Weight (lbs) Moment (in-lb)

Airframe 7.50 0.18 1.36
ESC 2.10 0.07 0.15
Receiver 2.10 0.05 0.11
Propeller -1.80 0.04 -0.07
Left Elevon Servo 13.15 0.04 0.52
Right Elevon Servo 13.15 0.04 0.52
Motor -0.78 0.18 -0.14
Main Battery 4.47 0.32 1.44
Receiver Battery 2.10 0.06 0.13
Left Elevon 16.50 0.03 0.55
Right Elevon 16.50 0.03 0.55
Nose Gear 0.25 0.05 0.01
Main Gear 6.80 0.10 0.66
Empty Aircraft 4.85 1.19 5.79
Payload Block 6.12 0.01 0.07
Passenger (max) 8.90 0.15 1.33
Fully Loaded Aircraft 5.31 1.35 7.18

5.5 Performance
Flight Performance
The flight performance of the aircraft is described by the point performance of the vehicle. Key aspects
including the velocity envelope, turn performance, and stall speed are given in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: System flight performance parameters for each mission

Parameter Mission 1 Mission 2 & 3

Weight (lbs) 1.19 1.34
W/S (psf) 0.878 0.989
Vmin (ft/sec) 25.52 27.08
Vmax (ft/sec) 90.72 89.26
Turn Load Factor 5.0 5.0
Turn Radius (ft) 21.37 24.97
Time for 360 (s) 3.93 4.61

Weight represents the gross takeoff weights for each individual mission. Both wing loading and stall speed
are calculated at 1g assuming steady level flight while using the VORSTAB prediction for C L at 30° angle
of attack as CLmax. As mentioned in Section 4.2, this is a desired upper limit, rather than a definite stall point
due to the innate characteristics of vortex lift, and the difficulties in predicting the onset of stall. This angle
is also larger than the maximum approach angle because higher angles are more tolerable for the pilot
during cruise and turn conditions than during landing. Load factor for each mission is the maximum
allowable based on the results from the V-n diagram and is found to be 5g’s. The turn radius and time to

42
complete a 360-degree turn were calculated for each mission from expected maximum velocity and
allowable load factor. Thrust required is calculated using Equation 5.1(5.1 where CD,0 and K1 were obtained
from quadratic regression of the curve in Figure 4.9. The point where thrust available is equal to thrust
required corresponds to the maximum velocity of the aircraft.
1 2��1
�
�= ��2 ���,0 + (5.1)
2 ��2 �
Thrust available as a function of velocity was computed using MotoCalc for both propellers considered and
plotted in Figure 5.10 along with the thrust required curves in steady-level flight. Note that the 9.5x6
propeller provides greater static thrust, but takeoff is not a driving constraint, as described previously.

1.6

1.4 Required

10x7 Prop
1.2
9.5x6 Prop
1
Thrust (lbs)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.10: Thrust available and thrust required versus velocity

Mission Performance
The final mission performance of the aircraft was estimated using the mission model described in Section
4.3. The lap time estimation was computed by combining aerodynamic analysis, power and current
characteristics from MotoCalc, and the physical model of the mission. Figure 5.11 displays the projected
first lap trajectories for each mission with an initial ramp-up following takeoff and dips in velocity occurring
at the turns. The remaining laps for Missions 1 and 2 are faster because takeoff is not included.

