Design of a Skydiving Glider

JOHNSON, K.T., SULLIVAN, M.R., SUTTON, J.E., MOURTOS, N.J.

Aerospace Engineering
San José State University
One Washington Square, San Jose, California, 95192-0087
United States of America
[email protected] www.engr.sjsu.edu/nikos/

Abstract: The conceptual / preliminary design of a skydiving glider, a tailless aircraft with an open
cockpit and a pilot lying in a prone position, is presented. The vehicle is the first of its kind designed to
land a skydiver conventionally without the use of a parachute and can be used for military covert
operations or as an extreme sport vehicle. Conflicting constraints, such as a maximum stored wingspan
of 9 feet and a maximum stall speed of 30 knots, led to the implementation of unique design features
including telescoping wings. The tailless design required extensive twist along with a 30-degree sweep
angle for the wing, an unorthodox amount for a subsonic aircraft.

Key-Words: Gliders, Skydiving, Aircraft Design

1. Introduction
Currently, skydivers land using parachutes. 2. The Competition
However, parachutes limit range and The Skyboard [1] is the only other skydiving glider
maneuverability. Any type of control comes from known to exist. It was conceived in 2001 and had
the skydiver manipulating his/her own body to its first test flight in December 2004. It was
change direction. The use of wing suits allows the created by a New Zealand company and was co-
skydiver to glide slightly. However, engineered by Cambridge University mechanical
maneuverability is limited and the glide ratio is at engineering students. The basic design shares some
best 1.8. common features with the SDG-1, such as the pilot
This paper presents a unique and revolutionary laying face down and forward on the fuselage.
concept designed to bring a new dynamic to the The largest difference between the two aircraft
sport of skydiving by increasing the is their performance. The SDG-1 is designed to
maneuverability of skydivers and allowing them to provide a significant improvement in
land like a glider. The SDG-1 is small and maneuverability and range over the abilities of a
compact, yet it provides a safe stall speed and a freefalling skydiver. It is also designed with the
short landing distance. capability to land. Because of its dramatically
Two distinct applications of the SDG-1 are small wings, the Skyboard cannot provide good
recreational and military. The maneuvering glide performance and is incapable of safely
capabilities are probably more attractive for landing a person on the ground. Performance data
recreational users, while the extended range will on the capabilities of the Skyboard could not be
most likely be useful for military applications. The found, however, a video of a flight test [1] shows
preliminary design steps and the proposed concept the aircraft performing roughly the same as a
are presented in the following sections. skydiver wearing a wing suit.

1
3. Mission Specification 4. Configuration Selection
The mission requirements for the SDG-1 are as The flying wing configuration was selected to
follows: minimize vehicle size and give it a more
• Payload capacity: 200 lbs (1 pilot) streamlined and attractive appearance. A horizontal
• Number of crew members: 1 stabilizer or a canard would require a lengthening
• Deployment altitude: 12,000 ft of the aircraft to provide the necessary moment
• Range: 12 nautical miles arm from the wing. On the other hand, it is more
• Glide speed: 50-90 knots difficult to provide the necessary longitudinal
• Landing field length: 240 ft stability with a flying wing configuration.
• Stall Speed: 30 knots
• Stored wingspan: 9 ft
5. Performance Sizing
Without the restriction of Federal Aviation
An initial stall speed of 25 knots was specified,
Regulations, the mission requirements were
which resulted in a wing area of 72 ft2. With the
decided based solely on desired performance and
limitation on wingspan, the root chord length
operational constraints. A range of 12 nautical
would have been approximately 5 ft, leaving the
miles from a deployment altitude of 12,000 ft
SDG-1 with an extremely low aspect ratio. By
corresponds to a glide ratio of 6. A low stall speed
raising the stall speed to 30 knots, the wing area
is desired for safe landings. However, a low stall
was reduced to 48 ft2, a more reasonable value
speed requires a large wing area and / or high-lift
considering our constraints. The stall speed of 30
devices, neither of which is feasible in the SDG-1.
knots provides a landing distance of 240 ft.
Hence, following several iterations a realistic stall
Although higher than our originally sought 150 ft
speed target of 30 knots was established.
landing roll, this distance it not detrimental to the
The mission profile of the SDG-1 is shown in
overall goals of the aircraft.
Figure 1. The mission begins with the SDG-1 and
the pilot taken to the deployment altitude by means
of a cargo plane. At a predetermined location, the
pilot in the SDG-1 will slide out the back of the 6. Fuselage and Cockpit Design
cargo plane facing forward. Once released, the Two conflicting requirements were considered in
vehicle will glide down to the surface in a the design of the fuselage and cockpit. The first
controlled manner. Landing will take place on a was to minimize drag and would normally require
groomed grass field. an enclosed cockpit to reduce pressure and skin
friction drag created by the exposed pilot. The
second is pilot safety and requires the ability of the
pilot to quickly and easily release from the craft at
any point, should it become uncontrollable. Safety
is always paramount, so the SDG-1 was designed
with an open cockpit.

