Gliders and the science behind them
Regional Math/Science Center, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532
Introduction Method of Testing Discussion and Aircraft made specifically for traveling using Testing took place in two different settings: indoors and Conclusion unpowered flight are called gliders; they do not outdoors. In each of these locations, I first threw a 3D generate thrust, but instead use the initial printed fuselage as a projectile consistently 10 times, to The variables to take into consideration include velocity that is given to them to glide. create a data set that would be used as the control. how the glider was thrown, wind, and the The objective this summer was to acquire Then I threw my glider 10 times at that same initial temperature and humidity outside. This makes it knowledge of aerodynamics and the forces that velocity. Distance traveled was measured while the hard to determine exactly what caused the glider to act upon aircraft, then apply that information to flight was video recorded so qualitative characteristics perform in that manner. After analyzing the data design a 3D printed glider that could travel could be closely observed later. A t-test was used to and characteristics of each flight, it appears that the further than a projectile while remaining stable in compare the distance travelled by the projectile and glider was generating too much lift; that along with all three axes of rotation. glider in the two environments. the fact that it is very lightweight, with slightly more weight in the back, might be why it almost always quickly turned upwards resulting in the Design shorter distance traveled outdoors. If allotted more Fuselage: long and slender design that would Results time or a chance to modify my glider I would add allow air to flow around it, which reduces The average distance of the projectile and glider were more weight near the front, by making the fuselage form drag (Fig. 1) the same during the indoor trials. For the outdoor trials, slightly heavier or simply adding mass to the front. Wings: tapered planform reduces drag due to its the t-test determined that the average distance of the minimal surface area near the wing tips (fig. 2) projectile was greater than that of the glider. For the along with an airfoil shape that is able to generate majority of the indoor trials the glider pitched upwards, lift (fig. 3) often enough to completely flip over. Based on the References Tailplane: provides horizontal stabilization; qualitative and quantitative data recorded, my glider relatively flat so it does not produce much lift or was deemed unsuccessful. Aerodynamics of Flight. (2013) In Glider Flying drag (Fig. 3) Handbook (pp. 3.1-3.19) Oklahoma City, OK: United States Department of
Figure 1. side view of Figure 3. front Transportation fuselage elevation Indoor Trials Outdoor Trials 6 6 4.71 Figure 2. Ariel 3.54 3.54 3.91 view of glider Meters 4 4 Acknowledgements
in Physics Dept. RMSC Staff 2 2 Duane Miller Brady Barnhart Aili Wade Dylan Boeckmann Distance 0 0 Bradley Davidson Projectile Glider Projectile Glider Rita Hegeman Glider Construction Process
Regional Math/Science Center, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532
Introduction Testing Discussion Gliders are engineless aircraft that glide First, we threw a projectile indoors 15 times, Even though the p-values in comparison to through the air. They are typically used for attempting to throw with the same velocity on the alpha value showed a significant recreation. The goal of this project was to every throw. The average distance of the projectile difference, we do not think that the glider truly design and 3-D print a working glider that was used as the control. Then, we threw the glider glided. Most of the time the glider lost stability, would go farther than a projectile with no indoors 15 times, attempting to throw with the and outdoors, it didn’t travel as far as the aerodynamic design, remain stable about all same velocity as the projectile. Each of the projectile. It may have gotten some lift due to 3 axes of rotation, and maintain a linear distances were recorded. Finally, we compared the the airfoils, but the center of lift was most flight path. We also took this as a chance to averages of the two sets of data (glider and likely too far forward, which would cause the study the physics and aerodynamics of projectile) with a t-test for both indoors and flipping. We assume that the causes for error flight. outdoors. were inconsistency with launch, the material used for the gliders, and/or time constraints. Design Fuselage – A nose that tapers upwards Results Conclusion (figure 1-a) to encourage air currents to Indoors: On average, the glider went 0.387 follow the fuselage with ease, reducing air meters farther than the projectile. Our glider did not appear to glide, despite the compression that causes form drag. A Outdoors: On average, the projectile went 0.94 t-test concluding a significant difference vertical fin (figure 1-b) to divert air currents meters farther than the glider. between the averages. We did not meet the and funnel them to the back. Observations: Many trials ended in the glider other requirements, as the glider did not Wings – At a dihedral of 6.23° (angling of tipping upwards and then stalling, or simply remain stable upon all three axes of rotation. the wings; figure 2-c) and swept forward spinning out of control immediately after launch. There was ample room for human error, such (figure 2-d) for stability. Tapered outwards as throwing with varying velocities, which may (figure 2-e) to reduce drag. Airfoil (shape of P-Values: have influenced our results. the wings) to produce lift. Indoors – 0.0015 Tailplane – Airfoil (shape of tailplane; figure Outdoors – 0.00025 References 3) to produce some lift and improve stability. Alpha Value – .05 Aerodynamics of flight. (2013) In Glider Flying Handbook (b) Indoor trials Outdoor trials (pp 3.1-3.19) Oklahoma City, OK: United States (a) 4 8 Department of Transportation.
