Aero - Design, Built and Test

Glider Design Group Report

Team 2

Adhij Bodh – 2895917A

Alice Kristmanns – 2881878K
Arbaz Ahmed – 2901897A
Cameron Dawson – 2897481D
Molly MacDonald – 2898178M
Charles Kelly - 2469994K
Aim
This glider design project’s aim is to explore various configurations and materials to develop a
functional glider that demonstrates improved flight performance through iterative design, testing
and analysis.

Abstract
This report outlines the systematic design and testing as well as the analysis process undertaken
to develop a functional glider. Through weeks of experimentation the team explored different
materials, wing configurations, and stabiliser designs to optimise flight performance. Each week
focused on refining the glider design based on previous testing results, aiming to achieve greater
stability and increased flight distances. The report details the methods employed, testing
procedures, and outcomes of each design iteration, leading to the identification of the most
effective configuration for successful flight performance.

Introduction
In aeronautical engineering the design and optimisation of gliders can play a crucial role in
understanding aerodynamic principles and achieving efficient flight. Glider design involves
considerations of materials, wing shapes, stabiliser configurations and aerodynamic efficiency.
The objective of this project is to systematically explore variations in design to develop a glider
that demonstrates improved flight characteristics such as increased lift, reduced drag and
enhanced stability through iterative design and testing procedures. With the aims of refining the
glider's configuration over time to achieve a more optimal flight performance.

Method
The methodology in this project involves a systematic and iterative approach to glider design,
testing, and analysis. An initially basic conventional glider design was opted for to establish a
baseline for performance evaluation, various materials including balsa wood and foam were
utilized for different components such as the fuselage, wings, and stabilisers. Manufacturing
processes involved cutting, sanding, and similar assembly techniques to ensure the structural
integrity and aerodynamic efficiency of the glider.

Each week focused on specific design modifications based on testing results from the previous
iteration. Adjustments were then made to wing configurations, stabiliser angles, and material
choices to optimise performance as needed. Testing procedures involved launching the glider
and recording flight distances from a consistent height to assess stability, lift, and overall
aerodynamic performance.
The outcomes of each testing session were analysed to identify strengths and weaknesses in the
glider's design. Insights gained from testing then informed subsequent modifications leading to
improvements in performance. Through this iterative process the aim was to converge towards
an ideal glider form that maximises flight distance and stability.

WEEK 1
Design concept

For our initial glider we decided to take a simpler route and chose a basic, conventional design so
as not to overcomplicate the glider and to allow us to determine any issues with it after testing.
The glider consisted of mildly swept wings with curved edges and triangular horizontal
stabilisers. We chose to use balsa wood for the fuselage and stuck to the same shape throughout
the entire process. Wood was also used for the stabilisers and, due to the lightness of the material
to generate lift, we used foam for the wings.

Model Building and Dimensions

We first cut out the body, with dimensions 30cm x 2.5cm and the vertical stabiliser being 7cm
high, with a scalpel which proved to be straightforward along with the horizontal stabilisers with
dimensions 14.6cm x 4cm. We sanded the body and stabilisers to create a smooth surface and
prevent any potential risks of drag. The wings had a total span of 44cm in length and 6cm in
width (along the body). Once the wings had been cut out, we decided to file them down to create
a slight slant upwards to generate more lift and thus make them more aerodynamic.
Unfortunately, this process ended up having its faults in that it was difficult to make both wings
symmetrical, causing the shapes of both wings to differ from one another. Using super glue, we
stuck the wings to the fuselage, choosing a mid-wing placement along the central area of it.
Sketch of the Glider

Figure 1 – Sketch: side view of fuselage Figure 2 – Sketch: top view of glider configuration

Flight Testing and Results

(Foam wings and wooden stabilisers)

No. Of Test Distance Travelled by Glider

1 4m
2 4m
3 6m
4 5m
5 4m
Table 1 – Distances flown by week 1 glider.

Once we began testing the glider we noticed several complications and issues with it. It only
flew a very short distance each time and would roll left completely just before landing on the
ground. The predominant factor was that the wings were not identical to one another, causing
lateral stability issues and therefore, a lot of rolling disturbance. What affected this was the
difficulty we had in working with the foam material and sanding the edges down to shape them.
This then had an overall effect on the longitudinal stability of the glider (also called pitch
stability) which refers to the glider’s stability in its plane of symmetry about the lateral axis.