7. Wing Design

7.1 Airfoil Selection

A high maximum lift coefficient over a range of
Figure 1 – SDG-1 mission profile. Reynolds numbers is one of the most important
requirements for the SDG-1. Moreover, a small
pitching moment coefficient is required because of
the tailless design. The selected NACA 23012
meets both these requirements.
2
 One of the biggest hurdles in the selection of an nose-down pitching moment about its aerodynamic
airfoil is the low Reynolds number at landing center, which is balanced by a down force on a
(~106). During glide the Reynolds number ranges horizontal stabilizer or an up force on a canard.
between 2x106 and 3x106, with a “do not exceed” Flying wings do not have horizontal stabilizers or
speed in the range of 3x106 to 4x106. These low canards, hence they must produce a down force
Reynolds numbers allow laminar flow over a large somewhere on their own surface. There are two
percentage of the chord length, causing the schools of thought to solving this problem: use of a
boundary layer to be prone to separation. This Plank wing with a reflexed airfoil or a combination
leads to laminar separation bubbles over the top of of sweep and twist [3].
the airfoil increasing drag and drastically Plank wings are very sensitive to center-of-
decreasing the maximum producible lift. gravity movement. In addition, control surfaces
The NACA 23012 performs fairly well at these end up too close to the aerodynamic center,
Reynolds numbers with its only major flaw being limiting maneuverability. The pilot comprises
poor stalling characteristics. More efficient modern most of the weight of the SDG-1. This could be
airfoils exist, which are designed for lower detrimental to the longitudinal stability should
Reynolds numbers but they suffer from poor he/she moves slightly forward or aft in midflight.
performance at higher Reynolds numbers. The limited maneuverability of a reflexed wing
Advanced modern airfoils also tend to have high makes it undesirable for the SDG-1.
pitching moment coefficients, something that This leaves a combination of sweep and twist as
would have an adverse effect on the performance the only solution. The wing must be sufficiently
of the SDG-1. twisted, so the tips produce enough down force to
The SDG-1 would be best suited with a custom counteract the nose-down pitching moment.
built airfoil, as it requires good aerodynamic Lengthening the moment arm by adding sweep
characteristics for a range of Reynolds numbers reduces the amount of twist required and reduces
between 106 and 4x106. One possible candidate for induced drag. Sweep and twist allow the wing to
these requirements is the airfoil developed for the operate efficiently in a larger range of Reynolds
SWIFT sailplane [2]. However, this airfoil has a numbers. They also allow more freedom in the
limited range of Reynolds numbers (7x105 to movement of the center-of gravity during flight.
2x106). Furthermore, no information is available Additionally, the control surfaces work better
on this airfoil. because of they can be placed farther from the
The aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA aerodynamic center.
23012 airfoil are shown in Table 1. The maximum On the other hand, sweep and twist increase the
lift coefficient for the Reynolds number at landing structural weight because the wing needs to be
conditions was obtained using linear interpolation larger to obtain the same lift coefficient compared
of existing experimental data, while the zero-lift with a straight wing. Furthermore, the chances of a
angle and the pitching moment coefficient at the tip stall at lower speeds are increased because of
glide Reynolds number were obtained from the the spanwise flow towards the tips. Two
computer program Sub 2D. parametric studies were conducted to determine the
wing planform geometry.
Table 1 – Aerodynamic characteristics of the
NACA 23012 airfoil 7.2.1 Panknin Parametric Study
Zero-lift angle αL=0 -1.10551 deg The first of the two studies was performed using
Pitching moment coefficient Cm -0.00882 the Panknin twist equation [3]. The various
Max lift coefficient CLmax 1.4 parameters in this equation are defined in Table 2.

