# Design and Control of an Ultra-Low-Cost Logistic Delivery Fixed-Wing UAV
## 2 Overall UAV Design
### Aircraft Production Cost  
In this study, we conducted a survey of the fixed-wing UAVs available on the market during the past decade, as indicated in Table 2, which outlines some of the manufacturing units that have developed commercial fixed-wing UAVs, the materials used, and their production costs. Despite being developed in different regions, all these UAVs have utilized composite materials, such as carbon fiber, glass fiber, 3D PLA printing, and EPS [32; 33; 34]. Although the use of these composite materials ensures structural strength, it also increases manufacturing costs.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Numerical Value** \\ \hline Wingspan & 1.5 m \\ Maximum takeoff weight & 2 kg \\ Cruising speed & 30 m/s \\ Battery life & 0.2 h \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Basic performance indicators of the fixed-wing UAV.  
Among the composite-material fixed-wing UAVs that are showcased, the majority utilize carbon fiber materials, which, compared to other materials, result in higher production costs for drones [43]. In 2022, a UAV developed by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki utilized carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) for its construction, significantly increasing the overall cost compared to other fixed-wing UAVs [44]. In contrast, the fixed-wing UAV developed in 2019 by Kempten University of Applied Sciences was made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) and expanded polypropylene (EPP), reducing costs by about 80% compared to the previous model. However, the costs, as well as the maintenance complexity and application limitations, remain high compared to the UAV presented in this article, which does not meet the requirements for remote area applications.  
To further reduce costs and broaden application scenarios, the delivery UAV discussed in this article primarily uses lightweight wood and laminates for the body, with a small amount of carbon fiber tubing for connections. Compared to most composite material UAVs, the materials used in this study may not have the same strength as composite materials, but they ensure sufficient flight strength while being cheaper, easier to manufacture, easier to maintain, and sufficiently lightweight.  
The total production cost of the UAV in this study was approximately $101, while the cost-effective materials, APM 2.8 flight control, and M8N GPS cost $38; two SKYWALKER 2316 1400 KV motors, $11; two SKYWALKER 40 A sold for $9; one 3S 2200 mAh lithium battery sold for $8; two LORA spread spectrum wireless data transmission, $20; two-millimeter basswood, balsa, and 8-millimeter carbon tubes, $7; and four servos, $7, for a total of $101. Compared to other low-cost fixed-wing UAVs, ours is cheap to produce and easy to deliver.  
Common aircrafts on the market use expensive materials, such as a CUAV X7+ flight controller, $280; two SUNNYSKY 2216 1400 KV motors, $28; two Xrotor 40 A ESCs, $17; one 3S 2200 mAh InP battery, $8; a pair of 3 DR radio data transmission modules, $43; 2 mm basswood boards, light board, 20 mm carbon tube, and fiberglass $8; and four servos, $7 and $400, for a total of $403.