MICRO AIR VEHICLE Ooi Chun Keat and Dr Gerald Leng

Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering National University of Singapore 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260. INTRODUCTION This project was conducted together with 3 other students, to build and test fly a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) with a wing span under 30cm. This report briefly summarizes the research and fabrication process, up to the flight test and some experimental calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS a. Research and evolution of design First we read up on various aerodynamic theories and researched on other MAV designs. The most important parameter to consider for such a small plane is lift. The bigger the wing, the more the lift, so the most lift comes from a flying wing design or a biplane. But both the designs are unstable and difficult to control in flight, so we decided on a conventional monoplane design with large wings, which could carry a smaller load. After experimentation with higher aspect ratios which we found out had too little lift, we settled for an aspect ratio of about 2 (30cm wingspan divided by 15cm chord). Larger planes usually have aspect ratios of 6 or higher for lower drag and better efficiency1. Higher aspect ratio means wing area affected by wingtip vortex is proportionally lower2, but we needed the extra lift at the expense of more drag. For the most important component, the powerplant, we first chose electric motor as we hoped to power both the motor and the radio receiver by the same battery (in this case a flat lithium-ion Motorola Startec handphone battery weighing only 24g). The motor chosen was the most powerful for the size and weight limitations, a Tamiya Plasma motor with a rated voltage of 1.5V, rated speed of 25,000 rpm and rated torque of 20g-cm. However no single small and light battery could power both the motor and receiver. More importantly, the thrust generated was not enough to overcome static friction and start the MAV moving on flat ground, even after experimentation with other batteries. This is probably due to the motor is not designed for MAV, and the propeller used maybe too big (both in diameter and pitch) which reduced the performance of the motor. Finally we had to switch to a light petrol engine, the Cox 0.02-cubic inch Pee Wee, rated at 20,000 rpm. Once decided on the design, we started to select the lightest possible radio control components. We bought Multiplex Pico 3/4 receiver (7g) and Futaba S3103 micro servos (9.5g) with their associated Multiplex Pico transmitter handset. We also found a smaller battery for the receiver, a nickel-cadmium weighing only 18g. b. Material selection The most important criteria is light weight, for the MAV to have sufficient lift and better flight characteristics. Big parts like the fuselage and tail would have to be made of balsa wood, both light and strong. For other parts like the wing structures, wing leading edges and engine mounting, we compared a few materials (balsa, styrofoam and plywood) from the aspects of weight, strength, stiffness and ease of fabrication. The tables in the next section (results and discussion) summarize the comparisons. As with all material selection some compromises had to be made. We finally decided on balsa for the wing structures (light and easy to fabricate), styrofoam for the wing leading edges (ease of fabrication) and plywood for the engine mounting (strength). c. Fabrication So we first cut 5-mm balsa into airfoil ribs and glue them together with spars in the wing structure. After sticking the styrofoam leading edge in front we wrap the two wings in heat-shrunk plastic foil. For the fuselage, we cut a half-inch balsa and cut holes in it to fit snugly the various MAV components, and sand the sides to give a ten-degree dihedral to the wings. After gluing the horizontal and vertical tailplanes (with their respective elevator and rudder control surfaces) to a tail spar, we put the whole plane together: engine and its mounting at the front of the fuselage, wings at both sides, tail at the rear, receiver and battery inside, and 2 servos underneath. Finally we glue the main landing gears to the front of the fuselage, rear landing gear to the rear of the tail spar, and put in connecting rods to transfer servos movement to the tail control surfaces. The final prototype is shown in the next page.

elevator

wing leading edge

front gear

radio receiver

rudder

engine mounting

fuselage

battery

endplate engine servo motor connecting rod MAV overall view MAV underside view

d. Flight test After ensuring the transmitter controls correspond to the correct moving surfaces on the tail, we were ready for the test flight (photo below, left). On a suitable flat and open ground, we filled the 0.049-cubic inch engine with fuel, started it with a 1.5 V battery and took off after a few metres. We managed to get a very rough estimate of the some flight parameters in controlled flight (while taking off) by examining the video recording later. After a few more flight tests with modifications we packed up and did some calculations. battery to start engine transmitter handset wood block mounting

MAV

Spring balance

fuel

engine

MAV before flight test

Static thrust experiment

Before putting the plane together we have already measured the engine static thrust (photo above, on the right), servo/battery/motor parameters etc. The procedures for the static thrust experiment is : 1. Mount the engine on the block of wood. Top up its fuel tank with petrol. 2. Hang the mass-spring scale on the steel rod and suspend it freely through the hole in the stool. 3. Hang the wood block on the mass-spring scale. 4. Record the reading of the mass-spring scale. This will be the initial mass reading. 5. Start the engine and tune it to its maximum speed. 6. Record the final reading of the mass-spring scale. Minus off initial mass reading for value of thrust. 7. Repeat the procedures twice more and obtain the average thrust.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The tables for material selection are as follows: Balsa wood Density below 0.15 kgm-3. Ribs wrapped in heatshrunk plastic foil gives lightest wing Fair 14 MPa, quite good Easy to fabricate Plywood Heavy Styrofoam Lowest density, but need whole piece to be shaped like an airfoil. Fairly light wing Good Weak and brittle (cant absorb shock/impact) Hard to cut exact airfoil shape

