Final Project Report - Ornithopter

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter
Contents
Acknowledgement
Abstract
ii
Contents
iii
List of diagrams and pictures
iv
1. Chapter I: Introduction
2. Chapter II: Literature Review
2.1. Review of basic Aerodynamics

2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
Lift, Drag, Thrust and Weight

Lift and the Coefficient of Lift
Drag and the Coefficient of Drag
2.2. Elements of bird flight
4
5
5
7
8
2.2.1.
Flapping flight concept for birds
10
2.2.2.
Basics of flapping flight in birds
13
2.3. Basics of insect flight
15
2.4. Differences in Insect and Bird Flight
16
2.5. Flapping Wing aerodynamics
17
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

2.5.1.
Laminar Separation Bubble
17
2.5.2.
Various angles of significance
19
2.5.3.
Reduced frequency, St & J
20
2.5.4.
Dynamic Stall
23
2.5.5.
Leading Edge Vortex and Wake Capture
24
2.5.6.
Clap- and-Fling Mechanism
25
2.6. Scaling Laws and Similarity
27
2.6.1.
Wing Loading
27
2.6.2.
Cruising Speed and Wing length (half span)
29
2.6.3.
Power Requirements
31
2.7. Ornithopter
32
2.7.1.
Study of man-made ornithopter models
33
2.7.2.
Behemoth 3 and 4
34
2.7.3.
Flybat RTF model
35
3. Prototype Construction
3.1. Prototype 1.0
36
36
3.1.1.
Construction
36
3.1.2.
Working
38

3.1.3.
Outcome
38
3.1.4.
Learning
38
3.2. Prototype 2.0
39
3.2.1.
Necessity
39
3.2.2.
Construction
39
3.2.3.
Double Connecting-rod mechanism
40
3.2.4.
Working
41
3.2.5.
Drawbacks
43
3.3. Prototype 3.0
43
3.3.1.
Selection of components
44
3.3.2.
Construction
47
3.3.3.
Single-Conrod Mechanism
47
3.3.4.
Outcome
49
3.3.5.
Electronic components
49
3.4. Prototype 3.1
52
3.4.1.
Flexibility of wings
53
3.4.2.
Verification of Wing Area
54

3.4.3.
Improvements incorporated
56
3.4.4.
Outcome
56
3.5. Prototype 4.0
56
3.5.1.
Wings provided with Camber
56
3.5.2.
Tail Control Mechanism
57
3.6. Testing
58
3.6.1.
Stage1
62
3.6.2.
Stage2
64
4. Results and Conclusions
64
4.1. Flapping test
64
4.2. Glide test
65
4.3. Reasons for failure
65
5. Scope for future work
66
5.1. Improvements on the current model
66
5.2. Further testing
66
5.3. Construction of further models
67
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Leonardo da Vincis design for an aircraft....01
Figure 1.2 Patent drawings of Clment Aders Eole........................................02
Figure 2.1 Four forces.......04
Figure 2.2 Airflow at two different angles of attack of an airfoil ...05
Figure 2.3 The figure describes how adding flaps and slats can ameliorate the performance
of the wing.......06
Figure 2.4 Contributions of different types of drag at different velocities...07
Figure 2.5 The polar plots for Selig 1223 airfoil calculated at a velocity of 20 ms-1 and
Reynolds number 2.69x105.......08
Figure 2.6a Pictorial representation of lift producing part of the wing.....10
Figure 2.6b Pictorial representation of Thrust producing part of the wing.. 10
Figure 2.7 Wing acting as a propeller......10
Figure 2.8 The landing of Andean Condor.....11
Figure 2.9 Illustrations of flapping of small, medium and large bird12
Figure 2.10 Thrust and lift generation according to lighthill................13
Figure 2.11 Velocity diagrams indicating the production of lift and thrust in a bird......14
Figure 2.12a The downstroke of an insect that is in a near hover-state.....15
Figure 2.12b The upstroke of an insect that is in a near hover-state..........15
Figure 2.13a Direct flight anatomy16
Figure 2.13b Indirect flight anatomy.............................16
Figure 2.14a Illustrates the flow field surrounding the airfoil at Re of 4 104. (b) The Cp v/s
chord diagram...................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.15 Schematic diagram of coordinate systems and wing kinematics......................20
Figure 2.16 Morphological and flight parameters..........................22
Figure 2.17 Dynamic Stall events....23
Figure 2.18 Spatial flow structure of LEVs24
Figure 2.19 Momentum transfer in a wake-capture interaction.............25
Figure 2.20 Clap and fling mechanism.....26
Figure 2.21Relation between weight and wing loading represented in a proportional
diagram...............................................28
Figure 2.22 Unsteady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing flyers28
Figure 2.23 Unsteady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing flyers28
Figure 2.24 Simple Science of Flight.....29
Figure 2.26 Vol 195 Progresses in Astronautics and
Aeronautics.............................................................................................................31
Figure 2.14 Various subsystems as seen in the VAMP-BOT ornithopter.................32
Figure 2.15a and Figure 2.15b Behemoth33
Figure 2.16 Single conrod mechanism employed in the Behemoth models34
Figure 2.17 RTF model from china...35
Figure 3.1 Basic fuselage construction...37
Figure 3.2 Fuselage with the wing spars attached to conrods through music wires....37
Figure 3.3 Final rubber-band model.................................38
Figure 3.4 Our fuselage under construction40
Figure 3.5 The front view the pivot points of the aircraft are seen in the diagram.......40
Figure 3.6 Catia model of the double-conrod mechanism..41
Figure 3.7 Side view of the prototype suspended in mid-air......................42
Figure 3.8 Front-view of the prototype suspended in mid-air...................42

Figure 3.9 GT2205 brushless motor..44
Figure 3.10 Worm gear reduction......................................46
Figure 3.11 Empirical relations for various parameters as found in birds..............46
Figure 3.12 Single con rod mechanism modeled in CATIA.48
Figure 3.13AnESC.52
Figure 3.14a Comparison of wings between prototype 3.0 and 3.1..52
Figure 3.14b The differences in the wingspan between two models52
Figure 3.15 Illustration of figure ofeight53
Figure 3.16 The Cp v/s chord length curve...54
Figure 3.17 The Cl v/s AoA graph for zero camber..55
Figure 3.18 Curved balsa ribs are used to give camber.56
Figure 3.19 The tail control mechanism.57
Figure 4.1 Pivot which caused failure of flapping.64
Chapter I
Introduction
Since time immemorial, flying in the sky has been a source of fascination to most humans.
The sight of the birds flying freely and majestically in the air fills one with longing and joy.
And thus were inspired the various attempts by mankind to achieve flight and take to the
skies.
The legends of flying vehicles

date back to as far as the Vedic
period (circa.2000 B.C), when
Pushpakavimana
significant
played
part
in
a
the
Ramayana. It is also recorded

that in the 6th Century B.C, a
Chinese
prince,
Yuan
Huangtou, took flight (glided)

by tying himself to a large kite.
Leonardo da Vinci expressed
his vision of flight through
Fig. 1.1: Leonardo da Vincis design for an aircraft. He called it the aerial screw.
various designs of flight capable machines. Hot-air balloons and Hydrogen/Helium Balloons
were invented and adapted for manned flight by the end of the 18th century. However it was
in 1903 that the first heavier-than-air sustained flight was achieved by the Wright Brothers.
And now, more than a century after that historic flight, weve still many goals to achieve and
challenges to surmount. For instance, the manoeuvrability and agility demonstrated by many
birds is yet to be achieved in any man-made craft. Also the efficiency exhibited by birds in
flight has not yet been reached. One prominent area where the difference is apparent is in the
micro-scale class of aircrafts.
Natural fliers occur with surprising diversity, inhabiting most kinds of habitats on earth, and
display remarkable evolutionary features that allow them adapt expeditiously to their
environment. Birds have a weight range varying from around 1g (Bee-Humming bird) to
around 10-12 kgs in certain large raptors. The size range in birds varies from around 5-6 cm

to a humungous wingspan of 1.8-2 m found in Philippines eagle. Insects on the other hand
have spans varying from a few hundred microns in the smallest insects to around 25 cms of
an Atlas Moth. In these ranges due to the low-Reynolds number flows, the conventional
aerodynamics is not accurate enough to predict the behaviour of the aircraft.
Fixed winged aircrafts normally employ wings only to generate the lift required to sustain in
the air. The thrust required to overcome drag is normally supplied by a separate propulsion
system. This necessitates the presence of an extra device which can be avoided if lift and
thrust can be combined as in nature. In addition, fixed wing aircrafts have many other
disadvantages as compared to
Ornithopters which will be
indicated
later.
Another
prominent kind of aircraft is

the
rotary
wing
aircraft.
These have disadvantages in

terms of speed, efficiency
and manoeuvrability. That
said, the question might arise
as to why Ornithopters have
not
attained
lot
of
Fig 1.2: Patent drawings of Clment Aders Eole.
popularity. The simple reason for this is the level of complication involved. Additionally the
advantages of an Ornithopter are more relevant at small scales, where, unfortunately,
incorporating the flapping wing features is mechanically more of a challenge.
Some of the advantages of a flapping-wing aircraft are as follows:
Lift and thrust are created through the same mechanism. This eliminates the
requirement of rotors or propellers or any other separate mechanism to create
propulsive force.
Since no rotors are required, Ornithopters are lighter and quieter.
The above reasons contribute in increasing the fuel economy of Ornithopters as

compared to conventional aircrafts giving greater range/endurance.
They can very easily recover from stall, as the wings are adjustable.
Excellent manoeuvring capabilities, ability to fly at very low as well as relatively high
speeds.
All these advantages make it much easier (as compared to fixed wing aircrafts) to
develop an all terrain, all weather real time surveillance aircraft of small size.
As they are quieter, lighter, smaller and more efficient, they are more suitable for
surveillance (spy cams).
One of the main disadvantages of a fixed wing aircraft stems from the fact that at small
scales, the Reynolds number also becomes small and this is the cause of many new
phenomena. These, in short, lead to flow separation and vortices which impede the lift
producing ability of fixed wings. Thus if the complication associated with Ornithopters are
simplified through research in the field, it would lead to many advancements in the field of
MAVs. The situation is especially encouraging due to the progress made in aerodynamics,
material sciences and other relevant fields and the consequent availability of extremely smallscale and light weight materials, batteries, electronic components etc.
In the following chapters, we attempt to describe the steps that we undertook in our project
beginning with the literature review that we conducted to better understand the physics
behind the aerodynamics of flapping wing aircrafts.
Chapter II
Literature Review I
Considering the fact that the motivation behind this project was to mimic and incorporate
certain performance enhancing characteristics found in bird and insect flight, the first obvious
step was to understand the various features of the flight of natural fliers. The various aspects
learnt during this stage are discussed below. Also, a basic review of aerodynamics is given.
2.1 Review of basic aerodynamics

