“Basically, it’s an optimization problem!

Aerodynamic
Design
Theory
Team Invictus
 Preface
This text is meant to supply the members of team Invictus with the basics of aircraft design in an
extremely simplified manner. The concept of a design manual was initially presented by the executive
council of batch 28 during the tenure of 2021-2022. The idea was to provide the team members and
especially the new recruits with a basic understanding of the aerodynamic design. The first manual
then prepared covered aerodynamic terminologies and the thumb rules of the aircraft design.
Continuing with the idea, this text approaches the topic in a more detailed manner.

In very simple terms the design process of an aircraft is an optimization problem. It can go from very
basic and simple to extremely complicated depending on the design constraint and requirements. The
design of an aircraft has several parameters most of which depend on each other and there is no
correct order of approaching these parameters. The order of design parameters followed in this text is
aimed to develop an understanding of aircraft design for the reader as per the best judgement of the
author. The text does not contain definitions of the aerodynamic terminologies such as the mean
aerodynamic chord, aspect ratio, etc. and it was assumed that the reader is already familiar with them.

While preparing this manual, it was kept in mind that team Invictus have a diverse working
environment having students from different engineering disciplines and even some non-engineering
disciplines. As one might expect, there is math behind aircraft design and a lot of that math is very
complex. However, CAD and simulation software such as SOLIDWORKS, XFLR5 and Ansys take
care of most of that complex math and all that remains for us is some simple math and critical
thinking coupled with optimization skills. The math used in this text is mostly intermediate level
arithmetic and algebra.
 Table of Contents
Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Weight Estimation .................................................................................................................................. 3
Wing Sizing ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Wing Planform ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Airfoil Selection ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 6
𝐶𝐿 and Angle of Attack at Stall .......................................................................................................... 7
𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 at Cruise............................................................................................................................ 7
𝐶𝑀 at Cruise and Stall ........................................................................................................................ 7
Reynolds Number ............................................................................................................................... 7
Laminar vs. Turbulent Airfoils ........................................................................................................... 8
Laminar Airfoil ............................................................................................................................... 8
Turbulent Airfoil ............................................................................................................................. 8
Distinguishing between Laminar and Turbulent Airfoils ................................................................... 8
Selection Process ................................................................................................................................ 9
Wing Sizing and Planform Revisited .................................................................................................... 11
Center of Gravity and Wing Placement ................................................................................................ 11
Horizontal Stabilizer Sizing, Planform and Airfoil Selection ............................................................... 12
Vertical Stabilizer Sizing, Planform and Airfoil Selection ................................................................... 13
Drag Estimation .................................................................................................................................... 13
Objective
First and foremost, it is important to identify the objective and purpose of the aircraft. Designed for
different purposes, different aircrafts feature distinct design configurations. For instance, an aircraft
designed for acrobatics will have a short wing as opposed to a longer wing on a passenger aircraft. For
the aircraft designed for acrobatics needs to be fast and agile, so it is inherently kept unstable. On the
other hand, the passenger aircraft is designed for easy and comfortable travel and so, it needs to be
stable. However, it is important to note that not every aircraft with short wings is unstable and not
every aircraft with long wings is stable. Stability, like many other characteristics of an aircraft,
depends on several factors and not just the size of the wing. The reader should note that in aircraft
design, there is no absolute definition of measurements such as ‘short’ or ‘long’ but rather, all
measurements are relative, as is mostly the case in science and engineering.

In aircraft design, there is no single formula or a rule that one could use to meet a set of specific
design requirements. There are several design parameters most of which depend on each other.
Therefore, there must be some constraints and compromises coupled with several iterations to meet a
set of requirements for any design. Although different engineers start their design from different
parameters, it is a good idea to start by estimating the weight of the aircraft followed by wing sizing,
one of the most important parameters and often the one that students get wrong.

