Example1 Feasibility Report

Feasibility of Parachute Recovery Systems for Small UAVs
Kirk Graham Stewart Cartwright
University of New South Wales

Australian Defence Force Academy
School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
Damage to model UAV research aircraft, whether it is structural or systems damage can be
costly. To combat this problem this project focuses on determining the mechanical
feasibility of a parachute recovery system for small model UAV research aircraft. The
economic feasibility of such a system will also be briefly considered. The findings of this
project indicate that a PRS is capable of recovering these aircraft within an appropriate
altitude. The low cost of implementation for a PRS also make it financially cost effective.
This project extends from the initial task of designing and constructing a model aircraft for
competition in the SAE Aero Design Competition. The design criteria for this competition
were to develop a remote control aircraft with set engine and geometric limitations to lift
maximum payload up to a takeoff weight of 25 kg.
NOMENCLATURE
m = mass [kg]
g = gravity [ms-2]
Cd = drag coefficient
S = surface area [m2]
Do = nominal parachute diameter [m]
Dp = inflated parachute diameter [m]
a = semi-major axis length [m]
b = semi-minor axis length [m]
V = velocity [ms-1]
= density [kg/m3]
Fd = drag force [N]
x = parachute filling distance [m]
tf = parachute filling time [s]
n = canopy fill constant
Cx = opening force coefficient
X1 = opening force reduction factor
A = ballistic parameter
dv/dt = acceleration
dθ/dt = rate of change of attitude
θ = attitude angle
β = power of filling function
PRS = Parachute Recovery System
UAV = Unmanned Aero Vehicle
SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers
ADFA = Australian Defence Force Academy
1
Final Thesis Report 2008, UNSW@ADFA
CONTENTS
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Aim .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
B. Scope................................................................................................................................................................ 3
C. Background & Justifications ............................................................................................................................ 3
D. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 4
E. Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 4
F. Management..................................................................................................................................................... 4
II. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................. 5
A. Canopy Shape .................................................................................................................................................. 5
B. Parachute Activation ........................................................................................................................................ 5
C. Inflation Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 6
D. Parachute Filling Distance ............................................................................................................................... 7
E. Attachment Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 7
F. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
III. Concept Selection ............................................................................................................................................ 8
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
B. Concept 1 – Uncontrolled Deployment............................................................................................................ 9
C. Concept 2 – Ballistic Deployment ................................................................................................................... 9
D. Concept 3 – Spring Release ........................................................................................................................... 10
E. Concept 4 – Pilot Chute Deployment ............................................................................................................ 11
F. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
IV. System Design ............................................................................................................................................... 13
A. Parachute System Configuration .................................................................................................................... 13
B. Canopy Sizing ................................................................................................................................................ 14
C. Pilot Chute Design ......................................................................................................................................... 15
D. Initiation Method ........................................................................................................................................... 15
E. Containment ................................................................................................................................................... 16
F. Deployment Bag ............................................................................................................................................ 17
G. Canopy Inflation Predictions ......................................................................................................................... 17
H. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
V. Testing and Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 20
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 20
B. Method ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
C. Results and Validation ................................................................................................................................... 20
D. Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
E. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
VI. Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 26
A. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
B. Scope.............................................................................................................................................................. 26
C. Proposed System ............................................................................................................................................ 26
D. Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
E. Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
F. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
A. Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................................................................... 27
B. Future Direction ............................................................................................................................................. 27
C. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 27
VIII. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ 28
References ................................................................................................................................................................... 29
2
I. Introduction
A. Aim
The aim of this project is to determine if a Parachute Recovery System is a mechanically and economically feasible
method of safely recovering the ADFA SAE aero UAV from flight failure. An aircraft parachute recovery system
(PRS) is a procedure that relies on the deployment of a parachute to aerodynamically decelerate an aircraft allowing
for a safer touchdown (Knacke, 1992).
B. Scope
This project ultimately began with group design and construction of the ADFA SAE Aero UAV. Once completed
individual projects were selected for all group members. The scope of this individual project begins with the
examination of existing PRSs, and a review of the principles involved with PRS design. The development of initial
concepts will follow, then a focus on system design. More detailed design of the chosen concept will be pursued
with the aid of experimental results, gathered through testing. The testing results will be aimed at determining the
mechanical feasibility of the PRS. The ability to safely recover UAVs in the event of flight failure is of significant
importance.
Research will also go into the benefit of a PRS for such small research UAV platforms. A determination of how
beneficial such a system will be to small UAV research will try to be reached by carrying out a brief cost – time
benefit analysis.
The revised tasks within the scope of this thesis are listed below;
• Obtain design details and develop the design requirements analysis. (Group)
• Design and construct the aircraft. (Group)
• Flight test the aircraft. (Group)
• Review existing parachute recovery systems. (Individual)
• Design a system suitable for this aircraft. (Individual)
• Test validity of design. (Individual)
• Determine feasibility of the design. (Individual)
The ultimate goal of this project is to determine if a PRS can safely recover this small balsa constructed UAV within
an appropriate altitude. Because radio controlled aircraft operate at low altitudes it is unknown if a parachute can
open quickly enough to save the aircraft. Furthermore, is it worth the school of ACME investing in a system that
may turn out to be more expensive than the UAV
itself?
C. Background & Justifications

The initial task leading up to this project was to
design, build and test a UAV to compete in the
2008 SAE Aero East Competition. This task was
predominantly undertaken by three students, at the
Australian Defence Force Academy Christopher
Kourloufas, Gerad Markham and Kirk Cartwright.
The design report for this vehicle is attached in
ANNEX A. Each student was entrusted with
different aspects of the UAV design, and once
completed; individual project research was
undertaken in different areas pertaining to the
aforementioned UAV.
Figure 1 - ADFA SAE Aero UAV
3
The design and construction of the ADFA SAE aero UAV was completed in early march 2008, after several months
of work. As demonstrated in Fig. 1 the UAV consisted of a canard design, powered by a single piston engine, with
conventional tricycle undercarriage.
After the construction of the UAV, there was reluctance for the flight testing to begin for fear of damage to the
aircraft as a result of flight failure. This reluctance stemmed from the need for an intact aircraft fuselage to be tested
within the scope of another student’s thesis project. It was suggested that a PRS could be used to reduce the risk of
total aircraft damage if flight failure were to occur. The justification for this individual project stems from this need
to reduce the risk of total aircraft damage during flight testing.
Furthermore, the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy already owns and
operates several small UAV research aircraft similar in size and weight to the ADFA SAE Aero UAV. Further
justification for this project is a direct result of damage to one of these aircraft, during a flight test. The damaged
aircraft was a small research UAV with a gross weight of no more than 25kg, which crashed due to radio controlled
interference. Damage caused to the aircraft was considerably costly, and the inability to continue testing caused
delays in research.
D. Methodology
The overall goal of this project is to determine the mechanical and economic feasibility of a PRS for the ADFA SAE
Aero UAV. The methodology used to reach this goal is to;
1. Carry out preliminary design of a suitable PRS for the ADFA SAE Aero UAV.
2. Develop a method of testing the effectiveness of this design
3. Test the design.
4. Analyse the test results to determine the mechanical feasibility of the design.
5. Undergo a brief cost benefit analysis as a supporting document to determine the economic feasibility.
This methodology outlines the basic structure of this project.
E. Assumptions and Limitations

