University of Adelaide Micro Air Vehicle Final Report

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE
SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Final Year Honours Project
Micro Air Vehicle

Final Report
October 2007

Craig Gerrard 1113867
Richard Hillan 1113893
Matthieu Nelson 1120055
Mathew Ward 1118342

Supervisors:
Associate Professor Richard Kelso
Dr. Maziar Arjomandi

Micro Air Vehicle Final Report

School of Mechanical Engineering
Level IV Honours Project
ii


i

Executive Summary

Micro air vehicle (MAV) design is a recent offshoot of the development of unmanned air
vehicles which has been an area of increased focus, especially in military disciplines, over the
past few decades. It is envisaged that these vehicles will have applications in a range of
defence operations in the future, including reconnaissance, communication and surveillance
missions. Research across the area indicates the majority of MAVs have a single pair of fixed-
wings similar to a traditional large scale aircraft. However, inspired by the unsteady flight
mechanisms of insects, flapping wing designs are beginning to attract serious research and are
becoming more viable.

MAVs fly at very low speeds and vehicle dimensions are limited to measuring less than
150mm in length, span and height and the mass no greater than 100g (Beasley, 2006). The
small dimensions of the vehicle and the low flight speed result in a significantly lower
Reynolds number. This poses a challenge in generating lift for a MAV with a fixed-wing
design, as the ratio between drag and lift coefficient increases at low Reynolds numbers (Berg,
1999). The degradation in aerodynamic performance indicates that the design of MAVs
cannot be based on the same concepts as conventional aircraft as not all the aerodynamic
forces allowing larger scale aircraft to remain airborne are generated at a micro scale.
Flapping wing vehicles exhibit an attractive design for small vehicles travelling at low speeds.
In addition, flapping wing MAVs offer advantages in that they are manoeuvrable at slow
speeds and therefore ideal for indoor flight.

This report covers the research and development undertaken into the construction and analysis
of a flapping wing MAV. An aircraft of this description is known as an ornithopter. The
biplane design selected for this project differs from more traditional ornithopters in that it uses
the flapping motion to produce a vectored thrust rather than generating a pressure difference
over the wings and therefore lift. Thus the lift and forward velocity are both components of
the vectored thrust generated by the flapping. This lift and thrust is not dependent on the
velocity of the ornithopter through the air so it is an ideal mechanism for operations at low
speed on a MAV scale.


ii
Disclaimer

This report is submitted as part of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering
(Aerospace, Mechanical and Automotive respectively) at the University of Adelaide and has
not been submitted for any other degree at this or any other University. It is solely the
combined work of Craig Gerrard, Richard Hillan, Matthieu Nelson and Mathew Ward except
where acknowledged in references or in the text. It describes work carried out at the
University of Adelaide which is recorded in individual project workbooks. We are
knowledgeable of the penalties for plagiarism, fabrication and unacknowledged syndication
and declare that this report is free of any of these.

Craig Gerrard
Date:

Richard Hillan ..
Date:

Matthieu Nelson ...
Date:

Mathew Ward ..
Date:


iii
Acknowledgment

The Micro Air Vehicle project (No. 581) consisting of Craig Gerrard, Richard Hillan,
Matthieu Nelson and Mathew Ward would firstly like to thank Associate Professor Richard
Kelso for being the primary supervisor and for the valuable time and expertise he has given to
the project. We would also like to thank Dr. Maziar Arjomandi for being the secondary
supervisor and for his positive ideas and input.

The Micro Air Vehicle project would also like to thank the University of Adelaides
Mechanical Workshop and Electrical Workshop, in particular Richard Pateman, Ian Linke,
Silvio De Ieso and Phil Schmidt, for their advice, manufacturing experience and electronics
assembly.

The Micro Air Vehicle project would finally like to thank Matthew Simmons for taking the
time to film the successful flight of the Micro Air Vehicle project, Model Flight for their
advice and donations to the project and Air Midi Micros and Micro Radio Control for the
information and advice they have supplied.


iv
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... XII
1 PROJECT DEFINITION ................................................................................. 1
1.1 Specifications and Constraints ........................................................................... 1
1.2 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Significance........................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Overview............................................................................................................ 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 4
2.1 Micro Air Vehicles............................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Fixed-wing ............................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Rotary Wing ........................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Flapping Wing........................................................................................ 9
2.2 Insect Flight...................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Wing Motion During Flight ................................................................. 14
2.2.2 Unsteady aerodynamic effects ............................................................. 16
2.3 Scaling Analysis............................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Aerodynamic Scaling ........................................................................... 22
3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN............................................................................... 24
3.1 Configuration Layout ....................................................................................... 24
3.2 Miniaturisation/Scaling Analysis ..................................................................... 25
3.3 Ornithopter Flapping Wing Mechanisms......................................................... 28
3.3.1 Single Crank Mechanism..................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Single Crank Mechanism with an offset ............................................. 30
3.3.3 Double Crank Mechanism.................................................................... 31
3.3.4 Slider-Crank Mechanism...................................................................... 32
3.3.5 Alternate Configuration........................................................................ 32
3.3.6 Luna Flapping Wing Mechanism......................................................... 34
3.4 Wing................................................................................................................. 35
3.4.1 Aspect Ratio ......................................................................................... 37


v
3.4.2 Aeroelastic Wing.................................................................................. 38
3.5 Fuselage............................................................................................................ 40
3.6 Tail Type .......................................................................................................... 41
3.7 Landing Gear.................................................................................................... 42
3.8 Conceptual Outcomes ...................................................................................... 44
4 ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 45
4.1 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................... 45
4.2 Mass and Size Analysis.................................................................................... 47
4.3 Estimation of Wing Surface Pressures Required for Flight ............................. 49
4.4 Pressure Distribution in a Closing Wedge ....................................................... 53
4.4.1 Discussion ............................................................................................ 56
4.5 Flapping Wing Mechanism Analysis ............................................................... 60
4.6 Leading Edge Deflection.................................................................................. 65
4.6.1 Displacement due to the Pressure Distribution .................................... 65
4.6.2 Deflection due to Inertial Loads........................................................... 70
4.6.3 Total Deflection of the Leading Edges ................................................ 73
4.7 Leading Edge Stress Analysis .......................................................................... 73
4.7.1 Bending Stresses .................................................................................. 73
4.7.2 Shear Stresses....................................................................................... 74
4.7.3 Stress Analysis Summary..................................................................... 75
5 DETAIL DESIGN............................................................................................ 76
5.1 Control.............................................................................................................. 76
5.1.1 Transmitter ........................................................................................... 76
5.1.2 Receiver and Crystal ............................................................................ 77
5.1.3 Motor and Electronic Speed Controller ............................................... 78
5.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Actuators ................................................................. 79
5.1.5 Control Surfaces................................................................................... 80
5.2 Flapping Mechanism........................................................................................ 82
5.3 Wing................................................................................................................. 87
5.4 Tail ................................................................................................................... 88
5.5 Landing Gear and Tail Guard........................................................................... 89
5.6 Centre of Gravity.............................................................................................. 90
5.7 Stability ............................................................................................................ 92
5.7.1 Longitudinal Stability........................................................................... 93


vi
5.7.2 Lateral Stability.................................................................................... 93
5.7.3 Directional Stability ............................................................................. 93
5.8 Weight Analysis ............................................................................................... 94
5.9 Cost Analysis.................................................................................................... 95
5.10 Final Configuration .......................................................................................... 96
6 TESTING AND RESULTS........................................................................... 101
6.1 Flight Testing ................................................................................................. 101
6.1.1 Transmitter and Receiver Verification Test (21/82007) .................... 101
6.1.2 Flight Test One: Powered Flight Test (28/8/07) ................................ 102
6.1.3 Flight Test Two (28/8/07) .................................................................. 103
6.1.4 Flight Test Three (29/3/07) ................................................................ 104
6.1.5 Flight Test Four (31/8/07) .................................................................. 105
6.1.6 Flight Test Five (21/9/07) .................................................................. 106
6.1.7 Flight Test Six (24/9/07) .................................................................... 107
6.1.8 Flight Test Seven (28/9/07)................................................................ 108
6.1.9 Flight Test Eight (11/10/07)............................................................... 109
6.1.10 Flight Test Nine (16/10/07).............................................................. 110
6.2 Variation of Maximum Airflow Speed with Wing Frequency ...................... 110
6.3 Variation of Thrust with Wing Frequency..................................................... 113
6.4 Variation of Thrust with Maximum Airflow Speed....................................... 119
6.5 Airflow Speed Distribution ............................................................................ 120
6.6 Goals Checklist .............................................................................................. 124
6.6.1 Primary Goals..................................................................................... 124
6.6.2 Extended Goals .................................................................................. 124
7 FUTURE WORK........................................................................................... 126
7.1 Payload........................................................................................................... 126
7.2 Pickup and Deliver Mechanism..................................................................... 128
7.3 Reducing Weight............................................................................................ 128
7.4 Flapping Mechanism...................................................................................... 129
7.5 Navigation and Autopilot ............................................................................... 130
7.6 Hybrid MAV.................................................................................................. 131
7.7 Future Work Summary................................................................................... 132
8 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 133


vii
9 REFERENCES............................................................................................... 134
APPENDICES................................................................................................ 139
Appendix A Insect Flight ........................................................................................ 139
Appendix B Conceptual Designs ............................................................................ 143
Appendix C - Statistical Analysis Tables and Graphs ............................................... 146
Appendix D Weight Distribution............................................................................ 150
Appendix E Cost Analysis ...................................................................................... 152
Appendix F Detail Design....................................................................................... 154
Appendix G Matlab Code ....................................................................................... 156
Appendix H - Gantt Chart .......................................................................................... 157
Appendix J Timesheets ........................................................................................... 163


viii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1, Final Black Widow Configuration ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2, Original Butterfly Aircraft ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-3, Whirlybird Rider Micro Helicopter...................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-4, Chakram MAV...................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-5, Wing Configurations ............................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2-6, Flybird RC.......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-7, Mechanical Dragonfly ....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-8, The DelFly.......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2-9, FlyTech Dragonfly ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2-10, Brigham Young Universitys Ornithopter........................................................................ 13
Figure 2-11, RC Luna ........................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2-12, Insect Wing Motion .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-13, Wingtip Path For A bumblebee Bombus Terrestris at Different Flight Speeds. .............. 16
Figure 2-14, Insects Wing Leading Edge Vortex................................................................................. 17
Figure 2-15, Clap-Fling Mechanism..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-16, Scaling a Cantilever Beam............................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-17, Tiny Parasitic Wasp - Encarsia formosa ......................................................................... 23
Figure 3-1, Conceptual Layout Design 1.............................................................................................. 24
Figure 3-2, Conceptual Electrical Configuration................................................................................. 25
Figure 3-3, Crank-rocker Mechanism................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-4, Single Crank Mechanism................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-5, Mechanism with crack offset .............................................................................................. 30
Figure 3-6, Double Crank Mechanism.................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3-7, Slider-Crank Mechanism.................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-8, Alternative Flapping Configuration................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-9, JLMAV Prototype............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-10, Luna Mechanism.............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3-11, Connecting Rod Position.................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3-12, Singe Crank Mechanism .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 3-13, Luna - high wing position................................................................................................. 36
Figure 3-14, Wings of Micro Air Vehicles ............................................................................................ 36
Figure 3-15, Planform of Birds Wing .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 3-16, Wing Planform................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-17, Actuators Along Leading Edge ........................................................................................ 39
Figure 3-18, 2007 MAV Wing Material - Mylar ................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-19, Fuselage Concept............................................................................................................. 41


ix
Figure 3-20, Luna - Simple V-tail ......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3-21, Conceptual V Tail ............................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-23, Final Conceptual CAD Design ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 4-1, Wing Area vs. Mass Supported by Wings........................................................................... 48
Figure 4-2, Wing Length vs. Mass Supported by Wings ....................................................................... 49
Figure 4-3, Pressure Between Upper and Lower Wings....................................................................... 50
Figure 4-4, Pressure Between Upper Wing and Stationary Flat Surface............................................. 50
Figure 4-5, Projected Area of Wing...................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4-6, Thrust and Weight Vectors................................................................................................. 51
Figure 4-7, Pressure In Between Wings vs. Wing Angle....................................................................... 52
Figure 4-8, Wedge Control Volumes..................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4-9, Angular Velocity of Wings vs. Flapping Frequency........................................................... 57
Figure 4-10, Pressure vs. Radial Distance ........................................................................................... 58
Figure 4-11, Force vs. Wing Area for Various Frequencies................................................................. 58
Figure 4-12, Four Bar Crank-Rocker Linkage ..................................................................................... 60
Figure 4-13, Linkage Diagram ............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4-14, 2007 MAV Wing Motion Comparison.............................................................................. 62
Figure 4-15, Variation of Flapping Wing Angle with Crankshaft Angle .............................................. 63
Figure 4-16, Variation Angle Between Leading Edges with Respect to Crank Angle .......................... 64
Figure 4-17, Front View of Upper and Lower Leading Edges ............................................................. 65
Figure 4-18, Pressure vs. Distance....................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4-19, Leading Edge Visualised as a Cantilever Beam.............................................................. 68
Figure 4-20, Resultant Force and Deflection........................................................................................ 69
Figure 4-21, Wing Angle vs. Time......................................................................................................... 71
Figure 4-22, Force vs. Radius............................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5-1, J-line Quattro Radio System.............................................................................................. 77
Figure 5-2, Micro Invent MINOR Receiver .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 5-3, Bronco Brushless Motor..................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5-4, Micro invent MBC4-B ESC................................................................................................ 79
Figure 5-5, Micro Invent MCA 3 Actuator............................................................................................ 79
Figure 5-6, Crank Mechanism with Offset ............................................................................................ 82
Figure 5-7, Prototype Gearbox............................................................................................................. 83
Figure 5-8, Mechanism Diagram.......................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5-9, Wing Material .................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 5-10, 2007 MAV Tail Configuration.......................................................................................... 89
Figure 5-11, Landing Gear and Tail Guard ......................................................................................... 90
Figure 5-12, Centre of Gravity Location .............................................................................................. 91


x
Figure 5-13, Axes of Aircraft Rotation.................................................................................................. 92
Figure 5-14, 2007 MAV Weight Distribution........................................................................................ 95
Figure 5-15, Cost Distribution.............................................................................................................. 96
Figure 5-16, Final 2007 MAV............................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5-17, Final 2007 MAV Tail ...................................................................................................... 98
Figure 5-18, Final 2007 MAV Flapping Wing Mechanism................................................................... 99
Figure 6-1, Quattro Transmitter ......................................................................................................... 102
Figure 6-2, Airflow speed Measurement Setup................................................................................... 111
Figure 6-3, Wing Frequency vs. Airflow Speed .................................................................................. 112
Figure 6-4, Thrust vs. Wing Frequency .............................................................................................. 114
Figure 6-5, Thrust vs. Wing Frequency .............................................................................................. 116
Figure 6-6, Variation of Thrust with Respect to Maximum Airflow Speed......................................... 119
Figure 6-7, Position of Planes Behind the 2007 MAV........................................................................ 120
Figure 6-8, Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 121
Figure 6-9, Airflow Velocity Plots ...................................................................................................... 122
Figure 6-10, Isometric View of Airflow Velocity Immediately Behind Wing ...................................... 123
Figure 7-1, Kestrel Autopilot Hardware............................................................................................. 131
Figure 7-2, Concept Design of Hybrid MAV....................................................................................... 132
Figure A-1, Formation of Leading Edge Vortices and Wake Recapture ............................................ 139
Figure A-2, MAV Wing Motion During Flight.................................................................................... 140
Figure A-3, Concept Design Three-View............................................................................................ 143
Figure A-4, Conceptual Design 1........................................................................................................ 144
Figure A-8, Wing Span vs. Mass ......................................................................................................... 148
Figure A-9, Battery Charge vs. Flight Endurance.............................................................................. 148
Figure A-10, Frequency vs. Battery Charge ....................................................................................... 149
Figure A-11, Flight Speed vs. Flight Endurance ................................................................................ 149
Figure A-12, Structure Weight Distribution........................................................................................ 151
Figure A-13, Control Weight Distribution.......................................................................................... 151
Figure A-14, Electronics costs breakdown ......................................................................................... 152
Figure A-15, Structural costs breakdown ........................................................................................... 153
Figure A-16, Final MAV CAD 1 ......................................................................................................... 154
Figure A-17, Final MAV CAD 2 ......................................................................................................... 154
Figure A-18, Final MAV Gearbox CAD.............................................................................................. 155
Figure A-19, Final MAV Tail CAD..................................................................................................... 155


xi
Figure A-20, Gantt Chart Page 1........................................................................................................ 157
Figure A-21, Gantt Chart Page 2........................................................................................................ 158
Figure A-22, Motor Mount Three-View.............................................................................................. 159
Figure A-23, Wing Block Three-View................................................................................................. 160
Figure A-24, Motor Mount Three-View.............................................................................................. 161
Figure A-25, Final Assembly Three-View........................................................................................... 162


xii
List of Tables
Table 4-1, Micro Air Vehicle Statistics ................................................................................................. 45
Table 4-2, Averaged Parameters for the 2007 MAV............................................................................. 46
Table 4-3, Estimated Parameters for the 2007 MAV............................................................................ 47
Table 4-4, Maximum and Minimum Angles of the Upper and Lower Leading Edges .......................... 64
Table 5-1, Flapping Mechanism Parameters........................................................................................ 85
Table 5-2, Component Specifications.................................................................................................... 97
Table 5-3, Tail Component Specifications ............................................................................................ 98
Table 5-4, Flapping Mechanism Component Specifications................................................................. 99
Table A-1, Mass Dependence.............................................................................................................. 146
Table A-2, Wing Span Dependence..................................................................................................... 146
Table A-3, Flight Time Dependence.................................................................................................... 146
Table A-4, Wing Area Dependence ..................................................................................................... 146
Table A-5, Battery Charge Dependence.............................................................................................. 147
Table A-6, Length Dependence ........................................................................................................... 147
Table A-7, Speed Dependence............................................................................................................. 147
Table A-8, Frequency Dependence ..................................................................................................... 147
Table A-9, 2007 MAV Weight Distribution......................................................................................... 150
Table A-10, 2007 MAV Category Weight Distribution ....................................................................... 150
Table A-11, Electrical Component Cost.............................................................................................. 152
Table A-12, 2007 Micro Air Vehicle Project Timesheet ..................................................................... 163


1
1 Project Definition

MAVs are miniature aircraft significantly smaller than conventional unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs). To date, research into the design and development of MAVs has been undertaken by
numerous corporations including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
and AeroVironment Inc. The development of MAVs was initiated due to the potential
advantages it can provide in military and civilian application.

The aim of the 2007 Micro Air Vehicle project was to design, develop and analyse the
performance of a MAV incorporating a flapping wings mechanism and a biplane
configuration. The Micro Air Vehicle project had not been previously attempted at the
University of Adelaide and, therefore, initially little information was known about the design
and development of a flapping wing aircraft. Significant research was required to be
conducted to gain an understanding of flapping wing flight and to commence the design and
development phase of the project. This report aims to provide the details of the processes
involved including the design of the mechanical systems and the integration and selection of
the electrical components. The MAV that has been built for the Micro Air Vehicle project will
be referred to as the 2007 MAV throughout the report.

1.1 Specifications and Constraints

Initially, the aircraft to be designed in the Micro Air Vehicle project had no specifications and
constraints. The possibilities for the type of MAV to be developed included fixed, rotary and
flapping wing. Significant research and development had previously been conducted on fixed
and rotary wing, so therefore implementing a flapping wing configuration into the design of
the project was chosen to provide an interesting and unique challenge. The constraints
regarding MAVs issued by DARPA state that the maximum dimension should not exceed
150mm, the total mass of the aircraft should not exceed 100g and be able to carry a payload
up to 20g. Using the information obtained through the research conducted, the required
specifications and constraints of the Micro Air Vehicle project were determined.


2
1.2 Aims and Objectives

Primary goals were set for the 2007 MAV project to provide an aim and focus for the project
outcomes. The primary goals included achieving stable, powered flight and verifying the
concept of flapping wing flight. To ensure that the maximum mass constraint was met the
project aimed to achieve a total mass of less than 100g, however no primary goal regarding
the maximum dimensions were set to broaden the design possibilities. A number of extended
goals were set to ensure that further development could be undertaken once the primary goals
had been successfully accomplished. The extended goals included controllable flight, total
mass less than 50g, capability to carry a payload 20% of the total mass, various flight speeds,
capability of outdoor flight, capability to complete an unassisted self takeoff and landing,
capable of picking up and delivering a load, and incorporating an onboard autopilot and
surveillance camera.

1.3 Significance

Interest into the design and development of MAVs has increased since DARPAs
announcement to initiate a program aimed at developing and testing miniature aircraft for
military surveillance and reconnaissance missions. MAVs implementing flapping wings have
advantages over larger conventional unmanned aerial vehicles in that they are able to achieve
slow, manoeuvrable flight, suitable for indoor applications. The ability to produce lift whilst
minimising the forward velocity allows the MAV to hover. In the application of military
missions, this would prove to be advantageous as an onboard video camera, microphone
and/or other surveillance and reconnaissance equipment could be maintained at a constant
position in order gather information. In addition, flapping wing MAVs offer many advantages
for outdoor military use including surveillance and exploration of potentially hazardous
environments. For such an application, is it highly desired that the MAV be designed light,
reliable, readily deployable, cheap and therefore expendable when required. A flapping wing
MAV also offers a number of applications to civilian use, including chemical and biological
agent detection, search and rescue and aerial photography. If a situation presents a too great a
risk for an individual, instead a flapping wing MAV can be used to assess the threat of the
surrounding conditions. Flapping wing MAV technology at present is in the early stages of


3
development, but when the technology becomes more accessible and reliable, they could be of
wide use for future applications.

1.4 Overview

This report outlines the details of the 2007 Micro Air Vehicle project. The literature review
discusses the research undertaken into the available types of MAVs, insect flight and
associated scaling analysis. Possible designs, materials and mechanisms have been examined
and discussed for the conceptual design of the project. An analysis of the design has been
conducted based on statistics of similar aircraft, as well as a detailed analysis of the structure
and mechanisms involved in the conceptual designs. The final design of the 2007 Micro Air
Vehicle project has been discussed and justified in detail. This report documents the results of
the flight tests and the modifications that were made to ensure that the goals of the 2007
Micro Air Vehicle project were successfully met.


4
2 Literature Review

The following literature review explains the information necessary to understand the designs
and concepts described in this report. Details and examples of the main categories of MAVs
have been portrayed along with their advantages and disadvantages. The wing motion
involved with insect flight has been discussed to clarify the complexity in accurately
mimicking the necessary flapping motion. Unsteady aerodynamics involved in insect flight
has been described to explain the major differences between fixed-wing and flapping wing
flight. A discussion into scaling analysis has been included to explain the complications
associated with structural properties and low Reynolds number aerodynamics when designing
a miniature aircraft.

2.1 Micro Air Vehicles

MAVs are a new generation of unmanned aerial vehicle that are an order of magnitude
smaller than conventional UAVs. They are a form of remote-controlled or autonomous
aircraft, which employ state of the art micro-electronics to achieve the small size. There are
three main categories of MAVs, which all use different mechanisms of lift generation: fixed-
wing, rotary wing and flapping wing. MAVs have been developed to fly in confined spaces,
including buildings and tunnels. Indoor flight requires high power to weight ratio, high
manoeuvrability, and the ability to achieve flight at low speeds and/or hover.

MAV development was initially motivated by the demand for intelligence and reconnaissance
air vehicles. This has led to the availability of parts and concepts for MAVs of more
recreational use, such as toys. MAV development is continuing, as vehicles with highly
manoeuvrable flight are required to discretely penetrate confined spaces for military and
civilian applications.

The methods of surveillance are currently constrained to viewing the ground from high
altitude, typically using satellites and manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. These high
altitude surveillance devices do not possess the capabilities of viewing and obtaining
information from within confined spaces such as buildings. The ability to gather information
from inside buildings is advantageous in the application of military operations in urban terrain.


5
MAVs can be easily deployed by infantry at short range from the battlefield. Short-range
surveillance MAVs can be used for surveillance in dangerous military applications, such as
bomb detection, terrorist operations and chemical and nuclear detection. Short range
surveillance in civilian applications includes search and rescue, law enforcement and utility
inspection.