7.2 Wing Planform Design

The design of the wing planform was the crux of
creating the SDG-1, as tailless aircraft suffer from
unique problems that must be addressed during the
design of the wing. Typically a wing produces a
3
 Table 2 – Parameters in the Panknin method kCM root + k1CM tip − CL SF
Constants Values εaero = (7)
0.000014 A1.43 Λ
Span: b 192 in
Zero-lift angle at root: αL=0 root 1.10551 deg
εgeo = εaero − (α L= 0root − α L= 0tip ) (8)
Zero-lift angle at tip: αL=0 tip 1.10551 deg
Airfoil moment coefficient at 0.00882
€
root: CM root The location of the center of gravity of the aircraft
Airfoil moment coefficient at 0.00882 is calculated from:
tip: CM tip €
Cruise speed: Vcr 69.05 mph x cg = x ac − c m SF (9)
Total weight: W 4800 oz
Variables Range where cm is the mean chord of the wing.
Root chord: cr 36 – 66 in The wingspan and aspect ratio were kept
Tip chord: ct 36 –€6 in constant while varying the taper ratio, the sweep,
Sweep angle: Λ 10 – 40 deg and the SF (static margin). The result was the wing
Stability Factor: SF 0.01 – 0.1 twist needed for a longitudinally stable tailless
configuration.
Equations (1) – (4) calculate the constants used in
this method: 7.2.2 Wing Analysis Parametric Study
The Panknin parametric study was consolidated by
b  πΛ  choosing set parameters for the stability factor, the
LA = tan  (1) taper ratio, and the sweep angle, as indicated in
2  180  Table 3. It was discovered that the lower the
stability factor, the better the overall performance
0.25( 3 + 2 λ + λ2 ) of the craft. A stability factor of 0.05 was believed
k= (2) to be the minimum amount of static stability
€ 1+ λ + λ2 needed without a stability augmentation system.
k1 = 1− k (3)
Table 3 – Range of each variable used in
€ k2 = 0.25(c r − c t ) + LA (4) Panknin parametric study
Variables Range
€ The lift coefficient is given by: Stability factor: SF 0.05
Sweep angle: Λ 20 – 30 deg
€ W oz
CL = 3,519.8 (5) Taper ratio: λ 0.5 – 0.9
Vcr2 Sin

where Woz is the vehicle weight in ounces, Sin is The stability factor may change later in the design
the wing area in inches and the numerical constant process if found to be inadequate.
€ is the result of various unit conversion factors. The reason for setting 30 degrees as the
The location of the aerodynamic center is given by: maximum amount of allowable sweep is to prevent
dynamic stability problems, which could make the
c r2 + c rc t + c t2 (2c r + c t ) k2 craft unsafe. The value of 30 degrees was an
x ac = + (6) arbitrary limit chosen based on existing aircraft
6(c r + c t ) 3(c r + c t ) flying characteristics with similar angles of sweep.
Any amount of sweep less than 20 degrees requires
The aerodynamic and geometric twist are given by: a large amount of twist, decreasing Oswald
efficiencies to very low values.
€