To ensure that the basic requirements for the PRS remain the same throughout the design process, it will be assumed
that the ADFA SAE Aero UAV is the dominant aircraft that the system is designed for. This will provide a constant
base aircraft to design from. The adaptability of the PRS to different platforms will still be considered during the
design process.
Due to the scope of this project, coupled with the time constraints associated with its completion, the design will be
limited in its depth and detail. The project will be more focused on the overall system design, with an underlying
goal of determining the feasibility of a PRS. The design however, must be sufficiently in depth to determine both
the mechanical and economic feasibility of a PRS for use on small research UAVs.
F. Management
Appropriate management documentation has been attached in ANNEX G
4
II. Literature Review
PRSs are not a new concept, and there has been significant research undertaken into several of the more complex
problems associated with their design. While keeping the aims of the project in mind, this literature review
summarizes some of the research that has occurred in this area.
Parachute terminology is used quite extensively throughout this review, so to aid understanding; a diagram of
parachute parts is attached in ANNEX B.
A. Canopy Shape
Principally, UAV PRSs use three different canopy shapes; cruciform or cross-type canopies, hemispherical canopies
and parafoils (Wyllie, 2001). Parafoils are gliding parachutes, designed to be steerable, allowing for a small level of
navigation after deployment. Their internal cell structure is ram-air inflated which forces the parafoil into a classic
airfoil shape. To operate as intended parafoils need to stay inflated and are therefore constructed out of a low
porosity fabric (Wyllie, 2001). This causes an increase in the
opening shock forces experienced during inflation and a complex
reefing mechanism is generally required to reduce these loads.
Deployment is further complicated by the need to protect the
control line servos from these opening loads (Wyllie, 2001). A
follow on effect of inputting systems to reduce parachute
opening loads causes a much slower deployment speed and
therefore greater height loss during deployment.
Cruciform canopies are the simplest of the three canopy shapes

consisting of two pieces of rectangular cloth overlaid and sewn Figure 2 - Cruciform Canopy Configuration
(Wyllie, 2001).
together as shown in Fig. 1. These canopies have the smallest
drag coefficients, and lower opening forces. The small opening
forces, attributed to gentler parachute inflation, means that the falling body losses more height before full inflation is
attained. Cruciform canopies produce lower oscillation than hemispherical canopies, which is one of the reasons
they have been researched for use in precision airdrop systems are used as drogue stabilizing parachute (Keith Stein,
2001).
Hemispherical canopies have high drag and opening force coefficients (Wyllie, 2001), affording them the advantage
of better reliability on opening. Hemispherical non-steerable parachutes are used for aircraft recovery because their
simplicity enhances their reliability. Simplicity pertains not only to the parachutes reliability but also to ease of
construction and packing, an imperative requirement for this project.
B. Parachute Activation
Parachute activation refers to the method of deployment prior to inflation. It can be assumed that a key factor of
parachute deployment systems is reliability. Three principal deployment methods are forced ejection systems,
drogue or pilot parachute systems, and rocket extraction systems (Huckins, 1970).
Forced ejections systems are common extraction methods due to their simplicity. The mortar, catapult, and pressure
bellows are examples of mechanisms designed to produce a forced ejection of the packed parachute (Huckins,
1970). These systems tend to be heavy and they also produce high reaction loads, which is important when
considering the platform in which the system will fire.
Parachute deployment using a drogue or pilot parachute has numerous advantages. The system is quite flexible
since the parachute extraction force is applied continuously over the entire deployment sequence, and the system is
also lighter. This system relies on aerodynamic force to extract the main parachute, thus problems may arise due to
pilot chute interference with the wake turbulence of the descending body (known in skydiving as ‘hesitation’). Used
in tandem, individual extraction systems increase their effectiveness as demonstrated by the Gemini Spacecraft,
which used a drogue gun to launch a drogue parachute to stabilize the re-entry vehicle, until a height at which the
pilot chute was extracted, pulling out the main chute (Vincze, 1966).
5
A rocket extraction system for parachute deployment has all the advantages of a drogue parachute system, but does
have a slight weight penalty. Furthermore, the rocket extraction system produces very light reaction loads, and is
only slightly dependent on the characteristics of the vehicle wake (Huckins, 1970). The rocket extraction does
however increase the risk of damaging the parachute fabric on extraction, and has the added complexities of dealing
with pyrotechnics.
C. Inflation Characteristics
In view of the fact that parachute inflation is a very complex and unsteady process, it is well known that parachute
theory is a difficult problem in the aerodynamic field (Calvin, 1984). PRSs in UAVs require parachute inflation to
be reliable and quick, to ensure minimum loss of height during opening. In manned PRSs, such as the Ballistic
Recovery System (BRS) used in the Cirrus SR20 (Ballistic Recovery Systems Inc.), complex dis-reefing
mechanisms are put it place to slow the inflation process and reduce shock forces caused by the opening canopy.
The process of dis-reefing shown below in Fig. 2 is done to reduce the forces felt by the manned occupants, and is
important for unmanned PRS design from s structural integral aspect.
Figure 3 - Dis-Reefing of a Hemispherical Canopy (Cao & Xu, 2004).
Reefing a parachute slows the inflation, meaning more height loss, however there is another reason for reefing a
parachute aside from reducing shock forces. There is a phenomenon called wake recontact, sometimes called
“canopy collapse.” This phenomenon occurs when the parachute decelerates the payload so rapidly that the air
behind the parachute catches up to the canopy: causing it to deform (“collapse”) and lose drag (Peterson, Strickland,
& Higuchi, 1996).
One of the single most important aspects in aiding the canopy inflation process is the use of a parachute deployment
bag. A deployment bag ensures a controlled deployment phase. The deployment bag also ensures a lines first
deployment. This ensures that the canopy only begins inflation after the suspension lines have reached full stretch.
If a lines first deployment is not followed the canopy often gets tangled in the suspension lines and fails to inflate
ending in catastrophic PRS failure.
The increase in drag area of the

parachute canopy during the
opening process causes a
deceleration of the recovery
vehicle. A simulation of the
deceleration experienced by the
recovery vehicle was carried out
and a plot of a typical g-loading
experienced is shown in fig 11.
This plot will be referred to later in
this document, when the g-loading
curve for this PRS is plotted.
Figure 4 - G-Loading Plot Experienced by a Recovery Vehicle During Canopy

Inflation (Mohaghegh & Jahannama, 2008).
6
D. Parachute Filling Distance
Parachute filling distance is defined as the distance required for the parachute canopy to open, taken from the point
of initial line stretch to full inflation. Fig. 4 demonstrates this definition (Mohaghegh & Jahannama, 2008). Mueller
and Scheubel reasoned that, based on the continuity law,
parachutes should open within a fixed distance, because a
given conical volume of air in front of the canopy is
required to inflate the canopy (Knacke, 1992). With the
confirmation of drop tests the parachute filling distance was
found to be proportional to the inflated parachute diameter
‘Dp’, multiplied by the canopy fill constant ‘n’, as shown in
Eq. 1 below (Mohaghegh & Jahannama, 2008).
Figure 5 - Canopy Filling Distance Diagram (Mohaghegh &
Jahannama, 2008).
(1)
The canopy fill constant, typical for each parachute type, is an indicator of the filling distance as a multiple of
nominal parachute diameter. Having found the canopy filling distance only one further step is required to determine
the canopy filling time. Given speed is distance over time, the canopy filling time is simple given as Eq. 2
(Mohaghegh & Jahannama, 2008).
(2)
Canopy filling distance and canopy filling time are very important in PRS because they are a direct reflection of how
much height loss may occur during the inflation process. Small UAV research aircraft have to operate at low
altitudes and it is therefore imperative that the campy opens is a short distance.
E. Attachment Considerations
The attachment of the parachute to the UAV directly affects the operation of the system. The attachment points
determine the behaviour of the aircraft during canopy inflation, and also the attitude at which the UAV will fall once
inflation is complete and the PRS is in the steady state condition.
Conventional PRSs deploy in such a way that the aircraft falls undercarriage first in order to protect the airframe;
however this is not always the case. The Phoenix UAV, for example, has a PRS that allows the aircraft to roll over
and land upside down (Wyllie, 2001). This is done to protect some of the sensor equipment underneath the aircraft.
Manipulation of the aircraft attitude during steady state descent is generally achieved by changing the position of the
PRSs attachments in relation to the aircrafts centre of gravity. This allows the designer the freedom to choose how
the aircraft touches down; main undercarriage, or nose wheel first for example. In general however, PRSs are
attached at several points with the centre of gravity of the aircraft roughly in the middle to keep the system balanced.
From a structural perspective it is important to make sure that the attachments are connected to structurally sound
aircraft fixtures, able to handle the large forces that can be experienced due to the rapid deceleration of the aircraft
during canopy inflation.
The attachments to the aircraft are also vitally important during the inflation stage, where careful placement of the
attachment points can protect the parachute canopy from entering the wake of the aircraft. If the parachute is
attached forward of the centre of gravity, deployment will cause a strong pitch up moment forcing the canopy into
the wake of the aircraft. This situation may even cause the to aircraft fall backwards through the suspension lines,
tangling the parachute. When attached behind the centre of gravity it causes a pitching down moment allowing the
canopy to inflate in the free stream air and also stopping the aircraft from stalling. If used carefully the attachment
method can be instrumental in controlling the pitch dynamics of the aircraft during the deployment cycle.
F. Summary
It is apparent from the literature review that there has been extensive research carried out on the subject of PRSs.
There is little research however available on the use of PRSs for small balsa constructed UAV aircraft. There have
been PRSs used for large scale UAVs, but the research available for UAVs under 25kg is very limited.
7
III. Concept Selection
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to consider the different concepts available for the design of a PRS. Each concept will
have merits, however the design will be chosen on its suitability for balsa wood constructed model aircraft.The
requirements of the PRS will give the design process a direction. Listed here are the PRS customer requirements.
These requirements have been used to generate engineering specifications, attached in ANNEX C
1. Minimise Damage to airframe on ground impact

