Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up

of Fixed Wing Unmanned Air Vehicles

Falk Götten1,2(&), D. F. Finger1,2, C. Braun1, M. Havermann1,

C. Bil2, and F. Gómez2
1
FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences,
Hohenstaufenallee 6, 52064 Aachen, Germany
[email protected]
2
RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia

Abstract. The results of a statistical investigation of 42 fixed-wing, small to

medium sized (20 kg−1000 kg) reconnaissance unmanned air vehicles (UAVs)
are presented. Regression analyses are used to identify correlations of the most
relevant geometry dimensions with the UAV’s maximum take-off mass. The
findings allow an empirical based geometry-build up for a complete unmanned
aircraft by referring to its take-off mass only. This provides a bridge between
very early design stages (initial sizing) and the later determination of shapes and
dimensions. The correlations might be integrated into a UAV sizing environ-
ment and allow designers to implement more sophisticated drag and weight
estimation methods in this process. Additional information on correlation factors
for a rough drag estimation methodology indicate how this technique can sig-
nificantly enhance the accuracy of early design iterations.

Keywords: Unmanned Air Vehicle
Geometry
Correlations
Statistics

Drag

Abbreviations

AR = aspect ratio
bref = reference wing span
CD0 = zero-lift drag coefficient
Cfe = equivalent skin friction coefficient
cref = reference chord length
cross = cross sectional
D = diameter
EO/IR = electro-optical and infrared
FR = fineness ratio
fus = fuselage
HT = horizontal tail
L,l = length
LG = landing gear
MTOM = maximum take-off mass
Ref = reference

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

X. Zhang (Ed.): APISAT 2018, LNEE 459, pp. 1365–1381, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3305-7_109
1366 F. Götten et al.

S = area
TB = tail boom
UAV = unmanned air vehicle
V = tail volume coefficient
VT = vertical tail
W = width
wet = wetted

1 Introduction

The design and development of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) has come a long way
since their first appearance as remote control aircraft around 1918 [1]. With the sig-
nificant micronization of electronic components and the advances in computer tech-
nology, the UAV market has seen a significant growth in the past years. UAVs are
nowadays used for both military and civil missions including but not limited to science,
reconnaissance, agriculture or mapping [11]. Traditionally, engineers used their
knowledge of conventional aircraft design processes and adapted these to unmanned
aircraft. This transition is questionable to some point, as the requirements and mission
scenarios of unmanned and manned aircraft differ significantly. Today’s state-of-the art
UAVs have matured to an independent aircraft category with very specific design
properties [10].
A conceptual aircraft design process requires the analysis of several configurations
and is an iterative process with multiple refinement stages [8]. In the first stage (initial
sizing), wing loading and thrust- or power-to-weight ratio are commonly determined by
using the so called “matching diagram” [7]. In the second stage, the maximum take-off
mass (MTOM) as a summation of empty mass, payload mass and fuel mass is esti-
mated by empirical regression analyses of similar aircraft. The geometrical shape of the
aircraft is determined in later stages using simple parameters like wing area, wingspan,
aspect ratio, fuselage length and so forth. Those parameters are subject to change
during the iteration process. With empirical regressions found for aircraft of a similar
class, such parameters are initially estimated based on a correlation with the maximum
take-off mass. This initial guess is crucial for the following stages as it can affect the
number of iterations. Due to long experience with manned aircraft, empirical corre-
lations are available for most of the common aircraft classes and are presented, for
instance, in Roskam [14].
The available data for UAVs is restricted to basic correlations necessary for an
initial sizing process. Several authors (Verstraete et al. [16], Finger [2] and Gundlach
[8]) aim to provide such information. Verstraete et al. [16] performed regression
analyses of UAVs ranging from 0.1 kg to 40,000 kg MTOM and developed correla-
tions for payload fraction, endurance, empty mass, wing loading and power loading.
Finger [2] investigated empty mass correlations for UAVs between 2 kg and 1000 kg.
Gundlach [8] gives several correlations for basic sizing with a limited number of
UAVs. With the currently available data for unmanned aircraft, an initial sizing process
can be established equally well for unmanned aircraft as for traditional manned aircraft.
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1367