4
 The wing taper ratio must
1.02
be greater than 0.5 to avoid tip 1.228, 0.999
stall problems. In fact the 1 1.242, 0.996
1.255, 0.992
range extended to the largest 1.269, 0.987
0.98
structurally possible taper ratio 1.283, 0.975

Oswald Efficiency
1.309, 0.955
(0.9). 0.96
The preceding range
0.94
consolidation limited the
Panknin parametric study to a 0.92
specific number of design
0.9
combinations. These
combinations were then 0.88
inputted into the Stanford 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.2 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.3 1.32
Wing Analysis program [4] for
CL MAX
a second parametric study to
determine the best wing for a
Figure 2 – Wing design parameter options, shown as combinations of
tailless aircraft. These values
maximum lift coefficient and Oswald efficiency.
are plotted in Figure 2.
The best possible designs shows an increase in Oswald efficiency with an
(highest possible CL MAX and Oswald efficiency) increase in taper ratio. The final values for the
are located in the top right corner. There are two wing planform parameters are shown in Table 4.
trends which are easily visible on the graph. Taper
ratio decreases towards the right and sweep Table 4 – Wing planform parameters
increases towards the top. Gross wing area: S 48 ft2
There were several considerations in picking Aspect ratio: A 5.3
the design point: These included CL MAX values, Wing span: b 16 ft
chance of tip stall, maneuverability, lift-to-drag Taper ratio: λ 0.9
ratio and structural weight, all of which had
Sweep angle: Λ 30 deg
varying degrees of importance. CL MAX and the
chance of tip stall were the most important with a Twist: ε 7 deg
high lift-to-drag ratio being close behind. Wing incidence: i 9 deg
Having a high CL MAX allows for a lower Dihedral angle: Γ 0 deg
landing speed, which is important for pilot safety.
Tip stall is also an important concern if the wing is The high sweep is necessary to achieve a
swept. Sweep creates a spanwise flow increasing sufficiently high Oswald efficiency. A sweep of 20
boundary layer thickness at the tips, making more degrees would lessen the likelihood of tip stall but
susceptible to separation. This trend is amplified Oswald efficiency would drop off considerably
by low taper ratio, which reduces the tip chord while CL MAX would decrease marginally. By
length subsequently reducing the tip Reynolds increasing the sweep to 30 degrees, the twist is not
number. A lower Reynolds number reduces CL MAX as pronounced, raising the Oswald efficiency while
for a given airfoil causing premature tip stall. Tip preserving the highest possible CL MAX. A larger
stall reduces aileron effectiveness, which can be taper ratio reduces CL MAX; however, a highly
detrimental during landing and can cause swept wing and a lower taper ratio would result in
unrecoverable loss of control in high g maneuvers. severe tip stall problems, too difficult to
Oswald efficiency is the last major parameter compensate by other means. The highest taper
that must be considered in the design. Oswald ratio possible, 0.9, was chosen. A taper ratio of 1.0
efficiency is important during cruise because of its is impossible due to structural restrictions from
effect on lift-to-drag ratio. With a poor Oswald using a telescoping wing.
efficiency the SDG-1 would not be able to glide as
far, thus limiting its maximum range. Figure 2

