Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:08:50.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic performance benefits of utilising camber morphing wings for unmanned air vehicles

Part of: Smart Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

A. García Naranjo ,
I. Cowling ,
J. A. Green  and
N. Qin
A. García Naranjo
Affiliation:
Blue Bear Systems Research, Clapham, Bedfordshire, UK Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
I. Cowling
Affiliation:
Blue Bear Systems Research, Clapham, Bedfordshire, UK
J. A. Green
Affiliation:
Blue Bear Systems Research, Clapham, Bedfordshire, UK
N. Qin*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work considers the effects of camber morphing, both in magnitude and chord position, on the performance of a generic unmanned air vehicle (UAV). The focus is to maximise appropriate aerodynamic factors across the mission by optimising the wing camber. Specifically, the enhancement of range, endurance, and stall speed is sought by means of maximising their aerodynamic performance parameters, CL/CD, CL3/2/CD, and CLmax respectively. An analysis of the effects of camber morphing is carried out using the vortex panel code, XFOIL, utilising aerofoils from the NACA four-digit family. The results are then adjusted to account for 3D flow factors such as induced drag, offering a more realistic appraisal of their effectiveness. Flight testing is then performed on four wings of fixed aerofoil sections, optimised for each performance characteristic, to validate the trends observed in the XFOIL data onboard a 1·64m span aircraft.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1189 , March 2013 , pp. 315 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Popov, A.V., Botez, R.M., Girgorie, T.L., Mamou, M. and Mebraki, Y. Modelling and testing of a morphing wing in an open loop architecture, J Aircr, 2010, 47, (3), p 917.Google Scholar
2. Pendleton, E.W., Bessette, D., Field, P.B., Miller, G.D. and Griffin, K.E. Active aeroelastic wing flight research program: technical program and model analytical development, J Aircr, 2000, 37, p 554.Google Scholar
3. Barrett, R., McMurtry, R., Vos, R., Tiso, P. and De Breuker, R. Post-buckled precompressed piezoelectric flight control actuator design, development and demonstration, J Smart Materials and Structures, 2006, 15, p 1323.Google Scholar
4. Abdulrahim, M., Garcia, H., Ivey, G.F. and Lind, R. Flight testing a micro air vehicle using morphing for aeroservoelastic controle, 2004, 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference.Google Scholar
5. Jacob, J.D, Simpson, A. and Smith, S. Design and flight testing of inflatable wings with wing warping, Society of Automotive Engineers Transactions, 2005, 114, p 1580.Google Scholar
6. Johnston, C.O., Neal, D.A., Wiggens, L.D., Robershaw, H.H, Mason, W.H. and Inman, D.J. A model to compare the flight control energy requirements of morphing and conventionally actuated wings, 2003, 11th Adaptive Structures Conference AIAA/ASME/AHS.Google Scholar
7. Diaconu, C.G, Weaver, P.M. and Mattioni, F. Concepts for morphing airfoil sections using bi-stable laminated composite structures, J Thin-Walled Structures, 2008, 46, p 689.Google Scholar
8. Lafountain, C., Cohen, K. and Abdallah, S. Camber controlled airfoil design for morphing UAV, 2009, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.Google Scholar
9. Gano, S.E. and Renaud, J.E. Optimized unmanned aerial vehicle with wing morphing for extended range and endurance, 2002, Ninth AIAA/ISSMO Symposium and Exhibition on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization.Google Scholar
10. Kudva, J.N. Overview of the DARPA Smart Wing Project, J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2004, 15, p 261.Google Scholar
11. Bartley-Cho-, J.D., Wang, D.P., Martin, C.A., Kudva, J.N. and West, M.N. Development of high-rate, Adaptive trailing edge control surface for the smart wing phase 2 wind tunnel model, J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2004, 15, p 279.Google Scholar
12. Musgrove, R.G. Eccentric Actuator, 1981, US Patent 4,286,761.Google Scholar
13. Fabrice, S.A. Design of a Seamless Aeroelastic Wing, 2007, MSc Thesis, Cranfield University.Google Scholar
14. Perera, M. and Guo, S. Optimal design of an aeroelastic wing structure with seamless control surfaces, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2009, 223, p 1141.Google Scholar
15. Yang, D. and Guo, S. Active control system design for seamless aeroelastic wing, 2009, CEAS European Air and Space Conference, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
16. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. XFOIL Subsonic Airfoil Development System v6.96, 2000. Software available for download on http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/ Google Scholar
17. Selig, M.G., Guglielmo, J.J., Broeren, A.P. and Giguere, P. Summary of low speed airfoil data, Volume 1, 1995, SoarTech Aero Publications, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
18. Jacobs, E.N., Ward, K.E. and Pinkerton, R.M. The characteristics of 78 related airfoil sections from tests in the variable density wind tunnel, 1933, NACA Report 460.Google Scholar
19. Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E. Theory of Wing Sections, 1959, Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
20. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) Program v3.27, 2002; software is available for download http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/ Google Scholar