However, no data is available which links the UAV’s maximum take-off mass to
more sophisticated geometry parameters like fuselage length or landing gear size, to
name only a few. The presented paper aims to close this gap for small to medium sized
unmanned aircraft by providing detailed statistical data of 42 fixed-wing reconnais-
sance UAVs between 20 kg and 1000 kg maximum take-off mass. The correlations can
be used to perform a complete correlation based geometry build-up that provides a
starting point for further design iterations. Such correlations are of fundamental
importance as they close the gap between initial sizing, where only the basic parameters
of the aircraft are defined (wing-loading, power to weight ratio, MTOM), and later
design stages in which the complete outer shape is determined.
This paper is structured in the following way: Sect. 2 describes the data acquisition
methodology while Sect. 3 presents the evaluation results, divided into several sub-
paragraphs for individual components. Section 4 gives a distinct conclusion.

2 Methodology

The basis for the analysis is a detailed review of 42 reconnaissance UAVs ranging from
20 kg up to 1000 kg maximum take-off mass. This specific range was chosen as it
represents the “small to medium sized” unmanned aircraft category in which the
general layout, propulsion systems and mission scenarios are similar. Very small UAVs
(<20 kg) are often equipped with electric propulsion systems and feature more special
configurations like flying wings or blended wing bodies [1]. On the contrary, very large
UAVs can often be treated with correlations for commercial aircraft (see Verstraete
[16]) and are therefore excluded in the presented analysis.
Correlations with geometry parameters can only be derived if a sufficient number of
UAVs feature the same components and if the aircraft configuration as well as the use
case are similar. Only UAVs which were at some point or are currently produced in
significant numbers and have seen actual mission deployment are included in the
database. No experimental or technology demonstration aircraft were analyzed. Such
UAVs may never see mission use due to technical difficulties or changing require-
ments. Additionally, such aircraft could also be designed exclusively for testing pur-
poses of specific components and it often cannot be determined whether instead of it
they were sized to a specific design mission. Excluding these aircraft increases the data
accuracy for correlations of actual mission proven aircraft but also limits the total
number of UAVs.
An overview about all UAV configurations included in the study is given in Fig. 1,
while detailed information can be found in appendix Table 2. It was found that about
88% of all analyzed UAVs are of tail boom or standard configuration. This paper
therefore focuses on these configurations and neglects more exotic ones like flying
wings or blended wing bodies. “Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft–Unmanned” [15] is
used as the main reference for our research concerning the available UAVs.
1368 F. Götten et al.

This reference however, only

provides basic geometry or mass
information like wingspan, total flying wing 6%
length or maximum take-off
mass. To gain detailed informa- twin tailbooms 51%
tion on individual component
sizes, high-quality images or
three-view drawings are used, standard
mainly provided by the UAV configuration
31%
manufactures themselves. With
basic geometry information, the
dimensions of nearly all compo-
nents can be extrapolated from
such images. Care was taken to single tailboom 8%
blended wing body 2%
include angular- and distortion delta wing 2%

corrections to improve the data.

Tests with UAVs where images Fig. 1. UAV configurations in the database
and detailed CAD models were
available indicate that the accu-
racy for individual component dimensions is in the order of 6%.
A spreadsheet based geometry break-down is developed which divides UAVs into
standard components and allows for an automated calculation of geometrical properties
like cross sectional area, wetted area, aspect ratio and so forth. For this purpose, the
geometry is simplified and represented by shapes for which analytical equations are
available. Depending on the component, multiple geometrical representations are
offered and the most realistic one is chosen by the user. This simplification leads to
slight deviations, especially for wetted area calculations. Taking the data acquisition
accuracy into account, the total deviations were found to have a maximum order of
about 10%, which is adequate for the desired purpose. Each UAV requires a manual
input of at least 150 parameters on average. The complete workflow process is visu-
alized in Fig. 2 while Fig. 3 shows an example geometry simplification for a landing
gear fairing.
The results are consolidated in diagrams (see Sect. 3) including all applicable
UAVs. Those diagrams show the respective geometrical parameter in dependency of
the UAV’s maximum take-off mass. Regression analysis by means of a least squares fit
is used to derive empirical equations representing the best average of the available data.
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1369

