Overview 

This project was completed as part of AERE 2610: Introduction to Performance and Design, a 3-credit course focused on foundational aircraft performance topics. These included lift and drag, propulsion modeling, and mission-based design analysis. The class applied key aerospace principles to problems such as level flight, range and endurance optimization, and takeoff and landing performance using both analytical methods and scripting tools. 

Our main objective was to design a conceptual aircraft and evaluate its ability to complete a full mission profile using MATLAB. This required us to size the aircraft, define a mission, and run calculations across each segment. We then refined the design until it met all technical and operational constraints. 

This was one of my earliest full-scope engineering projects. As such, the data, images, and results include their fair share of errors. However, the experience was foundational. It taught me the importance of iteration, the value of troubleshooting performance outputs, and how even basic design tools can provide insight into the feasibility of an aircraft concept. From initial sketches to mission scripting, this project marked a key step in developing my engineering mindset.

Problem Statement 

The objective of this project was to develop a conceptual aircraft and evaluate its flight performance across all mission segments using a custom MATLAB-based mission analysis script. Initial results often produced infeasible outcomes, such as flight below stall speed or insufficient fuel, which required debugging the code, reassessing assumptions, and refining the design through multiple iterations. The final goal was to produce a viable, mission-capable aircraft that balanced realistic performance with appropriate design trade-offs. 

Concept Development 

We began with broad assumptions and scaled our initial design from a known reference aircraft, the Piper J-3 Cub. Using it as inspiration helped us quickly sketch rough concepts and identify baseline dimensions and performance targets. From there, we refined key parameters such as sizing, propulsion selection, and structural layout through a mix of trial and error, feedback from our mission script outputs, and performance-driven adjustments. The design evolved significantly as we addressed early failures like flying below stall speed, exceeding service ceiling limits, or running out of fuel mid-mission. Early sketches and reference imagery are shown below to illustrate how the concept took shape. 

Data and Performance 

To evaluate the feasibility of our aircraft design, we used performance calculations and airfoil analysis to assess how well the final configuration met mission objectives. The design was initially scaled from a reference aircraft (Piper J-3 Cub) and then iteratively refined using custom MATLAB scripts. Outputs were validated through key performance plots and requirement checks. 

The requirements table below summarizes our aircraft's performance relative to the design objectives. While most targets were exceeded, including loiter time, range, and climb rate, the design did not meet the stall velocity requirement, indicating the need for further wing optimization or airfoil adjustment. 

Additional analysis of the NACA 23012 airfoil, used in our wing design, is shown through lift curve comparisons and the drag polar. These plots allowed us to understand how 2D versus 3D effects influenced lift performance and how the aircraft's drag characteristics changed across various lift conditions. 

Collectively, these results informed final design decisions and highlighted specific areas for further improvement, particularly in low-speed performance.

Below, you can find different views of our aircraft CAD model. Yes, we’re aware there are several design flaws, this was early in our development as students, and most of us had little to no SolidWorks experience at the time. While learning the software, we were also working to understand fundamental aerodynamic concepts, mission requirements, and data analysis. Despite its imperfections, this model represents a key step in connecting theory to application and learning how design decisions affect overall performance.

What I Learned 

This project taught me how engineering design is rarely a straight path. Iterating on performance calculations, troubleshooting broken scripts, and realizing when assumptions were flawed all helped me understand that refining a concept is as important as creating it. It also pushed me to get more comfortable with MATLAB, from writing cleaner functions to debugging output that didn’t make sense at first glance. More than anything, this course showed me the value of balancing analytical work with design intuition and how critical it is to interpret results within a real-world context. 

Notable issues in our final design helped reinforce those lessons. Our landing gear was too close together and too narrow, compromising ground stability. The fuselage shape had poor integration for payload and aerodynamics, and the propeller was undersized, which limited the expected thrust. These weren’t just modeling errors; they were reminders of how easily small decisions can snowball into major limitations. That hands-on learning was just as important as getting the mission script to work.

Full Report and Code.

Want to dive deeper? Below, you can access the complete project deliverable: This document outlines our entire design process—from early assumptions and aircraft sizing to final performance calculations and mission results. It also includes the full mission analysis script and its output as an appendix, so you can see exactly how the calculations were run and what they produced.

NOTE: Matlab code is in the appendix of the report.