2. Deploy Reliably
3. Minimal impact on aircraft aerodynamic stability when attached
4. Capable of decelerating a 25kg payload within respectable g-loading limits
5. The possibility of adaptation for different aircraft
6. Light weight
7. Minimal Height loss during parachute inflation
The first stage of a PRS is the deployment phase. Parachute deployment denotes the sequence of events that begins
with the opening of a parachute compartment and continues with the extraction of the parachute until the canopy and
the suspension lines are stretched behind the recovery vehicle and the canopy is ready to start the inflation process.
The deployment system must achieve this sequence of events in a progressive manner so as to reduce the shock
forces felt by the UAV. The system must also and more importantly release the parachute into the airflow with
sufficient speed so as to allow inflation to occur before the UAV losses to much altitude. This requirement is of
significant importance to the design of this PRS as it is to be utilised for low altitude recovery of small model
UAVs.
A good parachute deployment system provides the following benefits as outline by the PRS Design Manual
(Knacke, 1992):
1. Minimizes the parachute snatch force by controlling incrementally the deployment of the parachute,
and by keeping the parachute canopy closed until line stretch occurs.
2. Keeps Tension on all parts of the deploying parachute.
3. Minimizes opening time.
4. Supports uniform deployment.
Once the deployment phase is complete the system is ready for inflation and the most problem prone phase of the
working system is over. It is apparent why the selection of the deployment system defines and directs the remainder
of the PRS design.
Four separate parachute deployment system concepts will be analysed, the best system for the use on the ADFA
SAE Aero UAV will be selected for further design.
8
B. Concept 1 – Uncontrolled Deployment
This method of deployment essentially releases the parachute into the free-stream and the forward moving airflow
does the work in opening the parachute to full inflation. It is therefore given the name uncontrolled deployment.
The simplified diagram below demonstrates an uncontrolled deployment.
Figure 6 - Uncontrolled Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).
The appeal of this method of deployment for use on a UAV is its simplistic and lightweight design. An uncontrolled
deployment would allow for a very fast developmental phase and also reduce the cost of the overall PRS.
Furthermore, this deployment method could be constructed with very few components and would in turn allow the
PRS to occupy a very small proportion of the recovery vehicle.
This system is not without its downfalls however. Due to the uncontrolled nature of this concept, there has been
research that has shown it is only effective for parachutes less than 5 feet in diameter (Knacke, 1992). When larger
parachutes are released using this method it results in high shock forces and partial canopy inflation prior to the full
line stretch of the suspension lines. It is possible to account for these problems by clever design of a complicated
reefing system and sophisticated packing methods; however this would undermine the simplicity of the system
which was one of the major reasons for its consideration.
C. Concept 2 – Ballistic Deployment

Ballistic deployment refers to the deployment of a parachute by the use of some kind of pyrotechnics. There are two
main types of ballistic deployment systems, and although they are subtly different their principle is essentially the
same. The diagram below shows the two main ballistic deployment systems, rocket deployment on the left and
drogue gun deployment on the right.
9
Figure 7 - Ballistic Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).
Rocket deployment uses an angled nozzle rocket to pull out the main parachute. This is a very high speed
deployment, and has been used successfully for larger aircraft PRS. The benefit of the rocket deployment system is
that it provides a constant pulling force over the whole deployment cycle. The disadvantages of this system are
numerous when considering the type of vehicle in which it is intended for. The small balsa constructed ADFA SEA
Aero UAV does not have a large amount of space in which a rocket could be mounted. Rockets also produce very
hot exhaust gasses that may be an added risk for the internal balsa structure and electronic equipment such as servos.
Drogue gun deployment is a method that fires a weighted slug from a drogue gun to pull out the main parachute in a
very similar way to the rocket deployment system. This method is advantages in that the explosive energy is
contained within the drogue gun and it leaves with the slug in the form of kinetic energy. As shown in the diagram
above the slug is tethered to the main deployment bag and pulls out the main parachute from its compartment within
the UAV. Unlike rocket deployment the slug relies on its inertia to provide the pulling force needed over the whole
deployment. Problems with this method may arise due to the large reaction forces that occur due to the large slug
being fired from the drogue gun. The simple balsa frame would struggle to support the drogue gun and damage may
occur during deployment.
Ballistic deployment has its merits with regards to a favourable deployment time. Having a fast deployment is
paramount for low level UAVs and ballistic deployment has proven effective in this area. The complexity of
ballistic deployment however, makes it less of a viable option for such a small scale recovery vehicle. The lack of
space within the ADFA SAE Aero UAV also means that the system must have as few components as possible.
Another consideration is the overall weight of a ballistic system, which, if installed, would require the aircraft to
sacrifice this weight in the form of its payload carrying capacity.
D. Concept 3 – Spring Release

This spring release method, represented diagrammatically below, was an attempt to combine the high speeds
associated with ballistic deployment with the simplicity of the uncontrolled deployment. This concept uses a high
powered spring internally mounted to eject the main parachute into the free stream airflow.
Figure 8 - Spring Release Method (Cartwright, 2008).
The side effect of using the spring release method is the weight of the internal mechanical components. One
possible solution is to use compressed air instead of a mechanical spring however, problems also may arise with
mounting the system within the ADFA SAE UAV fuselage, and although much less than a ballistic deployment the
reaction force may still prove significant.
One further point to note is that force provided by the spring to deploy the parachute must be significant enough to
complete the whole deployment. Unlike a Rocket deployment where the force extracting the parachute is constant
throughout the extraction phase, the spring release mechanism merely ejects the parachute and allows the airflow to
complete the unfurling process. This reduces the reliability and repeatability of the deployment.
10
E. Concept 4 – Pilot Chute Deployment
The final concept to discuss is the method of pilot chute deployment. During this method of deployment a small
parachute called a pilot chute is used to drag out the main parachute as demonstrated in the diagram below.
Figure 9 - Pilot Chute Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).
The pilot chute, which is generally about a quarter of the size of the main parachute, is small enough that it can be
released at high speeds without producing large shock forces. The pilot chute then helps to decelerate the fore body
while pulling out the main parachute so that when the main canopy opens the speed is slowed enough such that the
shock forces are significantly reduced when compared to an uncontrolled deployment. The pilot chute utilises the
drag force it creates when in the free airstream to deploy the main parachute and as a result has the benefit of having
a constant force throughout the whole deployment phase. This does mean however, that at the very slow speeds the
pilot chute can fail to produce enough drag to deploy the main parachute fully. This is one of the reasons that some
aircraft PRSs have an operational envelope that defines its limitations.
The issue of containment space is less of a problem using this method. Because the pilot chute is made of the same
material as the main canopy it can be folded to take up very little space within the fuselage of the recovery vehicle.
This naturally applies to the weight of the PRS. Because the pilot chute is made of lightweight material the overall
deployment system is very light.
The simplicity of this system is a direct result of the number of components required for its function. The
deployment system is essentially two parachutes of different sizes opened one after the other. The construction and
installation of it is therefore greatly simplified and as a result the cost is reduced. Using a pilot chute for the main
parachute deployment does however, have a certain unknown quality to its function. Because the parachutes are
different sizes, unique to their specific function; and the recovery vehicle has a known range of speeds defined by its
operational envelope, the inflation times and distances are not known with great accuracy. For this type of
deployment system testing would be required to determine the feasibility for use on a small balsa UAV.
F. Conclusion
Four concepts have been introduced within this chapter and one will be selected for further design. Uncontrolled
deployment is easily the least complex system and would require very little detailed design. It would be a cost
effective design and would require very few resources to take it from concept to construction. The possible
complications do however make this a poor choice for further design. The over simplification of the deployment
leads to a loss of tension on the suspension lines and canopy which causes entanglement between different parts of
the parachute.
The speed of a ballistic deployment system would provide a good range of altitudes from which the aircraft could be
recovered. The better performance achieved in deployment speed is far outweighed by the increased complexity of
the design. Both rocket and drogue gun methods also increase the risk of damaging the aircraft during the violent
deployment phase. Ballistic deployment methods carry an inherent risk and as a result the expense of its
11
implementation is significantly increased. Unfortunately this makes it a poor choice of deployment system for this
type of UAV. To make the PRS a viable option it is necessary to make it as cost effective as possible.
The goal behind the spring release method was to reduce the risk of a ballistic deployment by using a mechanical
type system to release the parachute into the free airstream. The side effect of using an internal spring system is that
a large force must be produced at the start of the deployment to allow the parachute to complete its full unfurling
process. This large force has to occur over a very small period of time, resulting in large impulse, which the
fuselage was not deigned to handle. To produce a large impulse it would require the use a large and heavy spring
system that would make this method of deployment a bad choice for an aircraft application.
The final concept shows the most promise for further development. It is the method that uses a pilot chute to extract
the main parachute. This system is simple, lightweight and has the potential to be very cost effective. There is
however the question of inflation times and distances, and testing will be required to confirm if it is a feasible
system. Pilot chute deployment is used primarily for personnel parachutes, which is a testament to their reliability,
an important factor considering its intended purpose as an emergency recovery system.
The table below is a method of comparing the individual concepts to help with an informed selection. Each concept
is ranked against the amended system requirements. The essential requirements carry greater weight in the selection
process and are therefore doubled within the table. The best concept for a given system requirement is given a score
of 1 and the worst a score of 4. The values attained are summed and the concept with the smallest total number is
the concept that best fulfils all system requirements. Table 1 below is the results of the concept selection analysis.
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

