12th April 2018

UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2 Flight

Coursework
Engineering Report

Group 36

Christopher Wallis: 16014375

Danielle Everett: 16009850

Keean Ferreira-Green: 16011746

Mirudula Tanapubadi: 16007373

Abstract
Since 2015 upon the release of the new ‘E-Conditions,’ legislation interposed by the Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) aerospace engineering students at the University of the West of England have been
designing to later showcase a Standard Cirrus 75 electric powered glider to demonstrate zero
emissions air transportation. This would require the installation of a lightweight electric propulsion
unit in the nose of the glider and lithium-based batteries. These modifications would affect the
weight, balance, performance and stability of the glider; therefore, an analysis must be made into
the static stability and performance of the modifies glider to determine the optimal configuration.

The deliverables accompanying this report include an updated POH, MATLAB files used to complete
the calculations and a peer assessment report. This report shall present the group’s findings,
decisions and justifications. After completion of this analysis, it is recommended that the installation
of the lithium-based batteries be in the water ballast of the glider.

Introduction
The new legislation interceded by the CAA allows reasonable modifications to be made to any
airframe with a take-off weight under 2000 kg. The drive behind this project is sustainability, as each
second 11 tonnes of jet fuel are burned due to aviation damaging the ozone layer. In an effort
towards reducing jet fuel consumption through zero emission transport research students at UWE
are modifying the Standard Cirrus 75, so it can be electrically powered. UWE is the first university to
attempt to build and fly an aircraft with this concept, taking advantage of the new legislation.
Currently the Standard Cirrus 75 glider at UWE is acts as a flight research platform (including
research on battery technology and solar cells,) and is capable of self-launching fully electric aircraft.
Keeping in line with this legislation, only reasonable modifications have been made and minimal
amendments have been made to the airframe.

etaTo understand the impact of the modifications analyses shall be made for both the modified and
existing glider, including performance analysis (covering gliding for the existing glider, and take -off,
landing, climb, descent, gliding and range for the modified glider,) as well as the stick free, stick fixed
and stick force gradient for both.

This report shall first state the individual contributions of each team member followed by the
following sections chronologically; System Design, Weight, Balance and Stability, Performance,
Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations and References. The sections on performance,
weight, balance and stability will include methodology and detailed calculations, as well as any
formulae and equations used, or assumptions made. Throughout this report any data taken directly
from the POH or the standardcirrus.org website will be stated alongside the design methodology.
The tools used for the calculations were MATLAB and Javafoil, the final report is accompanied by
these MATLAB files and graphs for 𝐶𝑙 ,𝐶𝑑 and 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑐 over angle of attack taken from Javafoil will be
presented in Section 5 (Weight & Balance) of the POH.

Limitations of this report, are that analysis of the main wing aerodynamics do not include results
from CFD or Prandtl’s integral equation and thin airfoil theory for comparison with the theoretical
values obtained.
Background and Literature Review
The Standard Cirrus 75 is a single seated glider with a 15m wing span. The original standard Cirrus
was built by Klaus Holighaus for Schimpp Hirth in 1969 and the Standard Cirrus 75 was made in 1977
with several modifications including larger wing fairings, larger airbrakes, longer nose and modified
tailplane attachment fitting.

With respect to previous research into solely electrically powered manned gliders built as
demonstrators of battery technology and electrically powered flight, the first electrically powered
manned glider was the MB-E1 flown in October 1973 by pilot H. Brditschka, the battery technology
at the time only allowed a flight time of 15 minutes. The MB-E1 was a variant of the fully certified
airframe HB-3 with minor modifications to carry batteries and electric motor.

This project is based on the ETA 1 project referenced. The Standard Cirrus 75 by Schempp Hirth was
selected out of the fifteen gliders examined as its not only highly efficient with a glide ratio of 1:38
but also has a complimentary nose shape and is one of the lightest gliders within its class. According
to updates on the blog for this project lithium-ion batteries were chosen, prioritising safety over
density. Lithium ion batteries are nowadays seen as an industry standard and this technology is
currently being invested in by Tesla and other leading EV companies. The battery pack used in the
ETA 1 is made from 640 individual Lithium Ion cells of the 18650 standard. The batteries selected are
made by TYVA who an innovative battery technology company are making advancements in eco-
friendly battery design which aligns with the aim of this project.