The scaling down of fixed-wing aircraft requires relatively high speeds to produce adequate
lift for flight, however this has diminishing effects on the manoeuvrability. Fixed-wing
aircraft are unable to hover, takeoff and land vertically. Rotary blade designs have fast
moving blades that are less robust compared to other designs. Considerable noise is also
generated by rotary wing MAVs. Fixed-wing and rotary aircraft are less efficient in contrast
to flapping wing MAVs. This is evidenced by the fact that dragonflies have evolved
minimally over millions of years (Galinski, Knowles, Pedersen & Zbikowski 2004). Insect
flight offers the possibility to fly at low speeds, takeoff and land vertically, be extremely
manoeuvrable, sustain hovering flight and produce no significant acoustic signature.

2.1.1 Fixed-wing

Fixed-wing aircraft have generated the most research and development of the three main
categories of MAVs. The use of a propeller creates thrust and an aerofoil is used to provide
lift. Although fixed-wing MAVs can be designed and built to extremely small specifications,
there are a number of difficulties that arise with the miniaturisation. The major dilemma to
overcome is that the airfoil performance deteriorates significantly at low Reynolds numbers.
MAVs experience reduced Reynolds numbers due to their low flight speed, lower maximum
lift and increased drag coefficients due to laminar separations bubble effects (Beasley 2006).
Therefore, fixed-wing MAVs fly at relatively high speeds in order to produce sufficient lift.
For this reason, fixed-wing MAVs are unable to hover. Due to the high speeds required,
fixed-wing MAVs are the least suitable of the three configurations for flight in confined areas.
The number of successful fixed-wing MAVs that have been designed and built is continually
increasing, ranging from of 100mm to 300mm wingspan and below 5g up to 100g in mass.
Two of the existing successful fixed-wing MAVs include the Black Widow and the Original
Butterfly Plane.


6
The Black Widow, seen in figure 2-1, is a very successful fixed-wing MAV. It was developed
by AeroVironment Inc., who, in 1998, began a Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)
methodology to optimise the combination of all factors including battery, motor, gearbox,
propeller diameter and cruise velocity (Grasmeyer & Keennon 2001). To validate each
component of the MDO, a number of tests were carried out. For instance, to validate the wing
aerodynamics, several wing designs were built, then tested in wind tunnels. Similarly, the
propeller aerodynamics were validated by testing different propellers in a wind tunnel. The
early prototypes of the Black Widow had a maximum flight time of two minutes and were
unable to carry a payload. By the year 2000, the Black Widow was capable of 30 minutes of
flight at an altitude of over 230m and with speeds of up to 17m/s. Transmission of colour
video to a base station up to two kilometres away was also possible, whilst achieving a mass
of less than 100g and a wingspan of 150mm, therefore maintaining the size and weight
restrictions of a MAV. It also possesses an autopilot, with the capability to hold altitude,
airspeed, heading and yaw damping.

Figure 2-1, Final Black Widow Configuration
[Grasmeyer & Keennon 2001]

The Original Butterfly Plane, which can be seen in figure 2-2, reveals the minute possibilities
of MAVs using only the crucial materials and electronics. The mass of this MAV is 3.6g with
a wingspan of 180 mm (Air Midi Micros 2007). To assist in minimising mass, the Original
Butterfly only has one active control surface: the rudder. It therefore has limited control, with
only the ability to alter the MAVs yaw. In addition, as this particular MAV is designed to


7
have minimal weight, it is unable to carry a payload and for this reason MAVs of this nature
are primarily for recreational use.

Figure 2-2, Original Butterfly Aircraft
[Air Midi Micros 2007]

2.1.2 Rotary Wing

Similar to fixed-wing MAVs, there is a great deal of information understood regarding the
aerodynamics of rotary wing powered MAVs. For this reason, many people have been
successful in scaling down rotary wing aircraft to MAV standards. The major advantage of
rotary wings over fixed-wing MAVs is their ability to hover. They are more suited for flight
in confined spaces, and therefore more appropriate for MAVs. However, one of the
difficulties when scaling down is providing sufficient power, as hovering requires large
amounts of energy (Beasley 2006). The extra power results in a compromise required between
decreased endurance, payload and/or flight speed. In addition, rotary wing MAVs must be
carefully designed to prevent performance degradation at low Reynolds numbers (Beasley
2006). Similar to fixed-wing MAVs, there is a large range of sizes of rotary wing MAVs
within the MAV scale. Successful rotary wing MAVs include the Whirlybird Rider Micro
Helicopter and the Chakram MAV.

The Whirlybird Rider, seen in figure 2-3, is a typical example of a rotary wing MAV. The
aircraft has a wingspan of 170mm and a weight of 10g (Discount Hobby Supplies 2007). It is
ideal for flight in confined space, such as indoors, due to its ability to hover. This MAV is
designed as a toy, therefore it is cheap and durable, with the capability of withstanding
repeated collisions with obstacles. The necessity for this design to be durable and the fact that


8
it is rotary, thus requiring more power to fly compared to fixed-wing MAVs, results in the
relatively short flight endurance of approximately 12 minutes. The Whirlybird Rider has been
designed to be an inexpensive remote-controlled aircraft, so in order to achieve this it has
limited control. The altitude can be adjusted by varying the main rotors speed and the yaw
can be adjusted using the tail rotor. However, there are no control surfaces to adjust the pitch
and roll of the Whirlybird. This reduces both the cost and mass of the MAV.

Figure 2-3, Whirlybird Rider Micro Helicopter
[Discount Hobby Supplies 2007]

The Chakram MAV, seen in figure 2-4, is based on an ancient frisbee-like throwing weapon
(Hassan 2006). This was a final year project conducted at the National University of
Singapore with the aim of designing and building a coaxial rotary wing MAV based on the
weapon. Although the current design does not meet all the project goals, the aircraft has the
potential to be highly manoeuvrable, with the ability to move in all directions by shifting the
centre of mass. Such a vehicle would be ideal for surveillance, particularly in confined spaces.
With the ability to hover and move in all directions, this MAV could navigate through heavily
populated or dense areas. In addition, with the ability to hover, an onboard camera would be
capable of taking clear, steady pictures and videos.


9

Figure 2-4, Chakram MAV
[Hassan 2006]
2.1.3 Flapping Wing

Research of flapping wing MAVs has indicated that ornithopters are far less common than
fixed and rotary winged designs. One of the primary reasons for this is that flapping wing
MAVs operate in a more complex aerodynamic environment than the alternatives (Beasley
2006). In contrast, there has been little research and development into flapping wing MAVs,
as the focus has been placed on fixed and rotary wing designs.

Within flapping winged MAVs, there are three different types of MAV configurations:
monoplane, tandem and biplane, seen in figure 2-5. The monoplane configuration uses a
single pair of wings to generate lift similar to a bird. The tandem configuration has two sets of
wings, with one wing behind the other, flapping independently. A MAV incorporating a
tandem configuration resembles a dragonfly. The biplane configuration has two superimposed
pairs of wings, with one wing set over the other, and is non-existent in nature.
Figure 2-5, Wing Configurations

Monoplane
[Chronister 2007]

Tandem
[Valentine 2005]

Biplane
[Mols 2005]


10
Monoplane:
Monoplane MAVs closely mimic a bird in appearance and flight. From research, monoplanes
are the most common flapping wing MAV. The Flybird RC, seen in figure 2-6, and Funbird
RC are examples of electric powered monoplanes (The Ornithopter Zone 2007). The Flybird
RC has a wingspan of 400mm, a mass of 15g (Chronister 2007) and is designed for
recreational purposes. The mass of all MAVs weight must be minimal to achieve flight,
which is often achieved by sacrificing control. The Flybird RC has only the tail as an active
control surface. Another reason for this is that the Flybird RC is designed as a toy, and
minimum cost is desirable. This design only requires a two-channel transmitter and simple
electronics, and will therefore significantly reduce the cost of manufacture.

Figure 2-6, Flybird RC
[Chronister 2007]
Tandem Wing:
Research has shown that tandem wings are the least common configuration for flapping wing
MAVs. Figure 2-7 shows the Mechanical Dragonfly, one of the few successful examples of a
tandem MAV. It consists of two pairs of wings that flap independently (Valentine 2005).
Implementing two pairs of wings generates a larger lift force compared to a monoplane of
equal size. For a monoplane to generate the same magnitude of lift, it would require a greater
planform area. The consequence of this would be an increased load on the motor, reducing
flapping frequency and increasing the maximum dimensions, thus exceeding the size
constraints of a MAV.


11

Figure 2-7, Mechanical Dragonfly
[Valentine 2005]
Biplane:
The biplane configuration incorporates two pairs of superimposed flapping wings. The
superimposed pair of wings mirror each others motion, interacting with one another using a
clap-fling motion to generate thrust. The thrust is directed backwards and downwards to
produce forward flight and lift respectively. To achieve this, a MAV implementing a biplane
configuration must fly with a high angle of attack.

A biplane configuration is advantageous as it allows each wing to be smaller and flap at lower
frequencies. The biplane also has the advantage of reducing the severity of the oscillations
created by the flapping as the wings mirror each others motion. There are relatively few
existing MAVs that successfully use this method for flight and all have been developed in the
last few years. These include the DelFly, FlyTech Dragonfly, Brigham Young Universitys
Ornithopter and the RC Luna.

The DelFly, seen in figure 2-8, is a successful biplane MAV from the Delft University of
Technology, Netherlands. It is a remote-controlled flapping wing MAV weighing 17g, which
has a wingspan of 331mm with a flapping frequency of approximately 10Hz (Mols 2005).
There have been two DelFlys designed and built to date, the second an improvement on the
first, which took eleven students and three supervisors ten weeks to design and build. The
DelFly is highly controllable due to two control surfaces combining a rudder and an elevator
on its V-tail. These control surfaces combine the effects of a rudder to control yaw, and an
elevator to control pitch. The anhedral tail decreases lateral stability hence promoting roll. A
tail configuration such as this will increase the manoeuvrability of the vehicle. The DelFly has
a video camera onboard to survey its surroundings as well as allowing the pilot to control it
when the DelFly is out of visual range.


12

Figure 2-8, The DelFly
[Mols, B 2005]

The FlyTech Dragonfly MAV, seen in figure 2-9, implements a remote-controlled biplane
configuration. The weight of this aircraft is 28g with a wingspan of 400mm (WowWee 2007).
It is designed to be used as a toy, therefore to reduce the cost and complexity, the only control
mechanism is a rotor on the tail to alter yaw. As the mass must be minimal to achieve
successful flight, the small lithium polymer battery onboard only allows for a flight time of up
to ten minutes. To be a successful indoor flying toy, the FlyTech Dragonfly must be durable
and able to withstand multiple collisions with walls and ceilings. This is achieved by the use
of carbon fibre wings which are strong but flexible and the body is constructed of expanded
polypropylene, which can withstand collisions.

Figure 2-9, FlyTech Dragonfly
[WowWee 2007]

The flapping wing MAV seen in figure 2-10 was developed by students from Brigham Young
University. It has a flapping frequency up to 30Hz, which is greater than any other ornithopter
researched to date (Yeates 2006). The high frequency is possible due to the small wingspan of
180mm. A protective casing has been implemented into the design to protect the fragile
electronic components. The shape of the wings are different to other ornithopters, being


13
rectangular and supported by carbon fibre rods. The flexible spar, perpendicular to the leading
edge, assists in directing the thrust backwards to increase the thrust produced.

Figure 2-10, Brigham Young Universitys Ornithopter
[Brigham Young University 2006]

The RC Luna, seen in figure 2-11, also incorporates the biplane configuration. It is an upgrade
on the rubber band powered Luna Ornithopter which is commercially available (Chronister
2007). It is capable of self takeoff and landing. However, this MAV was built by a hobbyist,
modifying an existing ornithopter, it has no real purpose or payload on board.

Figure 2-11, RC Luna
[UNSW 2002]


14
2.2 Insect Flight

Insects take advantage of the aerodynamics associated with their wing shape and motion in
order to achieve flight. The aerodynamics involved in insect flight are significantly different
from aerodynamics involved with a fixed-wing aircraft. This difference is due to the
continuous flapping motion of the wing. Understanding the aerodynamics involved in insect
flight is valuable for the application and development of flapping wing MAVs.

The fluid dynamics involved with insect flight assumes that the flow of air is incompressible,
has a low Reynolds number and is therefore laminar. To support the body weight, a pair of
insect wings produce approximately two to three times more lift than conventional
aerodynamics can account for (Ellington 1996). The mechanisms that give rise to this
additional lift are a result of the wing motion and the associated unsteady aerodynamic effects.

2.2.1 Wing Motion During Flight

The wing motion of most insects follows a periodic cycle that comprises of an upstroke and a
downstroke. The downstroke begins with the wing in the uppermost and rear most position;
they then swept forwards and plunged downwards. While travelling through this motion, the
wing is pitched upwards. During the downstroke, the angle of attack of the wing is
considerably increased, producing lift in a similar manner to a fixed-wing aircraft. At the end
of the downstroke, the wing is in the lowermost and forward most position. The wing is then
rapidly flipped over so that the leading edge points backwards relative to the direction of
flight and the wings lower surface becomes the upper surface.

During the upstroke the wings are pushed upwards and swept backwards. At this point the
wing is again rapidly flipped over so that the leading edge once again points forwards. Once
the upstroke is complete, the wings are back in the uppermost and rear most position and are
ready to repeat the cycle.

The periodic cycle of an insects wing motion and the direction of the leading edges relative
to the direction of motion can be seen in figure 2-12.


15

Figure 2-12, Insect Wing Motion
[Ansari 2006]

According to Zbikowski, 2002, the typical range of wing beat frequencies at which this cycle
can occur is 5-200Hz for insects, with synchronous wing motion. This can exceed 1000Hz for
those with asynchronous wing motion. While an insect is hovering, the upstroke and the
downstroke are mirror images of each other. The insects wings will therefore take the same
amount of time for each cycle and the wing tips will trace a flat figure of eight shape. If
however, the insect decreases the time taken for the downstroke, forward thrust will be
developed.

The path traced by an insects wings can be seen in figure 2-13, where J indicates the advance
ratio of the wing motion at different flight speeds.


16

Figure 2-13, Wingtip Path For A bumblebee Bombus Terrestris at Different Flight Speeds.
[Ellington 1999]

2.2.2 Unsteady aerodynamic effects

There are a number of unsteady aerodynamic effects that insects adopt to achieve the
additional lift that conventional aerodynamics can not predict. These effects include delayed
stall, rotational circulation and wake recapture. Insects that do not include these effects into
their flight regime take advantage of the clap-fling mechanism.

Delayed Stall:
As previously mentioned, the upstroke and downstroke of an insects flight involve high
angles of attack. In the case of a fixed-wing aircraft, a high angle of attack leads to flow
separation around the leading edge, resulting in stall and consequentially a significant loss of
lift. Similarly, in the case of an insect, a high angle of attack results in flow separation and the
formation of a leading edge vortex. A leading edge vortex formed on an insects wing can be
seen in figure 2-14.


17

Figure 2-14, Insects Wing Leading Edge Vortex
[Wilkinson 2004]

The insects wing is in constant motion and rapidly reverses direction at the end of each stoke.
This motion leads to the formation of a new vortex in the opposite direction. This vortex
prevents the leading edge vortex from growing large enough to be shed, and therefore remains
attached to the wing. The flow in the leading edge vortex travels along the wing away from
the body in a circular path. At the centre of the vortex the pressure is lower compared to the
surrounding atmosphere. Relative to an insect, a region of low pressure will now exist above
its wing. Similar to a fixed-wing aircraft, when the pressure above the wing is less than the
pressure beneath the wing, lift will be produced. The presence of the attached vortex on the
wing also leads to additional circulation in the air flow around the wing which augments lift.
This method of lift generation is referred to as delayed stall.

Rotational Circulation:
The sudden rotation of an insects wing at the end of each stroke provides additional
circulation to the airflow and therefore further augments the lift being produced. This method
of lift generation is referred to as rotation circulation.


18
Wake Recapture:
The leading edge vortex is shed at the end of the downstroke due to the rapid wing rotation
previously mentioned. Once the vortex is shed, it travels away from the wing progressively
losing its energy. Insects have high wing beat frequencies and as a result, a vortex shed due to
the downstroke can only move a short distance before the wing, returning on the upstroke,
encounters it. Hence the insects wing re-enters the wake of the previously shed vortex. This
process allows insects to generate additional lift during flight and is referred to as wake
recapture. This process allows insects to use the otherwise wasted energy of the vortex to
produce lift, and explains, in part, the high efficiency of flapping wing flight.

A detailed description of the aerodynamics involved in leading edge vortices and wake
recapture can be seen in appendix A.

Clap-Fling Mechanism:
Insects that do not take advantage of the above methods of lift generation incorporate the
clap-fling mechanism into their flight. The clap-fling method of the tiny wasp Encarsai
Formosa can be seen in figure 2-15.


19

Figure 2-15, Clap-Fling Mechanism
[Ellington, 1999]

In part A of figure 2-15, it can be seen that the left and right wings clap together at the end of
the upstroke.

Parts B, C and D depict the insects wings during the fling motion, beginning at the
downstroke. As the insects wings fling apart, the airflow is drawn over the upper surfaces
and into the widening gap between the wings. This forced movement in the airflow creates a
vortex around each wing. This presence of the vortex increases and decreases the velocity of
the airflow over the upper and lower surfaces respectively and therefore results in a pressure
difference across the wing. This pressure difference along with the circulation of the vortices
generates lift. The high angular velocity associated with the rotation of the insect wing
produces additional circulation and further augments lift.

A detailed description of the aerodynamics involved with the clap fling wing mechanism can
be seen in appendix A.


20
Despite the aerodynamic benefits associated with the clap-fling mechanism, many insects
appear to neglect this method of lift generation. It is believed that this may be due to a
significant increase in wear and damage to the wings when they repeatedly clap together
(Ellington 1999).

2.3 Scaling Analysis

Scaling analysis is a critical and fundamental part of predicting the behaviour of structures
when miniaturised. In the design of a MAV two primary aspects present themselves for
scaling analysis. These aspects are the structural design of the MAV and also the
aerodynamics.

The impact of scaling a structural, load bearing design is derived by examining the formulas
for the relevant parameters such as stiffness, strength and moment of inertia. These
parameters are then compared to the dimensional aspects that are being scaled such as area,
volume or the loads. Figure 2-16 demonstrates the scaling considerations for a cantilever
beam. The leading edges of the 2007 MAVs wings can be approximated by a cantilever
beam with a distributed load along its length which is due to the pressure on the elastic
membranes being transferred to the leading edges. The following analysis reveals the load
must decrease by the square of the characteristic dimension of the leading edge.


21

Figure 2-16, Scaling a Cantilever Beam
[Michigan Technological University 2003]

This analysis considers the length variables that are related to stress in a square beam and
concludes that stress is inversely related to dimensions squared. This analysis assumes that the
same material is used in the leading edge at each cross sectional dimension being considered.
However in the case of the 2007 MAVs design, analysis contained in chapter four of the
report will reveal that the flapping motion produces more thrust with a larger wing area hence
larger leading edges. Therefore to provide the same thrust force with a smaller wing area and
leading edges, the flapping frequency must be increased, leading to higher loads on the
leading edges. The problem then is decreasing the dimensions of the aircraft, which is the
fundamental goal in designing a MAV, which leads to more stress on the structural elements
as the smaller elements can withstand less stress. Hence, to overcome this, material selection
needs to be reconsidered along with the scaling of a MAV and the selection of materials with
higher stiffness and stress limits.

Another aspect of the structural scaling that needs to be considered in a MAV is the force and
energy required to actuate the flight surfaces. For flapping wings, the rotational energy
required is related to the moment of inertia of the wings and the angular velocity , as shown
in the following equation.
2
2
1
I
rotation
E = (2.1)


22
In this equation the moment of inertia, I, is the mass moment of inertia which is a measure of
the solid's ability to resist changes in rotational speed about a specific axis. This is a function
of the mass and the distance from the axis of rotation squared. Mass being a function of the
density and the dimensions cubed, it was concluded logically that the energy required to rotate
the leading edge is inversely proportional to the square of any reduction in length of the
leading edge, keeping the cross sectional area constant. From this brief discussion it is evident
that scaling of any dimensional sizing impacts the forces and energy required to deliver the
given performance requirements. It also affects stresses and deflections experienced by
structural elements during operation.

2.3.1 Aerodynamic Scaling

Scaling of aerodynamic forces is primarily conducted with the use of similarity analysis and
using non-dimensional quantities such as the Reynolds number. Kinematic viscosity is
common for any size aircraft; therefore the variables available for modification are the flow
speeds and the characteristic lengths of the elements. If the MAV is moving slowly through
the air, then the lift generated will be quite small as lift is proportional to velocity squared as
shown in the following formula.

A V
L
C
L
2
2
1
= (2.2)

Thus, flight at low speeds and with low Reynolds number flows will lead to difficulties in
producing sufficient lift without unattainably large coefficients of lift. Therefore
unconventional aerodynamic mechanisms for generating the forces required for flight are
necessary. This is observed in nature by the widely varied designs in flying animals and
insects. The flight mechanism of MAVs are dissimilar to most flying animals and is most
analogous to the method of propulsion employed by insects that use the clap mechanism of
flight, such as the Encarsia formosa wasp, seen in figure 2-17. The 2007 MAV uses what can
be approximated as a closing wedge to force air out from between its wing in a jet and thus
provide thrust and then lift by vectoring this thrust.


23

Figure 2-17, Tiny Parasitic Wasp - Encarsia formosa
[Buglogical 2007]

Scaling these aerodynamic forces from anything in the animal kingdom is largely inapplicable
and alternative solutions for analysis are required. Fluid mechanic calculations and possible
computational fluid dynamic models are required for a fully developed analysis of the forces
developed by the MAV flapping motion. This analysis would then be available for
interpretation into the effect of varying parameters such as flapping frequency, wing area,
aspect ratio and optimal mass of the 2007 MAV.


24
3 Conceptual Design

3.1 Configuration Layout

Based on the research into MAVs that was conducted, the configuration of the 2007 MAV
was decided to be based on a biplane flapping wing design. Existing ornithopters such as the
Luna and DelFly were investigated to confirm the possibility of success using this design and
considerable time was spent sourcing micro components that could be incorporated into the
design. The initial concept can be seen in figure 3-1 which shows the basic fuselage layout
demonstrating two pairs of flapping wings.

Figure 3-1, Conceptual Layout Design 1

The wings will be positioned at the top of the fuselage and the majority of the electrical
components will be positioned towards the front of the MAV. The shape of the wings is
approximately semi-circular and they are connected along the leading edges of the wings and
down the centre of the fuselage. The initial concept design of the tail was an inverted V-tail.

The electrical components would be fixed below the main wings, attached to the fuselage that
runs down the longitudinal axis of the 2007 MAV. The initial configuration of electrical
components consisted of a lithium polymer battery connected to a micro receiver which
would receive input signals from a transmitter. The receiver would then control a direct drive
electric motor to control the flapping frequency and also control two actuators used to control
the pitch of control surfaces. The configuration of the electrical system is shown in figure 3-2.


25

Figure 3-2, Conceptual Electrical Configuration

3.2 Miniaturisation/Scaling Analysis

The miniaturisation of structures may be problematic due to non-linearity between sizing of
structural components and the loads placed upon them. The design of a structure that is stable
and durable at a sizing order of magnitude of 10cm to a 100cm, for example a bird, may not
translate to a feasible structure at an order of 1cm. This is observed in nature by animals
having similar structures only existing over a relatively small range of sizes. On a simplistic
level it is easy to see that a bird with the same design as an eagle but weighing the same as
an elephant would not be able to fly. Also we do not see birds with the same design as eagles
that are the same size as insects. Again, such a bird would be unable to fly.

It becomes apparent that limiting forces or properties must exist that make certain structures
only feasible over a certain range. It is known from a statistical approach to structural analysis
that the larger a homogeneous body is, the more likely it is to fail under a given load. This is
due to a higher probability of defects occurring over a larger area. Another limit that occurs
when scaling down could be the molecular structure of the material. This could lead to
strength diminishing dramatically on the micro level. Comparing the structure and flight
mechanism of insects with that of birds could lead to insight in this area. This is related to
comparing lift generation in insects and birds. Reynolds numbers are different so alternative
solutions for generating lift are required.

Receiver
Battery
Transmitter
Electric Motor
Actuator
Actuator


26
Designing MAVs involves the challenge of scaling a manmade structure that has typically
been designed with takeoff weight at least 1 kg and velocities at least 20m/s down to
something much smaller. However, a MAV must fly in the same air, with the same turbulence
and using similar materials as the larger aircraft. Stiffness, strength, hardness, Youngs
Modulus and Poissons ratio should all be considered.

Stiffness example;
L
AE
k = (3.1)

Where,
k is the stiffness of a solid body.
A is the cross sectional area of the body.
E is the modulus of elasticity.
L is the length of the body.