Uncontrolled Ballistic Spring Pilot Chute
Reliability* 8 4 6 2
Speed of Deployment* 8 2 6 4
Lines First Deployment* 8 4 6 2
Complexity 1 4 3 2
Reaction Forces on Aircraft 1 4 3 2
Adaptability to Other Aircraft 1 2 4 3
Weight 1 4 3 2
Cost 1 4 3 2
Results 29 28 34 19
Table 1 – Concept Selection table (Cartwright, 2008).
This method of selection confirms what the logic predicts, that concept 4 the pilot chute deployment system is the
best system for this application with a score of 19. Ballistic deployment is the second choice; however its
complexity rules it out as a viable option.
12
IV. System Design
A. Parachute System Configuration
During the conceptual design phase outlined in chapter 4 of this document, it was decided that the PRS would use a
pilot chute deployment method. A more detailed breakdown of the parachute recovery system configuration is
represented below.
Figure 10 - PRS Layout (Cartwright, 2008).
1. Recovery Vehicle 6. Main Canopy

2. Shock Force Attenuation Bridle 7. Main Parachute Deployment Bag
3. Main Parachute Riser 8. Pilot Chute Bridle
4. Main Parachute Swivel 9. Pilot Chute Swivel
5. Main Parachute Suspension Lines 10. Pilot Chute
A. Main Canopy Shape
Understanding that this PRS is to be used as a lower atmosphere, subsonic aerodynamic decelerator steers the choice
of parachute canopy shape to three different options. These options are Para foil, Cruciform, and hemispherical
parachutes. As discussed in the literature review parafoil shaped designs, common in sports parachutes, are
steerable systems, unnecessary for this application. The parafoil design also adds unnecessary complexity to the
construction of the intended PRS.
Cruciform or hemispherical parachutes are more commonly used in aircraft recovery systems. This PRS will use a
hemispherical parachute design due to the larger drag coefficient than the cruciform parachute allowing for the use
of a smaller parachute for the same descent speed. The cruciform parachute has a smaller opening force coefficient
which means less shock force occurs during parachute inflation; however this is outweighed by the reliability of the
hemispherical parachute.
Hemispherical parachutes also have a lower canopy filling constant which reduces filling distance. Therefore less
height is lost during inflation. Further reasons for choosing a hemispherical parachute shape are listed below.
1. Ease of construction.
2. Ease of packing.
3. Better consistency on opening.
4. Large inflation shock forces acceptable due to unmanned aircraft.
5. Large Drag coefficient.
13
One negative aspect of using hemispherical parachutes is their tendency to oscillate. Oscillation is a result of an
unstable parachute where the vortex shedding initiates a rocking motion back and forth. Hemispherical parachutes
often have a tendency to have large oscillations, up to ± 30°. Research has shown however that these oscillations
only occur at the higher descent velocities (≥ 9m/s), which is as much as 4 m/s faster than the descent velocity this
PRS is designed to achieve.
B. Canopy Sizing
Having decided that the canopy shape will be hemispherical, the initial canopy sizing can be evaluated with the
objective of calculating inflated parachute diameter. Parachutes rely on the aerodynamic drag force, represented by
Eq. (3), to slow the descent of a body. Assuming that the parachute is in a steady state descent means that the drag
forces ‘Fd’ can be equated to the weight of the descending body, as represented by Eq. (4). Rearranging Eq. (4) for
surface area yields Eq. (5).
(3)
(4)
(5)
The unknowns in Eq. (5) are, payload mass ‘m’, and descent velocity ‘V’. All other variables in the equation are
already known quantities, ρ=1.225kg/m3, CD=0.7(standard for hemispherical parachutes) (Knacke, 1992), and
g=9.81m/s.
Payload mass can be reasoned out by understanding that the ADFA SAE Aero UAV gross weight must not exceed
55lbs (≈25kg), therefore m=25kg. The descent velocity can be obtained from historical data, which shows that
aircraft PRSs have descent velocities between 4-6 m/s (Wyllie, 2001). Taking the average and using 5 m/s for ‘V’
means that surface area can be quantified.
Now that surface area is calculated the nominal parachute diameter can be found. The nominal diameter of a
parachute is simply a reference diameter found by using Eq. (6), (Knacke, 1992) below.
(6)
Using table 5-1 (Knacke, 1992), found in ANNEX D, the ratio between inflated diameter ‘Dp’ and nominal diameter
‘Do’ for a hemispherical parachute is highlighted. This allows for the calculation of the inflated diameter using the
Eq. (7) below.
(7) Canopy Sizing

Parameter Value Units
The excel spreadsheet shown in table
Mass 25.00 kg
1 was used to calculate the parachute
data, using the equations outlined Gravity 9.81 m/s^2
previously. Density 1.23 kg/m^3
The excel spreadsheet shows that for a Descent Velocity 5.00 m/s
5m/s rate of descent, a parachute with Drag Coefficient 0.70
a 3.56m inflated diameter is required.
Research has shown that this method
of parachute sizing is highly accurate, Surface Area Required 22.88 m^2
and conforms well to the results of
parachute drop tests. Knowing the
Nominal Parachute Diameter 5.40 m
14
Inflated Parachute Diameter
Final Thesis Report 2008, UNSW@ADFA 3.56 m
Table 2 - Main Canopy Sizing Data (Cartwright, 2008).
parachute dimensions it was possible to purchase a hemispherical parachute of the appropriate size. The parachute
was purchased early as it was known that testing would be required before the conclusion of this project. The main
canopy cost a total of $350 including suspension lines and mounting bracket.
C. Pilot Chute Design

The pilot chute is a small parachute designed to
pull out the main parachute during the deployment
phase. Now that the main parachute has been
sized and purchased the pilot chute can be
designed using the main parachute data. Two
different methods have been used to confirm the
size requirement of the pilot parachute. The first
method of sizing uses historical data from many
parachute tests to determine a Pilot-to-main Table 3 - Pilot-to-Main-Parachute Drag Area Ratio (Knacke,
parachute drag area ratio. Table 3, right is taken 1992).
from the Parachute Recovery System Design
Manual, and was used to get a first estimate of the
pilot chute size.
The first method estimated that a pilot Pilot Chute Sizing

