m icro a ir v ehicle wing deployment system april 7, 2005 mav erick s olutions todd adkins leroy...
TRANSCRIPT
MMicroicro AAirir VVehicleehicle Wing Deployment Wing Deployment
SystemSystem
April 7, 2005April 7, 2005
MAVMAVerickerick S Solutionsolutions
Todd AdkinsTodd Adkins
Leroy Cohen Jr.Leroy Cohen Jr.
Adam HollrithAdam Hollrith
Brian MooreBrian Moore
Sponsored by: Eglin AFB
ObjectivesObjectives
Design and fabricate component technology that will provide a MAV the capability to collapse/fold all wing surfaces along the body of the fuselage
Assess current materials and technologies that will maximize subsystem performance and minimize size and weight (i.e. composites, plastic actuators)
Furnish final report documenting project objective, approach, results, budget analysis for hardware used, and conclusions
SpecificationsSpecificationsParameters Specifications
Wing Dimensions 12” wingspan, 3-4” width
Deploy/Retract time interval < 3 seconds
Fuselage dimensions 1-1.5 in. diameter x-sec., 4-6 in. length
Landing System No
On-board Power Source 10 -12 V
MAV recoverable Yes
Wing Material Carbon Fiber
System Weight 100-200 gm
Vehicle Velocity <= 25 mph
MAV control Remote
Fuselage Material Carbon fiber
Stowed DimensionsMAV cross section must fit in 3" diameter tube, Wings may not extend past tips of
fuselage
Activation DevicesMicro Servos, Micro Actuators, Micro
Motors, Springs
Design ApproachDesign Approach
Develop Wing Folding Configurations– Various paths of motion– Type of wing
Single Bi-Wing
Develop Actuation Mechanism– Move Wings from Stowed to Deployed position– Minimal interference
Modular System– Contain all Mechanical and Structural components – Easily implemented into existing MAV Fuselage
Wing ConceptsWing Concepts
Concept #1
Involves a pair of wings that fold along the sides of the fuselage
Pros- Compact design
Cons- Complicated deployment path- Multiple driving mechanisms- Two separately moving wings
Wing ConceptsWing 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
Wing ConceptsWing 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
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
Wing ConceptsWing Concepts
Wing ConceptsWing 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
Concept MatrixConcept Matrix
Design Parameter Size Weight Complexity Performance Durability Cost Weighted Total
Weighted Factor 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.15 1
9 6 5 6.8Concept 3 7 6 7
8 8 7 8.05Concept 2 9 8 8
5 6 4 5.9Concept 1 8 7 5
Concept 4 8 7 9 8 8 6 7.7
Concept 5 9 7 7 8 7 5 7.3
Scale Factor (1-10)Scale Factor (1-10)10 - optimal10 - optimal
Concept 4Concept 4
Deployment MechanismDeployment MechanismConceptsConcepts
Linkage System Actuator Servo Driven
Gear Servo Driven
Actuator DeploymentActuator Deployment
Linkage DeploymentLinkage Deployment
Gear Set DeploymentGear Set Deployment
Design Analysis - Lift & DragDesign Analysis - Lift & DragLift Force (N) Vs. Velocity of MAV (mph)
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 250
0.55
1.1
1.65
2.2
2.75
3.3
3.85
4.4
4.95
5.5
FL_1 VMAV N
FL_1.5 VMAV N
FL_2.0 VMAV N
FL_2.5 VMAV N
FL_3.0 VMAV N
VMAV
mph
Coefficient of Lift
CL_3.0 3.0
CL_2.5 2.5
CL_2.0 2.0
CL_1.5 1.5
Need to be above (1.961 N) ------->
CL_1 1
Weight of MAV = 1.961 N
To maintain flight, Lift Force must equal 1.961 N
Design Analysis - Lift & DragDesign Analysis - Lift & Drag
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 251 10
10
0.32
0.64