It can be seen that k is proportional to cross sectional area and the modulus of elasticity. The
modulus of elasticity is assumed constant. For circular and square cross section the area is
proportional to the edge or radius squared. Therefore for a reduction in the cross sectional
area of a beam, the stiffness decreases by the square of the reduction in either the edge
dimension or radius. It is possible this would lead to inoperable conditions for certain degrees
of down sizing.

This can then be furthered to a deflection analysis including a finite element analysis test case
and results. A strength analysis of a similar nature can be used to consider failure also. Similar
analysis would apply with the other structural properties of materials for example stress.

For a material undergoing bending in a plane the second moment of area is related to a length
dimension to the fourth power. The following equations demonstrate this and are the
expressions for the moment of inertia of a rectangular cross section, circular cross section and
hollow cylinder respectively.

) (
64 64 4 12
4 4
4 4 3
I O o O x
D D I
d r
I
bh
I = = = =

(3.2)


27
Also the bending strength of the material is the maximum bending stress allowable given by
the following equation;
I
My
= (3.3)
The moment applied is obviously the force multiplied by the length of the lever arm, therefore
this equation reduces to the stress being related dimensionally to the force and length as
shown below;
4
) (
~
L
L FL
(3.4)

Now using the following formula for lift, a relationship can be demonstrated between the
strength of a member, such as the leading edge spar of a wing, and the velocity the aircraft is
moving through the air.

A V C L
L
2
2
1
= thus L and therefore F ~ L
2
V
2
Therefore the equation for stress becomes;
4
2 2
. .
~
L
L L V L
(3.5)

The length dependence cancels out and it can be seen that the stress is directly proportional to
the velocity squared.

It can be further noted that the Reynolds number can be incorporated into this analysis as,

VL
= Re and therefore
L
V
Re
= .
Stress can then be expressed as
2
Re
~ |
\
|
L
.

Thus, if the flow conditions were constrained, (Reynolds number remains constant) then
stress would be related to the inverse of length squared, similar to the stiffness. Scaling down
of the sizing would thus have a significant effect on the strength and stiffness of materials.
This can also affect requirements for Reynolds numbers and lift generation.


28
3.3 Ornithopter Flapping Wing Mechanisms

Developing a flapping wing mechanism is an important stage in the design of a flapping wing
MAV. It is required that the flapping wing mechanism be as light and simple as possible,
while being capable of producing an effective and appropriate wing motion during flight.
Simplicity is essential as it will increase reliability and minimise the required mass, reduces
losses and therefore increases efficiency and will allow for quick and easy modifications if
necessary. Research into previous successful flapping wing aircraft revealed a number of
suitable flapping mechanism designs. Each of these mechanisms utilised the four bar crank-
rocker mechanisms as shown in figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3, Crank-rocker Mechanism

In figure 3-3, it can be seen that when the crank rotates with a constant angular velocity,
&
,
the wing leading edge rocks back and forth with a variable angular velocity, . & It is desired
that the variation of wing angle, , with respect to the crank rotation angle, , be as harmonic
as possible (Benedict 2004). This will ensure that minimum torque is required to provide an
effective flapping wing motion and the mechanism will operate with maximum efficiency.

The various flapping mechanisms considered are discussed below.
Wing Motion
Wing Leading Edge (Rocker)
Connecting Rod
Path followed by
crank
Crank


29
3.3.1 Single Crank Mechanism

Figure 3-4, Single Crank Mechanism

The single crank mechanism shown in figure 3-4, is the simplest and lightest flapping
mechanism design and can be used for both the monoplane and bi-plane configurations.
However, as the connecting rods are positioned at the same location on the crank shaft, the
flapping motion will not be symmetrical. The single crank mechanism was used in the RC
Luna and BYUs Ornithopter mentioned in chapter two.

Fixed-wing
Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods
Pivot
Pivot
Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker)


30
3.3.2 Single Crank Mechanism with an offset

Figure 3-5, Mechanism with crack offset

The single crank mechanism with an offset shown in figure 3-5, is similar to the single crank
mechanism, except the connecting rods have been offset on the crank. This design allows the
flapping mechanism to achieve a symmetrical flapping motion while maintaining its
simplicity and low mass. However, for the connecting rods to avoid crossing paths the leading
edges (rockers) must be in different vertical planes. The single crank mechanism with an
offset can be used for both the monoplane and bi-plane configuration and has been
implemented into the designs of the DelFly and the FlyTech Dragonfly.

Fixed-wing Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods
Offset on Crank
Pivot
Pivot
Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker)


31
3.3.3 Double Crank Mechanism

Figure 3-6, Double Crank Mechanism

The double crank mechanism shown in figure 3-6, incorporates two cranks connected to two
gears rotating in opposite directions. The design is similar to the single crank mechanism with
an offset as it can produce a symmetrical flapping wing motion as it is mirrored about its
central vertical axis. However, this mechanism has disadvantages in that it is considerably
more complex and therefore has a greater mass. During flight, if the gears were to slip the
wing motion would become out of phase. This would be undesirable as there would not be a
way for correcting the phase difference during flight.

Fixed-wing Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Connecting
Rods

Pivot
Pivot
Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker)
Crank


32
3.3.4 Slider-Crank Mechanism

Figure 3-7, Slider-Crank Mechanism

The slider-crank mechanism shown in figure 3-7, utilises a piston effect to achieve a
symmetrical flapping wing motion. However, the addition of the slider link is not favourable
when considering frictional losses, mass and simplicity in manufacturing.

3.3.5 Alternate Configuration

The flapping wing mechanisms described above are designed with the fixed-wing pivot
located between the connecting rods. An alternate configuration is to position two fixed-wing
pivots on the outside of the connecting rods. This configuration would produce the same
flapping wing motion to the mechanisms listed above. An example of this configuration
incorporated into a single crank mechanism with an offset design can be seen in figure 3-8.

Fixed-wing Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods

Pivot
Pivot Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker)
Slider


33

Figure 3-8, Alternative Flapping Configuration

A flapping mechanism using this configuration would be unable to be implemented into a
biplane MAV. This is due to the fixed-wing pivots not being positioned at the same location.

An example of this flapping mechanism configuration can be seen in figure 3-9.

Figure 3-9, JLMAV Prototype
[Beasley 2006]
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods
Offset on Crank
Fixed-
wing
Pivot
Fixed-
wing
Pivot
Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker)


34
3.3.6 Luna Flapping Wing Mechanism

To gain an understanding of flapping wing designs and concepts, a kit model aircraft called
the Luna Ornithopter was purchased. The Luna Ornithopter is a rubber band powered aircraft
that adopts a biplane configuration with a pair of two superimposed wings. The Luna
Ornithopters flapping mechanism can be seen in figure 3-10.

Figure 3-10, Luna Mechanism

By winding up and releasing the rubber band, the Luna Ornithopters wings are able to be set
into motion. The rotational motion of the crank shaft is translated into the linear motion
required to provide the flapping motion through the use of connecting rods. The positioning
of the connecting rods on the craft shaft can be seen in figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11, Connecting Rod Position
Rubber Band
Crank
Shaft
Connecting
Rods


35

Building the Luna Ornithopter revealed that the flapping mechanism produced an
unsymmetrical wing motion. The unsymmetrical wing motion was a result of the connecting
rods being positioned at the same location on the crank shaft. The Luna Ornithopters flapping
mechanism and connecting rod positioning can be seen in figure 3-12.

Figure 3-12, Singe Crank Mechanism

The flapping mechanisms considered in this review have provided many valuable insights and
ideas. Each design has advantages and disadvantages regarding factors such as mass,
complexity and reliability. These factors will all need to be considered when selecting an
appropriate flapping mechanism to be implemented into the design of the 2007 MAV.

3.4 Wing

The success of any type of aircraft is highly dependent on the shape and positioning of its
wings. There are several items that influence the design of a wing, including the wing location,
planform, size, aspect and taper ratio, airfoil, and the sweep angle.

Fixed-wing Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods
Pivot
Pivot


36
The wing location is crucial for a MAV. Positioning the wings high on the 2007 MAV will
assist in minimising the roll, due to the majority of the MAVs mass being below the wings,
the structure will act as a pendulum, maintaining stability. The drawback to this however, is a
decrease in manoeuvrability, although stability is of greater concern for the design. The
success of a high-winged MAV was demonstrated on the Luna Ornithopter, which showed
successful lateral stability. The high wing positioning can be seen in figure 3-13.

Figure 3-13, Luna - high wing position

The wing planform area is another factor influencing the flight specifically in the case of a
flapping wing MAV, the thrust generation and direction. Researching other flapping wing
MAVs, it is observed that, purely for simplicity of fabrication, the leading edge of the wing is
generally straight. This is perpendicular to the fuselage and has a decreasing chord from root
to tip along the span. This is similar to the shape of a birds wings. Figures 3-14 and 3-15
show the wing planform area used by flapping winged MAVs and birds respectively.

(a) Luna (b) DelFly
[Mols 2005]
(c) FlyTech Dragonfly
[Gizmowatch 2007]

Figure 3-14, Wings of Micro Air Vehicles


37

Spruce Grouse
[Ritchison 2006]

Harris Hawk
[Answers 2001]

Figure 3-15, Planform of Birds Wing

The size of the wings is important to the performance of an aircraft. Due to the use of flapping
wings for the 2007 MAV, the entire flow is anticipated to be laminar, making calculations
difficult to determine an efficient and effective wing size. Therefore, deciding on the size of
the wings depends on analysis of previous successful flapping winged MAVs.

3.4.1 Aspect Ratio

The aspect ratio, AR, of an aircrafts wing is equal to the wingspan squared divided by the
area of the wing. A high aspect ratio is the most efficient due to a decrease in induced drag.
However, there are a number of reasons not all aircraft have long thin wings. The main reason
is that there is an increased stress per area of wing. The longer the wing the larger the
moments generated and thus there is more stress on the structural components which requires
an increase in strength and therefore weight. Due to an increased moment of inertia of a long
thin wing, the roll rate will be decreased; therefore the aircraft will be more stable, but not
very manoeuvrable. In relation to a flapping wing MAV, long thin wings would not be
practical. It would be appropriate to design a flapping wing MAV with a moderately low
aspect ratio due to the structure of the wings and for simplicity of manufacture. Figure 3-16
shows a concept design of the 2007 MAV wing planform.


38

Figure 3-16, Wing Planform

3.4.2 Aeroelastic Wing

The pitching motion of a wing is an essential aspect of insect flight. At any given time, the
angle of attack of the wing varies along the leading edge. Therefore, the pitching motion is
not constant during flight and a twisting motion is achieved. Without this twisting motion it
would not be possible for an insect to generate lift and forward thrust. When developing a
MAV there are a number of methods that can be incorporated in the design to achieve the
required twisting motion. These methods include,
Distributing actuators along the leading edge of the wing and altering their individual
angles to achieve the required twisting motion.
Positioning one actuator at the tip of the leading edge and rotating the wing relative to
the root to achieve the required twist motion.
Using the flapping motion of the wing and relying on the inertial and aerodynamic
loads along with the flexibility of the wing material to achieve the required twisting
motion.


39
Distributing actuators along the leading edge of the wing and altering their individual angles
has a number of advantages over the other possibilities. One advantage is that the angle of
attack of each actuator can be altered to produce the optimum twisting motion during flight.
This will allow the MAV to adopt the most favourable twisting motion during flight,
depending on the situation or required manoeuvre. The complexity of the twisting motion will
increase with number of actuators incorporated into the design. However, this design also has
a number of disadvantages. Achieving the required twisting motion would not be possible
without an appropriate control system. The lightest commercially-available autopilot is the
Procerus Technologies Kestrel and will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 7. The mass
of the autopilot, the required actuators and other related components would be quite
significant and therefore with current technology, this method is an impractical solution to
achieve the required twisting motion. A simple model of this method can be seen in figure
3-17.

Figure 3-17, Actuators Along Leading Edge


40
Positioning one actuator at the tip of the leading edge and rotating the wing relative to the root
has advantages similar to the method described above. The angle of twist can be varied during
flight to optimise the wing motion and the mass of the actuators required will be significantly
less. The disadvantages of this method include the mass limitations of a MAV due to the
required actuators and the control system and a lower level of twisting complexity able to be
achieved due to less actuators incorporated into the design.

From research into previous successful ornithopters it was discovered that using the flapping
motion of the wing and relying on the associated loads along with the flexibility of the wing
material is the most general method used. This design allows the wing to autonomously
change its angle of attack and camber during flight and is an adequate simplification for
producing lift and thrust. Mylar is the material anticipated to be used in the design of the 2007
MAV can be seen in figure 3-18.

Figure 3-18, 2007 MAV Wing Material - Mylar

3.5 Fuselage

The fuselage of the 2007 MAV will maximise simplicity. It is not essential that the 2007
MAV carry a payload, however the electronics such as battery, receiver, actuators and motor
will need to be attached to the fuselage. The other important aspect of the fuselage will be that
the tail will be connected to it, along with the connecting wires associated with the electronics.
The fuselage will be constructed of either balsa wood, carbon fibre rods or a combination of


41
the two materials. As a number of components will be fastened to the fuselage, a larger cross
sectional area is preferred, however this increases mass. For the same surface area, balsa
wood is lighter and is simple to work with, thus would appear the obvious choice. In contrast,
a fuselage constructed of a carbon fibre tube would be useful for encasing the connecting
wires for the electronic components. The increased strength of a carbon fibre tube would
result in a more durable MAV. The third option would be to increase the strength of the balsa
wood by implementing carbon fibre reinforcing. This could result in the lightest fuselage with
the required strength. In this case the fuselage would not be hollow, thus the wires running to
the tail would be exposed in figure 3-19, and the fuselage layout can be seen.

Figure 3-19, Fuselage Concept

3.6 Tail Type

There are several different types of tail configurations that aircraft can implement. These
include conventional, cruciform, H-tail, T-tail and V-tail. However, the mass constraint of
MAVs often results in simplified solutions. This is evident on the Luna, which has a very
simple tail design. However, the Luna is not controllable, thus can afford a simple stabilising
tail, which can be seen in figure 3-20.


42

Figure 3-20, Luna - Simple V-tail

Incorporating a V-tail into the design of the 2007 MAV would have advantages regarding the
aircrafts stability and manoeuvrability. A V-tail implementing a dihedral angle would
increase the lateral stability of the aircraft at the expense of manoeuvrability. However, a V-
tail with an anhedral angle would have the opposite effect. Lateral stability would be
decreased, while the manoeuvrability increased, a conceptual design of this can be seen in
figure 3-21. Incorporating an anhedral angled V-tail along with a low centre of mass would
have advantages in that a high degree of lateral stability will be achieve and the aircraft will
have increased manoeuvrability. A V-tail configuration as described above would be a
possible future design improvement of the MAV.

Figure 3-21, Conceptual V Tail

3.7 Landing Gear

An aircrafts landing gear supports the plane and allows it to move along the ground when not
flying. Like all aircraft components, there are several arrangements of a landing gear
including, tricycle, bicycle and tail gear. Although, for a MAV the landing gear is vastly


43
simplified, often no more than a piece of wire, it protects all of the on-board components each
time the MAV takes off and lands. Researching existing MAVs, the landing gear is usually
one length of wire bent in an upside down U shape, similar to that seen in figure 3-22, which
is connected to the fuselage, and the tip of the U is generally bend out, allowing wheels to be
attached. The reasoning for the one length of wire is when the MAV is landing, the wire will
bend outwards, acting as a shock absorber for the MAV when it hits the ground, maximising
its durability and lifetime. When the self weight load has been removed, the elasticity of the
material will allow the landing gear to return to its original position.

Figure 3-22, Landing Gear Configuration

Unloaded Landing Gear
Landing Gear Flexing
Under Load
Wheels


44
3.8 Conceptual Outcomes

Upon the completion of the conceptual design stage, the design of the 2007 MAV evolved
into the CAD design shown in figure 3-23. This design was developed from analysing the
literature and statistics gathered, and also from the experience gained from building several
prototypes.

Figure 3-23, Final Conceptual CAD Design

Additional conceptual designs can be seen in appendix B.


45
4 Analysis

4.1 Statistical Analysis

A statistical analysis was conducted in order to estimate the parameters of the 2007 MAV.
This was done by researching parameters of similar aircraft and plotting them against each
other in order to obtain a relationship between each parameter. Graphs representing these
relationships can be seen in appendix C. Three representative ornithopters were selected for
the statistical analysis based on the similarity of their flight mechanisms to the 2007 MAV,
and also the availability of important statistics. The DelFly, the FlyTech Dragonfly and the
RC Luna Ornithopter were the ornithopters considered. The parameters found for each of
these aircraft can be seen in table 4-1.

DelFly FlyTech Dragonfly RC Luna
Mass (grams) 17 28 13
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07 0.07 0.07
Wing Span (mm) 350 400 340
Aspect Ratio 1.74 2.38 1.63
Frequency (Hz) 10 5 7
Flight Time (mins) 16 10 12
Battery Electric Charge (mAh) 140 50 70
Speed (m/s) 4 2 3
Length (mm) 400 320 330
Table 4-1, Micro Air Vehicle Statistics

The mass of the 2007 MAV is a given parameter as it can be estimated by summing up the
masses of the components and structures in the design. Through doing this it was
approximated that the mass of the 2007 MAV was 30g. The electric charge of the battery is
also a given parameter, as the battery to be used in the 2007 MAVs design is the Fullriver
lithium polymer 200mAh cell. Using the mass and the electric charge of the battery, estimates
of the remaining parameters could then be found using the previously determined relations.


46
This approach was carried out using an iterative method. Using the determined mass
relationships, a table was constructed showing the corresponding values of the remaining
parameters as a function of the estimated mass. For each parameter a similar table was
constructed, using an initial guess for each parameter. This was done in order to gain an
understanding of how each parameter influences the others. As a result of these nine tables,
eight different estimates of each parameter had now been found. These tables can be seen in
appendix C. For instance, the mass table corresponded to a certain wing area found from the
mass vs. wing area relation, while the wing span table corresponded to a different wing span
found from the wing span vs. wing area relation. The eight values for each parameter were
then averaged in order to determine the first estimation. The initial guesses for each parameter
were then changed to approximately equal these new estimations. Due to the fact that there
were seven parameters, it would be impossible to find a value for each parameter such that the
iteration was complete. Hence, the iteration was continued until the average values of each
parameter approximately equalled the final estimations of each parameter. The lists of
averaged and estimated parameters can be seen in tables 4-2 and 4-3 respectively.

Averaged Parameters for The 2007 MAV
Mass (grams) 29.23
Wing Span (mm) 383.1
Battery Electric Charge (mAh) 106.5
Flight Time (mins) 12.54
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07
Length (mm) 376.8
Speed (m/s) 3.69
Aspect Ratio 1.77
Frequency (Hz) 9.82
Table 4-2, Averaged Parameters for the 2007 MAV


47

Estimated Parameters for The 2007 MAV
Mass (grams) 30
Wing Span (mm) 360
Battery Electric Charge (mAh) 200
Wing Area (m^2) 0.072
Length (mm) 375
Speed (m/s) 3.6
Aspect Ratio 1.8
Frequency (Hz) 9.8
Table 4-3, Estimated Parameters for the 2007 MAV

From tables 4-2 and 4-3, it can be seen that the estimated parameters of the 2007 MAV are
approximately equal to the averaged parameters determined, with the exception of the battery
electric charge. The reason for this difference is that the battery electric change is set at 200
mAh due to current selection of battery. Through statistical analysis initial estimates of
important parameters of the 2007 MAV were determined.

4.2 Mass and Size Analysis

Ellington (1990) provides the lift requirement of wings of a flapping wing MAV using
hovering flight as a benchmark. This analysis was developed for a single pair of flapping
wings that models the leading edge vortex. However, from the results it appears to relate quite
well to the four wing design of the 2007 MAV. The only modification to the use of the
formula involves including the area of both the wings in the calculations. Using the formula
below the required mass that will be supported can be calculated for a specific design.
AR
C R n
m
L
4 2 2
387 . 0

= (4.1)
Where:
= m Mass (kg)
= Wingbeat Amplitude (rad)
= n Wingbeat Frequency (Hz)
= R Wing Length (m)


48
=
L
C Lift Coefficient
= AR Aspect Ratio

The mass that can be supported by the wings of the 2007 MAV has been calculated using a
wingbeat amplitude of 1.38 radians as the mechanism causes each wing to travel over a
distance of 0.69 radians. The flapping lift coefficient of 0.6 was used as this is the lower value
that is experienced by wings of insects in steady airflow in a wind tunnel (Ellington, 1999). A
range of wing lengths, wing areas and flapping frequencies were used to determine how much
mass would be supported.

Wing Area vs Total Mass Supported by Wings
at a Variety of Frequencies
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Wing Area (m
2
)
T
o
t
a
l

M
a
s
s

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

W
i
n
g
s

(
g
)
6 Hz
8 Hz
10 Hz
12 Hz
14 Hz
16 Hz
18 Hz
20 Hz

Figure 4-1, Wing Area vs. Mass Supported by Wings

From figure 4-1, it can be seen that the rate of increase of mass with respect to wing area
increases linearly with increasing flapping frequency. The wing area can be maximised by
having a square wing 0.15m by 0.15m and rounding the outer corner to ensure that the wing
maintains its shape without folding onto itself.


49
Wing Length vs Total Mass Supported by Wings
at a Variety of Frequencies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Wing Length (m)
T
o
t
a
l

M
a
s
s

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

W
i
n
g
s

(
g
)
6 Hz
8 Hz
10 Hz
12 Hz
14 Hz
16 Hz
18 Hz
20 Hz

Figure 4-2, Wing Length vs. Mass Supported by Wings

From figure 4-2, it can be seen that the larger the wings length is at a constant wing area the
more mass can be supported by the wings. The mass that can be supported also increases with
the flapping frequency. It can be seen that the most efficient design would maximise the wing
length to maximise the mass that is supported, however the limiting factor that defines a
MAV is the largest dimension.

Using a wing area of 0.017m
2
for each of the wings, a wing length of 0.15 metres and an
achievable flapping frequency of 17Hz, the MAV produces approximately 50g of thrust. This
allows the MAV to be designed to be less than 50g and fly with a flapping frequency of 17Hz
and above.

4.3 Estimation of Wing Surface Pressures Required for Flight

The average pressure required between the 2007 MAVs upper and lower wings can be
estimated using the following simple method and will assume that the wings are not flexible
and that the angular acceleration is equal to zero. Figure 4-3 shows a side view of the 2007
MAVs wings.


50

Figure 4-3, Pressure Between Upper and Lower Wings

For simplicity this method will analyse the average pressure between the 2007 MAVs upper
wing and a stationary flat surface. This can be seen in figure 4-4.

Figure 4-4, Pressure Between Upper Wing and Stationary Flat Surface

Thrust = Pressure Projected Area of Wings
P
A P T =
(4.2)
As we are only considering the pressure difference as a result of the motion of the upper wing,
the thrust produced will be half of the total thrust produced from the two wings combined.
Therefore, rearranging gives,
P
A P P T = ) ( 2
1 2
(4.3)
As, P1 is at ambient conditions, P1 0
P1
P2

Where, P2 > P1
Leading Edges
Motion of Upper Wing
Stationary Flat Surface
P1
P1
P2

Where, P2 > P1
Leading Edges
Motion of Upper Wing
Motion of Lower Wing


51
Therefore,
P
A
T
P
=
2
2
(4.4)
The projected area of the wing can be calculated as shown in figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5, Projected Area of Wing

sin =
Wing P
A A
(4.5)

Where, is the angle between the upper wing and the stationary flat surface.

The thrust required due to the motion of the upper wing can be calculated as shown in figure
4-6. For the sake of the calculation the thrust calculated will be the hovering thrust which is
the amount of thrust required to support the weight of the 2007 MAV.

Figure 4-6, Thrust and Weight Vectors

= cos W T
(4.6)

Where, is the angle that the 2007 MAVs thrust is directed.

Combining the previously calculated formulas, an equation for the average pressure required
between the upper wing and stationary flat surface can be determined. This equation is as
follows,
Area of Wing
Projected Area of
Wing

Weight of MAV
Thrust


52
( )
sin 2
cos
2

=
Wing
A
W
P
(4.7)
Using the data obtained from the statistical analysis the following values were calculated.
Mass of the 2007 MAV = 31g
Wing Surfaces Area = 0.018m
2

It was also assumed that the angle at which the thrust is directed, = 45.

Using these values the following graph of pressure vs. wing angle was produced.

Pressure In Between Wings vs. Wing Angle
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wing Angle (deg)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

I
n

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

W
i
n
g
s

(
G
a
u
g
e
-

P
a
)

Figure 4-7, Pressure In Between Wings vs. Wing Angle

It can be seen in figure 4-7 that the average pressure required between the 2007 MAVs wings
rapidly increases below a wing angle of approximately 20. This indicates that during flight,
for a constant hovering thrust to be produced, the pressure must increase exponentially when
the wings are closing. The maximum pressure is required as the wings close below 20 and
this is expected to be achieved as it is at this closing angle that the most air is expelled by the
clap-fling motion.


