International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV

Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Technical Note
IJUSEng – 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15
http://dx.doi.org/10.14323/ijuseng.2014.4

Conceptual Aerodynamic Design

of Delta-type Tailless Unmanned Aircraft

Alexander S. Goodman
Marques Aviation Ltd, USA

Abstract: Goodman AS. (2014). Conceptual aerodynamic design of

delta-type tailless unmanned aircraft. International Journal of
Unmanned Systems Engineering. 2(S2): 1-15. This paper describes
the conceptual design of a delta-like tailless unmanned aircraft for
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, with possible
strike capabilities. The delta configuration yields greater performance Keywords:
Aerodynamics
at high angles of attack (α) and can produce lower drag than
Aeroelasticity
conventional aircraft. The lack of inherent flight stability allows the Conceptual design
aircraft to perform combat manoeuvres and the absence of vertical Delta planform
control surfaces reduces radar signature. Aspects to take into Unmanned aircraft
consideration in the conceptual aerodynamic design of a delta-like Stability
tailless configuration include airfoil selection, aerodynamic modelling
for steady state stability, wing planform shape, planform geometric
alterations, control surfaces, and adaptive wing technology and
aeroelastic concepts. This study proposes the use of the HS 522
airfoil for the inward part of the wing and the NACA 22112 airfoil for
the outer wing. The HS 522 is an excellent fit for swept wings and low
Reynolds numbers. The HS 522 produces only a small negative
pitching moment and also performs well at high speeds. The NACA
22112 has reflex camber and helps promote longitudinal stability.
When a fuselage is added to a wing, the aerodynamic centre (a.c.) of
the wing-fuselage combination shifts forward. This is known as the
Munk effect and must be considered. The dominant flow pattern over
the proposed delta-like configuration will consist of leading edge
vortex patterns at high α, containing a primary vortex and a
secondary vortex. Wing sweep affects the a.c., lift curve slope, and
zero-lift slope along with many other individual parameters, such as
dihedral effect. Consequently, wing sweep angle is a critical
parameter that should be carefully analyzed and tested in relation to
aircraft desired performance. Several smaller elevons are proposed
for small adjustments of flight attitude to achieve less drag, easily
dampen aircraft oscillations, and lessen the wing decambering effect.
Winglets help lower the strength of the tip vortices and can act as
rudders for lateral/directional stability and control by taking advantage
of a long moment arm. Multiple slotted reversed-flow flaps that mimic
the natural flight of birds should be further investigated for low α flight
attitudes to suppress the proliferation of detached flow, maintain high
lift, and delay the stall. © Marques Engineering Ltd.

1 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper describes the conceptual aerodynamic design of a variant of a delta blended
wing-body tailless mid-range unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (ISR) and possible strike capabilities. The tailless configuration is
desirable for a number of reasons. With no vertical control surfaces, or at least no large
vertical surfaces, the aircraft has minimal radar signature.[1] This configuration can produce
lower drag than conventional aircraft and greater performance at high angles of attack (α).
Also, with the lack of inherent flight stability, the aircraft can perform combat manoeuvres.[2,3]
With the limitations in technology and materials in the past, the tailless design layout was not
as efficient as the conventional layout and was also very unstable. With advancements in
both technology and materials a tailless delta configuration can be designed to yield greater
performance than conventional-style aircraft.[4] The performance of tailless aircraft is
expected to improve with further experimentation and analyses. This paper addresses the
following topics of aerodynamic design: airfoil selection, basic aerodynamic modelling for
steady state stability, planform shape, planform geometric alterations, control surfaces,
adaptive wing technology, and aeroelasticy.

