L3 Applications Group 15 Report

Introduction

This report covers the process of modelling, design, building and testing of Group 15s robot glider
that was used in L3 Applications 2015/16. The performance of the glider during the final test is then
analysed and discussed, with reference to the mathematical modelling and building process.

Performance Modelling

At low Reynolds numbers, cambered plates

were expected to outperform flat plates. Also,
increasing wing area increases lift and drag
proportionally. However, as the gliders drag
coefficient is constant, increasing the wing area
improves the overall lift-to-drag ratio.
L
Lwing
=
D
Dwing + Dchassis
=

1
2
2 U CLwing A
1
1
2
2
2 U CDchassis + 2 U CDwing A

As A inf,

CLwing
L

D
CDwing

(1)

(2)

Thus lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) increases as wing

area increases. However, due to the size restrictions, the maximum wing area rule will thus
result in a low aspect ratio wing. This has an
added benefit of creating vortex induced lift
whereby the attachment of attached leading
edge vortex cores will lower the suction side
pressure, thus increasing lift further.
From the above arguments, a cambered low aspect ratio wing made of mylar was used. The
modelling process was split up into two parts,
namely drivetrain modelling and flight aerodynamics. The process was then recombined and
optimised for the furthest distance achievable
by the glider. The flight trajectory is as shown
in Figure 1.

Design Process

CAD design process was centered around

three components, namely the chassis, wheels
and electronics.
Our base plate is a compact and minimalistic model designed to just sufficiently house
the electronics while providing enough room
for structural support to the wing. The overall chassis utilised a modular design where
each part can be replaced easily, with mechanical locking being used instead of glue (Figure

2). This is to facilitate the prototyping process

where parts may need to be replaced due to
rigorous testing and improvisations.
Initially, the wheel hubs were designed and
manufactured in-house. Rubber O-rings were
then used as tyres to create the wheels for our
glider. However, during initial testings it was
apparent that there was insufficient grip on the
wheels with just a 50g weight acting on the
wheels. This can be attributed to the performance modelling where the friction coefficient
assumed for the tyre and ramp surface was
0.82. There was no way to ascertain the friction
coefficient as the tyres and O-rings were not
made available before the modelling deadline.
A rough estimate was thus required. To resolve
the issue, Pololu wheels which fit our design
requirements were purchased from Technobots.com and used in our glider. Although
the wheels were heavier at 3g per wheel, they
provided better performance to the glider.
Initially, the design utilised a 4-wheeled chassis
before changing to a 3-wheeled configuration
to reduce the weight. To further improve on the
design, a small wheel and two struts designed
and manufactured in-house were attached to
the tail to prevent dragging of the tail on the
ramp. This reduced the weight significantly as
the tail wheel components only weighed a total
of 1g. Furthermore, the tail wheel (Figure 3)
helped to angle the wing at a small inclination
to generate enough lift without stalling .
For electronics, the consideration was mainly
the placement of the motor and microcontroller
as they were the bulkiest components among
the rest. Hence, other components such as the
resistor, diode and wiring were neglected in the
initial CAD design. This led to some problems
during the manufacturing process and will be
discussed in Section 4 later.
Bearings and gears were purchased instead of
being manufactured due to the high precision
manufacturing required.
Our Webpage: http://l3group15.weebly.com

L3 Applications Group 15 Report

Mechanical Implementation

Robot performance

In the mechanical implementation of the design,

the biggest issue was the wing and the weight
of the glider. These complications are a result
of the CAD design failing to encompass all aspects of the glider, including peripheral items
such as glue and wiring.

In the tests, the glider achieved a glide distance

of 1.5m from the end of the ramp while our
mathematical model predicted 1.7m. The discrepancy can be attributed to a few factors, ranging from mechanical implementation to modelling difficulties.

Acetal was used for all parts of the glider due to

its high strength and stiffness, albeit at a cost
of weight. The alternative material, acrylic, had
a lower density but was extremely brittle.

Firstly, the glider veered off its intended flight

path and skewed to the right. This resulted in
a shorter distance than what could have been
achieved if the glider successfully glided forward for the entire journey. This can be attributed to roll instability as the wing could not
remain horizontal throughout the flight. This
issue arose because of the lack of stiffness of
the mylar and the interface between the car and
wing being too low. This could be resolved by
using a stiffer wing frame or a foam wing, which
is stiffer and easier to connect to the car but
would require a different modelling procedure
due to its lack of camber.

To create the wing, jigs were first manufactured

using the laser cutter. Flat carbon fibre rods
were then laid out in the jig and glued together
using epoxy. Mylar was then laid over and cut
out in the shape required. The carbon fibre rods
were glued to the mylar instead of shrinking it
with heat as the shrinking process was relatively volatile and may wrinkle up the mylar. By
allowing the mylar to be loose, it also creates a
natural camber when the glider is in-flight. This
can be observed in Figure 4.
As mentioned earlier, the electronics posed a
problem during the mechanical implementation
phase due to the wires used to connect the
components. These wires not only occupied
the limited space that was available between
the chassis and the battery, but also added
weight to the glider. Similarly, the other components of the circuit were not modelled into
the CAD design and had to be included in that
limited space.

For modelling, detailed drag inducing components could not be accurately modelled. Furthermore, the nonlinear lift component could not be
modelled. In the mathematical model, camber of the wing was taken into account for the
flight trajectory and lift and drag calculations.
However, the aeroelastic nature of the mylar
wing complicates the prediction of the degree
of camber. Hence, the predicted lift and drag
coefficient will not be accurate. This in turn affects the gliding trajectory and hence the gliding
distance achieved.

To reduce the impact of these unforeseen circumstances, wiring was kept to a minimum and
components such as the demodulator was attached to the microcontroller directly. Furthermore, the battery was used as a weight to correct the centre of gravity (CG) of the robot during flight by placing it on the wing slightly forward of the chassis.

Aerodynamically, one glaring disadvantage of

the wing design is the amount of drag it produced. Whilst the wing was successful in slowing down the descent of the glider, it was not
able to go as far as it lost too much speed after
take-off. This is due to the wing ribs lack of
rigidity causing the wing to camber heavily, significantly increase drag.

Conclusion

Mathematical modelling was used to design and estimate the achievable distance. Design considerations based on the modelling and weight were then used to build the glider with improvements
after prototyping. Performance of the glider was found to be reasonably close to the modelling, in
spite of difficulties faced in modelling and building. In all, it is believed that frame-structured, passive
aero-elastic low aspect ratio wings should be an area of focus for future MAV design.
Our Webpage: http://l3group15.weebly.com

L3 Applications Group 15 Report

Figure 1: Flight trajectory of the glider as predicted by mathematical modelling.

Figure 2: Mechanical locking was utilised in most parts of the glider to facilitate easy replacement
and improvements.

Figure 3: Tail wheel components help to give the wing a small inclination so that sufficient lift can be
generated without stalling.

Figure 4: Natural camber of the wing is created by the loose mylar of the glider in-flight.

Our Webpage: http://l3group15.weebly.com