SAE Aerospace Regular Class High Lift Competition
Educational Aircraft
Rochester Institute of Technology Multidisciplinary Senior Design
Team Members: Dominic Myren, Marc Protacio, Matt Zielinski, Chris Jones,
Ron Manning
Acknowledgements: The team would like to thank Dr. Kolodziej for his guidance
and the RIT Aero Club for their cooperation
Design Objective: To develop a stable, controllable, high lift aircraft to serve as
development platform for the RIT Aerospace Design Club. This aircraft must
conform to the 2016 SAE Aerospace Regular Class Design Competition rules.
Configuration: A conventional configuration was chosen in order to allow for
relatively simple documentation. This will provide a more versatile development
platform.
Wing Comparison
E423
S1223
5°
1.189
1.339
Airfoil
Alpha
CL
CD
Efficiency
CL/CD
0.089
1.027
13.359
0.11
1.011
12.137
CM,AC
-0.282
-0.355
Airfoil and Wing Planform: Selection of these
features controls a substantial part of the
remaining process. Initial design was to use the
S1223 but designing a sufficient tail was not
feasible within the design constraints. E423
chosen for this reason with a restriction on our
cruising angle of attack to be 5 degrees.
Technical Specifications and Capabilities:
• Unloaded Weight: 13.55 lbs
• Predicted Cruise Speed: 35 mph
• Predicted Lifting Capacity: 33.3 lbs
• Wingspan: 86 in
• Root Chord Length: 17 in
• Tip Chord Length: 4 in
Simulation and Computation:
Lacking in test data, we have
needed to depend heavily on
simulation. XFLR5 was the
primary method of simulation
due to computing limitations.
An analysis of the tail in fluent
was used to offer some
verification pending test data.
XFLR5 uses a 3D vortex lattice
method and seems to
underestimate drag compared
to fluent and the SpalartAllmaris method.
Current Project Status: Presently the aircraft is under construction.
Aluminum substructure is complete and landing gear is in progress.
Wooden components are cut and assembly is in progress. Testing to
confirm CFD data for propeller performance is under way.
Stability and Controllability: The primary technical challenge is stability and
controllability. High lift wings generate powerful destabilizing effects and an
uncontrollable aircraft is useless.
Structural Analysis: Structural analysis has been done on each aluminum
structure using ANSYS. In each case we have targeted what we believe to
be worse-than-reality loading conditions. The example below, our main tail
structure, is experiencing the maximum expected bending moment
applied twice- once around the y and once around the x-directions. While
this is excessive for most purposes the over-development may prove
essential for the unclear future of the aircraft.
Longitudinal Static Stability Directional Static Stability Lateral Static Stability
V H [-]
1.0039 V V
0.0505 Cl β [1/rad]
-0.1114
Static Margin [-]
0.3480 Cn β [1/rad]
Cm 0 [-]
0.1327
Cm α [1/rad]
0.2122
-1.4874
Longitudinal Control
Directional Control
Lateral Control
Cl δe [1/rad]
0.8814 Cm δr [1/rad]
-0.0670 Cl βa [1/rad]
0.09173
Cm δe [1/rad]
-1.6772
Elevator Sizing
Ce /Ct , tip
Rudder Sizing
Aileron Sizing
0.3500 Cr /Cv
0.35 Ca/ c̅
bt br
br ba
δe ,max
+25° δr,max
+25° δa,max
+25°
δe ,min
-25° δr ,min
-25° δa ,min
-10°
be
Aero Design Club: By the end of our project, we plan to provide the team
with a flightworthy design, documentation, and calculation/simulation code
that will permit future club members to make informed design decisions
and estimate performance. Using this as a platform they seek to compete
in next years AIAA or SAE Aerospace Competition
0.25
14.125
Acknowledgement: The team would like to thank Boeing for their generous
contributions which have made this possible.