RoboRaptor Wildlife Control Ornithopter

James Duffin

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of M.A.Sc.
Graduate Department of Aerospace Science and Engineering
University of Toronto

O Copyright by James DufFin 1997

 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K I A ON4
Canada Canada
The author has granted a non-
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1
copies of this thesis in microfom,
paper or electronic formats.
The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
penni ssion.
Your file Votre reWrence
Our file Notre rétdrence
L'auteur a accorde une licence non
exclusive permettant a la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
RoboRaptor Wildlife Control Ornithopter
M.A.Sc. 1997
James Duffh
Department of Aerospace Science and Engineering
University of Toronto

Abstract

This thesis describes the design, construction and testing of RoboRaptor: a petrol engine-

powered, radio-controlled ornithopter for pest control duties. A test platform

incorporating a flapping-mechanisrn was built, and used t o wind-tunnel test three types of

membrane-wings for optimum performance. Lift and thrust for a triangular wing, a

variable-span wing, and a triangular wing of high aspect ratio were measured at different

speeds, angles of attack, stroke angles and flapping frequencies.

The results showed that the variable-span wing produced good lift but inadequate thrust,

while increasing the aspect ratio of the triangular wing improved its lia. Increasing

airspeed, stroke angle and flapping frequency al1 improved lift and thrust performance.

The ornithopter was built by adapting the drivetrain and flapping-mechanism of the test

platform. When completed, flight tests were carried out. RoboRaptor is not yet capable

of sustained flight due to insufficient thnist.

Acknowledgements

First 1would like to thank Dr. DeLaurier, for his constant support and advice throughout

RoboRaptor's development, and for continuing to offer his students this type of

construction oriented research work. 1 enjoyed it very much. Thanks must also go to my

colleagues in the subsonic aerodynamics lab: Dino, Stu, Joeleff, Felix, Mike, Lorenzo,

Patrick, Bruce and of course, Dave. They answered questions, rendered advice, held bits

and pieces together while the glue set, and threw RoboRaptor off hills. Finally, 1 thank

both my parents for their unstinting support, and for providing me with three square meals

a day and a roof over my head.

Table of Contents
Page

Il
Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Appendices vii

Chapter 1 : Introduction

Chapter 2: Theory

Chapter 3 : Wind-tunnel Tests

3.1 Procedure
3.2 Results

Chapter 4: RoboRaptor
4.1 Design and Construction
4.2 Tcst Flights

Chapter 5: Discussion of Results and Recommendations

Chapter 7: References
List of Figures
Page

Figure 1 : Test Platform .Labels .............................................................................................. 6

Figurc 2 : Test Platform - Dimensions .......................................................................................7
Figure 3 : Strain Gauge Balance ...............................................................................................8
Figure 4 : Test Platform and Balance in Wind-tunnel, Aligned to Measure Lift ........................ 10
Figure 5 : Test Platform and Balance in Wind-tunnel, Aligned to Measure Thrust ....................10
Figure 6 : Wind-tunnel Wing Test Flowchart ...........................................................................I 1
Figure 7 : Ordinary Wing Membrane ...................................................................................13
Figure 8 : Variablc-span Wing Membrane ..............................................................................13
Figure 9 : Variable-span Wing Hinges....................................................................................14
Figure 10 : High AR Wing Membrane .................................................................................15
.
Figure I 1 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA +30/-20 stroke ...................................21
Figure 12 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ...............................22
Figure 13 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Lift vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke .............................23
Figure 14 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +3 01-20 stroke ........................24
Figure 15 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ...................25
Figure 16 : Low Speed (U=6.9 d s ) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ..............26
Figure 17 : Low Speed (U=6.9 d s ) Variable-span Wing Lift vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ........... 27
Figure 18 : Low Speed (U=6.9 d s ) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ....... 28
Figure 19 : High Speed (U-9.6 m/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke .................. 29
Figure 20 : High Speed (U=9.6 d s ) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA, -t-301-20 stroke ..............30
Figure 2 1 : High Speed (U=9.6 d s ) Variable-span Wing Lift vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke........... 31
Figure 22 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +30/-20 stroke ...... 32
Figure 23 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke .................................... 33
Figure 24 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc ................................34
Figure 25 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ............................. 35
Figurc 26 : Static (U-0) Variable-span Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke..................................36
Figure 27 : Static (U=O) High AR Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ....................................37
Figure 28 : Static (U=O) High AR Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ................................38
Figure 29 : Low Spced (U=6.9 d s ) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ................... 39
Figure 30 : Low Speed (U=6.9 d s ) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ..............40
Figurc 3 1 : Low Speed ( U 4 . 9 d s ) Variable-span Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc ........... 41
Figure 32 : Low Speed (U=6.9 d s ) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ....... 42
Figurc 33 : Low Spced (U=6.9 d s ) High AR Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc ................... 43
Figurc 34 : Low Spccd (U=6.9 d s ) High AR Wing Thrust vs . AOA. +45/-20 strokc .............. 44
Figurc 35 : High Spced (U=9.6 rn/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc .................. 45
.
Figurc 36 : High Spccd (U=9.6 m/s) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs . AOA +45/-20 strokc .............. 46
Figurc 37 : High Spced (U=9.6 d s ) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 strokc ........... 47
Figurc 38 : High Spccd (U=9.6 mds) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc ......48
Figurc 39 : High Spccd (U=9.6 d s ) High AR Wing Lift vs . AOA, +45/-20 stroke ..................49
Figure 40 : High Specd (U=9.6 d s ) High AR Wing Thrust vs . AOA, +45/-20 strokc .............. 50
 .
Figurc 4 1 : Ordinary Wing Lift vs . Speed +30/-20 stroke ...................................................... 5 1
Figure 42 : Ordinary Wing ïhmst vs . Speed. +30/-20 stroke ...................................................52
Figure 43 : Variable-span Wing Lift vs . Speed. +30/-20 stroke ................................................ 53
Figure 44 : Variable-span Wing Thnist vs . Speed. +30/-20 stroke ........................................... 54
Figure 45 : Ordinary Wing Lift vs . Speed. +45/-20 stroke ....................................................... 55
Figure 46 : Ordinary Wing Thmst vs . Speed. +45/-20 stroke ................................................... 56
Figure 47 : Variable-span Wing Lift vs . Speed, +45/-20 stroke ................................................ 57
Figure 48 : Variable-span Wing Thrust vs . Speed, +45/-20 stroke ...........................................58
.
Figure 49 : High AR Wing Lift vs . Speed +45/-20 stroke .......................................................59
Figure 50 : High AR Wing Thmst vs . Speed, +45/-20 stroke ................................................... 60
Figure 5 1 : Lift vs . Flapping Frequency ..................................................................................61
Figure 52 : Side View, RoboRaptor Mk .l a .............................................................................. 63
Figure 53 : Top View, RoboRaptor Mk .l a ..............................................................................6 4
Figure 54 : Front View, RoboRaptor Mk . la ............................................................................ 65
Figure 55 : Side View, RoboRaptor Mk.2 ...............................................................................67
Figure 56 : Top View, RoboRaptor Mk.2 ................................................................................68
Figure 57 : Front View, RoboRaptor Mk.2 .............................................................................. 69
Figure 58 : RoboRaptor Wing Membrane # 1 ...........................................................................7 0
Figure 59 : Wing Area vs . Thnist ............................................................................................71
Figure 60 : Wing Area vs . t i f t ................................................................................................73
Figure 6 1 : RoboRaptor Wing Membrane #2 ...........................................................................75
Figure 62 : RoboRaptor Mk.2 Wing Spar and Compression Stmt # 1 .......................................76
Figure 63 : RoboRaptor Mk.2 Wing Spar and Compression Stmt #2 .......................................77
Figure 64 : Crank Mechanism Cycle .......................................................................................84
List of Appendices

Appendix A - Test Platform

Appendix B - Test Data

Appendix C - RoboRaptor Construction

Appendix D - Photos

Appendix E - Double Beam Strain Balance Data Sampling Program

vii
Chapter 1: Introduction

"From Monte Ceceri ihe great hird wilE take its.flight,

which willflll the world with its greut renown "

Leonardo Da Vinci

This thesis is based on a 1994 application to the Charles A. Lindbergh find by

Dr. J. D. DeLaurier for the development of a mechanical raptor for airport wildlife

control. Since then, the role of this radio-controlled 'bird of prey' has been extended to

also include pest control around berry farms and vineyards.

Collisions between aircrafi and birds are a serious problem in aviation, causing

damage worth thousands of dollars and sometimes causing the aircrafi involved to crash.

Nor is this a rare occurrence: figures of around 850 bird impacts per year have been

reported in Canada. Berry farms, meanwhile, suffer the attentions of small birds that eat

the crops before they can be gathered, reducing the farm's output. A deterrent is

required to keep birds and other animals fiom obstructing flight operations at airports

and eating the crops at farms.

At present, live raptors are used for this purpose. A falconer releases the bird of

prey, which hunts down any smaller birds and animals nearby. Using these specially

trained hawks, falcons and eagles has several drawbacks, however. They are not under

the falconer's direct control, are somewhat unpredictable, and often the birds they are

supposed to chase away are not their natural prey. Naturally, any birds tliat the raptors

catch are killed. RoboRaptor would supplement this system by providing a reliable, fully
controllable and non-letha1 way to frighten off these pests.

Ordinary radio-controlled aeroplanes and helicopters have proven unsuccessful in

this role, even with noisemakers attached, as the birds eventually become accustomed to

their presence and do not construe them as a threat. RoboRaptor will capitalise on the

theory that it is the flapping wing motion of raptors, coupled with a purposehl

movement towards the target, that smaller birds have been 'programmed' by evolution

to fear. Hence RoboRaptor will be an ornithopter, using flapping wings to stay aloft.

The practicality of this method of flight has been demonstrated in the past by Mr.

Percival Spencer, an American aircraft designer, who successfUlly flew a series of

uncontrolled engine-powered ornithopters, roughly the size of raptors, in the 1960's.

These used wings with a leading edge spar supporting a triangutar membrane; inefficient,

but simple and robust. Unfortunately, the details of his design were unobtainable.

Nevertheless, his concept is the model RoboRaptor most closely approaches in terms of

design. Advancements in materials and the miniaturisation of radio equipment and

mode1 engines in the last thirty years have made it possible to build RoboRaptor lighter

than Spencer's ornithopter.

A fully controllable, experimental model ornithopter with a special 'shear-flex'

wing was constructed by Dr. J. D. DeLaurier and Mr. Jeremy Harris in 199 1, but its

design does not lend itself well to mass production. The wings are complicated to build

and dificult to repair. Finally, there are the popular series of small, rubber-band
powered Tim Bird toy ornithopters, also utilising membrane-wings.

RoboRaptor has a wingspan of under two metres, an appropriate size for a bird

of prey. It uses triangular membrane-wings, as on the Spencer ornithopter, which were

designed using wind-tunnel test data. I used the experience gained in the dynamic wind-

tunnel testing of flapping wings as set out in two previous theses, by Mr. Chad J . clark2

of the University of Toronto and Mr. Marius A. ~ j e n ~ d r a w i of

r a the
~ University of New

South Wales. RoboRaptor is powered by a small petrol engine as used in radio

controlled aircraft, which is linked to the flapping-mechanism via a gear reduction

system. It is designed to be easy to mass produce and easy to fly. Although this proof-

of-concept mode1 was left unpainted, experiments could be carried out with its colour

and minor variations to its shape to maximise the deterrent effect.

Chapter 2: Theory

Very little theoretical knowledge of ornithopter flight exists. Design data for use

in RoboRaptor's development therefore had to be obtained from experimentation. Chad

a ~ bot h writ ten undergraduate theses on flapping

clark2 and Marius ~ j e n ~ d r a w i rhave

winç flight based on wind-tunnel experiments with Tim Bird toy ornithopters. The Tim

Bird is a mbber-band powered, membrane-wing ornithopter with a 15" wingspan.

Although RoboRaptor is based primarily on Mr. Spencer's work, it is also in effect a

scaled-up Tim Bird with a petrol engine and a rudder. Therefore, Mr. Clark's and Mr.

Tjengdrawira's work provided suitable background for developing RoboRaptor's wings

and carrying out wind-tunnel experiments upon them.

In tandem with these experiments, Thomas ~ e n k developed

~ n ~ a numerical mode1

run by computer that describes the dynamics of flapping triangular membrane-wings.

His results compare well with the average lifi forces measured in my wind-tunnel tests;

however the computed average thrust values does not agree nearly as well. 1 urge those

interested in a more detailed study of flapping wing dynamics to read his thesis.
Chapter 3: Wind-tunnel Tests

3.1 Procedure

This thesis work proceeded in two phases. First, wind-tunnel test data was

gathered for various wing types to determine the configuration producing the optimum

lifi and thrust. Secondly, the fùselage, drivetrain and tail of the ornithopter were

designed and built.

Before data colIection, a test platform was built to support the wings and flap

them. A strain gauge balance was attached to measure the forces exerted by the wings.

The platform (See Figure 1, Figure 2) had the following design features:

A flapping-mechanism consisting of a DC electric motor and a 68: 1 gearbox

The angle-of-attack was configurable at discrete settings: - 1 O", O", 1O", 20"

and 30"

An adjustable flapping frequency

A strong, rigid construction

The ability to easily interchange wings

0 A streamlined shroud to cover the mechanism, and a nosecone

This platform was bolted to a single-channel, dual-beam strain çauge balance,

capable of measuring force in one direction oiily (See Figure 3). Although it therefore

required separate orientations to measure Iift and thrust force, this simpler one-axis
 Wingspan: 41 inches

Figure 1 : Test Platform - Labels

G
 Side V i e w Front View

Wingspan: 41 inches

al1 dimensions in cm

Figure 2 : Test Platform - Dimensions

al1 dimensions i n c m

Figure 3 :Strain Gauge Balance

8
system reduced data errors due to liftldrag interaction (See Figure 4, Figure 5). The

electric signal from the strain gauges was sent via a DAS-8 12 bit successive

approximation A/D converter to a computer program PARABAS (See Appendix E)

which outputs the force exerted in Newtons. The balance was calibrated by applying

known forces using a Newton spring scale.

The wings were dynamically tested under the following conditions:

0 Angles of Attack of - 1O", O", 1O", 20" and 30"

0 Wind-tunnel speeds of O, 6.9 rn/s and 9.6 m/s

0 Motor Voltages of SV, 7V, 9V, 1 1V and 13V

Wing stroke angles of +30°/-20" and +4S0/-20"

The wing stroke angles were derived from the DeLaurier-Harris ornithopter

(+30°/-20") and the Tim Bird toy ornithopter (+4S0/-20"). The low wind-tunnel speeds

were achieved by placing sheets of Fotril fabric stuffing in the tunnel to choke the flow.

One 138 x 92 cm sheet of 114" thick Fotril created a 9.6 m/s flow and three layered

sheets created the 6.9 m/s flow. Figure 6 shows al1 the combinations of variables under

which the wings operated, in flowchart form. 1 selected the best flap amplitude and

frequency using this data and established the probable cruising speed and angle-of-attack

of RoboRaptor in normal fiight.

Three types of wing were tested: an ordinary triangular wing, a variable-span

wing and a triangular wing of high aspect ratio.

 Figure 4 :Test Platform and Balance in Wind-tunnel, Aligned to Measure Lift

Figure 5 : Test Platform and Balance in Wind-tunnel, Aligned to Measure Thrust

 . .
I -
r' 1
wlng strolte angle wing stroke angle
t301-20 degrees +45/-20 degrees

l 1
tunnel speed tunnel speed tunnel speed
O mls 6.9 m l s 9.6 mis
I
I I 1 I 1

1 1
5Vmotor 7Vmolor 9Vmalor llVmotor l3Vmotor
voltage voltage voltage voltage voltage

Note that to save space, only the Ordinary Wing. +3OV/-20". O d s ,

-10" AOA case is expanded.

Figure 6 : Wind-tunnel Wing Test Flowchart

Ordinary triangular wing: This wing consisted of a triangular membrane of 25 g/m2

fibrous plastic, attached to a 46 cm fonvard spar of birch dowel (See Figure 7). The

area of both wings was 1723.9 cm2, the wingspan 104.16 cm, and the Aspect Ratio 5.6.

The length of the root edge was 37.5 cm.

Variable-span wing: This wing was identical to the ordinary triangular wing except for

one important detail: the spar was hinged at 40% of its length and sprung with elastic so

that the wings folded on the upstroke but remained straight on the downstroke. This

change was adopted in order to reduce the downward force produced on the upstroke

(See Figure 9). The area of the membrane was reduced slightly to accommodate the

hinge: the total wing area is 1716.9 cm2 (See Figure 8). This wing most closely

approximated a bird's wing in flight. Unfortunately, the hinge mechanism was not very

robust, and so these wings were not tested with 13V supplied to the motor because it

was feared that the spar would fail at this speed.

