1.

INTRODUCTION
Flexible wings are wings made of very loose or slack cloth whose configuration in flight is maintained by the combination of the aerodynamic forces and the reactions from the load suspension system. Such wings can be completely flexible, or they may be stiffened in several ways to meet the requirements of particular applications. Wing plan forms and the geometry of the load suspension system are also subject to wide variations. Observers of nature have long noted that the wings of living creatures are flexible and generally are folded neatly out of the way not in use. Throughout the ages, men have dreamed of flying with flexible wings like those in nature, and many tried, but with success. Other types of flexible wings aerial devices were developed-hot air balloons and parachutes, which are still being used- but, apparently, no one had devised a successful, fully flexible wing that would give more aerodynamic lift than drag. Very recently however, men, and at least one woman, have succeeded in flying with truly flexible wings, pure tension structures like parachutes. Although completely flexible wings are feasible and practical for

someapplications, for others performance and other characteristics may need to be improved by the judicious addition of local stiffening. Consequently a complete spectrum of wing shapes and degrees of stiffening is being developed to fill the gap between the conventional parachute and the rigid wing. To include this complete spectrum in one definition, we can define flexible wings as wings made with very loose or slack membraneswhose configurations in flight are determined primarily by the aerodynamic forces on the membranesand the reactions from the load suspension system. After the usual dreaming about flexible wings since childhood, the Francis M Rogalloin 1945 at the close of World War II decided to undertake a serious study ofthe subject. Because pressure of work along more conventional lines did not permit such a study to be made on government time_ it was decided to undertakeit at home jointly with Mrs. Rogallo and later including other membersof thefamily and friends. This private endeavor covered the 13 years from 1945 untillate in 1958, when America's entry into the exploration of space brought aboutgovernment consideration of this and

other unconventional ideas_ and the subsequent formation of what is now officially the Flexible-Wing Section of LangleyResearch Center, a truly dedicated group. In the pre-NASA years the wing was called a kite because of the threeexperimental methods used: testing in a homemadewind tunnel, free flying ashandlaunched gliders, and tethered outdoor flying as kites. The kites appearedto be the nearest to a useful marketable application. Thus U.S. PatentNo. 2,546,078 (ref. 1) filed in November1948 and issued in March 1951 toGertrude and Francis Rogallo is entitled "Flexible Kite" even though it proposes applicability of the concept to all heavier than air flying machines.

2. DESCRIPTION OF FLEXIBLE WING TECHNOLOGY

2.1 BAGROUND OF THE CONCEPT 2.1.1 DESIGN CHALLEGE
A goal of advanced fighter aircraft design is to provide enhanced performance at several design points (subsonic, transonic, and supersonic). The most significant means to provide improved performance is through the use of a variable twist wing by using variable camber and aeroelastic tailoring. To obtain the large amount of aeroelastic twist desired between the cruise and maneuver points has always been a design challenge. The wing structure must meet strength and also stiffness constraints such as flutter. Also, high-performance fighter aircraft with aft-swept wings have typically required stiffness increases above strength and flutter design to maintain roll effectiveness. This added stiffness for roll control results in a wing so stiff that its capability to twist under load is almost completely lost, thus reducing the multipoint performance capability of the aircraft. In addition to the reduced performance, the increase In structure associated with the added stiffness represents a significant increase in aircraft weight and resultant size. The roll control problem on high-performance aircraft results from the aeroelastic twist caused by trailing edge control surface deflections. Control surface deflections produce a lift on the wing which results in rolling moment. Since, the wing is flexible, however, the increase in lift causes the wing to twist in a direction to reduce the lift. At very high dynamic pressure (q) flight conditions, flexibility causes control surface effectiveness that is very small compared with the rigid-wing values. In fact, the effect results in roll reversal at high q's. This effect is known as aileron reversal. To prevent aileron reversal, the wing is traditionally stiffened so that conventional control effectivenesss are maintained through the aircraft flight envelope. Not only does this result in a heavier structure, but because of the lower roll control effectivenesss, larger control surface deflections are needed to maintain roll rates. This increases actuation requirements thus adding to aircraft weight and system power requirements.

Other fighter aircraft designs, such as the F-15 and F-16, have solved the roll control problem by adding a rolling tail. The resulting larger tail surface, however, adds significant weight to the aircraft and increases supersonic drag thereby reducing aircraft performance. For the advanced fighter design, Rockwell selected a tailless configuration to obtain an improved supersonic persistence capability. Leading edge control surfaces are typically ineffective in producing rolling forces on a rigid or stiff wing, therefore producing only a small amount of the total rolling force required. When the trailing edge control surfaces are constrained to maintain conventional roll control (no aileron reversal) within the flight envelope, the wing must .be relatively stiff which results in low leading edge roll control effectiveness. If however, the wing flexibility is maintained near a strength/flutter stiffness boundary, the leading edge control effectiveness is significantly increased at high dynamic pressures.