53
4.4 Pressure Distribution in a Closing Wedge

To gain an estimate of the force being produced by the flapping motion of the wings a
calculation of the pressure distribution in a closing wedge will be developed. This
approximation is quite loosely related to the actual prototype being developed but will serve
as a verification for the concept design. Variables such as flapping frequency, spread angle of
the wings and dimensions of the wings can be incorporated into this model to give an estimate
of their influence on the thrust developed and the force that needs to be resisted by the leading
edge.

Consider a control volume as seen in figure 4-8, that changes shape with time as the top
surface rotates about the origin with angular velocity,
&
.

Figure 4-8, Wedge Control Volumes

The bottom surface is fixed and has a length, l.

At some time t+t the top surface has moved . From continuity, the area in the initial
control volume (red triangle) equals the area after t (green triangle).

Assume the area of the control volumes are sectors with area:
2
2
r
A

= (4.8)
( )( )
2 2
2 2
r r r
A
+
= = (4.9)

r
r
O


54
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
2 r r r r r + + = (4.10)
Ignoring the second order term (r)
2
because it is very small and expanding the previous
expression.
r r r r r r 2 2
2 2 2
+ = (4.11)
Now,

&
=
t
t
&
= (4.12)
And,
r
V
t
r
=
t V r
r
= (4.13)
Therefore,
2 2
2 2 0 t V r t V r t r
r r

& & &
+ + = (4.14)
t V r t r
r
2
2
=
&
(4.15)
r
V r
&
2 = (4.16)
2
&
r
V
r
= (4.17)

Now differentiate (4.17) with respect to r and t,

2
&
r
V
r
(4.18)
|
\
|

+
|
\
|
1
2 2 t
V
r
t
r
t
r
& &
(4.19)
With,
0 =
& &
,
t
r
t
V
r
&
2
2
(4.20)
2
2
2
&
r
t
V
r

=
(4.21)

Now sub (4.17), (4.18) and (4.21) into Eulers equation,

r
g
r
p
t
V
r
V
V
r r
r
1
|
\
|
=
0
r
(4.22)


55
r
p r r
1
2 2 2
2
2
& & &
(4.23)
r
p r r
1
2 4
2
2
2
2
& &
(4.24)
2
2
4

&
r
r
p
=
(4.25)

Now to find the pressure distribution integrate the expression above from the origin to the
length of the wedge, l.

( ) dr
r
r p
l
=
0
2
2
4

&
(4.26)
C
pr
r p + =
2
2 2
8
) (
&
(4.27)

Now at r = l , p = atmospheric = p
o

Therefore,
2
2 2
8

&
l
p C
o
= (4.28)
Therefore,
2
2 2
2
2 2
8 8
) (

& &
r
p
l
r p
o
+ = (4.29)
( )
2
2
2 2
8
) (

&
r l p r p
o
+ = (4.30)

This result is reasonable because it shows that as r approaches l the pressure simply
approaches the ambient pressure or atmospheric. If r is less that l the pressure will be at some
value greater than ambient.

Now if we consider a wedge with width l (ie a square wing) we can integrate over the area of
the wing and obtain the force due the pressure caused by the motion.


56
= =
l
dA r p F
0
) (
l
dr l r p
0
. ). ( (4.31)
( )
|
|
\
|
+ =
l
o
dr l r l p
0
2
2
2 2
. .
8

&
(4.32)
dr lr l l p
l
o
.
8 8
2
2
0
2
2
2
3

& &
+ = (4.33)

l
o
lr rl lr p
0
2
2
3
2
2
3
24 8

& &
+ = (4.34)
2
2
4 2
12

&
l l p F
o
+ = (4.35)

Note: with the pressure above the wings being p
o
the first term can be ignored. Thus, the force
is directly proportional to the wing area squared and also the angular velocity squared. It is
inversely proportional to the initial angle squared.

4.4.1 Discussion

These equations can be used to develop a relationship between a number of important
parameters of the 2007 MAVs design. Firstly given a spread angle for the wings of /2 the
relationship between angular velocity and flapping frequency is derived and displayed in
figure 4-9.


57

Figure 4-9, Angular Velocity of Wings vs. Flapping Frequency

The relationship between angular velocity and swept angle and flapping frequency can be
seen in figure 4-9, and is expressed as, f 2 =
&
.
2
2
4 2
12

&
l l p F
o
+ = (4.36)
Becomes,
12
4
2
4 2
f
l l p F
o
+ = (4.37)
3
2
4 2
f
l l p F
o
+ = (4.38)
Note if the pressure along the top of the wing is atmospheric the p
o
l
2
term can be omitted from
the equation because it will cancel with the force acting on the top of the wing.

3
2
4
f
l F

= (4.39)

Now the pressure vs. position along the wing/wedge can be plotted for various flapping
frequencies. As it can be seen in figure 4-10 the pressure is maximum at the origin and
decreases to zero (or atmospheric) and the end of the wedge, or where r = l.


58

Figure 4-10, Pressure vs. Radial Distance
The most important result from these calculations is the determination of the force due to
integrating the pressure distribution over the area of the wing. Figure 4-11 shows how the
force increases with increasing wing area and is plotted for a number of flapping frequencies.

Figure 4-11, Force vs. Wing Area for Various Frequencies


59
This force is due to the pressure distribution inside the wedge as it closes with some angular
velocity, in this case approximated by the flapping frequency. It has been assumed that there
is no angular acceleration therefore the true force would probably be related to the root mean
squared velocity of the wings rather than f 2 =
&
as used above.

Also note this force should be used to determine the force on the structure of the wings rather
than the force generating thrust because it is directed normal to the wing and has only a small
component in the direction of flight. The force generating thrust is primarily related to the
changing momentum of the air in the control volume. As the air is forced out in a jet it propels
the 2007 MAV due to conservation of momentum. Future work could include measuring the
actual forces on the wings to verify the accuracy of this analysis. This could be performed
simply using strain gauges or high speed cameras to quantify deflection and hence calculate
stresses.


60
4.5 Flapping Wing Mechanism Analysis

The single crank with an offset flapping mechanisms incorporated into the design of the 2007
MAV can be simplified to a four-bar crank-rocker linkage. The linkage system used in the
design of the 2007 MAV can be seen in figure 4-12.

Figure 4-12, Four Bar Crank-Rocker Linkage

It is desired that the variation of wing angle, , with respect to the crank rotation angle, , be
as harmonic as possible (Benedict 2004). To determine this, it is required to find a
relationship between crank rotation angle and wing angle.

In this analysis, the following abbreviations will be used;
L1 = Length between fixed-wing pivot and crank shaft
L2 = Crank
Wing Leading
Edge (Rocker) (L4)
Connecting Rod (L3)

Crank (L2)
Path followed
by crank shaft
Fixed-
wing
Pivot

Length Between Fixed-
wing Pivot and Crank
Shaft (L1)


61
L3 = Connecting rod.
L4 = Wing Leading Edge

These lengths can be seen in figure 4-13 along with the locations that wing angle, , and
crank rotation angle, , are defined.

Figure 4-13, Linkage Diagram

From figure 4-13 it can determined that,

cos 2 1 L L x = (4.40)

sin 2 L y = (4.41)

|
|
\
|
+
+ +
|
|
\
|
=

2 2
2 2 2 2
1 1
4 2
3 4
cos tan 180
y x L
L y x L
y
x
(4.42)

By plotting this function it is possible to observe the variation of wing angle, , with respect
to crank rotation angle, . The values for L1, L2, L3 and L4 were determined using the
flapping wing mechanism that will be discussed in chapter five. It should be noted that to
L4
L3

L2

L1
x
y


62
improve the clarity of the results the flapping wing angle has been translated in figure 4-14 to
define the angle of the leading edges above or below the horizon.

2007 MAV Wing Motion Comparison
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Crank Shaft Angle (deg)
F
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

W
i
n
g

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
Lower Left Leading Edge
Harmonic Curve

Figure 4-14, 2007 MAV Wing Motion Comparison

The above plot shows the flapping wing motion of the 2007 MAV compared to a harmonic
curve over one complete cycle. The leading edge selected to be analysed in this plot was the
lower left leading edge when observing the 2007 MAV from a frontal view. The dark blue
line denotes the variation of wing angle with respect to crank rotation angle and the pink line
represents the harmonic curve of the same period and amplitude.

It can be observed that the curve for the 2007 MAV does not exactly match the harmonic
curve. However, it was determined that the maximum deviation from the harmonic curve was
14.43% and therefore it was approximated that the variation of wing angle with respect to
crank rotation angle is harmonic. As previously mentioned, this relationship is highly
desirable for the design of an efficient ornithopter.

The relationship between wing angle and crank rotation angle can also be used to determine
the variation of the angle between the upper and lower leading edges with respect to the crank


63
rotation angle. To complete this analysis it was necessary to use the results obtained from the
flapping wing mechanism spreadsheet contained chapter five.

Graph of Flapping Wing Angle vs. Crank Shaft Angle
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Crank Shaft Angle (deg)
F
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

W
i
n
g

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)
Lower Left Leading Edge
Upper Left Leading Edge
Lower Right Leading Edge
Upper Right Leading Edge

Figure 4-15, Variation of Flapping Wing Angle with Crankshaft Angle

Figure 4-15 above depicts the upper and lower leading edges of the 2007 MAV when
observing the aircraft from a fontal view. The slightly offset symmetrical flapping motion can
be observed here as the lower left leading edge will reach its maximum angle before the upper
left leading edges reaches its minimum angle. On the opposite side, it can be observed that the
upper left leading edge will reach its maximum angle before the lower right leading edge. The
opposite behaviour of the left and right leading edges is a result of the offset nature of the
flapping wing mechanism. It can be observed that the phase difference between the upper and
lower leading edges is approximately /4.

Table 4-4 was constructed to express the maximum and minimum angles reached by the
upper and lower leading edges during flight.


64
Maximum and Minimum Angles of the Upper and Lower Leading Edges

Maximum Wing
Angle (deg)

Minimum Wing
Angle (deg)

Upper Leading
Edges
48.53 20.29
Lower Leading
Edges
-4.79 -33.03
Table 4-4, Maximum and Minimum Angles of the Upper and Lower Leading Edges

The variation in the angle between the upper and lower leading edge with respect to crank
rotation angle can be seen figure 4-16.

Angle Between Leading Edges vs. Crank Angle
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Crank Angle (deg)
A
n
g
l
e

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

L
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
d
g
e
s

(
d
e
g
)
Angle Between
Upper and Lower
Leading Edges

Figure 4-16, Variation Angle Between Leading Edges with Respect to Crank Angle

From the above plot it can be observed that the minimum and maximum angle between the
upper and lower leading edges of the 2007 MAV during flight will be approximately 27.3 and
79.4 degrees respectively.

This flapping wing mechanisms analysis assumes that the linkages are rigid and therefore
does not take into account the flexibility of the leading edge material. The flexibility of the
wing material will result in a displacement when acted upon by the inertial and aerodynamic


65
loads. Therefore, the minimum angle between the upper and lower leading edges will be less
than expected, while the maximum angle between the upper and lower leading edges will be
greater than expected.

4.6 Leading Edge Deflection

It is required that the deflection of the leading edges be analysed to prevent interference
between the upper a lower wings. During flight, the maximum displacement will occur at the
tip of the leading edges and is a result of the pressure distribution between the wings and the
inertial forces. The deflection due to each of these forces needs to be considered separately in
order to determine the maximum deflection of the leading edges during flight.

4.6.1 Displacement due to the Pressure Distribution

As previously discussed in this chapter, the pressure in between a wedge of length l, as a
function of some radial distance from the centre of the wedge r, is given by the following
function.

( )
2
2
2 2
12
) (

&
r l p r p
o
+ = (4.43)

Figure 4-17, Front View of Upper and Lower Leading Edges

O
L
r


66
This pressure function can be used to determine the deflection of the leading edges of the
upper and lower wing. The wedge shape seen in figure 4-17 can be approximated to the shape
of the upper and lower leading edges of the 2007 MAV when observing the aircraft from a
frontal view point. By plotting the pressure function against radial distance, the pressure
distribution along the leading edges can be obtained. Once this distribution is known, the
location and magnitude of the resulting force can be determined and therefore the deflection
of the leading edges can be calculated.

In order to plot the pressure function, values for air density, ambient air pressure, angle of
wing motion, frequency, average angular velocity of wing and the length of the leading edge
all need to be estimated.

The surrounding air conditions will be assumed to be ambient, therefore,
3
/ 225 . 1 m kg =
kPa p
o
325 . 101 =

From the flapping wing mechanism spreadsheet that is discussed in chapter five, it was
estimated that each wing moves through an angle of 44 degrees.
deg 44 =

Through testing, the maximum flapping frequency of the 2007 MAV was determined to be
approximately 20Hz.
Hz f 20 =

Therefore, the average angular velocity of the wings can be determined.
f 2 =
&
(4.44)
Hz 20 deg 44 2 =
&

sec / 753 . 30 rad =
&

Plotting the pressure in between the upper and lower leading edges against radial distance
from the centre produces the graph, seen in figure 4-18.


67
Pressure Along Leading Edge vs. Radial Distance From
Centre
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Radial Distance From Centre (m)
G
a
u
g
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

A
l
o
n
g

L
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
d
g
e

(
P
a
)

Figure 4-18, Pressure vs. Distance

From the graph it can be visualised that the leading edge is situated along the x-axis and the
curve of the graph illustrates the pressure distribution along the length as a function of radial
distance. It can be noted that the maximum pressure exists at the inner most location of the
wing region, where the upper and lower wings meet and the minimum pressure exits at the
opposite end of the leading edge at the location where it is exposed to ambient conditions.

To determine the deflection as a result of the wing motion, the leading edge can be
represented as a simple cantilever beam with one fixed end and one free end. A better
visualisation of the cantilever beam can be seen in figure 4-19.


68

Figure 4-19, Leading Edge Visualised as a Cantilever Beam

Pressure is defined as a force per unit area. Therefore, a force is the product of a pressure and
an area. By integrating the pressure function with respect to radial distance between a range of
r = 0 to r = l the area of the pressure distribution can be determined.

Area of Pressure Distribution = ( ) ( ) l p r l p
o
l r
r
o

(
|
|
\
|
+
=
=
2
2
2 2
0
12

&
(4.45)
Using the values listed above,

Area of Pressure Distribution = 0.447 Pa.m

Dividing the area of the pressure distribution by the length of the cantilever beam, l, an
average pressure being exerted along the leading edge can be determined. This average
pressure was found to be 2.79Pa above ambient pressure.

As previously mentioned,
Force = Pressure Area

Where, the area is the surface area of the wing and was calculated to be approximately
0.018m
2
.
101329.19 Pa
101325 Pa
Cantilever Beam of Length l


69
Therefore,
N m Pa Force 05029 . 0 018 . 0 79 . 2
2
= = = 50.3grams

The resulting force acts on the leading edge through the pressure distributions centroid. The
location of the pressure distributions centroid, x, can be found by solving the following
integration method.

( )
|
|
\
|
+ =
|
|
\
|
+

=
=
=
=
2
2
2 2
2
2
2 2
0
12
) (
12

& &
r l p r l p
l r
x r
o
x r
r
o
(4.46)

This calculates the location of the centroid to be at x = 0.055m along the leading edge.

The cantilever can be redrawn depicting the resulting force and the location at which it acts on
the leading edge. This can be seen in figure 4-20.

Figure 4-20, Resultant Force and Deflection

For the cantilever beam illustrated in figure 4-20 the maximum deflection occurs at the free
end and can be determined from the following equation.

( ) x l
EI
Fx
= 3
6
2
max
(4.47)
Resultant
Force
Centroid of
Pressure
Distribution Area
x = 0.0551m
Cantilever Beam of Length l
max


70
Where;
E is the modulus of elasticity of the material used in the construction of the leading edge. For
carbon fibre, E = 10GPa.
I is the moment of inertia of the leading edge. For a circular cross section with radius r, the
moment of inertia is defined as,
4
4
r
I

= (4.48)

Using the following values,
F = 0.05029N
x = 0.0551m
E = 30GPa
r = 1.5mm/2 = 0.75mm
I = 2.48510
-13
m
4

l = 0.16m

For the 2007 MAVs leading edge travelling through 44 degrees at a frequency of 20Hz, the
maximum deflection due to the pressure distribution is 2.18mm.

4.6.2 Deflection due to Inertial Loads

The deflection due to inertial effects can be analysed by determined the angular and linear
acceleration of the leading edges.

Angular acceleration, , is defined as the second derivate of the leading edge wing angle, .

( ) ( ) t A
dt
d
dt
d
sin
2
2
2
2
= = (4.49)

Where;
A is the amplitude of the wing motion, A = 22degrees = 0.3838 radians
is the average angular velocity of the wing motion, f 2 = , therefore 64 . 125 = rad/sec.
Figure 4-21 shows two cycles of the wings motion with respect to time.


71
Wing Angle vs. Time Plot
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (sec)
W
i
n
g

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)

Figure 4-21, Wing Angle vs. Time

By differentiating the function above twice, it can be shown that;

A
2
= = 6058.4 rad/sec
2
.

Now the linear acceleration of the leading edge will be given by its angular acceleration
multiplied by the radius of the location being considered. Thus, the maximum linear
acceleration of the leading edge was calculated to be 969.17m/s
2
. Now using Newtons
second law the force on the leading edge can be determined. The material of the leading edge
is 1.5mm diameter carbon fibre with a mass of 2.6g/m. Thus the acceleration and mass can be
combined to produce figure 4-22.


72
Force vs. Radius
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Radius (m)
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)

Figure 4-22, Force vs. Radius

It can be seen that the maximum force occurs at the tip of the leading edge and is equal to
0.4N. The deflection due to the inertial loads can be determined using the method described
above. Representing the leading edge as a cantilever beam allows the following equation to be
used to determine the maximum deflection.

EI
Fl
6
3
max
= (4.50)

F = 0.4N
E = 26.3GPa
I = 2.48510
-13
m
4

l = 0.16m

The maximum deflection due to the inertial loads of the 2007 MAVs leading edge travelling
through 44 degrees at a frequency of 20Hz is 41.78mm.


73
4.6.3 Total Deflection of the Leading Edges

The total maximum displacement can be determined by combing the displacement due to the
pressure distribution and the displacement due to the inertial loads. This can be done as
follows,

Loads Inertial on Distributi pressure Total
+ = (4.51)

mm mm mm
Total
96 . 43 78 . 41 18 . 2 = + =

The total maximum deflection due to the pressure distribution and the inertial loads of the
2007 MAVs leading edge travelling through 44 degrees at a frequency of 20Hz is 43.96mm.
It can be noted that due to high frequency of the leading edges the inertial loads are the
dominant contributors towards the maximum deflection.

4.7 Leading Edge Stress Analysis

It is required that a stress analysis be conducted in order to determine the minimum amount of
material necessary to allow the leading edges to flap without failure. Over-strengthening the
leading edges will lead to additional material costs and more importantly unnecessarily
increases in the aircrafts weight. However, under-strengthening will lead to catastrophic
failure of the leading edges when the required wing beat frequency has been reached.
Determining the ideal dimensions of the leading edges is essential in order to maximise the
performance of the 2007 MAVs flight. In order to correctly analyse a beam with a circular
cross section both bending stresses and shear stresses need to be considered.

4.7.1 Bending Stresses

The allowable bending stress for carbon fibre rod is 1.83 GPa. Therefore, it is essential that
the maximum bending stress present in the leading edge does not exceed this value.


74
For a circular cross section, the section modulus is defined as,
32
3
D
S

= (4.52)
However, section modulus is also defined as,

allowable
M
S
max
= (4.53)

Where, M
max
is the maximum bending moment.

( ) Nm m N m x F M 067 . 0 ) 16 . 0 4 . 0 ( 0551 . 0 0.05N
max
= + = =

Therefore,
allowable
M D
max
3
32
= (4.54)

For a structure with a circular cross section this equation rearranges to the following function.
3
max
32
allowable
M
D
= (4.55)

M
max
= 0.067Nm
allowable
= 1.83GPa.

The minimum dimensions for the cross-section of the leading edge, travelling through 44
degrees at a frequency of 20Hz without failure is approximately 0.72mm.
4.7.2 Shear Stresses

The allowable horizontal shear stress for carbon fibre rod is 2.2MPa. Therefore, it is highly
important that the maximum shear stress present in the leading edge does not exceed this
value.


75
For a circular cross section, the maximum allowable shear stress is given by the following
formula,
2
max
max
) 4 / ( 2
3
2
3
d
F
A
V
= = (4.56)
Where the maximum shear force, V
max
, occurs through the centroid of the pressure
distribution as previously mentioned.

For a structure with a square cross section, b = h, therefore this equation rearranges to the
following function.
max
) 4 / ( 2
3

F
d = (4.57)

F = 0.45029N
max
= 2.2MPa

The minimum dimensions for the cross-section of the leading edge, travelling through 44
degrees at a frequency of 20Hz without failure is approximately 0.88mm.

4.7.3 Stress Analysis Summary

It has been found that a minimum diameter of carbon fibre of 0.72mm is required to prevent
the maximum bending stress in leading edges from exceeding the maximum allowable
bending stress. It has also been found that a minimum diameter of 0.63mm is required to
prevent the maximum shear stress in the leading edge from exceeding the maximum
allowable shear stress. Meeting both requirements has produced two different minimum
diameters, therefore the only possible solution which satisfies both provisions is the greater
diameter of 0.72mm. It would appear that by using this diameter the leading edge is over-
strengthened and includes excess weight. However, this greater diameter is required in order
to prevent the maximum shear stress from exceeding the maximum allowable shear stress of
carbon fibre.


76
5 Detail Design

The following section combines the research outlined in the conceptual design chapter and the
analysis conducted. The selection and integration of the electrical components are discussed
and justified in detail. The structural configuration implemented into the design of the 2007
MAV will be finalised. A cost and weight analysis of the electronic and structural has been
included to determine the final expenses and overall mass of the 2007 Micro Air Vehicle
project.

5.1 Control

For successful flight it is necessary that the pilot be able to control the aircraft. Aircraft are
controlled by changing the elevation of control surfaces, positioned at various locations on an
aircrafts wings and tail. The elevation of these control surfaces is varied by the pilot and
allows them to rotate the aircraft around the longitudinal, lateral and normal axes. In the case
of smaller aircraft such as MAVs, control is also needed to avoid collisions with nearby
objects.

5.1.1 Transmitter

When flying the 2007 MAV the pilot uses a transmitter to control the movement of the
aircraft. The 2007 MAV uses the GWS T4AII 4 Channel Transmitter, seen in figure 5-1, from
J-line electronics. The design of the 2007 MAV requires only two control surfaces to
manoeuvre the aircraft and one electric motor to provide propulsion. Therefore, only three
channels of the transmitter are necessary. The transmitter is able to communicate with a
receiver onboard the 2007 MAV through a crystal within the receiver, tuned at the same
frequency as the radio transmitter. This specific frequency enables multiple transmitters to be
used in the same location without interference between the individual aircrafts signal. The
frequency of operation of the 2007 MAV is 35.450 MHz.


77

Figure 5-1, J-line Quattro Radio System
[Model Flight, 2007]

5.1.2 Receiver and Crystal

The onboard receiver is connected to each component that is required to produce an output for
the aircraft. The 2007 MAV uses the Micro Invent MINOR receiver seen in figure 5-2. This
receiver is produced in Slovakia and has five channels, however, as mentioned above, only
three of these channels are required to control the 2007 MAVs flight. The outputs for the
aircraft are the two actuators to alter the orientation of each control surface and the electric
motor to drive the flapping wing mechanism. Power is supplied to the receiver through the
200mAh Fullriver Lithium Polymer Cell positioned onboard the 2007 MAV. The crystal
within the receiver allows radio signals to be received, sent from the transmitter. The GWS
micro crystal used in the 2007 MAV has a range of up to 130m.

Figure 5-2, Micro Invent MINOR Receiver


78
5.1.3 Motor and Electronic Speed Controller

The motor is used to drive the flapping wing mechanism in order to create thrust. The 2007
MAV uses the 12W Bronco three phase, brushless motor, seen in figure 5-3 with the MBC4-
B electronic speed controller. The Bronco is designed and manufactured in the Czech
Republic by Gasparin, a micro electronics company. This motor operates at up to 11,000 rpm
and outputs up to 10.09 watts. Three phase motors are more efficient than permanent magnet
DC motors and they have a higher power to weight ratio (Model Flight 2007). On a small
scale they also offer a smoother operation due to the even supply of power and thus are able
to reach very high rpm.