Hiah Aspect Ratio wing: This wing had a longer (55.5 cm) spar and a shorter root edge

(27 cm) than the previous two wings which gave it a significantly greater Aspect Ratio

of 9.1, but a smaller area: 1486.9 cm2 (See Figure 10). Its wingspan was 123.16 cm. In

general, increasing the aspect ratio improves the lifting performance of fixed wings, and

1 hoped that this would also be the case for flapping wings.
 Figure 7 : Ordinary Wing Membrane

Figure 8 :Variable Span Wing Membrane

Figure 9 : Variable Span Wing Hingcs
Figure 10 : High AR Wing Membrane
During each run, the data acquisition system took 1000 samples and averaged them t o

çive a force reading. This procedure was repeated six tirnes, and the six values averaged

to give the final reading. Sampling took place over several seconds, long enough to

ensure that several flapping cycles occurred, so that the average reading represented the

overall force exerted over an entire cycle and not the instantaneous force at any given

point in the cycle, which would be misleading.

Lift and drag tare values were taken for the platform, without the wings

attached, for each angle-of-attack and tunnel speed. Finally, each of the configurations

was filmed with a video camera placed behind the platform in the tunnel. The camera

was set to a high fiame rate, 111000, to capture the motion of the membrane at high

flapping speed.
3.2 Results

Data from the DAS-8 were saved to disk and organised using Microsoft Excel v. 7.0 in

tabular format (See Appendix B). First, the six force values were averaged to calculate

the final lie or thrust figure for that configuration. Second, the tare was subtracted from

this value to eliminate the lift or drag caused by the shrouded platform. The DC motor

voltage setting was converted to a flapping frequency in Hz using the video film of the

wing motion (5V was approximately 2 Hz, 7V=3 Hz, 9V=4 Hz, 1 1V=5 Hz and 13 V

around 5.5 Hz, although these values varied slightly from configuration to

configuration). Lastly, the original six force values were used to determine the standard

deviation of the final value.

Two sets of plots were made to illustrate the trends in the data. The first set

graphed the lifi or drag force vs. tunnel speed for each angle-of-attack setting. The

second set showed the lifi or drag force vs. angle-of-attack, at fixed flow speed, for each

flapping frequency. In each set, separate plots were made for the +30°/-20" and +45"/-

20" stroke angles and for lie and drag force.

Two trends common to al1 the wings are irnmediately apparent from these graphs

(Figure 1 1 to Figure 50): the larger stroke angle (+45"/-20") produced better lifi and

thrust, and the higher the flappinç frequency, the more lift and thrust was produced (See

Figure 5 1). The wings behave like flat plates in that they produce little lift at zero angle-

of-attack (AOA). The higher the AOA, the more lifi produced; but at high angles the
thrust output drops rapidly. A 1O" angle-of-attack is reasonable for RoboRaptor during

flight, as it optimises the lift and thrust. Also apparent from these graphs is that the

higher the tunnel speed, the better the lift. This indicated that lift and thrust are related:

the higher the thrust, the higher the ornithopter's top speed, and thus the greater the lifi

produced.

1 also compared the performance of each wing type. The variable-span wing

was a disappointment; it produced relatively more lift than the triangular wings at low

speeds and low angles of attack, but these increases were very small, certainly not

' AOA and O m/s speed, the variable-span wing produces

enough to fly with. At 0

h: 0.5N lie as opposed to x -0.8Nfor the ordinary triangular wing (See Figure 45,

Figure 47). They produced significantly less thnist than the triangular wings (See Figure

46, Figure 48). These fmdings agree with the hypothesis of Mr. Tom Jenkyn, who

calculated that most of the thnist in a flapping membrane-wing is produced during the

wing's upstroke. Because the variable-span wing folds on the upstroke, the deformed

membrane produces less thrust. Finally, the design is heavier, more complex, and more

prone to damage than the triangular wings.

The ordinary triangular wing was the best performer, capable of 6 in/s speeds

and 234 g of lifi at 10" AOA (See Figure 45, Figure 46). The estimated top speed of

RoboRaptor for a particular wing type was taken from the plot of Thrust vs. Tunnel

Speed as the speed at which the plot crosses the horizontal axis (the point of zero
thrust). This is the maximum speed of the wings alone, neglecting the fuselage drag. 1

chose to allow for a fùselage drag of around 0.4 N.

The higher aspect ratio wing turned in virtually identical lift to the ordinary

triangular wing at IO0 AOA (Figure 49), despite its smalIer area and lower fiequency

(4.5 Hz as opposed to 5.5 Hz). At higher AOAs, however, the performance of the

ordinary triangular wing was superior. The high aspect ratio wing produced lower

values of thrust at 10" AOA, and was again outperformed by the ordinary triangular

wing at 20" and 30" (See Figure 46, Figure 50). 1 concluded that this lower performance

was likely the result of having a shorter average chord. The longer wing spars taxed the

motor more heavily, and the birch dowel spars had to be replaced with fibreglass dowels

to prevent breakage due to the increased loads. Nonetheless, this wing's performance

was good and, with an area and flapping frequency comparable to that of the ordinary

triangular wing, would probably have proved superior.

In summary, the variable-span wing proved capable of 2-3 mis top speed,

producing =: 0.3 N of thrust and 1.3 N of lift at I O" AOA and 4.8 Hz flapping frequency.

The ordinary triangular wing was capable of 6 m / s top speed, producing 0.4 N of thmst

and 2 . 3 N of lifl at 1O0 and 5.5 Hz. The high aspect ratio wing was capable of 5 m/s top

speed, 0.4 N of thrust and just over 2 N of lifl at 10' and 4.5 Hz. 1 concluded that, for

best performance, the RoboRaptor wing should have a triangular planform, and combine
the large area of the ordinary wing (for optimum thrust) with a high aspect ratio, since

the high AR wing showed potential for optimum lift at 10" AOA.
 Static Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA

UTIAS, h r c h 19% AOA (degrccs)

Figure I l : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 Static Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA

UTIAS. March 19% AOA (d c ~ ~ M ' P )

Figure 12 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 "
Static Variable Span Wing Lift vs. AOA
+30/-20airokç

O'

a- + ,----]

- 10 -5 O 5 10 15 20 25 30
UTIAS. h r c h 195% AOA (degrces)

Figure 13 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 Static Variable Span Wing Thrust vs. AOA

a+---
- 10 -5 O 5 10 15 20 25 30
UTlAS. Wrch 13% AOA (degrces)

Figure 14 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 Low Speed Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA

AOA (degrces)

Figure 15 : Low Speed (U-6.9 mfs)Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 Low Speeü Ordinary Wing Thrust va. AOA

Figure 16 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 Law Spced Variable Span Wing Lift W. AOA

3 --

UTIAS. March 1996 AOA (dcgrccs)

Figure 17 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 Low Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust vs. AOA

UT1AS, March 1% AOA (degrces)

Figure 18 : Low Speed (U=6.9 mls) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 High Specd Onlinary Wing Lift vs. AOA

10 -r +30/-20s h k e

Figure 19 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20 stroke
 High Speed Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA

-3 1
UTIAS, March 1996 AOA (dc~rccr)

Figure 20 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 High Speed VariabIe Span Wing Lift vs. AOA

LJï'iAS.March 1% AOA (degrces)

Figure 21 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 High Speed Variable Spiin Wing Thrust vs. AOA

5 tIz

+30/-20stroke
9.6mis

-2.5
Uïï AS. Mÿrch 1936 AOA (degrces)

Figure 22 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +30/-20
stroke
 Static Onfinary Wing Lit vs. AOA

451-20 strokc
"'" T

VnAS. Aprill !NG AOA (degmeir)

Figure 23 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Static Ordinary Wing Thmst vs. AOA

! A - - 4

- 10 -5 O 5 10 15 20 25 30
UI1AS. i'vbrch 19% AOA (dcgnics)

Figure 24 : Static (U=O) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Static Variable Span Wing Lit vs. AOA

AQA (degrces)

Figure 25 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Static Variable Span Wing T h ~ svs.
t AOA

UTIAS. March 1936 AOA (degrces)

Figure 26 : Static (U=O) Variable-span Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke

 Static High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA
t451-20 dcgees

AOA (degreen)
UTIAS.M:iy 1996

Figure 27 :Static (U=O) High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Static High AR Wing Thmt vs. AOA
+45/-20 dcgrrs

-10 4 O 5 10 15 M 25 JO
LiI'1A.S. N i y 1996 AOA (degrees)

Figure 28 : Static ( P O ) High AR Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke

 Low Speed Ordinary Wing Lift va. AOA

-3
UiïAS. Apd 1W6 AOA (dcgrccs)

Figure 29 : Low Speed (W6.9 m/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Low Speed Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA
451-20 strokc
6 . 9 niis

AOA (dcgrccs)

Figure 30 : Low Speed (U=6.9 mls) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 Low Spccd Variable Span Wing Lift vs. AOA

UTIAS. April 19% AOA (dcgrccs)

Figure 31 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20
stro ke
 Low Spccd Variable Span Wing Thrust vs. AOA

AOA (dcgrecs)

Figure 32 : Low Speed (U=6.9 mls) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 Low Speed High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA

üTiAS. May 1996 AOA(degreea)

Figure 33 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 Low Spccd Higli AR Wing Thmst vs. AOA
4 5 1 - 2 0 dsgcrs
69ds

AOA (degrees)
LITIAS. May 1996

Figure 34 : Low Speed (U=6.9 m/s) High AR Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 High Spced Ordinary Winp Lift vs. AOA

-2 1
UTIAS. Wrcli 19% AOA (dcgrws)

Figure 35 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) Ordinary Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 High Speed Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA

AOA (degrces)

Figure 36 : High Speed (W9.6 mls) Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 High Speed Variable Span Wing Lift vs. AOA
+45/-20 strokc

4 --

UTIAS. tZpril 1936 AOA (degrces)

Figure 37 : High Speed (U=9.6 mls) Variable-span Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 High Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust vs. AOA
+45/-20 strokç
9.6 mis

ü ï ï A S , mrch 19% AOA (d cgrrw)

Figure 38 : High Speed (U=9.6 mls) Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 High Specd High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA

9.7 rnk
4.5 FI;..

6 --

4 --

-z
E

-4 -
AOA (degrees)
W1AS. May lm6

Figure 39 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) High AR Wing Lift vs. AOA, +45/-20 stroke
 High Specd High AR Wing Thnist vs. AOA

-5 1
WiïAS. m y 1996 AOA (degrees]

Figure 40 : High Speed (U=9.6 m/s) High AR Wing Thrust vs. AOA, +45/-20
stroke
 Ordinary Wing Lift vs. Speed at 5.8 Hz
+30/-20 strokr

Figure 41 : Ordinary Wing Lift vs. Speed, +30/-20stroke

 Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. Speed at 5.8 Hz
+3O/-20strokç

-3 1
UTIAS. March 1936

Figure 42 :Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. Speed, +30/-20 stroke

 Variable Span Wing Lift vs. Spced at 5 Hz

+30/-20 strokc

-1 1 -10 AOA

UT1AS,Marc11 19% Spced (mls)

Figure 43 : Variable-span Wing Lift vs. Speed, +30/-20 stroke

 Variahlc Span Wing Thrust vs. Spced at 5 Hz
4 301-20 strokç

'T

Figure 44 : Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. Speed, +30/-20 stroke

 Lift vs. Speed for the Ordinary Wing at 5.5 HL

-+451-20~ t r o k z
30 AOA

20 AOA

10 AOA

-,.-.-*----
-___.--- AOA
- - - - - - - - - - -O3
---+----!---
1---t
10
------.--__._____
----__ - - 9 - - _ _
-10 AOA

UTIAS. April 19% Spwd (mls)

Figure 45 :Ordinary Wing Lift vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Thrust vs. Spced for the Ordinary Wing at 5.5 Hz

UTIAS. April 1996 Spmd (mls)

Figure 46 : Ordinary Wing Thrust vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Lift vs. Spccd for the Variable Span Wing at 4.8 Hz

,--+-1

3 4 5 7 1"
---9---,
1 -10 AOA

UTIAS, April 19% Spwd (mls)

Figure 47 : Variable-span Wing Lift vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Thrust vs. Speed for the Variable Span Wing at 4.8 Hz

20 A 0 A

30 AOA

Figure 48 : Variable-span Wing Thrust vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Lift vs. Speed for High AR wings at 4.5 Hz

+451-20 strokc

30 AOA

20 A 0 A

Figure 49 : High AR Wing Lift vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Thrust vs. Speed for High AR wings at 4.5 Hz

UTIAS. May 13% Specd (mls)

Figure 50 : High AR Wing Thrust vs. Speed, +45/-20 stroke

 Fig. 52 :Lift vs. Flapping Frcqucncy

10 dcgrees AOA
6.9 m/s
tnanylar test wing
+45/-20 dcgrcc stroke

O ! a-----
O 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14
UTlAS Decem bcr 1996 Flapping Frcquency (Hz)

Figure 51 : Lift vs. Flapping Frequency

Chapter 4: RoboRaptor

4.1 Design and Construction

After the wing design was determined, the next step was to build the fuselage

and tail assembly. 1 adapted the test platform's drive train and flapping-mechanism for

RoboRaptor in order to take advantage of the lessons learned fiom constnicting and

using the test platform.

S~ecifications

(See Figure 52, Figure 53, Figure 54)

Wingspan: 127.1 cm

Length: 72.5 cm

Wing area: 2228.32 cm2

Powerplant: Cox .O74 Queen Bee glow plug engine with throttle and muffler
Estimated power: 122 W

Gear reduction: 68: 1

Maximum flapping frequency: approx. 4.3 Hz

Flapping frequency at idle: 0.86 Hz

Al1 Up Weight: 724.5 g

Receiver: Futaba R112JE 2 channel AM receiver, 72 MHz, channe144

Servo: Futaba micro precision servo

Battery pack: Sanyo 4.8 V 1 10 mAh

Figure 52 : Side View, RoboRaptor Mk.la
Figure 53 : Top View, RoboRaptor Mk.la
anqina Drora llvwhool ton

MO01

Figure 54 : Front View, RoboRaptor Mk. l a

 Petrol tank: Sullivan 1 oz. slant fùel tank (interna1 darnping from plastic scrub

pad)

Transmitter: Futaba SR 2 channel AM transmitter, 72 MHz, channel44

Mk. II: (See Figure 55, Figure 56, Figure 57)

Powerplant: P.A.W. .O6 diesel engine with throttle and muffler.

Estimated power output: roughly equivalent to Cox .O74

Maximum flapping frequency: approximately 2.45 Hz

0 Ai1 Up Weight: 741 g

Ail other specifications identical

Larger wings would be needed for the 700+ g RoboRaptor Mk. la, since the best

wings tested in the wind-tunnel could only support 234 g. 1 therefore made larger wings

with a higher aspect ratio; but 1 wanted to know if they would provide enough lie, and

therefore made some estimations from available data.

The larger wings had an area of 2226 cm2, and an aspect ratio of 6.87 (See

Figure 58). 1 made a plot of Wing Area vs. Thrust using data from the Tim Bird and the

ordinary test wings (See Fiçure 59),assurning that zero wing area gives zero thrust. 1

extrapolated the curve to the new wing area and determined that RoboRaptor's wings at

5.5 Hz showed an estimated increase in thrust of 121.4% over the ordinary test wings.
 Then, using the graph of Thrust vs. Speed for the ordinary test wings as a

reference (Figure 46), 1 determined that the irnproved thnist of the new wings would

give the ornithopter a top speed of between 7 and 8 mk.

Figure 55 : Side View, RoboRaptor Mk.2

Figure 56 : Top View, RoboRaptor Mk.2
Figure 57 : Front View, RoboRaptor Mk.2
Figure 58 : RoboRaptor Wing Membrane #1
 Wing Area vs. Thrust

3.6 m/s RoboRaptor

15 dçgrccs AOA wing # l --
5.5 Hz flapping frequrncy (cxtrapolalion) bf
+45/-20 dcgrcc strokc
.sf
/
..y-

,/-
ordinwy tcst

/-.-

TIM bird
wing

Wing Area (cmA2)

Figure 59 : Wing Area vs. Thrust

 At speeds between 7 and 8 mis under reasonable flight conditions, the graph of

Lifl vs. Speed for the ordinary test wings (Figure 45) predicts 3 - 3.5 N of lift.

However, I now had to calculate and apply the percentage increase in lift due to the

larger area of the new wings to this prediction.

1used data from the Tim Bird and the ordinary test wings to plot Wing Area vs.

Lift (See Figure 60) and extrapolated the curve to the new wing area. 1 assumed that

zero wing area produced zero lift.