43
 70 70
60 60
50 50
Velocity (mph)

Velocity (mph)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 5.11: Simulation of lap trajectories for M1 (left) and M2/M3 (right)

Table 5.5 shows the resulting estimated performance for each of the three missions with the selected
propellers. The table also includes preliminary scoring estimates based on the updated analysis. Due to
the fact the missions 2 and 3 are scaled by the results of the highest scoring team, the values in the table
are only preliminary scores. If the highest scoring team carries many more passengers than Trilobuzz, as
expected, then the scaled part of the mission score will approach zero. The estimated scaled mission score
is also shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5: Aircraft mission performance parameters

Mission Parameter Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3

W/S (psf) 0.878 0.989 0.989
Propeller Selection 10x7 10x7 10x7
Max Current (Amp) 25 25 25
Static Thrust (lbs) 1.5 1.5 1.5
1st Lap Time (sec) 33.19 35.76 35.76
Mission Performance 3 laps in 5 minutes 3 laps in 5 minutes 1 lap in 10 minutes
Mission Score 1.0 0.0479 2.00003
RAC 14.01 14.01 14.01

5.6 Drawing Package

The following four pages illustrate the detailed CAD of the Trilobuzz system. The first sheet contains the
three-view diagram with relevant dimensions. The second and third sheets show the structural arrangement
of all major components and the systems layout. The fourth sheet displays the payload arrangements for
both aircraft.

44
45
46
47
48
6 MANUFACTURING
The team considered various manufacturing processes and materials to build the aircraft. The
manufacturing process selected represented the best combination of weight, reparability, speed of
manufacturing, team experience with the process, and cost.

6.1 Processes Investigated

The team had a wealth of experience using the built-up balsa wood manufacturing technique. However,
there were other viable manufacturing processes that could be superior. These processes were considered
and qualitatively compared to the built-up balsa technique using Figures of Merit, detailed below and
summarized in Table 6.1.
Weight: As with conceptual design, weight was still the most important factor for any design decision
and was assigned a FOM of 5.
Reparability: Crashing is an inevitable part of the testing process so the ability to quickly repair an
aircraft must be accounted for and was assigned a FOM of 2.
Ease of Manufacture: The ability to quickly produce aircraft to specification is critical for rapid
prototyping to meet expected performance. It is directly related to Ease of Manufacture and was therefore
assigned a FOM of 3.
Experience: The team’s knowledge was given some weighting because it relates to the ability of team
members to produce quality results, as well as to refine existing techniques. However, since the team is
always willing to learn new techniques, experience was only assigned a FOM of 2.
Cost: Keeping in mind that the team had limited resources, cost was added as a FOM. However, since
the team emphasizes winning above all, cost was assigned a FOM of 1.

Table 6.1: Manufacturing FOM Weighting

Figure of Merit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Weight 5
Ease of Manufacture 3
Reparability 2
Experience 2
Cost 1

These Figures of Merit were used to investigate the manufacturing processes and materials common to
remote control aircraft construction. The processes to manufacture the airframe were investigated in detail
below.
Built-up Balsa: Pieces made of competition grade balsa wood are laser cut from CAD models and
glued together using cyanoacrylate (CA) adhesive to form the airframe and the tail surfaces of the aircraft.
Plywood is used in key areas when required. The aircraft components are then covered with Monokote
heat shrink film.

49
 Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP): Foam molds are created based on the outer-mold line of the
aircraft. A fiberglass-epoxy layup or carbon fiber-epoxy layup is then made within a vacuum bag, and the
system sealed for 24 hours to allow for a full cure. The molds are then removed and the reinforced plastic
acts as the primary structure.
3D Printed ABS: CAD models are printed using professional grade 3D printers. Print time increases
proportionally with the volume of the aircraft.
Foam Core Composite: Large blocks of foam are cut with a hot-wire or CNC router to form the
basic shape of the aircraft. Structural reinforcements are locally added if needed, and the entire foam-core
is coated in fiberglass or carbon fiber, adding strength as a monocoque.

The processes were evaluated against each other by assigning each one a FOM score, with a score of five
indicating a superior choice, three an average choice, and one equaling an inferior choice. All methods
were assumed to result in an aircraft designed for an identical load. The results of the comparison are
summarized in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Example airframe manufacturing process selection

Manufacturing Process
Built-up Foam Core
FOM Value Fiberglass 3D Printing
Balsa Composites
Weight 5 5 4 2 3
Ease of Manufacture 3 3 2 4 3
Reparability 2 3 4 1 1
Experience 2 5 2 4 3
Cost 1 5 3 2 3
Total 13 55 41 34 35

Based on the Figures of Merit, built-up balsa was considered the best method for the major airframe and
empennage structure. However, the team determined that different elements of the design could use
different manufacturing processes to create a more harmonious whole.