Weight Estimation
In its simplest form, the weight of an aircraft is given as the sum of the empty weight and the payload.
The empty weight is defined as the weight of the aircraft without the payload including all essential
components as well as the parts that are not easily removable. For battery powered aircrafts, the
weight of the batteries is usually included in the empty weight.

𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑊𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑

Estimating the weight of the payload is often easier than the empty weight. The empty weight depends
on the materials, structure and size of the aircraft. To estimate the weight of the structure, a good
practice is to determine the size of the fuselage in accordance with the quantity and dimensions of the
payload. Using the estimated dimensions of the fuselage, the amount of material and the weight can
be estimated. The weights of the wing and the stabilizers are rather easy to estimate as they typically
have a similar ribs and reinforcements structure, unlike the fuselage, which could exhibit numerous
structural arrangements. Information about the material properties such as yield strength, modulus and
density are crucial in weight estimation and further design.
Wing Sizing
Once there is an estimate of the weight of the aircraft, the preliminary wing sizing can be done
analytically using the lift equation, which is given as follows

1
𝐿 = 𝑣 2 𝜌𝐶𝐿 𝐴
2

where,

• 𝐿: Lift Force
• 𝑣: velocity of the freestream
• 𝜌: density of air
• 𝐶𝐿 : lift coefficient
• 𝐴: planform area of the wing

The lift equation has many unknowns and so, it requires some estimates, assumptions and constraints.
The speed of an aircraft is an important factor in determining its wing size. A small wing will have
less weight, require minimum structural reinforcement, require a smaller horizontal stabilizer and
have a higher cruise speed but it will consume more battery power and have a high stall speed, and of
course, all these parameters will be reversed for a larger wing. The goal is to optimize and find a
balance between all these parameters as per the design requirements. Either the cruise speed or the
stall speed could be used as a constraint for the wing size.

Let us consider the first case. Suppose an aircraft is to be designed that can cover a distance of 1600 ft
in 30 seconds in cruise and weigh no more than 8 lbs.

To go about finding the area of the wing for these requirements, let us solve the lift equation for the
planform area 𝐴. The density of air at sea level is 0.763 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 3 . The lift coefficient is different for
different airfoils, and it also changes with the angle of attack. For cruise speed, the lift coefficient at
the cruise angle of attack should be used. For now, assume that the cruise angle is 0°; however, this is
not always the case. At this point, the airfoil has not been selected yet and so, let us solve for 𝐴 in
terms of 𝐶𝐿 .

To cover 1300 ft in 30 sec, the aircraft needs to cruise at a speed of

1600 𝑓𝑡
𝑣= = 53.33 𝑓𝑡/𝑠
30 𝑠

The mass of the aircraft needs to be converted into the weight (pound mass to pound force). This is
easy to do using Newton’s second law of motion.

𝑊 = 𝑚𝑔
 𝑊 = (8 𝑙𝑏)(32.17 𝑓𝑡/𝑠 2 )
𝑊 = 257.36 𝑙𝑏𝑓

The lift force needed to keep the aircraft in air is equivalent to the weight of the aircraft. Now, the lift
equation can be solved for 𝐴 to obtain an estimate for the planform area.

2𝐿
𝐴=
𝜌𝑣 2 𝐶𝐿
2(257.36 𝑙𝑏𝑓)
𝐴=
𝑙𝑏 𝑓𝑡 2
(0.0763 3 ) (53.33 𝑠 ) 𝐶𝐿
𝑓𝑡
2.37 𝑓𝑡 2 341 𝑖𝑛2
𝐴= =
𝐶𝐿 𝐶𝐿

With this approach, the wing area is now dependent on the lift coefficient, which offers great
flexibility to the design. Low Reynolds number airfoils used in R/C aircrafts offer a wide range of lift
coefficients. A typical range is 0.3 to 0.5 for a lift coefficient at zero-degree angle of attack. Let us
estimate 𝐴 for a few values of 𝐶𝐿 .