This issue could have been resolved using the dihedral effect where the wings are slanted slight
upwards, creating a correcting moment which returns the aircraft to a wing level state. We made
this adjustment in later weeks once we began using the balsa wood and experimenting with other
wing configurations.
Discussion

We failed in making both wings symmetrical which is a key factor in attaining glider stability
and thus a successful glide performance. Although, theoretically, the foam wings should be more
effective in performing well due to being light weight, we found it too challenging to
manufacture two identical wings which, again, is a huge contributing factor when it comes to
stability. In the following weeks you will see we opted for balsa wood for the wings instead,
which are also relatively light weight and would therefore be just as effective.

WEEK 2
Changes and Adjustments made

In week 2 we focused on designing a glider that has more lift and angle of attack. We switched to
thin balsa wood for the wings from foam as we struggled to make two identical foam wings,
which kept breaking when we flew our plane. Thin Balsa wood is very light-weight and has an
excellent strength-to-weight ratio, which improved the glider's aerodynamic efficiency. We put
in most of our efforts trying to make the glider light weight to reduce the drag of the glider.
Reducing the glider weight also improved its Lift-to-Weight Ratio, which means the glider
generated more lift relative to its total weight, allowing our glider to achieve better climb.

To get more lift we adjusted our wings and tilted them slightly upwards, it increased the lift
which also improved our gliders overall aerodynamic performance by allowing it to fly without
stalling even at low airspeed. We also adjusted our horizontal stabilisers by tilting them
downwards so that the plane would not stall too much as it exerts a downward force on tail
which means it will help maintain a positive angle of attack on wings preventing our glider from
stalling.

Model Building

We used super glue to put all the parts together but to make the glider even stronger we also used
super glue activator which also dried the super glue quicker saving us more time. We used a
scalpel to cut the wood and sandpaper to file it down to smooth out the rough surfaces on the
wings and fuselage, reducing some drag. It also slightly reduced the weight of the glider.
Dimensions

The fuselage's length was 26cm and its height gradually increased from 2cm (about 0.79 in) from
front to 9cm (about 3.54 in). The fuselage thickness/width is 0.6cm (about 0.24 in). The wings of
the glider are 41cm (about 1.35 ft) wide and 5cm (about 1.97 in) long.

The shape of the glider after adjustment

Figure 3 – Side view sketch of fuselage. Figure 4 – Top view sketch of glider.

Flight Testing and Results

No. Of Tests Wings Tilted Upwards & Flat Wings and Flat Stabilisers
Horizontal Stabilisers Tilted
Downwards

1 13m 7m
2 13m 6m
3 13m 8m
Table 2 – Distances flown by week 2 glider.

Discussion
From the testing results it is clear that the adjustments made to the glider such as tilting the wings
upwards and tilting the horizontal stabilisers downwards increased the glider's angle of attack,
which improved its aerodynamic efficiency.

Our decision to use lightweight materials such as thin balsa wood wings proved to be correct in
reducing the glider's weight which allowed it to glide smoothly and create more lift.
 Figure 5 – Top view of week 2 glider.

Figure 6 – Side view of week 2 glider.

WEEK 3
During the third week of our project, our focus was to test various methods and designs aimed at
enhancing the distance the glider flew as we had already achieved better lift with our design from
the previous week. We maintained our preference for balsa wood over foam due to its proven
ability to yield greater distances during flight and provide a sturdier structure. Additionally, we
continued to use hot glue as our adhesive of choice, as we have found it was more effective in
ensuring the resilience and durability of our models.

Model Building and Dimensions

Our glider featured triangular wings with a wingspan measuring 43cm and a length of 6cm, a
design that we had determined to be optimal for generating lift. As well as this, we crafted
rectangular horizontal stabilisers with a length of 15cm and a width of 1.5cm. This stabiliser
helped to maintain the glider's stability during flight, particularly in pitch control.

We then looked at the fuselage design, constructing it with a length of 23cm and a height of 2cm.
These dimensions were chosen to provide greater stability while minimising drag. We also added
a vertical stabiliser at a height of 8cm to ensure yaw stability and control throughout the flight.