1 concluded that the new wings should produce an increase in lift of 94.8% over

the ordinary test wings, and applied this increase to the 3 - 3.5 N of lift generated by the

ordinary test wings. 1predicted that the new wings will produce 5.8 - 6.8 N (592 - 694

g) of lift at reasonable flight conditions (10" AOA, +45"/-20" stroke, 5.5 Hz flapping

frequency), at speeds between 7 and 8 m/s.

Although the new wings will operate at 4.3 Hz, not 5.5 Hz, the data for the high

aspect ratio wings operating at 4.5 Hz showed no decrease in lift from the data for the

ordinary test wings at 5.5 Hz under reasonable flight conditions. 1 therefore assumed

that the decrease in flapping frequency would have a minimal effect on RoboRaptor7s

higher aspect ratio wings.

 Wing Area vs. Lift

5.8 Hz iiapping frequency

15 degrees AOA
3.6 mls atrspeed

Test wng

TIM bird

O4 I
1 500 1 O00 t 500 2000 2500

-50A
UTlAS November 96 Wing Area (cmh2)

Figure 60 : Wing Area vs. Lift

 From these extrapolations 1 realised that these wings would fa11 just short of

providing enough lie, and afier thirteen test flights these findings were borne out;

greater lie and thmst were needed. 1 designed and built a second set of wings with

longer, uniformly tapered spars and a larger area and aspect ratio (See Figure 61). They

had an area of 2892 cm2 and an aspect ratio of 8.82.

The real problem became apparent after tests with the second wing design: not

enough thmst was being produced. When initially launched, the model could sustain

flight, but soon slowed down and stalled. 1 added compression struts running diagonally

between the wing spar and the root spar to improve the wing's performance (See Figure

62). These braced the wing spar and prevented it from bending in the fore and aft

direction while flapping. 1 assumed that such bending would deform the membrane and

reduce its effectiveness. Initially, 1 used 3/16" birch dowel for the stmt. The wing's

washout was decreased, requiring rebalancing of the model, but no other improvements

were apparent. I believe this could have been because the struts constrained the

membrane's shape on the upstroke, where most of the thmst is generated. I replaced the

dowels with more flexible 118" fibreglass rods, and reduced the constrained area by

moving the struts closer to the fuselage (See Figure 63), but RoboRaptor still produced

insuficient thrust.

1 chose the .O74 CU. in. engine because it provided the optimum balance between

weight and power output. 1calculated the maximum expected power demand from
Figure 61 : RoboRaptor Wing Membrane #2
 7/32' Llross tublng
CsoLd~r j o i n t )

Figure 62 : RoboRaptor Mk.2 Wing Spar and Compression Strut #l

Figure 63 : RoboRaptor Mk.2 Wing Spar and Compression Strut #2
the wind-tunnel test results, using the recorded voltage (V) and current (A):

Power = Voltage x Clirrrent

The maximum power requirernent for any configuration was 52 W; but

RoboRaptor7swings were larger and, because the power required to drive them must

therefore also be larger, 1 doubled this figure to 104 W. Since a 0.45 CU. in. engine

outputs one horsepower, or 746 W, 1 calculated the power outputs of common engine

sizes:

Engine Size (CU.in.) Power Output (W)

0.1 165.8

.O9 149.2

.O74 122.7

.O49 81.2

1 concluded that the .O74 engine was the optimum choice. This particular engine

also had the advantage of possessing a throttle and a muffler.

1 designed the engine flywheel based on the constraints of the fùselage size. 1ts

maximum possible diameter was approximately 5 cm, so this value was taken as a

starting point for calculations. The flywheel also had to be as light as possible.

Normally, the propeller would act as a flywheel, so a 7-4 propeller (the standard size for

this engine) was used to calculate the minimum moment of inertia the flywheel should

provide. 1 approximated the propeller by a uniform rod with

and the flywheel was approximated as a disk and a ring:

(disk) (ring)

The approximate weight of the flywheel design was calculated using the density of

aluminium. 1 found that the moment of inertia of the lightest flywheel easily exceeded

that of the propeller, and assumed it was adequate to prevent engine strain; the extra

moment of inertia would serve to smooth out the motion of the mechanism whilst

flapping.

Before the engine was installed, it was run up to break it in with a 7-4 propeller

attached in place of the flywheel. The engine was run through three fidl tanks of fuel to

allow the factory-fresh parts to mate with each other. 1 found the engine extremely

dificuit to start initially, but by the end of the breaking-in process, it started on the first

or second try. Next, 1 attached the flywheel and cooling fan, and ran the engine up

again, to see that the flywheel was adequately balanced and that the fan would not

disintegrate at the engine's top speed of 17500 r.p.m. This test was successfbl.

With the engine installed, RoboRaptor was held in a vice whilst the engine was

run to test the flapping-mechanism. 1 started the engine using a high-toque electric
starter, fitted with a rubber wheel that would turn over the flywheel. An electric storage

ce11 was attached to the engine's glow plug, and the flywheel spun counter-clockwise.

The first attempt revealed that the flywheel came unscrewed from the engine

while being rotated counter-clockwise against the compression of the engine. With the

engine driving it, any resistance to rotation would serve to tighten the flywheel;

however, during startup the flywheel loosened. Applications of thread locker to the

screw had little effect on this problem, so 1 drove a 2/56" x 318" screw through the

flywheel into the engine driveshaft to lock the two together. This solution proved

effective, although the torque at startup was so great that a second screw had to be

added later.

The second run up resulted in the successful firing of the engine, but the set-

screws holding the brass drive shafl frorn the gearbox to the flapping-mechanism crank

wheel slipped, and the wings did not flap. 1 retightened the set-screws.

The third run up revealed that the set-screws were still slipping. The brass

tubing forming the drive shaft was removed and found to be damaged: the set-screw of

the crank wheel had gouged a trench in the sofi metal. 1 replaced the tubing with a solid

brass rod, with dimples d d k d into it to accommodate the set-screws.

The fourth run up successfùlly flapped the wings, but only until one of the two

3/16" birch dowel spars acting as the axles for the wing pivots, and the attachment
points for the root edges of the wing membranes, snapped in two. 1 replaced these with

3/ 16" fibreglass spars.

The fifih run up showed that the gear teeth linking the two wing pivots were

skipping, resulting in only one of the wings being driven. 1 replaced the gear teeth with

larger ones.

During the sixth run up, the problem recurred; the twisting of the fkselage under

torque was causing the gears to corne out of alignment and skip. 1 decided to discard

the gear linkage and use the dual strip method 1 had used for the test platform (See

Appendix A). Instead of metal tape, however, 1 used bundies of kevlar thread to link the

wings rnechanicaily. The threads were tied to 2/56" screws set into the acrylic wing

pivots and the knots secured with cyanoacrylate.

The seventh run up was the most successfùl yet; however, after several flaps one

of the kevlar threads snapped. I thought this fault was due to the cyanoacrylate making

the kevlar brittle and easier to break. 1 installed new kevlar threads with three times as

many strands, used small amounts of epoxy to hold the knots.

The eighth run up was completely successful. The engine drove the wings at full

throttle, and no damage occurred. This test was filmed on S-VHS tape at 1/1000 frame

speed to analyse the flapping-mechanism's behaviour.

1 performed a nintli test to determine wliether the AM transmitter was able to

actuate the rudder whilst the engine was running. OAen the mechanical interference
from an operating engine blocks the AM signal. This was not the case here, however,

and the test proceeded successfùlly. This test was also filmed.

By the tenth test, the 2/56" bolts attaching the flywheel to the engine driveshaft

had started to shear through. 1 removed the flywheel, and replaced the central threaded

shaft, discarding the broken bolts. 1 made an aluminium collar to fil1 the space between

the flywheel disk and the engine driveshaft. The central threaded shafi, collar, flywheel

and driveshaft were bonded together with slow curing epoxy. When this had set, 1

threaded two replacement 2/56" bolts through the flywheel and collar and into the

driveshaft. The collar fitted between the fiywheel and the driveshaft reduced the shear

load on the bolts, and provided more support and a greater mating surface between the

two parts.

1 intended the eleventh test to be a trial run for the actuaI launch of RoboRaptor,

to determine the ease of starting. The test was conducted outdoors, with the fibreglass

shell in place and, rather than holding the ornithopter in a vice, it was supported by a

person. The engine started successfùlly, and after some practice the procedure became

easy to accornplish. However, a fùel flow problem caused the engine to cut out after

several seconds. During the subsequent adjustment of the engine needle valve while

running, the mode1 was tipped fonvards causing the engine to run lean for a few

seconds. The engine responded with a burst of power, causing the flapping frequency to

increase markedly. Unfortunately, the strain on the drivetrain was too great and the
brass driveshafi bent and tore upwards through the 1/16" plywood bulkhead directly

behind the wing pivots, causing localised damage. I repaired the bulkhead and

reinforced the area where the driveshafi is supported by gluing a layer of 1/32" plywood

to the rear-facing side of the bulkhead; it was positioned with its grain running

perpendicular t o that of the bulkhead. 1 applied fùrther reinforcement consisting of two

layers of 2 oz. fibreglass attached with epoxy on both sides of the bulkhead. 1 also

replaced the bent driveshaft. During this test. the modified flywheel performed well,

with no sign of damage.

1 noted that during the tests the wings slid fornards along the wing root spars

while flapping, resulting in cmmpling of the membrane. To prevent this, 1 built two

small acryiic collars which clamped the membrane towards the trading edge using set-

screws without restricting the motion of the wings.

The twelflh test was also an outdoor test with the fibreglass shell in place. The

engine was started successfidly, and ran well. However, the positions of the needle

valve for starting and for maximum r.p.m. were not known. Once again I clamped the

ornithopter to the workbench and tested it without the shroud. 1 found that the engilie

started best with the needle valve opened three turns. As the valve was closed slowly

the r.p.m. increased t o a maximum with the needle valve open around 1.5 to 2 turns.

This trial resulted in the highest flapping frequency seen yet and the new driveshaft was
bent out of tme, although the reinforced bulkhead was undamaged. More seriously. one

of the 118" rotary ball-bearing sets on the crank arm was damaged beyond repair.

After this test 1 undertook a serious examination of the crank mechanism. 1

found that in its current configuration, the system was forced to twist because the

distance between the crank arrn pins was not a constant. At the maximum and minimum

positions during the 360 degree cycle the crank arm length is 2.85 cm, resulting in a

stroke of +&O/-23.5" (See Figure 64).

Figure 64 : Crank Mechanism Cycle

 90" anti-clockwise beyond the minimum, the distance between the pins increased

to 3.14 cm, and 90" beyond the maximum the distance was 2.93 cm. CIearly, these

mismatched lengths put the system under undue stress. 1 made a new crank wheel from

aluminium, with a 6 mm long slot rather than a pin joint to allow the Iower bearing of

the crank arm to slide up and down in the slot and adjust its distance according to its

position in the cycle. The pin joint attaching the crank arm to the wing pivot remained

the same.

1 carried out two more tests with the mode1 in the vice to observe the new crank

mechanism. The system worked admirably, with noticeably less stress on the system. 1

transferred video clips of both the old and new mechanisms in operation to an .AV1

computer file, enabling direct, side-by-side comparison when viewed under the Windows

95 operating system.

Unfortunately, the flapping frequency during these tests was quite slow; only

around 1 Hz even at hl1 throttle. I concluded that stretchinç the wing membrane using

the acrylic clamps constrained the mechanism too much. Once the membrane was

allowed some slack, the flapping frequency increased notably. However, high speed

running produced other problems. Once again the brass driveshafi bent, as did the 1/16"

aluminium crank arm. 1 replaced the brass driveshafi with a steel one and made a new

crank arm. 1/16" plywood was reinforced on both sides with two layers of 2 oz.

fiberglass attached with epoxy. The resulting crank arm was strong, lightweight and
immune to deflection. At high frequencies the new crank still produced a lot of shaking

in the fuselage structure, which resulted in the loosening of the horizontal tail hinge

joint. 1 therefore reinforced the joint by wrapping it with kevlar thread.

1 carried out the last series of tests with this configuration, and found that back

Ioading on the crank caused the drive gear to the gearbox to corne unscrewed from the

flywheeI; it was secured with thread locker. 1 then deemed RoboRaptor ready for a test

flight.

After six test flight attempts, the Cox engine failed. The piston crank rod was

badly bent and the reed-valve mechanism damaged, probably through contact with the

misshapen piston. Replacing the piston and reed valve using parts from the second

engine only resulted in the same failure, even when running the engine without

significant Ioad: without the crank or wings attached. 1 attributed the Cox engine failure

to poor quality of workmanship and materials.

A P.A.W .O6 diesel was chosen for the new engine. It is a robust, high-quality

English engine, with several advantages over glow plug engines:

Diesels require no glow plug battery or ni starter

Diesels produce higher torque than glow plug engines

Diesels are quieter than glow plug engines

Diesels run cooler than slow plug engines

 I ran in the new engine and deterrnined the optimum fbel valve and compression

settings while spinning a 7-4 propeller. 1 designed a new flywheel to fit the diesel's

larger drive shaft and incorporated a knurled edge to improve the grip for the starter

motor. The only other alteration required to the original design was the replacement of

the silicone clunk line in the fbel tank with neoprene, as diesel fùel causes silicone tubing

to expand.
4.2 Test Flights

Flieht #: 1

Date: 2 1'' A p d

Notes: Engine run at rich starting mixture: needle valve open three turns.

Description: The model was launched nose-down. There was a sudden recovery near

the ground, due either to the effect of the horizontal tail or the tail-heavy balance. The

model pitched up to a 30" angle and turned right, levelled off, lost speed and touched

down. Duration: 3 -3 seconds.

Damage: Light; most occurred due to the model continuing to flap once it had landed.

The vertical tail broke off on impact, the nylon hinge holding the horizontal tail was

tom, the steel drive shaft was bent, the plywood bulkhead supporting the drive shaft

bearing (second fiom the nose) was worn away around the bearing, and one of the

kevlar strands attaching the wing pivots snapped. The upper fibreglass shell was slightly

cracked, and the drive shaft bearing showed severe signs of fatigue.

Fliaht #: 2

Date: 29U April

Notes: The mode1 was repaired, and some modifications made. The d i v e shaft was

replaced with a 3/16" steel drill shafl, and the drive shaft bearing was replaced with a

drilled out section of 318" steel threaded shaft. The damaged bulkhead was reinforced

with another layer of 1/8" plywood, and the hole for the bearing enlarged to 3/8". The
threaded shafk was installed and held in place with two nuts on either side of the

bulkhead. Finally, the angle of the horizontal tail was reduced from 10" to 7" to lower

the model's angle-of-attack during flight. The 30"angle assumed by the mode1 during

the flight was too high, and resulted in a loss of airspeed.

Description: No flight

Damane: The crank arm had been weakened in the previous flight, and broke before the

model could be launched.

Flight #: 3

Date: 2ndMay

Notes: The crank arm was replaced with one made using a 'sandwich' of 1/16" plywood

with a layer of 5 oz. carbon fibre epoxy'd on each side. Model was launched nose up

and with the engine running lean to give more power and a higher r.p.m.

Descriotion: The model maintained level flight for a period, but then lost airspeed and

came to earth. It was noted that just afier launch, the engine 'missed' as the model

pitched up, then picked up again, which may have caused the ornithopter to lose speed.

This was probably caused by fie1 slosh in the tank. Duration: 4.6 seconds

Damage: Minor; the vertical fin broke off again on impact, the foremost bulkhead carne

unghed at the bottom, and the 1/23'' bolt attaching the crank arm to the wing pivot was

bent, probably due to the model flapping against the ground after touchdown.
Flight #: 4

Date: 131h May

Notes: A piece of plastic scmb pad was placed in the tank to damp out the sloshing

motion. The angle of the horizontal tail was lowered again, from 7" to 5". The mode1

still pitches up too far, and loses speed. The vertical tail fin was redesigned. The new

stabiliser is approximately 2/3 the size of the old one, and the joint between the tail

boom and the fin is reinforced with strips of carbon fibre.

Description: The model pitched upwards as soon as it was launched. The ornithopter

gained height, turned sharply right and dove towards the ground. From the video taken,

it was clear that the excessive pitch-up was due to the way the model was thrown. The

ornithopter was launched whilst held behind the centre of gravity. This caused a

rotation anti-clockwise about the Iateral axis. Duration: 1.99 seconds.

Damane: Not serious. One of the 3/16" bearings supporting the right-hand wing pivot

was destroyed, and the fibreglass axle damaged. The nose cone was crumpled, but still

useable, and the horizontal tail's nylon hinge was torn apart. Replacing the 3/16"

bearing took some tirne, however.

While waiting for the bearing to arrive, some glide tests were made with the

wings at the mid-dihedral point (1 1.25"). These revealed that the model glides well, in a

stable manner, providing that it is thrown correctly, held as close as possible to the c g .
It was also clear that having the wings flapping did extend the model's flight duration, so

significant lift and thrust are produced by the wings.