Aerodynamics is a branch of dynamics concerned with studying the motion of air,
particularly when it interacts
with
solid
object.
Aerodynamics is a subfield of
fluid
dynamics
and
gas
dynamics, with much theory

shared
between
them.
Aerodynamics is often used

synonymously
with
gas
dynamics, with the difference

being
that
gas
applies to all gases.
dynamics
Fig 2. 1: The four forces; Source: Glenn Research Centre, NASA
Most relevant to the understanding of the features of natural flight are the concepts of
aerodynamic lift and drag. They are discussed below.
2.1.1 Lift, Drag, Thrust and Weight

On any object traversing through air, or any other fluid for that matter, there are always four
fundamental forces in action on the object. It is the interplay of these forces that decides
whether the object can sustain itself in air. As can be inferred from figure 3.1, for the machine
10

to stay airborne, the thrust force produced by the engine has to be adequate to overcome the
backward drag force on the aircraft, while the upward lift force has to be sufficient to
overcome the weight.
Both of the lift and the drag forces that act on the aircraft are due to the effect of the flow of
the fluid around it. The production of these forces is governed by various factors such as the
shape of the object moving through the fluid, its density and the velocity.
2.1.2 Lift and the Coefficient of Lift

Lift is the aerodynamic force acting on any body moving through a fluid in a direction
perpendicular to the direction of its
motion. The production of lift can be
explained on the basis of Newtons
third law as follows.
In fig 2.2, note that the air is
deflected as it passes the airfoil.
Since the foil must exert a force on
the air to change its direction, the air
must exert a force of equal magnitude
Fig 2. 2: Airflow at two different angles of attack of an airfoil that can

be conjectured to be responsible for the lift production.
but opposite in direction on the foil. In the case of an airplane wing, the wing exerts a
downward force on the air and the air exerts an upward force on the wing.
This explanation relies on the second and third of Newton's laws of motion: The net force on
an object is equal to its rate of momentum change and to every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction. Another way to describe deflection is to say that the air "turns" as it passes
the airfoil and follows a path that is curved. When airflow changes direction, a force is
generated.
It can be seen in fig 2.2 that the lift at a higher angle (of attack) the amount of air deflected is
more (case 2) compared to case 1. The lift force produced is higher at a higher angle of attack
(till a certain critical point).
11
The lift produced on a given body is given by the equation,

=
Where, L
1 2

2
he lift force acting on a body moving with a velocity v,
the coefficient of lift,
the density of air/ fluid
the planform area of the object
The lift coefficient is a dimensionless coefficient that relates the lift generated by a lifting
body, the dynamic pressure of the fluid flow around the body, and a reference area associated
with the body. It can be determined through analytical methods for only the simplest of
Fig 2. 3: The figure describes how adding flaps and slats can ameliorate the performance of the wing. This has a lot of
applications, especially in STOL aircrafts. Source: Chris Heintz; Anatomy of a STOL Aircraft
surface shapes. For the rest, the coefficient of lift has to be found out using either
experimental or numerical methods. Shown in fig 2.3 are the typical graphs of coefficient of
lift versus angle of attack for three types of airfoils. The angle at which the peaks is called
the stall angle. In addition to being affected by the shape of bodies, the is also sensitive to
unsteady and vortex flows.
12
2.1.3 Drag and the Coefficient of Drag

In fluid dynamics, drag (also
called air resistance or fluid
resistance)
refers
to
forces
which act on a solid object in

the direction of the relative fluid
flow
velocity.
Unlike
other
resistive forces such as dry

friction,
which
is
nearly
independent of velocity, drag

forces
intensely
depend
on
velocity.
Types of drag are generally divided
Fig 2. 4: The contributions of different types of drag at different

velocities. Source: Wikipedia
into the following categories:
parasitic drag, consisting of

form drag,
skin friction,
interference drag,
lift-induced drag, and
wave drag (aerodynamics) or wave resistance (ship hydrodynamics).
These are indicated in fig 2.4.

The drag force in general is given by the equation,
=
Where, D
1 2

2
the drag force acting on a body moving with a velocity v,
the coefficient of drag,
the density of air/ fluid
13

S
the planform area of the object
Also shown in fig. 2.5 are the the plots of , and ( Moment-coefficient) versus Alpha
(angle of attack).
-1
Fig 2. 5: The polar plots for Selig 1223 airfoil calculated at a velocity of 20 ms and Reynolds number 2.69x10 .
2.2 Elements of bird flight
14

Among the living animal species, true flight is confined to insects, birds and bats. Man has to
use machines to be able to fly. Necessary elements required for flight are:
i.
A light weight high strength structure.
ii.
Wings and feathers for generating lift and forward thrust.
iii.
Flight muscles to provide the power.
iv.
A fast response flight control and navigation system.
The structure
The skeletal structure of the birds has evolved into an efficient lightweight structure
consisting of body box, the rigid ribcage with many vertebrae neck and tail remaining
flexible.
Wings and feathers

The most remarkable features of bird flight are wings and feathers. The bird wing is complex
flexible airfoil-cambered and adjustable for control. It tapers from root to tip and generally
has a characteristic shape but the planform varies with the type of bird. A feather is both
extremely light and structurally strong-but still very flexible. Feathers have greater
strength/weight ratio than any man made structure. Each feather has approximately
streamlined shape. Their shapes take on a range of variations depending on conditions of
flight.
The muscles
The power of flight, through movement of wings is provided by two massive pectoralis
muscles anchored to deep keel of sternum. In main power stroke, large pectoral muscles
contract to pull the wings down.
Flight control and navigation

As flying machines, birds are inherently unstable and their flight is actively controlled and
maintained by neuro-muscular control of shape and position of the wings and tail.
15
2.2.1 Flapping flight concept for birds

This can be regarded as power on flight since the bird continuously expends energy in
flapping its wings and generates the thrust and lift forces to propel it and to overcome gravity.
The motion of flexible wings is not only in up and down direction but there are also forward
Fig 2. 6a
Fig 2. 6b
and backward components and parts of the wing twist during the flapping cycle. Detailed
study shows that the wings perform a dual function, working both as airfoils and propellers.
The inner part, closer to the shoulder and
with lower amplitude of motion, also
undergoes relatively smaller changes in
attitude and mainly carries the lift during
the normal cruise flight. The outer wingthe hand section with the primary flight
feathers performs two roles. The first is as
a propeller providing the thrust and
second in providing lift and control. The
first function is common to all the birds
Fig 2. 7: The fig shows the wing acting as a propeller. The

curved edge indicates the trailing edge. It can be seen that the
trailing edge always lags behind the leading edge.
but the second take on different forms

depending upon the size of the bird. The first is the downstroke-or the power stroke, during
16

which the wing generally moves downwards with the outer and faster moving part also
moving forward, especially towards the end of the stroke. The second movement-the
upstroke-essentially restores the wing to the fully up position from which the next
downstroke starts. However, in the upstroke, so as not to produce unnecessary resistance
(drag) and lose the lift, the wing goes through a complex bending
and twisting motion. At the end of downstroke, the wing rotates
upwards from the shoulder while the elbow is relaxed so that the
outer wing bends down as well rotates to present the least
resistance to forward motion. During the power stroke, the
primary feathers are held together to produce a near perfect airfoil
for producing the maximum lift and thrust with minimum drag. In
smaller birds like sparrows, tits etc.., the primary feathers get
separated on the upstroke and function like slots, allowing air to
pass through, thereby reducing drag.
Detailed observations of wing motion

The changes in wing beat kinematics occur in response to flight
needs. Immediately, after the take off the requirement of adequate
thrust and lift causes the birds to use a tip reversal upstroke
during which primary feathers generate both weight support as
well as propulsion.
Take off and landing

Fast flapping rate provides the primary requirement of lift to
overcome gravity. During landing, the speed being low, the birds
wing must generate required lift to uphold the weight and also
break the forward motion which it does by spreading the wings
Fig 2. 8: The landing of Andean Condor.