2.1.2 FWT TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO PROBLEM

The AFW concept for roll control, uses active control technology in a new and innovative approach. The control surfaces are not used as primary control forceproducing devices but are used as aerodynamic tabs to control the aeroelastic deformations of the wing. It is the total wing deformations that are used to produce controlling forces. The AFW concept uses multiple leading and trailing edge control surfaces on the wing. The control surface deflections are optimized as a set to produce the most efficient control at a given flight condition. On a flexible wing this allows use of the surfaces beyond the dynamic pressure where conventional aileron reversal begins. The wing design was relatively flexible but satisfied strength and flutter design requirements. Four control surfaces on each wing and the body flap were used to produce efficient roll control (minimizing the drag while producing required rolling moments). A 100-degree-per-second roll rate was desired at dynamic pressures ranging from 0 to 2,150 psf (M = 1.2 at sea level). An optimization program was used to determine the optimum control surface deflections to achieve the roll rate for minimum drag.

In addition to the benefits from the AFW roll control approach, other technologies can be applied. The use of other active control technologies such as maneuver load control (MLC), gust load alleviation, flutter suppression, etc., were used to further reduce wing weight and stiffness. This reduction in stiffness resulted in improvements in overall aerodynamic performance. The overall Rockwell approach for the application of AFW technology used active controls in other modes to reduce strength and stiffness design requirements to practical minimums. The goal was to obtain a wing that was designed by passive clean-wing flutter requirements. Thus, MLC and gust load alleviation were used to reduce strength requirements, and active roll and structure mode controls were used to reduce stiffness requirements.

2.2 FLEXIBLE-WING SPECTRUM

Figure 1 presents the spectrum of flexible-wing configuration and the maximum lift-drag ratios obtained by the Flexible-Wing Section in NASA wind-tunnel tests of each type of wing shown. The abscissa of figure 1 has been selected to illustrate a progression of configurations having increasing structural rigidity. The left end of the spectrum, indicated as having no stiffening_ represents the original concept of a flexible lifting surface. The shaded area, labeled "all-flexible," indicates that this type of lifting surface can provide maximum lift-drag ratios up to at least 3.0.

Figure 1

The use of some structural stiffness such as would be obtained with a singlecurvature lifting surface made of flexible thin sheet metal or plastic provided maximum lift-drag ratios of around 7.0. Most of the data and unpublished information on flexible wings are therefore on configurations having rigid leading edges and keel, and the sweep angle fixed by a spreader bar, or by a very rigid apex. It should be noted that the spectrum shown in figure 1 encompasses a wide range of possible configurations and no particular wing should be considered as the optimum. For example, the unstiffened wing is expected to be the most useful where factors such as deployment simplicity and minimizing wing loading, packing volume, wing weight, and complexity are considered more important than obtaining high lift-drag ratios. On the other hand, a cylindrical wing with small leading edges and a rigid frame may be desirable where performance and cruise speed (towed or powered vehicles) are of more importance than structural simplicity, and deployment capability is not needed. Selection of a wing for a particular use should include a study of design trade-offs, including consideration of performance.Stability, control, loads, and structural requirements. In the remaining discussion of the spectrum a brief summary of the state of the art with regard to maximum lift-drag ratios of conical and cylindrical wings is given and reference is made to published data, where available, for each type of wing.

2.2.1 CONICAL WINGS

Early flight tests at the Langley Research Center on inflated-tube configurations indicated a possible design approach for the recovery of spacecraft and for aerial delivery of cargo. The need for research information on conical wings for support of the Gemini Project and the Army cargo-drop glider prompted extensive wind-tunnel research on simplified rigid models which simulated inflated-tube type of wing configurations. Other work on wings having small leading edges and a rigid frame led to the construction of manned flight vehicles such as the flexible-wing glider, flexiblepowered aircraft (refs. 2 and 3), and unmanned Army tow glider, and led to studies of flexible-wing recovery of the Saturn booster. As indicated in figure 1, the highest liftdrag ratio obtained with conical wings was about 70. Analysis of the test results and theoretical studies on conical wings indicated that the relatively high drag of these

wings was associated with the large variation of aerodynamic twist across the wing span. For some wings this washout at the tips was as high as 60 .

