Congrats on kicking ass at the AIAA conference:
http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/news/ae/2009/20090408.html

Anybody here in the program or have any info on any of the projects this year?
Especially the morphing wing design - I love morphing wings.

4/10/2009 5:22:10 PM

buddy of mine's project:
http://sandstormoperations.com/

congrats to all the teams, i was told about the awards... pretty awesome

4/10/2009 5:35:34 PM

Yeah, that Sand Tunnel is pretty neat. It's a shame it's too bulky to take to the conference.

I'm with the BOTS Team (1st Design Team).
We made 3 moon rover concepts that use bio-inspired locomotion. One that walks, one that crawls, one that hops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyCZWk1u0zg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcppk5_Z6gA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQAV-vFb-Fg

The Inflatable Rover Team's stuff was pretty awesome to see, basically a giant beach ball they can steer around.

And the morphing wing looks badass. It's mostly just a concept, not a wind-tunnel model or anything flyable, but seeing it switch positions is cool.

4/12/2009 9:51:23 PM

The conference was here in Huntsville, AL this year so I was happy to go see some of the design presentations and say hi to some old friends. Even Stearns was here, it was nuts. But yeah, congrats and good job maintaining the legacy of NCSU completely dominating like we always do.

btw, was the morphing wing the one with the feathers at the end? One of my buddies posted a video about it on Facebook and it was really impressive.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 10:35:06 AM

This is two year in a row that the airplanes have not won. Is Dr Hall slacking? Or is the AIAA just getting tired of the same damn presentation every year? (Or maybe they've just given up on trying to live up to the expectations I set when I blew that damn conference out of the water.)

4/13/2009 10:39:21 AM

^ From what I can tell, Dr Hall is pushing the Aero Design guys as hard as ever. I think the Space Design projects just have the advantage of being different topics instead of 3 presentations of similar (but awesome) planes.

I didn't catch their presentations (too hung over) so I don't know how the judges reacted during the question period.

Quote :

"btw, was the morphing wing the one with the feathers at the end? "

Yes. I'll be interested to see what future students in that class do to make more testable builds. (The morphing wing group was a class on its own with a large team and budget.)

4/13/2009 11:02:12 AM

What are the aircraft requirements this year?

My MS thesis was a bit of an extension of the morphing wing. I called it a public education version of a morphing wing. Multiple discrete control surfaces in place of the normal elevators/ailerons on a BWB (Thunderstruck from 2001-2002) to approximate a continuously morphing trailing edge. I didn't do a particularly good job with my thesis, but I still love morphing concepts.







[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 12:08:19 PM

My roommate said that conference was pretty damn boring, he enjoyed the parties way more, lol.

4/14/2009 12:47:57 AM

NC State provides the excitement. The couple that I attended were typically full of a bunch of insanely easy or retarded or misguided presentations. Then those guys would nerd it up and stay in their rooms, crying about how we kicked their asses and also managed to be drunk and loud.

4/14/2009 9:04:35 AM

That morphing trailing edge is badass. What findings did you get from that research?

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

4/14/2009 10:25:14 AM

Nothing very surprising really.

Breakdown of project:
12 independently controlled effectors on each wing (I think we made up that word)
Each effector has a pressure tap installed about 1/8" directly upstream of the center of the effector
Effectors are 4" x 1" with a maximum tested deflection of 15deg
Effectors are made from spring steel, so when they deflect, they create a contoured surface instead of the normal, abrupt change in angle from a normal hinged control surface (smoother flow transition, less likelihood of separation, etc)
Of course, it would have been much cooler to have an officially morphing wing (like the old Smart Wing project at NASA/Northrop), but that's really a materials science question. We just did what we could for cheap and made a "discretized approximation" of a true morphing trailing edge.