Image and drawing workspace

Image or Angular and distor- Dimension measuring with image

three-view tion corrections manipulation program

Spreadsheet workspace

Input in spreadsheet Calculation of dimension Data transition into predefined

database relationships and areas evaluation diagrams

Empirical correlations based on

regression analysis

Fig. 2. Data acquisition workflow process

Fig. 3. Example of landing gear fairing geometry simplification, image from [4] (CC0 universal
public domain)

3 Results

The following section describes the analysis results of the study in forms of diagrams
and their corresponding regression analyses. The presentation follows the typical order
in which UAV components are sized and allows for a structured evaluation. Due to the
enormous amount of data, the correlations are reduced to the most important ones for
each individual component. Wetted or cross sectional areas are only provided for
components if an accurate calculation is not possible by the already presented data.
Data scatter is more or less significant depending on the individual correlation. This
is to be expected, as the design space for UAVs is much bigger than for manned
aircraft, which is a result of higher risk tolerance, reduced costs and easier certification
[10]. With an increased number of development companies comes increased variation
in component shape and design. Conventional manned aircraft companies tend to reuse
1370 F. Götten et al.

technology from previous designs to decrease development costs and simplify certi-
fication [12]. Such reuse of technology naturally leads to better correlations as several
aircraft of one company might feature similar components. Within the market study it
was observed that this does not hold true for UAV companies. This again increases the
expected geometry variations compared to manned aircraft.
Even though some of the derived equations might show a relatively low coefficient
of correlation, they are still of high relevance for the design process of UAVs. The
correlations enable the possibility to estimate the size of UAV components given only
the maximum take-off mass as an input. The equations are trimmed towards the best
average of the available data. This average leads to the most promising starting point
for the design iterations in further development stages. The correlations might be
integrated into an automated sizing process (for instance shown by Finger et al. [3]) and
be utilized to perform a complete geometry build–up in very early design stages. Such a
geometry build-up can be coupled to drag estimation methods or structural calculations
and greatly improve the accuracy of the design feedback system. This consequently
enhances the overall accuracy of the design process as it provides a direct link between
initial sizing and geometry design.
If not explicitly stated, all equations require maximum take-off mass as an input in
kilogram and give the geometry value in the unit stated in the corresponding diagram.

3.1 Wing
The diagrams below (Figs. 4 and 5) show correlations of the UAV’s wing area and
aspect ratio versus maximum take-off mass. Both regression analyses indicate a linear
relationship and are presented in Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2. This is especially evident for the
wing area, as it yields a rather constant wing loading for UAV’s between 20 kg and
1000 kg.
All chosen UAVs feature reconnaissance mission scenarios which leads to similar
requirements; thus designers might aim at similar wing loadings. Data scatter for aspect
ratio is significant, however, the trend indicates that heavier UAVs tend towards higher
values. The study also showed that larger UAVs are very much trimmed towards
extreme endurance missions. These mission scenarios require aircraft with large aspect
ratios increasing the achievable lift-to-drag ratio. Smaller UAVs might also be designed
for very high endurance, but most of them have a more diversified use case [1]. As
such, the UAV is more adaptable with a reduced aspect ratio. Additionally, with a small
wing area, high aspect ratio wings lead to short chord lengths, which affects torsional
stability and could intensify aero-elastic effects. An attempt was made to introduce the
UAV’s endurance as an additional physical parameter into the correlation but actually
increased data scatter for smaller UAVs due to their diversified use case.