5
The use of additional aerodynamic devices, such as 7.4 Wing Fence Design
wing fences, flaps, and winglets were necessary to Wing fences will be used to address the tip stall
meet the performance requirements of the wing. problem of the wing with its 30-degree sweep.
Finally, the constraint of limited wingspan was Wing fences used on swept wings break up the
addressed by telescoping wings. spanwise flow, reducing boundary layer thickness
past the wing fence.
7.3 Telescoping Wings The wing fence will be placed at the end of the
The SDG-1 needs a way to get to the release first section of the wing. This is the ideal
altitude. The most realistic way to achieve this is placement because it will get the fence as close to
with the use of a cargo plane. The C-130 with its the inner edge of the elevon as possible, where it
large rear cargo door was chosen for this task. The works best at preventing tip stall. It will be
maximum width of its hatch however, is only 9 ft. approximately 3 inches in height and extend 2/3 of
This is too small to fit the 16 ft wingspan of the the chord length from the leading edge over the top
SDG-1. Collapsible, foldable or retractable wings, of the wing and another 1/3 of the chord length
had to be designed to accommodate the limited from the leading edge on the bottom of the wing.
width of the cargo door. A telescoping wing was
chosen as the best option. 7.5 Winglet Design
Telescoping wings have several advantages Winglets are absolutely essential for the SDG-1.
with accompanying disadvantages. With the wings They serve several purposes, including induced
retracted, the SDG-1 would have a lower total lift, drag reduction, increased directional stability,
which would be beneficial directly after prevention of tip stall, and the creation of induced
deployment from the C-130. This is because the C- thrust [3]. Winglet design can be complicated,
130 would be traveling significantly faster than the especially when tailoring them for a particular task.
designed cruise speed of the SDG-1. The lower lift Reference [3] provides equations for calculating
produced by the retracted wing will help to prevent winglet height, effective dihedral due to the
structural damage and uncontrollable pitching. winglets, and effective dihedral due to sweep:
Telescoping wings also allow the use of high
strength composite materials such as carbon fiber hwin = 0.1b (10)
to be used for the skin of the craft. This increases
the structural rigidity and decreases the weight 40 hwin
dramatically as opposed to a skeleton and fabric Γeff win = (11)
skin design otherwise needed on a folding or€ b
collapsible wing. The structure inside the wing will
be simple adding to the manufacturability of this Λ
Γeff sweep = (12)
design. 16.6
The negative aspects of telescoping wings arise
€
as a result of the limited research of their use on Apart from their positive aerodynamic
aircraft. Known complications are mostly properties, the winglets can also extend the wings
concerned with the control surfaces on the wing.€ from their retracted position without using heavy
The control surfaces are not in a fixed location actuators or mechanisms. By placing winglets on
making it difficult to achieve the no-play condition the tips of the wings, which can pivot out to a
required in the linkage. Analog controls would be predetermined angle, the forces generated by the
very difficult to use on a telescoping wing so forward velocity pull the wings out from their
electronic controls would probably have to be used retracted position. Once fully extended, the
instead. In addition, telescoping wings limit the winglets could be set back to a zero degree angle
different types of flaps and their placement. of attack, flush with the straight edge of the wing
Moreover, the aspect ratio could never be exactly and parallel with the forward velocity of the
1.0 due to the structural restrictions. aircraft.