𝑪𝑳 𝑨 (𝒊𝒏𝟐 )
0.35 974.29
0.40 852.50
0.45 757.78

At this point, there are still some parameters left to finalize the wing size. Remember that these 𝐶𝐿
values are for section lift and will decrease depending on the efficiency of the wing, which greatly
depends on its planform. The next step is to study and select airfoils that offer these 𝐶𝐿 values with the
lowest drag coefficient 𝐶𝐷 and coefficient of moment 𝐶𝑀 and combine them with an efficient wing
planform.

Wing Planform
The wing planform is the projection of wing as seen from the top view and the planform area is taken
as the surface area of just the projection while ignoring the curvature of the airfoil. Different
planforms offer various advantages and disadvantages. These parameters include lift efficiency, drag,
ease of fabrication, stall behavior etc.

Considering a rectangular wing, a very small span will cause the aircraft to have lateral stability issues
while a very long span will require more structural support and limit roll movement. A very small
chord will result in low lift due to very small Reynolds number while a big chord will result in
increased tip vortices resulting in more drag.

An elliptical wing offers a uniform distribution of the lift coefficient and minimum tip vortices but the
whole wings stall at the same time, which is not desirable. A desirable stall behavior is the one which
starts at the root and gradually progresses towards the tip, so complete control of the wing is not lost
at the same time.

A tapered wing lies somewhere between the rectangular and elliptical wing and is often a decent
compromise between the two. It has many forms: tapered leading edge with straight trailing edge,
straight leading edge with tapered trailing edge and tapered leading and trailing edges. The behavior
of a tapered wing is strongly dependent on the taper ratio and configurations.

One of the most important parameters in determining wing efficiency is the aspect ratio, which is
defined as the ratio between the span and the chord of the wing. An efficient design requires a longer
chord for better airfoil performance and a longer span for high aspect ratio and better wing efficiency.
By definition, a longer chord will reduce the aspect ratio and a longer span will increase it. An
optimized design is the one with a decent balance between the two and numerous iterations are
required for a good optimization.

There are numerous other planforms each with their advantage and disadvantages such as delta wing.
The topic of wing planform is not discussed in detail here and the reader is advised to consult the
book ‘Fluid-Dynamic Lift: Practical Information on Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Lift’ by
Sighard F. Hoerner for more detailed information on the subject.

Airfoil Selection
The airfoil is the cross section of the wing, and its shape is largely responsible for the behavior and
performance of the wing.

Selection Criteria
There are numerous airfoil shapes available to choose from and even more of them could be designed.
A selection criterion is needed to narrow down the pool, so it is easier to select an airfoil. The
following parameters play an important role in airfoil selection.

- 𝐶𝐿 and angle of attack at stall

- 𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 at cruise
- 𝐶𝑀 at cruise and stall
- Spar Thickness
- Reynolds Number
- Laminar vs Turbulent
𝐶𝐿 and Angle of Attack at Stall
Ideally, the lift coefficient and the angle of attack at stall should be high. However, other properties
should not be compromised too much to get a high value for these parameters. For instance, one of the
ways to increase the lift coefficient is to have an airfoil with more camber, but there comes a point
where more camber hardly affects lift but increases the drag considerably. Likewise, a high angle of
attack at stall is desirable but an angle too high could result in a tail strike while landing. The angle of
attack at stall should be higher than the cruise angle of attack to avoid stall during pitch up and roll.

𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 at Cruise
A high lift coefficient at cruise will require smaller wings, which weigh less. However, high lift
airfoils usually have high drag and as a result, a bigger and heavier motor could be required to
overcome the drag. The drag coefficient should be kept as small as possible. There is a possibility that
the extra weight from the propulsion is more than the weight saved with a smaller wing. Therefore,
the objective is to find a balanced combination.

