Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Morphing Plane Wings for Efficient Flights 202

Posted by timothy
Roland Piquepaille writes "Airplanes, whether manned or unmanned, need to travel at various speeds. For example, a surveillance plane needs to fly fast to reach its destination point. Then, it needs to reduce its speed to achieve its surveillance mission. But with its fixed wings, it doesn't offer the same level of efficiency during these two phases. That's why Penn State engineers have devised airplane wings that change shape like a bird and have scales like a fish. Right now, the team has only built a tabletop model. So it will be a long time before you catch a plane and watch the wings disappear by looking through the window. This overview contains more details and references, including a couple of images describing the work done so far."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Morphing Plane Wings for Efficient Flights More

Morphing Plane Wings for Efficient Flights

Comments Filter:

  • The future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:21PM (#8968582)
    Wow, how soon before we get transformers as planes? Allright! How about a bus/plane combination? That would be sweet! Plane goes from flying to driving on a highway .... mmmm...

    I'd want them to work on the technology a bit before this happened though. Wouldn't want the plane suddenly falling apart way up in the sky.

    GERONIMO!!!!

    • Re:The future (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A bus/plane combination, how boring is that?

      I want a bug/plane combination that can combine with other bug/plane combinations to form a giant velociraptor, with rockets that shoot and flashing eyes.
    • "Wow, how soon before we get transformers as planes? Allright! How about a bus/plane combination? That would be sweet!"

      Err. If they did that, wouldn't both the bus mode and the flight mode really really suffer from it? The reason why this particular project can work is that we're not talking a huge transformation here. Just an expansion of wing length.

    • Re:The future (Score:2, Funny)

      by irokie ( 697424 )
      then they'd probably have to change that statistic that says you're more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash...

  • Check out the article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by qrash ( 63400 ) * on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:21PM (#8968583)
    ...in november's issue of scientific american entitled "Flying on flexible wings"
    • Yeah, this is all new stuff, alright.

      The Wright Brothers called this Wing-Warping [nasa.gov].

      In 1901.

      • Re:Check out the article... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:55PM (#8969040)
        ohhhhh.... so they used java to make their plane.

        damn java really is portable.

      • Re:Check out the article... (Score:5, Informative)

        by beesquee ( 674821 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:21PM (#8969146)
        The Wright bros. used wing warping to control roll (seen in your article), not increase wing efficiency as the posted article explains. So yes it is "new stuff"
      • Parent post doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Wing warping is about bending the wings to direct airflow for turning purposes - you'll notice that the wright flyer had NO AILERONS.

        • Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Informative)

          by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <Rick DOT The DOT Red AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 26, 2004 @02:55AM (#8970213) Journal
          you'll notice that the wright flyer had NO AILERONS
          You'll notice this new wing has no ailerons, either.

          Even if this isn't exactly the same application as the Wright's Wing Warping, the point of both is to change the aerodynamics of the wing by changing its geometery. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts. In the 1980's NASA came up with the scissors wing to address exactly this problem -- swept wing for the fast transit to the station point, straight wing for loitering on station. In the 1990's Boeing won a contract to re-wing a bunch of Navy jets with flexible composite wings -- with no slats, flaps, or ailerons.

          • Baaaah!

            The Wright Borthers patents on warping wing design, and all the me-too patents that followed it, have finally expired. These guys are just trying to avoid all the modern aviation patents by going back to expired patent technology.

            It's all about saving money on patent licenses, don' 'cha know.

      • Re:Check out the article... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Deadstick ( 535032 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:18PM (#8969453)
        No. Wing warping is a directional control technique, and does not alter performance...it was the forerunner of ailerons. Flaps are a performance-altering feature: they make a high-speed wing work well at low speeds for takeoff and landing. Slats and swing-wings are evolutionary improvements on flaps, and the referenced techniques are just the next stage.

        rj

  • Gadget Wings! (Score:4, Funny)

    by solid ( 15355 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:21PM (#8968584)
    go-go-gadget mophing wings!

  • So it will be a long time… (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:23PM (#8968598)
    So it will be a long time before you catch a plane and watch the wings disappear by looking through the window.

    Not if you fly USAir!