6.2 Processes Selected

The team used the above comparison to optimize the built-up balsa and ply technique to achieve the most
competitive aircraft by having the lightest structure possible in accordance with competition rules without
sacrificing structural integrity. Of the many ways to apply built-up balsa and ply, the team chose specific
techniques and materials that would minimize the aircraft structural weight without compromising its
strength. These strategies are as follows.
Selective Material Use: Since wood can vary significantly in density and strength, the team sorted
its entire stock of balsa and ply by weight. The lightest pieces were selected for construction and were cut
using the team’s laser cutter, with the lightest of the cut parts reserved for the final competition aircraft.

50
 Local Reinforcements: Due to the very low density of balsa used, several inherently problematic
locations could potentially fracture during normal operations. Rather than compensate by over-building the
entire aircraft, these locations were reinforced with composite or additional balsa, increasing strength with
minimal penalty in weight.
Lightening Holes: An efficient structural design eliminated significant loading from most structural
members. Lightening holes were integrated into the airframe to reduce weight without reducing the overall
stiffness and strength of the aircraft.
Covering: The aircraft was coated with a heat shrink adhesive infused plastic covering material
called Monokote.
Nylon Carbon-fiber: Rip stop nylon was chosen for reinforcement to provide torsional stiffness to
the control surfaces.

Airframe Structure
The airframe was constructed using the balsa build-up method to minimize weight. Jigsaw-like parts were
laser cut, fit together, and bonded with cyanoacrylate (CA). The center plate was made using ply as it was
determined that using a balsa sheet for this part would compromise the structural integrity of the plane.
Additional balsa sheeting and sticks were cut and bonded on to reinforce and complete the structure.

Figure 6.1: Airframe during construction

Control Surfaces and Vertical Tail

The control surfaces and vertical tail were constructed using the balsa build up method to minimize weight.
Ribs and spars were laser cut with fitting slots. Carbon-fiber tow was applied in a cross pattern on one side
for a lightweight solution to stiffen the control surface.

Rapid Prototyping
Due to the small size of the aircraft and delicateness of materials used, it was determined that it would be
more beneficial to continuously manufacture prototypes rather than attempting to test and constantly repair
a single aircraft. Manufacturing techniques were refined, and manufacturing duties were assigned to
individuals to develop specialization and ensure the most efficient production possible. This allowed for
multiple aircraft modifications to be tested individually in a short period of time. After design considerations

51
were finalized, a rate of production of one aircraft every 1 to 2 weeks was achieved. Expensive parts such
as servos, motors, and landing gear were salvaged from previous prototypes for use in the next iteration.

Figure 6.2: Multiple prototype aircraft before a flight test

6.3 Manufacturing Milestones

A Gantt chart containing manufacturing milestones was established prior to initial prototype manufacturing
to ensure a logical, consistent order was followed during construction. Progress was recorded and
monitored by the team leader to ensure all major milestones were met. The Gantt chart is shown in Figure
6.3, capturing the planned and actual timing of manufacturing steps. The team constructed many
prototypes, so Figure 6.3 describes the typical manufacturing timeline for a single aircraft.

Days
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lasercut Parts

Construct Body

Construct Elevons

Bend Landing Gear

Assemble Full Aircraft

Insert Electronics

Monokote

Attach Propulsion

Figure 6.3: Aircraft manufacturing milestone chart showing planned and actual timing of objectives

52
7 TESTING PLAN
A plan for an extensive testing campaign to validate the aircraft, and its components, was created to
determine what configurations would be the most capable. Testing culminates in test flying a full round of
competition flights on the final competition airframe.