0.96
1.29
1.61
1.93
2.25
Momentwings_1 VMAV N cm
Momentwings_2 VMAV N cm
Momentwings_3 VMAV N cm
Momentwings_4 VMAV N cm
VMAV
mph
Coefficient of Drag
Max. Moment ---------> CD_4 0.04
CD_3 0.03
CD_2 0.02
CD_1 0.01
Maximum Torque on Wings
at Maximum Velocity (25 mph)
Twings = 1.90 N*cm
Torque Provided by Servo
Tservo= 2.94 N*cm
Final Comparison
Tshafts > Twings
Torque on wings (N*cm) vs. MAV Velocity (mph)
Design Analysis – LinkagesDesign Analysis – Linkages
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
4 in deg
in
deg
4 0deg( ) 270deg
4 90deg( ) 180deg
Design Analysis – LinkagesDesign Analysis – Linkages
0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90135
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155155
135
3 in deg
900 in
deg
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.550.15
0.11
0.064
0.021
0.021
0.064
0.11
0.15.15
0.15
P y in in
0.55.20 P x in in
Gear AnalysisGear Analysis
Number of Teeth
Gear Ratio
Diameter
Torque
Stresses– Bending
Safety Factors
Np 15 Ng 21
m G
N g
N p
m G 1.4
d g 0.4375in
T g 2.942N cmT p 2.101N cm
b_pinion 747.596N
cm2 b_gear 695.993
N
cm2
N b_pinion 10.191 N b_gear 10.947
d p 0.3125in
Module DesignModule Design
Module DesignModule Design
Design SelectionDesign Selection
Gear System
EfficientRelatively Simple CompactReliable
Specification ChangesSpecification Changes
Modify overall dimensions of Module
Fabrication ProcessFabrication Process
Module Components Stock Modified Machined
Fabrication ProcessFabrication Process
Testing ResultsTesting Results
Torque Test Tested at max. torque
requirement Gears did not bind and
shafts rotated smoothly
Rotational Timing Servo moved to correct
position in less than 1 second
Testing ResultsTesting Results
Stowing Test
Wing attachment arms and shafts bent severely when packaged in tube
Gears would bind and wings could not deploy properly
Design ModificationsDesign Modifications
Create new method for attaching wings to rotating shafts
Implement support bracket hinge system
Previous Design Modified Design
Final Modified AssemblyFinal Modified Assembly
Final Cost AnalysisFinal Cost Analysis
Manufacturer Part Number Description Qty. Price $ Sub-Total $
Hobby People 5566471 Dubro 1/2 a Control Horns (2) 1 0.90 0.90
A 1M 2-TA48015 48 D.P., 15 teeth, 20deg. Press. Angle, Acetal spur gear 2 1.85 3.70
A 1T 2-Y48021 48 D.P., 21 teeth, 20deg. Press. Angle, Acetal brass insert spur gear 2 3.90 7.80
E-Flight Designs BA-TS-3.6 Blue Arrow 3.6g Servo, JST 1 16.95 16.95
PC121212 1/8" x 12" x 12" Polycarbonate Sheet 1 5.87 5.87
AL25060 1/4" Acetal Rod, 5 feet long 1 2.64 2.64
Miscellaneous (Screws, Set Screws, Glue, E-clips, Hinge pins) 1 3.00 3.00
Cost / Materials List
40.86Total
Stock Drive Products
Pierce-Ohio Companies
Final ProductFinal Product
Successfully stowed in 3” tube
Deployed in less than 1 second
Final module weight of 28 g
Final ProductFinal Product
ReferencesReferences
http://www.eflightdesigns.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?CAT=23
http://www.nyblimp.com/superior/carbon-rods.htm
http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_carbonfiber.html
http://www.stevensaero.addr.com/e-flight_servos.html
http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/877815.asp
http://www.nyltite.com/L20.html
https://sdp-si.com/eStore/
Special ThanksSpecial Thanks
Eglin Air Force BaseEdwardo Freeman
FAMU/FSU College of EngineeringDr. Cesar LuongoDr. Patrick HollisDan BraleyKeith Larson