Source: Satish Dhawan; Bird Flight
wide.
17
Hovering flight
The ultimate in low speed, of course, occurs when the forward speed diminishes to zero or
practically zero and yet the bird has to be airborne. The kinematics of hovering flight demand
wing movements, such that, apart from vertical reaction, forces are also to be generated in the
horizontal plane. The flapping frequency will be high.
Fig. 2-9: Source Satish Dhawan:- Bird flight
18
2.2.2 Basics of flapping flight in birds

Linearised theory
Lighthill has argued that the flapping wing motions that achieve the required forces can be
approximately viewed as linear combination of
a simple up and down oscillation, with a twist
of the wing surface at each extreme of
oscillation and a simple constant angle of
attack for lift. During the up and downstrokes
the wing surface retains an approximately fixed
inclination such that the movement always gas
a backward component which generates thrust.
The wing remains approximately inclined at a
Fig 2. 10: Thrust and lift generation according to lighthill;

Source: Satish Dhawan; Bird Flight
small angle during the downstrokes and then twists into nose up position for the upstroke.
The air forces producing the thrust oppose the wing movements during both the down and
upstrokes. On the other hand, in the lift production, they oppose the wing movement
downward but assist it in the upward stroke. As a consequence, the wing is heavily loaded
during the downstroke. Another important aspect relates the essentially unsteady nature of
flapping wing aerodynamics.
Velocity and forces

Figure shows velocity and force diagrams for flapping flight. The general shape of the wingparticularly the twist along the span can be clearly discerned from figure 2.11. During the
downstroke, the outermost part of the wing is moving faster and at the same time it is twisted
downwards producing thrust.
On the upstroke the inner part of the wing has reduced angle of attack but the orientation is
generally similar to the downstroke configuration. As the wing is raised from the shoulder,
the outer part drops and the leading edge gets twisted upwards. Just after the upstroke starts,
the twisted outer wing is flung rapidly up and back relative to the body. This results in
forward thrust as well as lift. These motion of the wings during the up and downstrokes get
modified during take-off and landing as well as during the transition from climbing to steady
19

forward flight. The flapping rates and amplitudes also vary-being higher at low speeds than
during the normal flight.
Fig 2- 11: The velocity diagrams indicating the production of lift and thrust in a bird; Bird Flight; Satish Dhawan
20
2.3 Basics of insect flight

Unlike bird flight, where the lift is mainly produced by the steady state aerodynamic forces
on the wing, in insect flight there are three separate phenomenon all of which, generally,
contribute significantly to the production of lift. These can be enlisted as follows:
The leading edge vortex, including the creation of laminar separation bubble, clap and
fling mechanism etc.
The steady-state aerodynamic forces on the wing, due to the airfoil shape and angle of
attack of the wing.
The wings contact with its wake from previous strokes, including phenomenon like
wake capture.
It is understood that in insect flight, the unsteady and vortical effects of the flow play a very
prominent role in the production of lift. This can be illustrated by the fact that a quasi-steady
analysis of an insect in flight gives a value of lift that is about three-times lesser than the
actual value of lift being produced. An illustration of the insect flight kinematics and some of
the
unsteady
effects
accompanying
Fig. 2- 12b: The downstroke.
it
is
provided
in
fig.
3.12.
Fig. 2- 12b: The upstroke.
21

The anatomy of insects is also somewhat different compared to birds. They exhibit two
different types of mechanisms for the actuation of their wings. These are shown in fig. 2-13.
The wings and flight mechanism of birds can be distinguished on another important factor.
Insects that beat their wings less than one hundred times a second use synchronous muscle.
Asynchronous muscle is a type of muscle that contracts once for every nerve impulse, which
is more efficient for fast flight. Insects that beat their wings more rapidly use asynchronous
muscle; this is a type of muscle that contracts more than once per nerve impulse. This is
achieved by the muscle being stimulated to contract again by a release in tension in the
muscle, which can happen more rapidly than through simple nerve stimulation alone.
Thus through the evolution of many such mechanisms and innovations, insects have deemed
Fig. 2- 13a: Direct flight anatomy; there are two

separate sets of muscles for the downstroke
and the upstroke.
Fig. 2- 13b: Indirect flight anatomy; only one set

of muscles.
themselves excellent fliers of the sky with unmatched manoeuvrability and versatility.
2.4 Differences in Insect and Bird Flight
According to Volume 195, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics [4], most birds,
generally being larger than insects, achieve flight with quasi-steady phenomenon (gliding
or soaring).
Also, birds have actively deformable wings with muscles and joints within the wing
surface. Insects however, control their wings from the wing base. [4]
22
Birds are dominated by mechanisms to reduce drag and improve aerodynamic

performance, as they are more restricted by power requirements than insects.[4]
Birds have the presence of a separate tail while in insects, generally, the rear body acts as
a tail.
2.5 Flapping Wing aerodynamics

The aerodynamics of a flapping wing aircraft, particularly at the scale of interest is
significantly different from fixed-wing or macro-scale aerodynamics. This is mainly due to
two factors. Firstly, at small scales the Reynolds number of the model is very low compared
to that of macro-scale. This causes many new phenomenion to take place and change the
nature of teh governing airflow. Secondly, the airfoil under discussion is itself in motion
which means even at low frequencies of flapping, the aerodynamics cannot be considered to
be steady. All of this results in a requirement to study the flapping wing aerodynamics more
exhaustively to understand its behaviour.
2.5.1 Laminar Separation Bubble
This is one of the most prominent phenomena that occurs at low speeds or low scale models
due to the reduction of Reynolds number below a certain critical.
The first documented experimental observation of a LSB was reported Jones, B. M. (1938) as
part of his work Stalling in Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society 38, 74770. In
general, under an adverse pressure gradient of sufficient magnitude, the laminar fluid flow
tends to separate before becoming turbulent. After separation, the flow structure becomes
increasingly irregular, and, beyond a certain threshold, it undergoes transition from laminar to
turbulent. The turbulent mixing process brings high-momentum fluid from the free stream to
the near-wall region, which can overcome the adverse pressure gradient, causing the flow to
reattach.
23
Fig. 2- 14: (a) Illustrates the flow field surrounding the airfoil at Re of 4 10 . As can be seen, the flow separates and
then reattaches again. (b) The Cp v/s chord diagram. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers, Shyy et al.
The main features of a LSB are illustrated in Figure 2-15a. After separation, the laminar flow
forms a free-shear layer, which is contained between outer edge ST of the viscous region
and the mean dividing streamline ST. Downstream of the transition point T, turbulence can
entrain significant amount of high-momentum fluid through diffusion, which enables the
separated flow to reattach to the wall and form a turbulent free-shear layer. The turbulent
free-shear layer is contained between lines TR and TR. The recirculation zone is bounded
by the STR and STR.
The main reason for the creation of an LSB can be explained as follows. For conventional
manned aircraft wings, whose Reynolds numbers exceed 106, the flows surrounding them are
24

typically turbulent, with the near-wall fluid capable of strengthening its momentum by means
of energetic mixing with the free stream. Consequently flow separation is not encountered
until the AoA becomes high. For low Reynolds number aerodynamics, the flow is initially
laminar and is prone to separate even under a mild adverse pressure gradient. Once the flow
separates, it proceeds down the airfoil and Re goes on increasing. At one point the transition
to turbulent flow takes place and the adverse pressure gradient required to maintain the
separation drastically increases. Thus soon after transition, the flow reattaches producing a
small region of separated flow in the middle. This critically affects the effective aerodynamic
shape of the airfoil and greatly changes its characteristics. LSBs have been to reduce the
significantly.
2.5.2 Various angles of significance for a flapping bird or insect

The body kinematics can be represented by the body angle (inclination of the body), which
is relative to the horizontal plane, and the strokeplane angle (indicated by the solid lines),
which refers to a plane including the wing base and the wingtips of the maximum and the
minimum sweep positions. The body angle and the stroke-plane angle vary in accordance
with the flight speed. The wing-beat kinematics can be described by three positional angles
within the stroke plane: (i) flapping about the x axis in the wing-fixed coordinate system
described by the positional angle , (ii) rotation of the wing about the z axis described by the
elevation angle and (iii) rotation (feathering) of the wing about the y axis described by the
AoA .
25
Fig. 2-15: Schematic diagram of coordinate systems and wing kinematics: (a) the local wing-base-fixed and the global
space-fixed coordinate systems. The local wingbase-fixed coordinate system (x, y, z) is fixed on the center of the stroke
plane (origin O_ at the wing base) with the x direction normal to the stroke plane, the y direction vertical to the body
axis, and the z direction parallel to the stroke plane; (b) definition of the positional angle , the feathering angle (AoA of
wing) , elevation angle of the flapping wing, body angle, and stroke-plane angle. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds
Number Flyers, Shyy et al.
2.5.3 Reduced frequency, Strouhal Number and Advance Ratio

Two important parameters that affect the behavior of flapping wing aerodynamics are the
Reduced frequency and Strouhal Number.
In flapping wing studies, the Strouhal number (St) is well known for characterizing the
vortex dynamics and shedding behavior. In some St ranges, the flapping airfoil produces
thrust, and the vortices in the wake are termed reverse von Karman vortices. In general, for
26

flapping flight, the dimensionless parameter St describes the dynamic similarity between
unsteady systems, and is normally defined as:
=
2
=
Where, f is the stroke (flapping) frequency in flapping flight, ha is the stroke (flapping)
amplitude, and U is the forward velocity. This definition describes a ratio between the
oscillating (flapping) speed (f ha) and the forward speed (U), which offers a measure of
propulsive efficiency in flying and swimming animals. In the study of natural flyers and
swimmers in cruising condition it is found that the Strouhal number, as defined by Eq. (4.9),
is often within a narrow region of 0.2 < St < 0.4
Reduced frequency is another dimensionless parameter that characterizes the unsteady
aerodynamics of pitching and plunging airfoil defined as:
=
2
=
2
The Advance Ratio is an important parameter for forward flapping flight. It is denoted by J
and defined as:
=
Where, is the reference velocity.