𝐶𝑀 at Cruise and Stall

Another important parameter is the coefficient of moment 𝐶𝑀 . By definition, 𝐶𝑀 is positive when
nose is up, and negative when nose is down. The coefficient of moment at stall should be negative, so
that the aircraft is forced to go nose down and have a better chance of recovering from stall. All lifting
airfoils have a coefficient of moment that tends to pitch them down at the nose. This must be
countered by either canards at the front that generate positive lift or a horizontal stabilizer at the back
that generates negative (downwards) lift. Airfoils with more camber usually have a large coefficient
of moment at cruise and require a larger horizontal stabilizer or a longer moment arm or both in some
cases to keep the aircraft stable. The coefficient of moment should be as small as possible.

Reynolds Number
One of the most important factors in airfoil selection is the Reynolds number, which is the ratio of the
inertial forces to the viscous forces. The Reynolds number is mathematically defined as

𝜌𝑣𝐿
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇

- 𝜌: density of the fluid

- 𝑣: flow speed
- 𝐿: characteristic linear dimension
- 𝜇: dynamic viscosity of the fluid
The ratio of viscosity and density 𝜇/𝜌 is known as the kinematic viscosity. At sea level and a
temperature of 59 ℉ (15 ℃), the kinematic viscosity is equal to 0.000157221 𝑓𝑡 2 /𝑠. The expression
for Reynolds number can now be simplified to

𝑠
𝑅𝑒 = (6360 )×𝑣×𝐿
𝑓𝑡 2

Airfoils behave differently at various Reynolds numbers and so, it is important to get a good
preliminary estimate of the Reynolds number for airfoil selection. The aircraft from the design
example from the wing sizing section has a speed of 53.33 𝑓𝑡/𝑠. Assuming a chord length of 11 in
(0.92 ft), the Reynolds number will be

𝑠 𝑓𝑡
𝑅𝑒 = (6360 2
) (53.33 ) (0.92 𝑓𝑡)
𝑓𝑡 𝑠

𝑅𝑒 = 312,044

For this configuration, the selected airfoil should offer the required parameters around this value of
the Reynolds number.

Laminar vs. Turbulent Airfoils

Contrary to a popular belief that laminar flow is needed for good aerodynamic performance, airfoils
are actually designed for both laminar and turbulent flows.

Laminar Airfoil
In laminar airfoils, the airflow forms a smooth boundary layer up to around 40 % of the leading edge.
Laminar airfoils offer less drag, but they stall abruptly and at a lower angle of attack.

Turbulent Airfoil
In turbulent airfoils, the airflow is turbulent along the whole chord and so, they have more drag.
Turbulent airfoils have a smooth drop in the lift coefficient rather than an abrupt one as in the case of
laminar airfoils, and they usually stall at a higher angle of attack.

Distinguishing between Laminar and Turbulent Airfoils

One of the ways to distinguish between a laminar and a turbulent airfoil is to examine the 𝐶𝐿 vs 𝐶𝐷
curve of the airfoil.

For laminar airfoils, the coefficient of drag decreases with increasing coefficient of lift in the region of
laminar boundary layer. The coefficient of drag increases again as the airflow transitions from laminar
to turbulent, which is around 40 % of the chord from the leading edge. Laminar airfoils generally have
more drag after the laminar-to-turbulent transition.
For turbulent airfoils, the coefficient of drag only increases with increasing coefficient of lift. A
turbulent airfoil will have more drag than a laminar one in the laminar airflow region, but the laminar
airfoil will have more drag than the turbulent one outside the laminar region.

There are a few rules of thumb for visually distinguishing between laminar and turbulent airfoils.
Laminar airfoils usually have a smaller nose radius as opposed to a larger one for turbulent airfoils.
Additionally, the maximum thickness of a laminar airfoil will usually be at a lower percentage of the
chord while a turbulent airfoil will have its maximum thickness further back from the leading edge.