Glider. (2016). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, (e) 3 6 1p. 1. (d) Figure 1: Fuselage Figure 2: Wing (c) 2 4 3.18 3.57 6.45 Figure 3: Tail Figure 4: Glider Assembly 5.51 Acknowledgements Distance (m) 1 Distance (m) 2 Thank you to the following:
0 0 Aili Wade, Angie Furgeson, Brad Davidson, Brady Projectile Glider Projectile Glider Barnhart, Duane Miller, Dylan Boeckmann, Rita Hegeman, and the Frostburg State University Physics Department Designing and 3D printing gliders
Regional Math/Science Center, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532
Introduction Seeing aircraft, such as commercial airplanes or jets, is common. Transportation by air has advanced greatly since the 1920’s2. A glider is one example of this advancement. Gliders do not rely on an engine but on their ability to balance the forces acted upon them to continue in flight. Figure 3 Small scale gliders can be made with cheap, easy access Figure 1 materials, such as paper, and can be thrown by hand. Turbulators Gliders can be used to study the basic principals of flight. Our objective was to successfully design a glider. If a glider exceeds a projectile’s distance while thrown at the same initial velocity and maintains a balanced flight, then it is Figure 4 considered successful. Figure 2 Testing Discussion Design (Figure 4) To test our gliders, we first threw a previously determined failed Fuselage (Figure 1): design of a fuselage 15 times as a projectile to form the muscle The overlapping of the confidence intervals for outside The front had a rounded top to create a smooth memory required to reach a consistent initial velocity. We then trials indicate that there is not enough data to determine transition for air currents and to reduce drag. The repeated this process with the gliders. We recorded the distances any significant difference between the averages. Inside fuselage was tapered (narrowed towards the end) to reached for both. results show significant difference between averages. The reduce drag. Turbulators were indented into the side These trials were conducted in two environments: difference between inside and outside results signifies that of the fuselage to avoid added drag. • Inside of FSU Compton building other factors outside may have influenced the glider’s • Outside Compton Science Center flight. Thus, partial success is concluded because there is Wings (Figure 2): The average distances for both environments were compared with statistical significance between distances for inside trials The wings had an elliptical (rounded edged) and a 95% confidence intervals. but, flight characteristics do not show true patterns of a tapered (narrowing thickness) wing shape which glider and no significant difference was determined for reduced the impact of air resistance on the wing. The Results outside trials. Different variables may have influenced the wings were designed as an airfoil to generate lift. The The average distances for the glider exceeded the average distances for trials and should be further investigated, such as: wings were set to a dihedral of 15 degrees to help the the projectile as shown by Figure 5 and Figure 6. Confidence intervals, • Environment glider stay balanced and not roll. Turbulators were shown on the graphs, overlap for outside results, while they do not for • Wind indented on the top of the wing to avoid potentially inside results. Common flight patterns were veering to the left. The • Humidity added drag. glider also landed on the right wing, not staying in equilibrium. • How the glider is launched • Material constraints Outside Inside Tail (Figure 3): 6 4.5 • Weight distribution 5.5 4 • Improvements for testing method The tail was angled to offset the natural tendency to 5 3.5 4.5 • Number of trials nosedive in flight. With this angle the glider should 4 3 land flat instead of on its front. 3.5 2.5 • Variety of environments 3 2 2.5 Distance (m) Distance 2 (m) Distance 1.5 1.5 1 References 1 Acknowledgements 0.5 1Aerodynamics of Flight. (2013) In Glider Flying Handbook (pp. 3.1-3.19) 0.5 0 0 FSU Physics Dept. RMSC Staff Oklahoma City, OK: United States Department of Transportation. Projectile Glider Projectile Glider • Duane Miller 2Davies, A. (2013, April). Debate settled: flying is way more efficient than driving. • The best staff ever Inside averages (m): • Aili Wade Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/04/debate-settled-flying- Outside averages (m): Figure 5 Figure 6 way-efficient-driving/ Projectile: 5.09 Projectile: 3.48 Glider: 4.73 Glider:4.03 Design and testing of a 3-D printed glider in differing environments
Regional Math/Science Center, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532
Introduction Design Discussion & • Gliders are aircraft that have no engine and glide through Inventor, a computer program that creates three-dimensional the air. printouts, was used to create the glider: Conclusion • The three main parts of a glider are the fuselage, wings, and • Fuselage (Figure 1): tail. After testing the glider, the overall flight results • Conical design, helps with air flow showed that the glider did successfully glide in both • Gliders are used for recreation and the study of forces. • Rectangular holes for the insert of the wings and tail • The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge of indoor and outdoor environments. Although the T- • Vertical stabilizer (rear), help to create stability test showed the glider did glide further then the aerodynamics to construct a functional 3-D glider that glides • Wings (Figure 2): successfully based on the distance traveled. projectile, the glider was affected by the wind and the • Swept forward/tapered to create lift and reduce drag initial launch velocity. The fuselage was fragile in the • Airfoils to create lift middle due to the sleek design; this ultimately caused • Dihedral (fifteen