chute with an inflated diameter of 0.62m
was required. Parameter Value Units
Main Parachute Mass 1.40 kg
The second method is a mathematical
Gravity 9.81 m/s^2
method similar to that of the calculation
of the main parachute size. Given that Density 1.23 kg/m^3
the main canopy had been purchased we Descent Velocity 4.00 m/s
could get an accurate weight by a simple
Drag Coefficient 0.70
measurement. The parachute including
bridle has a total weight of 1.4 kg.
Knowing the weight of the main Surface Area Required 2.00 m^2
parachute and assuming the worst case
scenario, that the pilot chute must have Nominal Parachute Diameter 1.60 m
the ability to pull out the main parachute
at the stall condition of the aircraft
(approx. 4 m/s), it is a simple Inflated Parachute Diameter 1.05 m
calculation to solve for a surface area. This calculation was performed in parallel to the main canopy sizing method
using Microsoft Excel and is displayed in table 4.
The mathematical calculation determined that a hemispherical pilot chute of 1.05m diameter would be required for a
successful deployment at stall speed. This size is 40% larger than the pilot chute diameter determined using
statistical data.
To ensure the reliability in deployment of the PRS and to build in another level of safety it was decided to use the
larger of the two values. Hence the pilot chute is set at a diameter of 1.05 meters. The pilot chute was also
purchased so that its reliability could be tested at a later stage within the scope of this project.
D. Initiation Method
From the conceptual design chapter a pilot chute system was selected for use as the deployment method. The
initiation system is characterized by the functions of the PRS that occur up to and including deployment of the pilot
chute. Several simultaneous actions must occur prior to the start of the deployment process. First the PRS must be
initiated by the observer on the ground. A signal will be sent to the UAV that will release the pilot chute and also
kill the engine. The engine will be killed to prevent line tangling in case the suspension lines come in the vicinity of
the propeller.
15
The pilot chute is ejected by using a very lightweight spring
mechanism. The spring is sewn into the pilot chute crown
area and collapses for easy storage at the rear of the aircraft
fuselage just behind the aft bulkhead. The pilot chute spring
is compressed and held in place by the release hatch. The
release hatch is pinned closed and a small electronic servo is
mounted in place to release the hatch when required. The
diagram right shows the folded pilot chute and spring aft of
the rear bulkhead.
The entire PRS is initiated by the pulling of a pin which holds

the release hatch to the recovery vehicle. The hatch falls Figure 11 - Folded Pilot Chute and Compressed
away as the pilot chute is sprung into the free airflow and the Release Spring Inside Release Hatch
(Cartwright, 2008).
deployment process begins. The servo that pulls the release
pin to activate the system is run off an independent power
source and is also wired in to an independent radio receiver. This is to try and avoid accidental parachute release by
radio interference.
E. Containment
Now that the main parachute and pilot chute have been purchased, elements of how the system will be contained
within the aircraft can be considered. To ensure that the PRS has no effect on the aircraft during normal flying
operations, an internal storage will be used. The ADFA SAE Aero UAV does not have large amounts of fuselage
space. By looking at the constructed fuselage the best location for containment can be determined. The newly
designed fuselage for the ADFA SAE Aero UAV, designed by Christopher Kourloufas is shown below.
Figure 12 - ADFA SAE Aero UAV Fuselage (Cartwright, 2008).
The different sections annotated above indicate the lack of space within the main fuselage section. The two sections
where it would be possible to fit the parachute internally are the internal electronics mounting space, or over the
wing carry through section. To facilitate deployment it is important that the parachute be in a location where it can
deploy quickly into the free airstream and be unaffected by aircraft appendages such as the wings or canards. This
makes the obvious choice for the parachute containment at the rear of the aircraft, such that it can deploy already
16
Figure 13 - ADFA SAE Aero Fuselage2008,
Final Thesis Report UNSW@ADFA
with PRS Location (Kourloufas, 2008).
free and clear of the wings, avoiding possible suspension line tangling. Figure 13 is a sectioned cut-away of the
fuselage design which indicates the PRS location within the UAV.
Knowing the location of containment produces the need to design a method of storing the parachutes. This requires
the design of a deployment bag.
F. Deployment Bag
Using a Parachute deployment bag has many advantages. It
allows for a repeatable parachute unfurling process and as a result
increases the reliability of deployment. It has been shown to
provide the most frequent and successful method of producing a
controlled deployment (Knacke, 1992). A deployment bag also
permits easy handling, packing, rigging and storage of the
parachute assembly.
The deployment bag contains the parachute and holds it until it is

ready to be unfurled. This means that it must have a few very
specific qualities to allow for a good controlled deployment.
Firstly the deployment bag must be light. The pilot parachute Figure 14 - Unpacked Main Parachute and
Deployment Bag (Cartwright, 2008).
attaches to this bag and pulls it out of the containment area, so the
lighter the bag the smaller the pilot chute required. The
deployment bag must also have a low porosity. This ensures that
the main parachute canopy can easily slide past the bag when
unfurling is required.
The deployment bag also ensures that the canopy only inflates
after the suspension lines are at full stretch. As brought up in the
literature review, a lines first deployment is imperative to reduce
Figure 15 - Main Parachute Packed in
shock forces and ensure reliable canopy inflation. Deployment Bag (Cartwright, 2008).
Generally speaking a deployment bag is specifically made for the
main parachute. In this case an existing product was available that
adequately performed all of the necessary functions of a
deployment bag. A 2.4 Litre plastic bottle was found to be an
excellent deployment bag for this situation. The bottle was light,
cheap, fitted perfectly into the allowable space, and has a
sufficiently low porosity to allow the parachute to unfurl quickly.
The deployment bag encompasses the main parachute into a small
space and has the added benefit of easily being attached to the Figure 16 - Main Parachute in Deployment
Bag with Pilot Chute Attached (Cartwright,
pilot chute. Figures 14-16 show the deployment bag, and its
2008).
location within the PRS.
The final requirement for the deployment bag is to ensure a lines

first deployment. This is achieved by using a method called skirt
hesitation. This design uses a tensioned band around the
suspension lines at the base of the deployment bag. It is
demonstrated in the figure 17. This red band prevents the skirt of
the parachute leaving the deployment bag until line stretch occurs.
At line stretch the suspension lines are pulled out from underneath
the band and the parachute can be deployed.
G. Canopy Inflation Predictions

The canopy inflation process is by far the most complex aspect of
the PRS. There are several mathematical models to help predict the Figure 17 - Deployment Bag with Red Sirt
effect of the canopy inflation process and some of these models Hesitation Band (Cartwright, 2008).
will be utilised within this preliminary design chapter, however the
17
canopy inflation process must, and will be supported by testing. The reason for such focus on the canopy inflation
process is to try and answer the question ‘will this PRS deploy quickly enough before the aircraft looses too much
altitude.’ There is also a need to calculate the opening forces of the canopy for the use in stress analysis of both the
parachute and airframe. As discussed in the literature review regarding canopy inflation time and distances, a
simple equation exists to give estimate the canopy inflation time. This equation is shown below;
(8)
‘Do’ is the parachute nominal diameter
calculated earlier this chapter. ‘V’ is the
velocity at line stretch and ‘n’ is the canopy
filling constant. Using this technique the first
estimation of canopy filling time for both the
main parachute and the pilot chute was
calculated for different deployment velocities
and displayed in the Figure 18.
This mathematical prediction of canopy filling

time indicates that for speeds above 5m/s both
parachutes will inflate in less than 5 seconds.
Based on the continuity law parachutes should

open within a fixed distance; because a given
collum of air in front of the canopy must be Figure 18 - Mathematically Predicted Canopy Inflation Times
used to inflate it. This distance is proportional (Cartwright, 2008).
to the diameter of the parachute (Knacke,
1992) and by using the equation below;
(9)
A constant value or parachute opening distance for the main canopy of 14.25 m is predicted. This equation was also
applied to the pilot chute and a much smaller canopy inflation distance of 4.21m was calculated.
This method of calculating canopy inflation time and distance is used only as an initial estimate for the design.
Given that it predicts the main canopy will inflate in a distance as little as 14.25m it provides evidence that this PRS
design will deploy to full inflation even at low altitudes. It is imperative that these initial estimates however be
validated by testing.
Now that inflation times and distances have been estimated, parachute opening forces should also be considered.
The inflation distance calculation gave an indication as to whether the canopy could open within a given altitude.
Canopy opening force calculations will help determine whether or not a small balsa constructed UAV can handle the
opening forces of a parachute at a given deployment speed. This force calculation will be important in trying to
determine the mechanical feasibility of this PRS.
There are several methods of determining the maximum canopy opening force. The method used here is known as
the Pflanz Method, which was developed during WWII by E. Pflanz (Knacke, 1992). This method makes the
assumption that the aircraft if flying on a horizontal path at the time of deployment. The first problem is to
determine how much velocity decays from the UAV after the parachute is deployed but prior to the commencement
of canopy inflation. This is done by using the equation below;
(10)
18
Velocity decay was found to occur prior to the inflation process. The magnitude of the velocity decay was taken
away from the initial deployment speed and the resultant was used in the remainder of the opening force calculation.
The amended velocity was now appropriate to use within the force equation below;
(11)
The force equation above is very similar to the standard drag force equation 3. The different variables are the
opening force coefficient ‘Cx’ and the force reduction factor ‘X1’. The opening force coefficient is a tabulated value
in ANNEX D, and the force reduction factor is found by calculating the dimensionless ballistic parameter, ‘A’ using
the equation shown.
(12)
The force reduction factor can now be