The technical specification data pack also provided information useful to the project. The mass of
the propulsion unit given is 61kg and the Maximum Take Off Weight of 390kg and the cockpit load is
91kg. The data pack also offers information on the water ballast and propeller. The water ballast
allows the glider to increase its wing loading so that a smaller sink speed is achieved and thus a
greater flight speed for racing. The mass allowed for this water ballast will be used for the propulsion
unit. The motor that has been selected is the Enstroj Emrax 188 low voltage battery which boasts an
efficiency of 92-98% and has a maximum battery voltage of 90 Vdc.

Individual Contributions
Group Member Individual Contribution Contribution Percentage

Chris Wallis, 16014375 Aerodynamics and Performance 25%

Danielle Everett, 16009850 Stability, Range and Report 25%

Keean Ferreira-Green, 16011746 Weight and Balance, MATLAB 25%

Mirudula Tanapubadi, 16007373 Stability and POH 25%

Figure 1 Contribution Table

Note: There were originally five members in this group however one left voluntarily due to a lack of
contribution
System Design
General Arrangement

Figure 2 General Arrangement of Original Glider

Subsystems
The total mass of the new propulsion unit is 61Kg. The majority of this mass is due to the 640*ME
1865-LM4 batteries, weighing 31Kg. Also adding to this weight is the fuselage and battery mountings
for these batteries, as well as the wires connecting them, giving a total combined mass of 17Kg. In
addition to this is the EMRAX 188 low voltage motor, prop and motor mount with a total combined
mass of 9.5kg. The final section of the propulsion system is the controller for the whole system, with
a mass of only 3.5kg.

Weight, Balance & Stability

Existing Glider
The findings for weight balance and stability of the existing glider are as follows.

Empty weight: 210 kg

Maximum All Up Weight: 390 kg

Centre of Gravity: 609 mm aft of datum

Stick Fixed Neutral Point: 0.5740

Stick Free Neutral point: 0.3969

Stick Force Gradient: 0.4649

Methodology
The values for much of the weight and balance information was able to be extracted from the
resources provided. These values were the empty weight, maximum take-off weight (MTOW) and
centre of gravity. For the stability calculations, values for 𝑏, 𝑏𝑡 , 𝑐𝑡 , 𝑐𝑟 , and 𝛬𝐿𝐸 were taken from the
Standard Cirrus 75 geometry document. The gearing ratio 𝐺 was found using the elevator deflection
given in the POH and these values were then used in the formulas and equations for longitudinal
stability to obtain values for stick free and stick fixed stability as well as the stick force gradient. The
assumption 𝜂𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 is equal to unity was used. These calculations were completed using MATLAB.

Design Calculations
Stick fixed
𝑐𝑟 +𝑐𝑡
𝑠𝑡 = 𝑏𝑡 = 1.044𝑚2
2

2 𝑏/2 2
𝑐̅𝑡 = ∫0 𝑐 ⅆ𝑦 = 1.49379m
𝑠

1+2𝜆
̅̅̅̅
𝐶𝑡0 = 𝐶𝑟 𝐴𝑅𝑡𝑎𝑛 ∧0 = 0.16441m
12

1
𝑙𝑡′ = 4 ⋅ 21 + ̅̅̅̅
𝐶𝑡0 + ( 𝑐̅𝑡 − 𝑐̅) = 4.51m
4

𝑐
𝜆 = 𝑐𝑡 =0.526
𝑟

𝑠𝑡 ∗𝑙𝑡
𝑉𝐻 = = 0.3796
𝑠∗𝑐̅
𝑠𝑡
𝑉𝐻′ = 𝑉𝐻 + (ℎ − ℎ𝑛𝜔𝑏 ) =0.48454
𝑠

(𝐶𝐿𝛼 )
2𝐷
(𝐶𝐿𝛼 ) = = 4.611511/rad
3𝐷𝑡 1+(𝐶𝐿𝛼 )
2𝐷
𝜋𝐴𝑅

(𝐶𝐿𝛼 )
2𝐷
(𝐶𝐿𝛼 ) = = 5.77027/rad
3𝐷𝑤𝑏 1+(𝐶𝐿𝛼 )
2𝐷
𝜋𝐴𝑅

∂ε 2CLαωb
= =0.1632
∂α πAR

𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑡 𝑠𝑡 𝜕𝜀
𝑐𝐿𝛼 = 𝑐𝐿𝛼𝜔𝑏 [1 + 𝜂 (1 − 𝜕𝛼)]= 6.17252
𝐶𝐿𝛼 𝑠