6
7.6 High Lift Devices 9.2 Lateral Stability
The landing velocity of the SDG-1 is 40 knots with Lateral stability is obtained through wing sweep
a corresponding CL of 1.8. The wing design chosen and the winglets. Winglets create an effective
from the parametric study gives a wing with a CL dihedral of 4 degrees and when coupled with
MAX of only 1.23. This lift is insufficient for the effective dihedral due to sweep, the wing acts as if
landing velocity and wing loading requirements. it had ~6 degrees of dihedral in level flight. The
Therefore some type of high-lift device is needed effective dihedral will reduce sideslip and spiral
to safely land the aircraft. A split flap was chosen divergence but increase Dutch roll. Effective
to provide the additional lift and still allow for the dihedral due to sweep depends on angle of attack.
telescoping wing design. To produce an additional Hence, the effective dihedral during glide will be
CL of 0.572, the flap will have a chord 20% of the low, minimizing Dutch roll. At the higher angles of
wing chord, a deployment angle of 18 degrees, and attack during landing, the effective dihedral will be
a length spanning the inner 47% of the wing. increased, providing more lateral stability than an
unswept wing [3].
8. Weight and Balance
To estimate the various component weights were, a
9.3 Directional Stability
structural analysis was needed. This analysis Directional stability is achieved by the winglets.
assumed a maximum load factor of 5 and a safety The following parameter is defined as the measure
factor of 1.4. The material used for the fuselage of directional stability [3]:
and the wing is epoxy carbon fiber AS-4. For the
main spar of the wing, aluminum 6061-T6, T651 Sw x w
σw = (13)
will be used. The thickness of carbon fiber and b
S
aluminum spar were found to be 1/16 inch and 1/8 2
inch respectively. Table 5 lists the weights of the
various aircraft components. where Sw is the winglet wetted area and xw is the
distance between the neutral points of the wing and
Table 5 – Aircraft component weights the€winglet. For flying wings σw must be in the
Fuselage 14.3 lbs range 0.03 – 0.06, the exact value depending on
Wing spar 31.2 lbs sweep. For the SDG-1, σw = 0.037. Considering
Wing skin 56.3 lbs the significant amount of sweep of the SDG-1, this
Winglets 3.25 lbs each value is sufficient.
Total Weight 108.3 lbs
10. Drag Breakdown
The total weight is 8% higher than the 100 lb goal, The drag breakdown was calculated as follows [7]:
however, it is still within reasonable limits. The
total weight of craft and pilot needs to be less than CD = CDF + CDW + CDwinglets =
300 lbs and with the average weight of a person (14)
being approximately 150 lbs, there is still 42 lbs of = 0.0097 + 0.0268 + 0.0007 = 0.0372
leeway.
The original design goal for the SDG-1 was a lift-
9. Stability and Control to-drag ratio L/D = 6 but our estimated value is
€ L/D = 14, which is significantly higher. However,
9.1 Longitudinal Stability the drag of the pilot has not been accounted for in
Longitudinal stability is inherently built into the our analysis (the fuselage was assumed enclosed).
wing through the incorporation of sweep and twist. The decrease in induced drag and the addition of
The static margin is set at 5%. This translates into induced thrust from the winglets was also not taken
the center-of-gravity being approximately 2 inches into consideration. The increase in drag from the
in front of the trailing edge of the wing root. pilot will most likely outweigh the reduction of
drag from the winglets. Having a calculated L/D

7
of 14 makes an actual L/D of 6 quite plausible, tailless configuration. This paper focused on the
with a value higher than 6 very likely. feasibility of the design, however, the SDG-1 has
an elegant appearance greatly adding to its overall
11. Conclusion appeal. Further work will focus on designing an
airfoil specific for the mission, building and testing
The final 3 – view drawings of the SDG-1 are
a scaled model, and constructing a full sized
shown in Figure 3. Designing for an adequate lift-
aircraft.
to-drag ratio while satisfying the structural
constraints of the aircraft, so that it could be
deployed from a cargo plane, was the primary
design challenge. This challenge was met with a

Figure 3 – Three-view drawings of the SDG-1 (dimensions in inches)

Configuration Design and Integration of the
References: Propulsion System. Ottawa: The University of
[1] Skyboard video: Kansas, 1986.
<http://skyboardnz.com/video.php> [7] Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part IV:
retrieved Apr. 13, 2009. Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic,
[2] Kroo, I., Beckman, E., Robbins B., Morris S., Thrust and Power Characteristics. Ottawa: The
and Porter B., Development of the SWIFT – A University of Kansas, 1986.
Tailless Foot-Launched Sailplane, Hang
Gliding, Jan. 1991.
[3] Nickel, K., and Wohlfahrt, M., Tailless Aircraft
in Theory and Practice, AIAA Education
Series, AIAA Washington, DC, 1994.
[4] Wing Analysis Program:
<http://aero.stanford.edu/wingcalc.html>,
retrieved Apr. 13, 2009.
[5] Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part I:
Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes. Ottawa, The
University of Kansas, 1986.
[6] Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part II:
Preliminary