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • More than meets the eye (Score:5, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:24PM (#8968611) Homepage
    That's why Penn State engineers have devised airplane wings that change shape like a bird and have scales like a fish.

    You know...

    ...that thing had better be sporting a Decepticon insignia.

  • Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:25PM (#8968616)
    Anything that bends that isn't organic tends to eventually weaken and break. And the organic stuff only manages to keep structural integrity through constant ongoing repair.

    The maintenance up-time required for a flexing wing will probably be ridiculous, unless it contains self-repairing abilities.

    • Re:Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:5, Interesting)

      by twostar ( 675002 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:36PM (#8968682) Journal
      Depends on how it's built. Memory alloys come to mind and they have little maintenance requirements vs a mechanical system. Also the relative bending in parts doesn't have to be that much for a significant result in the flight characteristics.

    • Re:Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:47PM (#8968744)
      I cannot think of a single organic substance which doesn't eventually weaken and break. It's called death.

      There's lots of bendy stuff that outlasts anything organic in the world.
    • When they say "bend", they may be talking about the overall shape of the wing, as opposed to individual components.

      That may very well be why they mention the "fish scale" skin, so that it can effectively change the profile of the wing without requiring individual pieces parts to change shape... the unchanging scales may just slide over/under each other to arrange themselves into a different physical arrangement.

    • Re:Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gleapsite ( 713682 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:09PM (#8969098) Homepage
      I beleive this is the reason for having the overlapping metal plates or "scales." these would minimize the parts that would be required to move, and thus minimizing a failure. Now, if the wing could be constructed for less that it would cost to repair... Then instead of repairing we'd just replace. Probably for a passenger plan repairing would be a better idea, but for an unmanned spyplane? no need for self repairing abilities... unless of course your making real transformers.

    • aircraft wings already flex a bit (Score:5, Informative)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@umich. e d u> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:12PM (#8969109) Homepage Journal
      During landing, take off, turbulent flight... the wings shake and shudder a bit. In fact an older issue of AIR International detailed the wing flex testing of the A380, which showed that it could adequately handle wingtip deviations of several feet. My point is that modern aircraft materials are already designed to withstand the inevitable flexing caused by normal flight. We don't see wings just disintegrating after rough flights, do we?

      Modern aluminum alloys with a carbon fiber/resin infrastructure could handle these well known aeroelastic stresses. One shouldn't just lay a blanket of assumption saying that any non-natural bending material that retains strength is impossible, though handling the problems of aeroelasticity remains a very active research area.

      • Re:aircraft wings already flex a bit (Score:5, Informative)

        by twostar ( 675002 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:29PM (#8969170) Journal
        Look at the difference between the position of the wingtip durring taxi on the ground and cruise. Many larger aircraft (747, 777, etc) have a difference nearly 5 ft, and this is normal conditions. The wings also have to be designed to take much more durring turbulence and emergency manuevers.

        If you want to see some crazy stuff look around for wing flutter. This is where the wing hits a natural frequency and crazy stuff starts to happen. One of my proffessors use to do research in this area with NASA and has some crazy stories.

        • Re:aircraft wings already flex a bit (Score:5, Informative)

          by mpe ( 36238 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @04:34AM (#8970565)
          Look at the difference between the position of the wingtip durring taxi on the ground and cruise. Many larger aircraft (747, 777, etc) have a difference nearly 5 ft, and this is normal conditions.

          Probably the best aircraft to see this on is the B52. This has outrigger wheels on the wings to keep the wingtips from striking the ground. These being the first wheels to leave the ground on takeoff.

      • We're probably just using different definitions for the same word, but wings flex more than "a bit," at least in my way of thinking.

        This link [dg-flugzeugbau.de] from our German friends has some interesting pics on destructive testing. Even small wings can bend several feet and still function. Airliner size wings flex many feet, and can scare the piss out of people that aren't prepared for it.

        Sometimes the discovery channel will air video of a test-to-destruction done on a wing. It's truly scary.

        I think these people maybe

    • Re:Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Err, no.

      If the stress put on a ferrous material is much smaller than the amount of stress that part can handle, then after a certain large number of cycles without failure you could pretty much consider the part unbreakable. For example, this is why it would be better to pick up a good set of seasoned connecting rods rather than a brand new set (assuming, of course, that someone hasn't abused the used conn rods).