Flight Testing and Results

We then tested this model in trial flights and recorded distances as seen in ‘Table 3’ making the
average distance 7.6 meters. This did not demonstrate the increase in distance we were hoping
for or expecting. This allowed us to create a plan for week 4, which is now to focus on previous
gliders that flew further and pinpoint what aspects of the design enhanced this but to also design
and test different components and dimensions which may work even better.

Flight 1 6m
Flight 2 8m
Flight 3 8m
Flight 4 9m
Flight 5 7m
Average 7.6m
Table 3 – Distances flown by week 3 glider.

WEEK 4
During week 4 we decided to focus on the wings with straight trailing and leading edge. In
groups of 2 or by ourselves we focused on manufacturing our own glider with slightly different
features including horizontal stabiliser on top of the vertical stabiliser, a basic straight wing
glider and a glider with winglets. Some of these features were combined onto the one glider. We
also tested a glider from previous weeks to compare a different design with our best performing
glider so far

Glider features trialled

We decided to try a T- tail configuration to provide smooth flow, this is because the T-tail
surfaces behind the wings are out of the airflow. Another reason we used T-tail configuration is
to provide the glider with leverage, which makes it easy to increase the distance between the
wing and the tailplane without affecting the glider's weight. The greater distance gives the glider
leverage and enables the tailplane to control the glider's pitch attitude.

Figure 7 - T-tail configuration

We decided to try using winglets to decrease the amount of drag created at the tip of the glider’s
wings. The shape of the wings helps generate higher pressure under the wing than over the
wings, creating the lift needs to glide. But due to this uneven pressure, it forces air from under
the wing’s surface where it causes a “wingtip vortex.” This is a mini whirlwind at the tip of the
wing which increases drag and reduced lift, resulting in the glider flying a smaller distance.

Figure 8 - Wingtip vortex (conventional wingtip vs with winglet)

Model Building
We chose to manufacture the glider using balsa wood for every part of the glider including the
fuselage, the wings, vertical stabiliser and horizontal stabiliser. We used thin wings to reduce the
amount of drag on the wings. We also used super glue as an adhesive for the glider as it was easy
to apply and quick drying allowing more time for testing and making changes. Blue tac was
attached to the tip of the glider to bring the centre of its gravity forward. This is to prevent the
glider from generating too much lift and hitting the roof, therefore providing the gliders with a
smoother flight through the air.

Part of Glider Length Width Height

Fuselage 330mm 7mm 20mm
Wings 50mm 400mm 2mm
Horizontal Stabilizer 34mm 164mm 2mm
Vertical Stabilizer 32mm 7mm 69mm
Winglets 50mm 2mm 10mm
Table 4 – Dimensions of Glider

The dimensions for all the gliders tested were the same except they had different features. The
only difference was the T-tail configuration had the vertical stabiliser shaved down using a file
for the horizontal stabiliser to go on top.

Flight Testing and Results

No. Original glider Straight Straight Wing Straight wing

of (best from Wing with Winglets with winglets
test previous weeks) and T-tail
configuration
1 9.5m 12m 11m 12m
2 12m 14m 12m 12m
3 13m 14m 13m 13m
4 14m 16m 11m 14m
5 12m 15m 12m 13m
Table 5 – Distance flown for different glider designs.
We first tested our best performing glider from previous weeks to use as a benchmark for how
well the glider performed. The was a basic design with wings with a slight incline to generate
more lift and horizontal stabiliser tilted downwards (there is more information of this design in
week 2).

We then tried a basic straight wing design with both leading and trailing edges perpendicular to
each other created one large rectangle that we glue on top of the fuselage to create both wings.
The horizontal stabiliser was basic and tiled downwards slightly to prevent the plane from
pitching upwards and downwards excessively for a smooth flight through the air. We then tested
the glider with straight wing and winglets to improve the aerodynamic performance of the glider.
And finally, we tested the glider with straight wing with winglets and T-tail configuration.

As a group we expected either the straight wing with winglets or the straight wig with winglets
and T-tail configuration to perform the best due to the information stated about these features
which was said previously in the report. However, this was not the case as the most basic of the 3
new designs appeared to have performed the best with it travelling the furthest distances more
consistently than any other glider that we tested during this week’s work. We believe that the
gliders did not fly as expected due to failure to manufacture the gliders with precision. This may
have been down to the wings not being centred perfectly on the body or horizontal stabiliser
being centred on the body. Another reason for inaccurate results could be due to imperfections in
the wood, meaning that small chips from multiple flights in the wings could result in less lift than
expected and resulted in more drag as there was small chunks of wood sticking upwards from the
wings.

