Design, Development, and Flight Test of A Small-Scale Cyclogyro UAV Utilizing A Novel Cam-Based Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism

145
Design, Development, and Flight

Test of a Small-Scale Cyclogyro
UAV Utilizing a Novel Cam-Based
Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism
Zachary Adams*, Moble Benedict1, Vikram Hrishikeshavan2
and Inderjit Chopra3
Aeronautics Laboratory, Department of Aeronautical Engineering United States Air Force
Academy, USAF Academy, CO 80840
and
Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20740
Received 3 March 2013; Accepted 18 June 2013
ABSTRACT
A cycloidal rotor is an innovative horizontal axis propulsion system, which is utilized in
the present study to develop a fully-controllable flying aircraft (known as “Cyclogyro”).
The present 535 gram cyclogyro uses a hybrid configuration with two cyclorotors and a
horizontal tail rotor. Since a cycloidal rotor relies on cyclic blade pitching for producing
thrust and also for control, designing a reliable pitch mechanism that can provide the
required blade pitching kinematics (depending on the advance ratio) is extremely
important. A novel blade pitch mechanism has been developed, which is passively driven
by centrifugal force, and could potentially be adapted to generate the required pitching
schedules for efficient operation over a range of advance ratios. A simplified
flightworthy version of this mechanism was implemented in the present cyclogyro. The
mechanism was able to generate the appropriate blade kinematics and the thrust required
for the vehicle to hover. Also, the present mechanism is designed such that it is possible
to vary both amplitude and phasing of the cyclic blade pitching. A novel control strategy
was developed using blade pitch amplitude (thrust magnitude) control for roll, phasing
(thrust direction) for yaw and tail rotor for pitch control. The control strategy was
implemented using a three gram onboard processor, which was used to stabilize the
vehicle without a pilot, through a closed-loop feedback control system. This is the first
flight-capable cyclogyro reported in the literature to utilize cycloidal rotors having both
pitch amplitude and phase control. The successful flight for the present vehicle also
validates the flightworthiness of this completely passive pitch mechanism design, which
has great potential for efficient forward flight.
NOMENCLATURE
µ Advance ratio
V∞ Freestream velocity
Ω Rotational speed
r Rotor radius
* Cadet First Class (Undergraduate USAF Academy), C13Zachary.Adams@USAFA.edu, 2410 Faculty Dr USAF Academy, CO 80840
1Assistant Research Scientist, moble@umd.edu, University of Maryland Aerospace Engineering, 3181 Glenn L Martin Hall College Park, MD 20742
2Postdoctoral Research Associate, vikramh@umd.edu, University of Maryland Aerospace Engineering, 3181 Glenn L Martin Hall College Park,
MD 20742
3Alfred Gessow Professor and Director, chopra@umd.edu, University of Maryland Aerospace Engineering, 3181 Glenn L Martin Hall College
Park, MD 20742
USAF Notice: Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

146 Design, Development, and Flight Test of a Small-Scale Cyclogyro UAV Utilizing a Novel
Cam-Based Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism
β Thrust phase angle
TRes Resultant thrust
α Blade angle of attack
θ Blade pitch
Θ Pitch Euler angle
φ roll Euler angle
P Roll rate
Q Pitch rate
R Yaw rate
Figure 1: Generic three bladed cyclorotor.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Cyclogyro or Cyclocopter is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft implementing a
revolutionary horizontal axis propulsion concept known as the cycloidal rotor (or cyclorotor). The
cyclorotor, as shown in Fig. 1, is characterized by the rotation of blades about a horizontal axis, where
the span of the blades is parallel to the axis of revolution and perpendicular to the direction of flight.
Forces are generated by cyclically pitching the blades as they move around the rotational axis (shown
in Fig. 2). For instance, in-hovering condition, a positive blade pitch angle at the top half of the cycle
and a negative pitch angle at the bottom half would produce an upward thrust. Increasing the amplitude
of this pitching motion increases the thrust by increasing the angle of attack of the blades. In the
present paper, the pitch amplitude is termed as the “collective pitch” for the cyclorotor. Varying the
phase of cyclic pitch changes the direction of thrust vector.
In the present study, the cyclogyro is investigated as an alternative to a conventional rotary-wing
aircraft, mainly for Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) applications. The cyclorotor’s ability to achieve higher
aerodynamic efficiency (as shown in Ref. [13]), instantaneously manipulate both magnitude and
direction of the thrust vector, optimize blade kinematics for every flight condition and may operate
more quietly than traditional rotors makes it an attractive propulsion system for micro air vehicles
(MAVs), airships, and other VTOL aircraft. However, many technical barriers must be overcome
before cyclorotors can be practically implemented on a flying vehicle. Central to these problems is the
development of an adaptable blade pitch mechanism which can produce a range of pitching schedules
depending on the flight speed.
While there have been many attempts to fly a cyclogyro since the early 20th century, none were
successful until recently [4]. Many of the successful cyclogyro flight attempts are shown in table 1.
The first cyclogyro capable of tethered cyclogyro was demonstrated at the University of Singapore in
2007 [4] and the first cyclogyro capable of free flight was developed at the University of Maryland in
2011 [2, 3]. Since then, several cyclogyros ranging from 100 to 500 grams were flown in a stable
autonomous hover at the University of Maryland, [12]. These cyclogyros implement a four-bar based
blade pitching mechanism shown in Fig. 3, where L1 , L2 , L3 and L4 are the four linkage lengths.
International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

