|
|
 |
<< WEEK
1
2004-06-28,
Monday
Luis Torres
Julia Lee
We spent Monday morning at Lake Lagunita
flying (and crashing) an R/C plane with Axel. Many of
us got a chance to be at the controls, but the fun ended
with a
servo problem. We returned to the Green Earth Science building where we split
up into groups of two to briefly research the effects of particular glider parts.
Then we gathered together to share our findings, ending with a question and answer
session with Axel.
2004-06-29, Tuesday
Nicki Lui
Jessa Lee
Today we gathered in the
meeting room and were told that we were needed to finish and test our models
today. So each group took up materials and began building from their drafts
of their models. The first flight tests were quite exciting, everybody wondering
if their designs had sufficiently compromised appearance with aerodynamics
to enable the models to fly. Each group encountered different problems and
spent some time adjusting and fixing up their aircraft. Then we went out
to lunch in Tresidder as a quick break from our building. When we came back
from lunch, we began working on our models again. Some groups finished up
and made final adjustments to their models, while other groups worked on
building a second design. Then, when time was up, each group brought their
gliders to the meeting room to present the design for critique by the whole
team. We learned a lot from the presentations. The team heard all the experience
and problems that each group faced while trying to make their model fly,
gaining experience. The team learned different ways of working with new materials
as well. The following summarizes the designs and ideas gathered during the
meeting.
|
Group |
Plane
1 |
Plane
2 |
Plane
3 |
|
Site B |
Swept-wing, dihedral,
10 g, proportional |
Upside-down wings,
8 g, curled wings
-not roll stable,
need dihedral
-thumbtacks good
for weight
*duct tape on joints |
Proportional, 8
g, realistic head |
|
NJM |
Movable dihedral
and anhedral, 3x of figure
*good testing possibilities
(wire)
-anhedral pitches
down
-list dihedral is
better |
Same scale without
dihedral
- flies very well |
|
|
Ingen |
8 g
For all:
Test dihedral & sweep
(different bodies)
Span: 17" Area
49"
Asymmetric wings
need trim, flaps
-need way to correct
imperfections/errors (ex. Al foil on tail, ailerons later)
|
(SB) 10 g |
(ED) 9 g |
|
LED |
Doesn't look like
pterosaur, used membrane wing
Wingspan: 16:, yaw
unstable, tried to keep ratios, 5 g without weight, 11 g with weight
Flies very well
can reduce wing area if pitch up and add weight |
|
|
BEST IDEAS:
Slight dihedral
Not too light (best 8-10
g for small models)
Adjustable control surfaces
(wires)
Aluminum foil flaps
Membrane, no tension in
back of membrane
Pterosaur form (dimensions
more important than exact look)
Control symmetry (canât
be perfect, so make it correctable)
Increase wingspan (2-3
ft)
GOALS TO EXPLORE:
- sweep, dihedral, anhedral,
control shape of tail/wings (just balsa)
- membrane: tension,
strings
- mixture/combo
DEADLINE: need shopping
list and detailed designs by tomorrow.
06-30, Wednesday
Erica McCay
Clark Willison
Arriving at 10 am as usual,the
team was excited for another day. Well into the second week, many different
small
gliders had
been built,
as well as many lessons
learned. Now it was time for a larger challenge - 3 foot wing span. In two
groups of four and one group of five, the students set off to design their
pterosaur-like
gliders. Each group had a different task: group one worked on membrane design,
group two worked on wing sweep and dihedral, and group three worked on control
surfaces. The morning was spent making detailed drawings and choosing materials
for the gliders. The shopping lists were sent with Axel while the rest of
the team stopped for a lunch break. Work resumed even before Axel's return
as students
calculated the weight, CG, CL etc for their gliders. Once Axel arrived, the
team was ready to embark on the next step—building. Each group’s
design was unique from the others. Group one used mono coat for the wings,
group two
created three gliders with different sweeps and variable dihedrals, and group
three used metal pins to test the different positions of wing and tail joints.