Flight #: 5

Date: 28" May

Notes: The 1/8" fibreglass spars making up the horizontal tail were reinforced with 2

oz. fibreglass patches and cyanoacrylate where they attach to the model.

Description: Unsuccessfid; the model was not launched with enough fonvard speed for

flight.

Damage: Major darnage to the plywood fiame occurred when the motor continued to

drive the wings against the ground. The keel broke at its thinnest point between the first

and second bulkheads, and the fibreglass axles broke through the second bulkhead. The

nylon hinge supporting the horizontal tail broke.

Flight #: 6

Date: 6h June

Notes: Both the first and second bulkheads were replaced, and the keel reinforced by a

layer of 1/32" aluminium on each side, wrapped in kevlar. The points at which the axles

pass though the second bulkhead were reinforced with 118" plywood. The nylon hinge

on the tail was replaced by a strip of 1/32" aluminium, bent to the correct angle.

Description: No flight; tùel flow problems prevented the motor from reaching sufficient

r.p.m. to launch.
Damage: None

During the seventh attempt on June 7th, the engine failed before launch and had

to be stripped down and examined. It was found that the piston arm was bent and the

reed valve was damaged, possibly through contact with the deformed piston arm.

Replacing these parts and running the engine again only produced the same syrnptoms. 1

believed that the failure of the Cox engine was due to the poor quality of the parts.

Flight #: 8, 9 consecutively

Date: 8" July

Notes: A new engine was quickly substituted for the .074. This was a P.A.W. .O6

diesel. The new engine was easily fitted to the original fuselage and engine mount. The

only modifications necessary were the machining of a new flywheel and the replacement

of alI the fiiel lines with neoprene o r tygon tubing. AAer breaking in, the new engine

was installed and tested by flapping the wings while stationary on a test bench. These

tests were successfûl and RoboRaptor was prepared for flight. Fuel needle valve setting:

1 1/4 turns open. Durations: 2.15 seconds and 2.79 seconds respectively.

Description: Both flights were comparable with the second test flight. The mode1

pitched up, and this extra drag caused it to slow down and stall. Nose up attitude was

maintained throughout the flight.

Damage: None
 During fùrther tests, the set-screw securing the flywheel came loose and the

stresses whilst starting the engine stripped the threads in the set-screw hole on the

flywheel. The set-screw was enlarged to a size 6-32 screw, and a second hole was

drilled and tapped. The set-screws are located one directly opposite the other on the

flywheel shaft.

Flight #: 10, 1 1 consecutively

Date: 16h July

Notes: Model was launched without its fibreglass shell, saving 77g but increasing the

drag. New al1 up weight: 6409

Descri~tion:Similar durations to flights 8 and 9. The model is still too heavy.

Durations: 2.29 seconds and 2.83 seconds respectively.

Damage: None

Flight #: 2 2, 1 3 consecutively

Date: 1 7LhJuly

Notes: Model was launched without its shell, the receiver and battery. New al1 up

weight: 590g

Description: The mode1 was launched into strong (25 k d h ) winds, and for several

seconds was able to maintain altitude with minimal ground speed. The model then sank

to the ground, possibly due to a lu11 in the wind. Durations: 2.06 seconds and 3.32

seconds respectively,
Damaye: None

Fliaht #: 14, 15 consecutively

Date: 24'' July

Notes: Model was launched with the second, larger set of wings, without the shell. Al1

up weight: 646.2 g

Description: No increase on duration. On launch, the model appears to have enough

airspeed to sustain flight, however it soon slows down and descends. The wings do not

appear to be producing enough thrust for sustained flight, or the drag on the model is

too great. Durations: 2.42 seconds and 3.0 seconds respectively.

Damage: None

The new wing spars were reinforced with birch dowel compression stmts. The

dowels run from the centre of each wing spar to the root spar near the trailing edge.

The dowels are hinged about the wing root spars. They prevent any horizontal flexinç

of the wing spar which would deform the membrane during flapping. Similar struts were

used on the Spencer ornithopter.

Flight #: 16

Date: st'' August. 1997

Notes: Model flown with dowel compression stmts on wing spars. No shell. Al1 up

weight: 666.2 g
Description: The new wing spars restrict the wing's washout angles during flapping.

This reduced twisting resulted in the model pitching up very sharply after iaunch. Stall

followed, and the model came to earth. No duration was measured.

Damage: None

The mode1 was re-balanced by rnoving the radio receiver and the battery fonvard

to a position above the drive shaft between the second and third bulkheads. Extension

wires were led back to the servo. Several gliding flights were made to check the new

centre of gravity position.

Fliaht #: 17, 18 consecutively

Date: 14" August, 1997

Notes: Model launched with the C.G.position fonvard, no shell. Dowel compression

stmt spars were used.

Description: Model still does not develop enough thmst. No improvement over

previous flights. Durations: 2.56 seconds and 1.52 seconds respectively.

Damage: On the second launch, the mode1 stalled and dove steeply. One of the dowel

compression stmts was broken in half on impact.

Fli~ht#: 19, 20 consecutively

Date: 28" August, 1997

Notes: Model launched with C.G. position fonvard, shell attached. Dowel compression

stmts replaced with 118" fibreglass stmts. All up weight: 741 g.

Descri~tion:Mode1 still does not develop enough thrust. Durations: 2.0 seconds and 1.5

seconds respectively.

Damage: None

Flight #: 2 1

Date: 18' September, 1997

Notes: For this flight, the wings were inverted so that the compression strut was above

the membrane rather than below it. This configuration does not constrain the membrane

on the wing's upstroke, and 1 hoped that more thrust would be produced. The model

was flown with the shell attached.

Description: There was no visible improvement over previous flights. The ornithopter

appeared to be too heavy and did not produce enough thrust. The model did appear

stable, however. Duration: 2.06 seconds.

Damage: None

Flight 21 demonstrated that although the wing design is asymmetric, with the

strut normally on the underside of the membrane, reversing the wings so that the 'top'

became the 'bottom' did not affect the aerodynamic performance significantly.
Chapter 5: Discussion of Results and Recommendations
Disappointingly, RoboRaptor was unable to achieve sustained flight. From

observation of the test flights on videotape, 1 concluded that the wings did not produce

enough thrust to maintain the airspeed necessary for flight. When thrown, the

ornithopter initially rnaintained altitude until the speed dropped and the model stalled.

The stall resulted either in the model diving into the ground or sinking to the ground

while maintaining its slightly nose up attitude. The short flight times allowed no

assessment of RoboRaptor's long term stability.

Despite my modifications to the wings, no visible improvements were noted. 1

believe that part of the problem lay with the diesel engine. Although it was completely

retiable and had many advantages over the Cox engine, it produced its maximum torque

at a lower r.p.m. Flapping frequencies with the Cox engine were roughly double those

with the P.A.W. and, as can be seen from Figure 5 1, frequency has a significant effect on

the wings' performance. Flights with the diesel and the large area wings were shorter

than the ones made with the Cox engine and the first set of wings in terms of distance

and duration.

Apart from the wings, I believe that RoboRaptor's final design was good. The

Mk.2 was robust enough to survive heavy landings without sustaining damage. The

procedure for starting the engine and flying was simple and trouble free, and al1

components were easily disassembled for maintenance. Care had to be taken, however,
when launching the ornithopter. If the model was thrown nose down, it produced no lifi

and dove into the ground. If the model was thrown pitched too far up (i.e. above IO0

AOA), the wings acted similar to a parachute brake and caused almost immediate

stalling.

For RoboRaptor's continuing development, 1 make the following

recommendations:

RoboRaptor should be test flown from a large hill to extend the flight times and get

an idea of its long-term stability. Such a test was planned, however, inclement weather

prevented any flights before the thesis deadline.

The larger wings should be wind-tunnel tested in order to discover their actual lift

and thrust output. The effect of the compression struts and any subsequent

modifications should be determined with similar testing in order to prove their

effectiveness. The drag of RoboRaptor's fùselage should also be determined.

Unfortunately, the wind-tunnel in the subsonic aerodynamics lab is too small to

accommodate RoboRaptor's present set of wings, so other arrangements would have to

be made.

Modify the wing design to produce more thrust. 1 suggest copying the wings of the

Spencer ornithopter directly if the information is available, since these wings have

proven successfùl. They also seemed to flap faster than RoboRaptor's wings.
 ModiQ RoboRaptor's construction to Save weight. The Iighter the model, the less

lift and thrust it will require to fly. For example, the fibreglass outer shell made from

one layer of 5 oz. and two layers of 2 oz. fibreglass masses 77 g alone. It could be

replaced with a shell made from only two layers of 2 oz. fibreglass. Alternatively, a

more fragile coating of Monokote radio-controlled aircraft covering could be used.

Also, the planetary gearbox is one of the heaviest components of the model. Its steel

shell could be replaced with machined plastic or aluminium to Save weight.

Increase the flapping frequency of the wings. This could be accomplished by

decreasing the gear reduction ratio, currently 68: 1, or by reverting to a glow-plug

engine. The Cox .O9 Tee Dee engine is now manufactured by Estes, and the quality may

have improved enough to make it a viable replacement. Decreasing the gear ratio,

however, would entai1 replacinç or severely modi@ingthe gearbox, and would decrease

the torque available to flap the wings.

Chapter 7: References

(1) DeLaurier, J. D., The Development of a Mechanical Raptor for Airport Wildlife
Control, an application to the Charles A. Lindbergh Fund, Inc., Institute for Aerospace
Studies, University of Toronto, (1 994)

(2) Clark, C. J., An Experimental Investigation of the Performance of the Tim Bird and
Cornparison with Other Winged Models, BASc. Thesis, Faculty of Applied Science and
Engineering, University of Toronto, (1994)

(3) Tjengdrawira, M. A., Design of an Ornithopter, Bachelor of Engineering thesis,

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales,
(1994)

(4) Jenkyn, T. R.,A Computational Model of Flexible. Fla~pineMembrane-wings in

Quasi-Steadv. Laminar Flow, MASc. Thesis, Institute for Aerospace Studies, School of
Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, (1996)
Appendix A - Test Platform

The test bed was a platform on which a motor, drivetrain and flapping-

mechanism were mounted. A stmt connected the platform to a single-channel, dual

beam strain-gauge balance that measured the forces exerted during testing. The

apparatus was placed in the subsonic wind-tunnel with a set of the wings under study

attached to the flapping-mechanism, and data was output while the tunnel and the device

were active.

The foIlowing guidelines for the test platform design are based on experience

gained in previous work by clark2 and ~jengdrawira~,

and in an unsuccessful attempt to

build such a platform in 1995:

The design should be light and compact

The mounting should be as stiff as possible to avoid oscillation problems

The angle-of-attack of the device should b e adjustable

The device should allow the user to easily interchange different types of wing

A streamlined shell or shroud is necessary

From these specifications I drew plans and constructed a platform (see Figure 1,

Figure 2). An L-bracket of plywood holds a DC motor, a 68: 1 planetary gearbox from

a cordless screwdriver, a 318" steel drive shafi and an aluminium crank wheel. The

crank wheel was attached to the drive shafl with a set-screw. Laminate bulkheads

supported two 5/32" aluminium rods which formed the axles about which the wings
pivoted, as well as the attachment point for the root edge of the wing membrane.

Acrylic wing root pivots rotated about these rods, and were held in place by acrylic set-

screw collars. An aluminium crank rod connected the left-hand root pivot to the crank

wheel.

This flapping-mechanisrn was derived frorn that used in the Thomas ornithopter

described in Mr. Tjengdrawira's thesis. The crank rod could be secured to the wing root

in two places to give either a +45"/-20" or a +30°/-20" wing stroke. The root pivots

were linked to operate in phase by two strips of metal tape. The bearings of the root

pivots and the crank arm were made fiom brass tubing. The spars of the various wings

were reinforced at their roots with lengths of 7/32" brass tubing, and secured by

inserting them into holes in the acrylic pivots. A 2-56 x 3/4" steel countersunk screw

then locked them in place.

To complete the platform, 1 built an aluminium stmt mounting which permitted

variable angles of attack and which could be bolted to the strain-gauge balance. Finally,

1 constructed a streamlined shroud consisting of a foam nose cone and a plastic cylinder

formed around four plywood hoops. The plastic cylinder was made frorn plastic sheet in

two halves, lefi and right, with slots cut for the wings. The sheets were attached to the

hoops with wood screws.

 PiJO ipin
I [ocated on pivot gear 1

Thomas Ornithopter Flapping Mechanism

Metal Tape Wing Link System
Acrylic Wing Root Pivot
Appendix B - Test Data
Vel Attack Drag Coeff Average Tare Tare Error
(m/s) (deg) 09 (NI (N)
Vel Attack Force Coeff Average Tare Tare Error
Ws)
, (de& 0 0 0
1Vel 1 Attack Drag Average Tare Tare Error
(NI 0 (NI
Vel Attack Force Average Tare Tare Error
(deg) (NI (NI (NI
Vel /Attack lLiR 1 ~ o e f f 1 ~ v e r a Tare
~ e 1 are Error
Vel Attack Force Coeff Average Tare Tare Error
(&SI (de& (NI (NI (NI
 - A * - Y I iI

Vel Attack Lie Coeff Average Tare Tare Error

(ds) (de& 0 (NI 0
9.73 - 1O O. 155 0.1371 0.161333333 0.023292822
9.73 -10 0.194 0.1713
9.73 -10 0.185 0.1638
- -
9.73 - 1O 0.166 0.1468
9.73 - 1O O. 128 0.113
9.73 - 1O 0.14 0.1238
9.73 O -0.176 -0.1558 -0.1755 0.014997222
9.73 O -0.175 -0.1553
9.73 O -0.155 -0.1372
9.73 O -0.165 -0.1462
ppppp-
9.73 O -0.204 -0.1804
9.73 O -0.178 -0.158
9.73 10 -0.484 -0.4288 -0.489 0.009797959
9.73 10 -0.484 -0.4285
9.73 10 -0.486 -0.4307
9.73 10 -0.507 -0.4491
9.73 10 -0.477 -0.4221
9.73 10 -0.496 -0.4395
9.73 20 -0.926 -0.8 197 -0.939666667 0.01068748
9.73 20 -0.932 -0.8249
9.73 20 -0.934 -0.8267
9.73 20 -0.959 -0.8491
9.73 20 -0.945 -0.8366
9.73 20 -0.942 -0.8344
9.73 30 -1.561 -1.3825 -1.610166667 0.028817915
9.73 30 -1.654 -1.4648
9.73 30 -1.605 -1.4212
9.73 30 -1.63 -1.4433
9.73 30 -1.615 -1.4299
9.73 30 -1.596 -1.4134
Static Ordinary Wing Thmst, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmt T ' s t Error
.(m/s> (de@ (NI 03 (Hz) 0 0

O 20 0.141 0.2745 5 2.1 0.112666667 0.021281186

O 20 0.119 0.2311

O 20 1.374 2.677
O 20 1.395 2.7166
Static Ordinary Wing Lifl, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS,March 1996
Vel Attack Lifi Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error
(&s> (deg) 0 03 (Hz) 0 0
O O 0.007 0.0067 5 2.1 -0.0725 0.058648
O O 0.124 0.1203
Static Ordinary Wing Lift, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS,March 1996
I I
Static Ordinary Wing Lift, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lifi Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error
Ws) (de@ (NI 0 W) (NI N
O 30 4.034 -0.0329 5 2.1 0.054666667 0.0134866
O 30 -0.043 -0.0419
Static Ordinaxy Wing Thrust, +45/-20stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist Thnist Enor
(m/s> (del31 O 03 (Hz) 0 O
O O 0.326 0.2115 5 2 0.342 0.0184842
O O 0.325 0.2111
O O 0.324 0.21
O O 0.358 0.0698
O O 0.372 0.0724
O O 0.347 0.0675
O( O 0.691 0.1345 7 3 0.693166667 0.0063879
O O 0.697 0.1357
O O 0.701 0.1366
Static Ordinary Wing Thmst, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS,March 1996
Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Average T h t Thmt Enor
(W (del31 0 O (IIz) N (N)

