Micro Air Vehicle Wing Deployment System April 7, 2005

1
Micro Air Vehicle Wing Deployment SystemApril
7, 2005
MAVerick Solutions
Sponsored by Eglin AFB
Todd Adkins Leroy Cohen Jr. Adam Hollrith Brian
Moore
2
Objectives

• Design and fabricate component technology that
  will provide a MAV the capability to
  collapse/fold all wing surfaces along the body of
  the fuselage
• Assess current materials and technologies that
  will maximize subsystem performance and minimize
  size and weight (i.e. composites, plastic
  actuators)
• Furnish final report documenting project
  objective, approach, results, budget analysis for
  hardware used, and conclusions

3
Specifications
4
Design Approach

• Develop Wing Folding Configurations
• Various paths of motion
• Type of wing
• Single
• Bi-Wing
• Develop Actuation Mechanism
• Move Wings from Stowed to Deployed position
• Minimal interference
• Modular System
• Contain all Mechanical and Structural components
• Easily implemented into existing MAV Fuselage

5
Wing Concepts

• Concept 1
• Involves a pair of wings that fold along the
  sides of the fuselage
• Pros
• - Compact design
• Cons
• - Complicated deployment path
• -  Multiple driving mechanisms
• - Two separately moving wings

6
Wing Concepts

• Concept 2
• Involves a one-piece, rotating wing
• Pros
• - Simple deployment
• -  Compact design
• -  One rotating mechanism
• - One-piece wing design
• Cons
• - Concentrated stress on single support
• -  Possible interference with tail of MAV

7
Wing Concepts

• Concept 3
• Involves a bi-wing design that will allow for
  greater lift capabilities and improved glide
  slope
• Pros
• - Greater lift capabilities than concept 2
• -  One-piece wing design
• - Central rotating mechanism
• Cons
• - Possible wing interference
• -  Greater weight

8
Wing Concepts

• Concept 4
• Comprised of a two-wing system that simply
  rotates into deployment
• The wings overlap on the top of the vehicle
  fuselage while stowed
• Pros
• - Simple and quick deployment
• - Compact design
• Cons
• Interference caused by
• overlapping wings
• - Two wing attachment points

9
Wing Concepts

• Concept 5
• Comprised of one central connection between the
  wings and the fuselage
• Both wings will rotate from the same point
• Pros
• Central rotation point
• Compact design
• Simple and quick deployment  
• Cons
• Offset wings
• Relatively more complex concentric shafts

10
Concept Matrix

Scale Factor (1-10) 10 - optimal
Concept 4
11
Deployment MechanismConcepts

• Linkage System
• Actuator
• Servo Driven
• Gear
• Servo Driven

12
Actuator Deployment
13
Linkage Deployment
14
Gear Set Deployment
15
Design Analysis - Lift Drag
Lift Force (N) Vs. Velocity of MAV (mph)

• Weight of MAV 1.961 N
• To maintain flight, Lift Force must equal 1.961 N

16
Design Analysis - Lift Drag
Torque on wings (Ncm) vs. MAV Velocity (mph)

• Maximum Torque on Wings
• at Maximum Velocity (25 mph)
• Twings 1.90 Ncm
• Torque Provided by Servo
• Tservo 2.94 Ncm
• Final Comparison
• Tshafts gt Twings

17
Design Analysis Linkages
18
Design Analysis Linkages
19
Gear Analysis

• Number of Teeth
• Gear Ratio
• Diameter
• Torque
• Stresses
• Bending
• Safety Factors

20
Module Design
21
Module Design
22
Design Selection

• Gear System
• Efficient
• Relatively Simple
• Compact
• Reliable

23
Specification Changes

• Modify overall dimensions of Module

24
Fabrication Process

• Module Components
• Stock
• Modified
• Machined

25
Fabrication Process
26
Testing Results

• Torque Test
• Tested at max. torque requirement
• Gears did not bind and shafts rotated smoothly
• Rotational Timing
• Servo moved to correct position in less than 1
  second

27
Testing Results

• Stowing Test
• Wing attachment arms and shafts bent severely
  when packaged in tube
• Gears would bind and wings could not deploy
  properly

28
Design Modifications

• Create new method for attaching wings to rotating
  shafts
• Implement support bracket hinge system

Previous Design
Modified Design
29
Final Modified Assembly
30
Final Cost Analysis
31
Final Product

• Successfully stowed in 3 tube
• Deployed in less than 1 second

• Final module weight of 28 g

32
Final Product
33
References

• http//www.eflightdesigns.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi
  ?CAT23
• http//www.nyblimp.com/superior/carbon-rods.htm
• http//www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_carbonfiber
  .html
• http//www.stevensaero.addr.com/e-flight_servos.ht
  ml
• http//www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/877815.asp
• http//www.nyltite.com/L20.html
• https//sdp-si.com/eStore/

34
Special Thanks

• Eglin Air Force Base
• Edwardo Freeman
• FAMU/FSU College of Engineering
• Dr. Cesar Luongo
• Dr. Patrick Hollis
• Dan Braley
• Keith Larson