Designing a UAV: Airfoil Selection Criteria

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the criteria for selecting airfoils in the design of a UAV, with considerations for performance metrics such as lift-to-drag ratio (Cl/Cd) and moment coefficient (Cm). Participants explore various factors influencing airfoil choice based on the UAV's intended mission profile.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that airfoil selection criteria depend on the UAV's mission, such as whether it will be used for high altitude, slow speed surveillance, or fast maneuvers.
  • Another participant references the efficiency of Burt Rutan's designs, mentioning specific performance metrics like cruise speed and fuel consumption for different aircraft models.
  • There is a discussion about the advantages of canard configurations, with mixed opinions on their effectiveness compared to traditional designs.
  • Participants mention specific aircraft models and their performance, indicating a preference for certain designs based on fuel efficiency and speed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of canard designs and the best airfoil selection criteria, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific aircraft performance data and personal experiences, which may not be universally applicable or verified. The discussion includes assumptions about mission profiles and design goals that are not fully elaborated.

kevjcarvalho
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
hi,
i am a mechanical engineer currently working on the design of a UAV. Our rough sketch kind of resembles Burt Rutan's Long-EZ or Velocity. I am attaching a couple of sketches of the aircraft which my team and i have constructed using XFLR 5. We will also be using XFLR 5 and Profili for initial analysis. What kind of criteria would you suggest for airfoil selection? For example high or low Cm, what range perhaps, what Cl/Cd range. Thanks
 

Attachments

  • SAD2010-2011_design1.0.png
    SAD2010-2011_design1.0.png
    20.5 KB · Views: 767
  • SAD2010-2011_design1.0_panelling.png
    SAD2010-2011_design1.0_panelling.png
    17.8 KB · Views: 732
Physics news on Phys.org
"The best place for a canard is on someone else's airplane" :wink:
 
kevjcarvalho said:
hi,
What kind of criteria would you suggest for airfoil selection? For example high or low Cm, what range perhaps, what Cl/Cd range. Thanks

Hmmm, it kind of depends on what the mission of the UAV will be - e.g. high altitude, slow speed surveillance, fast-n-nimble, how heavy is it going to be, etc. etc.
 
Cyrus said:
"The best place for a canard is on someone else's airplane" :wink:

Yeah, right...

Hey, talk to http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/081230100mpg.html?WT.mc_id=090102epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan"! Klaus Savier has managed to eke out 100 mpg from Rutan's Vari-EZ.

Rutan's design was phenomenal at the time, and it remains exceptional in many ways, particularly when one throttles back and uses a powerplant which is designed for max efficiency at that throttled-back cruise.

Consider:

Cessna 172 (4-seater) cruises at 122 kts with a mean gph burn rate around 8 gph at 122 kts (it's unpublished, as Cessna loves to fudge their figures) of for a milage rate of around 15 nm/gal.

Vari-EZ and Long-EZ (2-seater) cruises at 160 kts with a mean gph 5.1 gph burn rate for a milage of 31.4 nm/gal

There is a reason XCOR Aerospace chose to modify the Long-EZ for their EZ-rocket proof of concept racer. It's one heck of an aircraft!

Back to Canards, they settled on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_SE" as their entry into the Rocket Racer class.

I'm not sure why, given the nearly double fuel efficiencies of the Vari-EZ and Long-EZ. If it's a matter of velocity (hence the "racer" aspect), why not just go with the Berkut? It's cruise speed is 200 kts, and it does it with greater efficiency than any of the aforementioned aircraft.

To this day, if I ever entered this market, I'd opt for a Berkut!

This design was SO promising the countering lawyers' multiple counter-lawsuits strangled the entire effort by 2003. Only 20 aircraft were completed.

I flew one - AWESOME! But I've also flown a Lancair and a Glassair, also both awesome, and with respect to the avionics, much more nicely done. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K