The guy who worked on the project before me (he built the wings) studied pressure distributions across the wings. He studied each wing separately in the NCSU subsonic tunnel. Ran a shitload of tests, measuring the pressures at every port for every deflection of every effector. Example: Deflect effector #5 to 5degrees, record the pressure at every pressure tap. Deflect it 10deg, record every pressure. Deflect 15deg, record. Repeat with negative deflections. Repeat with every effector.
The relationships are pretty easy to guess. When you move effector #6, pressure tap #6 is affected the most. Taps #5 and #7 are affected a bit. Taps #4 and #8 are affected a bit less. Etc. Taps #1 and #12 hardly even realize that #6 was deflected. Turns out that the relationships are damn near completely linear. And when you deflect two at a time, the deltas just add together. So it's really easy to set up an algorithm to predict the pressure distribution across all 12 effectors for any configuration you can think of. It's just a 12x12 matrix of dCp/dDelta(e) for each effector's response to every other effector's deflection (that's the slope of the line for pressure vs deflection - it's so easy when things are linear like that). So the resulting equation is just the array of deflections multiplied to the matrix of pressure sensitivities. Pretty simple stuff.
Of course, this is awfully useful for things like minimizing the load at the root of the wing, manipulating pressure distributions to achieve the magical elliptical lift distribution to minimize induced drag, etc. This kind of fits in with Dr. G's "master plan" of induced drag reduction. It could be combined with the work of McAvoy, Jepson, King, Cusher, whoever the hell worked for him to make a pretty cool master solution.

So then I took over the project. We did 6 weeks of testing for the complete aircraft in the 12-foot tunnel at NASA Langley. We did essentially the same thing as before, but with forces and moments instead of pressures. Of course, my results were almost the same. Move 1 effector, it creates a little lift. Move another one, it creates a little. Move them both together, just add those two numbers together. At least, that's how it works for pitch, roll, and lift (the easy linear ones). Drag and yaw were utter failures. The drag numbers were complete noise (some of the configurations showed negative drag). I blame it on the turbulence in the tunnel (every aerodynamicists favorite excuse) and the resolution of the force balance for the testing.

Someone smart would have taken the results from the first half and combined them with the results of the second half to create a kick-ass closed-loop controller. Something such as "I want to bank 20deg to the left while minimizing induced drag and lowering the root bending moment on the wing. Computer, tell me what the ideal configuration would be."
But I don't know shit about controls (pretty smart idea to work for Dr Hall without knowing controls...) and kinda pussied out of that part of the project.

The engineer we were working with at Langley had some fun experiments to run as well. He put the aircraft on a free-to-roll rig in the tunnel (so we could actually rotate the plane left and right with the control surfaces - pretty cool setup). He wrote himself a controller to play with the roll that was just fun to play around with.
He also wrote a controller to control the pressure distribution from the results of the first half of the project. He would prescribe a pressure distribution and tell the computer to figure out how to get there. Then he'd throw in a few kinks - "oops! looks like effector #3 'failed' and is now stuck at -15deg" - and watch the computer reconfigure the rest of the effectors to compensate for the failed effector. Pretty neat stuff. And then we introduced a disruption to the flow (that would be me standing inside the tunnel while it was running, moving a board in front of the wing to screw with the oncoming flow - don't tell your superiors at NASA that we did that - it would be major trouble if they knew someone was just dicking around inside a running wind tunnel) and watched the controller adjust the effectors to maintain the desired pressure distribution.

More pictures (and ultra-high resolutions) are at the Langley multimedia repository - http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi - query term "mesa" (multi-functional effector and sensor array). A couple of cool configurations there, such as this one.



[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2009 12:36:14 PM

i believe you mean affector, sir.

4/14/2009 12:48:22 PM

You're probably right. But I just copied it from the dude ahead of me.

and that would turn our acronym to MASA, which isn't as cool as MESA.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effector - k, we apparently didn't make it up, and the definition fits well with our purposes. but ms word doesn't think it exists.

they affect the aircraft, but they also effect change on the aircraft. blah.

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2009 1:23:38 PM

Awesome, thanks for the info I found that really interesting.


God I'm a geek.

4/15/2009 9:39:22 AM

post more videos

4/15/2009 9:55:52 AM

2002-2003
Requirements: Really fucking fast, 200mph cruise for 50 miles + fuel for 15 minute loiter at end. (True top speed around 250mph)
Scirocco (my plane) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP6l2WbGCSs -


2003-2004
Requirements: Big jet powered Mothership with small electric drop drone underneath (drop plane must have foldable/stowable wings) for mid-air deployment


2004-2005
Requirements: Control during flight at High Angle of Attack


2005-2006
Requirements: High Angle of Attack again, because last year's totally sucked

Zephyrus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGtKBDNTYzk


2006-2007
Requirements: Dual wing configuration - wing must be able to change shape/planform/configuration while in flight
Proteus (telescoping wings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FmsXOlHLUs

Loki (telescoping wings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrcsS6486aM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pQjpGMHcdY

Janus (droop tips)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl22wFZVelQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZcckXn070Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN3gqnR0Cdo