7.1 Objectives and Schedule

The testing was broken up into three main categories: propulsion, structures, and performance. The
propulsion and structures subsystems were tested before flying the whole aircraft to gain knowledge and
set realistic and useful objectives at each test flight. A breakdown of the testing schedule is displayed in the
following Gantt chart, shown in Figure 7.1.

9/1 10/1 10/31 11/30 12/30 1/29 2/28 3/30

Battery Testing
Aircraft Motor/Prop Testing
Aircraft Structural Testing

Proof of Concept
Landing & Takeoff Stability
Takeoff Distance Testing
Flight with Passengers/Payload

Competition M1 Performance
Competition M2 Performance
Competition M3 Performance

Figure 7.1: Aircraft and subsystem testing milestone chart with planned and actual timing of objectives

The objectives for the propulsion testing were to determine which motors would work best for the aircraft.
The motors and propellers tested were based on MotoCalc predictions as expressed in Section 4.2.2.
Thrust versus velocity for vehicle performance and power draw for motor performance for each motor
propeller combination were determined using measurements of thrust, torque, RPM, voltage, and current
draw. Using data obtained from testing, the team was able to compare the actual performance of the motors
to the MotoCalc predictions in order to gather a better estimate of actual performance. This information
allowed the team to select the best propulsion system to achieve the best score possible.

A rig that included load cells to calculate thrust and torque as well as an electric motor measurement system
was constructed as shown in Figure 7.2. The team used the rig to perform static thrust tests and used the
data to compare it with MotoCalc predictions. The electric motor parameters were monitored with an

53
EagleTree system that records the RPM, voltage, and current draw of the motor. Custom written software
was used to collect the torque and thrust values as well as to remotely control the motor for 30-second
intervals with 10-second full thrust intervals and 10-second acceleration and deceleration intervals. The
results of the static thrust tests are described in Section 8.1.1.

Figure 7.2: Thrust test rig

7.2 Structural Testing

Wingtip tests were conducted to validate the structural integrity of the design. A wingtip test simulates the
maximum loading the wings would experience in flight by loading the payload bay with the maximum weight
and lifting the plane by the wing tip, which simulates a root bending moment of 2.5g. Figure 8.3 shows
wingtip test being performed. A team member holds the aircraft at the forward most point where the wing
span is maximum. Since the wing planform is a delta wing, its center of gravity is far forward of this point
and so if the plane is simply held up there it would tip over forwards. Therefore, the team member must
additionally apply a torque to keep the aircraft level.

LRU testing was performed by simulating the individual Ground Mission stages with two crew members
and a timer. The crew members conducted the test multiple times for each LRU, verifying that the designed
method of replacement was sufficient for competition.

7.3 Flight Testing

Flight testing was conducted across many iterations, with a final aircraft planned as the competition design.
Initial iterations were used to determine the flying qualities of the aircraft designs. After this step, the
structural layout was verified through simulated mission flights. These test results then were used to
determine necessary design modifications.

54
Intermediate iterations are currently being used as testing platforms, with changes being implemented
based on feedback from assembly teams and the pilot. These include increasing the main landing gear
width to prevent tip-over during harsh landings, wing sizing modifications to increase roll stability, and
increasing vertical stabilizer aspect ratio to improve effectiveness.

The current iteration of Trilobuzz is being used to verify the required battery size to complete M3.
Experience and data gained from all iterations will be used to generate a final design that will go to
competition. The final iteration will fly simulations of the flight missions to verify and validate the aircraft’s
capabilities.

7.4 Checklists

Various tests have specific procedures which must be followed accurately to produce the desired objectives
and ensure safety. This section lists the checklists utilized by Trilobuzz while conducting tests that required
a significant number of steps, such as propulsion and flight testing.

Propulsion Test Checklist

The checklist in Table 7.1 was created to ensure safety while dealing with propellers and electrical
equipment, and to make sure the test is not wasted due to some mistake in preparation. This checklist was
used in the testing of all motor, battery, and propeller combinations.

