Professional & research work
SAE Aero Design
Aircraft configuration, airfoil, and stability studies for the Texas A&M SAE Aero Design Team’s heavy-lift aircraft.
- My role
- Aerodynamics, Stability & Controls Engineer
- Context
- Texas A&M SAE Aero Design Team · Mar 2025–Present
- Toolkit
- XFLR5 · STAR-CCM+ · AeroSandbox · CFD
- My contribution
- Airfoil research, aerodynamic configuration studies, and stability and control analysis with the team.
- Evidence shown
- Simulation studies and model comparisons. The figures do not establish flight-tested performance or competition results.
Aircraft configuration studies
Heavy-lift aircraft design brings lift, drag, structural geometry, stability, and control authority into the same decision. A promising wing is only useful when it also makes sense as part of a complete aircraft.
My work with the team includes airfoil research, aerodynamic configuration studies, gap/stagger comparisons, and stability/control analysis. XFLR5 and STAR-CCM+ provide different ways to inspect flow and performance while the design evolves.
The 2026–27 biplane studies compare multiple configurations with earlier XP2 references. Review material records changing gap, stagger, and incidence choices; these are case-specific studies, not one final as-built aircraft specification.
Airfoils, stability, and control
Airfoil selection informs the wing, but tail geometry, trim, payload/CG assumptions, and control surfaces determine whether the whole configuration can be evaluated meaningfully.
The reviewed studies examine SD7037 airfoil selection, gap and stagger changes, tail alternatives, and rudder/elevator authority. My contributions sit alongside teammates’ CAD, airfoil, stagger, and sizing work; they are not a claim of sole aircraft authorship.
Reading the design studies correctly
The archive contains August proposals, a September review, and later incidence/gap sweeps. Changes between those records are design progression, not interchangeable final geometry.
Solver choice, reference area, speed, Reynolds number, and raw versus adjusted drag values affect comparisons. High-angle predictions and the largest sampled lift value do not independently demonstrate actual stall behavior or handling.
AeroSandbox model validation
A separate 2025–26 validation study compares aerodynamic prediction approaches using two-dimensional airfoil calculations and an XP2 wing case against STAR reference data.
The original report preserves lift/drag plots, comparison ranges, and error discussions. Its stated linear-range VLM lift result reports about +2.5 percent mean error for the tested case; that is a bounded validation result, not accuracy for every aircraft or operating condition.
Why the drag comparison needs care
Induced-only estimates, profile-drag corrections, and total CFD drag are different quantities. The report’s upper/lower-bound wording is not used here as a general design claim.
Plots support discussion of method and limitations. They do not establish flight-tested payload, final competition compliance, or measured handling qualities.
Engineering judgment is part of the model
The value of simulation is not just a curve—it is knowing which assumptions produced it, where it is useful, and what should be checked next. These studies support the team’s design process while keeping prediction, configuration choice, and physical validation distinct.