Figure 5-3, Bronco Brushless Motor

The Micro Invent MINOR receiver includes an electronic speed controller. However, to use
the brushless motor a separate speed controller was required to deliver the three phase electric
power. The Micro Invent MBC4-B electronic speed controller for brushless motors is used in
the 2007 MAV seen in figure 5-4. It weighs 1.2g including wires and it incorporates features
such as masking of signal failure up to one second and acoustic indication of the state of the
controller.


79

Figure 5-4, Micro invent MBC4-B ESC
[Micro Invent 2007]

Varying the frequency of the 2007 MAVs wings will allow the pilot to have control over the
amount of thrust being generated due to each flap. Depending on the orientation of the 2007
MAV during flight, this will allow the pilot to be able to vary forward velocity and/or altitude.

5.1.4 Electro-Magnetic Actuators

Actuators are used in radio-controlled aircraft to change the elevation of control surfaces. The
2007 MAV uses two Micro Invent MCA 3 actuators, seen in figure 5-5, which are electro-
magnetic actuators. This type of actuator consists of many layers of coiled copper wire with a
magnet positioned in the centre.

Figure 5-5, Micro Invent MCA 3 Actuator


80
These actuators act as a solenoid-actuated lever. By alternating the current passing through
the coil and hence increasing and decreasing the elevation of the control surfaces, the pilot
will be able to successfully control the 2007 MAVs flight path.

5.1.5 Control Surfaces

Through changes in elevation of an aircrafts control surfaces, a pilot is able to rotate an
aircraft about its three axes; lateral, longitudinal and normal. An aircrafts motions about these
axes are known as pitch, roll and yaw respectively.

Fixed-wing aircraft include ailerons and flaps located on the main wing. Through changing
the amount of lift produced by each wing, the functions of these control surfaces respectively
are to induce roll and to increase the overall lift during takeoff and landing. However, as the
2007 MAV incorporates a flapping wing design, ailerons and flaps would have a detrimental
effect on the effectiveness of the MAVs flight. It would not be desirable or even possible to
include ailerons and flaps as this would lead to excess weight due the complex design
required to allow the actuators to function while the wings are in motion. Due to the 2007
MAVs slow forward velocity, wing flapping motion and wing design, lift is not purely
generated due to the wings airfoil shape as in a fixed-wing aircraft. Therefore ailerons and
flaps would have an insignificant effect on the aircrafts manoeuvrability. However the tail
design of the 2007 MAV does have a significant influence on control as it is positioned in the
area of high air flow velocity in the wake of the flapping wings.

Designing the 2007 MAV without ailerons or flaps is of no consequence. The two control
surfaces within the tail provide sufficient means to direct the aircraft during flight. Through a
combination of elevation changes of the control surfaces, the 2007 MAV can be rotated about
each of its three axes.

Pitch:
When rotating about the lateral axis, an aircraft will change its pitch. Changing pitch allows
the aircraft to either lift or drop its nose. This motion results in the aircraft increasing or
decreasing its altitude respectively. The 2007 MAV will be able alter its pitch by changing the


81
elevation of both control surfaces simultaneously in the same direction. To increase pitch, the
pilot will elevate both control surfaces upward. To decrease pitch, the pilot will angle both
control surfaces downward. With the MAV pitched up, altitude can be gained by increasing
the power supplied to the electric motor and thus increase the flapping frequency. The pitch of
the 2007 MAV is important because the vectored thrust generated by the flapping motion
provides both the lift and forward thrust. The angle that the MAV is flying at influences the
proportion of that thrust that is being used for hovering or propelling the MAV forward. It is
thus vital that the pitch of the 2007 MAV is adjustable to achieve controllable flight.

The pitch of the 2007 MAV could also be adjusted by the positioning of the mass of the
structure and electrical components. The main concentration of the mass of the MAV is in the
motor and the other electric components such as the battery. These are all placed well below
the wings so the MAV is kept stable by a pendulum effect. Longitudinally, the mass is located
at the front of the aircraft and the tail produces a large correcting moment due to the lever arm
caused by the length of the fuselage. This produces the natural angle that the MAV flies at
and this could be adjusted by positioning the electrical components further towards the rear of
the aircraft and changing the location of the centre of mass. This would reduce the
requirement on the tail to affect the pitch during flight.

Roll:
When rotating about the longitudinal axis, an aircraft will roll. Changing roll allows the
aircraft to roll left or right while remaining at a fixed altitude. The 2007 MAV will be able to
alter its roll by changing the elevation of both control surfaces simultaneously in the opposite
direction. To roll left, the pilot will elevate the left control surface upward and the right
control surface downwards. To roll right, the pilot will elevate the right control surface
upward and the left control surface downwards. The specifics of this motion will be
mentioned in greater detail when covering the lateral stability of the 2007 MAV.

Yaw:
When rotating about the normal axis, an aircraft will change its yaw. Changing yaw allows
the aircraft to turn left or right while remaining at a fixed altitude. The 2007 MAV will not be
able to directly alter its yaw as a rudder has not been included into the design. However, when


82
an aircraft rolls there is a secondary yaw effect. Due to the flight characteristics of the 2007
MAV, yaw will not be an important motion as it is not flying at high velocities and can
change direction by rolling motion.

5.2 Flapping Mechanism

The flapping wing mechanism implemented into the design of the 2007 MAV was based on
the Luna Ornithopters mechanism. However, to produce a symmetrical flapping wing motion
the connecting rods were offset on the crank shaft. The 2007 MAVs symmetrical flapping
mechanism can be seen in figure 5-6.

Figure 5-6, Crank Mechanism with Offset

To produce the required rotational motion a small electric motor was incorporated into the
design of the 2007 MAV.

Incorporating an electric motor into the design of the 2007 MAV has many advantages,
A greater endurance can be achieved.
A constant level of thrust can be maintained.
The amount of thrust produced can be varied.
Fixed-wing Pivot
Path followed
by crank shaft
Crank
Connecting Rods
Offset on Crank
Pivot Pivot


83
A 12 tooth pinion gear was initially attached to the brushless motor, to rotate an 81 tooth spur
gear. The spur gear was restrained onto the crank shaft to ensure that each component rotated
simultaneously during operation. The components mentioned above and the offset connecting
rods can be seen in figure 5-7.

Figure 5-7, Prototype Gearbox

To design an effective flapping wing mechanism that could achieve a symmetrical wing
motion an Excel spreadsheet was composed. Through the use of the spreadsheet it was
ensured that the time taken during the upstroke and downstroke is identical and the wing
motion is as regular and efficient as possible. The spreadsheet allowed the user to enter the
parameters of the known components and therefore determine the positioning and lengths of
the derivable components.

The adjustable parameters included,
Distance between wing pivot and connecting rod pivot.
Length of connecting rods.
Crank shaft path diameter.
Distance between leading edge and connecting rod pivot.
Leading Edge Bend Angle


84
The adjustable parameters can be seen in figure 5-8.

Figure 5-8, Mechanism Diagram

The derived parameters included,
Angle of motion of each wing.
Distance between crank shaft and wing pivot.
Connecting rod offset distance.
Minimum gap between wings.
Total angle of wing motion.
Top wing maximum angle.
Top wing minimum angle.
Bottom wing maximum angle.
Bottom wing minimum angle.

Crank Shaft
Diameter
Length of
Connecting Rod
Leading Edge
Bend Angle
Distance Between
Leading Edge and
Connecting Rod Pivot
Distance Between
Wing Pivot and
Connecting Rod
Pivot


85
Using an iterative procedure the adjustable parameters were altered until the derived
parameters converged to the required values. Using this method, the following results were
obtained.

Adjustable Parameters
Distance between wing pivot and
connecting rod pivot (mm)
25
Length of connecting rods (mm) 46
Crank shaft path diameter (mm) 30
Distance between leading edge and
connecting rod pivot (mm)
25
Leading Edge Bend Angle (deg) 154.5

Derived Parameters
Angle of motion of each wing (deg) 44
Distance between crank shaft and
wing pivot (mm)
61.6
Connecting rod offset distance
(mm)
21.3
Minimum gap between wings (mm) 8
Total angle of motion (deg) 96.1
Top wing maximum angle (deg) 60.8
Top wing minimum angle (deg) 16.7
Bottom wing maximum angle (deg) 8.8
Bottom wing minimum angle (deg) -35.3
Table 5-1, Flapping Mechanism Parameters

Developing the 2007 MAV to the parameters listed in table 5-1 revealed that the brushless
motor could not provide sufficient torque to produce the required flapping wing motion. A
large change in momentum was produced when the 2007 MAVs wings changed direction
simultaneously. At this point of increased impulse, the motor was unable to deliver the
necessary torque to maintain a steady flapping motion. The lack of torque produced an
irregular flapping wing motion and therefore there was inadequate thrust being generated to
achieve powered flight.


86
To overcome this problem a number of solutions were considered and implemented into the
design of the 2007 MAV. The solutions included:
Increasing the gear reduction The increase in gear reduction is proportional to the
increase in torque provided by the brushless motor. By replacing the 12 tooth pinion
gear on the brushless motor with a 9 tooth pinion gear, the gear reduction was
increased from 6.75 to 9. An increase in gear reduction of this magnitude increased the
amount of torque provided by approximately 25%. A higher amount of torque
therefore produced a smoother flapping wing motion.
Reducing the load on the motor This was done using a number of methods.
o Lighter wing materials.
o Bearings at pivots Positioning bearings at each of the pivots reduced the
amount of friction generated during the flapping motion and therefore reduced
the amount of the torque required.
o Shorter wings As well as reducing the mass of the wings, shorter wings
reduced the required moment about the wing pivot. The mass of the material
removed from the tip of the leading edges has a larger contribution to the
moment, compared to the equivalent mass at the root of the leading edges.
Therefore, by removing the material at the tip, the required moment was
reduced.
Increasing the lever arm of the mechanism
Offset wing motion Offsetting the wing motion allowed the wings to change
direction slightly out of phase with each other. Producing this motion was done by
manufacturing a new crank shaft which positioned the connecting rods in-between the
symmetrical design and the Luna Ornithopters unsymmetrical design. Offsetting the
wing motion meant compromising symmetry and efficiency.

Implementing each of the above modifications in the design of the 2007 MAV successfully
reduced the amount of torque required. The torque reduction achieved was sufficient to
produce a steady, periodic flapping wing motion. The improved flapping motion was quite
effective and produced adequate thrust to achieve powered flight.


87
5.3 Wing

The aerodynamics of the flapping wings of the 2007 MAV is dependent on the wing shape
and size. A wing with a high aspect ratio would be aerodynamically efficient, however would
be an inappropriate design for a flapping wing MAV. The reason for this is that a wing that is
long and thin would create larger moments when flapping, due to the tip being far away from
the body, thus putting excessive stress on the wing. As the 2007 MAV is to use materials of
minimum mass, there would be no material with a sufficient compromise between mass and
strength for a high aspect ratio wing.

A wing shape of low aspect ratio would create minimum moments during flapping, thus the
structure could withstand the maximum frequency. A higher percentage of air will be thrust
out the sides compared to a wing with a moderate higher aspect ratio.

A compromise needs to be obtained to find the optimum aspect ratio, thus wing shape and
size. The moments produced need to be small enough that the wing structure can withstand
the required frequency, combined with the fact that the maximum volume of air is directed
backwards.

The wings of the 2007 MAV have been developed to withstand the required flapping motion
and to be capable of achieving the required twisting motion during flight. The leading edges
have been constructed from 1.5mm carbon fibre rod and the wing material is 7m thick Mylar
film. Carbon fibre rods have been attached to the Mylar wings to increase the thrust produced
during the flapping motion. The 2007 MAVs wings can be seen in figure 5-9.

Figure 5-9, Wing Material


88
To achieve the twisting motion essential for flight, the flexibility and elasticity of the wing
material has been used along with flapping motion of the wings. This method relies on the
inertial and aerodynamics loads acting on the wing material during flight to achieve the
required twisting motion. To provide the required flexibility and therefore twisting motion,
carbon fibre spars have been attached to the Mylar film wings. This method was implemented
into the design of the 2007 MAV due to its simplicity and minimal weight requirements and is
an adequate simplification for autonomously producing the necessary twisting motion during
flight.

Initially the Mylar was glued to the leading edges of the 2007 MAV, however the final design,
fixation was achieved using adhesive tape. Using this method, allowed the Mylar to be
attached to the leading edges with greater simplicity and allowed for quick modifications with
minimal damage to the leading edges.

5.4 Tail

The thrust generated from the main flapping wings is directed backwards over the 2007
MAVs tail. The effects of the resulting airflow on the tail configuration are important in
regards to the aerodynamics of the 2007 MAV. The 2007 MAVs tail is angled upwards, thus
will produce a downwards force. This configuration will force the tail downwards, thus the
front of the 2007 MAV will rise due to the moment produced. This will consequentially assist
in producing the correct angle for the 2007 MAV to successfully fly.

This effect could also be achieved by positioning the centre of mass more aft of the MAV.
There are restrictions in achieving this however as a large proportion of the weight of the
MAV is in the motor and flapping mechanism which the current design incorporates at the
very front of the aircraft. Producing a correcting moment with the tail would increase drag on
the MAV as it would need to be positioned in the airflow generated by the flapping to have
any effect. Thus it would reduce the effectiveness of the wings and lower the maximum flight
velocity or payload capacity of the MAV. Future designs should include a repositioning of the
centre of gravity of the MAV to achieve trimmed flight with minimal influence by the tail.
Thus the tail could be used exclusively for controlling pitch and roll for manoeuvring and
would not interfere with the thrust generated by the flapping motion.


89
The tail design of the 2007 MAV can be seen in figure 5-10. It can be seen that the antenna is
wrapped around the top of the tail guard and thus the guard serves two purposes.

Figure 5-10, 2007 MAV Tail Configuration

5.5 Landing Gear and Tail Guard

A landing gear was incorporated into the design of the 2007 MAV to offer protection to the
fragile components and to allow the aircraft to achieve a self-takeoff and landing. Damage to
these components would eliminate the 2007 MAVs flight capabilities and repairs would
consume significant time and costs. Adequate protection is provided due to the flexible and
elastic properties of the landing gear material by dampening the associated forces. The
landing gear incorporated into the design of the 2007 MAV can be seen in figure 5-11.
Tail Guard
Antenna


90

Figure 5-11, Landing Gear and Tail Guard

The 2007 MAVs landing gear was constructed out of carbon fibre rods. This configuration
allows the aircraft to be positioned at a high angle of attack while stationary on the ground.
When attempting a takeoff, the thrust produced by the 2007 MAV will therefore have a
vertical and horizontal component. Before sufficient lift has been produced, the horizontal
component of thrust allows the 2007 MAV to slide along the ground, while being supported
by the landing gear. This eliminates the need to restrain the aircraft until adequate lift has
been generated and therefore allows the 2007 MAV to achieve a self takeoff.

5.6 Centre of Gravity

The weight distribution of the 2007 MAV will have an effect on its aerodynamics. The centre
of gravity was calculated using Solid Edge by assigning densities to each of the materials and
components. The centre of gravity was determined to be located towards the front of the
aircraft. This was due to a considerable proportion of the weight, comprising of the motor,
electronics and gearbox, being located towards the nose of the 2007 MAV.

Tail Guard
Landing Gear


91
The centre of gravity position varies the angle at which the 2007 MAV flies due its effect on
the size of the moment produced by the tail and wings. Positioning the centre of gravity
towards the nose maximises the moment produced by the tail control surfaces. The centre of
gravity is located as far forward as possible when the battery is placed towards the nose as
shown by the green circle seen in figure 5-12. The centre of gravity position has been
calculated to be located 72.7mm behind the front wing and 18.5mm below the wing axel. The
centre of gravity is 227mm in front of the tail.

Figure 5-12, Centre of Gravity Location

Centre of Gravity


92
5.7 Stability

An aircrafts stability is an important design consideration. When a disturbance acts on an
aircraft it is required to recover and return to its original position without the intervention of
the pilot. In order to achieve this, it is necessary that an aircraft have positive stability about
each of its three axes. These axes are longitudinal, lateral and normal. Without positive
stability, an aircraft would be extremely difficult if not impossible to fly without an onboard
control system. Due to weight and size limitations, the 2007 MAV will not have an onboard
control system and therefore, to achieve successful flight, will need to have positive stability
about each axes.

Stability is usually assumed to be especially problematic in flapping flight. For example,
unsteady lift generation mechanisms used by insects inherently lead to instability. Flapping
animals, like fixed-wing aircraft, are predicted to be stable in forward flight if the mean flight
force acts above and/or behind the centre of gravity. In the case of the 2007 MAV, the flight
force is not lift generation but the thrust generated by the flapping motion of the wings and
the subsequent jet of air that is forced toward the rear of the aircraft. The 2007 MAV employs
positioning of its centre of gravity, correcting moments from the angle of the tail and also a
positive static margin to maintain stability in the three axes of rotation seen in figure 5-13.

Figure 5-13, Axes of Aircraft Rotation
[Start-Flying 2006]


93
5.7.1 Longitudinal Stability

Longitudinal stability refers to how stable an aircraft is about its lateral axis. If a disturbance
causes a rotation about its lateral axis, the aircraft will change its pitch. Positive longitudinal
stability is required to recover the aircraft from continuing this pitching motion. In a
convectional fixed-wing aircraft, positive longitudinal stability will depend on the positioning
of the main wing and the horizontal stabiliser with respect the location of the aircrafts centre
of gravity.

The 2007 MAV remains longitudinally stable by the positioning of a majority of the mass at
the front of the aircraft. The thrust from the flapping motion acts on the wings which are
positioned behind the centre of mass. Furthermore the tail is angled in the flow of air caused
by the wings. This causes a positive moment that angles the nose of the 2007 MAV up and
enables the thrust to be directed downwards. This enables the 2007 MAV to support its
weight and climb or hover in addition to directing the thrust rearwards to increase velocity or
maintain forward flight.

5.7.2 Lateral Stability

Lateral stability refers to how stable an aircraft is about its longitudinal axis. If a disturbance
causes a rotation about its longitudinal axis, the aircraft will roll. Positive lateral stability is
required to recover the aircraft from continuing this rolling motion.

In the previous section of this chapter, it was determined that the centre of gravity of the 2007
MAV was located beneath the fuselage. The presence of the low centre of gravity causes a
positive static margin which ensures lateral stability is achieved.

5.7.3 Directional Stability

Directional stability refers to how stable an aircraft is about its normal axis. If a disturbance
causes a rotation about its normal axis, the aircraft will yaw. When the relative wind is offset
from the longitudinal axis, the aircraft will slip. Slip is the term given for a slight sidewards


94
component of the aircrafts velocity. This is aerodynamically inefficient. Positive directional
stability is required to orientate the aircraft towards the direction of the relative wind and to
therefore eliminate slip.

The 2007 MAVs directional stability is based mainly on the controllability provided by the
tail elevators. Also, the 2007 MAV is primarily intended for indoor flight and the influence of
wind is not expected to be significant. The MAV is propelled by the thrust generated by the
flapping motion and as long as the geometry of the wings is symmetrical this will be pointed
directly behind the MAV. Thus it will fly straight without yaw unless the tail surfaces are
altered by the pilot.

One constraint of the design of the 2007 MAV is its inability to reject disturbances from wind
gusts due to its size and weight. This results in the 2007 MAV from being unsuitable for
outdoor flight in its current design as the control and stability features of the MAV have
virtually no effect in even moderate winds. Future work would seek to address this and enable
the MAV to become more usable outdoors.

5.8 Weight Analysis

The components used in the design of the 2007 MAV can be grouped into five main
categories. These include structure, propulsion, control, fuel and payload. The total mass of
each category was determined by summing the masses of the individual components in each
group. The masses of each category expressed as a percentage of the total mass can be seen in
appendix D and is summarised in figure 5-14.


95

Figure 5-14, 2007 MAV Weight Distribution

A detailed summary of the individual components in each category, used in the 2007 MAV
design can be seen in appendix D.

The final weight of the 2007 MAV was determined by summing the masses of each category
and was found to be 32.95g.

5.9 Cost Analysis

The cost of the 2007 MAV is relatively low for a prototype aircraft. The total cost is $543.10
including the radio transmitter used to control the aircraft. The majority of the costs are in the
electronic components. These could not be purchased locally and were ordered from the
United States of America, England and Switzerland. Figure 5-15 shows the overall
proportions of the cost budget that goes into the electronics and structure of the 2007 MAV.


96

Figure 5-15, Cost Distribution

Graphs of the individual cost components can be seen in appendix E. It should be noted that
the overall project budget incurred many other costs such as multiples of components that
were purchased and excess structural materials that were used for testing. Also two prototypes
were built before the final design. The electrical components were largely reused on each
prototype and then the final 2007 MAV, but some items were ineffective and replaced such as
the motor. Also various tools and materials for construction were purchased such as model
glue, adhesive tape, a scalpel and a sealing iron. Overall the 2007 MAV project incurred a
cost of $994.95.

5.10 Final Configuration

The final design of the 2007 MAV can be seen in figure 5-16. Figures 5-17 and 5-18 show
greater detail of the tail design and flapping mechanism configuration respectively. The tables
below each figure contain the details of the components highlighted.


97

Figure 5-16, Final 2007 MAV

Table 5-2, Component Specifications
Item Material Length
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
1 Wing Leading Edge Carbon Fibre 170 1.5 -
2 Wing Material Mylar - - 0.005
3 Wing Spars Carbon Fibre 124 0.5 -
4 Receiver - 16x10 - 6
5 Fuselage Balsa 325 5x5 -
6 Actuators - 9x10 - 6
7 Piano Wire Steel 157 0.37 -
8 Battery (200mAh) Lithium/Polymer 26x20 - 6.5
9 Tail Guard Carbon Fibre 150 0.5 -
10 Antenna Copper 180 1 -
11 Speed Controller - 17x11 - 3
12 Landing Gear Carbon Fibre 480 0.8 -
1) Wing Leading Edge
3) Wing Spars
2) Wing Material
5) Fuselage
8) Battery
7) Piano Wire
6) Actuators
9) Tail Guard
10) Antenna
12) Landing
Gear
4) Receiver
11) Speed Controller


98

Figure 5-17, Final 2007 MAV Tail

Table 5-3, Tail Component Specifications
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
1 Tail Axle Carbon Fibre 164 1 -
2 Tail Lever Arms Plastic 10x3 - 1.2
3 Tail Frame Carbon Fibre 60x72 0.8 -
4 Acrylic Spacers Acrylic 6x6 - 2
5 Stoppers Steel - 4 1
6 Fuselage Support Carbon Fibre 40 0.8 -
7 Shimmy Brass 35x6 - 0.16
8 Tail Material Mylar - - 0.002
9 Bearing Brass 2 1.6 -
5) Stoppers
3) Tail Frame
8) Tail Material
1) Tail Axle
2) Lever Arms
6) Fuselage Support
7) Shimmy
4) Acrylic Spacer
9) Bearing


99

Figure 5-18, Final 2007 MAV Flapping Wing Mechanism

Table 5-4, Flapping Mechanism Component Specifications
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
1 Lever Arm Balsa 27 3x3 -
2 Mounting Blocks Balsa 31x24 - 10
3 Motor Mount Acrylic 29x22 - 2
4 Spur Gear Plastic - 24.8 0.9
5 Conrod Laser-Cut Pine 52x4 - 1
6 Motor - 20.4 14.8 -
7 Pinion Gear Brass 4 3.5 -
8 Kevlar Thread Mylar 500 (total) 0.5 -
9 Wing Axle Brass 100 1 -
10 Wing Blocks Acrylic 15x10 - 5
5) Conrod
4) Spur Gear
1) Lever Arm
7) Pinion Gear
8) Kevlar
Thread
6) Motor
3) Motor Mount
9) Wing Axle
2) Mounting Block
10) Wing Blocks


100
The manufacturing of the 2007 MAV was executed primarily by hand by all members of the
2007 MAV project. Assistance was provided by the Electrical and Mechanical workshops of
the University of Adelaide for components that required a higher level of precision than hand
manufacturing could achieve. The detailed drawings of these components such as the wing
blocks and the motor mounts can be seen in appendix I.


101
6 Testing and Results

6.1 Flight Testing

Flight testing of the 2007 MAV was carried out over several days and each test had a specific
project goal that the team attempted to achieve. The order of primary goals testing was
remote-controlled powered flight, a mass less than 100g, and stable flight. Once all primary
goals were completed, the extended goals were attempted over the remaining days of flight
testing in the order of expected difficulty.