2. AIRFOIL SELECTION
Traditional cambered airfoils produce a negative pitching moment (Cm), nose-down effect, on
the airfoil. This is counteracted through the empennage by the horizontal stabilators. In a
tailless delta-wing type aircraft, careful selection of the airfoils is essential, since Cm strongly
contributes to the aerodynamic longitudinal stability of the aircraft.[5] The Cm is measured
around the aerodynamic centre (a.c.). Both Cm and a.c. are discussed in further detail in the
next section dealing with aerodynamic modelling. With no tail for longitudinal stability, the
airfoils selected should have low or zero Cm. Instead of using a symmetric airfoil, which has
zero Cm at zero α, a suitable solution is to choose a reflexed airfoil.[4] The following presents
an analysis on reflex airfoils. The camber shape on an airfoil is closely related to Cm. The aft
part of the camber line has a great influence on Cm. Because of this influence, the aft end of
the camber line is reflexed. By increasing the degree of reflex, the Cm vs. α curve shifts
upward (positive). The drag polar is also affected and shifts down. This produces an
undesired reduction in the maximum lift coefficient, but can be fixed by creating more
camber. However, greater caber increases the negative nose down Cm. In aerodynamics this
is usually the case, improvement of one aspect negatively affects other aspects of the
aerodynamic design. Another option is to change the location of the maximum camber. The
position of the maximum camber has a small influence on the drag polar, but can greatly
impact the pitching moment.[6] If the maximum camber position is shifted backwards, the Cm
increases in the negative direction (nose-down). The maximum camber position should,
therefore, be towards the leading edge (LE) of the airfoil for a delta planform aircraft. This is
illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, where three different airfoils are compared.

Fig. 1: Geometry of three airfoils (adapted from Jiangtao et al.[5])

2 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Fig. 2: Aerodynamic coefficients for the three airfoils

[5]
(adapted from Jiangtao et al. )

2.1. Analysis of the HS 522 and NACA 22112 Airfoils

Two different airfoils are used throughout the wing planform of the proposed tailless aircraft.
The inward portion of the wing is an airfoil with a close to zero Cm. The outward portion of
the wing is comprised of a reflexed airfoil to counteract the negative Cm created by the UAV
configuration.[1] The airfoils are also able to operate at lower Reynolds numbers (Re)
because the aircraft’s speed and chord length are small, which directly influences Re. The
HS 522 airfoil was selected as the inward span airfoil (Fig. 3). This airfoil is an excellent fit
for swept wings and low Re. This HS 522 airfoil can also perform well at high aircraft
speed.[7] This airfoil does produce a nose down Cm, however the Cm is small compared to
that of many other airfoils. Table A1 in the Appendix displays the results for three different
low Res.[4]

Fig. 3: HS 522 airfoil [7]

A reflex camber airfoil is used for the outboard portion of the wing. The NACA 5 digit series
airfoils are known to produce low Cm. Specifically, the NACA 22112 airfoil was selected (Fig.
4). The NACA 22112 airfoil was then compared to a similar airfoil, NACA 23112, which
differs from the NACA 22112 airfoil only by the farther aft position of the maximum camber
location.[5] These airfoils were compared at the two Re of 0.5 x 106 and 1 x 106. The results
are shown in Table 1. Plots of airfoil aerodynamic coefficients vs. α can be found in Figs.
A.1-A.4 in the Appendix. It can be seen from the Figures that as the maximum camber is
pushed aft, the maximum lift decreases and the nose down Cm increases. The combination

3 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

of these two airfoils may balance each other, depending on the spanwise distance
distribution, and could create a slight washout.

Fig. 4: NACA 22122 profile with camber line [8]

Table 1: NACA 5-digit series airfoil analysis

Airfoil and Re

NACA 22112, Re = 5 x 105 1.45 15.0° 0.005 0.010

NACA 22112, Re = 1 x 106 1.55 17.0° 0.005 0.005

NACA 23112, Re = 5 x 105 1.45 13.5° 0.007 0.008

NACA 23112, Re = 1 x 106 1.50 15.0° 0.005 0.005

3. AERODYNAMIC MODELLING
One of the most important parameters of an aircraft is the a.c. The a.c. is the point on the
wing mean aerodynamic chord where the variation of Cm with α is zero. Finding the a.c. on
the wing planform is very important, however the influence of the fuselage must be
considered. When a fuselage is added to a wing, the a.c. of the wing-fuselage combination
shifts forward compared to that for a wing. This means that the fuselage will add a positive
Cm with each increase of α. This is called Munk effect.[9] The design of the proposed aircraft,
however, resembles that of a blended wing-body similar to that of a flying wing. Thus, the
addition of the fuselage will not play as big a role on the Cm as a conventional aircraft, but
still cannot be ignored.[4] In order to know how the aircraft will perform, modelling of the
aerodynamic and thrust forces and moments must be determined for steady state and
perturbed state. There are two ways to determine these forces and moments. These are
experimental methods, such as flight or wind tunnel tests, and computational and/or
empirical methods. The following presents basic mathematical models to show how to
determine the aerodynamic forces, thrust forces, and moments. For the case of tailless
aircraft conventional modelling is not appropriate, rather the wing-body effects need to be
included. The steady state aerodynamic forces and moments are discussed below. They are
broken down into longitudinal variables and lateral-directional variables. An in-depth analysis
of these models is beyond the scope of this paper. Roskam[9] and Napolitano[10] discuss this
topic in greater detail. Thrust and perturbated state forces and moments are not covered
below. Perturbated state modelling is complex and it is a subject beyond the basic
conceptual design presented in this paper. The following modelling data and equations were
taken from Roskam[9] and Napolitano.[10]

