M icro A ir V ehicle Wing Deployment System April 7, 2005 MAV erick S olutions Todd Adkins Leroy Cohen Jr. Adam Hollrith Brian Moore Sponsored by: Eglin

MMicroicro AAirir VVehicleehicle Wing Deployment Wing Deployment

SystemSystem

April 7, 2005April 7, 2005

MAVMAVerickerick S Solutionsolutions

Todd AdkinsTodd Adkins

Leroy Cohen Jr.Leroy Cohen Jr.

Adam HollrithAdam Hollrith

Brian MooreBrian Moore

Sponsored by: Eglin AFB

ObjectivesObjectives

Design and fabricate component technology that will provide a MAV the capability to collapse/fold all wing surfaces along the body of the fuselage

Assess current materials and technologies that will maximize subsystem performance and minimize size and weight (i.e. composites, plastic actuators)

Furnish final report documenting project objective, approach, results, budget analysis for hardware used, and conclusions

SpecificationsSpecificationsParameters Specifications

Wing Dimensions 12” wingspan, 3-4” width

Deploy/Retract time interval < 3 seconds

Fuselage dimensions 1-1.5 in. diameter x-sec., 4-6 in. length

Landing System No

On-board Power Source 10 -12 V

MAV recoverable Yes

Wing Material Carbon Fiber

System Weight 100-200 gm

Vehicle Velocity <= 25 mph

MAV control Remote

Fuselage Material Carbon fiber

Stowed DimensionsMAV cross section must fit in 3" diameter tube, Wings may not extend past tips of

fuselage

Activation DevicesMicro Servos, Micro Actuators, Micro

Motors, Springs

Design ApproachDesign Approach

Develop Wing Folding Configurations– Various paths of motion– Type of wing

Single Bi-Wing

Develop Actuation Mechanism– Move Wings from Stowed to Deployed position– Minimal interference

Modular System– Contain all Mechanical and Structural components – Easily implemented into existing MAV Fuselage

Wing ConceptsWing Concepts

Concept #1

Involves a pair of wings that fold along the sides of the fuselage

Pros- Compact design

Cons- Complicated deployment path- Multiple driving mechanisms- Two separately moving wings


Concept #2

Involves a one-piece, rotating wing Pros- Simple deployment- Compact design- One rotating mechanism- One-piece wing design

Cons- Concentrated stress on single support- Possible interference with tail of MAV


Concept #3

Involves a bi-wing design that will allow for greater lift capabilities and improved glide slope

Pros- Greater lift capabilities than concept 2- One-piece wing design- Central rotating mechanism

Cons- Possible wing interference- Greater weight

Concept #4

Comprised of a two-wing system that simply rotates into deployment

The wings overlap on the top of the vehicle fuselage while stowed Pros- Simple and quick deployment- Compact design

Cons- Interference caused by overlapping wings- Two wing attachment points



Concept #5

Comprised of one central connection between the wings and the fuselage

Both wings will rotate from the same point Pros- Central rotation point- Compact design- Simple and quick deployment

Cons- Offset wings - Relatively more complex concentric shafts

Concept MatrixConcept Matrix

Design Parameter Size Weight Complexity Performance Durability Cost Weighted Total

Weighted Factor 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.15 1

9 6 5 6.8Concept 3 7 6 7

8 8 7 8.05Concept 2 9 8 8

5 6 4 5.9Concept 1 8 7 5

Concept 4 8 7 9 8 8 6 7.7

Concept 5 9 7 7 8 7 5 7.3

Scale Factor (1-10)Scale Factor (1-10)10 - optimal10 - optimal

Concept 4Concept 4

Deployment MechanismDeployment MechanismConceptsConcepts

Linkage System Actuator Servo Driven

Gear Servo Driven

Actuator DeploymentActuator Deployment

Linkage DeploymentLinkage Deployment

Gear Set DeploymentGear Set Deployment

Design Analysis - Lift & DragDesign Analysis - Lift & DragLift Force (N) Vs. Velocity of MAV (mph)