6.1.1 Transmitter and Receiver Verification Test (21/8/07)

The initial testing was to test the transmitter and receiver system. This test involved testing
that the motor and actuators responded to the desired transmitter inputs and then determining
which transmitter channels controlled the various MAV inputs. The reliability and range of
the transmitter were also tested.

Note: bold indicates goals achieved for the first time.

Results:
Successful control of all channels.
Range of transmitter/receiver system was 130m.

The transmitter and receiver system test was successful. The operator had full control of the
motor and both actuators well beyond visual range. Moving the right control lever vertically
of the Quattro Transmitter, as seen in figure 6-1, adjusted the speed of the motor and hence
flapping frequency. Moving the right control lever horizontally adjusted the right actuator.
Moving the left control lever vertically controlled the left actuator.


102

Figure 6-1, Quattro Transmitter
[Model Flight, 2007]

The range of the 2007 MAV transmitter/receiver system was tested by holding the MAV and
measuring the maximum distance that the 2007 MAV could be reliably controlled by the
transmitter. The maximum range for reliable control was determined to be 130m.
6.1.2 Flight Test One: Powered Flight Test (28/8/07)

The objective of the first flight test was to achieve powered flight. This test was designed to
confirm that sufficient thrust was being generated from the wing configuration. This test
would be verified if the 2007 MAV produced sufficient thrust to maintain and if possible gain
altitude. This test, if successful, would also achieve the primary goal of total mass less than
100g, as the total mass of the MAV at the time of testing was 37g.

The aircraft was configured with the tail control surfaces fixed in a neutral position. This
configuration minimised the number of variables for testing of powered flight. The battery
was positioned as close to the tail as possible to move the centre of gravity further aft. The
reason for this was to encourage the MAV to have a high angle of ascension, maximising the
lift component of the thrust.

The method of the test initially involved selecting a suitable indoor flight test area. The
electronics were connected and tested before attempting powered flight. The MAV was held
until an adequate flapping frequency had been achieved. It was then released with the desired
high angle of ascension from a height of 0.5m above the ground as a safety precaution if it did
not fly.
Results:
Motor Speed
Left Actuator
Position
Right Actuator
Position


103
Powered flight was achieved (Primary goal).
Stable flight achieved (Primary goal).
Mass less than 100g (Primary goal).
Mass less than 50g (Extended goal).
Successful self-landing (Extended goal).
Flight time of 20 seconds.
Variable throttle speeds.

The results of the powered flight test were very successful after a number of attempts where
the battery position, angle of attack and flapping frequency were varied. It was found that a
flapping frequency of approximately 16Hz was sufficient for the 2007 MAV to achieve
powered flight. The MAV was inherently stable during flight, therefore, the stable flight
primary goal was achieved. It did however fly in large anticlockwise circles indicating either
an imbalance in the design or inconsistency in the wing manufacturing process. The total
mass of the 2007 MAV was currently 37g, achieving both the primary and extended weight
goals. In addition, the MAV also achieved the extended goal of self-landing. The flight test
ended when the wing/connecting rod joint failed and it was also observed that the Mylar
wings had lost their elasticity.

The outcomes of this test were more successful than anticipated, however, some
modifications were required. The wing/connecting rod joint needed to be repaired before the
next flight and new wings needed to be made and attached. It was also planned to reduce the
total weight by removing excessive materials from the gear box.

6.1.3 Flight Test Two (28/8/07)

The second flight test was conducted in a way that the results of the first flight test could be
replicated. The extended goals of outdoor flight and one minute of flight were also attempted.

The configuration of the 2007 MAV and the method for flight test two were both the same as
flight test one. The test flight was conducted on a sheltered outdoor tennis court.

Results:


104

During this test, the consistency of flapping flights diminished compared to the first flight
test. The majority of flight tests were unsuccessful due to the flapping mechanism stalling.
The possible reasons for the flapping mechanism stalling were lack of torque from gearing,
loss of signal or faulty electrical connections due to severe vibrations during flapping. One
moderately successful flight was achieved where altitude was gained with a flight time of ten
seconds, however, well short of the one minute flight time goal. Testing stopped when the
wing axel detached from the fuselage, causing the wings and bearings to fall off of the axel.
The soldered motor electrical connection was also damaged as it detached a short time later.

The second flight test did not meet expectations. The wing axel and motor electrical
connection needed to be repaired before the next flight. Modifications were also required
before the next flight test to ensure the electrical connections were not the cause of the
flapping mechanism stalling, due to the high vibrations encountered during flapping.

6.1.4 Flight Test Three (29/3/07)

This flight test was conducted indoors. The control surface configuration was varied to
determine the resulting effects.

Results:

Most of flights tests were unsuccessful during this test due to the flapping mechanism stalling
or exhibiting irregular behaviour. The flapping mechanism stalled a number of times resulting


105
in the MAV falling the ground from up to three metres, indicating it was not the electrical
connections that were the cause as this had been checked prior to this test. One moderately
successful flight was achieved where altitude was gained with a flight time of 20 seconds. It
was observed during the successful flight that the tail control surface position had minimal
effect. The test ceased when the 2007 MAV stalled, hence falling and damaging the tail.

The modifications required before the next flight test included building a new light weight tail
with larger control surfaces to control. The geometry of the mechanism was checked to ensure
the mechanism was as efficient as possible, resulting in changing the distance between the
gearbox and fuselage.

6.1.5 Flight Test Four (31/8/07)

The fourth day of flight testing was similar to the third flight test, attempting to replicate the
results of the first flight test. The extended goals of one minute of flight, carrying a payload
equivalent to 20% of the 2007 MAVs total empty weight, and self takeoff were attempted.
The fourth flight test was conducted at the YMCA gymnasium on the Parade in Kensington
Park.

The method for attempting self takeoff was to position the control surfaces at a fixed angle
assisting takeoff. Self takeoff was attempted by placing the 2007 MAV on the smooth surface
and increasing the flapping frequency until lift-off was achieved. During the payload test, a 7g
mass was attached to the back of the MAV. To counter the effect extra weight would have
one the centre of gravity the battery was moved forward beneath the leading edge of the
wings

Results:
Successful takeoff (Extended goal).


106

The fourth day of testing was the most successful to date. The flapping stalled less frequently
than previous testing. It was observed that 20% of the flights still experienced some kind of
stalling or irregular behaviour of the flapping mechanism. The more consistent flapping
mechanism allowed the 2007 MAV to achieve successful takeoffs. The self takeoff needed
approximately five metres from a stationary position to reach lift-off. Towards the end of the
fourth flight test the performance of the flapping mechanism rapidly decreased and the wing
elasticity deteriorated.

It became evident that the extended goals would not be achieved with the current 2007 MAV
design. The final 2007 MAV design needed to be manufactured with a higher level of
precision, reducing weight in all non-electrical components and implement a gearing ratio
configured to produce more torque.

6.1.6 Flight Test Five (21/9/07)

Flight test five was conducted using the final 2007 MAV design. The objective of the fifth
flight test was to achieve powered flight with the final design. If powered flight was achieved,
the extended goal of one minute of flight and carrying a payload equivalent to 20% of the
2007 MAVs empty weight would be attempted. The aircraft was configured with the tail
control surfaces fixed in a neutral position. This configuration minimised the number of
variables for testing of powered flight.

The fifth flight test was conducted indoors. The electronics were connected and tested before
attempting powered flight. The MAV was held until an adequate flapping frequency before it
was released with the desired high angle of attack from a height of 0.5m above the ground.
The flight was conducted in the same manner when a payload was attached to the fuselage.

Results:
Flight time of 1 minute 15 seconds (Extended goal).
Payload of 3 grams, 9% of the 2007 MAVs empty weight


107

The fifth day of testing was the most successful to date, achieving powered flight with the
final design. The final designed flapping mechanism did not stall resulting in several
successful flights.

6.1.7 Flight Test Six (24/9/07)

The sixth flight test was conducted both indoors and outdoors. The actuators were attached to
the fuselage and configured so the control surfaces were parallel with the tail frame.

Results:
Controllable Flight (Extended goal).
Variable Speeds (Extended goal).
Outdoor Flight (Extended goal).
Flight time of 1 minute 50 seconds.
Successful takeoff (Extended goal).

A number of problems were encountered during the sixth flight test. The wing/connecting rod
joint failed during a crash landing and the motor became loose stopping the gear from turning
efficiently. Once the problems were fixed a record flight time was achieved. During flight the
2007 MAV was controllable, allowing the direction of the 2007 MAV to be varied by giving


108
the actuators various inputs. Forward velocity was varied by adjusting the flapping frequency
and the orientation of the control surfaces, thereby altering the pitch of the 2007 MAV

The extended goal of outdoor flight was attempted. Outdoor powered flight was relatively
successful; however, the 2007 MAV was heavily influenced by the wind. The test
experienced some irregular wing motion from the flapping mechanism and loss of elasticity in
the Mylar after extended flight.

6.1.8 Flight Test Seven (28/9/07)

The seventh flight test was conducted indoors. The actuators were configured to orientate the
control surfaces parallel with the fuselage. A payload of 6.65g was attached to the landing
gear as close to the centre of gravity as possible.

Results:
Payload of 6.65 grams, 20.18% of the 2007 MAVs empty weight

The 2007 MAV was successful in supporting the payload for approximately 30 seconds. The
stalling and irregular flapping motion was experienced during the test. It was determined that
the reason for this behaviour was the diminished transmitters battery life resulting in a loss of
signal. Test ceased when the top wing tore. The tail control surfaces would have to be
adjusted, so that they had a greater frontal surface area, hence increase the controllability of
the MAV.


109
6.1.9 Flight Test Eight (11/10/07)

Flight test eight was primarily used to attempt to replicate all goals previously attained with
new wings, and adjusted tail control surfaces. If this was successful, it was planned to attempt
to pick up and deliver a load. The testing was done indoors. The 2007 MAV was configured
so that the actuators positioned the tail control surfaces with the minimal angle of attack.

Results:

Flight test eight was the least successful flight test to date. The 2007 was highly unstable, in a
way that had not been observed in any previous flight test. The MAV flapped extremely well,
however, upon releasing it would become unstable and pitch into the ground. A number of
combinations of changing the tail control surface orientation and the battery position were
attempted, all with poor results. One possible reason was that the back of the bottom wing
was not attached to the fuselage during flight. The bottom wing being unattached would
explain the lack of thrust, erratic behaviour and also the smooth flapping as there was less
load on the motor with the lower wing separated. The lower wing was fastened down and
flight tests attempted once more. However, the results did not change and the 2007 MAV
remained unstable. Other possible reasons for unstable flight were that the tail control
surfaces were altered too much from the initial configuration. Before further flight testing, the
tail would be straightened out, thus reducing frontal projection of the tail control surface to
the way it was when stable flight was achieved. Due to the unstable flight the pick up and
deliver load goal was not attempted.


110
6.1.10 Flight Test Nine (16/10/07)

Flight test nine was primarily conducted to replicate all goals previously attained after
straightening out the fuselage so that the tail was in line with the wings. The testing was done
indoors. The 2007 MAV was configured so the tail control surfaces with the minimal angle of
attack.

Results:
Flight time of 2mintues 20 seconds.
Controllable Flight

The initial results of this test were unsuccessful. Upon releasing the 2007 MAV, it would
gradually descend to the ground, unable to climb, despite achieving smooth flapping at full
throttle. The descent was extremely stable, therefore the problem of instability was solved by
straightening the fuselage. It was decided that the actuators could be drawing power from the
battery, thus reducing the output capacity of the motor. Therefore they were disconnected and
testing was reattempted. The 2007 MAV rapidly climbed, and the transmitter lever had to be
throttled down to approximately 60% to maintain a constant altitude. This led to achieving a
record flight time. Flight testing ceased due to the battery of the transmitter depleting.

6.2 Variation of Maximum Airflow Speed with Wing Frequency

The airflow produced by the flapping wings of the 2007 MAV was an important parameter to
measure as the airflow provides the thrust required to fly. The variation of the maximum
airflow speed produced by the wing with respect to wing frequency was determined.


111
The airflow speed was measured using a hot-wire anemometer in a static test with the 2007
MAVs position constrained. The point of maximum airflow speed was determined by setting
the 2007 MAVs wings to a constant frequency and adjusting the position of the hot-wire
anemometer. This process was repeated until the position of maximum airflow speed with
respect to the 2007 MAV had been established. The set-up of this experiment can be seen in
figure 6-2.

Figure 6-2, Airflow speed Measurement Setup

Throughout this test it was assumed that location of maximum airflow speed was constant for
various wing frequencies. This allowed the position of the hot-wire anemometer to remain in
the same location during the experiment.

The frequency of the 2007 MAV was varied by adjusting throughout the test. The frequency
was measured using a tachometer and positioning a reflective marker on the leading edge.
During the flapping motion it was possible to project the tachometers laser onto the reflective
Tachometer
Reflective Marker
Hot-Wire Anemometer


112
marker to obtain a measurement of the wing frequency. To minimise the error associated with
this measurement the laser was positioned on the centreline between the leading edges
minimum and maximum position. Projecting the tachometers laser at this location ensured
that the measured wing frequency remained approximately constant during measurements at a
given frequency.

The maximum airflow speed and the corresponding wing frequency was measured and
recorded. The maximum airflow speed was measured between a wing frequencies of
approximately 8-21Hz, as these were the minimum and maximum achievable frequencies
respectively.

The data obtained from this experiment was plotted and can be seen in figure 6-3.

Wing Frequency vs. Maximum Airflow Speed
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
Wing Frequency (Hz)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
i
r
f
l
o
w

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
/
s
)

Figure 6-3, Wing Frequency vs. Airflow Speed

In figure 6-3, it can be seen that increasing the 2007 MAVs wing frequency will increase the
maximum airflow speed produced by the flapping motion of the wings. From the recorded
data it was determined that a power relation provided the best approximation for estimating
the maximum airflow speed at a given wing frequency.


113
It was revealed that the relationship between the maximum airflow speed and the wing
frequency was approximately:

( )
6219 . 0
829 . 0 Frequency Wing Speed Airflow Maximum = (6.1)

Using this relationship it can be determined that the range of maximum airflow speed for a
wing frequency range of 8-21Hz is approximately 3-5.5m/s. However, it has been determined
that successful flight is only possible for a frequency of approximately 16Hz and above and
therefore this range decreases to 4.5-5.5m/s during flight. From observation the velocity of the
2007 MAV whilst flapping at 21Hz is approximately 2m/s. Thus the difference between the
airflow speed and the MAV forward velocity is approximately 3.5m/s. However this would
need to be verified by measuring the airflow speed while the MAV is in motion and it is
possible the relationship is non-linear.

6.3 Variation of Thrust with Wing Frequency

The thrust produced by the flapping wings of the 2007 MAV is an important parameter to
measure as it provides the force necessary to produce both lift and forward velocity. The
variation of the thrust generated by the flapping wings with respect to wing frequency was
determined to verify the frequency required to achieve flight. An estimation of the maximum
thrust can then be used to determine the maximum payload supportable during flight.

The amount of thrust produced by the 2007 MAV was measured in grams using a Newton-
spring. Similarly to the airflow test, this was a static test with the 2007 MAV fixed in space.
Also the frequency of flapping was measured using the tachometer and reflective marker. The
2007 MAV was suspended by the tail from the Newton-spring and the indicated mass was
recorded from the scale. It was assumed that the minimum thrust required for flight is equal to
the mass of the 2007 MAV.

Prior to testing, the initial mass of the 2007 MAV was measured using the Newton-spring.
This value was recorded in order to adjust the measured values of thrust to the corrected
values. The wings of the 2007 MAV were set into motion and the thrust and corresponding
wing frequency were measured and recorded. The thrust was measured between wing


114
frequencies of approximately 8-21Hz, as these were the minimum and maximum achievable
frequencies respectively.

The measured thrust was corrected by subtracting the initial mass of the 2007 MAV. The data
obtained from this experiment were plotted and can be seen in figure 6-4.
Thrust vs. Wing Frequency
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00
Wing Frequency (Hz)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(
g
)
Measured Thrust

Figure 6-4, Thrust vs. Wing Frequency

In figure 6-4, it can be seen that increasing the 2007 MAVs wing frequency will increase the
thrust produced by the flapping motion of the wings. From the recorded data it was
determined that a power relation provided the best approximation for estimating the thrust at a
given wing frequency.

It was revealed that the relationship between the thrust produced by the 2007 MAVs flapping
wings and the wing frequency was approximately,

( )
8336 . 0
353 . 2 Frequency Wing Thrust = (6.2)


115
Using this relationship it can be determined that the range of thrust produced for a wing
frequency range of 8-21Hz is approximately 13.329.8g. The mass of the 2007 MAV is
32.95g and the flapping wing mechanism is capable of producing a maximum frequency of
21Hz. Therefore, it appears that the 2007 MAV is unable to generate a sufficient level of
thrust to achieve powered flight. However, this can not be the case since the 2007 MAV is
able to successfully fly. This indicated that the values of thrust measured by the Newton-
spring were less than the actual values.

A possible reason for this difference in measured and actual thrust is due to the orientation of
the 2007 MAV while attached to the Newton-spring. The 2007 MAV was suspended
vertically, directed downwards while conducting the experiment. The 2007 MAV was
constrained by the Newton-spring and it was not moving at all during testing. The
combination of the unnatural orientation and the absence of forward flight would result in
different aerodynamics when compared to the aerodynamics of unconstrained flight. Since the
flight of the 2007 MAV is at high angles of attack, lift can be generated by the wings using
conventional aerodynamics associated with fixed-wing aircraft. In addition, unsteady
aerodynamic mechanism of lift generation may be acting on the 2007 MAV during flight.
This would give rise to the additional lift produced when compared to results of this
experiment. Both steady and unsteady mechanisms of lift generation can only occur when the
aircraft has a forward velocity and there is airflow present across the wings. While suspended
from the Newton-spring, as the 2007 MAV did not have a forward velocity, there would not
be any airflow across the wing and these mechanisms of lift generation would not occur.
Hence, the measured values of thrust would be less than expected.

To estimate the relationship between the actual thrust and wing frequency, it was required that
the measured values of thrust be scaled by an appropriate factor. It had previously been
determined that the minimum frequency of approximately 16Hz was required to achieve flight.
Using the above power relation between thrust and wing frequency it can be estimated that a
value of 16Hz corresponds to a thrust of 23.7g. This indicated that at a frequency of 16Hz, the
relationship underestimated the actual thrust by approximately 9.22g, which corresponded to a
factor of 1.37.


116
The measured values of thrust were corrected using this scaling factor to estimate the actual
thrust. The variation of the produced thrust with respect to wing frequency was plotted and
can be seen in the figure 6-5.

Thrust vs. Wing Frequency
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00
Wing Frequency (Hz)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(
g
)
Measured Thrust
Actual Thrust
Predicted Thrust

Figure 6-5, Thrust vs. Wing Frequency

Figure 6-5 depicts the measured and actual thrust produced by the 2007 MAV. It was revealed
that the relationship between the actual thrust produced by the 2007 MAVs flapping wings
and the wing frequency was approximately,

( )
8336 . 0
218 . 3 Frequency Wing Thrust Actual = (6.3)

Using this relationship it can be determined that the range of thrust produced for a wing
frequency range of 8-21Hz is approximately 18.240.7g. For powered flight, corresponding to
a frequency of 1621 Hz, this range decreases to approximately 3340.7g. This indicates that
the 2007 MAV is capable of supporting a maximum mass of 40.7g which corresponds to a


117
maximum payload of approximately 7.75g. This compares well with our experimental
maximum payload of 6.65g.

The comparison between the actual thrust produced by the 2007 MAV and the predicted
thrust can also be seen in figure 6-5. The predicted thrust curve was produced using equation
4.1 in the mass and sizing section of chapter four. This equation relates the maximum
supportable mass of a monoplane MAV to the wing frequency. In this section it has been
assumed that the thrust is equal to the maximum supportable mass. Therefore equation 4.1 can
be expressed as,

Predicted Thrust
AR
C R n
L
4 2 2
387 . 0

= (6.4)

Using the following values obtained from statistics and analysis, the predicted thrust can be
plotted against wing frequency.

= Wingbeat Amplitude = 40
= R Wing Length = 0.17m
=
L
C Lift Coefficient = 0.6
Wing Area = 0.018m
2

= AR Aspect Ratio = 1.52

This relationship has been expressed in figure 6-5 and can be compared to the actual thrust
produced by the 2007 MAV. It can be observed that for the range of wing frequencies
required for flight the predicted thrust underestimates the actual thrust. With increasing
frequency it can be seen that the error between predicted and actual thrust decreases. Using
the predicted thrust data it was determined that the relationship between thrust and wing
frequency is,

Predicted Thrust =
2
) ( 0621 . 0 Frequency Wing (6.5)

Due to the concave and convex behaviour of the actual and predicted thrust plots respectively,
the values of thrust converge at a wing frequency of approximately 29.5Hz. However, once


118
the wing frequency exceeds this value, the predicted and actual thrust rapidly diverge. This
indicates that there is a limited range of wing frequency for which the predicted thrust will
closely estimate the actual thrust.

A possible reason for the difference in actual and predicted thrust is that equation 4-1 is based
on insect and monoplane flight. The 2007 MAV implements a biplane configuration with two
superimposed pairs of wings and is a configuration that is non-existent in nature. It is
therefore difficult to apply this equation to an analysis of the 2007 MAV due to the presence
of two pairs of wings. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that the 2007 MAV could
produce approximately twice as much thrust, as the total wingspan, wing area and wing beat
amplitude is double that of a monoplane MAV of equal dimensions. The problems associated
with using equation 4-1 were anticipated and therefore the dimensions required in the analysis
were of one individual wing.

Another reason for the difference in the actual and predicted thrust is that the mechanism of
lift generation between the 2007 MAV and an insect or monoplane is different. The 2007
MAV produces thrust and therefore lift, by the clap-fling motion, while an insect relies more
on other unsteady aerodynamic effects such as wake recapture, rotational circulation and
delayed stall. This difference in lift generation would therefore lead to a difference between
the predicted and actual thrust values.

The result over the range of wing frequencies shows an increase in thrust for each of the three
estimates of thrust. The main difference between the predicted and actual thrust is the convex
and concave behaviour respectively. The predicted thrust provides an approximate estimation
of the actual thrust over the considered wing frequencies. However, predicting the thrust
produced by a MAV with frequency greater than 40Hz would lead to significant errors
between predicted and actual thrust. Regardless, this is suitable analysis for determining the
variation of the thrust produced by the 2007 MAV with respect to wing frequency.


119
6.4 Variation of Thrust with Maximum Airflow Speed

Using the relationships determined in the previous tests, the variation of thrust with respect to
maximum airflow speed can be estimated. Combining the power relationships relating both
thrust and maximum airflow speed with wing frequency produces the following function,

( )
3404 . 1
1376 . 4 Speed Air Maximum Thrust = (6.5)

Plotting this function up to the maximum level of thrust and airflow speed produced the plot
seen in figure 6-6.

Thrust vs. Maximum Airflow Speed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Maximum Airflow Speed (m/s)
T
h
r
u
s
t

(
g
)

Figure 6-6, Variation of Thrust with Respect to Maximum Airflow Speed

It can be seen here that increasing the thrust produced by the 2007 MAV increases the
maximum airflow speed. This is as expected and has been verified in the previous testing and
results sections. However, until now a distinct relationship between thrust and maximum
airflow speed has not been apparent. In future work, if a desired flight velocity is to be
achieved, this relationship can be used to obtain an estimate of the thrust required.


120
6.5 Airflow Speed Distribution

The variation in the airflow speed with respect to position around the 2007 MAV was
investigated to determine the airflow distribution and effects over the tail. The minimum wing
frequency able to achieve flight of 16Hz was maintained during the experiment and was
constantly checked using the tachometer. Various airflow speeds were measured using the hot
wire anemometer across three planes located behind the aft most part of the wings. The
locations of the measurement planes included immediately behind the wing, 10cm behind the
wing, and 20cm behind the wing at the location of the tail. The planes and their locations can
be seen in figure 6-7.

Figure 6-7, Position of Planes Behind the 2007 MAV

In each plane, measurements were taken at different locations around the fuselage to
determine the distribution of the airflow speed. The locations used to take measurements
within each plane can be seen in figure 6-8.
10cm
10cm


121

Figure 6-8, Measurement Locations

Using the data obtained from this experiment, 3D surface plots were created in Matlab to
express the magnitude of the airflow speed on an x-y coordinate system. The code that was
used to generate these plots is presented in appendix C.

The plots obtained can be seen in figure 6-9.

5cm 5cm 5cm 5cm 5cm
45
y
x


122

Figure 6-9, Airflow Velocity Plots


123
These surface plots enabled a visualisation of the distribution of airflow behind the wings of
the 2007 MAV. It also demonstrates the rate at which the airflow speed dissipates with
increasing distance behind the wing. It can be seen that the airflow over the tail in its current
location is approximately 40% of the airflow measured directly behind the wings.