4 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

3.1. Longitudinal Stability

The longitudinal aerodynamic forces and moments that act on an aircraft in steady state
conditions are

3.2. Drag Force

The expression for is ; where, = drag coefficient, = is the dynamic pressure,
and S = planform area. The steady state aerodynamic for the aircraft is dependent on α,
airplane wetted area, , skin friction coefficient, Mach number, Re, and control surface
deflections.

3.3. Lift Force

The is calculated using ; where, = lift coefficient. The steady state airplane
aerodynamic is also dependent on α, , Mach number, Re, and control surface
deflections.

3.4. Pitching Moment

The form for is ; where, = mean geometric chord. The steady state airplane
aerodynamic Cm is dependent on α, , Mach number, Re, centre of gravity, and control
surface deflections.

3.5. Lateral-Directional Stability

The lateral-directional aerodynamic forces and moments that act on an aircraft due to side-
slipping are

3.6 Rolling Moment

The expression for is ; where, = rolling moment coefficient and = span.
The steady state airplane aerodynamic is dependent on the sideslip angle, α, , Mach
number, Re, centre of gravity, and the deflection of lateral and directional control surfaces.

3.7. Yawing Moment

The has the form ; where, = yawing moment coefficient. The steady state
airplane aerodynamic is dependent on the sideslip angle, α, Mach number, Re, centre of
gravity, and the deflection of directional and lateral control surfaces.

3.8. Side-Force
The equation for is ; where, = side-force coefficient. The steady state
airplane aerodynamic is dependent on the sideslip angle, α, Mach number, Re, and the
deflection of lateral and directional control surfaces. For an in-depth analysis, four
aerodynamic coefficients are considered important. According to Napolitano[10], these
coefficients are referenced as the four pillars because they need to fit together in order for
the aircraft to fly adequately. The four coefficients are:

Plays a vital role in the longitudinal stability lift force.

5 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Plays a vital role in the longitudinal stability pitching moment.

Plays a vital role in lateral-directional stability rolling moment.

Plays a vital role in lateral-directional stability yawing moment.

4. WING PLANFORM
The wing planform for the proposed UAV is a variant of the delta configuration incorporating
a blended wing-body without a tail. Examples of different delta shape planforms can be seen
in Fig. 5. This planform shape was chosen to reduce radar signature for ISR and possible
strike missions. The delta configuration is very common in high speed fighter jets because
the shape allows the aircraft to cruise at very high subsonic speeds and achieve high α
without stalling. This is accomplished due to the leading edge vortices that flow over the
wing at high α.

Fig. 5: Different delta wing planforms (based upon Anderson [6])

In a tailless configuration, the wing span is extended farther back than the base of the
aircraft. The airframe shape resembles that of a notched delta. Examples of similar wing
planforms can be observed in the Northrop Grumman Bat and the Lockheed Martin RQ-170
Sentinel (Figs. 6 and 7). The notched delta planform balances out the centre of gravity along
with the desired control surfaces to add greater manoeuvrability and control.[11]

6 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Fig. 6: Northrop Bat (Image: Courtesy of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems)

Fig. 7: RQ-170 Sentinel (Image: Truthdoser)

There are two important vortex patterns that form over delta wings, a primary vortex and a
secondary vortex.[6] The primary vortex is formed by the sharpness of the leading edge
causing the flow shear to separate. The primary vortex consists of a pair of strong leading
edge vortices characterised by low local pressure.[12] With the pressure drop caused by the
primary vortices the lift is enhanced allowing the delta configuration to operate at higher α
than conventional planforms. The formation of these primary vortices usually appears after a
certain positive α is reached and becomes stronger with higher α, thus producing more lift.