′ 𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑡 𝜕𝜀
ℎ𝑛 = ℎ𝑛𝑤𝑏 + 𝑉 𝐻 (1 − 𝜕𝛼) = 0.5740
𝐶𝐿𝛼

Stick Free

𝜕𝑐𝐿𝑡 𝑏1
𝐹 = (1 − 𝜕𝛿𝑒 𝑏2 ) = 0.4649
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑡

𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑡 𝑠𝑡 𝜕𝜀
𝐶𝐿𝛼,𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 = 𝑐𝐿𝛼𝜔𝑏 [1 + 𝜂 𝐹 𝑐 (1 − 𝜕𝛼)] = 5.91674
𝐿𝛼𝜔𝑏 𝑠

𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑡 𝜕𝜀
ℎ𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 = ℎ𝑛𝜔𝑏 + 𝐹𝑉𝐻′ 𝐶 (1 − 𝜕𝛼)= 0.3969
𝐿𝛼,𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒
 𝜕𝐶𝐿
( 𝜕𝛿 𝑡 ) = 2(π − φ + sin 𝜑) = 4.4985
𝑒 2𝐷

𝜕𝐶𝐿
( 𝜕𝛿 𝑡 )
𝜕𝐶𝐿 𝑒 2𝐷
( 𝜕𝛿 𝑡 ) = 𝜕𝐶𝐿 = 3.57154
𝑒
1+( 𝑡)
𝜕𝛿𝑒
2𝐷
𝜋𝐴𝑅
2𝑥
𝜙 = cos−1 ( 𝑐 − 1) = 1.852872652 rad
1
𝑏12𝐷 = 𝑥 2 [2(𝜋 − 𝑥)(2 cos 𝜙 − 1) + 4 sin 𝜙 − sin 2𝜙)] =-0.7434993994
−4( 𝐹 )
𝑐

1
𝑏22𝐷 = 𝑥 2 [(1 − cos 2𝜙) − 2(𝜋 − 𝜙)2 (1 − 2cos 𝜙) + 4(𝜋 − 𝜙) sin 𝜙] = -1.055920352
−4( 𝐹 )
𝑐

Stick force gradient

se = 0.35 st = 0.3654𝑚2

𝐶𝑒̅ = 0.35 𝑐̅𝑡 = 0.52282m

𝜕𝐶𝐿
𝐶𝑚𝛿 = −𝑉𝐻 ( 𝜕𝛿 𝑡 ) = -1.3557
𝑒

𝛿𝑒
G= = 4.921
𝑙𝑠 𝛿𝑠
𝜕𝑃 2 𝑏2 𝑤
= 𝐺se 𝐶𝑒̅ (ℎ − ℎ𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 ) ( ) = −1.1525𝑁. 𝑠/𝑚
𝜕𝑉 𝑉𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑚 𝑐𝑚𝛿 𝑠

Modified
𝜕𝑃 2 𝑏2 𝑤
= 𝐺se 𝐶𝑒̅ (ℎ − ℎ𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 ) ( ) = −1.3627𝑁. 𝑠/𝑚
𝜕𝑉 𝑉𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑚 𝑐𝑚𝛿 𝑠

Coefficient of moment:
Wing contribution

CL0 w = CLαw α0 = 0.4028

𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐
𝑐𝑚0𝑤 = 𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑤 + CL0 w ( − ) = 0.02014
𝑐̅ 𝑐̅
𝑥𝑐𝑔 𝑥𝑎𝑐
𝐶𝑚𝛼𝜔 = 𝑐𝐿𝛼𝜔 ( − ) = 0.2885
𝑐̅ 𝑐̅