Swing ¼ 1:0339
102
mMTOM þ 1:1585 ð3:1Þ

ARwing ¼ 8:1658
103
mMTOM þ 8:7720 ð3:2Þ

 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1371

Fig. 4. Wing area against MTOM Fig. 5. Aspect ratio against MTOM

3.2 Stabilizer Surfaces

Within the very first stages of an aircraft design process, stabilizer surfaces are com-
monly estimated by employing empirically found tail volume coefficients, presented in
Eqs. 3.3 and 3.4 [7]. These coefficients both incorporate the reference (wing) area and
the reference chord or span as well as tail lever arms measured from the wing’s quarter
chord to the tail’s quarter chord.
Typical coefficients can be identified for specific aircraft classes. The present study
found the average horizontal tail volume coefficient to be 0.65, which is a value also
common for homebuilt and general aviation aircraft. Marshall et al. [10] found a
slightly lower coefficient of 0.5 for small fixed wing UAVs. Trends of the present study
indicate that the coefficient slightly increases with increasing aircraft mass. This cor-
responds to larger horizontal tail surfaces and increased stability.
The average vertical tail volume coefficient was found to be 0.042 comparable to
the findings of Marshall et al. [10]. The vertical tail volume coefficient shows a ten-
dency to decrease with increasing aircraft size, which leads to decreased lateral
stability.

VHT
Sref
Cref

SHT ¼ ð3:3Þ
lHT

VVT
Sref
bref

SVT ¼ ð3:4Þ
lVT

3.3 Fuselage and Tail Booms

Correlations of fuselage length and fuselage fineness ratio are shown in Figs. 6 and 7
together with the results of the regression analysis in Eqs. 3.5 and 3.6. Fuselage length
varies from 1 m for small UAVs up to 5.5 m for bigger ones. The length follows a
power law trend, where the highest gradients are found between 20 kg and 150 kg
MTOM.
1372 F. Götten et al.

Fig. 6. Fuselage length against MTOM Fig. 7. Fuselage fineness ratio against MTOM

Fig. 8. Fuselage wetted area against MTOM

These observations are similar for the fuselage fineness ratio, which provides a link
between diameter and length. However, the regression analyses reveals that a logarith-
mic trend provides a better curve fit. The fineness ratio varies especially between tail
boom and standard configuration aircraft. Fuselages of tail boom aircraft are naturally
shorter as the necessary tail lever arm is provided by the booms. These UAVs also feature
smaller fineness ratios. The maximum fineness ratio was found to be 8.3 for a standard
configuration UAV, while the majority of fineness ratios is in the order of 4 to 6.
A correlation of the fuselage wetted area is shown in Fig. 8 together with the
regression analysis in Eq. 3.7. Fuselage wetted area is given here separately as an
accurate estimation is not possible by knowledge of length and fineness ratio only.
Instead, fuselage wetted area is calculated by subdividing the fuselage into four indi-
vidual segments for which linear relationships are assumed. This yields to a very
accurate calculation. Fuselage wetted area shows a very slight power law trend.

Lfus ¼ 0:2825
m0:4206

MTOM ð3:5Þ

FRfus ¼ 0:7342
lnðmMTOM Þ þ 1:6589 ð3:6Þ

Swetfus ¼ 0:1219
m0:6773

MTOM ð3:7Þ
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1373

The present study indicates that tail boom length is directly correlated to the UAV’s
fuselage length via a constant relationship. The results of the analyses are shown in
Figs. 9, 10, and 11, revealing that the average tail boom length is about 0.75  fuselage
length. For the sake of completeness, a regression analyses of tail boom length against
maximum take-off mass is shown Eq. 3.8. As tail boom cross sections are mostly sized
towards the acting loads, their diameter might be of higher interest than the fineness
ratio and is directly correlated with the maximum take-off mass (see Eq. 3.9).

LTB ¼ 0:5935
lnðmMTOM Þ  1:2687 ð3:8Þ

DTB ¼ 0:01604
lnðmMTOM Þ  0:00512 ð3:9Þ

Fig. 9. Relative tail boom length against Fig. 10. Tail boom length against MTOM
MTOM

Fig. 11. Tail boom diameter against MTOM

3.4 Payload
The payload of small to medium sized reconnaissance UAVs is normally an electro-
optical and infrared (EO/IR) gyro-stabilized gimbal pod attached to the lower side of
the fuselage. Besides its overall impact on weight and communication requirements,
Götten et al. [6] showed that payload drag can be significant for UAVs of the presented
class and is largely driven by the respective cross sectional area.
1374 F. Götten et al.