O 10 0.21 0.0409 5 2 0.2445 0.028093594

O 10 0.2571 0.0501
 1 I

LS8 t'O ES6'0 O O

IOLI'O £18'0 O O

9LP1-O 8SL'O O O
IZSI'O 181'0 O O
8180'0 ZP'O O O
LUI € t 'O L99999209.0- 8'9 II tP60'0 £89'0 O O

9810'0 POP'O O O
f.111'0 ELÇ'O O O

SPSO'O PEP'O O O
SPSl60'0 1999916£P'0- P 6 EE90'0 ÇZCO O O
16LO'O 60P'O O O

LLLO'O 66E.O O O
1180'0 9IP'O O O

I £650'0 POE'O O
O
8600'0 50'0 O O
LLPO'O SPZ'O O O
£09060'0 S081'O- Z 5 I810.0 £60'0 10 O
t
 IOPO'O 9OZ'O O1 O
89PO'O PZ'O 01 O
LOEO'O 8ÇI'O O1 O
L8EO'O 661.0 01 O
6EE0'0 PLI'O O1 O
EZL9ZO'O L99991261 '0- S S E1 ZPEO'O 9LI'O 01 O
- -
PLIO'O 680'0 01 O
16ZO'V ZSI'V O1 O
5810'0 560'0 01 O
S600'0 6PO'O O1 O
9LSO'O 962'0 01 O
ZZE9PI'O ÇÇPO'V 8't> II EOZO'O- POI'O- 01 O
P8E0.0 L61'0 OI O
8910'0 980'0 O1 O
ÇSOO'V 820.0- Ot O
6920'0 8EI'O 01 O
zzoo-0- .110'V 01 O
892001'O SSPO'O- P 6 LLIO'O- 160'0- O1 O
L.600-O 50'0 01 O
8900'0 ÇEO'O O1 O
IZIO'O 290'0 01 O
6EZ0'0 ZZI'O 01 IO
1000'0- O 01 O
9889E0.0 ECEEEE1Ç0'0- E 1 9LOO'O 6EO'O O1 O
9PI0-0 ÇLO'O O1 O
~ 2 0 0 ~ 0 -P ~ O * V 01 O
5820'0 9P1'0 01 O
120'0 801.0 O1 O
SE10'0- 690'0- 01 O
Static Variable Span Wing Thmst, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thnist Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmt Thmt Error
.(mN (deg) O 0 ml O
O 20 0.119 0.1157 5 2.1 0.13 1333333 0.009533566
O 20 0.132 0.1286
Static Variable Span Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS,April 1996

Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmst Thmst Error
(ds) (de@ 0 0 W) (N> 0
O 30 0.068 0.0132 5 2 0.074 0.035749126
O 30 0.013 0.0025
 Z901.0- 585.O- O O
S8EO'O 199999115'0 8'P II 8E11'V P85.0- O O
EOLO'V I9E.0- O O
l h w Swed ûrdinarv Winn Thmt. +30/-20 sîroke
w
1 1 1 ~UTIAS.March 1996

Vel Attack Thnist Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thrust M s t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(m/s> (dei31 (-1 0 ml 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.91 O -0.139 -0.2457 5 2.1 -0.126833333 0.016506733 -0.40567 0.015051763[ 0.278833333 0.02233892

6.93 O -0.044 -0.0777

6.93 O 0.046 0.0809 9 4.3 0.064 0.013576941 -0,40567 0.015051763 0.469666667 0.020270394
6.93 O 0.077 0.1367
6.93 O 0.064 0.1135
6.93 O 0.046 0.0812
6.93 O 0.072 0.127
6.93 O 0.079 0.1402
6.93 O 0.234 0,4149 11 5 0.2195 0.014 174508 -0.40567 0.0 15051763 0.625 166667 0.02067540 1
6.93 O 0.215 0.3804
6.93 O 0.227 0.402
6.93 O 0.202 0.3581
6.93 O 0.237 0.4197
Vel Atiack M s t Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thrust T h m t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted T h s t Adjusted Error
(m/s> (ded 0 O 0-w 0 09 0 0 (N> 0
6.93 10 -0.76 -1.3466 5 2.1 -0.763666667 0.019136933 -0.5105 0.019024 108 -0.253166667 0.02698404Ç

6.93 10 -0.737 -1.3052 7 3.3 -0.735333333 0.007431 166 -0.5105 0.019024108 -0.224833333 0.020423978
6.93 IO 6.745 -1.3187
6.93 10 -0.722 -1.2783
6.93 IO -0.74 -1.311
6.93 IO -0.738 -1.3062
6.93 10 -0.73 -1.293
6.93 10 -0.668 -1.182 9 4.3 -0.674833333 0.009956851 -0.5105 0.019024108 -0.164333333 0.02 1472204
6.93 10 -0.674 -1.1929
6.93 10 -0.675 -1.1948
6.93 10 4.674 -1.1926
i
6.93 10 -0.663 -1.1734
6.93 10 -0.695 -1.2305
6.93 10 -0.623 -1.1035 11 5 -0.616666667 0.032304111 -0.5 105 0.019024108 -0.106166667 0.037489628
6.93 10 -0.584 -1.0345
6.93 10 -0.603 -1.0682
6.93 10 -0.593 -1.0508
6.93 10 -0.683 -1.2093
6.93 10 -0.614 -1.0877
6.93 10 -0.558 -0.9889 13 5.8 -0.5325 0.024356724 -0.5105 0.019024108 -0.022 0.030905771
6.93 10 -0.568 -1.0059
6.93 10 -0.502 -0.8888
6.93 10 -0.519 -0.9187
6.93 10 -0.538 -0.9524
6.93 10 -0.51 -0.9033
n
3
rn
rn
N
=
3

-
b
Q
9
2
F
3
;
-
3
E8
9
m
9

z
3

-
F

?-
N
X
2
in
nl
N

X-
Cci
m
m
3
cl
N
C
1
-
2

-
b

-
Cc
2
?
-
7

CI:
C
1

-
z
d

F
O
u
8 ILI SÇÇ90'0 E€EEE8060'0 9EZI LLEOO'O EEE8OO'O I EPPS90.0 L99991660.0 8'5 €1 IPZ'O- 9EI.O- O 26'9
58EOa0- 220'0- O 26'9
£0- 981'0- O 26'9
290'0- SEO'O- O 26'9
LIEI'O- tLO'O- O 26'9
6SEI.O- LLO'O- O 26'9
PZOP68250'0 EEEE££690'0 9E21LLEOO'O EEE800'0 P6SLZSO'O L99999LL0'0 5 II 6LZI.û- ZLO'V O 26'9
£680'0- ÇO'V O 26'9
IEESI'O- L80'0- O 26'9
EOIO'V 900'0- O 26'9
ZLPO'0- L7.0'0- O 26'9
EEPI'O- 180'0- O 26'9
159289820'0 SOPO'O 9EZILLE00'0 EEE800'0 9EEP8Z0'0 EEE£E88P0'0 E ' t 6 ZÇLO'O- ZPO'V O 26'9
LEPO'O SZ0'0 O 26'9
8980'0 6PO'O O 26'9
6200'0- 200'0- O 26'9
PÇIO'O 600'0 O 26'9
EÇPO'O- 920'0- O 26'9
S19LPEEZO'O L99999610.0- 9EZILLEOO'O EEE800'0 IPOEZO'O EEEEEEIIO'0- E'E L SEZO'O EIO'O O 26'9
9E51.0 L80'0 O 26'9
5602'0 811'0 O 26'9
L901'0 90'0 O 26'9
IÇPO'O 920'0 O 6'9
2260'0 ZSO'O O 6'9
6SZLI ÇEO'O 890'0- 9EZILLE00'0 EEE800'0 8696PE0'0 L999996S0.0- I'Z S €920'0 510'0 O 6'9

0 0 0 0 N 0 (a 03 0 (%4 (SPI
1 o q paisn[pv I J paisnrpv
~ J O U ~am^ aJeL g q JOLIS gg g q aha~vhuanba~d a S q o ~ ga03 IJ!? Y3QW PA

966 1 Y 3 W I 'SVLUI f 3104s OZ-/O€+ %!rI BUIA ~ V P J PO ~ Mo?

S
Low Speed Ordinary Wing Lifl, -1-30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996
1
I 1 1 1 1 1

1
I 1 1 I

Vel l~ttack l~ift koeff (voltane ~retniencvl~veraneLifi l ~ i fError

t l ~ i fTare
t l ~ a r Enor
e l~diustedLift l~diustedError
Low Speed Ordina~yWing Lifl, +30/-20 sîroke Ul'IAs,~arch1996-

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lifl Adjusted Error
w> (del31 09 09 fi) O 0 09 0 @O 0
6.93 20 -3.586 -6.3506 5 2.1 3.623166667 O. 102449 0.451833 0.013030946 3.171333333 O. 103274446
6.93 20 -3.752 -6.6446
6.93 20 -3.583 -6.3445
6.93 20 -3.699 -6.5508
6.93 20 -3.438 -6.0871
6.93 20' -3.681 4.5177
6.93 20 -3.907 -6.9187 7 3.3 3.834166667 0.0677702 0.451833 0.013030946 3.382333333 0.069011674
6.93 20 -3.818 -6.7615
6.93 20 -3.763 4.6635
6.93 20 -3.785 -6.7027
6.93 20 -3.945 -6.9848
6.93 20 -3.787 -6.706
6.93 20 -4.035 -7.1455 9 4.3 4.029166667 0.0935101 0.451833 0.013030946 3.577333333 0.094413688
6.93 20 -4.046 -7.16451
6.93 20 -4.055 -7.1809
6.93 20 -4.147 -7.3434
6.93 20 -4.055 -7.1799
6.93 20 -3.837 -6.7937
6.93 20 -4.335 -7.6757 11 5 4.4 13 0.0577177 0.451833 0.013030946 3.961 166667 0.059170422
6.93 20 -4.432 -7.8479
6.93 20 -4.4471 -7.8745 1
6.93 20 -4.424 -7.8344
6.93 20 -4.342 -7.6882
6.93 20 -4.498 -7.9645
6.93 20 -4.815 -8.5261 13 5.8 4.786333333 0.07 12967 0.451833 0.013030946 4.3345 0.072477774
6.93 20 -4.779 -8.4625
6.93 20 -4.689 -8.3025
6.93 20 -4.85 -8.5885
6.93 20 -4.703 -8.3273
6.93 20 -4.882 -8.6447
Low Speed Ordinary Wing Thmst, +45/-20stroke UTIAS, March 1 996

Vel Attack Thnist Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmt T ' t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted k s t Adjusted Emor
@/s> (deg) O 0 (Hz) N 0 0 0 0 N

6.83 -10 -0.565 -1.0008

6.85 -10 -0.437 -0.7737 7 3 -0.44 0.0090185 -0.46017 0.011950128 0.020166667 0.014971269
6.85 -10 -0.439 -0.7772
6.85 -10 -0.432 -0.7647
6.85 -10 -0.43 -0.7615
6.85 -10 -0.445 -0.7881
6.85 -10 -0.457 -0.8089
6.85 -10 -0.294 -0.521 9 4 -0.311333333 0.021576736 -0.46017 0.011950128 0.148833333 0.024664977
6.85 -10 -0.301 -0.5326
6.85 -10 -0.278 -0.4916
6.85 -10 -0.335 -0.5931
6.85 -10 -0,327 -0.5796
6.85 -10 -0.333 -0.5899
6.85 -10 -0.109 -0.1937 11 4.8 -0.133666667 0.018417986 4.46017 0.011950128 0.3265 0.021955131
6.85 -10 -0.125 -0.2216
6.85 -10 -0.127 -0.2245
6.85 -10 -0.126 -0.2232
6.85 -10 -0.15 -0.2652
6.85 -10 -0.165 -0.2927
6.85 -10 0.028 0.05 13 5.5 0.0805 0.028464891 -0.46017 0.011950128 0.540666667 0.030871598
6.85 -10 0.118 0.2094
6.85 -10 0.084 0.1479
6.85 -10 0.073 0.1291
6.85 -10 0.075 0.1332
 LSOI.0- 90'0- O 88'9
ZS80'0 8PO'O O 88'9
511'0 590'0 O 88'9
6PLSPEOSO'O EEEEE8P09'0 E9LISOÇIO'O 195OP'O- P60£P08POm0 E£€Ç£8000'0- S'S E1 PIEO'O 810'0 O 88'9
SIZE'O- 281'0- O 88'9

b6000LEZ0'0 SPE0'0 E9LI SOS I0'0 L9SOP.O- 66190EBI0'0 199991TLE'O- P 6 P69'0- Z6E.0- O 88'9
6226.0- IZS'O- O 98'9
8006'0- 605'0- O 98'9
Et06.0- I 15.0- O 98'9
EEi6'O- 9IS0- O 98'9
6506'0- ZI5.0- O 98'9
LP508EZZO'O EEEEEEÇI 1'0- E9Lt SOS10'0 19SOP'O- I IOE9S910'0 125.0- E L LS86'0- LSS'O- O 98'9
EIÇO'I- P6Sü- O 98'9
SLPO'I- 26S'û- O 98'9
EESO'I- 565'0- O 98'9
5926'0- €25'0- O - 98'9
2168'0- EOS'O- O 98'9
PI L6EZ9PO.O SPI 'O- E9LI SOS10'0 L9SOP.O- PEI ZLEPO'O L999990SS'O- Z S P6L8.0- L6P.O- O 98'9

0 0 0
rous amL a q BQ
0 0 0 (a
huanbaq
(h> N (Sap) (SPI
loug paisdpv 1 s paisnlpv
~ roug i s w i m q , a k a n v a8qo~ i
q yowv PA

966 1 '13JVl 'sWW ayo4s OZ-/SP+ 'IW8~fi h~qW3

paad~Mo?
Low Speed Ordinary Wing Thnist, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996
1 1
1
1 I

Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Avaage Thmst Thmt Error Drag Tare Tare Error l~diusted~ h sI~diusted
t Error
(mis> (del31 (NI (v> W) 0 09 0
0
-
a
CI
u2
\D
2
2
CP
1
C(

-
*
CI
4:
C<
cJ
m
+
8
-
CC)

*
CC)
CI
*.
9
-
+
22
cJ
P4
a
P4
8
-
vl
O
cn
9
v

-
-3

-
Qi

-
N
r.
OC
r
T
- V

E
C;
-
5
l
Low Speed Ordinary Wing L i 4 +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, Apnl 1996

Vel Attack Lifi Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifi Lifi Error Lifi Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Enor
,(m/s> (del31 O O 0 0 (N> 0 0 0

6.83 -10 0.817 1.4464

6.84 -10 1.284 2.2738 7 3 -1.2835 0.0484759 -0.08633 0.009961035 -1.197166667 0.049488775
6.84 -10 1.347 2.3849
6.84 -10 1.228 2.1737
6.84 -10 1.348 2.3868
6.84 -10 1.256 2.2236
6.84 -10 1.238 2.193
6.84 -10 1.516 2.6842 9 4 -1.607333333 0.0541 131 -0.08633 0.009961035 -1.521 0.055022218
6.84 -10 1.684 2.9822
6.84 -10) 1.567 2.774
6.84 -10 1.647 2.9169
6.84 -10 1.611 2.8534
6.84 -10 1.619 2.8663
6.84 -10 1.913 3.3871 fl 4.8 -1.8945 0.0134505 -0.08633 0.009961035 -1.808166667 0.01673735
6.84 -10 1.896 3.3568
6.84 -10 1.876 3.3214
6.84 -10 1.909 3.3809
6.84 -10 1.881 3.3314
6.84 -10 1.892 3.3504
6.84 -10 2.048 3.6259 13 5.5 -2.089333333 0.0369805 -0.08633 0.009961035 -2.003 0.038298535
6.84 -10 2.083 3.688 1
6.84 -10 2.081 3.6854
6.84 -10 2.059 3.6461
6.84 -10 2.162 3,8277
- 6.84 -10 2.103 3.7237
 - -

ZESLPEPLO'O L99999EZL-O 9EZILLEOO'O EEE800'0 ~ I Ç Z P L OZEL'O

O S'S €1 ZP9E'I- LL'O- O 98'9
Z80E'I- 6EL'O- O P8'9
ESPE'I- 9L'O- O P8'9
189E'I- ELL'O- O $8'9
PZOE'Z- 9EL'V O 98'9
P56Z.1- ZEL'O- O P8'9
E9PEIS910'0 EEEEE8ZPL'O 9EZILLE00'0 EEE800'0 ILL0910'0 L99991IÇL.O 8'9 11 8LSE.I- L.91'0- O P8'9
PÇZ'I- 80L'O- O P8'9
PPOZ'I- 89'0- O P8'9
89LZ'I- IZL'O- O P8'9
PS61mI- SL.9'0- O P8'9
6891'1- 99'0- O P8'9
LÇLZt9ZZO'O SP89'0 9EZ ILL E00'0 EEE800'0 S9ZEZZO'O EE€EE8Z69'0 P 6 ttZ9Z.1- EIL'O- O P8'9
L68O.I- S19.0- O t8'9
2186.0- PSS'O- O P8'9
ZPPI'I- 9t9.0- O P8'9
16PO'I- Z6Ç'O- O P8'9
L650'1- 865'0- O P8'9
ZP9SOOZEO-0 SS8S.O 9EZI LLE00'0 €EE800'0 LZ8LI €0'0 EEEEE8E6S'O E L 9L86'0- 855.0- O P8'9
6858'0- 58P'O- O P8'9
I 6PZ6'V ZZÇ'O- O $8'9
61E6'0- 9ZS'O- O 98'9
9616.0- 615.0- O P8'9
8168'0- POS'0- O P8'9
Z69ZOE910'0 EEEE£E66P'O 9EZI LLEOO'O EEE800'0 5098S10'0 L99999LOS'O Z 5 6998'0- 6P'V O 98'9

0 0 0 0
loug a q a l q , g g
0 0 (rn w
~7 a 2 h . m ~X m a n b a ~ ~ a 8 q o ~
0 (SPI
paisnrpv
--TOUS gr? paisdpv JOU~ gao3 8!1 VWV PA

966 1v.1 'SVILfl a W s OZ-Kt+ b!? B~TM~ V PPAS

W Mg
Low Speed Ordinary Wing Lift, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS,Aprii 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lifi Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
Ws> (deg> 0 0 0 0 0 (N> N 0

6.89 20 -4.964 -8.7899

6.89 20 -4.994 -8.8425
6.89 20 -4.955 -8.7733
6.89 20 -4.918 -8.7089
Low Speed Ordinary Wing Lift, +45/-20stroke UTLAS, April 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(m/s> (dei31 N 03 (Hz) 0 0 0 0 0 0
l ~ o wSpeed Variable Span Wing Thnirt, 4-301-20 stroke 1 JUTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist T ' t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thnist Adjusted Error
Ws) (de& O 0 (Hz) 0 N (N O 0 0
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996
1 I 1 1
Frequency Average Thmst Thrust Error Drag Tare
p-pppp Tare Error Adjusted Thmst Adjusted Error
(Hz) 0'0 (-1 0 0 0 0
h

Low Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +30/-20 stroke

Vel
(mW

6.94
Attack
(deg)

20
Thnist
0
-1.26
Coeff

-2.231 1
Voltage
Cv)

5
Frequency Average Thrust Thrust Error
0 0
Drag Tare
(NI

2.1 -1.301333333 0,023091605 -0.603666667

!X
Tare Error Adjusted k s t Adjusted Error

6.94 20 -1.302 -2.3054

6.94 20 -1.3 -2.3019
6.94 20 1.325 -2.3461
6.94 20 -1.291 -2.2862
6.94 20 -1.33 -2.3544
6.94 20 -1.263 -2.2372 7 3.3 -1.275833333 0.015507167 -0.603666667
6.94 20 -1.294 -2.2913
6.94 20 -1.267 -2.2442
6.94 20 -1.266 -2.242
6.94 20 -1.301 -2.3041
6.94 20 -1.264 -2.2378
6.94 20 -1.268 -2.2452 9 4.3 -1.274333333 0.012498889 -0.603666667
6.94 20 -1.283 -2.2711
6.94 20 -1.25 -2.2141
6.94 20 -1.286 -2.2772 1
6.94 20 -1.275 -2.2577
6.94 20 -1.284 -2.273
6.94 20 -1.233 -2.183 11 5 -1 .230166667 0.022259205 -0.603666667
6.94 20 -1.269 -2.2471
6.94 20 -1.213 -2.1488
6.94 20 -1.247 -2.2074
6.94 20 -1.206 -2.1357
6.94 20 -1.213 -2.1485
kow S ~ e e dVariable S ~ a Wina
n Lifi. +30/-20 stroke 1 1 1 l IuTIAs.March 1996 1
Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifl Lift Error Lifi Tare Tare Error l~diustedLift l~diustedError 1
w> , (del41 .O .(v> pw ,O .O ,O
ILOW Sueed Variable Svan Winn Thrust.+45/-20 stroke 1 1 ~UTIAS.March 1996

Vel Attack Thmt Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmst Thnist Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(del31 (NI 03 0 0 0 0 (N> 0
'LOW Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTfAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thnist Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmt Thmst Enor Drag Tare Tare Enor Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(m4 (del31 O\T) Cv) (Hz) (N> 09 0 0 09 0

6.88 10 -0.713 -1.263

6.88 -
- 10 -0.665. -1.1772
6.88
6.88
10
10
~~ -0.662
P

-1.1724
7 P
3 4.667 0.016155494
ppppp
-0.5105 0.019024108 -0.1565 0.024958299

6.88 10 -0.654 -1.1583

6.88 IO -0.689 -1.2208
6.88 10 -0.687 -1.2163
6.9 10 -0.541 -0.9585 9 4 -0.544666667 0.007695598 -0.5 105 0.019024108 -0.034166667 0.020521669
6.9 IO -0.555 -0.9825
6.9 10 -0.531 -0.9402
6.9 10 -0.547 -0.9678
6.9 10 -0.551 -0.9748 1
6.9 10 -0.543 -0.962
6.9 10 -0.508 -0.9002 11 4.8 -0.5155 0.013009612 -0.5105 0.019024108 -0.005 0.023047053
6.9 10 -0.496 -0.8775
6.9 10 -0.509 -0.9015
6.88 10 -0.536 -0.9498
6.88 10 -0.526 -0.9322
6.88 10 -0.518 -0.9165
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist Thnist Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thmt Adjusted Error
(mfs) (deg) N 03 W) 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~
6.911 20 -1.259 -2.2285 5 2 -1.2435 0.026737926 -0.60367 0.006368324 -0.639833333 0.027485855
6.91 20 -1.203 -2.1309
Low Speed Variable Span Wmg Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average T h s t T h t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(m/s> (del31 O (v> (Hz) 0 O 0 0 0 (N>

6.92 30 -2.034 -3.6021 1

6.92 30 -2.184 -3.8676 7 3 -2.1625 0.025243811 -0.87433 0.0132 11947 -1.288166667 0.028492202
6.92 30 -2.207 -3.9076
6.92 30 -2.133 -3.7779
6.92 30 -2.157 -3.8198
6.92 30 -2.147 -3.8013
6.92 30 -2.147 -3.8025
6.92 30 -2.223 -3.9361 9 4 -2.256833333 0.030558232 -0.87433 0.013211947 -1.3825 0.033292058
6.92 30 -2.263 -4.0068
6.92 30 -2.214 -3.9201
6.92 30 -2.297 -4.068
6.92 30 -2.288 -4.0523
6.92 30 -2.256 -3.995
6.92 30 -2.279 -4.0353 11 4.8 -2.3 0.024358435 -0.87433 0.0132 11947 -1.425666667 0.027710808
6.92 30 -2.332 -4.1295
6.92 30 -2.318 -4.1042
6.92 30 -2.259 -4.0001
6.92 30 -2.303 -4.0783
6.92 30 -2.309 -4.0882
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, April 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifi Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(ds> (deg) O (v> W) 0 0 0 O 0 0

6.89 -10 0.448 0.7929

6.89 -10 0.411 0.7282 7 3 -0.446666667 0.0263038 -0.08633 0.009961035 -0.360333333 0.028126697
6.89 -10 0.43 0.7615
6.89 -10 0.438 0.7759
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, April 1996
I
Vel
b/s>
Attack
(ded
Lift
0
Coeff Voltage
0
Frequency Average Lift Lifi Error
O+) 0 (NI (NI L F
Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
0 0
6.86 O -0.254 -0.45 5 2 0.237333333 0.0273171 0.008333
6.86 O -0.189 -0.3353
6.86 O -0.272 -0.4819
6.86 O -0.223 -0.3956
6.86 O -0.229 -0.4059
6,86 O -0.2571 -0.4552 1
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +45/-20 1UTIAS, April 1996
1 I
Vel
(m/s>

6.87
Attack
(de@

20
Lift
O
-3.534
Coeff

-6.2584
Voltage
O
5
Frequency Average Lift Lifi Error
W) 0 (N>

2 3.458166667 0.1312738 0.451833

L
Lift Tare Tare Error
N
Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
I
6.87 20 -3.502 -6.2005
6.87 20 -3.286 -5.8184
6.87 20 -3.657 -6.4765
6.87 20 -3.474 -6.1518
6.87 20 -3.296 -5.836
6.88 20 -3.887 -6.8829 7 3 3.8875 0.0542456 0.451833
6.88 20 -3.805 -6.7385
6.88 20 -3.839 -6.7984
6.88 20 -3.911 -6.9255
6.88 20 -3.909 6.9223
6.88 20 -3.974 -7.0376
6.88 20 -4.254 -7.5324 9 4 4.372166667 0.1657502 0.45 1833
6.88 20 -4.15 -7.3485
6.88 20 -4.225 -7.4814
6.88 20 -4.515 -7.9957
6.88 20 -4.55 -8.0575
6.88 20 -4.539 -8.038
6.88 20 -4.971 -8.8018 11 4.8 4.93 1333333 0.1 199148 0.451833
6.88 20 -4.703 -8.3278
6.88 20 -4.968 -8.7979
6.88 20 -5.051 -8.9449
6.88 20 -5.038 -8.9212
6.88 20 -4.857 -8.5997 I ,
Low Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, April 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(mJs) (de@ O 03 W) 0 0 (N> O 0 0
Low Speed High AR Wing Thnist, +45/-20 stroke m S , May 1996
1 1 1 I
I
Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thrust Thrust Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
.ws> (de@ O 0 W) (N> 0 0 (N> 0 0

L w Speed High AR Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke

I
UTIAS, May 1996
I I --
I 1

Thrust Error bras Tare l ~ k Error

e 1~diustedError
Adiusted ~hrust
High AR Wing Thnist, +45/-20 stroke I UTIAS, May 1996
1
I
t 1

Attack [~hnist koeff l ~ o ~ t a n e Frequency Average Thrust Thrust Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thnist Adjusted Error
(Hz) 0 0 N (N> 0 0

;lk
I

;l F~
I
High AR Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke

2o oeff

-0.595 -1.0528
I
(Hz) 0 0 0 0
UTIAS, May 1996

0
I

h g e l3 Frequency Average Thrust Thrust Enor Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted h s t Adjusted Error
0

20 -0.47 -0.833
lLow Speei High AR wing Lifi, +45/-20 stroke l UTIAS, May 1996

Attack Lifi Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifi Lift ~rrof Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lifi Adjusted Error
(deg) O 03 (Hz) 0 N 0 0 N 0

k=
Low Speer High AR wing Li& +45/-20 stroke

Attack
I
Lifi
I
Coeff
I
Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error
1

UTIAS, May 1996

Adjusted Lift Adjusteci Error
(de@ N Cv) 0-w 0'0 0 0'0 0 (NI 0
 m
fi
2
O
d
e
8
--
G
w
V3
w
\D
00
\D
C?
O

-
e
m
OC)
2
2
8
2
t,
=?
ç'
4
CI
2
m
4
-=?
9
O
--
CI
\O
U3
a
If!
QI
-3-
V!
9
--
:
--
m
m

--
13s
O\ 00
'? t<
ç'?
--
m m
m m
\9.
4 4
-L

O C

--
c ci

2:
 1818'0- £06'0- 01 19'6
8L9L08EZ0'0 EEEEE80I1'0 LEZ1S8L10-0 600'1- SZPZSLSIO'O L99991868.0- S II POZ8'V 906'0- 01 19'6
2906'0- 1- 01 19'6
968.0- L86.0- 01 19'6
9916'0- 210'1- 01 19-6
1 P06'0- 866'0- O1 19'6
P68'0- L86'0- O1 19'6
62856610'0 1 10'0 LEZ 1S8LIO'O 600'1- 6 19526800'0 866'0- £.P 16 9606'0- POO'I- O1 19'6
ISL6.0- 9LO'I- O1 19'6
6286'0- 580'1- 01 19'6
LS86.0- 880'1- O1 19.6
L986'0- 680'1- O1 19'6
1600'1- P11'1- 01 19'6
SLL90P120'0 5280'0- LEZ1S8LIO.O 600'1- 6ESP18110'0 5160'1- CS L 8S66.0- L60'1- O1 19'6
LS60.1- 602'1- 01 9'6
LZ60'1- 902.1- 01 9'6
5511'1- IEZ.1- 01 9'6
PI11.1- LZZ'1- O1 9'6
L6E1.1- 852'1- 01 9'6
ZEEE66PZ0'0 6I 2'0- LEZ! 58LIO'O 600'1- 9S826PL10'0 822.1- 1'2 S IIZI'I- LE2.1- O1 9'6

0 0 0 w 0 (a 0 w (89~) (SP)
1 0 ~palsnlpv
3 1 s p a ~~s n r p ~ l o u a~m l amL 8 e ~ a ~ o u ~gs r u q c1-~ a 8 a r a ~ v buanbaq a8qo~ gao3 puq~, y 3 m ~ PA

966 1 Y ! W 4 'SWUI ayorls OZ-/OE+ 'isnnlL @M ~ E V P JpOa a d ~@!H

High Speed ûrdinary Wing b t , -1-30/-20 sloke UTIAS, March 1996
I
1 I
Vel Attack Thnist Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist T h s t Error Drag Tare Tare Enor Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(mJs> (deg) O m W) 0 0 (N> 0 0 0
Hi& Smed Ordinarv Winn Thmst, +30/-20 stroke 1 1 1 1 IUTIAS. March 1996 l

Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average T h t Thmst Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted T ' s t Adjusted Error
(de@ 0 O W) (N> N (N> (N> 0 0
High Speed Ordinary Wing Lifl, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lifl Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifl Lift Error Lifi Tare Tare Enor Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(m.1~) (dei31 O O ml N N N N N 0
10 9.57
3.519 3.1884 5 2.1 3.252333333 0.130113626 0.1 10833[ 0.016526914 3.1415 0.131 159043
10 3.124
9.57 2.8303
10 3.166
9.57 2.8679
9.57 10 3.22 2.9172
9.57 10 3.294 2.984
9.57 10 3.191 2.8909
9.6 10 3.347 3.032 7 3.3 3.373666667 0,047984951 O. 110833 0.016526914 3.262833333 0.0507513
9.6 10 3.342 3.0278
9.6 10 3.357 3.0412
9.6 10 3.468 3.1418
9.6 10 3.401 3.0808
9.6 10 3.327 3.0143
9.6 10 3.767 3.413 9 4.3 3.65 1166667 0.058422075 0.1 10833 0.016526914 3.540333333 0.0607 14725
9.6 10 3.684 3.3378
9.6 10 3.605 3.2664
9.6 10 3.607 3.2682
9.6 10 3.612 3.2728
9.6 10 3.632 3.2905
9.6 10 4.025 3.6465 11 5 4.05 1666667 0.07865254 1 O. 1 10833 0.016526914 3.940833333 0.080370151
9.6 10 4.075 3.692
9.6 10 4.032 3.6529
9.6 10 3.936 3.5656
9.6 10 4.2 3.8047
9.6 10 4.042 3.6622
--9.6 10
- 4.552
- 4.1237
- 13
- 5.8
- 4.44851 0.088830832 -
O. 110833- 0.016526914
- 4.337666667
- 0,090355163
9.6 10 4.448 4.0297
9.6 10 4.428 4.01 13
9.6 10 4.307 3.9019
- 9.6 10 4.393
- 3.9798 - . - -
9.6 IO 4.563 4.1341
 ESS8.0- Pi76'V 01- 85'6
19E8'0- £26.0- 01- 85'6
EOP8'0- 826'0- OZ- 85'6
LS8LtPOZO'O EEEEEE81O'O 9ÇZ6LE610'0 EE6P6.0- 1016ZP900'0 IE6.0- 5'5 £1 IPP8.0- ZE6'0- 01- 8S.6
8LL6'0- 6L0.1- 01- 85'6
5956'0- 950'1- 01- 85'6
6ZL6'0- PLO'I- 01- 85'6
8LP6'0- 9PO.I- 01- 85'6
6196'0- 290.1- 01- 85'6
LOLZZPZZO'O EEEEEESI 1'0- 9ÇZ61E610'0 EE6P6.0- E8Z6lZI 10'0 199999990'1- 837 11 EOi.6'0- ILO'I- 01- 85'6
2090'1- Lt'f- 01- 85'6
ÇIÇO'i- 191'1- OI- 85'6
6850'1- 691'1- 01- 85'6
26PO'I- 8S1.1- 01- 85'6
ZZ90'1- ZL1'1- 01- 85'6
PZE6900Z0'0 91Z'O- 9SZ6LE610'0 EE6P6'01 Z6PLIZS00'0 EEEEEES91'1- P 6 SZSO'I- 291.1- OI- 85'6
1 1 1 - £2'1- 01- 85'6
6621'1- LPZ'I- 01- 85-6
ZLEI'I- SSZ'I- 01- 85'6
2621'1- 9tZ.I- 01- 8S6
8PPI.I- f~92.1- OI- 85'6
£22I LOZZO'O L99991OOE'O- 9SZ61E610'0 EE6P6.0- IOE€9S010'0 1 ~ 6 ~ 2 . 1 - E L PLEI'I- 1552'1- OI- 85'6
6L61.1- ZZf'I- OI- 85'6
86I.1- ZZE'I- 01- 8S.6
6POZ.I- EE'I- 01- 85'6
6EÇI.I- PLZ'1- 101- 8S.6
6911'1- 662'1- l01- 85'6
ZI 1289620'0 ÇPÇE'O- 95Z6LE610'0 ES6tr6'V 60LZ8PZZ0'0 IEEEESEOE'I- Z 5 Z95t.l- 9LZ.1- [OI- 85'6
1
Ml 0 0 0 0 0 (TI) 03 (N)I (Sap) (sP)
loug paisnlpv 1 s pa~snfpv
~ l o n g a i q , a q 8t3~a Joua 1 s 1- ~ afitua~v A~uanbaq afaqlo~ gao3 isnq1 yamv PA

