Framework for Quantitative Morphing Assessment on Aircraft System Level

The purpose of this paper is to present a unified approach for quantifying morphing system level benefits over a broad spectrum of mission requirements. The comprehensive modeling approach, i.e. the combination of the most important morphing degrees of freedom in a single wing model and the single-mission-segment optimization presented in this paper have the advantage that the overall optimum performance can be evaluated. This performance is a meaningful upper bound and absolute reference for a variety of quantitative assessments. It serves as a benchmark for any single morphing parameter or morphing technology and enables the establishment of a benchmark representing the overall optimum for any mission composed of these archetype mission modules. Thus, the quantitative benefits of an arbitrary mission can be assessed which provides the technology push and pull for the most promising morphing developments.

[1]  Edmund Pendleton,et al.  Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program: Technical Program and Model Analytical Development , 2000 .

[2]  Michael I. Friswell,et al.  Aircraft Control via Variable Cant-Angle Winglets , 2008 .

[3]  Darryll J. Pines,et al.  Design and Testing of a Pneumatic Telescopic Wing for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles , 2007 .

[4]  Fernando Martini Catalano,et al.  Aerodynamic optimization study of a mission adaptive wing for transport aircraft , 1997 .

[5]  William W. Gilbert,et al.  Mission Adaptive Wing System for Tactical Aircraft , 1981 .

[6]  David J. Wagg,et al.  Adaptive Structures: Engineering Applications , 2007 .

[7]  Boyd Perry,et al.  Summary of an Active Flexible Wing program , 1992 .

[8]  Michael R. von Spakovsky,et al.  A Study of the Benefits of Using Morphing Wing Technology in Fighter Aircraft Systems , 2007 .

[9]  Thomas E. Noll,et al.  Active Flexible Wing Program , 1995 .

[10]  John B. Davidson,et al.  FLIGHT DYNAMIC SIMULATION ASSESSMENT OF A MORPHABLE HYPER-ELLIPTIC CAMBERED SPAN WINGED CONFIGURATION , 2003 .

[11]  Jayanth N. Kudva,et al.  Development of Next Generation Morphing Aircraft Structures , 2007 .

[12]  Daniel P. Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , 1989 .

[13]  G. Redeker,et al.  Aerodynamic investigations toward an adaptive airfoil for a transonic transport aircraft , 1986 .

[14]  Jonathan E. Cooper,et al.  Drag Minimisation Using Adaptive Aeroelastic Structures , 2007 .

[15]  William A. Crossley,et al.  Enabling Continuous Optimization for Sizing Morphing Aircraft Concepts , 2005 .

[16]  Fernando Martini Catalano,et al.  Drag optimization for a transport aircraft mission adaptive wing , 2000 .

[17]  Brian D. Roth,et al.  APPLICATION OF OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES IN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MORPHING AIRCRAFT , 2003 .

[18]  Kurt Maute,et al.  Integrated Multidisciplinary Topology Optimization Approach to Adaptive Wing Design , 2006 .

[19]  Gregory W. Reich,et al.  Introduction to Morphing Aircraft Research , 2007 .

[20]  William A. Crossley,et al.  AIRCRAFT SIZING WITH MORPHING AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: MOTIVATION, STRATEGIES AND INVESTIGATIONS , 2002 .

[21]  Derek Bye,et al.  Design of a Morphing Vehicle , 2007 .

[22]  David J. Moorhouse,et al.  Benefits and design challenges of adaptive structures for morphing aircraft , 2006, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[23]  Daniel J. Inman,et al.  Modeling and Flight Control of Large-Scale Morphing Aircraft , 2007 .

[24]  J. Szodruch,et al.  The influence of camber variation on the aerodynamics of civil transport aircraft , 1985 .

[25]  Gregory W. Reich,et al.  Large-Area Aerodynamic Control for High-Altitude Long- Endurance Sensor Platforms , 2005 .

[26]  Alexander Bolonkin,et al.  Estimated Benefits of Variable-Geometry Wing Camber Control for Transport Aircraft , 1999 .

[27]  C. D. Cone,et al.  THE THEORY OF INDUCED LIFT AND MINIMUM INDUCED DRAG OF NONPLANAR LIFTING SYSTEMS , 1962 .

[28]  J. Szodruch,et al.  Variable wing camber for transport aircraft , 1988 .