Table 7.1: Propulsion testing checklist

Propulsion Test Checklist

1. Propeller secured? 2. Motor mount secured? 3. All plugs secured?
4. Batteries peaked? 5. Throttle down? 6. Data system on?
7. Custom code running? 8. All clear of testing rig?

Flight Test Checklist

The checklist in Table 7.2 was created with the important goal of preventing any system from malfunctioning
in mid-air, which could lead to the aircraft crashing; its thorough execution is paramount to the team’s
success, and it will be used at the DBF event as well.

55
 Table 7.2: Pre-flight checklist

General System Checks

Structural Integrity Time Date

Center of Gravity Location

X Y
Payload Passengers
Laterally Secure? Laterally Secure?
Longitudinally Secure? Longitudinally Secure?
Bay Door Secure? Bay Door Secure?
Control Surfaces
Left Elevon Right Elevon
Deflects? Glued? Slop? Deflects? Glued? Slop?

Electronics and Propulsion

Receiver Battery Charged? Receiver Battery Secure? Wires Secure?

Primary Battery Charged? Primary Battery Hot? Primary Battery Secure?

Receiver/Transmitter GO? Prop Secure? Prop Direction?

Weather
Vwind Θwind Temperature

Initials for Approval

Chief Engineer Pilot Advisor

8 PERFORMANCE RESULTS
8.1 Component and Subsystem Performance
Propulsion
Batteries: A 6-cell, 1500 mAh NiMH battery pack was discharged at 5 amps (3.3 times its capacity)
and at 15 amps (10 times its capacity) to characterize the discharge capabilities of the NiMH batteries. The
resulting data is shown in Figure 8.1 on a per cell basis. NiMH battery cells have a nominal voltage of 1.2V,
and the 5-amp discharge curve can maintain this voltage. At 15 amps, the cell voltage continuously drops,
resulting in a small decrease in the available effective power. The higher current draw of the 15-amp
discharge is necessary to achieve the power required for the aircraft.

56
 1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Volts/cell

0.8
0.6
10C
0.4 3.3C
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (s)

Figure 8.1: Battery discharge rates

Motors and Propellers: Using MotoCalc software, several motor and propeller combinations were
theoretically computed. The Scorpion SII-2212-18 and Cobra 2217-12 motors provided the best
combination of thrust and performance at different aircraft velocities, as well as a realistic current draw to
reduce the size of the battery pack. The team tested the motors and propellers using the test stand shown
in Section 7.1 in static conditions. Figure 8.2 shows the difference between the experimental and theoretical
results predicted by the MotoCalc program for the best two propellers per engine with regards to their thrust.
The Cobra 2217-12 with a 10x7 propeller was selected based on its superior thrust output.

1.75
Predicted
1.5
Actual
1.25
Thrust (lbs)

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
9x6 S2212-8 9x5 S2212-18 9.5x6 C2217-12 10x7 C2217-12
Propeller sizes and motors

Figure 8.2: Predicted thrust versus actual thrust for different propellers

Structural Tests
Wing Testing Results: The full-size airplane was subjected to the required wing tip testing specified
in the rules as part of the technical inspection process. This was done by loading the passenger and payload
and then lifting the airplane by the wing tips. Figure 8.3 shows the successful wingtip test.

57
 Figure 8.3: Wingtip test

Line-Replaceable Units: All required LRU replacements necessary for the Ground Mission were
tested and timed. Based on the results, any combination of Stage 1 and Stage 2 LRUs can be replaced
within the prescribed mission time with time to spare in the event a replacement takes longer than
anticipated at competition.

