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

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

Specifications

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

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

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

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

 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 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 Matrix Scale Factor (1-10) 10 - optimal Concept 4

Deployment Mechanism Concepts  Linkage System  Actuator  Servo Driven  Gear  Servo Driven

Actuator Deployment

Linkage Deployment

Gear Set Deployment

Design Analysis - Lift & Drag Lift Force (N) Vs. Velocity of MAV (mph)  Weight of MAV = N  To maintain flight, Lift Force must equal N

Design Analysis - Lift & Drag  Maximum Torque on Wings at Maximum Velocity (25 mph) T wings = 1.90 N*cm  Torque Provided by Servo T servo = 2.94 N*cm  Final Comparison T shafts > T wings Torque on wings (N*cm) vs. MAV Velocity (mph)

Design Analysis – Linkages

Gear Analysis Number of Teeth Gear Ratio Diameter Torque Stresses – Bending Safety Factors

Module Design

Design Selection  Gear System  Efficient  Relatively Simple  Compact  Reliable

Specification Changes Modify overall dimensions of Module

Fabrication Process  Module Components  Stock  Modified  Machined

Fabrication Process

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

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

Design Modifications  Create new method for attaching wings to rotating shafts  Implement support bracket hinge system Previous DesignModified Design

Final Modified Assembly

Final Cost Analysis

Final Product  Successfully stowed in 3” tube  Deployed in less than 1 second  Final module weight of 28 g

Final Product

References  bin/products.cgi?CAT=23   html    

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