Selection Process
Let us select an airfoil according to the criterion just discussed. The coefficient of lift was determined
to be around 0.4. Remember that this was the airfoil 𝐶𝐿 , which is always higher than a wing 𝐶𝐿 . As of
now, the wing planform has not been finalized yet. Rectangular wings usually have an efficiency of
around 75 %, elliptical wings around 90 % and tapered wings around 80 %. Assuming a wing
efficiency of around 80 %, the airfoil lift coefficient should be

0.4
𝐶𝐿 = = 0.5
0.8

Some of the airfoils commonly used in R/C aircrafts are Clark Y, Wortmann FX 60-100 and NACA
4412. The performance of these airfoils at a Reynolds number of 310,000 is shown in the graphs
provided. The same is tabulated here.

Clark Y FX 60-100 NACA 4412

𝑪 𝑳𝟎 0.42 0.51 0.49
𝑪𝑫 at cruise 𝑪𝑳 0.008 0.009 0.008
𝑪𝑴 at 𝜶 = 𝟎 -0.088 -0.120 -0.107

The performance of the airfoil could be changed by altering some of its parameters such as thickness,
maximum thickness point, camber and maximum camber point. The above is left to the reader to
explore and learn using an airfoil analysis software such as XFOIL or XFLR5.

For the current scenario, the desired coefficient of lift was 0.5. Out of the selected airfoils, the NACA
4412 offers a decent coefficient of lift with low drag and moment. The Clark Y offers the smallest 𝐶𝑀
but its coefficient of lift is very low. The FX 60-100 offers the highest coefficient of lift, but it also
has the highest drag and coefficient of moment. A good choice out of these three airfoils would be the
NACA 4412.
Wing Sizing and Planform Revisited
With a coefficient of lift of 0.4, the required wing area according to our preliminary estimate would be

341 𝑖𝑛2
𝐴= = 852.5 𝑖𝑛2
0.4

The next objective is to design an efficient wing planform. Remember that it is ideal to have an aspect
ratio of 8 or greater for an efficient wing.

A possible wing planform in this scenario is the following

Parameter Value
Wingspan 90 𝑖𝑛
Area 855 𝑖𝑛2
Root Chord 12
Tip Chord 7 𝑖𝑛
Mean Aerodynamic Chord 9.72 𝑖𝑛
Aspect Ratio 9.47
Taper Ratio 1.71
Root to Tip Sweep 4.76°
Wing 𝑪𝑳 0.34
Cruise Speed 57 𝑓𝑡/𝑠

As one can see, there is a considerable decrease in the coefficient of lift. Other than the fact that a
wing will always have a lower coefficient of lift than the section coefficient lift of an airfoil, another
reason for such a significant decrease is the Reynolds number. It is likely that the initial estimate of
the Reynolds number, which was done using a chord length of 11 in was not very accurate.

Center of Gravity and Wing Placement

The center of gravity (CG) is the point where the weight of the aircraft is concentrated. The terms
center of gravity and center of mass mean the same thing in a conservative field such as the
gravitational field of the Earth; however, they are not the same thing in non-conservative fields. The
center of gravity should always be determined first before deciding the placement of the wing.
Initially deciding the wing placement and then rearranging the components to move the center of
gravity is not very efficient and causes further problems in tail sizing and pitch stability.

It is preferred to have a center of gravity inside the 25% of the mean aerodynamic chord from the
leading edge. The center of pressure (CP) is the point where the lift of the wing is concentrated, and it
usually lies at 25% of the mean aerodynamic chord. In a configuration where the CG is ahead of the
CP, the aircraft will tend to go nose down (negative pitching moment) and this moment should be
balanced by a downwards lift from the horizontal stabilizer. For a configuration where the CG is
behind the CP, the aircraft will tend to go nose up (positive pitching moment) and this moment should
be balanced by an upwards force from the horizontal stabilizer.

An inherent negative pitching moment is usually preferred. With a negative pitching moment, there is
less chance of stall and the horizontal stabilizer is assisted by the gravitational pull as opposed to a
positive pitching moment where it has to work against the gravitational pull.