Payload shapes range from spheres or half-spheres to combinations of spheres and

cylinders. A geometrical representation based only on their diameter is therefore only
partially sufficient. Taking the drag impact into account the cross sectional area is
correlated against the maximum take-off mass, too.
Figures 12 and 13 show that EO/IR payload size grows with the UAV’s take-off
mass up to about 450 kg. Cubic functions give the best data fit and are presented in
Eqs. 3.10 and 3.11. For higher take-off masses both payload diameter and cross sec-
tional area stay nearly constant. This behavior was closely investigated and found to
have a distinct origin. Verstraete [16] found a constant empty mass and payload
fraction for a wide variety of UAVs, indicating that the primary origin for the findings
in this study is not the UAV’s structure or mission capabilities, but rather the payload
itself.

Fig. 12. Payload diameter against MTOM Fig. 13. Payload cross sectional area against
MTOM

DPL ¼ 1:2816
109
ðmMTOM Þ3 2:5110
106
ðmMTOM Þ2 þ 1:5465
103

mMTOM þ 7:1638
102 ð3:10Þ

ScrossPL ¼ 1:9604
1010
ðmMTOM Þ3 4:0708
107
ðmMTOM Þ2 þ 2:8406
104

mMTOM  4:1643
103
ð3:11Þ

A study of 43 EO/IR gimbals revealed that the packaging density of such gimbals
increases with increasing gimbal mass, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. This density
increase is significant and can be as high as 100% comparing payloads between 1 kg
and 100 kg. Heavier payloads therefore require proportionally less volume than lighter
ones. With a constant payload fraction, heavier UAVs also carry heavier payloads, but
payload volume and cross sectional area may stagnate due to the increase in payload
density. This leads to the fact that the aerodynamic impact of EO/IR payloads decreases
with increasing aircraft size. A critical region is identified for UAVs with maximum
take-off masses between 150 kg and 400 kg (see Fig. 15). In this range, the payload’s
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1375

Fig. 14. Payload density against payload Fig. 15. Payload relative cross sectional area
mass against MTOM

cross sectional area is maximized in relation to the overall UAV size (represented by
the reference area). The payload’s aerodynamic impact is especially high in this region.

3.5 Landing Gear

The layout of the landing gear is strongly dependent on the individual aircraft con-
figuration and might be influenced by factors like propeller ground clearance or center
of gravity shift. Therefore, no attempt is made to find correlations for positioning of
individual gears or their detailed layout.
However, what is especially interesting for the designer are parameters like tire size
or the landing gear’s total cross sectional area. With this information, basic estimations
of the landing gear’s weight and drag are possible and might be used in the design
feedback system. A power law correlation is found linking tire diameter to maximum

Fig. 16. Tire diameter against MTOM Fig. 17. Tire width against tire diameter
1376 F. Götten et al.

Fig. 18. Landing gear cross sectional area against tire diameter

take-off mass (Fig. 16 and Eq. 3.12), while a linear relationship between tire diameter
and tire width can be identified (Fig. 17 and Eq. 3.13). Total landing gear cross sec-
tional area again scales linearly with the tire diameter (Fig. 18 and Eq. 3.14).
The last two correlations prove the common methodology of determining total
landing gear drag as a function of only one tire’s cross sectional area as valid for the
investigated UAV class. This methodology dates back to NACA Report 485 [9] and
was also found to be applicable on UAVs [6], though the coefficients found in the
prescribed NACA report should be modified.

Dtire ¼ 0:04653
m0:28344

MTOM ð3:12Þ

Wtire ¼ 0:30489
Dtire þ 0:00368 ð3:13Þ

ScrossLG ¼ 0:66490
DTire þ 0:05981 ð3:14Þ

3.6 Wetted Area

The wetted area of an aircraft can be used to provide and initial estimate of the total
aircraft’s zero-lift drag by applying the equivalent skin friction method presented in
Raymer [13]. Equation 3.15 shows the method and the necessary input factors. Zero-
lift drag is estimated by multiplying an equivalent skin friction coefficient (Cfe) with the
aircraft’s ratio of wetted area to reference (wing) area. The equivalent skin friction
coefficient is a constant for a specific aircraft class and estimated by regression analysis.
Factors for UAVs are not given in Raymer [13].
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1377