As usual, four o'clock approached and students stayed late, trying to finish
up one more thing before letting the gliders sit for the night.
2004-07-01, Thursday
PJ Thompson
Cameron Tacklind
Glider Completion:
The
previous day, Team Pterosaur had decided that they needed to further
investigate specific characteristics of pterosaur flight. From the smaller
models constructed
before, students decided that the three primary issues still plaguing their
transition from a glider to a pterosaur were membrane design, control
surface interaction,
and wing position during flight. With these three categories in mind, students
divided into three teams. Each team was responsible for building a pterosaur/glider
model with an approximate wingspan of 3ft.
Today the membrane
team worked trying to emulate the actinofibrils that existed in the pterosaur’s
wing. This team tried to emulate how the pterosaur would use these fine
hair like structures embedded in their membrane to dynamically
control tension in the wing membrane. The group used monokote (as used
on many RC models) as the membrane material and simulated the actinofibrils
using fishing
wire. The leading edge bone representation was made from pieces of reinforced
balsa wood that could flex in the lateral axis. In addition, the group
used a thin metal wire, placed along the leading edge of the wing, to
tension the actinofibrils
in turn tensioning the membrane. This group worked today on placing the
actionfibrils between two layers of monokote and then meticulously ironing
the monokote to
itself to form a pterosaur-like wing membrane. The finished product had
many wrinkles and the group discovered that monokote was not elastic
enough to be
a realistic representation of a pterosaur membrane. However once assembled
with a standard body and tail, this group’s pterosaur served as
a good example of how an actinofibril membrane pterosaur wing might have
looked
like. The
glider did not fly well even with weights on the front but as will be
explained
later,
professor Ilan Kroo explained to the team how this pterosaur model was
currently configured to fly upside down.
The control surfaces
team worked with modulating primarily the wing dihedral and the v-tail
control surfaces.
Using steel wire this group created
adjustability in the various joints they created and therefore made
their design flexible
to investigation of several different flight configurations. This team
built a body
that began to look very large during construction and many were worried
about its weight distribution. However once all the pieces were manufactured
the
glider weighed in at just about 40 grams. After assembly, the group
placed weights in
strategic locations in order to balance out the position of the CG
relative to the CL. The glider from this group had the largest wingspan
of any
glider made
so far and was seemingly the most ambitious yet to be developed. This
group’s
glider was very successful in many of its tests and with the help of
Ilan Kroo, they were able to optimize the shape of their pterosaur
glider to
the best
possible shape given their degrees of movement.
The wing configuration
group took a slightly different approach in investigating different
wing flights configurations. Instead of using
steel wire as
the control surfaces group did, the configuration group used thin
aluminum sheets to adjust
the dihedral angle in the wings. Unlike the two other groups, they
created several models of their pterosaur glider to test. This group
took on
one
of the most
undefined challenges which is the question of what angle dihedral
did the wings have and what sweep did the pterosaur wings have. This team’s
glider was marginally successful, more so than the membrane glider
but slightly less
successfully
than the control surfaces group.
Afternoon Lecture:
In the afternoon,
students received a very special visit from the Professor of Aero/Astro
and Stanford, Dr. Ilan Kroo. Mr. Kroo came
to spend
several hours
with the students talking more in-depth about different characteristics and
principles of flight in both regular gliders and the perceived ones in pterosaurs.
He began
by explaining the fallacy in the assumption that Bernoulli’s principle
is the primary reason for airplane flight. He explained that it has to do partially
with deflection and other factors of airplane wing shape. Mr. Kroo brought
with him a styrofoam glider which he demonstrated. He explained how the sweep
and
twist/curvature in the wing made it much more of a stable and efficient glider.
At the same time he demonstrated how you could take a simple piece of paper
and by adding weights and a small control surface, the paper could glide very
efficiently.
Mr. Kroo talked in great length about how the twist in the pterosaur wing is
vital and about the principle behind wash-out/wash-in and how that relates
to the twist in a wing.
WEEK
3 >>
|