Tail contribution
𝑑𝜀
𝜀 = 𝜀0 + 𝑑𝛼 𝛼𝑤 = 0.0464+0.6658 𝛼

𝐶𝑚0𝑡 = 𝜂𝑉𝐻 𝑐𝐿𝛼𝑡 (𝜀0 + 𝑖𝑤 − 𝑖𝑡 ) = 0.14246

 𝜕𝜀
𝐶𝑚𝛼𝑡 = - 𝜂𝑉𝐻 𝑐𝐿𝛼𝑡 (1 − 𝜕𝛼) = -1.4648

Total Aircraft Moment

𝐶𝑚𝑐𝑔 = 𝐶𝑚𝑐𝑔𝑤 + 𝐶𝑚𝑐𝑔𝑡 = 0.1626 + (-1.176) 𝛼

Modified Glider
The findings for weight balance and stability of the modified glider are as follows.

Empty weight: 240 kg

Maximum Take Off Weight: 392 kg

Maximum All Up Weight:

Centre of Gravity: 609 mm aft of datum

Battery position: 3152.53 mm aft of datum

Stick Fixed Neutral Point: 0.5740

Stick Free Neutral point: 0.3969

Stick Force Gradient: 0.4649

Methodology
Similarly, to the existing glider much of the information needed was provided by the resources
provided. Given the system weight of the propeller system is 61kg the remaining pilot seat loading is
reduced to 91kg. Analysis has been made to review the changes to the weight within the scope. The
weight of the propulsion system is allowed by using the weight allowance for the water ballast. The
water ballast is used for competitions to allow a greater flight speed by increasing the wing loading
and thus shifting the minimum sink speed. The space used for the water ballast has been chosen for
the location of the batteries, 320 battery pieces will be placed on each wing for balanced wing
loading and to minimise the changes to the stability. Although using the, space and weight allowed
for the water ballast for the propulsion system limits the glider as changes to wing loading can not
be made to increase flight speeds, this is justified as suitability for competitions is not an objective of
this project.

The installation of the front nose mounted folding propeller and motor and the loading of the
batteries in the water ballast would cause changes to the centre of gravity. The data pack stated that
this system would be inherently self-balancing due to the lightweight motor will be at the far-front
and the heavy lithium batteries were proposed to be aft of the landing gear bulkhead in the
fuselage. As the location of the batteries selected in this report is in the wings, the centre of gravity
of the modified glider proposed in this report is expected to differ slightly from other proposed
configurations. With changes to the centre of gravity the moments have had to be re-calculated to
assess the balance and stability. However these calculations were miscalculated causing no changes
to be realised.
Figure 3 Water Ballast sink rate for Existing glider

Design Calculations

∑𝑴𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕
𝑪. 𝑮. =
∑𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔
∑Moment = 87387.28 + 48x

∑Mass = 392

Therefore:

∑𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝐶. 𝐺. = ∑𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

609 * 392 = 87387.28+ 48x

238728 = 87387.28 + 48x

151340.72 = 48x

X = 3152.93mm

Performance
Existing Glider
Glide
Minimum Glide Angle: 1.509 degrees (0.023 radians)
Minimum Sink Rate: 0.1293 m/s
Methodology
To begin the performance calculations, the aerodynamics of the existing glider was analysed using
MATLAB. Javafoil was used to find values 𝐶𝑙 and 𝐶𝑑 over angle of attack, α. These values were then
used to find 𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 by applying Prandtl’s lifting line theory. An assumption for 𝑒 of 0.8 was used
for these calculations. Due to the lack of propulsion in the original glider, many of the calculations in
the performance section do not apply to the original glider, such as rate of climb and maximum
service ceiling. The first task was to find the minimum glide angle. In gliding, the power necessary for
flight is not from the engine but the change in energy of the aircraft as it sinks, meaning that
minimum sink rate occurs at the minimum power speed and the minimum glide angle occurs at the
minimum drag speed
Next, using the calculated 𝐶𝐷0 and the following equation, a value for coefficient of lift at the
minimum rate of descent was calculated, which was then used to find the lift and thus the minimum
rate of descent itself.
Design Calculations

Figure 4 Performance Calculations for Existing Glider

Modified Glider
Take-Off
Take-off Speed: 88.68 km/h

Climb
Maximum Rate of Climb, ROC: 0.3198 m/s
Maximum Climb Angle: 0.0228 radians (1.306 degrees)
Power Available, 𝑃𝐴 : 18.47Kw