Shown in fig 2-17 are some of these and other common characteristics for natural fliers.
27
Fig. 2- 16: Morphological and flight parameters. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers, Shyy et al.
28
2.5.4 Dynamic Stall

One of the most important phenomena taking place in any flapping aircraft is the dynamic
stall. It is quite distinct from the steady flow stall that might occur in a fixed-wing aircraft.
Fig. 2- 17: Dynamic Stall events. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers, Shyy et al.
29

When an airfoil is accelerated impulsively to constant velocity, the bound vortex needs time
to develop to its final, steady-state strength. Depending on the pace of acceleration, it may
take up to six chord lengths of travel for the circulation and lift to reach 90% of the final
values (Ellington, 1995). However, the fast acceleration of the airfoil can result in lift
enhancement that is due to the so-called Wagner effect, which describes the unsteady
aerodynamics associated with an accelerating airfoil. Specifically, an impulsively started
airfoil develops only a fraction of its steady-state circulation immediately; the steady-state
value can be attained only after the airfoil moves through several chord lengths. Dynamic
stall, or delayed stall, is often used to describe the extra lift associated with a wing traveling
at high AoAs for a brief period, with a large LEV (Leading Edge Vortex), before it stalls.
2.5.5 Leading Edge Vortex and Wake Capture

Due to the rapid movement of the wings in a flapping wing aircraft, the flow separates with
enhanced ease at the leading edge creating unsteady vortex structures. These are called LEVs.
Fig. 2- 18: Spatial flow structure of LEVs: le designates leading edge, te designates trailing edge, dss
designates dividing stream surface, SS vortex designates combined starting/stopping vortex. Adopted from
Van den Berg and Ellington (1997).
30

By using smoke streams to visualize the flow around a flapping wing, Ellington et al. (1996)
demonstrated the presence of a vortex close to the leading edge of the wing. They observed a
small but strong LEV that persists through each half-stroke (downstroke). From direct
observation, they proposed that the LEV is responsible for the augmented lift forces. The
LEV has a high axial flow velocity in the core and is stable, separating somewhat from the
wing at approximately 75% of the wing length spanwise and then connecting to a large,
tangled tip vortex. The overall vortical structures are qualitatively similar to those of low-AR
delta wings (Ellington et al., 1996; Van den Berg and Ellington, 1997) that stabilize the LEV
by maintaining the spanwise pressure gradient, increasing lift well above the critical AoA.
They have further suggested that the vortex stability in flapping wings is maintained by a
spanwise axial flow along the vortex core (see Figure 2-18), creating delayed stall, to
enhance lift during the translational phase.
As already mentioned, this LEV is used to augment the lift production, not unlike that of
delta (or swept) winged aircrafts.
Wake capture is perhaps one of the most important mechanisms employed by insects to
increase
their
lift
production.
An
illustration
of
this
is
shown
below.
Fig. 2- 19: Momentum transfer in a wake-capture interaction: (a) wing is steadily translating; (b) trailing-edge vortex is
generated as the wing rotates around a spanwise axis; (c) LEVs generated when the wing is rotating at a very high
flapping speed; (d) wing reverses flapping direction and encounters the induced velocity field and a fluid momentum is
transferred to the wing that generates a peak in the aerodynamic force. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number
Flyers, Shyy et al.
2.5.6 Clap- and-Fling Mechanism

One of the most complex kinematic maneuvers in flying animals is the wingwing interaction
of the left and right wings during the dorsal stroke reversal, termed the clap-and-fling
mechanism. Weis-Fogh (1973), when studying the flight of the tiny wasp Encarsia formosa,
31

found that, at the end of upstroke and at the beginning of the downstroke, the two wings
clapped together (clap) and then peeled apart (fling).
This mechanism has been further observed by other researchers (Ellington, 1984c; Ennos,
1989; Wootton and Newman, 1979). A modified kinematics termed clap-and-peel was
found in tethered flying Drosophila (Gotz, 1987) and larger insects such as butterflies
(Brodsky, 1994), bush crickets, mantises (Brackenbury, 1990), and locusts (Cooter and
Baker,
1977).
Fig. 2- 20: Clap and fling mechanism. Source: Weis-Fogh (1973)
It seems that the clap-and-fling is not used continuously during flight, and more often is
observed in insects while carrying loads during a maximum flying performance (Marden,
1987) or performing power-demanding flight turns (Cooter and Baker, 1977). Mardens
experiments on various insect species reported that insects with the clap-and-fling wing beat
produce about 25% more lift per unit flight muscle (79.2 N kg1 mean value) than insects
using conventional wing kinematics (such as flies, bugs, mantids, dragonflies, bees, wasps,
beetles, sphinx moths; 59.4 N kg1 mean value). The clap-and-fling is a close apposition of
two wings at the dorsal stroke reversal preceding pronation that is thought to strengthen the
circulation during the downstroke and hence to generate a considerably large lift on the
wings. The fling phase preceding the downstroke is thought to enhance circulation that is due
to fluid inhalation in the cleft formed by the moving wings, which cause a strong vortex
generation at the leading edge. A schematic, shown in Figure 2-20, demonstrates this
mechanism. Lighthill (Lighthill, 1973) has shown that a circulation proportional to the
angular velocity of the fling was generated. Maxworthy (1979), by a flow-visualization
32

experiment on a pair of wings, reported that, during the fling process, an LEV is generated on
each wing and its circulation is substantially larger than that calculated by Lighthill (1973).
Lehmann et al. (2005) used a dynamically scaled mechanical model of the fruit fly,
Drosophila melanogaster, to investigate force enhancement that is due to contralateral wing
interactions during stroke reversal (clap-and-fling). Their results suggest that lift
enhancement during clap-and-fling requires an angular separation between the two wings of
no more than 1012. Within the limitations of the robotic apparatus, the clap-and-fling
augmented total lift production by up to 17%, but the actual performance depended strongly
on stroke kinematics. They measured two transient peaks of both lift and drag enhancement
during the fling phase: a prominent peak during the initial phase of the fling motion, which
accounts for most of the benefit in lift production, and a smaller peak of force enhancement at
the end fling when the wings started to move apart. Their investigation indicates that the
effect of clap-and-fling is not restricted to the dorsal part of the stroke cycle but extends to
the beginning of upstroke, suggesting that the presence of the image wing distorts the gross
wake structure throughout the stroke cycle.
2.6 Scaling Laws and Similarity parameters

The ornithopters have not been as well researched as many other types of fliers like fixedwing or rotary-wing. This being the case, the only references that one has to define the
relation between variables such as weight, wing-span, chord length etc. are the natural fliers.
Moreover natural fliers and their flight mechanisms have been extensively and that data is
readily available from literature. Thus it is both convenient and fruitful to ape these natural
fliers as a first step in building any ornithopter model.
Interestingly in nature, there seems to exist a definite relationship in between various
parameters. These relations will be described in the following sub-sections.
2.6.1 Wing Loading

One of the most important parameters governing the flight mechanics of a flying object is the
wing loading, which is defined as the ratio between the weight of the object and the wing
area. The standard values usually chosen for these two numbers are the maximum gross
weight and the projected area of the wings on a horizontal plane.
33
It should be noted that dimensionally wing loading is proportional to one third the power of
weight and directly proportional to the reference length.
=
1
~~ 3
This is evident in fig. 2-21, 2-22 and 2-23 .
Fig. 2- 22: Source: Unsteady aerodynamics and flow

control for flapping wing flyers; Steven Ho et al.
Fig. 2- 21: The relation between weight and wing loading represented
in a proportional diagram. Source: The Simple Science of Flight; Henk
Tennekes
Fig. 2- 23: Source: Unsteady aerodynamics and flow

control for flapping wing flyers; Steven Ho et al.
34
2.6.2 Cruising Speed and Wing length (half span)

These also follow scaling laws and are given by the equations and figures below.
Fig. 2- 24: Source: The Simple Science of Flight; Henk Tennekes
35
Fig. 2- 25: Source: Unsteady aerodynamics and

flow controlfor flapping wing flyers Steven Ho
et al.
From Pennycuick the relation between flight speed and the mass of a bird can be given by
= 4.77
where U is the flight speed in m/s and m is the mass in grams.