found by using the relationship between
force reduction factor and the
dimensionless ballistic parameter ‘A’
displayed in ANNEX E. Using this value
for force reduction factor the parachute
opening force can be determined for given
deployment velocities and was graphed
using excel to give the graph in figure 19.
The mathematical data predicts a peak

parachute opening force of approximately
800N at 20m/s deployment velocity. This
indicates that even for lightweight
recovery vehicles there is a substantial
canopy opening force. Because this force
occurs within the short time that the
canopy inflates it is often referred to as the Figure 19 – Mathematically Predicted Parachute Opening/Shock Forces
shock force. A deployment at 20m/s will for Different Deployment Speeds (Cartwright, 2008).
produce considerable shock force and the
maths indicates that a shock force attenuation system may be required. This may be in the form of an aerodynamic
reefing system, or even a simple system such as an elastic riser to absorb some of the shock force during opening.
H. Summary
The major components of the PRS have been designed within this chapter. These components include the main
canopy, pilot chute and deployment bag. At the very least these systems needed to be designed prior to determining
if it were possible for a PRS to safely recover the UAV.
To begin to understand if the PRS can safely recover the UAV in an appropriate altitude some preliminary
calculations were made to determine the parachute filling times and opening distance. Canopy opening force
predictions were also made which seem to indicate that the PRS may produce too much opening force for the
airframe to handle.
More accurate predictions about how much altitude will be lost and the amount of force the airframe will receive
during a parachute deployment, need to be made. The chapter to follow is aimed at answering these questions so
that an indication of the feasibility of the PRS can be deduced.
19
V. Testing and Analysis
A. Introduction
Due to the nature of the flight envelope of small model UAV research aircraft questions arise as to the suitability of
PRSs. The mathematical calculations in the previous chapter seem to indicate that it is possible for a parachute
canopy to fully inflate without losing to much altitude. These calculations are only an estimate however and testing
needs to occur to back up the mathematics.
This chapter describes the appropriate strategies, and methodologies used to plan, and execute testing of the
parachute opening characteristics, to determine their mechanical feasibility for model aircraft. The objectives of the
testing is to gain an insight into the;
• Parachute inflation times.

• Parachute inflation distances.
• Parachute reaction to wake flow.
• Confirmation of parachutes structural integrity.
• Parachute Recovery System Reliability and Repeatability.
• Deployment method verification.
B. Method
The most common method of testing parachutes is in the wind tunnel. This off coarse is the safest method and
produces good reliable results. Unfortunately you are limited by the size of the parachute that can fit inside a wind
tunnel, and using a smaller model parachute can compromise the dynamic similarity and give meaningless results.
For this reason, along with the limited resources that are available at the Australian Defence Force Academy, a
simple method designed to reproduce the effects of a wind tunnel test. The basic test approach will involve dynamic
parachute testing. The method will make use of a motor vehicle to induce different parachute opening speeds. The
parachute will be contained in the deployment bag until the vehicle reaches the appropriate deployment speed. Once
this occurs the parachute will be deployed and allowed to inflate, while being recorded for analysis. This will be
repeated several times at different deployment velocities. A frame by frame demonstration of the parachute inflation
process resulting from the testing method is displayed in ANNEX F.
C. Results and Validation

The testing occurred on a calm day to ensure that the
results would be as reliable as possible. All of the
test runs were filmed for later analysis. The freeze
frame image in figure 20 illustrates the fully inflated
canopy during a test run and demonstrates how the
testing was carried out.
Runs were conducted, at 10km/h and increased in

10km/h intervals until 50km/h was reached. Each
deployment speed was repeated several times so that
an average of the results could be attained. The
average of the results is displayed in table 4.
Deployment Inflation Inflation

Speed (km/h) Time (s) Distance (m)
10.0 4.60 12.8

20.0 1.87 10.4 Figure 20 - Captured Image from Dynamic Test Run
(Cartwright, 2008).
30.0 1.63 13.6
40.0 1.25 13.9
50.0 0.85 11.8
Table 3 - Experimental Results (Cartwright,
2008). 20
The tabulated data from the testing of the parachute filling times is plotted in figure 21, and the full accumulated test
data is attached in ANNEX H.
Figure 21- Plot Showing Predicted and Measured Canopy Inflation Times (Cartwright, 2008).
The Blue line in figure 21 is the data that was collected from testing and the red dashed line is its trend line. The
Green line is a plot of the values calculated from the math in the previous chapter. There is a very prominent and
direct correlation between the experimental data and the mathematical model. The shape of the curve is very
promising and the calculated data is on average only 15% larger than the experimental data below 30km/h. The test
run at 20 km/h seemed to produce an inflation time that is much faster than its predicted value. It is most likely that
during this run there was a slight headwind, which would have increased the effective airspeed felt by the parachute.
The vehicle wake seems not to have affected the results.
The correlation between the mathematical model and the experimental data also applies to the canopy filling
distance. The mathematical model predicted a canopy filling distance of 14.25m and an experimental average filling
distance of 12.5m was observed. The experimental filling distances also appeared to remain constant, regardless of
the deployment speed. This further supports the prediction made in the mathematical model that states that a
parachute will inflate in a constant distance regardless of deployment speed.
The experimental and mathematical data

have supported each other very
adequately; however, it is possible that the
experimental method produced a singular
result. To determine if the experiment
was valid it needs to be compared to
existing validated experimental results.
The graph shown right is experimental
results for a flat circular parachute. Flat
circular parachutes are very similar in
construction to hemispherical parachutes.
The actual values taken from this graph
are meaningless because the size of the
parachute used in the experimentation was
much larger than the parachute used in
this project, and the deployment speeds
Figure 22 - Parachute Opening Times (Knacke, 1992).
21
are much greater. However, the shape of the curve is very similar to the shape of the curve found by our
experimental results. This supports our experimentation method and provides further validation to the accuracy of
the results.
The reliability of the system was also tested during the experimentation. A total of over 40 runs were conducted
deploying the parachute at different speeds and using different deployment methods. Of all the runs the parachute
failed to inflate only twice. The first time a failed inflation occurred the parachute was deployed at a very low
velocity (5km/h). This deployment velocity failed to provide enough clean airflow to the skirt of the parachute. It is
unknown if the vehicle wake had more of an effect at this low speed, which may have prevented inflation. The
intended UAV operates at much greater velocities than this test was performed, however it does indicate that there
are limits to the PRSs operational envelope.
The second failed inflation occurred when an uncontrolled deployment was tested. When the canopy was released it
began to inflate prior to line stretch. This caused a line inversion, which meant that only half the canopy inflated.
Although the parachute did eventually correct itself and inflate, it was after a considerable distance, and was
considered a failed inflation.
Overall however, the testing demonstrated the reliability of the pilot chute deployment method. It also demonstrated
the importance of the deployment bag in ensuring line stretch occurs prior to canopy inflation.
Now that the mathematical model has been supplemented by valid experimental data, a profile of how the
deployment will occur can be reasoned out. Using the experimental data in conjunction with the mathematical
model to fill in the gaps where experimentation is not available, predictions can be made about the overall
deployment cycle with more confidence.
D. Analysis
The overall object of this project was to determine the feasibility of a PRS for small UAVs. The objective of the
testing was to get a better indication of how much altitude would be lost during the deployment phase. In chapter 4
a pilot chute deployment concept was selected and designed in chapter 5. The diagrams below demonstrate the
cycle of deployment and indicate the horizontal distances covered during deployment.
Stage one shown in figure 23 is the deployment of the pilot

chute from the rear of the UAV. The pilot chute is small and
as a result inflates very quickly. The average distance travelled
of the recovery vehicle during pilot chute inflation is 6.5
meters. The pilot chute is small enough that the opening shock
Figure 24 - PRS Deployment Cycle Stage 1 forces can be considered negligible. Stage two in figure 24
(Cartwright, 2008). sees the pilot chute pull the deployment bag out of its container
within the recovery vehicle and reach the point of
lines stretch. The suspension lines of the main
parachute determine the distance that this phase
takes up. The main parachute has 4 meters worth
Figure 23 - PRS Deployment Cycle Stage 2 (Cartwright, 2008). of suspension lines. This is the point just prior to
the start of canopy inflation. Stage three now
occurs shown in figure 25 and
the main canopy inflates. This
occurs in a distance of 14.25
meters regardless of UAV speed.
The data predicts that the PRS
will go from full containment to
full main parachute inflation
within 25 meters. This distance
Figure 25 - PRS Deployment Cycle Stage 3 (Cartwright, 2008). calculated assumes the UAV
maintains a horizontal path.
22
To determine how much altitude is lost during deployment, predictions need to be made about the path or trajectory
that the recovery vehicle is likely to take. This is a fairly complex mathematical task. First the entire system must
be modeled as a deceleration system in space. This means that angle and acceleration relationships can be applied
by the free body diagram shown right. In the diagram, ‘W’ is the weight of the system, ‘F’ is the drag force created
by the parachute, and ‘D’ is the drag of the UAV/recovery vehicle. If the forces are summed in the free body
diagram the following equations for acceleration are
deduced;
(13)
The above equation represents the deceleration of the

recovery vehicle and solving it requires an expression for the
instantaneous force of the parachute during each stage of the
inflation process. This is very difficult to predict because the
increase in the area of the parachute canopy during inflation
is difficult to model.
A simplification however does exist. The experimental data