7 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Eventually, the stall angle is reached caused by vortex break down.[12] An in-depth visual
description is displayed in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8: Flow over a delta wing planform (based upon Anderson [6])

An important characteristic of delta wings is the leading edge radius. Depending on the
mission, the radius needs to be tailored. For completely subsonic missions and hypersonic
missions, such as in the Space Shuttle, a larger rounded edge should be used. The
aerodynamics behind these two missions is different. The hypersonic re-entry of the Space
Shuttle allows extreme high temperatures without damaging the wing. The large rounded
edge is also used to create a large bow shock to slow the aircraft down.[6] The larger
rounded edge for low subsonic flight missions is used to create higher lift to accompany the
low speeds, as well as keeping the flow attached for longer.[5]

5. WING TWIST AND SWEEP

5.1. Twist
There are two different types of twist, geometric and aerodynamic. Geometric twist involves
varying the wing incidence angle along the span. Geometric washout is applied by
decreasing α along the span from the root to the tip. Aerodynamic twist involves varying the
zero-lift α along the span. Aerodynamic twist can be implemented by progressively changing
the camber of the airfoil sections. Twist is used to reduce induced drag by changing the lift
distribution seen by the wing. Another important characteristic of twist is the washout effect
created, so that the wing root stalls before the wing tip.[2] This allows the control surfaces,
such as the aileron, to function, allowing the aircraft to recover from the partial stall. Thus,
aerodynamic washout is achieved by making the stall angle at the tip larger than at the root
by either decreasing the camber from root to tip or by using different airfoil sections.[11]

5.2. Sweep
The proposed tailles UAV is modeled after a delta wing. Therefore, wing sweep needs to be
implemented. It has been discussed earlier that the delta type planform experiences
additional lift through the vortical flow over the wing. The amount of wing sweep can greatly
alter the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft and should be determined. The aircraft

8 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

can have varying leading edge and trailing edge sweeps. The α seen by each wing segment
increases towards a swept wing tip.[1] This causes the wingtips to stall first, which needs to
be avoided. The wing sweep affects the aerodynamic centre, lift curve slope, and zero-lift
slope along with many other individual parameters, such as dihedral effect.[9] Since the
sweep angle is such a critical parameter, it should be carefully analyzed and tested to
determine which sweep angle best fits the desired performance of the UAV.

6. CONTROL SURFACES
UAVs can have numerous types of devices for stability and control. With a lack of an
empennage, the aircraft requires non-conventional control surfaces and/or have them placed
in non-conventional positions in order to achieve stability and control.[1] The use of trailing-
edge high-lift devices should be avoided. These devices create large pitching moments
causing longitudinal instability from which the aircraft may never recover.[13] With the location
of the wingtips protruding behind the trailing edge of the aircraft, the elevons can function as
elevators and ailerons for pitch control as well as roll control.[11] The wing can be equipped
with either large elevons to compensate for the small moment arm or have numerous
smaller elevons.[3] Using several smaller elevons could prove beneficial for small
adjustments in flight attitude because such configuration creates less drag and more easily
dampens the aircraft’s oscillations. Using numerous smaller elevons instead of one large
elevon can also lessen the effect of decambering along the span when the control surfaces
are deflected. Many aircraft use wingtip devices such as winglets. Winglets drain the energy
from the tip vortices and change the lift distribution over the wing (Fig. 9).[2]

Fig. 9: Winglet vs. Whitcomb winglet (Image: Olivier Cleynen)

Since the proposed UAV does not use a vertical tail, winglets could serve a dual purpose if
designed properly. The winglets can help lower the strength of the tip vortices and act as
rudders for lateral/directional stability and control. The rudders at the wingtips will also take

9 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

advantage of the longer moment arm, thus needing less deflection for a desired attitude
adjustment.[11] A Whitcomb winglet might prove to be more beneficial to this UAV than
conventional winglet designs (Fig. 9). Whitcomb winglets decrease the strength of the tip
vortices and turn that energy into forward propulsion.[3] The use of winglets causes less air
disturbances produced by the wing and reduce Doppler radar detection, but at the same
time the vertical structures will cause larger cross-sectional radar detection. As stronger,
lighter and smarter materials are developed more effective control surfaces may be
incorporated into the design of the delta aircraft.