In the case where the CG is behind the CP, it should not be too far behind and in any case, it should be
ahead of the neutral point (NP).

Horizontal Stabilizer Sizing, Planform and Airfoil Selection

A good way to approach the sizing for the horizontal stabilizer is using the tail volume coefficients.
The horizontal tail volume coefficient is mathematically defined as

𝑆𝐻 × 𝐿𝐻
𝑉𝐻 =
𝑆𝑊 × 𝑐𝑀𝐴𝐶

where

- 𝑆𝐻 : planform area of the horizontal stabilizer

- 𝐿𝐻 : length of the lever arm (distance from 25% MAC of the wing to 25% MAC of the
stabilizer)
- 𝑆𝑊 : planform area of the wing
- 𝑐𝑀𝐴𝐶 : mean aerodynamic chord of the wing

Most general aviation aircrafts have a horizontal tail volume coefficient of around 0.7. The length of
the lever arm can be estimated using the thumb rule, which says it should be around 3 times the mean
aerodynamic chord of the wing. These are often good assumptions for a preliminary estimate of the
horizontal tail size.

Let us estimate the horizontal tail size for the design example using a horizontal tail volume
coefficient of 0.68 and a lever arm of 33 in (a little more than three times the MAC).
 (0.68)(855 𝑖𝑛2 )(9.27 𝑖𝑛)
𝑆𝐻 = = 174 𝑖𝑛2
(33 𝑖𝑛)

The preliminary estimates can be and should always be tweaked by iterating for better performance.
Now that the planform area is known, it is time to design an efficient planform.

There is a simple rule for planform of the horizontal tail. It should have an aspect ratio that is
significantly less than that of the wing. A low aspect ratio wing stalls later than that with a high aspect
ratio. In an unfortunate event where the wing stalls, the horizontal stabilizer should be functional, so it
can be used to pitch the aircraft down and recover from stall.

The airfoil selection criteria for the horizontal stabilizer are simple. In most cases, the airfoil used on a
horizontal stabilizer should be symmetrical. In some cases, an inverted airfoil is used for downwards
lift but that is beyond the scope of this text. An airfoil with a high maximum coefficient of lift and a
high stall angle of attack will be more efficient at keeping the aircraft stable with a smaller stabilizer.

Vertical Stabilizer Sizing, Planform and Airfoil Selection

The same criteria as the horizontal tail are to be followed for the vertical tail design. The vertical tail
volume coefficient is mathematically defined as
𝑆𝑉 × 𝑙𝑉
𝑉𝑉 =
𝑆𝑊 × 𝑏𝑊
The only different term here is
- 𝑏𝑊 : wingspan
The range of vertical tail volume coefficient is 0.02 to 0.05.

Drag Estimation
The drag on an aircraft can be estimated by using the drag equation. There are mainly two types of
drag on an aircraft. One is the lift-induced drag, which is due to the creation of lift. As the wing
redirects air downward to create an upward force, the resistance of the air is the induced drag. The
induced drag can be calculated using the drag equation, which is

𝐷𝑖 = 𝐶𝐷𝑖 × 𝑆 × 𝑞

where

- 𝐶𝐷𝑖 : coefficient of drag

- 𝑆: planform area of the wing
- 𝑞: dynamic pressure

The coefficient of induced drag can be found either using a simulation software such as XFLR5 or
analytically using the following equation
 𝐶𝑙2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 =
𝜋 × 𝐴𝑅

where

- 𝐶𝑙 : coefficient of lift
- 𝐴𝑅: aspect ratio
- 𝜋: mathematical constant

The parasitic drag can be found in the same manner except that the coefficient of drag is almost
impossible to calculate analytically. At the point of drag estimation, a preliminary CAD model of the
aircraft should be ready to get a fairly precise estimate of the parasitic drag using simulation software.