Figure 25 - PRS Free Body Diagram (Cartwright,
established an accurate measurement of the main parachute 2008).
inflation time. Using this inflation time in a ratio to the
amount of time passed from the start of main canopy inflation an estimate of the instantaneous drag force can be
made by using equation 14.
(14)
Assuming that the drag created by the recovery vehicle is small in comparison to the drag created by the parachute,
it is acceptable to it negligible, and substituting the parachute drag equation 14 into the acceleration equation 13
yields;
(15)
This differential equation was solved numerically using Microsoft excel with a time step of 0.01 seconds. The
canopy inflation time data was gathered from the
experimental results.
The acceleration curve in figure 17 is the g-loading the

recovery vehicle experiences during canopy inflation at
a 15m/s deployment velocity. The shape of this curve
when compared to existing parachute g-loading curves
as demonstrated in the fig 3 of the literature review
indicate that this method of numerical analysis is
accurate. This graph indicates that the UAV must
withstand a 1.6g deceleration during a recovery at
15m/s. A deployment speed of 15m/s was used as it is
the maximum cruising speed of the UAV and therefore
will produce the largest g-forces.
Figure 26 - G-Loading Experienced by UAV during Deployment
Given that the instantaneous acceleration of the PRS at 15m/s (Cartwright, 2008).
during inflation is now calculated, the orientation of the
23
recovery vehicle during parachute deployment can be determined. This will help determine the altitude loss during
a deployment.
Going back to the free body diagram shown in figure 26, the equation for change in angle with respect to time is
deduced as;
(16)
This is another differential equation.

Knowing the acceleration found by
equation 15 and integrating to find
velocity at different stages during the
deployment is simple. With velocity
known Microsoft Excel can numerically
solve for θ using the same time step of
0.01 seconds. This gives the
instantaneous angle with the horizon of
the PRS during the deployment. The
results of this simulation are displayed
in figure 28 with diagrams alongside to
aid in understanding.
Figure 28 demonstrates the vector