Table 8.1: LRU replacement times

Stage 1 LRU Replacement Time (s) Stage 2 LRU Replacement Time (s)
Servo 57 ESC 31
Rx Battery 14 Left Elevon 116
Main Battery 28 Right Elevon 116
Servo pushrod 25 Rx-Receiver 44
Landing Gear wheel 75 Main Landing Gear 132
Propeller 26 Motor 85

8.2 System Performance

Flight tests of Trilobuzz were performed to evaluate the performance of the aircraft and validate
performance predictions. To this end, the team equipped the aircraft with a data collection system that could
be used to compare to the estimated mission performance in Section 4.6. The team purpose-built an
Arduino-based telemetry system with a live data feed. On a number of test flights, the Arduino was mounted
to the aircraft and recorded GPS at 1 Hz to yield trajectory data. An example of a full lap trajectory is
displayed in Figure 8.6 superimposed on satellite imagery using Google Earth.

58
 Figure 8.4: Trajectory of aircraft during competition laps from GPS data

The results of flight testing are shown in Table 8.2. They indicate the performance predictions were
optimistic. Further optimization and increasing pilot familiarity with the system should improve system
performance to meet or exceed the predicted performance.

Table 8.2: Comparison of predicted and actual performance averages

1st Lap Time (s) Time for 360 (s) Laps Flown Max. Speed (mph)
Pred. Act. Pred. Act. Pred. Act. Pred. Act.
M1 33.19 31 3.93 3.5 3 3 61.85 55
M2/M3 35.76 33 4.61 3.9 3 3 60.86 54

The lap times and metrics for M1 and M2/M3 shown in Table 8.2 match well between the predicted and
tested values. The flight test data does not match perfectly, however; Trilobuzz consistently performed
better than expected. These differences can be explained by the uncertainties in the predictions as
described in Section 4.3.2. Namely, the mathematical models lack a vertical dimension and any wind model.
When turning, the model assumes the aircraft will drop speed to maintain altitude, an assumption that
appears to correspond well with the flight test data. The offset for when the turns are initiated can be
explained by pilot response to changes in wind direction. Predicted and actual times for a 360-degree turn
are fairly variable, again due to pilot behavior. In all cases, time for a 360-degree turn was predicted
assuming maximum velocity. However, during testing, the pilot tended to reduce speed significantly when
going into a turn, which reduced the turn radius. Regardless, the turning performance obtained from the
test data exists within the envelope predicted by the simulations, verifying that the aircraft is operating as
expected by its design.

In conclusion, the concept of a low aspect ratio, clipped delta wing design allows for a compact form factor
and empty weight that minimized RAC. In combination with the optimal propulsion system and internal store
layout, the design optimizes TMS over RAC, resulting in maximum overall score. The research, component
selection, and testing that fed into the design process resulted in a lightweight aircraft capable of
successfully flying all three missions.

59
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Anderson, J. D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 4th ed., McGraw Hill, 2004.

[2] Tosti, L. P., “Low-speed static stability and damping-in-roll characteristics of some swept and unswept

low-aspect-ratio wings,” NACA-TN-1468, October 1947.

[3] Drela, M., and Youngren, H., “AVL Overview”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [online], 2008,

http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/. [retrieved 21 February 2018],

[4] Edward, L. C., “VORSTAB – A computer program for calculating lateral-directional stability derivatives

with vortex flow effect,” NASA-CR-172501, January 1985.

[5] Polhamus, E. C., “A concept of the vortex lift of sharp-edge delta wings based on a leading-edge-

suction analogy”, NASA-TN-D-3767, December 1966.

[6] Miranda, L. R., Elliot, R. D., and Baker, W. M., “A generalized vortex lattice method for subsonic and

supersonic flow applications,” NASA-CR-2865, December 1977.

[7] Lamar, J. E. “Extension of leading-edge-suction analogy to wings with separated flow around the side

edges at subsonic speeds,” NASA-TR-R-428, October 1974.

[8] Hoerner, S. F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, 2nd ed., Published by author, 1992.

[9] Phillips, W. F., Mechanics of Flight, 1st ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.

60