7. ADAPTIVE WING TECHNOLOGY AND AEROELASTIC CONCEPTS

This section discusses possible adaptive wing technology and aeroelastic concepts that
improve the aircraft’s performance by altering the flow over the wing. One of the advantages
of the delta wing planform is that it is less affected by aeroelastic problems.[13] Aeroelasticity
is the interaction between inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces when a body is immersed
in a fluid flow.[14] Dynamic aeroelasticity is responsible for a critically unwanted effect called
flutter. Flutter is dynamic instability caused by self-oscillation which decreases the aircraft’s
stability and can eventually lead to structural failure. Aircraft with high aspect ratios and less
structurally sound wings tend to suffer from flutter effect. The delta planform has a low
aspect ratio and is structurally strong, and it is therefore an excellent counter to flutter
effect.[3] Since the delta planform is less affected by aeroelasticity, aeroelastic concepts such
as self-twisting wings will not be as effective as they would on conventionally-shaped
aircraft.

Adaptive wing technology can greatly improve an aircraft’s performance without the
bulkiness and complexity of conventional devices. There are two types of control technology,
active and passive control. Active control requires additional energy and/or the presence of
feedback, while passive control is self-regulatory. Some methods used in adaptive flow
control are: boundary layer suction, perturbation control, laminar control, shock control,
turbulence control, separation control, load control, variable camber, and changes in the
structure through aeroelasticity and damping.[15] These can further be broken down into
geometric and pneumatic devices. A few of these devices are: vortex generators, Gurney
flaps, reversed-flow flaps, ribblets, leading edge suction systems, divergent trailing edges,
and zero-mass jets.

7.1. Reversed-Flow Flaps

In terms of adaptive technologies, the best current low speed applications for lift
enhancement and flow separation suppression are multiple slotted flaps. However, such
flaps add weight penalties and complexity to the aircraft.[15] Both are problems to UAVs,
especially smaller UAVs. Reversed-flow flaps can be used for lift enhancement and
separation suppression and are less complex than multiple slotted flaps. These reverse flow
flaps are a geometric control device. Observation of birds has shown that their feathers pop
up during landing approaches. A solution is to create a self-adjusting movable flap close to
the trailing edge of the aircraft wing. Through a passive approach, the flap will be a self-
adjusting movable flap located near the trailing edge which hinges around the flap’s leading
edge. It has been observed that at low speeds, with no separation, the flap seems to rise up
due to static pressure differences.[15] This causes the airfoil to de-camber, thus reducing the
lift. Through perforations on the flap, this unwanted effect can be minimized. The reversed-
flow flap raises when separation begins, keeping the flow attached longer and raising the
coefficient of lift. These reversed-flow flaps keep the boundary layer small and delay
separation compared to a conventional airfoil, thus lowering the pressure drag associated
with the growing boundary layer and flow separation. Also, reversed-flow flaps do not
protrude into the inviscid flow outside of the boundary layer as in the case of spoilers. The
placement of the reversed-flow flap is critical along with keeping the perforations clean in
order for this flap to work effectively. It has also been observed that during transonic
conditions the flap may experience severe resonance causing strong flow oscillations and

10 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

eventually damaging the flap.[15] A possible fix is to use an active reverse flow flap instead of
the previously discussed passive, freely movable, flap.

7.2. Zero-Mass Air Jets

The other promising adaptive control method is the implementation of zero-mass air jets.[15]
Zero-mass air jets are pneumatic active devices used to delay boundary layer separation at
high lift conditions. This is done by periodic pulsating the flow, which in turn energizes the
flow. Zero-mass air jets act similar to how slotted flaps work and can be used in conjunction
with them. As the flow begins to separate, the air jets inject disturbances into the flow which
energizes the flow by enhancing the mixture of the shear layer and the outer flow, thus
achieving flow reattachment. These zero-mass air jets have been found to work at high
subsonic Mach conditions. When the flow is supersonic, the effectiveness of the air jets
decreases and may not be acceptable for the purposes of trying to inhibit shock-induced
separation.[15]

8. CONCLUSION
The design of an aircraft is a very difficult and complex process. It does not matter if the
aircraft is manned, unmanned, small or large; each have their own difficulties. Tailless delta
aircraft have been around for decades, but have recently seen a rise in production. This can
be attributed to the emergence of more advanced materials and technologies that enhance
aircraft performance. It was shown that there are many trade-offs when designing the wing
planform. When one aspect of the design is increased or optimized then at least one, most
likely multiple, aspects or parameters will be decreased. This paper helps create an outline
of a conceptual design of a tailless delta-like UAV, but the analysis presented is not sufficient
for a complete wing design. Many important factors were left out such as materials,
structures, and the propulsion unit. The aerodynamic modelling section was briefly
described, however a detailed analysis of the aerodynamics and thrust forces and moments
need to be conducted in order to create the needed complex flight control system. The flight
control system is the brains of the aircraft and with a subpar system a tailless delta aircraft
will not be stable and possibly not be capable to complete the desired mission. As more
aircraft of this design are developed, the aerodynamic performance will become greater and
a detailed design layout will become just as generalized as a conventional tube and wing
aircraft.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Marques Aviation Ltd for their support during this project.