Glide & Descent

Minimum sink rate: 0.1408

Level Flight and Range

Range: 203 km
Max speed: 106.95 m/s
Figure 5Speed Calculation

Methodology
The performance calculations available for a powered aircraft are far greater than those available to
the unpowered version. Again, the first calculations to complete were the minimum ROD and
minimum glide angle. With no changes to the fuselage or wings, the minimum glide angle remained
the same, however the extra weight increased the minimum ROD.
The next step was to calculate the available power, using values of torque and RPM, then converting
it to available power. thrust (TA). After this, CD0 was calculated using max L/D and thrust required
equations. The next step was to calculate the max ROC by solving the quadratic equation for CL at
max ROC and using the CL to balance the weight and find the velocity, ROC max.

Figure 6 Design Calculation Performance

The final climb stage for the powered glider was the calculation of the maximum climb angle. This
was done by using k*(Cl^2) = CD0 to find CL, then this to find the maximum climb angle using the
arcsin of (T-D)/W.
Figure 7 Design Calculation Modified Glider

𝐿 1
For the calculation of the range the input required was 𝐷 which was given by the POH, 𝑔 with
gravitational acceleration assumed to be 9.807, η is assumed to be 0.7 as battery systems which are
𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦
solely electric typically offer efficiencies of 0.7 or more. Another input needed is 𝑚 , found
using the battery mass of 31kg from the data pack and the MTOW of 392kg which gives a battery
mass fraction of 8%. The batteries used are part number ME 1865-LM4 by TYVA, 𝐸 ∗ for this battery
was 260 Wh/kg according to the site.

The centre of gravity calculated modified would stay the same if we use t

Design Calculations
1 𝐿 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦
𝑅 = 𝐸∗ × 𝜂 × 𝑔 × 𝐷 × 𝑚
= 203km

Discussion
One crucial result of this project that should be discussed is the location of the batteries. The
recommendation of this report is that the batteries be located in the space intended for water
ballast. The justification for this was that this configuration would be easy to balance and would
require less changes to the fuselage as fitment could prove difficult, where-as utilizing the space of
the disused water ballast would be convenient. Upon review of the specifications in the data pack,
this decision is not aligned with the instructions as it states exact regard for battery package size and
fitment to the fuselage is unnecessary. It also states no structural parts such as the wing or tail
should be amended. Locating the batteries within the water ballast would mean the wing loading is
constantly increased and this could be seen as an amendment. Within the brief there is also several
references stating the batteries should be located in the fuselage. As this decision could be
interpreted as an amendment to the wing, it deviates the project from its specification and scope. As
the E-Condition regulations allow for reasonable changes to be made to the airframe, this proposal
should still follow regulations.

The centre of gravity calculated modified would stay the same if we use the battery location
calculated, moving it backwards could make the glider tail heavy which would be preferable to a
nose-heavy glider as it would be easier to control.

Another key finding of this report is the flight range being crucial to the pilot, which is 203 km. It is
sufficient for the glider to serve its purpose as a demonstrator for electric flight and shows that
solely electric aircraft are feasible. The most significant factor limiting the flight range is the battery
mass ratio. For this glider the battery mass ratio is 8% which is far smaller than that of other
electrically powered aircraft. At the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium, TESLA CEO Elon Musk
stated that with a mass specific energy content value of 400Wh and a power cell ratio in the ‘mid to
high 70s’ (percent) transcontinental flight becomes ‘compelling. The mass specific energy content
value of the battery (260Wh) is on the higher end of current day battery ratings.

Other information vital to the pilot for operation of the glider is the maximum climb angle and the
speed, knowing these allow the pilot to

The lack of accurate stability calculations for the modified glider is one limitation of the project. The
calculations were misinterpreted so no changes were found for the effect of a new centre of gravity,
which would be useful for the pilot to predict the behaviour of the project. Another limitation is that
are that analysis of the main wing aerodynamics do not include results from CFD or Prandtl’s integral
equation and thin airfoil theory for comparison with the theoretical values obtained.

Much of the projects shortcomings are not due to time management problems but the resignation
of a group member a few days more the submission as they had not done work they had claimed to,
meaning much of the calculations were not done as scheduled. Following the original work
breakdown of the project, further calculations and corrections.