Greenewalt computed from statistical data the correlation between wing flapping frequency f
(Hz), vs wing length l (cm), to be
1.15 = 3.54
while Azuma, showed that the correlations for wing flapping frequency (Hz) vs. mass, m (g),
for large birds and small insects are
= 116.3
= 28.7
From these equations, relationships between wingtip speed and mass can be derived. These
relations are:
= 11.7 0.065
= 9.7 0.043
As will be seen, these equations will be employed later to ascertain the size of the
Ornithopter.
36
2.6.3 Power Requirements

According to Volume 195, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, since thrust is not
produced directly, it has the effect of flattening the power curve at the bottom and increasing
the power required at higher speeds compared to fixed wing aircrafts. This can be seen in fig
2-26. Birds are most efficient near the bottom of the curve. Estimates using continuous wake
model of Rayner yield:
where, Vmr and Pmr are the velocities for maximum range.
If the wing span (B), mass (M) and planform (S) are also included for the calculations, the
equations obtained:
Fig. 2- 26: Source: Volume 195,

Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics
37
2.7 Ornithopter
Any aircraft that is able to produce both lift and drag through the flapping of its wings is
called an ornithopter. The wings double up as propellers in these aircrafts eliminating (or
reducing) the necessity for an external propulsion mechanism. For the proper functioning of
an ornithopter, the following systems must be soundly operable:
The Wings: Arguably the most important part of any aircraft, especially so for an
ornithopter as it produces both lift and thrust.
The propulsion mechanism: The engine or motor which powers the wings.
The battery or source of power
The receiver: That part of the aircraft that relays the commands of the user to the
appropriate parts of the ornithopter. Generally is in the form of a small chip embedded
with a crystal (responsible for the receiving frequency) enclosed in a casing.
The speed controller: or the ESC is the interface between the receiver and the motor. It
also channels the energy from the battery to the receiver and servos.
The transmission: whose main role is to reduce the speed of the motor and augment
torque.
Tail: which is responsible (in most cases) for the directional control and stability.
Fig. 2- 27: The

various
subsystems as
seen in the
VAMP-BOT
ornithopter.
Source:
Biomimetic
Millisystems Lab
of UC Berkeley
38
2.7.1 Study of man-made ornithopter models

After through much review of literature regarding the basics of flapping flight in nature, a
need was felt to see how these fundamentals were incorporated and adapted for man-made
designs. Thus we surveyed a few ornithopters such as Behemoth, Cybird etc. Videos,
documents etc regarding these were studied to understand there working to establish what
direction would be best for our project. A few characteristics of some prominent ornithopters
are provided below.
2.7.2 Behemoth 3 and 4

The Behemoth ornithopter series was created and designed by Patricia Jones-Bowman. Both
Behemoth 3 and 4 are electric-motor-powered and remote controlled. The specs for
Behemoth 3 are provided below. Also the pictures of the model are shown.
Fig. 2- 28 a Behemoth
Fig. 2-28b Behemoth
The specifications of Behemoth 3 are as follows:

Wingspan: 27 inches
Length: 20 inches
Gross Weight: 55 grams
39

The Behemoth 4 model was an improvement on the Behemoth 3. It had a lighter
construction, smaller wingspan and was designed to be closer to hovering flight than its
predecessor. Its specifications are as follows:
Wingspan: 14 inches
Gross Weight: 20 grams
The flapping mechanism of both the models were similar and is indicated in fig 2-16.
Fig. 2- 29: The single conrod mechanism employed in the Behemoth models. The wing spars form the leading edge of the
wings and hold the wings.
2.7.3 Flybat RTF model

This is a model created by Chinese for commercial purposes. Its specifications are as follows:
Flight time: 10 minutes
Charging time: 20-30-minute
Remote control range: 15 meters indoor, outdoor 30 m
40

Battery: 75mA / h lithium-ion rechargeable battery
Altitude: 20 m
Body length: 12.5 cm
Body width: 4 cm
The main wing length: 30 cm
This model was imported and studied to understand its functioning. A peculiar characteristic
of this model was that directional control of this model was provided not through the use of a
tail but through the warping of its wing trailing edge.
Fig. 2- 30: The RTF model from china
41
Chapter III
Practical Implementation of principles:
Prototype Design and Construction
Due to the fact that Ornithopters have been seldom researched & explored extensively, the
process of arriving at an optimum design becomes an iterative process. Hence its important
to describe the progress in a chronological order.
3.1 Prototype 1.0

(Rubber-band powered)
The literature review enabled us to understand and appreciate the basic physics underlying
the flight of natural fliers, and to form an impression on what keeps these fliers aloft. It also
gave us insight into the substantial progress made by many pioneers in the field of design and
development of ornithopters. However, after this stage, a need was felt to construct a simple
and demonstrative model, to better understand the rudimentary principles that govern the
flight of flapping wing aircrafts and to experience first-hand the hindrances that we might
face in the construction of an ornithopter. This was the motivation behind the construction of
a rubber-band ornithopter.
3.1.1 Construction
An ornithopter made of balsa fuselage was constructed with thin balsa sticks as wing
frame.
42
Using pieces
of tough steel wire

called Music wire,
the rubber band was
attached to front and
rear
end
of
the
fuselage to power the

machine
and
the
same material was

also used to attach
the balsa wing spars
to the fuselage.
Fig. 3. 1: The basic fuselage construction; Source: Internet
Two
connecting rods made

of wood were used to
connect the wing spars to the rotating mechanism driven by the rubber band. The spars
were secured in place
using
pieces
of
crimped tubing.
The
rubber
band was given 200

turns initially to make
it
acquire
enough
elastic force to make

the wings flap.
Wings and the
tail were made of

Fig. 3. 2: The fuselage with the wing spars attached to conrods through music wires.
Source: Internet.
paper attached to the

wing spars and the
rear of the fuselage.
43
3.1.2 Working
The uncoiling of the rubber is used to generate the torque required for flapping mechanism.
Music wire transmitted the torque from rubber band to connecting rods.
3.1.3 Outcome
A lot of frictional resistance was present in the holes drilled through aluminium which housed
the music wire powering the
connecting rod.
The balsa wood was found to

be
insufficiently
hard
to
withstand the piercing force of

the music wire.
The quality of rubber in the

rubber-band used was not able
to withstand the number of
turns required to provide the
necessary torque.
Fig. 3. 3: The final rubber-band model.
The model was not able to fly;
it could only glide for some amount of time for small distance.
3.1.4 Learning
Reduction of frictional resistance in any ornithopter is one of the most vital factors.
A model should be stable enough, structurally, to withstand the forces generated.
44
3.2 Prototype 2.0

(DC Brushed Motor Powered)
3.2.1 Necessity
Due to the unavailability of rubber bands with the required strength, construction of a
model with an electric motor powering the model instead of elastic tension was
proposed.
The structure of the first model was very weak and deformable. Thus it was required
to increase the rigidity and strength to achieve flight capability.
The paper used for the wings was not rigid enough and very heavy.
It was necessary for us to explore the practical difficulties of a flapping mechanism

which until then we had only seen on paper. The simplest way was to use a DC
Brushed motor as it eliminates the need for an ESC or a receiver.
3.2.2 Construction
The fuselage was built, almost completely, from balsa wood on which the gear, tail,
wings and other required components were mounted.
The wing spars were also constructed from balsa wood on which the wings were
secured.
The wings were made out of a particular type of polyester material called Mylar,
which has a high strength to weight ratio. A thickness of 50 m was selected.
A spur gear (38 mm dia, 60 teeth) was used to transmit torque from the pinion
attached to the DC motor (12.6 mm dia, 20 teeth)
A double connecting rod mechanism was used to convert the rotary motion of the
gear into reciprocating motion of the wings.
The connecting rods were made of plastic.

A tail was fabricated from a plastic frame and mylar sheets and was designed to be
flexible.
45
Fig. 3. 4: Our fuselage under

construction. It should be
noted that the fuselage was
constructed from balsa
columns stacked together
and fixed through cyano.
Electricals:
- Three 9V alkaline batteries powered the
DC motor.
- A DC Brushed motor was employed.
- The batteries were connected in parallel
to generate more current at the same
voltage.
- A simple on-off switch was employed to
control the motor.
- No speed control was incorporated.
Fig. 3-5: The front view; the pivot points of the

aircraft are seen in the diagram.
3.2.3 Double Connecting-rod mechanism

Simpler construction.
No requirements for any slots etc to accommodate sliding etc.
Both the conrods directly and separately connect to the driving gear.
46
Fig. 3- 6: Catia model of the double-conrod mechanism
Despite the simplicity offered by this mechanism has a demerit. It introduces a slight
phase lag between the two wings (as can be observed in the diagram above). This creates
a rolling moment due to uneven lift generated in the wings.
3.2.4 Working
Speed reduction of 1/3 was achieved using the spur gear transmission.
The double conrod mechanism performed successfully and a flapping frequency of 3
Hz was achieved.
3.2. 5 Advantages
Higher flapping frequencies achieved with motor.
Structurally better than the earlier model.
47
Fig 3-7: Side-view of the prototype suspended in mid-air.
Fig 3-8: The front view of the prototype suspended in mid-air. Note that the picture was taken when the model was flapping.
48
3.2.6 Drawbacks
Weight of the model (245 gms) was too high due to the usage of three alkaline
batteries.
Occurrences of phase lag between the wings due to the double conrod mechanism
used.
Tearing of balsa wing frame at pivot points due to repeated application of loads.
High friction at pivot points.
Misalignment of motor fixed to balsa fuselage due to excessive vibration.
Model was not balanced properly.
The gears employed had a slightly different module resulting in improper meshing.
3.3 Prototype 3.0

(DC Brushless Motor Powered)
Though the preceding prototype had a number of improved characteristics compared to the
rubber-band model, it was still not flight capable. This was due to a number of demerits
present inherently in the design of this model. Thus it had to be discarded completely and a
newer improved version of the model had to be constructed in order to achieve flight
capability. A number of steps could be taken in order to improve upon the aforesaid demerits.
These possibilities are discussed below:
Conventional DC motor found to be incapable of sustaining or providing high power