Zachary Adams, Moble Benedict, Vikram Hrishikeshavan and Inderjit Chopra 147
Figure 2: Blade kinematics and forces on a cyclorotor in hover.
The key component of this pitching mechanism is the offset link with length L2. The pitch links (of
length L3) are connected to the end of the offset link on one end and the other end is connected to point
B, which is at a distance L4 behind the pitching axis. With this arrangement, as the rotor rotates the
blades automatically pitches, where the pitching amplitude depends on the offset length, L2, when the
other linkage lengths remain fixed. Rotating, the offset link changes the phase of blade pitching and
hence changes the direction of thrust. However, all the cyclogyros discussed above had a fixed pitching
amplitude or collective pitch and only utilized the thrust vectoring capability. Magnitude of thrust
vector was varied through rotational speed.
Table 1: Previous Cyclogyro Achievements
Even though this control strategy is simple and reliable, it is inherently limited. Most significantly, the
mechanism cannot provide the range of blade kinematics required for efficient forward flight. As the
forward velocity increases, the pitching kinematics of the blades must change significantly to account
for an additional horizontal component of flow. Pitching schedule complexity results from the relative
direction of flow on the blade. Similar to conventional rotors, this is determined by velocity due to rotor
V
rotation, the free stream velocity and velocity due to inflow. The advance ratio (µ = ∞ ), is the ratio
Ωr
of free stream velocity to the velocity due to rotation and determines the flow direction experienced by
the blades. The forces on each blade are dependent on the angle of attack of the blade, which in turn is
determined by the relative direction of flow. Thus, the desired pitching schedule is a function of the
advance ratio.
Figure 4 shows snapshots of an airfoil aligned with the relative flow as it travels counterclockwise
around the rotational axis of a cyclorotor at advance ratios of µ=0 (Fig. 4a), µ=1 (Fig. 4b) and µ=2
(Fig. 4c). Advance ratios less than 1.0 are referred to as curtate advance ratios while those greater than
1.0 are referred to as prolate advance ratios. An advance ratio of 1.0, wherein the velocity from rotation

is equal to the freestream velocity, is named a cycloid for the trajectory each blade traces. Advance
ratios near one are particularly unusual as a 180° blade pitch change is necessary (near the bottom
of the rotation) as the blade retreats and the flow direction relative to the blade changes (Fig. 4b).
Prolate advance ratios are markedly different in that the wind velocity experienced by the blade is
always within 90° of the direction of flight (Fig. 4c). Since pitch is measured relative to its circular
trajectory, the blades must continuously increase in pitch as they rotate in order to maintain
alignment with the relative wind. Note that the blade motions shown in Fig. 4 simply align the blade
chord with the relative flow (zero angle of attack pitching schedules). To produce a net force, the
blades must be pitched cyclically relative to these zero angle of attack positions. The existing
blade pitch control strategy shown in Fig. 3, even with incorporation of collective pitch control,
would not permit such pitching schedules.
Figure 3: Previous linkage-based pitching mechanism [4].
Pitching schedules that accurately account for incoming flow direction are more efficient at all
advance ratios, since the pitch of the blades can always be optimized. Seigel et. al. performed
unsteady computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations which showed that implementation of
non-traditional pitching could greatly improve cyclorotor efficiency at higher advance ratios [11].
Further Jurugumilli et. al. experimentally determined that certain phase regions of cyclorotor blade
passage counter productively negate lift and thrust during forward flight [6] which identifies room for
improvement in blade kinematics. Although the advantages of such pitching schedules were
recognized early in cyclorotor development, none of the previous studies actually developed a
pitching mechanism to actuate such complex blade kinematics. However, recently, such a pitch
mechanism was developed at the Air Force Academy. This mechanism could generate the non-
sinusoidal pitch kinematics required for both curtate and prolate advance ratios (This range of
pitching kinematics is shown in Fig. 4) [1]. The mechanism optimizes blade pitch motions for each
operating advance ratio and enables control over both blade pitch amplitude and phasing.
However, until now, it had only been tested on a heavy bench-top experimental setup.
The goal of the present study was to adapt a simplified version of this mechanism on a flying
cyclogyro to demonstrate the flightworthiness of this novel idea. A twin-rotor cyclogyro was
developed, utilizing the new blade pitching mechanism. This pitching mechanism made the
present vehicle the first flying cyclogyro capable of independently varying both amplitude and
phasing of blade pitching on both cyclorotors which eliminated the need for lateral–directional
control through differential rotor rotational speed. A closed-loop control strategy was developed and
implemented using a three gram onboard processor-sensor board which enabled autonomous stable
hover of the present cyclogyro.

Figure 4: Zero angle of attack blade pitching schedules for advance ratios of (a)Curtate (µ=0), (b)
Cycloid (µ=1), (c) Prolate (µ=2).
2. BLADE PITCH CONTROL MECHANISM

A cyclorotor pitch control mechanism was designed and built at the Air Force Academy to achieve the
diverse pitching schedules necessary to efficiently operate at a range of curtate (µ < 1) and prolate (µ >
1) advance ratios. This is a passive pitch mechanism that utilizes the centrifugal force acting on the
blade along with a cam to achieve the required pitching kinematics for the blade. A conceptual drawing
of the mechanism using a simple circular cam is shown in Fig. 5. The dotted line denotes the circular
trajectory traced by the blade pitch axis and the circular cam is shown by the thick solid line. As shown
in the figure, each blade has a cam-bearing which is positioned behind the pitch axis of the blade. The
blade pitch axis is chosen such that the blade center of gravity (c.g.) is behind the pitch axis. As shown
in Fig. 5, since the blade c.g. is behind its pitch axis, the blade centrifugal force from the rotation of the
cyclorotor produces a counter-clockwise pitching moment that forces the cam-bearing to rest against
the inside of the cam, which is slightly larger than the rotor. Therefore, as the blade moves around the
azimuth, the cam-bearing is forced to roll along the cam profile, which would cause the blade pitch
angle to change periodically. This is the basic operating principle of the present mechanism.
Figure 5: Simplified cam-based passive blade pitching mechanism.
Even though, the above explanation used a circular cam, an arbitrary blade pitch variation would
require a non-circular cam profile as shown in Fig. 6, which demonstrates how the present pitch
mechanism can be used to generate the complex pitching schedules required for both curtate and
prolate advance ratios. The cam profiles are shown using blue solid lines. At curtate advance ratios, the
cam bearing creates a counterclockwise pitching moment, where at prolate advance ratios the cam
bearing creates blade pitching moments in both directions depending on the position of the blade

(shown in Fig. 6). Thus, the design allows centrifugal actuation to force the cam bearing against the
cam at both curtate and prolate advance ratios.
Figure 6: Schematic showing cam-profiles to acheive the blade pitch kinematics for curtate and prolate
advance ratios.
As can be seen from Figs. 5 and 6, the distance between the cam surface and the blade pivot point
determines the pitch of the blade at each azimuthal blade location. The cam shape and position of the
cam determines this distance and hence the pitch of the blades throughout the revolution. Different 2-
D cam profiles can produce different blade pitching schedules to optimize aerodynamic efficiency for
different advance ratios. This means the cam profile has to be actively changed with advance ratio. This
is accomplished in the present mechanism by designing a 3-D cam such that each 2-D cross section is
a different cam profile as shown in Fig. 7 . Translating the cam along the rotational axis (X axis) causes
the cam bearing (2) to follow one of the infinite cam cross sectional profiles. Therefore, the X-axis
location along the 3-D cam axis is chosen based on the operating advance ratio.
If the cam is centered on the X axis (Y=Z=0) then each cam cross sectional profile produces a base
pitching schedule for a particular advance ratio. Translating the cam in X and Y direction induces a one
per revolution cyclic pitching motion on top of that base pitching schedule which is necessary to create
the required lift and thrust forces. On a cyclogyro, each base pitching schedule could be designed to
produce the aerodynamic forces necessary for equilibrium at a particular forward speed.
Figure 7: Cam-based cyclorotor blade pitching mechanism (left) and exaggerated ideal 3D cam shape
(center and right). Curtate cam cross sections are shown in red, the cycloid cross section in black
and prolate cross sections in blue.

Even though, this mechanism has been experimentally validated (Curtate pitching results are shown
in Fig. 8) at the Air Force Academy [1] on a benchtop experimental set up (shown in Fig. 9), the flight
worthiness of such a heavy and bulky mechanism was questionable. Therefore, the next logical step
was to implement a simplified version of it on a flight-capable aircraft. The mechanism was simplified
by using a cam with a uniform circular profile (shown in Fig. 5), instead of a complex 3-D cam with
varying cam profile, to reduce complexity while still validating the fundamental operating principle
behind this concept. Implementing a circular cam generates sinusoidal pitching schedules, which is the
optimum blade kinematics for hover. Furthermore, the aerodynamic performance of the cyclorotor is
already known based on the previous experimental studies for these pitching schedules [4, 9, 7]. Since
the objective of the present study was to demonstrate the flightworthiness of this novel mechanism,
only hovering flight was attempted.
50
= 0.1 experiment
= 0.1 prediction
= 0.3 experiment
= 0.3 prediction
Blade Pitch (deg)
= 0.68 experiment
= 0.68 prediction
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cyclic Blade Displacement (deg)
Figure 8: Ideal and actuated zero angle of attack curtate pitching schedules from USAF Academy wind
tunnel experiment.
Figure 9: Air Force Academy cyclorotor experimental set up.
Figure 10 shows how sinusoidal blade pitching kinematics can be generated using the present
mechanism with a circular cam. Both amplitude and phasing of the blade pitching motion is varied by
moving this cam in two degrees of freedom perpendicular to the rotational axis, i.e. along the Y and Z
axes. As shown in Fig. 10, moving the cam in the negative Z direction would increase the pitch angle
of the blades in both upper and lower halves of the circular blade trajectory and increase the net thrust
produced by the rotor until the blades stall. Previous experiments have identified that this thrust vector

is tilted in the direction of rotation by an angle (denoted by β) of 15-35˚ depending on the pitching
amplitude and rotational velocity as is shown in Fig. 2 [4]. Similarly, displacing the cam in the positive
Y direction would increase the pitching amplitude in the front and rear halves of the blade trajectory
and thereby produce a net thrust in the negative Y-direction, again tilted by the same phase angle β.
Translating the cam in both Y and Z directions simultaneously changes both the amplitude and phasing
of cyclic pitching, which in turn alters the magnitude and direction of the thrust vector, respectively. As
a result of the phase shift in thrust, the cam must be positioned in the negative Y and Z direction to
produce a pure vertical thrust as shown in Fig. 12.
Figure 10: Changing blade pitch through cam displacement.
3. CYCLOGYRO DESIGN
A new twin-rotor cyclogyro aircraft (shown in Fig. 11) was designed around the cam-based passive
pitch control system. A twin rotor aircraft configuration was chosen since it is a proven design based
on the previous studies at the University of Maryland [2, 3].
Figure 11: Cam controlled Twin-Cyclogyro.
Table 2 provides the details of the present cyclorotor design, which was optimized based on the previous
experimental studies that investigated the effect of rotor geometry, blade kinematics and blade
aerodynamic/structural design on cyclorotor performance [4, 8]. The performance of the cyclorotor used in
the present vehicle for a pitch amplitude of 45 degrees (operating amplitude) is shown in Fig. 13.
The vehicle uses a single motor to rotate both rotors mounted on a common shaft. Previous
cyclogyros used separate motors to turn each rotor as rotational speed was the only way to vary rotor
thrust. Differential thrust is required for aircraft lateral-directional control. The present aircraft can vary

the thrust of the rotors for a fixed rotational speed through blade pitch amplitude control which entirely
eliminates the need to differentially vary rotor speed. This capability simplifies the aircraft by
eliminating an additional motor, the associated electronics and even some of the mechanical
components (such as transmission parts). Further, since servos are used for pitch amplitude control, the
aircraft control response is only limited by the actuation speed of servos rather than the rotational
inertia of each rotor and electronic delay in the speed-controllers.
Table 2: Design specifications for Twin-Cyclogyro
Figure 12: Cyclorotor thrust phase shift (β).
80
60
Power (W)
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Resultant Force (g)
Figure 13: Performance of cyclorotor geometry used on the vehicle at 45˚ pitching amplitude.

3.1 Pitching Mechanism Implementation
A key challenge of this research was simplifying the design of the pitching mechanism so that it could
be implemented on a flying vehicle. Figure 14 shows a CAD drawing of the circular cam and the
mechanism to move it in Y and Z directions. The cams are printed out of stereo-lithography rapid
prototyping plastic and reinforced with unidirectional carbon fiber thread hardened using a room
temperature cure epoxy. A small lip is printed into the cam on the side which the bearings enter to
increase rigidity and prevent the cam bearings from sliding off the cam under any circumstance (not
shown). Four T-shaped brackets on the inboard side of each cam permit mounting as shown in Fig. 15.
As shown in Figs. 14 and 15, each cam is held by four rapid prototyped sliders. The top and bottom
sliders constrain the cam in the vertical direction while permitting it to freely slide in the horizontal
direction. The other two sliders do the opposite. The top and forward sliders are connected through a
connecting rod to servos. This connecting rod converts the rotational servo motion into a translation of
the slider. The arm position of the top servo dictates the vertical height of each cam, while the forward
servo controls their horizontal position. The sliders were made smooth and lubricated to permit free
motion of the cam in both Y and Z directions. Two wire stiffening rods serve as cross members on each
cam to prohibit distortion of the cam during operation. Each of the four sliders is mounted directly to
a cross shaped fuselage structure. This carbon fiber birch sandwich structure has a high strength to
weight ratio and was designed to allow the sliders to move freely along its length.
Figure 14: Cam movement mechanism.
Figure 15: Cam and slider mounting.

3.2 Blade and Vehicle Structural Design

Designing and building blades that are light and possess a high stiffness-to-weight ratio is crucial to
reducing centrifugal loading and also to minimize blade deformations, which are detrimental to
cyclorotor performance. As shown in Fig. 16, the present blades are made by wrapping a single layer
of carbon prepreg over a foam core and then removing multiple rectangular sections from the blades,
such that the blades are light and are not structurally overdesigned.
Figure 16: Cyclorotor blades before (8g) and after (5g) removing the rectangular sections.
This decreased the blade mass from over 8 grams to 5 grams without significantly affecting the
stiffness-to-weight ratio of the blades. The blades are wrapped in a 50 micron thick mylar film, which
is heat shrinked to obtain a smooth blade surface. Rotor tests conducted on a 2-bladed cyclorotor with
blades before and after removing material (both blades shown in Fig. 16) showed very similar
aerodynamic performance (shown in Fig. 17).
Figure 17: Comparison of performance of 2-bladed cyclorotors using the original and new weight-
optimized blade designs shown in Fig. 16.
The blades are held with Delrin plastic blade attachments. These blade attachments permit the blades
to be connected to the supporting structure and also serve as a mounting point for the cam-bearing
shafts (shown in Fig. 18). The bearings press-fitted on the end of those shafts run along the interior of
the cams as shown in Fig 19. The four carbon fiber blade supporting structure spokes are secured to the
hollow unidirectional carbon shaft with custom Delrin clamps (Fig. 20). These clamps permit ease of
assembly and disassembly of the aircraft. The cyclorotor shaft is constrained by two shaft collars
mounted on the interior of the fuselage (shown in Fig. 20). These shaft collars allow the bearings that
run along the inside of the cam to be positioned precisely.

Figure 18: Cyclorotor structural design.
Figure 19: Cam bearing running along inside of cam.
Figure 20: Control Mechanism.
A nine inch diameter GWS three-bladed propeller (along with a AXI 2208/34 outrunner motor) is used
for the vehicle tail rotor. The tail rotor is positioned such that it augments the cyclorotor lift while
countering the nose-up pitching moment from cyclorotor torque. The landing gear is composed of two
millimeter diameter carbon fiber tube lashed together with unidirectional carbon fiber thread and
secured with room temperature cure epoxy. It is connected to the fuselage using plastic brackets.

The main rotor and tail rotor motors were powered by a 78 gram, 11.1V 45C, 850mAH battery. This
battery was identified in previous cyclogyro designs for its light weight and adequate discharge rate. A
separate 15 gram one cell lithium polymer battery provides the power for the servos and onboard
microprocessor.
4. AIRCRAFT CONTROL SYSTEM

The aircraft can be controlled in pitch, roll, and yaw as well as translational forward and upward
motions through actuation of the four rotary servos and two electric motors. The servos dictate cam
position, hence change the amplitude and phasing of cyclic blade pitching. While the motors control
the rotational speed of the cyclorotors and the tail rotor.
Actuating the top and forward servo (Fig. 14) on each cam changes the vertical and horizontal
position of that cam respectively. The distance that the center of the cam is displaced from the axis of
rotation of the cyclorotor changes the amplitude of cyclic pitching and thereby changes the magnitude
of thrust for a fixed rotational speed (Fig. 10). Rotating the center of the cam about the axis of rotation
without changing the relative distance between them changes the phase of blade pitching, which in turn
changes the direction of the thrust vector. Therefore, appropriately actuating the two servos on each
cam simultaneously enables control over both magnitude and direction of the thrust vector.
Servo motion permits 0 to 55 degree variation in pitch amplitude as well as 360 degrees of thrust
vectoring, which enables the aircraft to produce zero to the maximum thrust in any direction
perpendicular to the axis of cyclorotor rotation. This is a feature unique to cyclorotors and can definitely
improve the maneuverability and gust tolerance capability of an aircraft utilizing such a concept. The
thrust of both cyclorotors can also be increased or decreased simultaneously through changing the
rotational speed of the main motor. The thrust of the tail rotor is also altered via rotational speed.
Aircraft control is achieved through differential control of the thrust direction and magnitude from
each cyclorotor and by altering the tail rotor thrust. Figure 21 shows several aircraft motions.
Cyclogyro pitch (rotation about X axis) is controlled by the tail rotor. For a nose-down pitch, the tail
rotor thrust is increased with a simultaneous decrease in thrust from the cyclorotors.
Figure 21: Control strategy for the Twin-Cyclogyro.

Differential cam motion provides lateral-directional control as shown in Fig 21. To produce a right
rolling moment (rotation about Y axis) the thrust of the left rotor must be increased and the thrust of
the right rotor must be decreased. This is accomplished by increasing the pitch amplitude of the left
rotor and decreasing the pitch amplitude of the right rotor. Similarly, to produce a yawing moment
(rotation about Z axis) the horizontal thrust of both rotors must be increased in opposing directions.
This is accomplished by tilting the thrust vectors of both rotors in opposite directions while increasing
the pitching amplitude on both to maintain required thrust.
The aircraft can be translated by altering the direction and magnitude of the thrust of both
cyclorotors simultaneously while maintaining a constant pitch attitude. This is accomplished by
simultaneously increasing and tilting the thrust vectors forward while using the tail rotor to compensate
for pitching moment changes. The cam motion is approximately opposite to the desired direction of
translation. For instance, to move upward and forward both cams must be moved rearward and down.
Achieving equilibrium flight, wherein all of the forces and moments on the cyclogyro are balanced,
requires precise trimming of the servos and motor rotational velocity. The rotational velocity of the
main rotor must be altered to achieve the desired lift at a given pitching amplitude. The tail rotor
velocity must be altered to maintain a constant pitch attitude. Similarly the position of each cam must
be varied so that the thrust from each cyclorotor is vertical and equal in magnitude.
5. AVIONICS AND TELEMETRY

It would be extremely difficult for a human pilot to control the aircraft without an onboard stability
augmentation system. Therefore an onboard computerized flight control system was implemented,
which used closed-loop feedback control to enable stable flight. The aircraft used the telemetry setup
shown in Fig. 22. A 2.4 GHz ATMEL AVR transceiver was attached to a base station laptop. The
feedback gains, trim inputs and attitude reference commands were wirelessly transmitted from this
transceiver to the vehicle in flight. A three gram processor sensor board (Berkley’s GINA-MOTE
shown in Fig. 23,[10]) provided inner loop feedback control in order to stabilize the aircraft in pitch,
roll and yaw. The principal components of this board are a TI MSP 430 microprocessor for onboard
computation, ITG3200 tri-axial gyros, KXSD9 tri-axial accelerometer and an ATMEL radio and
antenna for wireless communication tasks. The latency of the wireless communication is less than 30
milliseconds. The inner loop feedback occurs at an update rate of three milliseconds.
Figure 22: Wireless telemetry setup.
Figure 23: three gram processor-sensor board used on the aircraft.

6. INNER-LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL SYSTEM

The gyros measure the pitch (Q), roll (P) and yaw (R) attitude rates while the accelerometers record the
tilt of the gravity vector. The vehicle attitude can be extracted by integrating the gyro measurements with
time. However, this leads to drift in attitude measurements [5]. Accelerometers on the other hand offer
stable bias, but are sensitive to vibrations and in general offer poor high frequency information [14].
Therefore a complementary filter was incorporated to extract the pitch and roll Euler angles using a
high pass filter for the gyros (4 Hz cut-off) and a low pass filter for accelerometers (6 Hz cut-off). The
rotor vibrations were filtered out since these were sufficiently higher than the body dynamics. On-board
inner loop feedback was implemented using a proportional-derivative (PD) controller as shown in Fig.
25. The feedback states were the pitch and roll Euler angles (θ, φ) and the attitude rates (P, Q and R).
7. FLIGHT TESTING
Before flight testing, the cyclogyro control system was tuned on an attitude-control test stand (Fig. 24)
to minimize the potential of a crash. The stand was designed to provide rotation about all or each axis
without allowing translation. Primarily, testing determined the manner in which the cams should move
to produce uncoupled rolling and yawing moments and to select the correct proportional and derivative
feedback gains. The thrust vectors of the cyclorotor not being vertical can introduce significant yaw-roll
and roll-yaw coupling. Systematic tests were conducted on the test stand by first allowing single degree
of freedom motion (pure yaw or pure roll) to obtain the cam positions such that a roll command does not
produce a yaw motion and vice versa. Once this was accomplished, rotation about all three axes was
permitted to check for any control cross-couplings. Also, for the inner-loop feedback control system, the
proportional and derivative gains were tuned using the Ziegler Nichols approach. Gains were chosen,
which offered acceptable stiffness and damping to reject external disturbance with minimal oscillations.
Figure 24: Cyclogyro on the attitude-control test stand.
Once repeatability in aircraft stability was established with a given set of trim and gain values, free
flight tests were conducted. It must be noted that achieving a stable attitude on the gimbal setup was a
necessary step to ensure stable free flight. It enabled quick troubleshooting with minimal damage to the
vehicle. However in flight, the trim values change since the position of the center of lift (of the entire
vehicle based on the relative contribution from each rotors) is not known exactly a priori and therefore
must be determined in free flight. Systematic flight testing was conducted to obtain the trim position of
each cam so that the vehicle takes-off vertical for a pure throttle input. During flight testing, feedback
gains were systematically tuned until the vehicle was able to perform an autonomous stable hover as
shown in Fig. 26. The longest recorded flight lasted 15 seconds and reached a height of six feet. This
clearly demonstrates the flightworthiness of the novel blade pitch mechanism developed in the present
study. Note that, this is the first successful cyclogyro to have pitch amplitude or collective control along
with a thrust vectoring capability.

Figure 25: Schematics showing the feedback control system on cyclogyro.
Figure 26: Cam controlled cyclogyro in autonomous stable hover.
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A new twin-rotor cyclogyro aircraft was designed and built utilizing a novel cam-based passive blade
pitch control mechanism. The present pitching mechanism is particularly attractive because of the
flexibility it offers in generating a wide range of complex blade pitch schedules required for efficient
forward flight. A simplified version of this mechanism was implemented in the present vehicle, which
is capable of actively varying both amplitude and phasing of cyclic blade pitching, which in turn
changes the magnitude and direction of the the thrust vector. An innovative control strategy is
implemented on the current Twin-Cyclogyro using a three gram onboard processor to achieve
completely autonomous stable hover. This successfully demonstrated the feasibility of using the present
cam-based passive blade pitch control system on a flying cyclogyro. Given below are some of the
specific conclusions drawn from this study:
1. The majority of previous cyclorotors used a linkage-based pitching mechanism to actuate
hovering blade kinematics. These mechanisms are inherently limited to producing low
advance ratio blade pitching motions and cannot produce the diverse pitching kinematics
required for efficient flight at moderate and high advance ratios. Therefore, the present study

developed a radically different fully passive pitch-link-less centrifugal force driven blade pitch
mechanism. The study also demonstrated that such a mechanism could provide the required
blade pitch kinematics for a cycloidal-rotor aircraft to hover. This is the first study ever to
successfully implement or even attempt such an approach on a cyclogyro.
2. The present mechanism utilizes the pitching moment generated by the centrifugal force to
pitch the blades along with a suitable cam design, to obtain the required pitch kinematics. The
biggest advantage of the present pitching mechanism, which is demonstrated via experiments,
is the fact that it could be adapted to generate the pitching schedules required for different
advance ratios by changing the cam profile.
3. The present cyclogyro uses a simplified version of that pitch mechanism implementing a
circular cam profile to generate sinusoidal pitching kinematics for hovering flight. The
mechanism is designed to actively vary the amplitude and phasing of the blade pitching during
flight by appropriately translating the cam in two mutually orthogonal directions. This is
unlike many previous linkage-based designed, which could only change the pitch phasing.
4. An innovative control strategy was designed and implemented, which uses differential
variation of the magnitude of cyclorotor thrust (by changing pitch amplitude at constant
rotational speed) for roll control, differential thrust vectoring (by changing the pitch phase) for
yaw, and tail rotor thrust for pitch.
5. Sytematic testing of the vehicle on the test stand and free flight refined the control strategies
and feedback gains to achieve stable hovering flight. Flight testing identified that roll-yaw and
yaw-roll couplings are extremely sensitive to the manner in which the cams are moved to roll
and yaw the aircraft.
6. Performing roll control using pitch amplitude variation through servos improved the control
bandwidth (reduced the time delay) as opposed to using rotational speed control where there
could be a large time delay due to the large rotational inertia of the cyclorotors and also the
delay introduced by the electronic speed controllers. Note that, this is first flight-capable
cyclogyro reported in the literature to utilize cycloidal rotors having both pitch amplitude and
phase control.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the Army’s MAST CTA Center for Microsystem Mechanics as well as
by the United States Air Force Academy Aeronautics Laboratory. The authors would like to thank Col
Neal Barlow, Lt Col Shad Reed and Dr Thomas McLaughlin for enabling the joint USAFA-UMD
research effort. This would not have been possible without their commitment to USAFA cadets and
research. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tejaswi Jarugumilli for his help during the
construction process.
REFERENCES
[1] Z. Adams and C. Fagley. Novel cyclorotor pitching mechanism for operation at curtate and
prolate advance ratios. AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 2013.
[2] M. Benedict, R. Gupta, and I. Chopra. Design, development and flight testing of a twin-rotor
cyclocopter micro air vehicle. Proceedings fo the 67th Annual National Forum of the American
Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, May 3-5 2011.
[3] M. Benedict, E. Shrestha, V. Hrishikeshacan, and I. Chopra. Development of 200 gram twin-rotor
micro cyclocopter capable of autonomous hover. American Helicopter Society, Future Vertical
Lift Aircraft Design Conference, San Francisco, CA, January 2012.
[4] Moble Benedict. Fundamental Understanding of the Cycloidal-Rotor Concept for Micro Air
Vehicle Applications. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, 2010.
[5] J Georgy, A Noureldin, M Korenberg, and M Bayoumi. Modeling the stochastic drift of a mems-
based gyroscope in gyro/odometer/gps integrated navigation. IEEE TRansactions on INtelligent
Transportation Systems, 11:856–872, December 2010.
[6] Tejaswi Jarugumilli, Andrew Lind, Moble Benedict, Vinod Lkshminarayan, Anya Jones, and
Inderjit Chopra. Experimental and computational flow field studies of a MAV-scale cycloidal
rotor in forward flight. 69th Annual International Forum, American Helicopter Society, May 22-
24 2013.