It can also be noted that the airflow is slightly unsymmetrical with an increased airflow on the
right hand side of the 2007 MAV (left hand side of the plots as they are viewed from the
front). The maximum airflow on the right side of the MAV is also in a higher vertical position
compared with the left side. This lack of symmetry is due to slight irregularities in the
manufacture of the wings, giving them different properties on either side of the MAV. This
explains the tendency of the 2007 MAV to turn anticlockwise when flying with no directional
control inputs. Previously, this was thought to be due to an imbalance in the mass distribution.
The results of this testing highlights the need for a high level of care and precision in the
manufacturing of the wings of the MAV as irregularities can significantly change the airflow
characteristics produced by the flapping mechanism. Also, the magnitude of the total airflow
and hence thrust would be able to be increased if the wing manufacturing process could be
optimised. Figure 6-10 below shows how the surface plots can be used to visualise airflow
generation performance.

Figure 6-10, Isometric View of Airflow Velocity Immediately Behind Wing


124
6.6 Goals Checklist
6.6.1 Primary Goals

Remote-controlled flight
o Remote-controlled flight was first achieved when the 2007 MAV was flown
using the remote control to power the motor and therefore flap the wings.
Powered flight
o This has been achieved by the use of an electric motor to power the flapping
wings and verified when altitude was gained during flight.
Stable flight
o Stable flight has been achieved by positioning the centre of mass along the
fuselage at the correct location such that the natural angle of attack provides
sufficient lift for flight.
Mass < 100grams
o The final weight of the 2007 MAV is 31grams.

6.6.2 Extended Goals

Controllable flight
o The 2007 MAV has an electronic speed controller, allowing the flapping
frequency to be varied. This controls the altitude and forward velocity of the
MAV. Two actuators control the tail which can be used influence the direction
of the 2007 MAV. This area includes much scope for future work.
Mass < 50grams
o The final weight of the 2007 MAV is 31grams.
Flight > 1 minute
o Numerous flights greater than one minute have been achieved, including a
maximum flight time of 2 minute 20 seconds.
Capable of carrying a payload 20% of total mass
o The 2007 MAV successfully flew, climbing in altitude, whilst carrying a
payload, weighing 6.65g, 20.18% of the total weight.


125
Varying speeds
o Using a combination of varying the flapping frequency and using the actuators
to alter the angle of attack, the 2007 MAV is capable of a controlling its flight
speed.
Capable of outdoor flight
o The 2007 MAV was tested outside with inconclusive results. Althought
powered flight was achieved, the 2007 MAV was significantly influenced by
the wind, making it considerably less controllable than indoors. The conclusion
was that the 2007 MAV is limited to indoor flight in its current configuration.
Self takeoff
o A landing gear was fixed to the 2007 MAV to provide the ability to perform a
self takeoff. The landing gear allowed the 2007 MAV to successfully takeoff
from a smooth surface with no assistance.
Self-landing
o Similar to self takeoff, the landing gear allowed the 2007 MAV to safely land
unassisted on a flat surface. The thrust was decreased until it was ceased at an
altitude of approximately 0.3m. The flexible landing gear was able to dampen
the initial collision with the ground before the 2007 MAV would travel along
the ground until coming to rest.
Pick up and deliver load
o Time constraints prevented this extended goal from being attempted. However,
due to the 2007 MAVs controllability and capability of carrying a payload, it
is anticipated it would be able to successfully pick up and deliver a custom
made payload with a well designed pick up and delivery mechanism.
Onboard pilot and surveillance cameras
o Time and budget constraints prevented an autopilot or camera payload to be
purchased and implemented. However, researching the two, a number of
cameras of sufficiently low mass were found that theoretically would work on
the 2007 MAV. However the lightest commercially available autopilot weighs
16.65g, well above the 6.65g maximum achievable payload that the 2007
MAV can support.


126
7 Future Work

The 2007 MAV successfully achieved all primary goals and a majority of the extended goals,
however there is still a great deal of work that could be done on this project in the future. The
2007 MAV successfully carried a payload 20% of the total mass, which was a pen, serving no
purpose apart from demonstrating the ability to generate enough thrust to support the extra
weight. A future goal could be to fix a payload that has a function such as a camera that either
takes still photographs or transmits a live feed to a base station. Other potential payloads
include an autopilot, microphone and/or speaker, or a mechanism to pickup and deliver a load.
In addition to this, to allow for greater payloads, considerable future work could be spent on
reducing the total mass, using different electronics to scale down the size of the design. An
area of design that contains possibilities for improvement is the flapping mechanism. At
present, due to the lack of torque of the motor, the flapping mechanism was made slightly
unsymmetrical. A design that successfully utilises symmetrical motion would be ideal. The
final major area of future work at present would be modifying the current design to a hybrid
MAV, comprising of one pair of flapping wings to produce thrust, and a fixed-wing to glide
silently once the desired altitude is reached.

7.1 Payload

The 2007 MAV is capable of carrying a payload of 6.65g, 20.18% of the total weight, thus
immediate future work could be to research and employ functional payloads of six grams or
less.

Fixing a camera to the 2007 MAV would make it an ideal aircraft for surveillance missions. A
camera could have a number of purposes. A still shot camera could be used for numerous
missions, including military infiltration, search and rescue, and recreational use, such as
photography. A video camera could also be used for military missions, or a live feed to a base
station could allow the pilot to navigate the MAV when it is out of visual range. The DelFly
has an onboard video camera, the NTSC. This video camera weighs only 1.2g and consists of
a slightly modified wireless video transmitter weighing 1.8g which transmits colour images at
30Hz. A similar camera that could be considered is the C-CAM2A Miniature Monochrome
Camera Module, with dimensions 16 x 16 x 15mm and a mass of 2.9g. Also important for


127
MAV use, is the low power consumption of the camera, less than 100mW. An alternate
option is the SpyCam miniature camera. It is claimed that this camera is the worlds smallest
2.4GHz camera, providing accurate and sharp colour pictures (The Spy Exchange and
Security Center 2007). The size of the camera and transmitter is 15mm x 22mmm x 32mm
and has a line of sight transmission range of 150m. Unfortunately the total weight of the
camera and transmitter is 9g and exceeds the current payload capacity of the 2007 MAV. Any
camera onboard a flapping wing MAV is likely to undergo considerable vibrations, thus
extensive research and testing would be required to successfully implement a camera on
board.

An alternative use for the 2007 MAV would be to fix a microphone and/or speaker to the
fuselage. Implementing these devices into the design of a MAV would be ideal for
reconnaissance, surveillance and search and rescue missions. The MAV would be able to
obtain audio in hazardous regions. In search and rescue missions, the microphone would
provide great assistance in detecting any distress signals. If an individual was in danger, the
speaker and microphone could be used to deliver and receive information. One potential
problem that may be faced when attempting to fix a microphone to the MAV is the
background noise. The flapping of the MAV is quite loud, and would produce significant
background noise. However, post processing that masks the frequencies of sound that the
flapping mechanism generates could be employed to eliminate this background noise.
Measurements of the acoustic signature of the MAV and filter design would be involved in
incorporating a microphone and speaker as a functional payload for the MAV.

A potential microphone for the MAV is the Audio Technica AT831CW Miniature Cardioid
Condenser Microphone (Ultimate Sound Recorder 2007). The microphone is 24.8mm long
with a diameter of 10.2mm, with a mass of only 2.8g. The maximum input sound level of the
microphone is 141 dB SPL, well above any levels that would be experienced by the 2007
MAV.

A potential speaker to be used on a future MAV is the SR800SMT SMT Speaker (Goliath
2007). It measures 20mm x 20mm x 4mm weighing only 2.6g. The speaker is designed
primarily for hand held devices, thus has a relatively low SPL of 743dB at 0.5m, therefore, it
is unlikely that audio could be heard whilst the MAV is flapping. However, if it were used for
a search and rescue mission, the MAV could land, and then be used to communicate with the


128
target. Due to the level of noise of the flapping of the 2007 MAV, extensive research may
prove that a microphone and/or speaker onboard a flapping wing MAV is impractical.

7.2 Pickup and Deliver Mechanism

The design and implementation of a pickup and deliver mechanism would give the 2007
MAV a specific function. If using the final design of the 2007 MAV, the mechanism would
have to be less than 6g, to allow a payload to be successfully carried. A potential mechanism
could be a hook hanging below the fuselage that is only capable of picking up custom
payloads. It would be unable to deliver the load, however, the simplicity of the mechanism
would allow for payloads of greater mass. The use of an actuator could allow the payload to
be released. The hook could be fixed to an actuator at the fuselage and to release the load, the
actuator tilts the hook back, allowing the payload to slide off. The 2007 MAV is only capable
of carrying 6g of payload, thus after a pickup and deliver mechanism is fitted, there would be
a limited number of useful payloads that could be carried. Therefore, an improved design of
the 2007 MAV, or a scaled up version would be required to allow greater payloads to be
supported.

7.3 Reducing Weight

Efforts were made to minimise the total mass of the 2007 MAV. However, analysing the final
2007 MAV design, there are a number of areas where weight could be reduced. The motor
implemented into the design of the 2007 MAV is the 12W Bronco weighing 7.2g and could
be replaced with a lighter alternative. There are several lighter brushless motors available,
however, at the time the 12W Bronco was purchased, it was determined they would not
provide adequate torque. Due to the limited budget and time constraints with shipping and
building a new gear box, purchasing a lighter motor for the 2007 MAV was deemed
unfeasible. At present, the lightest brushless motor known is the G10 Pico, a brushless motor,
weighing only 1.03g (Gasparin 2007). However, a number of modifications to the 2007 MAV
would be required to allow this motor to produce the thrust required for flight.

Reducing the dimension of the structural components, such as the leading edges and wing
spars would contribute towards a reduction in mass. At present, the leading edges are


129
constructed of 1.5mm diameter carbon fibre rod which was proven to exceed the minimum
required diameter to prevent failure, analysed in chapter four. Using 1mm diameter carbon
fibre would provide adequate strength, it would also have increased flexibility which would
assist in the clap and fling motion of the MAV. 1.5mm carbon fibre weighs 2.6g/m and 1mm
carbon fibre weighs 1.1g/m (Didel 2007). The 2007 MAV has four 150mm leading edges,
thus the current leading edges weigh 1.56g. With the use of 1mm carbon fibre, they would
weigh only 0.66g, saving 0.9g.

Scaling down the design of the 2007 MAV would reduce the total mass. However, it would
also reduce the force produced by the flapping motion, and as it is difficult to scale down
every component, this would have to be carefully analysed. In addition, the 2007 MAV was
difficult to manufacture due to the miniature size of all parts and the precision required, thus
this degree of difficulty would increase when scaling down. Scaling down the structural
components is viable as there are smaller sizes of balsa wood and carbon fibre rods that could
be used, there is also lighter varieties of Mylar film that could be used for the wings.
However, the degree of scaling down is primarily limited by the electronics. There are a
number of motors and batteries that are significantly lighter to those used in the 2007 MAV.
However, this is not the case for components such as the actuators, receiver, crystal,
connecting wires and the stoppers, bearings and washers. Reducing the size of the design
would reduce the strength and durability of the MAV. Whilst scaling down is a viable option
for reducing the total weight and size of the MAV, analysis would be required to determine
the magnitude of reduction in size and weight possible.

7.4 Flapping Mechanism

The flapping mechanism of the 2007 MAV is not perfectly symmetrical due to the alterations
to the configuration described in chapter 5. However, it would be desirable to have perfectly
symmetrical wings to reduce oscillations. The obvious way to achieve this would be to use a
stronger motor, however this would increase the total weight which is highly undesirable.
Another alternative is to increase the torque produced by using a greater gear reduction than is
currently used in the 2007 MAV. This could be accomplished either with a greater difference
in the number of teeth in the two gears used or by using more gears to create a greater
reduction. More gears would increase mass, and due to the size of the gears and teeth, the


130
precision required for the gears to mesh efficiently is extremely high. Thus, the difficulty in
manufacturing increases with the number of gears. A different approach to allowing
symmetrical flight which could be used in conjunction with the other options mentioned
would be to scale down the 2007 MAV. Smaller sized wings that could be made from lighter
Mylar film and thinner carbon fibre leading edges would reduce the load on the motor and
hence allow efficient symmetrical flapping. The current 2007 MAV with an unsymmetrical
flapping motion proved the concept of flapping flight, however, using a combination of the
ideas mentioned above would further improve flapping winged flight.

7.5 Navigation and Autopilot

When attempting outdoor flight the 2007 MAV was significantly influenced by perturbances
such as wind gusts. Due to the low size and weight, these perturbances cause large
disturbances in the 2007 MAVs flight and stability. For the 2007 MAV to successfully fly
outdoors it will be required to implement a sophisticated stability and navigation control
system into the design. A control system of this description will allow the 2007 MAV to
autonomously adjust its flight regime to suit weather effects and to avoid obstacles in
unfamiliar territory, as well eliminating the constant attention required by the pilot to achieve
marginally stable flight.

The lightest commercially-available autopilot is the Procerus Technologies Kestrel Autopilot
weighing 16.65g (Procerus Technologies 2007). The Kestrel autopilot is a robust and reliable
system, which provides GPS-based navigation and flight control, autonomous takeoff, flight
and auto-landing capabilities as well as attitude estimation, absolute air pressure sensors for
airspeed and altitude measurement, wind estimation and auto-trim capabilities. The Kestrel
Autopilot has dimensions 50mm x 35mm x 12mm and can be seen in figure 7-1.


131

Figure 7-1, Kestrel Autopilot Hardware
[Procerus Technologies 2007]

Despite being ideal for surveillance and reconnaissance applications, the Kestrel Autopilot is
prohibitively heavy for MAVs weighing less than 100g. In comparison to the 2007 MAV, the
weight of the Kestrel Autopilot is approximately 54% of the 2007 MAVs total weight and
exceeds the maximum supportable payload by approximately 10g. The Kestrel Autopilot Kit
costs $7,500 and exceeds the 2007 Micro Air Vehicle project budget.

Incorporating an autopilot into the design of the 2007 MAV would offer intelligent,
autonomous flight, ideal for a variety of application. However, due to the maximum allowable
payload limitation of the 2007 MAV, it would be required to either scale up the design to
produce a larger MAV or to develop a lighter autopilot system.

7.6 Hybrid MAV

During the conceptual design phase of the 2007 MAV, building a hybrid MAV was
considered. A concept design of a hybrid MAV has been generated in Solid Edge as can be
seen in figure 7-2, however time constraints made it impossible to build the design.


132

Figure 7-2, Concept Design of Hybrid MAV

The concept design would have the flapping wings clapping down onto the fixed-wing,
producing thrust with a similar method to the 2007 MAV. Flapping would be used to reach
the desired altitude and/or velocity, once achieved, the flapping would be stopped, allowing
the MAV to glide silently using minimal battery power. In addition the use of only one pair of
wings would demand less torque of the motor, hence a smaller, lighter motor could be used.
There are no known current designs that combine the use of both flapping and fixed-wings.
This design would therefore provide new information, greatly assisting the research and
development in the area of flapping wing flight.

7.7 Future Work Summary

Implementing the designs and concepts described in this section would result in significant
improvements to the design of the 2007 MAV. The outcomes of the 2007 Micro Air Vehicle
project have provided a strong foundation for future projects in this area. A majority of the
material presented above could be achieved with a larger time frame and fiscal budget,
however some require advancements in micro technology and manufacturing techniques.


133
8 Conclusion

The 2007 MAV has been a very successful honours project. All the primary goals have been
achieved and many of the extended goals have also been achieved. The 2007 MAV is a
biplane, electric-powered ornithopter that has demonstrated that powered flapping wing
motion is possible on a small scale and can be designed to have adequate efficiency to support
the weight of an aircraft and payload for successful flight.

The design process involved verifying the concept of mechanical flapping wing flight with a
non-electric powered model. Several prototypes were designed and built using various
electrical components until the design was successful using state of the art micro-electronics.
The fuselage and wing structure were lightweight and durable, comprising of carbon fibre and
balsa wood construction. Analysis was also performed on various aspects of the design
including theoretical calculations of pressure and force generated by the flapping motion.
Furthermore, the design of the flapping mechanism and sizing were calculated using
computational design aids.

There have been numerous challenges in building the 2007 MAV and progress has often been
restricted by difficulties in attaining minute tolerances whilst hand-building, and also
inadequacies in the electrical components available. Minimising weight whilst selecting
materials with sufficient strength for the high loads sustained during flapping has also proven
to be complex in the development process. The final design effectively overcomes these
problems and it is foreseen, with further refinement, performance benchmarks will be
improved such as extending flight time and payload capacity.

The applications of this type of MAV include various military operation types such as
reconnaissance and surveillance. With further development flapping wing MAVs could also
be used for search and rescue missions and also indoor operations. There is significant future
development possible into this type of MAV and the experience and results obtained from the
2007 Micro Air Vehicle project will be vital for assisting future progress in this area of
research.


134
9 References

Aeronautics Learning Laboratory for Science Technology and Research, 2007, viewed 5 May 2007,
<http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/axes33.htm>.

Agrawal, S, Khan, Z & McIntosh, S 2006 Design of a Mechanism for Biaxial Rotation of a Wing for
a Hovering Vehicle, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Machatronics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 145-153.

Air Midi Micros 2007, Plantraco Butterfly RTF Planes, NV, viewed 14 May 2007,
<http://www.airmidimicros.com/AMMPlantracoPlanes.htm>.

Ansari, S et al 2006, Aerodynamic modelling of insect-like flapping flight for micro air vehicles,
Journal in Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 129-172.

Answers, Viewed 9 April 2007, <http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-
commons/thumb/1/14/300px-Aquila_spinogaster_(African_Hawk_Eagle).jpg>.

Beasley, B 2006, A study of planar and nonplanar membrane wing planforms for the design of a
flapping-wing micro air vehicle, PhD Thesis, University of Maryland. Retrieved June 21, 2007,
from University of Maryland Digital Theses.

Benedict, M 2004, Aeroelastic design and manufacture of an efficient ornithopter wing, PhD Thesis,
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Retrieved August 4, 2007 from Indian Institute of
Technology Digital Theses.

Berg, M, Ljungqvist, D & Wei, S, 1999, Flapping and Flexible wings for biological and micro air
vehicles, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol 35 pp 455-505

Bikowski, R et al 2004, Some aeromechanical aspects of insect-like flapping wings in hover,
Department of Aerospace, Power and Sensors, Cranfield University, Academic Journal, vol.
218, part. G, pp. 389-400.

Buglogical, 2006, Encarsia Formosa for Whitefly Control, viewed 28 September 2007,
<www.buglogical.com>.

Chronister, N 2003, The ornithopter zone, viewed 12 May 2007, <www.ornithopter.org/how.shtml>.


135
Deal, C 2006, Remote control hovering ornithopter, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

DeLaurier, J 1993, An aerodynamic model for flapping wing flight, Aeronautical
Journal, vol. 97, pp. 125130.

Deng, X Schenato,L & Sastry, S 2006, Flapping flight for biomimetic robotic insects: part iiflight
control design, Ieee transactions on robotics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 215-222.

Dickinson, M 2001, Insects use a combination of aerodynamic effects to remain aloft, Scientific
American, Inc., viewed 13 May 2007,
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE5B1-DCA8-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21>.

DidelSA 2007, viewed 29 September 2007, <http://didel.com/Frames.html?MainFrame=News.html>.

Discount hobbies 2007, Whirlybird Rider Micro Helicopter, Perth, viewed 19 May 2007,
<http://www.discounthobbies.com.au/aircraft_files/whirlybird/whirlybird.htm>.

Ellington, C 1984, The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight, Philosophical Transactions Royal
Society of London, London.

Ellington, C 1999, The novel aerodynamics of insect flight: applications to micro-air vehicles, The
Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 202, pp 3439-3448.

Ellington, C, Van Der Berg, C & Willmott, A 1996, Leading edge vortices in insect flight, Journal of
Nature, vol. 384, pp. 626-630.

Friedrich C, 1998, Precision Micromanufacturing Processes Applied to Miniaturization Technologies,
viewed 17 May 2007, <http://www.me.mtu.edu/~microweb/chap1/ch1-2-1.htm>

Galinski, C, Knowles, K, Pedersen, C & Zbikowski, R 2004, Some Aeromechanical Aspects of Insect-
like Flapping Wings in Hover, Instn Mech Engrs, vol 218, pp. 389-398.

Gizmo Watch, 2007, Worlds First Radio Controlled Flying Insect, viewed 4 April 2007,
<www.gizmowatch.com>.


136
Goliath 2007, Miniature SMT Speakers viewed 18 October 2007,
< http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1540797/Miniature-SMT-speakers-Editor-s
.html>

Grasmeyer J & Keennon, M 2001, Development of the Black Widow Micro Air Vehicle, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, vol. 12, no 2, pp. 127-136.

Halloran, M & Horowitz, S 1998, Big bird: An autonomous ornithopter.

Hassan, C 2006, Disc-Shaped Aircraft, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University
of Singapore, Viewed 1 August 2007 ,
<http://dynlab.mpe.nus.edu.sg/mpelsb/aeg/chakram/chakram.html>.

HobbyTron, 2007, viewed 1 October, <http://www.hobbytron.com/Mini-WirelessMicro-Spy-Camera-
2-4-GHz-.html>.

Jones, K & Platzer, M 2000, Flapping wing propulsion for a micro air vehicle, AIAA Journal, vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 897-911.

Keating, H 2002, A literature review on bounding flight in birds with applications to micro
uninhabited air vehicles, Air Operations Division, Aeronautical and Maritime Research
Laboratory, Victoria.

Knut, P 2007, Gasparin CO
2
Motors, viewed 30 September 2007,
<http://gasparin.cz/?show=frames&site=rc&page=rc/whatsnew/whatsnew&lng=en>.

Liu, H et all 1998, A computational fluid dynamic study of hawkmoth hovering, Journal of
Experimental Biology, vol. 201, No. 4, pp. 461477.

Magnetic Field of Coil, viewed 2 May 2007,
<http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcoi.html>.

Mischke, C & Shingley, J 2003, Mechanical Engineering Design, 6th end, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mols, B, 2005, Flapping Micro Plane Watches Where it Goes, Delft University of Technology,
Netherlands.


137
Newrobots, Viewed 24 April 2007, <www.newrobots.ru>.

Preston, R 2003, Aircraft aerodynamics, view 4 May, 2007,
<http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Stability/Page5.html>.

Procerus Technologies 2007, Big Solutions for Small Platforms viewed 1 October 2007,
<http://www.procerusuav.com>.

Quasar Electronics, 2007, viewed 1 October <http://www.quasarelectronics.com/c-cam2a.htm>.

Ramakrishnananda, B & Cheong Wong, Kok 1999, Animating bird flight using aerodynamics,
Centre for Graphics and Imaging Technology Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 494-508.

Rich, D 2007, Hummingbird-inspired wing drive mechanism, The institute for systems research
technical report, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 305-326.

Ritchison, G 2006, EKU's resident ornithologist, Department of Biological Sciences Eastern
Kentucky University, viewed 4 April 2007,
<http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/SpruceGrousewing.jpg>.

Sane, S 2003, The aerodynamics of insect flight, Department of Biology, University of Washington,
viewed 10 May 2007, <http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/206/23/4191>.

Segelken, R 2000, Flight obeys the principles of aerodynamics, American Physical Society, viewed 14
May 2007, <http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/00/3.30.00/insect_flight.html>.

SMT Speaker features low profile, 2001, ThomasNet Industrial NewsRoom, viewed 2 October 2007,
<http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5613/442>.

Talay, T 1975, Introduction to the aerodynamics of flight., Scientific and Technical Information Office,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, viewed 8 May 2007,
<http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/cover367.htm>.

Taylor, G & Thomas, A 2001, Animal Flight Dynamics II - Longitudinal Stability in Flapping Flight,
Department of Zoology, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, U.K.


138
Tarascio, M & Chopra, I 2003, Design and development of a thrust augmented entomopter: an
advanced flapping wing micro hovering air vehicle, Presented at the 59th Annual Forum of
the American Helicopter Society, Phoenix, AZ, May 2003.

The Spy Exchange and Security Center 2007, A New Generation Of Mini Micro Wireless
Video Cam viewed 18 October 2007, <http://www.pimall.com/nais/equ.find.html>

Thom, T 1996, Aeroplane General Knowledge & Aerodynamics, Aviation Theory Centre, Victoria

Ultimate Sound Recorder 2007, Clip-on Microphones viewed 18 October 2007,
<http://www.ultimatesoundrecorder.com/rec/AUTAT831CW.html>

Uskent, S 2004, The theory of flight into the free skies, viewed 8 May,
<http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/articles/the-theory-of-flight-into-the-free-skies.asp>.