Weight

Stiffness Strength Ease of fabrication

Good Above 40 MPa, the strongest Hard to cut/sand

Wing structure material comparison Balsa wood Styrofoam Not very light as need solid piece Lighter as density is lower Solid piece quite stiff Good Good Fair (supported by wing structure) Hard to cut/sand into curved shape of the Relatively easier to cut into leading edge leading edge using current-carrying wire Wing leading edge material comparison Balsa wood Light Fair Fair Easy Plywood Moderate Good Very good Not too hard (just a rectangular piece to screw engine base into) Engine mounting material comparison

Weight Stiffness Strength Ease of fabrication

Weight Stiffness Strength Ease of fabrication

The results of the static thrust experiment are as follows: For 0.02-cubic inch engine : average thrust = (90 + 110 + 100)/3 = 100 grams force For 0.049-cubic inch engine : average thrust = (150 + 140 + 160)/3 = 150 grams force Possible errors in the experiment: 1. The counter-torque from the propeller twists the spring in the mass-spring scale, giving inaccurate results. Efforts to conduct the experiment horizontally failed as a suitable trolley to mount the engine on cannot be found. A trolley we managed to find has a static friction that is greater than the thrust generated. 2. Tuning the needle air valve to obtain maximum thrust is not an exact proposition. Some experimental results on servo/battery/motor: Input impedance to servo = 18.3 kohm Output impedance of servos PCB board (ie input to motor inside servo) = 34.5 kohm Maximum force servo can exert at a moment arm of 0.85 cm is 800 grams force, ie torque = 680 g-cm. Internal resistance of Startec battery (4 V supply) = 0.75 ohm Resistance and current of Plasma motor while running at 4 V are 0.25 ohm and 4.0 A respectively. Problems encountered at flight test: 1. It was hard to start the engine, partly because of the humid climate. The recommended voltage for the glow plug was 1.5 V, but we found out that even with 2 new batteries (3 V) and fuel with a higher nitro content (25%) we only had a slightly better chance of starting the engine. When we tried 4.5 V the heating coil of the glow plug burned through, and we had to switch to a heavier 0.049 engine. 2. Small engines had no remote throttle control, thus an engine powerful enough to take-off will certainly be too powerful for landing. Thus we had to conduct our flight test near a grass field (anyway we expected any MAV to be inherently unstable and had to prepare for possible crash-landing). The only problem is there are no really flat and smooth ground near the SRC field. The first attempted take-off from the SRC track failed because the small wheels caught on the rough surface, and we changed to bigger wheels.

3. With the heavier engine our MAV became heavier and more unstable. On the first lift-off the plane flew for only a few seconds before spinning out of control, probably due to counter-torque from the propeller. To improve longitudinal stability, we increased our MAVs dihedral from 10 to 20 degrees. Dihedral helps to reduce excessive rolling as the lift from the lower wing will be more vertical and tend to correct the roll3. We also added endplates made of plywood (to increase rotational moment of inertia). Endplates help increase lift and stability while reducing drag, as it prevent wingtip vortex by shielding the high-pressure air below the wings from spilling over to the low-pressure region above the wings4. The centre of gravity also shifted, which we compensated for by changing positions of various loads, and zeroing the transmitter. 4. Our final modified prototype was only slightly more stable, but crashed after a few seconds too. Overall we felt we did not have enough experience to build a stable MAV this size, and no suitable engine was readily available. Despite that we did manage to fly and make some very rough flight measurements. Some flight parameters/calculations: Take-off weight (with 0.049-cubic inch engine) = 180 grams Wing loading = 0.18 / (0.22 x 0.15) = 5.5 kg/m2 (acceptable as below about 20)5 Take-off distance = 4 metres Take-off speed (at about 30 degrees) = 5 m/s Centre of lift (estimated from pressure-distribution curves) is about 1/3 chord, also near the centre of gravity of Our MAV, reducing the need for big horizontal stabilisers (for balance of moments). At take-off, lift = weight. Assume lift comes entirely from wing (fuselage is 8cm wide): Coefficient of lift, Cl = 2 x lift / (density of air x actual wing area x speed2) = 2 x 0.18 / (1 x 0.22 x 0.15 x 25) = 0.44 From modified A18 airfoils Cl-AOA graph, take-off angle-of-attack is about zero. This probably means the speed of propeller wash is much faster than flight speed, so the direction of airflow relative to airfoil is largely determined by the angle the engine is mounted with respect to the wing (in our case parallel, ie AOA zero). CONCLUSION In conclusion, we have met the objectives of building and test-flying a few MAV prototypes with wingspan of under 30cm, in the process learning a lot about the fabrication and characteristic workings of a MAV. The MAV was not very stable, which might be remedied by a better design, a more suitable powerplant and onboard PCB with gyros for auto-stabilisation. We also increased our knowledge on some theoretical and other aspects like aerodynamics, avionics, flight measurements and powerplant. Overall this UROP project has been a valuable experience for us in research, development, fabrication/implementation and experimentation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to: 1. Our supervisor Dr Gerald Leng 2. My 3 teammates (Goh Juay Tong, Siah Keng Boon and Seetoh Wai Kit) and Harry Chen 3. NUS Mechanical and Production Engineering Department 4. Various staff in the dynamics lab 5. Singapore Hobbies REFERENCES 1. Raymer, Daniel, P (1989). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2. Frank M. White (1999). Fluid Mechanics, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill International 3. IRA H Abbott & Albert E Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications Inc. 4. John D. Anderson, Jr. (1990). Modern Compressible Flow. McGraw-Hill International 5. John J Bertin & Michael L Smith (1998). Aerodynamics for engineers, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall.