Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:21:48.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viability of joined flight for small unmanned aerial vehicles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2019

E. Levis Open the ORCID record for E. Levis [Opens in a new window] ,
F. Pleho  and
J. Hedges
E. Levis*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, London, UK
F. Pleho
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, London, UK
J. Hedges
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, London, UK
*
errikos.levis@imperial.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The range of small, electrically powered UAVs is still limited by the mass specific energy of batteries. This paper investigates the idea that, in cases where multiple aircraft must transit to the same location, savings in mass or an extension of achievable range are possible when they join wingtip-to-wingtip. The viability of joined flight is investigated by quantifying the relative magnitude of savings resulting from increased aerodynamic efficiency and that of penalties due to the increased structural and component weights. Through a parametric analysis the level of savings achievable is found to be greatly dependent on the proportion of the flight spent in a joined configuration and aircraft design parameters such as wing loading, aspect ratio and the added weight of the joining mechanism. A custom, multidisciplinary UAV sizing algorithm is presented and utilised to design several sample aircraft, featuring two different joining mechanism architectures. The results verify the findings of the parametric study and indicate that mass savings are possible only for moderate to low aspect ratios, with semi-permanent magnetic joining mechanism performing better than rigid structural ones, even when the joined fight segment accounts for only 30% of the total airborne time.

Keywords

Joined FlightMeta Aircraftunmanned aerial vehiclesAircraft Design
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1273 , March 2020 , pp. 297 - 322
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Vincent, P. and Rubin, I. A framework and analysis for cooperative search using UAV swarms, Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, ACM, Nicosia-Cyprus, 2004, pp 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkischko, I. and Konrath, R. Formation flight of low-aspect-ratio wings at low Reynolds number, Journal of Aircraft, 2017, 54, (3), pp 1025–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ning, A., Flanzer, T.C. and Kroo, I.M. Aerodynamic performance of extended formation flight, Journal of Aircraft, 2011, 48, (3), pp 855–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahle, J., Berger, D., Venti, M.W., Faber, C., James, J.J., Duggan, C. and Cardinal, K. A preliminary flight investigation of formation flight for drag reduction on the C-17 aircraft, Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundlach, J. Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymer, D. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 3rd ed., AIAA Education Series, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.E. Dangerous experiments, Flight Journal, 12, 2000.Google Scholar
Yaros, S.F., Sexstone, M.G., Huebner, L.D., Lamar, J.E., McKinleyJr, R.E., Torres, A.O., Burley, C.L., Scott, R.C. and Small, W.J. Synergistic Airframe-Propulsion Interactions and Integrations: A White Paper Prepared by the 1996–1997 Langley Aeronautics Technical Committee, NASA TM-1998-207644, 1998.Google Scholar
Patterson, M.D., Quinlan, J., Fredericks, W.J., Tse, E. and Bakhle, I. A modular unmanned aerial system for missions requiring distributed aerial presence or payload delivery, AIAA SciTech 2017, AIAA, Grapevine, Texas, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trimble, S. Aurora unveils Odysseus to break aviation’s infinite endurance barrier, Flight Global, 7, 2008.Google Scholar
Montalvo, C. and Costello, M. Meta aircraft flight dynamics, Journal of Aircraft, 2015, 52, (1), pp 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leylek, E.A. and Costello, M. Use of compliant hinges to tailor flight dynamics of unmanned aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, 2015, 52, (5), pp 1692–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gur, O. and Rosen, A. Optimizing electric propulsion systems for unmanned aerial vehicles, Journal of Aircraft, 2009, 46, (4), pp 1340–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bershadsky, D. Haviland, S. and Johnson, E.M. Electric multirotor UAV propulsion system sizing for performance prediction and design optimization, AIAA SciTech 2016, AIAA, San Diego, CA, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, G. Design Synthesis of Small Unmanned Aircraft, Master’s thesis, Imperial College London, London, UK, 2015.Google Scholar
Brandt, J. and Selig, M. Propeller performance data at low Reynolds numbers, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, Orlando, FL, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. Low-Speed Aerodynamics, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2001, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESDU Wing lift coefficient increment at zero angle of attack due to deployment of plain trailing edge flaps at low speeds, ESDU-97011, 2003.Google Scholar
ESDU Aerofoil and wing pitching moment coefficient at zero angle of attack due to deployment of trailing-edge plain flaps at low speeds, ESDU-98017, 2003.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Levis et al. supplementary material

Levis et al. supplementary material

Download Levis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4.4 MB