[7] I. Chopra M. Benedict, M. Ramasamy and J. Leishman. Performance of a cycloidal rotor concept
for micro air vehicle applications. AHS, 55:022002–1 – 022002–14, 2010.
[8] M. Ramasamy M. Benedict and I. Chopra. Improving the aerodynamic performance of micro-air-
vehicle-scale cycloidal rotor: An experimental approach. Journal of Aircraft, 47(4):1117 – 1125,
July-August 2010.
[9] T. Jarugumilli M. Benedict and I. Chopra. Experimental optimization of MAV-scale cyclocoidal
rotor performance. AHS, 56, 2011.
[10] A Mehta and K Pister. Warpwing: A complete open source control platform for miniature robots.
2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, October 2010.
[11] K. Cohen S. Siegel, J. Seidel and T. McLaughlin. A cycloidal propeller using dynamic lift. AIAA
Paper 2007-4232, June 2007.
[12] E. Shrestha, M. Benedict, V. Hrishikeshavan, and I. Chopra. Development of a 100 gram mirco
cyclocopter capa-ble of autonomous hover. Proceedings of the European Rotorcraft Forum,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, Septermber 4-7 2012.
[13] M. Benedict T. Jarugumilli and I. Chopra. Experimental optimization and performance analysis
of a MAV scale cycloidal rotor. AIAA Paper 2011-0821, 2011.
[14] Y Thong, M Woolfson, J Crowe, B Hayes-Gill, and R Challis. Dependence of inertial
measurements of distance on accelerometer noise. Meas. Sci. Technol., 13 (8):1163–1172.

Copyright of International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles is the property of Multi-Science
Publishing Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Design, Development, and Flight Test of A Small-Scale Cyclogyro UAV Utilizing A Novel Cam-Based Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Design, Development, and Flight Test of A Small-Scale Cyclogyro UAV Utilizing A Novel Cam-Based Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design, Development, and Flight Test of A Small-Scale Cyclogyro UAV Utilizing A Novel Cam-Based Passive Blade Pitching Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

145

Design, Development, and Flight

Received 3 March 2013; Accepted 18 June 2013

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 1: Generic three bladed cyclorotor.

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

Figure 2: Blade kinematics and forces on a cyclorotor in hover.

Table 1: Previous Cyclogyro Achievements

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 3: Previous linkage-based pitching mechanism [4].

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

2. BLADE PITCH CONTROL MECHANISM

Figure 5: Simplified cam-based passive blade pitching mechanism.

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Figure 9: Air Force Academy cyclorotor experimental set up.

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 10: Changing blade pitch through cam displacement.

Figure 11: Cam controlled Twin-Cyclogyro.

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

Table 2: Design specifications for Twin-Cyclogyro

Figure 12: Cyclorotor thrust phase shift (β).

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 14: Cam movement mechanism.

Figure 15: Cam and slider mounting.

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

3.2 Blade and Vehicle Structural Design

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 18: Cyclorotor structural design.

Figure 19: Cam bearing running along inside of cam.

Figure 20: Control Mechanism.

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

4. AIRCRAFT CONTROL SYSTEM

Figure 21: Control strategy for the Twin-Cyclogyro.

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

5. AVIONICS AND TELEMETRY

Figure 22: Wireless telemetry setup.

Figure 23: three gram processor-sensor board used on the aircraft.

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

6. INNER-LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL SYSTEM

Figure 24: Cyclogyro on the attitude-control test stand.

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

Figure 25: Schematics showing the feedback control system on cyclogyro.

Figure 26: Cam controlled cyclogyro in autonomous stable hover.

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2013

International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles

You might also like