Space Design - Space Elevator Vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AaoIj0QCew


2007-2008
Requirements: Must be capable of sustaining controlled flight with the failure of any single control surface or structure on the plane (such as one aileron breaks, one elevator breaks, one wing breaks, one side of the tail breaks)
Tandemonium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y38gpXEhINs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYsXiItMQPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFyr5ONJ9Mg

Goose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwYWaPvkz3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyqBUm7SVWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETU7DXvDtxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzbESKECdhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-eGfPRnns

Phelan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es0J3ucWLSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94HXQe7ADbA

Space Design - I don't know what they were supposed to be doing here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBfvIRj9y0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1fhVRbnjak


2008-2009
Requirements: Electric-powered UAS that is simple to manufacture and field deployable by a two person strike team. The aircraft must be capable of being disassembled and packed into a box with an internal volume of 1.5 cubic feet.
Piolin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQwwET6D4MQ

Optikos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJsgP5reHzU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcHHk2PdvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwi8JPsDe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9fSvlAazYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLaDsig8JkI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSeqq1O0wo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOa02BXI6V4 (haha!)

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2009 11:21:39 AM

Quote :

"Space Design - I don't know what they were supposed to be doing here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBfvIRj9y0w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1fhVRbnjak"

I think it's supposed to be a Launch Abort System.

They may have won with that, iirc.

4/15/2009 12:49:38 PM

Found some on my computer from 2003-2004 and just finished uploading them. I really think this was one of the coolest projects we've ever had at State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX47ofUrTHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHbqtHWwN0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xevU7wBh1lc (skip to :30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df8d6TZdjiE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cI78kpD8Vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6ajGG0bSA

4/15/2009 12:54:52 PM

i enjoyed taking part in it. well. except having to deal with . . . a certain member of my team who always screwed up even the most menial tasks.

4/15/2009 1:01:31 PM

Man, i've totally forgotten about that guy. Can't even remember his name...

But pretty much every group has one of them. My plane was essentially built by 4 of us (bad diplomatic skills on the team leader's part), and we had to have a nice sit-down group meeting with Dr Hall halfway through the spring semester. They were all like "waah, you guys don't let us help you" and we were like "ummm, you never show up and offer to help" and they were like "waah" and I was like "dude, it's practically too late now. I know every fucking millimeter of this aircraft and I don't want you fucking it up with your ignorance now. You should have showed up to help for the first 3 months of construction." Or something. So the result of the meeting was that everyone was going to chip in and help for the rest of the semester. And then they never followed through on their part... I think I gave one of them a 7 out of 40 on the teammate review.

But seriously, the mothership/drop drone project was just so fucking awesome in concept and execution. I mean, my plane was cool and all, and it did exactly what we wanted it to do, but really all it did was fly around in circles really fast. Same thing with the BWBs before me. But having two planes in the air at the same time, with one of them being dropped from the belly of the other ... how fucking cool is that!

4/15/2009 2:03:44 PM

^Pretty fucking awesome.

My roommate did all the CAD work for Piolin this year. Apparently their do-nothing team member was the team leader (at least last semester), lol.

4/15/2009 8:31:07 PM

My roomate is on the EE side of the morphing wing project.

4/15/2009 10:41:15 PM

I was debating whether or not to post this, but it sums up the Huntsville conference pretty well.
(And shows how much NCSU dominated.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxXCEg5GK4

4/15/2009 11:02:39 PM

sausage jacuzzi

4/15/2009 11:23:06 PM

^hahaha, I heard about that.

4/16/2009 12:44:15 AM

you will never find me in that close proximity with that many half naked dudes.

ever.

4/16/2009 9:14:02 AM

Quote :

"Major : Exercise Physiology"

oh.

I believe any AE senior has been that close to that many half naked dudes at any AIAA conference. It's a damn sausage fest. But a hell of a lot of fun.

4/16/2009 9:49:32 AM

If I had known that a bunch of fellow tdubber aerospace students were in town for the conference I would have given you guys a personal tour of Marshall.

tl, you said Dr. Hall only flew yours around and didn't do much... did he at least do some cool flight maneuvers? With mine (Loki) and the others in my senior design class, he at least did barrel rolls and cuban-8's and stuff. And I can't imagine building one of them in time with only 4 people working... I had 7 people in my design team (the other teams had 8) and everyone in my group was there every day of the week from January 2nd right up until the first test flight and we still barely finished in time.

4/16/2009 4:31:45 PM