Fig. 19. Wetted area against MTOM Fig. 20. Relative wetted area against MTOM

Figure 19 shows correlations of wetted area versus maximum take-off mass as

found in the present study. Wetted area shows a strongly linear dependency on take-off
mass described in Eq. 3.16. The ratio of wetted area to reference area (Fig. 20) is
mostly constant with the average around 3.8.
Götten et al. [6] provide zero-lift drag values for four reconnaissance UAVs of the
small to medium size class which were also analyzed in the presented study. Their
findings are summarized in Table 1 and used to provide an initial estimate of the factor
Cfe for UAVs of the presented class. Cfe varies between 0.00724 and 0.01163 with an
average value of 0.00916. The difference between the highest and lowest values is
influenced by differing landing gear configurations affecting zero-lift drag [6]. Slightly
different configurations might significant affect zero-lift drag as outlined in [5]. It is
noteworthy that the values for Cfe are significantly higher than for every aircraft cat-
egory found in Raymer [13]. It is evident that zero-lift drag of UAVs is higher
compared to other aircraft categories.

Swet
CD0 ¼ Cfe
ð3:15Þ
Sref

Swet ¼ 0:04125
mMTOM þ 4:46529 ð3:16Þ

Table 1. UAV data as given in Götten et al. [6] with calculated Cfe values
UAV Ref. area, m2 Swet, m2 Swet/Sref CD0 Cfe
1 1.32 4.76 3.61 0.03152 0.00873
2 2.37 8.57 3.62 0.04211 0.01163
3 4.74 17.26 3.64 0.03291 0.00904
4 8.70 36.16 4.16 0.03012 0.00724
1378 F. Götten et al.

4 Conclusion

The presented correlations allow an estimation of the size of the most important
geometrical properties of small to medium size reconnaissance UAVs by referring only
to their maximum take-off mass. The findings are valid for both tail boom and standard
configuration aircraft with masses between 20 kg and 1000 kg. Regression analyses
determined equations representing the correlations to a degree which is adequate for
early geometry estimations. These equations can be easily integrated into an aircraft
design and sizing environment. They provide a bridge between the very first design
stage, in which power loading, wing loading and take-off mass are sized and the
following stages during which the shapes and dimensions of components are designed.
The correlations might be used to perform both empirical drag and weight esti-
mations already within the initial sizing process and provide a valuable increase in
accuracy in the flight performance estimations. This enhances the accuracy of the
design feedback system and thus the overall precision of the sizing process.

Appendix

Table 2. UAVs used in the presented study sorted by MTOM, (dash indicates lack of
information)
No. Name Manufacturer MTOM, Payload Endurance, Length Span
kg mass, kg h overall, m overall, m
1 Aerosonde Textron 25 – 14 1.70 3.60
Mk 4.7
2 Manta Raytheon 28 5 6 1.90 2.66
3 Luna EMT 40 5 5 2.36 4.17
Penzberg
4 Sparrow EMIT 45 12 6 2.14 2.44
5 Atlantic SCR 45 7 6 2.80 3.80
6 Strix Aerodreams 48 18 15 2.90 3.60
7 S4 Ehecatel Hydra 60 – – 2.90 4.20
Technologies
8 T-20 Arcturus 84 – – 2.90 5.33
9 Jump-20 Arcturus 95 – – 2.90 5.60
10 GRIF-1 558 ARP 100 30 8 3.50 4.80
11 Hermes 90 Elbit 110 10 15 4.20 5.50
12 Outlaw Griffon 136 40 4 3.01 4.87
SeaHunter Aerospace
13 Pchela-1T Yakovlev 138 – – 2.78 3.25
14 Skylynx II BAE Systems 150 31 15 4.23 5.60
15 Textron 170 45 7 3.40 4.30
(continued)
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1379

