Hovering flight control of a micromechanical flying insect

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyan Deng ◽  
L. Schenato ◽  
S. Sastry
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Hovering Flight ◽  
Micromechanical Flying Insect

Lift and power requirements of hovering flight inDrosophila virilis

2002 ◽  
Vol 205 (16) ◽  
pp. 2413-2427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mao Sun ◽  
Jian Tang
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Stokes Equations ◽  
Fruit Fly ◽  
The Body ◽  
Drosophila Virilis ◽  
Specific Power ◽  
Aerodynamic Forces ◽  
Hovering Flight ◽  
Power Expenditure ◽  
The Mean

SUMMARYThe lift and power requirements for hovering flight in Drosophila virilis were studied using the method of computational fluid dynamics. The Navier-Stokes equations were solved numerically. The solution provided the flow velocity and pressure fields, from which the unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments were obtained. The inertial torques due to the acceleration of the wing mass were computed analytically. On the basis of the aerodynamic forces and moments and the inertial torques, the lift and power requirements for hovering flight were obtained.For the fruit fly Drosophila virilis in hovering flight (with symmetrical rotation), a midstroke angle of attack of approximately 37°was needed for the mean lift to balance the insect weight, which agreed with observations. The mean drag on the wings over an up- or downstroke was approximately 1.27 times the mean lift or insect weight (i.e. the wings of this tiny insect must overcome a drag that is approximately 27 % larger than its weight to produce a lift equal to its weight). The body-mass-specific power was 28.7 W kg-1, the muscle-mass-specific power was 95.7 W kg-1 and the muscle efficiency was 17 %.With advanced rotation, larger lift was produced than with symmetrical rotation, but it was more energy-demanding, i.e. the power required per unit lift was much larger. With delayed rotation, much less lift was produced than with symmetrical rotation at almost the same power expenditure; again, the power required per unit lift was much larger. On the basis of the calculated results for power expenditure, symmetrical rotation should be used for balanced, long-duration flight and advanced rotation and delayed rotation should be used for flight control and manoeuvring. This agrees with observations.

scholarly journals Dynamics of Micro-Air-Vehicle with Flapping Wings

10.14311/526 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sibilski
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Inertial Sensors ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Micro Air Vehicles ◽  
The Body ◽  
Flapping Wings ◽  
Control Algorithms ◽  
Micromechanical Flying Insect ◽  
And Performance

Small (approximately 6 inch long, or hand-held) reconnaissance micro air vehicles (MAVs) will fly inside buildings, and require hover for observation, and agility at low speeds to move in confined spaces. For this flight envelope insect-like flapping wings seem to be an optimal mode of flying. Investigation of the aerodynamics of flapping wing MAVs is very challenging. The problem involves complex unsteady, viscous flow (mainly laminar), with the moving wing generating vortices and interacting with them. At this early stage of research only a preliminary insight into the nature of the little known aerodynamics of MAVs has been obtained. This paper describes computational models for simulation of the controlled motion of a microelectromechanical flying insect – entomopter. The design of software simulation for entomopter flight (SSEF) is presented. In particular, we will estimate the flight control algorithms and performance for a Micromechanical Flying Insect (MFI), a 80–100 mm (wingtip-to-wingtip) device capable of sustained autonomous flight. The SSEF is an end-to-end tool composed of several modular blocks which model the wing aerodynamics and dynamics, the body dynamics, and in the future, the environment perception, control algorithms, the actuators dynamics, and the visual and inertial sensors. We present the current state of the art of its implementation, and preliminary results. 

2A1-G03 Pitch Up Hovering Flight Control of a Quad Tilt Rotor UAV

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (0) ◽  
pp. _2A1-G03_1-_2A1-G03_4
Author(s):  
Atsushi OOSEDO ◽  
Satoko ABIKO ◽  
Atsushi KUNO ◽  
Shota NARASAKI ◽  
Shohei KOKUBUN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Hovering Flight ◽  
Tilt Rotor

Automation Surprise

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. de Boer ◽  
Karel Hurts
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Aviation Safety ◽  
Control Mode ◽  
Cognitive Errors ◽  
Laboratory Studies ◽  
Airline Pilots ◽  
Flight Operations ◽  
Widespread Phenomenon ◽  
Few Data

Abstract. Automation surprise (AS) has often been associated with aviation safety incidents. Although numerous laboratory studies have been conducted, few data are available from routine flight operations. A survey among a representative sample of 200 Dutch airline pilots was used to determine the prevalence of AS and the severity of its consequences, and to test some of the factors leading to AS. Results show that AS is a relatively widespread phenomenon that occurs three times per year per pilot on average but rarely has serious consequences. In less than 10% of the AS cases that were reviewed, an undesired aircraft state was induced. Reportable occurrences are estimated to occur only once every 1–3 years per pilot. Factors leading to a higher prevalence of AS include less flying experience, increasing complexity of the flight control mode, and flight duty periods of over 8 hr. It is concluded that AS is a manifestation of system and interface complexity rather than cognitive errors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document