Vanhorn, M 2004, The evolution of insect flight, Apologetics Press Inc., viewed 12 May 2007,
<http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2534>.

Valentine, P 2005, Tandem Wing Experiments, Ornithopter Research Forum, Viewed 1 September
2007, <http://www.ornithopter-pilot.com/Ornithopter_Researchers_Forum.html>.

Wilkinson, M 2004, Animal flight group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, viewed
10 May 2007, <http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/ellington/aerodynamics.html>.

WowWee 2007, About FlyTech Dragonfly, FlyTech Online, viewed 9 July 2007,
<http://www.flytechonline.com/about.html>.

Yeates, E 2006, Engineers Build Tiny Flying Ornithopter, KSL, viewed 1 October 2007,
<http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=481&sid=271047>.


139
10 Appendices

Appendix A Insect Flight

Aerodynamics of Leading Edge Vortices and Wake Recapture

The aerodynamics involved with leading edges vortices and wake recapture can be seen in
figure A-1.

Figure A-1, Formation of Leading Edge Vortices and Wake Recapture
[Sane 2003]

The figure shows the effects on an insects wing due to wake-recapture. The magnitude and
direction of the lift being generated is represented by the light blue arrows. The direction of
the velocity of the airflow due to the vortices is represented by the dark blue lines.

Parts A-C depict the wings increasing angle of attack during the downstroke.

Parts A-B show that as the angle of attack of the wing increases, the airflow begins to separate
and leading and trail edge vortices are formed.

Parts C-D illustrate the leading and trailing edge vortices shedding from the wing and the
transition between the downstroke and the upstroke.

Downstroke Upstroke


140
Parts D-F depict the wing decreasing in angle of attack during the upstroke. It can be noted
that as the wing is now moving in the opposite direction to parts A-C and the leading edge is
always pointing in the direction of motion.

Parts D-E show the wing re-entering the previously shed vortices and resulting airflow. It is
important to note that the maximum lift achieved during this wing motion is shown in part E.
During this stage, the wing uses both wake recapture and the optimal angle of attack to gain
maximum lift.

Part F shows the wing at the end of the upstroke. Once this stage is complete the insects wing
cycle repeats itself.

Aerodynamics of Clap-Fling Wing Mechanism

A cross-sectional diagram of an insects wing motion during the clap-fling mechanisms can
be seen in figure A-2.

Figure A-2, MAV Wing Motion During Flight
[Sane 2003]


141
Parts A-C of figure A-2 show the clapping motion while parts D-F show the flinging motion.
The formation of leading edge and trailing edge vortices as a result of the wing motion can be
observed and are represented by the black lines. The dark blue lines signify the direction and
velocity of the airflow as a result of the vortices while the light blue arrows represent the
direction and magnitude of the total lift force acting on the wing.

In part A, the clap process can be seen. During this stage the angle of attack of the wings is
high in relation to the relative wind. A high angle of attack will result in separation of the
airflow around the wing and the development of leading and trailing edge vortices.

As the wings continue to approach each other, the angle of attack increases further, due to the
rotation about the leading edge, and they eventually touch. At high angles of attack the
amount of lift generated is significantly decreased as shown in part B. It can be observed that
the leading and trailing edge vortices have been shed and the velocity of the surrounding
airflow is directed inwards towards the wings.

As the trailing edges approach each other, the vortices shed from the trailing edge are
dissipated into the wake. The closing distance creates a high pressure region between the
upper and lower wings which forces the fluid out, as shown in part C.

In part D, the fling process can be seen. As the upper and lower leading edges peal away from
each other, a region of lower pressure is created between the wings. As a result of this lower
pressure, the surrounding fluid rapidly rushes in to fill this region. This motion of airflow
gives an additional increase in lift.

Part E depicts the wings continuing to travel further apart. At this stage a leading edge vortex
has developed indicating that the region of lower pressure in-between the wings still exists.
Therefore, the airflow will continue to flow between the wings, providing additional thrust.

It can be noted that as the wings rotate about the trailing edges, the angle of attack decreases
to a point where vortices can no longer develop. This can be seen in part F, also showing the
beginning of flow separation. Further decreasing the angle of attack will eliminate flow
separation and will eventually lead to an angle of attack providing optimal lift. A higher


142
magnitude of the total lift generated compared to the previous stages can be seen in part F. At
this stage in the wings motion, the cycle is complete and will begin to repeat itself.

It is important to note that the direction and velocity of the airflow always opposes the
direction of flight and therefore various magnitudes of lift are constantly being developed
throughout parts A-E.


143
Appendix B Conceptual Designs

Figure A-3, Concept Design Three-View


144

Figure A-4, Conceptual Design 1



145




146
Appendix C - Statistical Analysis Tables and Graphs

Based on the relationships obtained from the statistical analysis the following tables and
graphs were constructed to estimate the parameters of the 2007 MAV.

Table A-1, Mass Dependence
Mass (grams) = 25
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.08
Length (mm) 388.83
Speed (m/s) 2.48
Aspect Ratio 2.21
Frequency (Hz) 7.65

Table A-2, Wing Span Dependence
Wings Span (mm) = 350
Mass (g) 16.09
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07
Length (mm) 334.62
Speed (m/s) 3.32
Aspect Ratio 1.85
Frequency (Hz) 6.93

Table A-3, Flight Time Dependence
Flight Time (mins) = 12.5
Mass (g) 20.09
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07
Length (mm) 347.68
Speed (m/s) 2.95
Aspect Ratio 1.93
Frequency (Hz) 7.20

Table A-4, Wing Area Dependence
Wing Area (m
2
) = 0.072
Mass (g) 23.00
Length (mm) 365.44
Speed (m/s) 3.94
Aspect Ratio 1.43
Frequency (Hz) 9.48


147
Table A-5, Battery Charge Dependence
Battery Electric Charge (mAh) = 200
Mass (grams) 73.34
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.08
Length (mm) 455.06
Speed (m/s) 6.06
Aspect Ratio 1.36
Frequency (Hz) 13.25

Table A-6, Length Dependence
Length (mm) = 370
Mass (g) 23.44
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07
Speed (m/s) 3.44
Aspect Ratio 1.99
Frequency (Hz) 14.03

Table A-7, Speed Dependence
Speed (m/s) = 3.6
Mass (g) 12.75
Wing Area (m
2
) 0.07
Length (mm) 377.65
Aspect Ratio 1.72
Frequency (Hz) 8.82

Table A-8, Frequency Dependence
Frequency (Hz) = 9.5
Mass (g) 34.06
Flight Time (mins)
15.30
Wing Area (m2)
0.07
Length (mm)
303.82
Speed (m/s)
3.88
Aspect Ratio
1.43


148
A selection of the graphs produced using the statistical analysis can be seen in figure A-7
through to A-9

Wing Span vs. Mass
y = 4.116x + 283.76
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Mass (g)
W
i
n
g

S
p
a
n

(
m
m
)

Figure A-8, Wing Span vs. Mass
Battery Electric Charge vs. Flight Endurance
y = 15.357x - 107.86
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Flight Endurance (min)
B
a
t
t
e
r
y

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

C
h
a
r
g
e

(
m
A
h
)

Figure A-9, Battery Charge vs. Flight Endurance


149
Frequency vs. Battery Electric Charge
y = 0.0522x + 2.806
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Bettery Electric Charge (mAh)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)

Figure A-10, Frequency vs. Battery Charge

Flight Speed vs.Flight Endurance
y = 0.3214x - 1.0714
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Flight Endurance (min)
F
l
i
g
h
t

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
/
s
)

Figure A-11, Flight Speed vs. Flight Endurance


150
Appendix D Weight Distribution

A detailed summary of the individual masses included into each design category can be in the
following tables and charts.

Table A-9, 2007 MAV Weight Distribution
2007 MAV Weight Distribution
Mass (g)
Structure 15.6
Propulsion 7.2
Payload 7
Control 5.1
Fuel 4.7

Table A-10, 2007 MAV Category Weight Distribution
2007 MAV Category Weight
Distribution
Category Mass (g)
Structure 15.6
Balsa Wood 6.13
Acrylic 3.6
Carbon Fibre Leading Edges 2.08
Landing Gear/Tail Guard 0.7
Crank Shaft 0.5
5m Mylar 0.48
Washers, Bearings, Stoppers 0.46
Glue/ Tape 0.43
Wing Axle 0.40
Gears 0.38
Carbon Fibre Spars 0.24
Carbon Fibre Reinforcing 0.2

Propulsion 7.2
Brushless Motor 7.2

Payload 7

Control 5.1
Actuators 2.5
Speed Controller 1.2
Minor Receiver 0.8
Connecting Wires 0.6
Crystal 0.35

Fuel 4.7
Battery 4.7


151

Figure A-12, Structure Weight Distribution

Figure A-13, Control Weight Distribution


152
Appendix E Cost Analysis

Table A-11 itemises the components and materials used in the construction of the 2007 MAV
and details the cost and weight of each item.

Table A-11, Electrical Component Cost
Electrical Components Cost ($) Structural Components Cost ($)
G15 12W Bronco 107 Balsa 13
MCB4-B ESC 94 Carbon Fibre Rods 11.5
MINOR Receiver 85 Mylar 2m 7.5
Crystal 20 Pinion Gear 9 teeth 1
MCA 3 76 Gear 81 teeth 7.5
Fullriver LiPo Cell
200mAh
12 Acrylic 5
Connecting wires x2 3.6 Bearings, Washers,
Stoppers & Screws
10
TOTAL 397.6 TOTAL 55.5

Figure A-14, Electronics costs breakdown


153

Figure A-15, Structural costs breakdown


154
Appendix F Detail Design

Figure A-16, Final MAV CAD 1

Figure A-17, Final MAV CAD 2


155

Figure A-18, Final MAV Gearbox CAD

Figure A-19, Final MAV Tail CAD


156
Appendix G Matlab Code

The following code was used in Matlab to plot the data obtained from the airflow speed
distribution test.

% Import (x,y,z) information from excel spreadsheet

xmin = min(x); % Determine the minimum x and y values
ymin = min(y);
xmax = max(x); % Determine the maximum x and y values
ymax = max(y);

xres=150; % Define the resolution of the x grid
yres=150; % Define the resolution of the 7 grid

xv = linspace(xmin, xmax, xres); % Define the range and spacing of the x-
and y-coordinates,
yv = linspace(ymin, ymax, yres);

[Xinterp,Yinterp] = meshgrid(xv,yv); % Calculate Z in the X-Y interpolation
space
Zinterp = griddata(x,y,z,Xinterp,Yinterp); % Evenly spaced grid:

figure
surf(Xinterp,Yinterp,Zinterp) % Generate the mesh plot


157
Appendix H - Gantt Chart

Figure A-20, Gantt Chart Page 1


158

Figure A-21, Gantt Chart Page 2


159
Appendix I Detailed Drawings

Figure A-22, Motor Mount Three-View


160

Figure A-23, Wing Block Three-View


161

Figure A-24, Motor Mount Three-View


162

Figure A-25, Final Assembly Three-View


163
Appendix J Timesheets

Table A-12, 2007 Micro Air Vehicle Project Timesheet
FEBRUARY
Level 4 Project Timesheet
Project Name: Micro Air Vehicle (Group 581)
Annual Salary $50,000
Hourly Rate $26
Direct Costs 30% Superannuation, payroll tax, workcover, longservice, leave, etc
Indirect Costs 130% Admin & tech support, infrastructure, rent, phone, internet, etc

Date Student
Mathew Craig Richard Matthieu Total Day
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
17 0
18 0
19 0
20 0
21 0
22 0
23 0
24 0
25 0
26 3 3 3 0 9 mon
27 0 1 1 0 2 tue
28 4 4 4 4 16 wed
Sub Total (Hrs) 7 8 8 4 27
Previous YTD 0 0 0 0 0
Total YTD (Hrs) 7 8 8 4 27

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $179 $205 $205 $103 $692
Total (Direct) $54 $62 $62 $31 $208
Total (Indirect) $233 $267 $267 $133 $900
Total Cost $467 $533 $533 $267 $1,800


164
MARCH
Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 2 4 4 1 11 thu
2 0 0 0 0 0 fri
3 1 0 2 1 4 sat
4 0 0 0 0 0 sun
5 0 2 2 1 5 mon
6 1 2 2 2 7 tue
7 2 2 2 2 8 wed
8 3 3 3 3 12 thu
9 2 2 2 2 8 fri
10 1 1 0 1 3 sat
11 0 0 0 2 2 sun
12 6 6 6 3 21 mon
13 1 1 0 1 3 tue
14 1 0 0 1 2 wed
15 4 4 4 1 13 thu
16 0 0 0 3 3 fri
17 0 0 0 0 0 sat
18 1 0 2 0 3 sun
19 3 4 4 1 12 mon
20 1 0 0 0 1 tue
21 1 2 2 1 6 wed
22 1 2 2 2 7 thu
23 0 0 1 0 1 fri
24 0 0 1 0 1 sat
25 0 0 0 0 0 sun
26 3 3 2 0 8 mon
27 4 1 4 0 9 tue
28 3 4 4 3 14 wed
29 3 2 2 2 9 thu
30 1 1 1 1 4 fri
31 1 0 0 0 1 sat
Sub Total (Hrs) 46 46 52 34 178
Previous YTD 7 8 8 0 0
Total YTD (Hrs) 53 54 60 34 178

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $1,359 $1,385 $1,538 $872 $5,154
Total (Direct) $408 $415 $462 $262 $1,546
Total (Indirect) $1,767 $1,800 $2,000 $1,133 $6,700
Total Cost $3,533 $3,600 $4,000 $2,267 $13,400


165

APRIL
Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 0 0 0 0 0 sun
2 2 2 2 2 8 mon
3 1 1 2 1 5 tue
4 2 2 2 2 8 wed
5 1 1 1 1 4 thu
6 1 2 1 1 5 fri
7 0 3 0 0 3 sat
8 0 1 0 0 1 sun
9 1 0 0 1 2 mon
10 0 0 0 1 1 tue
11 0 0 1 1 2 wed
12 1 0 2 0 3 thu
13 0 0 2 1 3 fri
14 0 0 0 0 0 sat
15 0 0 1 0 1 sun
16 7 7 7 7 28 mon
17 2 2 2 2 8 tue
18 1 1 1 1 4 wed
19 1 1 1 1 4 thu
20 1 1 1 1 4 fri
21 1 1 1 1 4 sat
22 1 1 1 1 4 sun
23 1 1 1 1 4 mon
24 1 1 2 1 5 tue
25 1 2 1 0 4 wed
26 0 1 1 1 3 thu
27 2 0 1 1 4 fri
28 0 0 0 0 0 sat
29 0 0 0 0 0 sun
30 1 1 1 1 4 mon
31 2 0 0 0 2 tue
Sub Total (Hrs) 31 32 35 30 128
Previous YTD 53 54 60 34 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 84 86 95 64 306

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $2,154 $2,205 $2,436 $1,641 $8,436
Total (Direct) $646 $662 $731 $492 $2,531
Total (Indirect) $2,800 $2,867 $3,167 $2,133 $10,967
Total Cost $5,600 $5,733 $6,333 $4,267 $21,933


166

MAY
Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 1 1 1 0 3 tue
2 2 2 1 2 7 wed
3 0 1 2 1 4 thu
4 0 1 0 2 3 fri
5 2 0 2 1 5 sat
6 1 0 2 1 4 sun
7 2 1 2 0 5 mon
8 1 0 1 0 2 tue
9 1 2 2 1 6 wed
10 0 1 0 1 2 thu
11 0 2 1 1 4 fri
12 1 1 1 0 3 sat
13 0 0 0 1 1 sun
14 0 2 1 0 3 mon
15 1 1 0 0 2 tue
16 0 0 1 1 2 wed
17 0 1 0 1 2 thu
18 0 0 1 1 2 fri
19 2 1 1 1 5 sat
20 2 0 1 2 5 sun
21 1 0 2 1 4 mon
22 1 0 0 0 1 tue
23 1 0 1 1 3 wed
24 1 2 1 1 5 thu
25 1 0 1 0 2 fri
26 1 1 1 0 3 sat
27 0 1 0 1 2 sun
28 2 1 0 1 4 mon
29 1 1 0 0 2 tue
30 1 0 1 1 3 sun
31 0 0 0 0 0 mon
Sub Total (Hrs) 23 17 23 23 99
Previous YTD 84 86 95 64 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 107 103 118 87 277

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $2,744 $2,641 $3,026 $2,231 $10,641
Total (Direct) $823 $792 $908 $669 $3,192
Total (Indirect) $3,567 $3,433 $3,933 $2,900 $13,833
Total Cost $7,133 $6,867 $7,867 $5,800 $27,667


167

JUNE


Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 0 0 1 0 1 fri
2 1 1 1 2 5 sat
3 1 2 2 1 6 sun
4 0 0 0 0 0 mon
5 0 0 0 0 0 tue
6 0 0 0 0 0 wed
7 0 0 0 0 0 thu
8 0 0 0 0 0 fri
9 0 0 0 0 0 sat
10 0 0 0 0 0 sun
11 0 0 0 0 0 mon
12 0 0 0 0 0 tue
13 0 0 0 0 0 wed
14 0 0 0 0 0 thu
15 0 0 0 0 0 fri
16 0 0 0 0 0 sat
17 0 0 0 0 0 sun
18 0 0 0 0 0 mon
19 0 0 0 0 0 tue
20 0 0 0 0 0 wed
21 0 0 0 0 0 thu
22 0 0 0 0 0 fri
23 0 0 0 0 0 sat
24 0 0 0 0 0 sun
25 0 0 0 0 0 mon
26 0 0 0 0 0 tue
27 0 0 0 0 0 wed
28 0 0 0 0 0 thu
29 1 2 2 1 6 fri
30 2 1 1 1 5 sat
31 1 1 1 1 4 sun
Sub Total (Hrs) 6 7 8 6 27
Previous YTD 107 103 118 87 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 113 110 126 93 205

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $2,897 $2,821 $3,231 $2,385 $11,333
Total (Direct) $869 $846 $969 $715 $3,400
Total (Indirect) $3,767 $3,667 $4,200 $3,100 $14,733
Total Cost $7,533 $7,333 $8,400 $6,200 $29,467


168

JULY


Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 0 0 0 0 0 sun
2 6 0 6 6 18 mon
3 6 0 6 6 18 tue
4 4 0 4 4 12 wed
5 0 0 0 0 0 thu
6 6 6 6 6 24 fri
7 0 0 0 0 0 sat
8 0 0 0 0 0 sun
9 0 3 3 2 8 mon
10 0 2 1 2 5 tue
11 0 2 2 2 6 wed
12 0 3 2 1 6 thu
13 0 0 0 0 0 fri
14 0 0 0 0 0 sat
15 0 0 1 0 1 sun
16 5 0 5 5 15 mon
17 6 0 6 6 18 tue
18 6 0 6 6 18 wed
19 6 0 6 6 18 thu
20 1 1 1 1 4 fri
21 0 0 1 0 1 sat
22 0 0 0 0 0 sun
23 0 0 0 0 0 mon
24 3 0 3 3 9 tue
25 2 1 1 2 6 wed
26 2 1 2 3 8 thu
27 2 3 2 1 8 fri
28 1 0 1 0 2 sat
29 1 0 2 0 3 sun
30 2 3 2 1 8 mon
31 4 3 4 4 15 tue
Sub Total (Hrs) 63 28 73 67 231
Previous YTD 113 110 126 93 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 176 138 199 160 409

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $4,513 $3,538 $5,103 $4,103 $17,256
Total (Direct) $1,354 $1,062 $1,531 $1,231 $5,177
Total (Indirect) $5,867 $4,600 $6,633 $5,333 $22,433
Total Cost $11,733 $9,200 $13,267 $10,667 $44,867


169

AUGUST


Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 2 1 1 1 5 wed
2 2 4 1 1 8 thu
3 2 4 1 1 8 fri
4 1 0 2 0 3 sat
5 0 0 0 0 0 sun
6 2 3 2 2 9 mon
7 1 2 1 1 5 tue
8 1 4 0 2 7 wed
9 1 1 2 1 5 thu
10 1 3 2 1 7 fri
11 0 0 0 0 0 sat
12 3 4 3 3 13 sun
13 3 3 4 2 12 mon
14 2 4 3 3 12 tue
15 3 4 2 2 11 wed
16 4 2 3 2 11 thu
17 1 4 4 2 11 fri
18 0 0 1 0 1 sat
19 0 0 0 0 0 sun
20 5 5 5 5 20 mon
21 4 4 5 4 17 tue
22 6 5 6 4 21 wed
23 4 3 5 5 17 thu
24 4 4 6 3 17 fri
25 0 0 1 0 1 sat
26 0 1 0 0 1 sun
27 4 4 6 4 18 mon
28 4 4 5 3 16 tue
29 2 2 3 2 9 wed
30 2 2 1 1 6 thu
31 2 3 2 2 9 fri
Sub Total (Hrs) 66 80 77 57 280
Previous YTD 176 138 199 160 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 242 218 276 217 458

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $6,205 $5,590 $7,077 $5,564 $24,436
Total (Direct) $1,862 $1,677 $2,123 $1,669 $7,331
Total (Indirect) $8,067 $7,267 $9,200 $7,233 $31,767
Total Cost $16,133 $14,533 $18,400 $14,467 $63,533


170

SEPTEMBER


Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 2 3 3 2 10 sat
2 1 4 2 2 9 sun
3 1 1 3 1 6 mon
4 1 3 2 2 8 tue
5 2 1 2 2 7 wed
6 2 4 3 2 11 thu
7 2 2 3 2 9 fri
8 0 0 0 0 0 sat
9 3 4 4 4 15 sun
10 3 2 1 2 8 mon
11 2 3 3 2 10 tue
12 2 1 1 2 6 wed
13 2 3 2 1 8 thu
14 1 2 1 2 6 fri
15 1 0 3 2 6 sat
16 4 6 6 6 22 sun
17 5 5 5 5 20 mon
18 6 7 7 7 27 tue
19 6 6 6 6 24 wed
20 6 6 6 6 24 thu
21 7 8 8 8 31 fri
22 0 0 0 0 0 sat
23 0 0 0 0 0 sun
24 7 8 8 8 31 mon
25 0 0 0 0 0 tue
26 0 0 0 0 0 wed
27 3 6 5 4 18 thu
28 3 5 4 3 15 fri
29 0 0 0 0 0 sat
30 0 2 0 0 2 sun
31 3 3 4 3 13 mon
Sub Total (Hrs) 75 95 92 84 346
Previous YTD 242 218 276 217 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 317 313 368 301 524

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $8,128 $8,026 $9,436 $7,718 $33,308
Total (Direct) $2,438 $2,408 $2,831 $2,315 $9,992
Total (Indirect) $10,567 $10,433 $12,267 $10,033 $43,300
Total Cost $21,133 $20,867 $24,533 $20,067 $86,600


171
OCTOBER


Hourly Rate $26

Date Student
1 5 6 6 6 23 mon
2 6 6 6 6 24 tue
3 6 5 6 6 23 wed
4 6 6 6 5 23 thu
5 6 7 7 7 27 fri
6 0 0 0 0 0 sat
7 0 0 0 0 0 sun
8 2 2 2 2 8 mon
9 3 4 3 2 12 tue
10 3 6 4 3 16 wed
11 5 5 5 5 20 thu
12 5 6 6 5 22 fri
13 0 0 0 0 0 sat
14 5 4 6 3 18 sun
15 5 6 6 6 23 mon
16 5 7 8 8 28 tue
17 8 8 8 8 32 wed
18 8 9 8 7 32 thu
19 5 6 5 6 22 fri
20 0 sat
21 0 sun
22 0 mon
23 0 tue
24 0 wed
25 0 thu
26 0 fri
27 0 sat
28 0 sun
29 0 mon
30 0 tue
31 0
Sub Total (Hrs) 83 93 92 85 353
Previous YTD 317 313 368 301 178
Total YTD (Hrs) 400 406 460 386 531

Costs YTD
Total (Salary) $10,256 $10,410 $11,795 $9,897 $42,359
Total (Direct) $3,077 $3,123 $3,538 $2,969 $12,708
Total (Indirect) $13,333 $13,533 $15,333 $12,867 $55,067
Total Cost $26,667 $27,067 $30,667 $25,733 $110,133


172
The 2007 MAV timesheet show that the total labour cost for the 2007 MAV is $110,133. This
cost includes the hours spent by each group member at an hourly rate of $26.00 per hour, as
well as direct and indirect expenses.

University of Adelaide Micro Air Vehicle Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

University of Adelaide Micro Air Vehicle Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Anda mungkin juga menyukai