966 1 VJVl 'SVIUl a7oJis OZ-lSP+ ' l s W %M ~ V Ppaads

W @W.
 6258.1- SPO'Z- OZ 85'6
8618'1- 600'2- OZ 85'6
1
9108'1- 686'1- OZ 8S.6
PE08'1- 166'1- OZ 85'6
1 9ELL.I- 856'1- OZ 8S.6
ÇLPZE6ttEO'O l'O-
€£€€€£tr1 9ZZSSZEZO'O E8P8Z.I- 889990920'0 L99991666.1- S'S £1 LP18-1- £00-2- OZ 85'6
L68'I- t60'Z- OZ 85'6
1 9626'1- £ 1 OZ 85'6
Z 6 11 - OZ 85'6
9626'1- £ 1 OZ 85'6
1 PS88'1- 180'2- OZ 8S.6

LOEO'Z- iPZ'Z- OZ 85'6

SlZO'Z- IEZ'Z- OZ 8S6
LOZO'Z- €2'2- OZ 85'6
51E86EPZO'O 6P6'0- 9ZZSSZEZO'O E8P82'1- ES08EL00'0 EEEEE8EEZ'Z- E L ESIO'Z- PZZ'Z- OZ 85'6
8ZZO'Z- EEZ'Z- OZ 85'6
H~ghSpeed Ordinary Wing k s t , +45/-20 stroke 1 1 (uTIAs, March 1996 1
I
Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist Thnist Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
(m/s> (deg> 0 Cv) (Hz) 0 0 0 0 (N> 0
khnh SDG~
0rdinaw-Li ft.451-20 stroke 1 1 1 I 1 TIA AS. March 1996 1
Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage
I
Frequency Average Lift
N
Lift Error
N N ;
Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
-
+
IC:
"i
T'
-
'a
'a.
T

-
0,

-
-a
2
figh Speed Ordinaxy Wing L i t 4-45t-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(W (del31 O 0 (Hz) O (N> 0 0 0 0

9.66 20 6.042 -5.474

9.66 20 -6.148 -5.57
9.66 20 -6.381 -5.781 9 4 6.472666667 O. 1834799 0.621 0.044773504 5.85 1666667 O. 188863855
9.66 20 -6.1 -5.5713
9.66 20 -6.511 -5.8987
9.66 20 -6.676 -6.048
9.66 20 -6.685 -6.0563
9.66 20 -6.433 -5.8278
9.66 20 -6.789 -6.1507 11 4.8 6.866833333 0.0675806 0.621 0.044773504 6.245833333 0,081066674
9.66 20 -6.903 -6.2541
9.66 20 -6.98 -6.3239
9.66 20 -6.897 -6.2482
9.66 20 -6.84 -6.1972
9.66 20 -6.792 -6.1533
9.66 20 -7.375 -6.6819 13 5.5 7.314 0.0379078 0.621 0.044773504 6.693 0.05866572
9.66 20 -7.26 -6.5773
9.66 20 -7.35 6.6586
9.66 20 -7.306 -6.6188
9.66 20 -7.299 -5.6124
9.66 20 -7.294 -6.6078
High Speed Ordinary Wing Lift, +45/-20 sîroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lifl Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifl Lifi Error Lifl Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(m4 (dei31 O 0 (Hz) ,O 0 0 (N> 0 N
9.66 30 -7.353 -6.6619 5 2 7.406333333 0.2603092 1.351833 0.039930843 6.0545[ 0.26335406
9.66 30 -7.783 -7.0513
9.66 30 -7.139 -6.4675 1
 6LS8.0- LP6.0- O 95'6
ZLS8.0- 9P6.0- O 95'6
508LI0'0 S8E0'0- IPCSPI SIO'O €CEEE8LI6'0- CI ILSC600'0 ££€IfE9S6'0- E'P 6 2098.0- 6P6.O- O 95'6
9LL8.0- 696'0- O 95'6

S9LS.O- L96'0- O 95'6

5ZP510'0 250'0- IPE8PISIO'O EEEEE8116'0- 80L0167.00'0 EEEEE8696'0- E'E L 1288'0- Pf.6'0- O 9Ç.6
8626'0- 920'1- O 9S.6
ÇZt6.0- PO'I- O 95'6

P9S6.O- 950'1- O 95'6

528810'0 L99999921.0- IPE8PISIO'O EEEEE8L16'0- ZI99L1110'0 StPO'I- 1'2 5 SLS6'0- LSO'I- O 95'6
 1 I l

Vel Attack Thrust Coeff /voltage Frequency Average Thmst Thrust Error Drag Tare Tare Enor Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Err(
(de131 O Pl W) 0 N 0 0 O (N>

9.56 10 -1.513 -1.3704 5 2.1 -1.513333333 0.012512216 -1.009 0.017851237 -0.504333333 0.0217995'
9.56 10 -1.526 -1.3828
9.56 I 10 -1.502 -1.361
High Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +30/-20 stroke 1 1 UTIAS, March 1996
Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thnist Thmst Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thnist Adjusted I
(m/s> (de&?) (N O W) 0 0 0 0 0 N
9.56 20 -2.581 -2.3386 5 2.1 -2.584666667 0.014325579 -1.284833333 0.023255226 -1.299833333 0.0273 1
High Speed Variable Span Wing Thnist, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996
I 1 1 I
I
I
Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thrust Thrust Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thmst Adjusted Erro
(ds> (del31 (N) (v> (Hz) 0 0 0 0 0 0
High Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996
I