Discussion

As a group we concluded that week 4 was our most successful week yet as we managed to find a
glider design which was proven to have the most successful and consistent results yet. The
straight wing design caused the glider to have a smooth flight with similar results. Although we
thought more features on the glider would have proven it to fly further this was wrong and the
most basic straight wing design was the best glider yet.
 Figure 9 – Glider with rectangular wings and horizontal stabilisers.

Figure 10 – Glider with winglets and t-tail stabiliser.

WEEK 5

In week 5 of our project, we decided to run a few experiments on our existing design for the last
time. We decided to make a modification to our pre-existing design and set the horizontal
stabilisers at a downward angle of approximately 45°. These stabilizers were positioned at the
edge of the bottom corner of the fuselage. Unfortunately, this modification resulted in the glider
not achieving flight at all, leading us to abandon this model. Upon reflection, we deduced that
this model's failure could be because of the steep angle of the stabilisers. Such an angle created
excessive drag and an increased downward force preventing the glider from flying.

Model Building and Dimensions

The material used for this glider was exclusively balsa wood and the adhesive used to stick
together the glider's components was hot glue. We used a single large wing instead of two
separate wings for this design, which was mounted atop the fuselage. We aimed for the wing's
dimensions to be within the prescribed limits, so we chose a length of 45cm and a width of 6cm
for the wings. The fuselage was 0.6cm thick, and its height was 2 cm at the front and 8cm at the
back. It had an overall length of 38cm. The horizontal stabilisers extended to 2cm and stretched
over 7cm.

The wing was filed into the shape of an air foil using sandpaper. The components of the glider
were precisely cut with the help of a scalpel. The inability of this model to fly led us to the
decision to revert to our previous, more successful design. This attempt, while unsuccessful,
provided us with valuable insights into the complex interplay of design elements in
aerodynamics of a glider.

Sketch of the Glider

Figure 11 – Side view sketch of fuselage. Figure 12 – Top view sketch of glider.

Figure 13 – Back view sketch of glider.

Flight Testing and Results

Downward angled horizontal stabilisers glider:

Test Number Distance travelled
1 3m
2 2m
3 2m
4 2m

Table 6 – Distances flown by week 5 glider.

Conclusion
Through a design process involving a series of iterations, we have gained a greater understanding
of how different design elements affect both flight dynamics and glider performance. We have
explored a range of materials, wing and stabilizer configurations and experimented with
manufacturing methods to refine the glider's aerodynamic stability and range.

Initial challenges such as asymmetrical wings and lateral instability granted insight into the
importance of precision manufacturing and its contribution to symmetry of our design. Later
iterations focused on addressing these hurdles by adopting lightweight yet rigid balsa wood
which was less prone to deformation for wings and adjustment of the wing angles and the
incorporation of rear stabilizers.
Notably, the decision to pivot back to the more basic glider configuration in the final weeks
yielded promising results. Despite initial expectations favouring more complex designs, the
straight-wing configuration proved to be equally effective in achieving stable and consistent
flight performance while the more complex designs were harder to produce, prone to damage,
and failed to give a marked improvement in range with any level of consistency.

Certain design modifications like the downward-angled stabilizers did not yield the results we
initially theorized, however each iteration contributed to a deeper comprehension of the
relationship between various design elements and flight performance. These insights illuminate
the iterative nature of engineering design and highlight the importance of testing rigorously and
consistently to corroborate theoretical concepts and designs.

In summation the team has demonstrated resilience and adaptability using a systematic approach
to problem-solving throughout the project. By leveraging an iterative design process, the team
successfully developed a functional glider capable of stable and sustained flight as asked. The
lessons learned from this project and the greater practical understanding of aeronautic principles
will undoubtedly be helpful in the rest of the aeronautical engineering course.
References
- Lecturer notes and slides

Week 4 references

- Andrew Wood 2022. https://aerotoolbox.com/design-aircraft-

tail/#:~:text=However%2C%20mounting%20the%20horizontal%20stabilizer%20on%20top%20o
f,the%20horizontal%20tail%20directly%20into%20the%20vertical%20tail.

- Tobias Holm 2022. https://planenerd.com/winglets-on-aircraft-everything-you-need-to-know/