& torque. Hence the flapping frequency achieved was unsatisfactory.
The Double Con-rod mechanism employed introduced a phase difference between the
two wings which could lead to an imbalance.
Conventional battery employed had a very low power to weight ratio and not very
efficient for the given purpose.
Carbon fiber rods could be employed to replace the heavier Balsa wood fuselage.
49
The adhesive araldite could be replaced, at places, with the weaker but lighter cyanoacrylate based adhesive.
Gear meshing had to be refined to provide proper contact.
Reduction of pivot diameters could lead to lesser friction and higher efficiency.
Through the use of better motor and battery, the flapping frequency has to be brought
to satisfactory levels.
3.3.1 Selection of components

Once the objectives of the Prototype 3.0 were established, it was required to determine which
components were to be employed for optimal performance of the ornithopter. The
methodology followed to ascertain the specifications best-suited is outlined below. The target
mass to be 120 gms. A factor of safety of 2 was used which made the reference mass 60 gms.
DC Motor:
This can be considered as the heart of the entire aircraft. Thus it was vital to establish the
specifications of this component first. It was decided to use a DC Brushless motor as they
have much higher efficiencies and power-toweight ratios compared to Brushed motors.
The main parameter to determine the motor is the power requirement. From fig. 3-11, for a
mass of 240 gms, the power required turns out to be 8.3 Watts. The employed formula is:
= 10.9 0.19
Since this is an estimate based on birds, whose flying
can be considered to be much more efficient, a factor of
safety of 5 was employed on the power estimate for the
motor. This brings the power required to 41.55 W. The
commercially available Brushless motor of least mass
with a higher power specification was EMAX GT 2205
Fig. 3- 9: GT2205 brushless motor
Outrunner motor which was used for the model.
50

Its specifications are:
Model: GT 2205/22
RPM/V: 1660KV
No. of Lipo Cells : 2S
Max Watt : 144W
Max Current : 12A
Weight : 23g
Motor Dimensions : D28.5 x L22.5 mm
Stator Dimensions : 22 x 5 mm
Diameter:D28.5mm x L21.50mm
Shaft diameter : 3 mm
Max thrust : 590g
Wing span, Wing chord and Wing area

From figure 3.11, the formula for the wing span is given by:
= 1.170.39
With a mass of 120 gms, the wing span turns out to be about 54 cms.
Similarly the wing area was found using the formula:
= 0.160.72
With a mass of 120 gms, this yields S= 0.034 sq-m. Assuming the wings to be a triangle, the
wing loading is found to be about 13 cms. A rounded up chord of length 15 cms was given.
Electronic Speed Controller (ESC)

The main parameter to decide the ESC is the maximum current that the ESC can withstand.
As the relevant motor had a current capacity of 12 A, the next commercially available 20A
ESC was employed.
Battery Pack
Lithium-Polymer batteries are the batteries with the best Power density. Thus it was decided
to opt for Lipo batteries.
51

We had a weight limit of about50-60 gms on the motor. The earlier model had taught us that
a voltage of around 12 V was necessary for the flapping mechanism to be driven with
sufficient velocity. Thus we decided to go for a 3-cell Lipo. (Each cell of Lipo provides 3.6 V
appox.) An 850 mAh battery was selected as it had a gross weight of 64 gms.
Gearbox:
The DC brushless motor has a typical RPM of 1660
KV. For a voltage of 11.3 V (standard 3S Lipo
voltage) the speed would thus be around 18000
RPM. This is the unloaded RPM. Assuming a 40%
reduction on loading, the effective RPM would be
around 12000 RPM. From fig. 3-11, the empirical
equation for flapping frequency is
= 3.870.33
Fig. 3- 10: The worm gear reduction.
Thus for a mass of 120 gms, the flap frequency

required is about 7.8 Hz. The gear ratio required is about 25.671. No commercially available
spur gear set could in one stage provide this reduction. Thus a worm gear-spur gear pair with
a ratio of 25 was employed.
Fig. 3- 11: empirical relations for various parameters as found in birds. Source: Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number
Flyers, Shyy et al.
52
3.3.2 Construction:
Fuselage was mainly made out of carbon fiber rods with balsa as supporting structure
wherever needed.
Wing frame was also made out of carbon fiber rods.
DC brushless motor was attached to separate balsa block with araldite to enhance the
vibration absorbing capacity of the structure.
The entire motor assembly was mounted on one side of the fuselage through the use of a
balsa plate reinforced through araldite.
Motor was connected to gears for speed reduction using worm gear attached to build shaft
of the motor which was in contact with spur gear.
Spur gear transmitted rotational motion of gears to wings using a single connecting rod
connected to both the wings.
A slot of approximately 4mm was drilled in carbon fiber rods to allow for the sideways
movement of the wing spar during the flapping. This was required due to the adaptation
of a different connecting rod mechanism called single conrod mechanism.
3.3.3 Single-Conrod Mechanism:

The sweep angle of the flapping wing was fixed to be about 60 degree as the wing span was
determined to be 54 cms maintaining proportanality with china ornithopter, a distance of 65
mm was determined between the fixed pivots and the gear axis. After various iterations of the
length of the conrod, the horizontal distance between the fixed pivot and the gear axis, etc.,
the dimensions as shown in the figure 3.12 were fixed. This was by taking the gear radius as
12.5mm
53
Fig. 3- 12: The single conrod mechanism modeled in CATAI
3.3.2 Advantages:
Total weight of the model reduced due to usage of carbon fibers for fuselage and single
battery (LiPo 65 gm) instead of three batteries used earlier.
Ability to control the speed of the motor using ESC so that flapping frequency could be
varied from smaller to higher values.
Carbon fiber stronger than balsa was expected to provide more structural integrity than
the earlier model.
With the use single connecting rod mechanism, problem of phase lag in flapping of wings
was solved.
Attainment of flapping frequencies upto maximum of 7 Hz.
Carbon fibre bends due to wing loading which increases the unsteady effects required for
effective flying.
3.3.3 Limitations:
Failure of the HSS drill bit at pivot point due to fatigue loading.
Improper meshing of the gears (precise fabrication required).
54
The target mass was around 120 gms but the model due to various constraints could not
be reduced below 198 gms. The wing span, at 57 cms was inadequate.
3.3.4 Outcome:
Lift produced, in still air, was only 9gm which is very less.
The target mass was around 120 gms but the model due to various constraints could not
be reduced below 198 gms. The wing span was inadequate.
3.3.5 Electronic components

In order to achieve higher flapping frequency and active directional stability certain crucial
and necessary electronics were used in this and the following prototypes and are described as
follows.
Motor
A motor was used to drive the flapping mechanism. There were an array of different
electric motors with different specifications and ratings in micro class alone. It was
very difficult to choose one motor that had higher power to weight ratio and
delivered high torque at peak at the same time. Based on the power requirement
calculation made for the ornithopter the following motor was used whose
specifications are listed below.
Model: GT 2205/22
Type: Out runner
RPM/V: 1660KV
No. of Lipo Cells : 2S
Max Watt : 144W
Max Current : 12A
55
Weight : 23g
Motor Dimensions : D28.5 x L22.5 mm
Stator Dimensions : 22 x 5 mm
Diameter:D28.5mm x L21.50mm
Shaft diameter : 3 mm
Recommended ESC: EMAX 12A
Key points that helped in selection of motor of this particular model,

a. The power to weight ratio was higher as compared to other models in its
same micro class.
b. The number of Lithium-Polymer cells required by this motor was restricted
to 2 Cells as against to 3 Cells in other models and thereby reducing the
weight of the battery pack.
c. The overall dimensions of the motor were sufficient enough for mounting
it on the ornithopter.
d. Mounting of worm gear on this model was easier because of the smaller
shaft diameter.
Fig. 3- 9 Source: Internet
56
Electronic speed controller:

An ESC is an electronic circuit with its purpose to vary the speed of an electric motor. It is
always used in conjuncture with a brushless motor where it is used to provide an
electronically-generated three phase electric power that acts a source of energy for the motor.
The input to the ESC from the battery is single phase electric power and the output being a
three phase electric power which is connected to the motor via three leads from the ESC.An
ESC is a stand-alone unit which plugs into the receiver's throttle control channel and whose
output can be controlled with the help of the transmitter. The ESC rating of a motor decides
on which ESC can be used. For the particular model of the brushless motor chosen the
minimum ESC rating was 12amp.
An ESC with 20amp was chosen instead of 12amp for the following reasons,
Higher factor of safety which meant that motor with higher power rating could be
used and the ESC need not be changed/replaced.
The difference in weight between 12amp and 20amp was not substantial and the
advantages of 20amp outweighed that of 12amp.
The specifications are as below,
Amperage: 20
Auto Cutoff: Programmable
BEC Voltage: Dual BEC circuits
Brake: yes programmable
Continuous Maximum Current: 0 - 20A
Height: 0.37 in (9mm)
Input Connector Types: Bare Wire
Input Voltage: 7.214.4V Ni-Cd/Ni-MH; 7.411.1V Li-
Po
Length: 1.4 in (36mm)
57
Type: Brushless
Width: 0.95 in (24mm)
Fig. 3- 13: An ESC. Source: Internet
3.4 Prototype 3.1

Along with the fact that the wingspan was inadequate, there was one more limitation on the
prototype. The part of the wing that was allowed to be flexible was too less. This was to be
rectified in the next prototype, which was only a modification on the previous. The wing span
was also increased to 1.12 m.
To illustrate the difference in the amount of flexible wing part provided, fig. 3-11 has been
provided. The reason for the necessity of flexibility is documented below.
Fig. 3- 14(a): The comparision of wings between Prototype 3.0 and 3.1.
The trailing edge here is indicated here by the artificially blue line at
the rear. The flexible part is indicated by the gap between the yellow
and blue lines.
Fig. 3- 14(b): The differences in the wingspan between the two

model is apparent here. The trailing edge is marked here by the
artificially drawn red line. The difference between the black spar
and the red line indicates the flexible floating part.
58
3.4.1 Flexibility of wings

Flexibility of wings is one of the most important factors in enhancing the performance of the
ornithopter. More flexible the wings are, more are the lift and thrust forces produced. It is
even better if the wing frame is also flexible. The lift and thrust forces are produced as a
result of complex interaction of bending, twisting and flapping movements. While the rigid
wings allow flapping in one plane, flexible wings allow bending and twisting along with
flapping. This increases the occurrence of two important unsteady effects: delayed stall,
rotating circulation which are responsible for the generation of lift and thrust forces in
flapping aircrafts.
Wings
with
multi
degree
of
freedom are currently in research.