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lift Adjusted Error
(m/s> (deg) O O W) 0 0 N 0 (N> (N>
 Speed Variable Span Wing Lit?, +30/-20stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lifi Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lin Adjusted Error
'Ws> (del31 O 0 (Hz) 0'0 (NI 0 (N> 0 0
~~~~~~

9.64 O -0.607 -0.5496 5 2 1 0.5766666670.021289~0.0162215560.6168333330.026764923

9.64 O -0.541 -0.4902
9.64 O -0.57 -0.5161
9.64 O -0.586 -0.5308
9.64 O -0.592 -0.536
9.64 I 01 -0.5641 -0.511 I I I I I I I I
High Speed Variable Span Wing Lift:
:
High Speed Variable Span Wing Lift, +30/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lift Lift Error Lifi Tare Tare Enor Adjusted Lifi Adjusted Error
(ds) (de@ (N) 0 (Hz) 09 (N> 0 0 (N> 0

9.64 20 -7.121 -6.4515

9.64 20 -6.92 -6.2691
9.64 20 -6.91 -6.2607
9.64 20 -7.31 -6.6222 Il 5 7.368166667 0.0709282 0.621 0.044773504 6.747166667 0.083877722
9.64 20 -7.422 -6.7243
9.64 20 -7.396 -6.7004
9.64 20 -7.484 -6.7806
9.64 20 -7.297 -6.61 12
9.64 20 -7.3 -6.6132
High Speed Variable Span Wing Lie, +30/-20 stroke IUTIAS, March 1996
I

1 Vel Aîiack Liîl Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifk Lift Error Lifi Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lifl Adjusted Error
(&s> (de@ 0 03 (Hz) 0 0 0 0 (N> 0
High Speed Variable Span Wing Thmst, +45/-20 strokel 1 1UTIAS,March 1996
I
I
I
1
r
I 1
I
I
I
I I I l I
Vel l~ttack 1
~oefT
~T~IUS~ 1~ h m sError
l~oltane l~reauencv l~verane~hnist t ]Draa Tare Tare Error 1 ~diusted~ h r u s t / ~ d i u s tError
ed
68PLP9910'0 EEEEE8SEO'O 1tE8P ISIO'O £8116'0-
High Speed Variable Span Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, March 1996

Vel Attack Thmt Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thmt Thmst Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thrust Adjusted Error
Ws> (deg) O (v> 09 0 0 09 0 0

9.62 20 -2.463 -2.2315

9.62 20 -2.439 -2.2096
9.62 20 -2.369 -2.146 9 4 -2.406833333 0.029345168 -1.28483 0.023255226 -1.122 0.037442549
I-Iieh k e e d Variable Suan Wina Thrust. +45/-20 strokel f 1 1 IUTIAS. March 1996
I I

Vel Attack Thmst Coeff Voltage Frequency Average h t Thmst Error Drag Tare Tare Error l~diusted~ h n itsl~diustedError
(m/s> (de@ (NI O W) 0 0 0
-
2
?
n
*
IQ
n
z
-
r)
r)
--l
r)

2
7

;
-
Xi
*'N
a-
3
30

3.
-
m
*
X)

3
-
CI
3r
X,
N
VI
VI

X-
m
m
M
m
m
m
b
rd
9
C
1
-
Cc

-
CC

-
n
u
OC
OC
C

-
7

C
C
C

-
High Speed Variable Span Wing Lifi, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, Aprd 1996
I l 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 I

Vel l~ttack ( ~ i f t 1 ~ o e f f 1 voltage n c ~ LiA l ~ i fError

I ~ r e ~ u eIAverage l l ~ i f Tare
l l ~ a r Error
e l~djustedLift l~djustedError
 9.66 -10 -0.45

High Speed High AR Wing Thnist, +45/-20 stroke UTLAS,May 1996

Vel Attack Force Coeff Voltage Frequency Average k tk t Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thmst Adjusted Error
.(&s> (de& (-1 03 W) 0 0 0'0 (N> (N> 0
9.66 O -0.304 -0.2688 13 4.5 -0.2615 0.044932357 -0.8115 0.010062306 -1.073 0.046045268
9.66 O -0.281 4.249
9.66 O -0.318 -0.2813
9.66 O -0.253
9.66 O -0.189
9.66 O -0.224
Kgh Speed High AR Wing Tfinist, +45/-20 stroke (UTIAS,May 1996
I l l I I I I I l
Vel Attack Thrust Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Thrust Thmt Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thmst Adjusted Error
(m/s> 0 0 W) 09 ml (NI 0 (N>

9.66 10 -0.679 -0.6014

9.66 10 -0.588 4.5206
9.66 10 -0.579
9.66 10 -0.683
9.66 10 -0.592

High Speed High AR Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, May 1996

Vel Attack T h t Coeff Voltage Frequency Average T h t Thnist Error Drag Tare Tare Error Adjusted Thmst Adjusted Error
(ds) (W 09 0 W) 0 (N> (NI O\J> (N> (N>
 +
High Speed High AR Wing Thrust, +45/-20 stroke UTIAS, May 1996
I I l 1

Frequency Average Thmst T h m t Error IDrag Tare 1 Tare Error l~diusted~hnist1 ~diustedError
 9.7 -10 2.756 2.8918 13 4.5 -2.843833333 0.13 1835019 -0.16133 0.023292822 -2.6825 O. 133876913
9.7 -10 2.816 2.8184
9.7 -10 2.883 2.7515
9.7 -10 2.916 3.1012
9.7 -10 2.635 3.1931
9.7 -10 3.057 3.0359

High S@ High AR wing L i q +45/-20 sîroke UTIAS,May 1996

Vel Attack Lift Coeff Voltage Frequency Average Lifl Lift Error Lift Tare Tare Error Adjusted Lie Adjusted Error
(m/s> (deg) (NI 03 ml 0 0 0 0 0 0'9
9.69 O -0.867 0.0529 13 4.5 0.6765 0.093731443 O. 1755 0.014997222 O,50 1 0.094923654
9.69 O -0.678 0.168 w

9.69 O -0.698 -0.0638

9.69 O -0.627 -0.159
9.69 O -0.589 4.2215
9.69 O -0.6 -0.2028
Appendix C - RoboRaptor Construction

Figure 52 through to Figure 57 show the side, top and front views of the

RoboRaptor Mk. la and Mk.2. The fùselage interna1 support structure was built out of

plywood, with seven bulkheads of 1/8" and 1116" plywood al1 held in place by the main

structural members: a keel and spine of %" plywood. The keel is the component that the

ornithopter lands on, so it must be robust. Small hardwood gussets helped to brace the

bulkheads where they attached to the keel and spine. The bulkheads were lightened as

much as possible by drilling holes in them. This also allowed the free flow of air down

the fùselage, and the passage of wires and tubes between fuselage sections.

In the RoboRaptor Mk. la, a section at the very rear of the fuselage housed the

microservo actuating the rudder, a battery pack, and a 2-channel receiver. A 'floor' of

bluefoam insulation provided a flat area to mount the battery pack and receiver using

velcro strips. The microservo was attached to the rearmost (#7) 118" bulkhead with

screws. The receiver's antenna was routed through a hole in the 1116" #6 bulkhead

immediately fonvard, and into the graphitelepoxy tailboom. The antenna wire ran down

this tube and hung freely out the back of the ornithopter. In the RoboRaptor Mk.2, the

battery and receiver were attached to a small 1116" aluminum plate using velcro, and

positioned above the driveshafi between the #2 and #3 bulkheads. Extension wires

connected the inicroservo to the receiver.

 The 1 oz. fiel tank was mounted ahead of the rearmost section, separated by the

1/16" #6 bulkhead, and was attached by velcro to a bluefoam 'floor'. The &el line was

routed from the tank, through the 118" #5 bulkhead to which the motor was attached,

to the &el inlet on the engine's carburetor.

The Mk. 1a's engine was a .O74 CU. in. gIow-plug engine with a muffler and

throttle. In order to fit it into the fùselage with enough clearance to avoid the wings, the

exhaust manifold was rotated 90°,the muffler was mounted backwards, and the engine

mount was attached at a 24" angle. The drive shaft of the engine was modified to permit

attachment of an aluminium flywheel using the propeller securing screw. Although

during operation any resistance to the engine's rotation served to tighten this screw,

starting the motor against the resistance of compression caused the flywheel to Ioosen.

To solve this problem, an aluminium collar was epoxy'd between the flywheel and the

engine driveshafi, and two 2/56" screws were driven through the flywheel and the collar.

into the drive shaft. This solution permanently linked the flywheel and driveshafi. A

plastic six-bladed fan was fitted to the shafi of the flywheel to cool the engine during

operation. The gearbox was driven via a gear fitted to the end of the flywheel shaft.

The Mk. II's engine was a P.A.W. .O6 diesel, mounted at the same angle and

using the same engine mount. Tts flywheel disk had a knurled edge to provide the starter

wheel with better grip. The flywheel hub was designed 41nin longer than that of the

Mk. 1a to accommodate the larger engine drive shaft and to coinpensate for the diesel's
shorter length. The new flywheel was secured more simply than the old, using a 6-32

set-screw set in a dimple drilled into the engine's drive shafi. The fùel line was yellow

tygon tubing, which is resistant to diesel fùel. Similar tubing was used to conduct the

muffler exhaust to a hole in the bottom of the fiiselage shell, so as to direct the spray of

unburned &el outside the shell and away from the wings.

The gearbox was placed ahead of the engine, sandwiched between two 1116"

bulkheads (#4 and #3). It was a cordless screwdriver planetary gearbox with a 68: 1

reduction ratio; the same gearbox used on the test platform. The screwdriver hexagonal

attachment on the front was removed and repiaced with a 3/16" set-screw shaft coupling

to Save weight. Plywood rings held the circular gearbox steady, and removable

aluminium strips held the fonvard plywood ring in place, facilitating removai of the

entire gearbox assembly. The fonvard #3 bulkhead was reinforced with carbon strips

attached with cyanoacrylate to both sides. The gearbox was lubricated with moly-slip

grease to provide adequate lubrication and prevent Wear.

From the shaft coupling, a 3/16" 0.d. steel drill shafi ran fonvard to the flapping-

mechanism through the 1/16" #2 bulkhead. Following damage sustained during a test

flight, the #2 bulkhead was rebuilt and reinforced with layers of 118" plywood around

the area of the drive shaft, and where the fibregIass root spars passed through it. A

bushing, made by drilling a 3116" hole down the centre of a 318" threaded shaft,

supported the drive shaft at this point. The 2 cm long section of threaded shaft was held
in place with 3/8" nuts on either side of the bulkhead. Originally, a hollow brass drive

shaft was used to Save weight, but it proved inadequate to sustain the large torque

exerted on the drivetrain. It was replaced with a solid steel rod, and dimples were

drilled into it to give the set-screws a better grip. The section of the keel between the

first and second bulkheads was later reinforced with a layer of 1/32" aluminium on either

side, attached with cyanoacrylate and wrapped with kevlar thread.

An aluminium crank wheel was attached to the fonvard end of the steel shafi and

secured with a set-screw, The Mk. la's wheel used a 118" boit as a pin joint to link it to

the crank arm. The Mk.11'~crank wheel had a 6 mm long slot to allow a 5/32" brass

tube to slide freely back and forth in it. The tube acted as a bushing for a 1/8" screw

that passed through it. Nuts were used to hold the screw and bushing in position. A

crank a m consisting of a layer of 111 6 plywood covered by a layer of 5 oz. carbon

fibre on either side was attached to the screw, and rotated at its opposite end about a

118" bolt with a 5/32" brass tube bushing. The bolt connected this end to the right-hand

acrylic wing pivot. The crank was attached at the correct points which gave a +45"/-24"

stroke angle.

Only one pivot was driven; the other was linked using two bundles of kevlar

thread tied to 2/56?' screws. This mechanism was analogous to that used for the test

platforrn, except that kevlar thread was used instead of steel strips. Originally, the

pivots were linked with gear teeth made from rubber timing belts, but the twisting of the
fùseiage under torque caused the teeth to skip. Larger gear teeth failed to solve the

problem. I decided to revert to the dual strip method, as this system mechanically links

the pivots and twisting bas no effect. The knots in the kevlar thread were secured with

small amounts of 5 minute epoxy, as cyanoacrylate glue caused the kevlar to becorne

brittle.

The wing spars were 3/16" fibreglass rods, with 7/32" brass tubing at the root

end to reinforce the area where the spars join the pivots. The spars fitted into holes

drilled in the acrylic pivots, and were held securely by 2/56" screws running through the

pivot and the spar. This was the same method used to attach the spars to the test

platform, except that the screws were mounted horizontally, not vertically. Two 3/16"

fibreglass root spars ran the length of the fuselage, acting as axles for the wing pivots

and attachment points for the root edge of the wing membrane. 3/16" rotary ball-

bearing sets, two to each pivot, were used to reduce friction as the wings rotated about

the axle. 1 tried birch dowels instead of fibreglass to Save weiçht, but they were unable

to withstand the torque and broke. The pivots were held in position by 311 6" set-screw

wheel collars, and similar collars prevented the root spars froin sliding out under load.

The longer wing spars for the second set of wings were sanded top and bottom to

produce a tapered profile in order to reduce the weight of the spars and the loading on

the drive mechanism. These spars also had a length of 118" fibreglass rod running

diagonally between the wing spar and the root spar, forming a triangle (See Figure 63).
The rod was attached to the wing spar with epoxy, reinforced with a balsa gusset and

wrapped with kevlar thread. 9/64" and 7/32" brass tubing was soldered together at a

45" angle to create a hinge at the root spar. The 118" rod slotted into the 9/64" tube,

while the 7/32" tube rotated about the root spar. The rod acted as a compression strut,

reinforcing the wing spars fore and aft.

The drivetrain, fuel and radio components were designed to be removable from

the tùselage with a minimum of effort; the fuselage could be stripped down to its

plywood frame in under half an hour to repair and maintain the components.

The empennage consisted of a ventral vertical stabiliser and rudder, and a

membrane horizontal stabiliser. Both were attached t o a tail boom made from a length

of 318" graphite-epoxy kite spar tubing. The vertical tail was made from 3/32" balsa

with the grain mnning horizontally. 1cm wide balsa strips were glued cross-grain to the

mdder and fin to straighten and strengthen the sheet balsa. The rudder hinges and

control horn were commercially available radio-controlled aircraft parts. Piano wire was

used as the controi link between the microservo and the rudder horn. To firther

strengthen the joint between the vertical tail and the boom, a length of carbon fibre was

fastened along the leading edge of the fin with epoxy and two lengths wrapped around

the tail boom and attached vertically.

The horizontal tail was a triangle of membrane Iield in place by two l/8"

fibreglass spars. The tail was hinged at its apex with a strip of 1 /32" aluminum, secured
with kevlar thread and epoxy and bent to the correct angle. A 118" bolt raised the tail to

give it an angle-of-attack that was variable depending on the length of the bolt. Finally,

the tail was tied down with thread just aft of the boIt to prevent it from pivoting under

load.

The outer streamlined shell of the ornithopter was made from three layers of

fibreglass, an innermost of 5 oz., with two 2 oz. top layers. I built up a male mold from

bluefoam insulation, using a series of 1/16" plywood bulkheads spaced along the length

of the mold as guides to maintain the correct shape. The foam was sanded to shape, the

gaps were filied with Poly-Filia, and the outside was covered in packing tape. The tape

was cut into small patches in order to conform to the compound curves of the mold.

Lastly, the mold was coated with PVA mold release agent.

The layers of fibreglass were impregnated with epoxy and laid over the mold.

Two sections were made in separate layups: a top and bottom half with some overlap

along the sides of the fùselage. After the epoxy had set, the two halves were placed in

an oven to cure for eight hours. The oven was made from sheets of bluefoam insulation

and heated by hot air supplied by a hair dryer. The curing teinperature was inaintained

at about 80°C by monitoring the teinperature with a therinometer. The halves of the

shell were trimmed to shape once they had cured, and holes were cut for the muffler,

engine needle valve, rudder control wire and wings. Further holes were cut to access

the engine glow plug and flywheel for startup. A small length of piano wire was used to
hold the engine throttle lever in the Fully open position. The rectangular access hole for

the flywheel was closed with a 'hatch' of fibreglass conforming to the fuselage shape and

butting up against two wooden tabs. A third tab protruded from the bottom of the

hatch. The hatch was held in place with duct tape.

Seen fiom above, the fùselage appears pinched inwards where the wing

membranes are attached to the fuselage root spars. This shape allowed clearance for the

wings when they flap and was adopted based on experience with the test platform.

There, the streamiined shroud was so large, to accommodate the oversize wing pivots

and interna1 mechanics, that it constrained the wing membrane's movement and reduced

the usefid area of the wings.

The nose of the ornithopter was made of bluefoam cut to shape using a hot wire

and a sanding block, and coated in epoxy to improve its resistance to damage. Two

leading-edge wing fairings were created from an inner layer of 5 oz. and an outer layer

of 2 oz. fiberglass using a balsa male mold. These were glued to the acrylic wing pivots

and provided a smooth taper to streamline the wing's leading edge where it joined the

fuselage.
 -4 .- c
F r o n t View S i d a View

RoboRaptor Mk.la Flywheel

RoboRaptor Mk.2 Flywheel
 -
Appendix D Photos
RoboRaptor M k l a , Unassembled Components
RoboRaptor M k l a , Unassembled Components
RoboRaptor M k l a Fuselage
RoboRaptor M k l a Fuselage

RoboRaptor M k l a
RoboRaptor M k l a
 RoboRaptor M k l a

RoboRaptor M k l a Tai1
RoboRaptor M k l a Drivetrain

RoboRaptor M k 2 Tai1
RoboRaptor Mk2 Drivetrain

RoboRaptor Mk.2 Fuselage

RoboRaptor Mk.2 Engine
 RoboRaptor Mk2 Dowel Compression Struts

Robohptor Mk2 Fibreglass Compression Strut

Appendix E - Double Beam Strain Balance Data Sampling Program

'* *
'* PARA.BAS - - - - DATA SAMPLING PROGRAM A PARALLEL BEAM BALANCE *
'* *
'* T.J.M. Nov 11/94 *
'* *
'* Programined by T. Macliacek to acquirc data for a singlc channcl *
'* parallel beain balancc. *
'***********************************************************************

DECLARE S U 3 Appcnddata (k)

DECLARE SUB Datatodisk (k)

DECLARE SUB Calibration ()

DECL ARE SUB zcros ()

DECLARE SUB iniliicncc (k)

DECL ARE SUB avcragcs ()

DECLARE SUB ModcO ()

DECLARE SUB Modc 1 ()

DECLARE SUB rnodc4 (k)

DECLARE SUB Mode 19 ()

DECLARE SUB sainplc (k)

DIM A%,(IOOO, 2)
 DIM Avcs(2)

DIM Zero(2)

DIM Lt%(2)

DIM Dit!40(2)

DIM loads(2.2)

DIM coeff(2)

DIM Incoef(2. 2)

DIM Suiti(1000)

COMMON SHARED Lt%(). Di%(), Sum(). Aves(), A%(), scan%. vel, q, density. Batvolt. dcscrip$

COMMON SHARED loads(), Incoef(). Zero(). File$, Delay%. chan, attack. coeff(), s

DECLARE SUB Das8 (mode%, BYVAL dummy%. Flag%)

CLS

LOCATE 2.30: PRINT "WELCOME TO PARA-BEAM"

PRINT

PRINT "This prograin will samplc a parallcl bcain balance arraiigcnicnt."

PRINT

5 PRINT

chan = I 'Sets ilic nunibcr of clianncls to bc satiiplcd

MODEL P A W T E R S - FRONTAL AREA OF PLATFORM

 SET UP A/D BOARD

CALL Mode0 ' Initialize A/D board

CALL Mode1 Set # of cliannels sanipled

CALL Mode 19 ' Sct gain

TIME INTERVAL BETWEEN CHANNEL SAMPLES

' If Delay% = 1000 Interval = 1 1 milliseconds

Delay% = 500 Interval = 5.7 milliseconds

SET # OF DATA POINTS PER CHANNEL

scan% = 1000

Filcflag% = O 'Dctcrmincs if a iicw filc is riccded to bc opcned

' COLLECT AND STORE ZEROS

INPUT "Balancc Supply Voltage (Sliould bc around 6.0 V) ="; Batvolt

IF Batvolt = O THEN Batvolt = 6 !

10 CALL zcros

PRlNT
 INPUT "Would you like to tr&c anotlier zcro rcading @ln) ":Ans$

IF (Ans$ = "y"OR Ans$ = "Y")GOTO 10

PRINT

INPUT "Run Description: ": dcscrip$

' CHOOSE DATA COLLECTION OPTIONS

15 PRINT

PRINT "CHOOSEFROM FOLLOWING OPTIONS"

PRINT "<l> - Calibrate balance"

PRiNT "<2> - Sainplc data"

PFüNT "<3> - Start a ncw data set"

PRINT "<4> - Exit prograin"

INPUT "Clioosc (1-4)": s%

IF s'% = 1 THEN

CALL Calibration
ELSEIF s%«= 2 THEN

SAMPLE DATA

PRINT
 INPUT "Input thc local barometric pressure (inHg): ": prcss

PRINT

INPUT "Input tunncl's temperature ('F): ":temp

PRINT

INPUT "Input tunnel's betz rcading (inH20): ":bctz

PRTNT

INPUT "Model'sangle-of-attack: ":attack

P U T

density = 2 1.237 * press / (ternp + 460) 'kg/mA3

q = betz * 249.098

vel = SQR(2! * q / density) 'm/s

PRiNT

INPUT "Hit ENTER to start sample"; s%

PRINT

CALL samplc(2)

IF Fileflag% = O THEN

PRiNT

INPUT "Storc data to disk'? (y/n) ";Ans$

IF (Ans$ = "y" OR Ans$ = "Y") THEN

Filcflag'X~= 1

CALL Datatodisk(2)

END IF

ELSE
 PlUNT

INPUT "Store data to disk'?(yln) ":Ans$

IF (Ans$ = "y"OR Ans$ = "Y")TEEN

CALL Appenddata(2)

END IF

END IF

ELSEIF x% = 3 THEN GOTO 5

ELSEIF s% = 4 THEN GOTO 100

END IF
GOTO 15
100 END

SUB Appcnddata 0)

OPEN File$ FOR APPEND AS # 1

FORi=OTOj

PRINT # 1, USING "##.## ###.# ###.### ##.####"; vcl; attack; loads(i. 0): cocff(i)

NEXT i

CLOSE #1

END SUB

SUB avcragcs
FOR i = O TO clian - I

Suiii(i) = O

FOR j = 1 TO scaii'X,
 Suiii(i) = Sum(i) + A%(i. i)

NEXT j

Aves(i) = Suiii(i) / scan%

Aves(i) = Aves(i) * (20 / 4096)

Aves(i) = Aves(i) * G! 1 Batvolt

NEXT i

END SUI3

SUB Calibration
PRINT

INPUT "Apply load and hit enter"; s%

FOR j = 1 TO scan%
CALL inode4Q)

NEXT j

CALL averagcs

FOR i = O TO chan - 1

Aves(i) = Avcs(i) - Zero(i)

NEXT i

PRINT

PRINT " Loads (inV)"

PRINT

FOR i = O TO cl~aii- 1

PRINT " R("; i: ")"

PRiNT USING "###.###"; Aves(i)

 NEXT i

PRINT

END SUE?

SUI3 Datatodisk 0)

INPUT "Naineof data file (cg. a: data.dat)";File$

OPEN File$ FOR OUTPUT AS # 1

PRINT # 1. "Run Description: ": descrip$

PRINT # 1.

PRiNT # 1. " Vel Attack Force Coefî"

PRINT # 1, "(mls) (deg) (N)"

P R N ï # 1.

FORi=OTOj

PRINT # 1. USING "##.## ###.# ###.### ##.####": vcl; attack; loads(i, 0 ) ; coeff(i)

NEXT i

CLOSE #1

END SUI3

SUB infliiciicc (L)

Incocf(0, O) = 36.1033

Incocf(0, 1) = 0

Iiicoef(0, 2) = 0

1iicocf( 1 , 0) = 0

1 ncocf( 1. 1 ) =0
 FOR i = O TO chan - 1

Aves(i) = Aves(i) - Zero(i)

loadsc. i) =O

NEXT i

FOR i = O TO chan - 1

FOR j = O TO chan - 1

loads(L, i) = Incoef(i. j) * AvesG) + loads(L. i)

NEXT j

NEXT i

PRINT USlNG "##.## ###.# ###.### ##.####": vcl: aitack: loads(L. 0); coefT(L)

END SUB

SUB ModcO

Md% = O
 Basadr?? = &H300

Flag% = O

CALL Das8(Md%, VARPTR(Basadr?/o). Flag4%)

IF Flag% 0O THEN PRINT "ERROR #": Flag%; "IN DAS8 INITIALIZATION (Modc O)"

END SUB

SUB Modc 1

Md% = 1

Lt%(O) = O

Lt%(l) = chan - 1

Flag% = O

CALL DasS(Md%, VARPTR(Lt%(O)), Flag%)

IF Flag% <> O THEN PRINT "ERROR #": Flag%: "IN DAS8 INITIALIZATION (Modc 1)"

END SUB

SUB Modc 19

Md%= 19

Lt%(O) = 14

Flag% = O

CALL Das8(Md%. VARPTR(Lt'l/n(O)). Flag%)

IF Flag% 0O THEN PRINT "ERROR #"; Flag%; "IN DAS8 INITIALIZATION (Modc 19)"

END SUB

SUB iriodc4 0)
 Md% = 4

FlagYh= O

FORi=OTOchan- 1

FOR k = 1 TO Delay%

NEXT k

CALL Das8(Md%. VARPTR(Di%(i)). Flag%)

IF Flag% <> O THEN PRiNT "ERROR#"; Flag%: "IN DASS SAMPLING (Mode 4)"

A%(j. i) = Di%(i)

NEXT i

END SUB

SUB sainple (k)

PWNT " Vcl Attack Forcc Coeff"

PRINT "(inls) (deg) (N)"

PRINT

FORi=OTOk

FOR j = 1 TO scan%

CALL inodc4Ü)

NEXT j

C ALL avcragcs

CALL influcncc(i)

FOR L = 1 TO 1000 'Pause bctwccn sct saiiiplcs

 NEXT L

NEXT i

END SUB

SUB zeros

FOR j = 1 TO scan%

CALL mode40)

NEXT j

CALL averages

FOR i = O TO chan - 1

Zero(i) = Aves(i)

NEXT i
PRINT

PRINT " ZERO READINGS (inV)"

FOR i = O TO chan - 1

PRlNT " R("; i; ")"

PRINT USING "###.###": Zcro(i)

NEXT i

END SUB
 A IMAGE. lnc
APPLIEO -
= 1653 Easl Main Street
-.-
--
--
-- -- Rochester, NY 14609 USA
--
--
--Fax: 7 161288-5989
Phone: i l 61482-0300

O 1993. Appl~edImage. Inc., Atl Rights R e s e ~ e d