Figure 27 - Instantaneous Angle of the PRS to Horizon (Cartwright, 2008).
direction of the recover vehicle at any
given time during the deployment cycle.
Knowing the vector direction and velocity at any given time allows for the calculation of distance for a given time
step, in that direction. If the vertical component of the distance travelled in one time step is found using
trigonometry, all subsequent vertical components can be summed to give an overall vertical distance travelled. This
vertical distance travelled will be the altitude lost during the deployment of the PRS. This calculation can also be
performed for horizontal distance. Using Microsoft Excel to plot the Vertical height loss of recovery vehicle against
24
Figure 28 - Path of UAV During Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).
the horizontal distance travelled gives the path of the UAV during the canopy inflation.
The path plot above shows that a height loss of 3 meters will occur for a deployment at 15 m/s. It is important to
understand that the analysis is point analysis and does not take into consideration the length of the complete system
after deployment. The parachute, UAV and suspension lines are approximately 6 meters in length. The implication
of this is that although an altitude loss of 3 meters was predicted, the PRS will require a minimum of 9 meters in
vertical height to deploy at its full line stretch. Furthermore, to allow the pendulum effect of the canopy to wear off,
it is my recommendation that the PRS not be deployed below 20 meters of altitude.
E. Summary
As a result of the testing carried out, and the analysis that followed, it has been determined that a PRS can recover a
UAV from an appropriate altitude. The analysis shows that an altitude of 20 meters is sufficient for a full inflation
of the main canopy and a successful recovery. Furthermore, the forces experienced by the aircraft during such a
recovery are estimated to be below 2g (see figure 27) and therefore it can be said that this PRS is acceptable for use
on small balsa constructed model aircraft.
25
VI. Cost Benefit Analysis
A. Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the potential benefit of integrating a PRS onto ADFA model UAV
research aircraft. While the project will seek to place a dollar figure on the PRSs benefit to the ADFA UAV
research program, it will also outline non-quantifiable benefits.
B. Scope
The scope of this analysis will take into consideration ADFA UAV platforms of similar weight category as the
ADFA SAE Aero UAV. The analysis will take into consideration the consistency of failure of these aircraft, and the
consequences of such damaging incidents. This cost benefit analysis will be assuming the costs as pertinent to the
ADFA Telemaster UAV aircraft. This aircraft is of very similar weight category to the ADFA SAE Aero UAV.
C. Proposed System
Currently there is no system in place to protect the UAV from flight failure. In the event of a catastrophic aircraft
crash, a new and complete UAV must be purchased.
The proposal is to integrate a PRS onto the ADFA UAV research platforms. The PRSs main role is to save the very
expensive internal systems onboard the UAV. Protecting the airframe from catastrophic damage will also be a main
priority; however, some damage will be expected.
D. Costs
One objective of the PRS design is to reduce the cost of installation such that it becomes an economically feasible
investment. If this project remains at the undergraduate thesis level, the cost of installation, and personnel costs
reduce significantly. If the responsibility of the project is undertaken by an undergraduate then there is no
requirement to train specific personnel in the operation of the PRS. This means that no staff training costs are
incurred by the school of ACME.
There will however be a non recurring equipment cost as the initial PRS equipment is purchased. This cost has been
estimated to be no more than $500 AUS. Once this initial cost is covered, the PRS has no further operational costs
during its life. Due to the nature of the design, even after a deployment, the PRS can simply be re-used time and
time again.
E. Benefits
The most fundamental benefit of having a PRS is the safe recovery of the UAV if a flight failure occurs. The cost of
a research UAV such as the ADFA Telemaster is as high as $6000 AUS, including all internal autopilot computers.
If the PRS manages to save the aircraft from damage once, the system has paid for itself, several times over.
Realistically the PRS will not always recover the UAV with no structural damage. However the largest benefit is
concerned with saving the internal computer equipment. Even if total airframe damage is incurred during a
recovery, but the internal systems withstand the accident due to the PRSs deceleration of the UAV before ground
impact, a saving as high $4000 AUS can be expected.
There are also non-quantifiable benefits. This refers to the research time that will be saved if the vehicle is safely
recovered. Currently, if a UAV suffers an accident, all research on that system is put on hold until a full
replacement can be purchased. A PRS could reduce the time that research teams have to wait if a flight failure does
occur.
F. Summary
This brief cost benefit analysis has indicated that a PRS has the potential to save the school of ACME a great deal of
money. If further design of the PRS and implementation is carried out by undergraduate thesis students the overall
system cost is very low considering the potential gain.
26
VII. Conclusion
A. Concluding Remarks
The aim of this thesis was to determine the feasibility of a PRS for use on small model UAV research aircraft. The
question of feasibility arose when the research indicated that it was unknown if a PRS could deploy and inflate
within the low altitudes that these aircraft operate. The nature of their construction also brought forward the
question of their ability to withstand the shock forces that a PRS was sure to deliver.
The first task was to design a system suitable for the ADFA SAE Aero UAV. Once this system was designed,
dynamic testing was carried out to determine the time taken for a deployment to reach full canopy inflation. The
data that was gathered from the tests was analysed and used to predict the vertical altitude lost during a system
deployment. The experimental data was also used to predict the forces experienced by the UAV during a recovery.
The experimentation and analysis have indicated that the designed PRS can fully deploy within an altitude of 20m.
Given that these model UAV research aircraft generally operate above this altitude, suggest that the PRS is suitable
for their flight envelope. The force data shows that the UAV may experience a deceleration as high as 2g. This is
within the aircrafts capability to withstand and it also possible that a force attenuation system could reduce this force
if required. In terms of altitude lost and force experienced during a deployment, the findings of this thesis project
indicate that a PRS is mechanically feasible for use on small UAV research aircraft.
Another aspect of this project was the economic feasibility of a PRS, and it was determined that a considerable
amount of money can be saved in the safe recovery of these aircraft. More importantly, however, a significant
amount of research time can be saved given that the aircraft can be maintained more rapidly after a recovery.
The aims of this project have been realised, however a lot of further work is required before a full prototype is ready
to be tested on an aircraft.
B. Future Direction
If, as a result of this projects findings it is determined that research in this field should continue, and it is my
recommendation that it should, then the following aspects should be considered;
1. Further testing should be pursued. Parachute drop tests should be done to show the steady state behavior of
the inflated canopy with a fore body. Similar testing to that done in this project should be carried out but
with a load cell in the loop to further validate the predictions of the force experienced by the recovery
vehicle during canopy inflation.
2. Detailed design of the PRS should continue with a focus on weight reduction. Using lighter suspension
line would be the first place that weight reduction can occur.
3. A more realistic determination of the PRSs reliability should be made. This may require the development
of more advanced testing procedures that will allow the system to go through its whole cycle from initiation
to steady state descent. A catapult system may be required to simulate a flying body.
C. Recommendations
This project has determined that a PRS is both a mechanically viable option for model UAV recovery, and a cost
effective method of doing so. It is my recommendation that work in this area continue with the culmination of a full
PRS prototype tested on the ACME research UAVs.
27
VIII. Acknowledgements
Writing a thesis is like banging your head against a door, only to be told later by your thesis supervisor that it was in
fact a wall and you should take a step to the left and keep trying. Given that this project has taken a full year to
complete, the repetitive banging has unfortunately very nearly drained the last ounces my sanity. The fact that I
have any left is in no way my doing but a testament to those who have seen me through to this point. So, on that
note I would first of all like to thank my thesis supervisor Rik; your understanding of my personal circumstances and
willingness to provide advice and support has been a big help. To Bob, your help in the workshop this year was
greatly appreciated; you made the technical aspects of my project possible. Eric, your advice throughout the viva
process helped give the later stages of my thesis some direction so I thank you for that.
When sitting down at my computer writing my thesis, more often than not I would find myself hoping for any kind
of distraction. So in light of never having to look too far to find one I have to thank my friends, and classmates.
Special mention goes to Aditi, Gabriel, Chek, Alex and Chris; you guys seem to have a knack for explaining why
dropping everything and going to the pub is in fact, in my best interest. I don’t regret any of the time we spent
together.
Getting to my final year of engineering took the help of some very influential people. First off, Griggo and Ando,
you are the very best of friends and you have given me the fondest memories that helped me through everyday of
this year. Adam and Goose, our friendship and shared interest in flying put me on the right path to get where I am
today so a huge thank you goes to you guys, my wingmen. Warwick, it hasn’t been long mate, but your support this
year has helped a lot.
My family. Annie woo, Jim, Richie, Paul, Jemma and once again Adam. I know I haven’t always made it obvious
but I have cherished everything I have shared with you. Gabby, you have been there for all of us whenever we
needed it most and so I thank you for your advice and insight.
These last six people I owe everything. My sisters, Natalie and Amy; we have had a fantastic childhood and have
stuck together through it all; your support this year has been fantastic. My parents George and Claire, I am so
deeply indebt to you for all of the encouragement and direction that you have given me in life. I could not have
wished for better teachers. And finally I thank my partner Alison, for understanding, for being there…and just cos.
28
REFERENCES
Aircraft Engineering. (1968). Irving Air Chute - Brake Parachute Installation. Aircraft Engineering , 16-17.
Ballistic Recovery Systems Inc. (n.d.). BRS History. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from Ballistic Recovery Systems:
http://www.brsparachutes.com/About+BRS/BRS+History/default.aspx
Calvin, k. L. (1984). Experimental investigation of full-scale and model parachute opening. AAIA , AAIA-84-0820.
Cao, Y., & Xu, H. (2004). Parachute flying physical model and inflation simulation analysis. Aircraft Engineering
and Aerospace Technology , Volume 76 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp. 215–220.
Cartwright, K. G. (2008).
Collins, K. B. (1998). Patent No. 6,056,242. United States.
Faulconbridge, I. D., & Michael, R. J. (2005). Engineering a System: Managing Complex Technical Projects .
Canberra: Argos Press.
Ferdinand, P., Russell, E., & Dewolf, J. (2004). Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw Hill.
Heslehurst, R. (2008). Aircraft Design 4. Canberra: UNSW@ADFA.
Huckins, E. K. (1970). Techniques for Selection and Analysis of Parachute Deployment Systems. Washington, D.C.:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Keith Stein, R. B. (2001). Fluid structure interactions on a Cross Parachute. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering , 673-687.
Knacke, T. W. (1992). Parachute Recovery Systems: Design Manual. Santa Barbara: Para Publishing.
Kourloufas, C. (2008).
Lan, C. (2000). Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance. United States: DAR Corporation.
Megson. (2006). Aircraft Structures. Great Britian: Butterworth-Heinemann Publications.
Mohaghegh, F., & Jahannama, M. R. (2008). Decisive Roll of Filling Time on Classification of Parachute Types.
Journal of Aircraft , Vol. 45, No. 1.
Nakka's, R. (2002, May 18). Parachute Design and Construction. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from Experimental
Rocketry : http://members.aol.com/ricnakk/paracon.html
Peterson, W. C., Strickland, J. H., & Higuchi, H. (1996). The Fluid Dynamics Of Parachute Inflation. Anual Review
Of Fluid Mechanics , 18:361-387.
Raymer, D. (2006). Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach. Virginia: AIAA.
Vincze, J. (1966). Gemini Spacecraft Parachute Landing System. Houston, Texas: National Aeonautics and Space
Administration.
Wyllie, T. (2001). Parachute Recovery for UAV Systems. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology , 542-
551.
29

Example1 Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example1 Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility of Parachute Recovery Systems for Small UAVs

Kirk Graham Stewart Cartwright

University of New South Wales

C. Background & Justifications

Figure 1 - ADFA SAE Aero UAV

This methodology outlines the basic structure of this project.

E. Assumptions and Limitations

Cruciform canopies are the simplest of the three canopy shapes

Figure 3 - Dis-Reefing of a Hemispherical Canopy (Cao & Xu, 2004).

The increase in drag area of the

Figure 4 - G-Loading Plot Experienced by a Recovery Vehicle During Canopy

1. Minimise Damage to airframe on ground impact

Figure 6 - Uncontrolled Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).

C. Concept 2 – Ballistic Deployment

D. Concept 3 – Spring Release

Figure 8 - Spring Release Method (Cartwright, 2008).

Figure 9 - Pilot Chute Deployment (Cartwright, 2008).

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

Figure 10 - PRS Layout (Cartwright, 2008).

1. Recovery Vehicle 6. Main Canopy

A. Main Canopy Shape

(7) Canopy Sizing

C. Pilot Chute Design

The first method estimated that a pilot Pilot Chute Sizing

The entire PRS is initiated by the pulling of a pin which holds

Figure 12 - ADFA SAE Aero UAV Fuselage (Cartwright, 2008).

The deployment bag contains the parachute and holds it until it is

The final requirement for the deployment bag is to ensure a lines

G. Canopy Inflation Predictions

This mathematical prediction of canopy filling

Based on the continuity law parachutes should

The force reduction factor can now be

The mathematical data predicts a peak

• Parachute inflation times.

C. Results and Validation

Runs were conducted, at 10km/h and increased in

Deployment Inflation Inflation

10.0 4.60 12.8

The experimental and mathematical data

Stage one shown in figure 23 is the deployment of the pilot

The above equation represents the deceleration of the

A simplification however does exist. The experimental data

The acceleration curve in figure 17 is the g-loading the

This is another differential equation.

Figure 28 demonstrates the vector

Collins, K. B. (1998). Patent No. 6,056,242. United States.

Heslehurst, R. (2008). Aircraft Design 4. Canberra: UNSW@ADFA.

Megson. (2006). Aircraft Structures. Great Britian: Butterworth-Heinemann Publications.

Raymer, D. (2006). Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach. Virginia: AIAA.

You might also like