CameraPlane 1800
Connecting a printable aircraft concept to the analysis that informs its next revision.
A small aircraft is a system of tradeoffs.
The objective was a modular camera aircraft that could be manufactured in printed sections while accommodating a Raspberry Pi 5, camera, battery, and flight hardware. The configuration uses a 1.8 m wing and twin tail booms, keeping the forward camera view clear in a pusher layout.
The project combines native SOLIDWORKS assemblies, exported geometry, mass and packaging estimates, and a separate aerodynamic screening study. CAD automation and analysis code were developed within a documented workflow; model checks and simulation assumptions are recorded alongside the results.
Packaging
Accommodate camera and electronics envelopes while retaining an inspectable assembly and modular parts.
Manufacturing
Track print orientation, closed meshes, and build-volume fit rather than treating an STL export as proof of print success.
Analysis
Use the exported airfoil contour and a frozen revision so aerodynamic comparisons remain tied to a specific design.
Take the assembly apart.
This explorer contains 66 placed components from 24 unique printable meshes in the Rev B CAD snapshot. Orbit the aircraft, select a part, or use the exploded view to inspect the packaging.
Open the full-screen explorerThe interactive model is Rev B. It is a geometry viewer for examining structure and flight-hardware packaging.
Start with the actual wing.
The CFD study cut a section from the frozen Rev B STL at local Y = 45 mm. It retained the polygonal exported contour, finite trailing edge, and native 2 mm wing-to-aileron gap. An idealized replacement airfoil would have removed the very details the study was intended to evaluate.
MATLAB R2025b orchestrated the SU2 8.5.0 finite-volume solver and generated the figures from saved data. Eleven accepted section cases explored hinge treatments and mesh refinement using steady incompressible RANS with the fully turbulent SST model.
Compare at stated conditions.
At 15 m/s and 4° angle of attack, the L3 results favor closing the upper hinge opening. These are section coefficients, referenced to a 0.2 m chord and unit span.
| Section treatment | Lift cl | Drag cd | cl / cd |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native open hinge | 0.5479 | 0.02728 | 20.08 |
| 0.1 mm upper film | 0.6346 | 0.02378 | 26.69 |
| Ideal fully sealed hinge | 0.6402 | 0.02319 | 27.61 |
Prototype the reversible change.
The useful outcome is a removable upper aileron gap-seal trial that preserves full control travel. It is a low-commitment way to investigate the direction suggested by the computed flow before committing to a permanent trailing-edge change.
Section-drag difference
Interpolating the film's 3° and 4° simulations to match the open-hinge lift gives approximately cd = 0.02262 versus 0.02728. This section-level estimate for the next prototype iteration.
What the mesh comparison adds
The native inner-wing drag coefficient changes by 14.2% from the L3 to L4 mesh. The mesh comparison highlights how resolution informs the next iteration. The study establishes a focused design variable for the next iteration.
Next iteration
The next iteration extends the section study into an assembled aircraft model. Key performance outputs including drag, optimum cruise speed, endurance, structural strength, and flight performance are documented as next-step study targets.
The planned follow-on work combines a physical seal-fit check, measured mass and balance, a valid assembled-aircraft fluid mesh, and controlled testing.
A result worth checking.
The saved-case replay was executed for the repaired-film 3° case over 1,200 iterations. Both lift and drag histories matched the original values within 10⁻⁸. This creates a repeatable record for comparing future design revisions.
Downloadable source files support inspection of the analysis workflow.