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 250

0.55

1.1

1.65

2.2

2.75

3.3

3.85

4.4

4.95

5.5

FL_1 VMAV N

FL_1.5 VMAV N

FL_2.0 VMAV N

FL_2.5 VMAV N

FL_3.0 VMAV N

VMAV

mph

Coefficient of Lift

CL_3.0 3.0

CL_2.5 2.5

CL_2.0 2.0

CL_1.5 1.5

Need to be above (1.961 N) ------->

CL_1 1

Weight of MAV = 1.961 N

To maintain flight, Lift Force must equal 1.961 N

Design Analysis - Lift & DragDesign Analysis - Lift & Drag

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 251 10

10

0.32

0.64

0.96

1.29

1.61

1.93

2.25

Momentwings_1 VMAV N cm




VMAV

mph

Coefficient of Drag

Max. Moment ---------> CD_4 0.04

CD_3 0.03

CD_2 0.02

CD_1 0.01

Maximum Torque on Wings

at Maximum Velocity (25 mph)

Twings = 1.90 N*cm

Torque Provided by Servo

Tservo= 2.94 N*cm

Final Comparison

Tshafts > Twings

Torque on wings (N*cm) vs. MAV Velocity (mph)

Design Analysis – LinkagesDesign Analysis – Linkages

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

4 in deg

in

deg

4 0deg( ) 270deg

4 90deg( ) 180deg

Design Analysis – LinkagesDesign Analysis – Linkages

0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155155

135

3 in deg

900 in

deg

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.550.15

0.11

0.064

0.021

0.021

0.064

0.11

0.15.15

0.15

P y in in

0.55.20 P x in in

Gear AnalysisGear Analysis

Number of Teeth

Gear Ratio

Diameter

Torque

Stresses– Bending

Safety Factors

Np 15 Ng 21

m G

N g

N p

m G 1.4

d g 0.4375in

T g 2.942N cmT p 2.101N cm

b_pinion 747.596N

cm2 b_gear 695.993

N

cm2

N b_pinion 10.191 N b_gear 10.947

d p 0.3125in

Module DesignModule Design

Module DesignModule Design

Design SelectionDesign Selection

Gear System

EfficientRelatively Simple CompactReliable

Specification ChangesSpecification Changes

Modify overall dimensions of Module

Fabrication ProcessFabrication Process

Module Components Stock Modified Machined

Fabrication ProcessFabrication Process

Testing ResultsTesting Results

Torque Test Tested at max. torque

requirement Gears did not bind and

shafts rotated smoothly

Rotational Timing Servo moved to correct

position in less than 1 second

Testing ResultsTesting Results

Stowing Test

Wing attachment arms and shafts bent severely when packaged in tube

Gears would bind and wings could not deploy properly

Design ModificationsDesign Modifications

Create new method for attaching wings to rotating shafts

Implement support bracket hinge system

Previous Design Modified Design

Final Modified AssemblyFinal Modified Assembly

Final Cost AnalysisFinal Cost Analysis

Manufacturer Part Number Description Qty. Price $ Sub-Total $

Hobby People 5566471 Dubro 1/2 a Control Horns (2) 1 0.90 0.90

A 1M 2-TA48015 48 D.P., 15 teeth, 20deg. Press. Angle, Acetal spur gear 2 1.85 3.70

A 1T 2-Y48021 48 D.P., 21 teeth, 20deg. Press. Angle, Acetal brass insert spur gear 2 3.90 7.80

E-Flight Designs BA-TS-3.6 Blue Arrow 3.6g Servo, JST 1 16.95 16.95

PC121212 1/8" x 12" x 12" Polycarbonate Sheet 1 5.87 5.87

AL25060 1/4" Acetal Rod, 5 feet long 1 2.64 2.64

Miscellaneous (Screws, Set Screws, Glue, E-clips, Hinge pins) 1 3.00 3.00

Cost / Materials List

40.86Total

Stock Drive Products

Pierce-Ohio Companies

Final ProductFinal Product

Successfully stowed in 3” tube

Deployed in less than 1 second

Final module weight of 28 g

Final ProductFinal Product

ReferencesReferences

http://www.eflightdesigns.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?CAT=23

http://www.nyblimp.com/superior/carbon-rods.htm

http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_carbonfiber.html

http://www.stevensaero.addr.com/e-flight_servos.html

http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/877815.asp

http://www.nyltite.com/L20.html

https://sdp-si.com/eStore/

Special ThanksSpecial Thanks

Eglin Air Force BaseEdwardo Freeman

FAMU/FSU College of EngineeringDr. Cesar LuongoDr. Patrick HollisDan BraleyKeith Larson

Documents

M icro A ir V ehicle Wing Deployment System April 7, 2005 MAV erick S olutions Todd Adkins Leroy Cohen Jr. Adam Hollrith Brian Moore Sponsored by: Eglin