      Non-ferrous materials don't have this property. And of course, memory metal (usually nitinol
      • If the stress put on a ferrous material is much smaller than the amount of stress that part can handle, then after a certain large number of cycles without failure you could pretty much consider the part unbreakable. For example, this is why it would be better to pick up a good set of seasoned connecting rods rather than a brand new set (assuming, of course, that someone hasn't abused the used conn rods).

        At one time BMW was building F1 racing car engines using old engine blocks. Because of this rule-of-th

    • Re:Closer to a biological system, but not quite (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @10:33PM (#8969182) Homepage Journal
      Anything that bends that isn't organic tends to eventually weaken and break.

      That really depends. There are a lot of springs that last a long time and require little upkeep.

      I've never had my auto springs give out on me, and I usually drive 150k+ mile cars.

  • 2 in a row (Score:3, Informative)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:25PM (#8968620)
    There seems to be a common theme of altered wing shape in the recen aeronautical research. The other experiment done was to reduce noise in supersonic flight.

  • English, Do you speak it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:27PM (#8968636)
    Airplanes, whether manned or unmanned, need to travel at various speeds.

    Sweet Zeus, what a revelation.

    I also did not realize that it would ever be possible to make wings disappear by looking through a window.

    Where's my flying car?

  • Not all that new (Score:5, Informative)

    by TKinias ( 455818 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:28PM (#8968644)

    The U.S. F-14 and F-111, European Tornado, and a bunch of Russian Tupolev and Sukhoi models have had variable-geometry wings for decades. This is hardly a new concept -- just snazzier ways of doing it.

  • Idea is older than you think... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by timmi ( 769795 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:28PM (#8968647)
    I seem to recall that there are also effeciency benefits to such "Morphing Wing" technology.

    I seem to recall that one of the Wright brothers observed that birds seem to turn by twisting their wings, and actually built the Wright Flyer with cables that twisted the wings in order to control it.
  • I got your prior art right here [imdb.com]!

  • New version of old concept (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:33PM (#8968672)
    F-111 [nasa.gov] Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW). Flight test results here [nasa.gov]

    No, not just changing the sweep as in a normal -111, -14, B-1, Mig-27 or Blackjack, but rather the shape of the wing changes as needed.

  • There's something.... on... the .... wing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Axel2001 ( 179987 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:38PM (#8968693)
    There's .... oh, no, it's just changing shape again.

  • huh? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by dj245 ( 732906 )
    So it will be a long time before you catch a plane and watch the wings disappear by looking through the window.

    What sort of voodu does one need to have to have to make things disappear just by looking at them? I hope no terrorists are on these flights and have notions of looking out the window. Soon the FAA will screen all passengers for passengers attempting to smuggle "eyes" onto the airplane.

    Those blind people have it good! Their planes always have lift.

  • Weight/complexity penalty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by plsuh ( 129598 ) <plsuh@noSpAM.goodeast.com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @08:57PM (#8968795) Homepage
    One of the reasons that aircraft designers have moved away from swinging variable-geometry wings is the inherent weight and complexity penalty.

    A swing-wing VG aircraft is inevitably heavier than a non-swing-wing aircraft. Gains from the more efficient aerodynamic shape are eaten up by having to support a greater weight of wing structure, which has bad effects on things like power-to-weight ratio and wing loading. On top of that, the greater mechanical complexity leads to a higher maintenance load, usually expressed in Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour (MMHFH).

    This project looks like much of the same. Modern aircraft wings are monocoque, and have very little internal structure (although the space may be filled by other things like fuel tankage). These wings would require a lot of heavy internal structure to accomplish the effect, thus losing the benefits of the more efficient airfoil. Plus, the MMHFH ratio must be pretty awful with hundreds of little actuators.

    On top of that, what are the failure modes? What happens if one of those actuators fails in the middle of a shift? Does the wing rip itself apart?

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

    --Paul

    • Re:Weight/complexity penalty? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mpe ( 36238 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @04:46AM (#8970607)
      This project looks like much of the same. Modern aircraft wings are monocoque, and have very little internal structure (although the space may be filled by other things like fuel tankage). These wings would require a lot of heavy internal structure to accomplish the effect, thus losing the benefits of the more efficient airfoil. Plus, the MMHFH ratio must be pretty awful with hundreds of little actuators.