Conclusions and Recommendations

To conclude, the report shows the glider can successfully perform electrically powered flight
sufficiently to demonstrate the feasibility of electric aircraft for sustainability. With further
advancements in battery technology and development of Lithium -Ion batteries with a greater
energy density greater ranges could be achieved.

Due to the fact the proposal of locating the batteries within the wing ballast would cause a
significant change in wing loading, this proposal would not be recommended if changes to the wing
as a structural part would not be allowed, but if restrictions were more lenient this possibility could
be explored.

Further investigation should have been made into the stability of the glider once modified, the
report is unable to compare any observations and expectations for this element of the project as
they are incomplete.
References
Dorrington, G.E. and McIntyre, J.D., 2008. Performance of battery powered aircraft. In Proceedings of the Royal
Aeronautical Society General Aviation Conference. Cambridge.

Etkin, B. and Reid, L. (1996). Dynamics of flight. New York [etc.]: J. Wiley & Sons

Hovis, M. (2014) How Far Away Is Commercial Electric Aviation? Inside EVS Available From: https://insideevs.com/far-
away-commercial-electric-flight/ [Accessed 08 April 2018]

Hepperle, M. (2012) Electric Flight - Potential and Limitations. Energy Efficient Technologies and Concepts of Operation, 22-
24 October 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.

Kohn, K (2018) UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2 Flight Coursework Data Pack (BCW2) [Assignment Resource]. 24 January.
Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-6079704-dt-content-rid-12513201_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-
2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20BCW2%20Data%20Pack%202018%20V.2.0.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2018]

Kohn, K (2018) Standard Cirrus 75 Geometry [Assignment Resource]. 18 February. Available from:
https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-6079704-dt-content-rid-12736611_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-
2_17sep_1/Standard%20Cirrus%2075%20Geometry%202018-02-18%20V1.3.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2018]

Lambert, M., Munson, K. and Taylor, M. (1990). Jane's all the world's aircraft, 1990-91. Coulson, Surrey, UK: Jane's
Information Group, pp.654-655

Nelson, R.C., 1998. Flight stability and automatic control (Vol. 2). New York: WCB/McGraw Hill.

Schempp-Hirth K.G. (1969) Flight and Service Manual for the Sailplane – Standard Cirrus – [Kircheim unter Teck: Schempp-
Hirth

Traub, L.W., 2016. Optimal battery weight fraction for maximum aircraft range and endurance. Journal of Aircraft, 53(4),
pp.1177-1179

Tuling, S (2018) Performance – Take-off [Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics (UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2)]. U.W.E.
Bristol. January – April 2018. Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-5881300-dt-content-rid-
12528621_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20Flight%20-%20Take-off.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2018]

Tuling, S (2018) Performance – Climb [Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics (UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2)]. U.W.E. Bristol.
January – April 2018. Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-5881304-dt-content-rid-
12614930_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20Flight%20-%20Climb%20Performance.pdf [Accessed 30
March 2018]

Tuling, S (2018) Performance – Straight and Level Flight [Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics (UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-
2)]. U.W.E. Bristol. January – April 2018. Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-5881304-dt-
content-rid-12614931_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20Flight%20-%20Level%20Performance.pdf
[Accessed 30 March 2018]

Tuling, S (2018) Static Stability: Longitudinal [Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics (UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2)]. U.W.E.
Bristol. January – April 2018. Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-5881305-dt-content-rid-
12615096_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20Flight%20-%20Longitudinal%20Stability%20Intro.pdf
[Accessed 30 March 2018]

Tuling, S (2018) Static Stability: Static Margin [Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics (UFMFY6-30-2 & UFMF9C-30-2)]. U.W.E.
Bristol. January – April 2018. Available from: https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-5881305-dt-content-rid-
12615097_2/courses/UFMFY6-30-2_17sep_1/UFMFY6-30-2%20Flight%20-
%20Longitudinal%20Stability%20Static%20Margin.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2018]

Secondary Battery Solutions, TYVA. Available from: http://www.tyva-energie.com/en/lithium-en/our-secondary-battery-

solutions/18650-li-ion-cells.html [Accessed 06 April 2018]