degrees) to create lateral stability the glider to break during both indoors and outdoors Testing • Wing tips to reduce drag trials. Since the glider was thrown by hand, a • Tail (Figure 3): • Indoor and outdoor trials were conducted. significant difference in the force of the throw could • Triangular wing tips to create lateral and vertical stability have been present. The time constraint for this study • A projectile was thrown fifteen times, to produce a • Glider Dimensions: controlled launch method. had an effect on how often the design could be • Fuselage (Figure 1): updated before testing and how the data was • Then the glider was thrown fifteen times and the average Length- 8 ½”, Width- 1”, Height-1” collected. distance traveled (meters) was recorded. • Wing (Figure 2): Future studies could be conducted using the • 1 Videos were taken so the flight paths were able to be Length- 10 ½”, Width- Τ8”, Chord- 1 ½” information collected throughout this study to better interpreted later. • Tail (Figure 3): construct the glider. Using a track to provide the initial • A T-test was used to conclude if a significant difference Length- 2”, Width- ¼”, Height- ½” velocity would create a more standardized launch; this existed between the average distance traveled by the could lead to less variable distances traveled between projectile and by the glider. Figure 1. Fuselage design Figure 2. Wing design launches and reduce the amount of human error. Results A T-test was performed, showing there was a significant Acknowledgements difference between the distance traveled by the glider and the I would like to acknowledge a group of people for the help projectile. The graphs (Figures 5&6) show the average distance and resources they have provided during the makings of this traveled by the glider and projectile indoors and outdoors. Both study: show the glider did travel farther • Brad Davidson The Average Distance Traveled The Average Distance Traveled Figure 3. Tail design Figure 4. Assembled Glider design • Aili Wade (meters) during Indoor Flight Trials (meters) during Outdoor Flight • Duane Miller 6 Trials 8 • Dylan Boeckmann 5 7 • Brady Barnhart 6 4
5 3 4 References 2 3
METERS TRAVELED METERS 2 METERS TRAVELED METERS 1 Aerodynamics of Flight. (2013). In Glider Flying 1
0 0 Handbook (pp.3.1-3.19) Oklahoma City, OK: United Projectile Glider Projectile Glider States Department of Transportation Figure 5 Average distance traveled in meters by glider and projectile (Indoor) Figure 6 Average distance traveled in meters by glider and projectile (outdoor) 3-D printed glider design, construction, and testing
Regional Math/Science Center, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 21532
Inside Distance Introduction 4 Results 3.5 During the inside trials, on average, the glider The purpose of this 5-week summer RMSC 3 traveled farther than the projectile (Fig. 5). During program was to design and 3-D print gliders that 2.5 the outside trials, on average, the projectile went utilize principles of aerodynamics to fly farther than 2 farther than the glider (Fig. 6). During trials a projectile. Gliders are lightweight aircraft that are 1.5 inside, the glider would often yaw to the left, and Distance (m) Distance designed to fly without thrust for extended periods 1 of time. The gliders were designed and 3-D during trials outside, the glider would roll. 0.5 modeled in the AutoCAD program, Inventor, then 0 3-D printed at Frostburg State University. Projectile Glider Discussion Fig. 5 Average distance traveled by the glider and projectile inside. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals Overall, the glider design was met with mixed Design Outside Distance success. The glider went farther than the projectile when testing inside, but while testing outside, the • Cylindrical fuselage helps reduce drag by 9 8 projectile traveled farther. The confidence intervals providing smooth transition for airflow (Fig. 1) 7 of the graphs indicate that both differences were • Flat tailpieces produce no lift (Fig. 2) 6 significant. Additionally, the t-test indicated that • Winglets reduce induced drag (Fig. 3) 5 there was a significant difference between the • Airfoil wing shape produces lift (Fig. 3) 4 3 averages for testing both inside and outside. The • Tail pieces keep plane stable (Fig. 4) (m) Distance 2 reason that the glider did not travel very far • Dihedral wings angled 20° improve roll stability 1 outside was probably the different manner in (Fig. 4) 0 which the glider was thrown, resulting in it rolling Projectile Glider Fig. 6 Average distance traveled by the glider and projectile outside over in the air and falling to the ground. Some error bars represent 95%confidence intervals improvements could be made to the glider by thinning the wings to reduce the glider’s weight, as Testing well as increasing the size of the tail so that the • Throw a projectile horizontally 15 times, to glider would fly straighter. An improvement that establish a throwing baseline and to act as a could be made to the testing procedure would be to Fig. 1 Fuselage Fig. 2 Tailpiece control. Calculate the average distance traveled. create a uniform launcher to reduce error from • Throw the glider horizontally with the same inconsistent launching. Dihedral Wings velocity as the projectile 15 times. Calculate the Winglet Three tailpieces for average distance traveled. pitch/yaw stability • Conduct testing both inside and outside. • Compare projectile and glider averages using a Acknowledgements t-test. I would like to thank Aili Wade, Bradley Davidson, Fig. 3 Right Wing Fig. 4 Assembled Design Brady Barnhart, Dylan Boeckmann, Duane Miller, References Rita Hegeman and the Physics Dept. of Frostburg Aerodynamics of Flight. (2013). In Glider Flying Handbook. State University. (pp.3.1-3.19) Oklahoma City, OK; United States Department of Transportation.