      They'd also make a much poorer fuel tank...

      On top of that, what are the failure modes? What happens if one of those actuators fails in the middle of a shift? Does the wing rip itself apart?

      Even if the wing stays in one piece you have the problem of the two wings producing differing amounts of lift and drag. If the roll and yaw control surfaces can't cope with this then the plane is likely to fall out of the sky. (Probably in bits since the resulting areodymanic forces will tear it apart.)

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrsam ( 12205 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:39PM (#8968985) Homepage
    The couple of times I've had a window seat on commercial flights (various Boeing 7x7s, and MD-80s) I distinctly saw movable flaps being used to change the shape of the wing during take-offs and landings.

  • oldest trick in the book (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:43PM (#8968994)
    the formal term for this is called "aeroelastic tailoring". the wright brothers did use it to control the roll of the wright flyer, they called it "wing warping", it was their solution to steering in 3 dimensions. it was so difficult to do with the stronger wings that they started using ailerons instead.

    as for the f-14 and variable geometry wings, it's not quite the same. moving the wings back and forth help with things like shock waves and control fading/reversal at high speeds.

    we use the math now to determine if the wings of an airplane will rip off without warning, a phenomenon called "divergence". as for the complicated maintence issue, every plane goes through this, although they don't actively change their wings. if you watch the wings the next time you fly somewhere, you'll see they bounce up and down. the math is done during construction and testing to make sure that the airplane can deform as it needs to and still stay in the air.

    who says college doesn't teach you anything? now if i could just pass the final in this class on monday...
    • Here's a new trick for you: read the article. They aren't talking about wing warping for flight control, they're talking about changing the wing shape (e.g. from swept back narrow to wide and short) to be optimal for different situations. A more flexible (literally) version of the variable geometry "swing wings" used on F-14s, F-111s, etc.

      • Re:oldest trick in the book (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        from the graph on the page:

        "Morphing HECS wing: showing the unmorphed and morphiged[sic] configurations. The wing tips are bent downwards to provide yaw control.(Courtsey: NASA Langley)"

        the wings bend up and down. not in a sweeping motion. if you think about what they are doing, it makes sense. the "scales" slide over one another. although i admit the article says one thing, and demonstrates something else. if they are doing a variable aspect ratio (the slim/long to wide/short wings) then they need to rev

  • Storing fuel in the wings? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by delibes ( 303485 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:43PM (#8968995)
    Uhm, I thought planes stored fuel in the wings. So I guess you need some flexible fuel tanks now too? Tell you what, I'll just pour the kerosene into this nice rubber bag and ...

    Also, I would guess these wings aren't going to be very strong. I don't think they will safely be able to transmit the lift that they generate along their length to the body of the aircraft.

    Might work for small UAVs though, since they're smaller, and lighter.

    • Re:Storing fuel in the wings? (Score:5, Informative)

      by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:55PM (#8969039) Journal
      Rubber bags are correct. Just like the fuel cell bladder in most forms of racing you can think of. Normally reinforced with kevlar and othe fibers to make them punture resistant. They just plain work.
      • Normally reinforced with kevlar and othe[r] fibers to make them punture resistant.

        Is this also done for combat aircraft? If so, I wonder if anyone else has thought of reinforcing these with shear-thickening fluid (STF) [slashdot.org]. This could increase battle-damage survivability to a great extent! At least, it would the protect the fuel tanks from shrapnel hits.

    • Uhm, I thought planes stored fuel in the wings. So I guess you need some flexible fuel tanks now too? Tell you what, I'll just pour the kerosene into this nice rubber bag and ...

      Such tanks go by the name of "bladders", rather unimaginativly.

  • Shades of Macross Plus (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:53PM (#8969029) Homepage
    While it was cybernetically linked, this kind of thing was predicted with the YF-21 (the wings/rudder/tail would morph upon the pilots command).