But to some extent multi degree
freedom
of
wings
can
be
incorporated using flexible wings

and wing frames. These allow
oscillation in horizontal plane in
addition to flapping in vertical
plane
which
improves
ornithopters performance.
It
is
observed
that
the
hummingbirds use figure of eight

(FO8) flapping when viewed from
anyone side of wings. So, this sets
Fig. 3- 15: Illustration of figure-of-eight flapping by LED attached to the
wingtip. Source: A Micro-Aerial-Vehicle (MAV) with Figure-of-Eight
Flapping; Lung-Jieh Yang et al.
up challenges in this field to as

closely resemble FO8 mechanism
as possible. Having flexible wings
and wing frames also aids in having FO8 flapping. So suitable materials have to be selected
for the wing and wing frame so that they are as flexible as possible.
59
3.4.2 Verification of adequacy of the wing area with XFLR 5

Though the target mass was 60 gms for the model, it couldnt be reduced below 198 gms. To
accodomodate for this, the required was calculated and adapted for the modified model. The
empirical formula
= 1.170.39
was used and a wingspan of 98 cms was found to be required with a 50% FOS. The area
required was calculated using
= 0.160.72
and found to be 0.049 m2. This leads to a wingspan of approximately 10 cms.
This was further verified through CFD analysis in XFLR 5. The wing area was to be
calculated using the formula
=
1 2

2
However, was to be calculated using XFLR 5.
Fig. 3-16: The v/s chord length curve at 1 degree.
60

To accomplish this, an airfoil design similar to the mylar sheet employed was necessary. That
would mean an extremely thin airfoil with zero camber. NACA 0006 was a close
approximation. However, a few modifications were carried out on its thickness to get more
accurate and realistic results.
Fig. 3- 17: The v/s AoA graph for a zero camber, 0.06% chord thickness airfoil.
NACA 0006 has a 6% of chord as maximum thickness. However, it was modified for zero
camber and 0.06% of chord as thickness. The v/s AoA and v/s AoA graphs are shown
in fig 3-13 and 3-14.
61
3.4.3 Improvements incorporated
Wing span was increased from 57cm to 100cm increasing the area of the wing, along with
the flexible area.
Instead of having one full wing of 4mm diameter carbon fiber rods, a lengthwise hole was
drilled at a point after pivot point in which 2mm carbon fiber rod was inserted. This was
done with a purpose of increasing the flexibility of the wing frame and also this reduces
the weight.
A rotary tail was incorporated where the orientation of the tail with respect to the fuselage
could be adjusted in vertical plane of fuselage.
Ribs were provided at certain distance along chord in camber form to incorporate some
degree of camber in it.
3.4.3 Outcome
The flapping mechanism is working properly.
Frequencies up to a maximum of 7Hz were achieved.
3.5 Prototype 4.0

Several of the shortcomings of the earlier
prototype were addressed in this
prototype.
3.5.1 Wings provided with Camber

Camber is the asymmetry between the top
and the bottom surfaces of an aerofoil. A
camber was provided to the wing for the
following.
a. To increase the maximum lift co-
Fig. 3- 18: Curved balsa ribs are used to give camber.
62

efficient.
b. To minimize the stalling speed of aircraft.
c. To increase the critical angle of attack (stall angle) at the wing tips and there by
resistance to spinning of the wings.
3.5.2 Tail Control Mechanism

In order to provide directional stability for the Ornithopter a tail control mechanism was built.
In this mechanism the entire tail was chosen to be moved as against only the control surfaces.
This particular setup ensures higher probability of directional stability. The details of the
mechanism are as follows:
a. Tail control: Pitch control and Yaw control.
b. Actuating Mechanism: 6V Servo motor.
c. Pitch control: +40 to -10 deg giving a sweep of 50 deg.
d. Yaw control: +30 to -30 deg giving a total sweep of 60 deg.
e. Servo Specifications: Two servos of 1.5 kgcm-3
f. Battery requirements: 11.3V 1100mah 3-Cell LiPo battery.
Fig. 3- 19:
The tail
control
mechanism.
63
The tail mechanism involved two servos one each for Yaw and Pitch control. The two
servos were connected to each other by physical members called push-rod and clevis. It is
this arrangement that is crucial for the working of the tail.
3.6 Testing
The testing was performed in two stages,
Stage1: Testing & Validation of all the components and sub-components of an ornithopter.
Stage2: Testing & Validation of Ornithopter after the integration of all its components & subcomponents.
3.6.1 Stage1
The following are the individual components and sub-components that were tested in order to
validate them,
1. Flapping Mechanism.
2. Tail Control Mechanism.
3. Wings provided with Camber.
4. Motor mounting mechanism.
5. Torque and Power transmission.
6. Electrical and Electronics Check.
Flapping Mechanism
A Single con-rod flapping mechanism was selected and built to full scale. The mechanism
was subjected to power and torque of what a GT2205 1660KV motor is capable of providing
at its peak performance.
The integrity of the following sub-components were tested at,
a. Three 1mm diameter High Speed Steel pins which were used as hinge points.
64

b. 4mmX1.5mm slots that were drilled in the carbon fiber rods.
c. Connecting rod made of Plastic plate of 2.5mm thickness.
d. Performance of collate.
Following were the observations made,
a. The 1mm diameter High Speed Steel pins failed at few locations. Careful analysis
revealed that the shear stress acting on those failed pins was more than other pins
which survived. Hence the 1mm diameter pins were replaced with 1.5mmdiameter,
which withstood the stresses.
b. The slots that were made in the carbon fiber rods withstood the working conditions
and no signs of wear and tear were seen.
c. The plastic connecting rod was intact.
d. The collet which was used to constrain the carbon fiber rods at resulted in heavy
vibrations specific places because of its dry weight which caused rotational
imbalance. Hence at those places the collets were discarded and an insulation of
1.5mm diameter insulation tube was used to constrain the moving carbon fiber rods.
Tail Control Mechanism
The testing of tail control mechanism proved to be very challenging and tricky. The fact that
the right equipment required to measure minute aerodynamic forces &aerodynamic moments
were absent, Hence the physical working of the tail mechanism as against a table fan was
performed and the tendency of directional stability of the Ornithopter was observed.
The details of the test rig are as follows,

A table fan was used to provide a stream of air that was incident on the Ornithopter.
The table fan was placed at a large distance from Ornithopter.
The tail was mounted on to the mechanism and was suspended from a string tied to
the ceiling.
65

All the electronics (Servo motors, Electronic Speed Controller and Battery) were
placed accordingly so as not to interfere with the air that was incident on the tail.
The following were the assumptions made during testing the mechanism,
The stream of air that blew from the table fan was considered to be uniform and
steady.
Absence of cross-winds acting on the Ornithopter and hence the tail was subjected
only unidirectional wind.
The Ornithopter was considered to be statically and dynamically stable at all times.
Following were the observations made after testing the tail mechanism,
The servo actuation system performed well at all five speeds of air provided by the
table fan at both the Pitch & the Yaw axes. This concludes that the servo motor was
capable enough to overcome the resistance offered by tail due to incidence of air from
the table fan.
The servo motor when coupled with a transmitter and a receiver provided different
angle of attacks for both the pitch control and yaw control. Upon actuating the servos
the tail moved accordingly and the minimum necessary angle of attack for both pitch
and yaw control was achieved.
The integrity and the functioning of the entire tail mechanism were intact and the
electronics could be trusted upon to work in midair without any glitches.
With the testing of this mechanism both the servos were calibrated as follows,
Pitch control : +40 to -10 deg giving a sweep of 50 deg
Yaw control: +30 to -30 deg giving a total sweep of 60 deg.
Wings provided with Camber

Due to absence of anemometer and accurate spring balance it was very difficult to measure
the actual extra lift produced as a consequence of camber, however sufficient efforts were
made to determine the tendency of lifting of the wing.
Two sets of wings one with and the other without camber were subjected to the wind from
the table fan and were suspended from the ceiling, it was clearly seen that there was extra lift
being produced as a result from the camber.
66
Motor mounting mechanism

The motor was mounted on to a balsa plate with the screws that was supplied with it and it
was run at full throttle and the following observations were made,
a. Excessive vibrations of the balsa plate.
b. The screws were not able to anchor the motor firmly on to the balsa plate.
In order to minimize them new sets of purpose made screws, washers and nuts were used to
fix the motor on to the balsa plate. This drastically reduced the vibrations and no excessive
vibrations were observed that could result in compromising the integrity of the fuselage
structure. The motor was anchored firmly and in place.
Torque and Power transmission