Table 2. (continued)
No. Name Manufacturer MTOM, Payload Endurance, Length Span
kg mass, kg h overall, m overall, m
RQ-7B
Shadow
16 Shadow 200 AAI 170 27 6 3.40 4.30
17 Sentry HP Leonardo DRS 190 31 8 3.35 3.90
18 ZALA Zala Aero 200 40 7 5.00 6.00
421-20
19 Pioneer IAI 205 34 6 4.40 5.10
RQ2-2A
20 Tiger SharkNavMar 205 34 8 4.55 6.70
21 Aerostrar Aeronautics 230 50 14 4.50 8.70
Systems
22 Pegaz MIT 230 40 12 5.40 6.34
23 Flamingo SATUMA 245 35 8 5.18 6.61
24 Shadow 600 AAI 265 41 14 4.80 6.83
25 Ranger RUAG 280 45 4 4.61 5.71
26 RQ-101 Korea 290 45 6 4.70 6.40
Night Aerospace
Intruder Industries
27 Xian Aisheng 320 50 14 4.28 7.50
ASN-209
28 F-720 UMS 360 70 12 4.80 7.20
29 Nishant DRDO 375 45 5 4.63 6.57
30 Searcher IAI 450 120 15 5.85 8.55
MK II
31 Seeker 400 Denel 450 100 16 5.77 10.00
32 Falco Leonardo 490 70 9 5.25 7.20
33 Hermes 450 Elbit 550 150 20 6.10 10.50
34 Yabhon-R Adcom 550 100 27 5.00 6.50
35 Karayel Vestel 550 70 20 6.50 10.50
36 Atlante Airbus 570 100 15 5.47 8.00
37 Bayraktar Baykar 630 55 24 6.50 12.00
Tactical
38 Falcao Avibras 630 150 16 5.90 10.80
39 GNAT 750 General 635 63 – 5.33 10.76
Atomics
40 Rustom I DRDO 815 75 12 5.12 7.90
(continued)
1380 F. Götten et al.

Table 2. (continued)
No. Name Manufacturer MTOM, Payload Endurance, Length Span
kg mass, kg h overall, m overall, m
41 MQ-5B Northrop 885 113 12 7.01 10.44
Hunter Grumman
42 Wing CAIG 990 200 – 9.05 14.00
Loong

References
1. Austin R (2010) Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development and deployment,
2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, Hoboken
2. Finger DF (2016) Comparative performance and benefit assessment of VTOL- and CTOL-
UAVs. In: Deutscher Luft-und Raumfahrtkongress
3. Finger DF, Braun C, Bil C (2018) An initial sizing methodology for hybrid-electric light
aircraft. In: 18th AIAA Aviation Technology Integration and Operations Conference;
Atlanta. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston
4. Hodan G. Ultralight Airplane. https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?
image=179889&picture=ultralight-airplane. Accessed 6 Jun 2018
5. Götten F, Finger DF, Havermann M, Braun C, Gómez F, Bil C (2018) On the flight
performance impact of landing gear drag reduction methods for unmanned air vehicles. In:
German Aerospace Congress 2018
6. Götten F, Havermann M, Braun C, Gómez F, Bil C (2018) On the applicability of empirical
drag estimation methods for unmanned air vehicle design. In: 18th AIAA Aviation
Technology Integration and Operations Conference; Atlanta. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston
7. Gudmundsson S (2014) General aviation aircraft design: applied methods and procedures.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
8. Gundlach J (2014) Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach,
2nd edn. AIAA Education Series, Washington, DC
9. Herrenstein W, Biermann D (1934). The Drag of Airplane Wheels, Wheel Fairings and
Landing Gears I: NACA Report 485
10. Marshall DM, Barnhart RK, Shappee E, Most M (2016) Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, Second Edition, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
11. Newcome LR (2004) Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston
12. Nicolai LM, Carichner G (2010) Aircraft design. AIAA American Inst. of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Reston
13. Raymer DP (2012). Aircraft design: a conceptual approach. 5th ed. AIAA Education Series,
Reston
14. Roskam J (1987) Airplane Design. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Ottawa,
Kansas
 Empirical Correlations for Geometry Build-Up of Fixed Wing UAV 1381

15. Streetly M (2015) IHS Jane’s All the world’s aircraft - Unmanned: 2015-2016. IHS,
Coulsdon
16. Verstraete D, Palmer JL, Hornung M (2018) Preliminary sizing correlations for fixed-wing
unmanned aerial vehicle characteristics. J Aircr. 55:715–726. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.
C034199