  • Not that new of an idea (Score:3, Informative)

    by drgonzo59 ( 747139 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @09:54PM (#8969031)
    I have read about a very similar patent in a Russian techincal journal ("Yunii Tehnik" the guys from former USSR will know what I am talking about) back in the early nineties. It was a proposal to change the shape of a wing using a compressed gas and some sort of a baloon inside the wing. The wings on some of the supersonic planes already can change their angle relative to the fuselage and that would have allowed it to change the profile (cross-section) too. Thick profile - good at slow speeds, thin - at supersonic. But don't quote me on this, I am not an aerospace guy, just remembered that article for some reason.

  • Nothing Special (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Something like this gets proposed every year at any school with an aeromech engineering major. The problem is that the force required to change the shape of the wings at the speeds the planes travel is rediculous. You'd need a whole other engine just for the wing shape changes. One presentation I went to for something like this also had a different engine for the lower speeds. Good idea but too hard to impliment.

  • Anime predicting the future (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:06PM (#8969381) Homepage
    Its funny....first Star Trek started giving people ideas for gadgets and technology for the future.....now its anime.

    If anybody has seen Macross Plus, they know the YF-21 [steelfalcon.com] had wings like this.

    They're already working on powered body armor and brain controlled computers, what other tech from anime will we see soon.

  • Changing wing properties is nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @11:31PM (#8969506)
    Essentially, doing stuff like this is very old, but maybe the mechanism is changing. Commercial airliners and others have extension flaps etc used for take off and landing.

    The real question is whether the new scheme can be made sufficiently reliable/low cost to use in production aircraft.

    Of course I didn't RTFM - that would be cheating!

  • Pat Beatty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RockyMountain ( 12635 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @01:21AM (#8969882) Homepage
    Back in the 60s and 70s, Pat Beatty and Fritz Johl did similar work with glider wings. Obviously, with much different technology. They flew their prototypes, and raced them competitively. In addition to variable-geometry, they also expeimented with variable-span!

    The technology of the day was far less sophisticated than today, but it's an interesting bit of aeronautical history nonetheless.

    Although I met Pat Beatty once or twice during the early 80s, I was too young to have seen his variable-geometry and variable-span creations fly, first hand. Most of what I know about them I heard from the old-timers in my flying club, who had been active in gliding competition during the 60s.

    Sadly, there seems to be very little surviving literature available on the Beatty and Beatty-Johl designs. Google turns up a few grainy photographs, and articles in ancient editions of Soaring Magazine and Krautkorant (Cape Gliding Club Newsletter), but that's about it.

    Pat's wife Beatty Rowell also made significant contributions to aviation, both as a pilot and meteorologist, and wrote the book "Just for the Love of Flying". Time for a re-read, I think.

  • Looks like tensegrity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Teahouse ( 267087 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @02:23AM (#8970085)
    From the look of the model, tension is applied through strings or cables. As a pilot, I don't think I am ready to trust that till they start using a solid linkage. I had a rudder cable on a C172 snap once, and I really never want to try and land like that again. I can't imagine trusting my wings to that, especially my ailerons.
    No ailerons, no getting home. Rudder and elevators won't steer a plane.

    • Re:Looks like tensegrity (Score:3, Informative)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      From the look of the model, tension is applied through strings or cables. As a pilot, I don't think I am ready to trust that till they start using a solid linkage. I had a rudder cable on a C172 snap once, and I really never want to try and land like that again. I can't imagine trusting my wings to that, especially my ailerons. No ailerons, no getting home. Rudder and elevators won't steer a plane.

      Depends on the aircraft. Remember a crew managed to sucessfully crash land a DC10 with no control surfaces an
  • change shape like a bird and have scales like a fish.

    It's about time Mystique [marvel.com] found some honest work.

  • remember the hijacked personal aircraft in 'Flight 714' :)

  • A boon to ornithopterists? (Score:4, Informative)

    by 3rings ( 772197 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:07AM (#8971177)

    I'm not sure I'd want to fly in a plane with flapping wings, but morphing surfaces might be a boost to these guys [ornithopter.net], who are working on ornithopters (and must be avid Frank Herbert fans). The video of their 1/4 proof of concept in flight is pretty interesting.

  • Changing wing shapes, eh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Valkyre ( 101907 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @10:40AM (#8972350) Journal
    They're not fish scales, but I Think it's been done before. [northropgrumman.com] Granted that doesn't help efficiency, but I think these [aerospaceweb.org] do.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close