9. REFERENCES
1. Friedl J. (2001). Aerodynamic design of a tailless aeroplane. ACTA Polytechnica.
Journal of Advanced Engineering. 41(4/5): 79-84.
2. Loth JL. (2007). Engineering approach to aerodynamics and aircraft performance. (2nd
ed.). McGraw-Hill. New York.
3. Marqués P. (2013). Flight stability and control of tailless lambda unmanned aircraft.
International Journal of Unmanned Systems Engineering. 1(S-2): 1-4.
4. Prisacariu V, Boscoianu M and Cîrciu I. (2013). Design and construction a flying wing
unmanned aerial vehicles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Military
Technologies. 22nd – 23th May. Brno. Czech Republic.
5. Jiangtao S, Hao Z and Junqiang B. (2006). Airfoil design of tailless unmanned air
vehicle (UAV). Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical
Sciences. 3th - 8th September. Hamburg. Germany. Pp. 1-5.
6. Anderson JD. (2010). Fundamentals of aerodynamics. (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. New-
York.
7. Aerodesign. (2001). Airfoil database for tailless and flying wings.
(http://www.aerodesign.de/english/profile/profile_s.htm#hs522)
8. Airfoil Tools. (2014). (http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca22112-jf)

11 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

9. Roskam J. (2007). Airplane flight dynamics and automatic flight controls. Design,
Analysis and Research Corporation. Lawrence. USA.
10. Napolitano M. (2011). Aircraft dynamics: From modeling to simulation. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. United States.
11. Donlan CJ. (1944). An interim report on the stability and control of tailless airplanes.
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. 796: 419-435.
12. McLain BK. (2009). Steady and unsteady aerodynamic flow studies over a 1303 UCAV
configuration. PhD thesis. Navy Post Graduate School. Monterey. United States.
13. Loftin LK. (1985). Technology of the jet airplane. Wings and configurations for high-
speed. In Loftin LK. (Ed.). Flight. Question for performance: The evolution of modern
aircraft. NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch. Washington. D.C. Pp. 180–
195.
14. Weisshaar TA. (2010). Static and classical dynamic aeroelasticity. Vol. 3 Structural
Mechanics. Section 3.2.2. Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering. John Wiley. London.
15. Stanewsky E. (2001). Adaptive wing and flow control technology. Progress in
Aerospace Sciences. 37(7): 583-667.

10. NOTATION
a.c. Aerodynamic centre
Span
Mean geometric chord
Drag coefficient
Rolling moment coefficient
Dihedral effect
Lift coefficient
Change in aircraft lift coefficient with α
Pitching moment coefficient
Change in aircraft pitching moment coefficient with α
Yawing moment coefficient
Weathercock effect
Side-force coefficient
Drag force
Side/lateral force
Drag force
Lift force
ISR Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
Lift force
Rolling moment
Pitching moment
Yawing moment
Dynamic pressure
Re Reynolds number
S Planform area

α Angle of attack

12 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

11. APPENDIX

Table A.1: Results for the HS 522 airfoil at different Re

[4]
(adapted from Prisacariu et al. )

13 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Fig. A.1: NACA 22122 airfoil performance at Re = 5 x 105 (Airfoil Tools [8])

Fig. A.2: NACA 22112 airfoil performance at Re = 1 x 106 (Airfoil Tools [8])

14 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15

International Journal of Unmanned Aerodynamic Design of Delta UAV
Systems Engineering (IJUSEng)

Fig. A.3: NACA 23112 airfoil performance at Re = 5 x 105 (Airfoil Tools [8])

Fig. A.4: NACA 23112 airfoil performance at Re = 1 x 106 (Airfoil Tools [8])

Copyright of IJUSEng is the property of Marques Engineering Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

15 www.ijuseng.com IJUSEng - 2014, Vol. 2, No. S2, 1-15