The motor was run at full throttle and the following observations were made,
The meshing between the worm gear on the motor and the spur gear on the fuselage was
achieved without any mismatch from zero throttle to full throttle.
The motor showed inertial lag due to high inertial resistance of the flapping mechanism
and resumed to its normal working conditions upon increasing the throttle.
The vibrations due to meshing of the gears were negligible.
The eccentricity of worm gear and spur gear is very small and was found to be less than
0.5mm; hence the transmission efficiency is greatly increased.
There was noticeable friction between the worm gear and the spur gear hence oiling was
done to solve the problem.
Electrical and Electronics Check

The various electronics testing done are as follows,
Battery: The voltage of a new 11.3V 1100mah 3 cell lipo battery was constantly
monitored and regularly checked with the help of digital voltage display meter and it was
ensured that the voltage across each cell of this 3-cell battery would not fall below 3.7V
per cell to prevent the bloating up of the battery.
67

Electronic Speed Controller (ESC): The 18amp ESC used was always tested for
maximum current flowing across using a multi-meter.
Motor and Servo: These would work safe at all times because the ESC would act as safe
switch.
3.6.2 Stage2
All the individual components and sub-components were assembled and the Ornithopter was
fabricated as one full-fledged aircraft.
The Ornithopter was then subject to following tests in order to validate.
1. Static test without flapping (Static CG balancing).
2. Statics test with flapping (Dynamic CG balancing).
3. Dynamic test without flapping (Gliding).
4. Dynamic test with flapping.
The following results were deduced from the basic flight tests and are reported as follows,
Static test without flapping.
The main object of this test was to balance the centre of gravity of Ornithopter.
Balancing the CG is a crucial scenario to maintain the equilibrium of the Ornithopter midflight. This test was the most crucial, in the part that the centre of gravity of the
Ornithopter was fixed at 1/3rd from the wing leading edge.
a. Adjustments made by moving Physical components.
In this the various movable components of the Ornithopter such as battery,
electronic speed controller and receiver were carefully fixed by cancelling out all
the opposing moments to make the Ornithopter stable and leveled when held at
1/3rd from wing leading edge. Of the three axes namely the pitch, the yaw and the
roll, the axis corresponding to Roll and pitch were balanced to make the
Ornithopter stable at CG.
b. Adjustments made using tail servo trim.
The tail was connected to the main body via servo motor. The electronics of the
servo motor when coupled with a receiver and transmitter helps in performing
68

very minute adjustments generally in the order of 1-2 degrees and this
phenomenon is called Servo trim. By exploiting this advantage of Servo trim the
angle of the tail was modified to balance the Roll, the Pitch and the Yaw precisely
in very minute steps. This precise balancing of the C.G was performed and tested
against a table fan that was placed at a large distance from the Ornithopter and it
blew uniform air towards the Ornithopter.
This completed the Static test without flapping (Static CG balancing).
Static test with flapping (Dynamic CG balancing)
The main object of this test was to balance the center of gravity of Ornithopter.
3. Glide test
This was to test the ability of the ornithopter to perform without flapping.
69
Chapter IV:
Results and Conclusions
4.1 Flapping test:

The ornithopter was tested for flapping performance from minimum throttle to maximum
throttle.
Fig. 4- 1: The pivot which caused the failure of the flapping.
The flapping mechanism worked perfectly helping to achieve the target flapping
frequency of 7 Hz.
The gear meshing was perfect resulting in no gear lash.
70

The lag of the trailing edge compared to the leading edge was found sufficient to
produce enough thrust.
However, at the highest throttle, the faulty pivot indicated in fig. 4-1 got fractured.
Thus it could be concluded that at the highest throttle the structural strength was
inadequate.
4.2 Glide test:

As the flapping mechanism could no longer be used, the model could not be subjected to a
complete flight test. Therefore a glide test was conducted.
The model was launched from the top of a 7th floor building (approx 70 ft in height) with a
safety tether in place.
The model was observed to glide for a small distance (about 5 ft) but later it
nosedived and descended head-first into the ground.
The safety tether held to the fuselage was compromised due to the fall and the
fuselage crashed.
The motor and all electronics remained intact. However the fuselage was broken at
critical points which were held by balsa wood.
4.3 Possible reasons for failure of the glide test:
The flapping mechanism was not in working condition. Thus there was no thrust
available. The model was reduced to a glider which it was not designed for.
It is possible that a faulty command was given by the pilot which resulted in the
model nose-diving out of control.
The camber introduced in the wings was not sufficient to produce the required lift
even though the wing span was adequate.
The Mylar sheet covered only the top of the ribs. The lower half was left exposed to
cut-down on weight. This could have reduced the compared to a conventional
airfoil.
71
Chapter V
Scope for future work
5.1 Improvements on the current model

The current model failed due to the concurrence of a number of easily solvable yet not-easilypredictable issues. Hence the further steps would be to learn the shortcomings from these
events.
The pivot, which was essentially a HSS drill bit, failed. This would have to be
replaced by a stronger material. This should solve the issue as this was the only weak
link in the structure.
The Mylar would be used to encase the entire set of ribs to increase the .
The fuselage failed at the points where the carbon-fibre rods were held together by
balsa wood. A stronger way of joining these carbon-fibre rods has to be found.
The directional control in the current model was achieved only though the use of a
movable tail. However, there have been instances of wing warping being used to gain
directional control. This might be used to replace or enhance the current kind of
control achieved by tail movement.
An addition of a micro-surveillance camera on board the aircraft could be explored as
that is where the main scope for its application lies.
5.2 Further testing

Once the model has been made fully flight capable, wind tunnel testing could be
carried out to understand its aerodynamics better.
CFD analysis of the model could help better understand the part which the steady and
unsteady effects play in generating the lift in a model of this scale.
72
5.3 Construction of further models

This model, with its wingspan of 1.24m is only a prototype built as a stepping stone
towards the construction of a micro-scale model with real-time applications.
The construction of such a micro-scale model would involve the procurement of
extremely low-weight, high-performing components.
The mechanisms would have to be made simpler yet stronger to allow for the increase
of frequency smaller scales.
A model of about 30 cm wingspan and 20-25 gms would be a good target.
73

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)
2. Glenn Research Center (www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/home/index.html)
3. Chris Heintz-Anatomy of STOL Aircraft
(www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design/design.html)
4. www.ornithopter.org
5. Satish Dhawan-Bird Flight (Indian Academy of Sciences and Raman Research
Institute)
6. Aerodynamics of low Reynolds Number Flyers (Wei Shyy).
7. The Simple Science of flight, Henk Tennekes.
8. Biomimatic millisystems lab, UC Berkeley.
9. Vol 195, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics.
10. A Micro-Aerial-Vehicle (MAV) with Figure-of-Eight Flapping Induced by Flexible
Wing Frames; Lung-Jieh Yang, Cheng-Kuei Hsu, Fu-Yuan Hsiao, and Chao-Kung
Fen
11. Aerodynamic characteristics of dragonfly wing sections compared with technical
aerofoils; Antonia B. Kesel
12. Behemoth ornithopter design notes; Patricia Jones-Bowman
13. Unsteady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing flyers; Steven Ho, Hany
Nassef, Nick Pornsinsirirak, Yu-Chong Tai, Chih-Ming Ho
14. Flight Dynamics of a Butterfly-type Ornithopter; Hiroto Tanaka, Kazunori Hoshino,
Kiyoshi Matsumoto, and Isao Shimoyama
15. Wing flexibility effects in clap-and-fling; M. Percin, Y. Hu, B.W.van Oudheusden, B.
Remes and F.Scarano
16. Designing a Biomimetic Ornithopter Capable of Sustained and Controlled Flight;
Joon Hyuk Park, Kwang-Joon Yoon
17. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity; W. Shyy, H.Aono ,
S.K.Chimakurthi , P.Trizila, C.-K.Kang , C.E.S.Cesnik , H.Liu
74

Final Project Report - Ornithopter

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

Final Project Report - Ornithopter

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

List of diagrams and pictures

2. Chapter II: Literature Review

2.1. Review of basic Aerodynamics

Lift, Drag, Thrust and Weight

2.2. Elements of bird flight

Flapping flight concept for birds

Basics of flapping flight in birds

2.3. Basics of insect flight

2.4. Differences in Insect and Bird Flight

2.5. Flapping Wing aerodynamics

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

Laminar Separation Bubble

Various angles of significance

Reduced frequency, St & J

Leading Edge Vortex and Wake Capture

Clap- and-Fling Mechanism

2.6. Scaling Laws and Similarity

Cruising Speed and Wing length (half span)

Study of man-made ornithopter models

Flybat RTF model

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

3.2. Prototype 2.0

Double Connecting-rod mechanism

3.3. Prototype 3.0

3.4. Prototype 3.1

Verification of Wing Area

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

3.5. Prototype 4.0

Wings provided with Camber

Tail Control Mechanism

4. Results and Conclusions

4.1. Flapping test

4.2. Glide test

4.3. Reasons for failure

5. Scope for future work

5.1. Improvements on the current model

5.2. Further testing

5.3. Construction of further models

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

The legends of flying vehicles

Ramayana. It is also recorded

Huangtou, took flight (glided)

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

prominent kind of aircraft is

These have disadvantages in

Fig 1.2: Patent drawings of Clment Aders Eole.

Since no rotors are required, Ornithopters are lighter and quieter.

The above reasons contribute in increasing the fuel economy of Ornithopters as

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

Department of Mechanical Engineering, PESIT

Design and Development of an RC Ornithopter

2.1 Review of basic aerodynamics

dynamics, with much theory