2.2.2 CYLINDRICAL WINGS

The shaded area in the upper-right-hand side of figure 1 shows that maximum lift-drag ratios as high as 17.0 were obtained with the small tapered leading edge cylindrical type of wing. Interest in deployable wings that would provide lift-drag ratios greater than those obtained with the conical wings led to work on the advanced-concept cylindrical wing which had tapered inflated-tube leading edges. The wind-tunnel studies of simplified rigid models indicated that maximum lift-drag ratios from about 6 to 8 could be obtained with this type of wing.

2.2.2 EFFECT OF ASPECT RATIO

The vertical spread in the shaded areas of figure 1 can be attributed to variations in aspect ratio and canopy fullness. Effects of aspect ratio on maximum lift-drag ratios for rigid frame 50 swept wings having conical and cylindrical canopies are summarized in figure 2.

Figure 2

CONICAL WINGS Data for the conical wings on the left side of figure 2 show the critical nature of the leading-edge configuration on the maximum lift-drag ratios. Use of the very small tapered leading edge allowed an increase in (L/D)max with increasing aspect ratio, whereas the use of a slightly larger un-tapered leading edge caused (L/D)max to decrease with increasing aspect ratio. A decrease in washout, which was obtained by reducing the canopy fullness, provided an increase in (L/D)max for the high-aspect-ratio wing having tapered leading edges. The test point shown for the rigid model which simulated an inflated- tube un-tapered leading-edge configuration (ref. 8) again indicates the level of L/D to be expected for this type of wing.

CYLINDRICAL WINGS Considering now the cylindrical wings, shown on the right side of figure 2, it is evident that increasing the aspect ratio was much more effective in increasing (L/D)max than for the conical wings. A value of maximum lift-drag ratio of about 12 was obtained at high aspect ratio for the zero-twist wing with small tapered leading edges. By careful tailoring of the canopy to provide a small amount of washout, the maximum lift-drag ratio of this wing was increased to about 17.0. A comparison of the data for the rigid frame conical and cylindrical wings having large leading edges (simulating inflated-tube designs) indicates that significant gains in (L/D)max can be realized for this type of wing by the use of a cylindrical canopy and tapered leading edges.

2.2.4 ALL-FLEXIBLE WINGS

Many configurations of all-flexible wings, which are now of primary interest, have been investigated by the Flexible-Wing Section in the wind tunnels of the Langley Research Center and in free flight after being dropped from aircraft. Some typical windtunnel results are shown in figure 3 from tests of single- and twin-keel wings. The maximum lift-drag ratio of the single-keel wing shown is about 2.5 while that of the twin-keel wing is about 3. The single-keel wing has a higher maximum resultant-force coefficient CR and range of CR, a simpler geometry with fewer bridle lines, and a much more complete background of experience than the twin-keel wing. In wind-tunnel tests

the twin-keel wing has shown a slightly higher maximum lift-drag ratio than the singlekeel wing and offers the possibility for reefing of the center panel to reduce wing area for deployment and initial glide whenever the higher speed accompanying the reduced area is advantageous. The discreet could be made at any time during the flight or just before landing to reduce landing speed in much the same way as conventional aircraft landing flaps are used. Single- and twin-keel configurations are still under development and both will probably have many applications. The resultant-force coefficient of a conventional parachute is shown for comparison and is seen to be significantly lower than the maximum CR of the flexible wings.

Figure 3

2.3 FEASIBILITY STUDY

The benefits of AFW technology were assessed by using data from a design feasibility study conducted by Rockwell previous to the contracted effort. The effects of structural and system weight and aerodynamic performance changes were studied with respect to the use of AFW technology. Three structural wing designs were developed for the aircraft wing. A "stiff" wing was designed to determine the weight and stiffness of a wing with trailing edge roll effectiveness greater than zero at maximum dynamic pressure. An intermediate

wing was designed to obtain the weight and stiffness of a wing without added stiffness for roll effectiveness. This wing satisfied strength, buckling, and flutter requirements. A third wing was designed to satisfy strength and Flutter without the buckling or roll control requirements, which was assumed to simulate the effects of maneuver load control on the second design. Table 2 summarizes the three designs in terms of weight and cover sizing. These three wing structural designs were used in the control and aerodynamic feasibility studies. The control study used the intermediate wing design, and the aerodynamic study used all three designs to study performance versus flexibility.

Figure 4

10

Figure 5 Design Intermidiate spars 6 1,545 1,545 Structural Box Weight (Strength) (lb/side) Structural Box Weight (Strength/Buckling) (lb/side)

Stiffness for roll Effectiveness Strength, Flutter, Buckling Strength, Flutter only

563

345

Table 1 Control power requirements were defined In terms of actuator hinge moment requirements. Table 1 presents the comparison of actuator weight and power requirements of the AFW concept relative to a conventional roll control concept using a wing structure design for strength including adequate stiffness to prevent control reversal. The results show that the leading edge surface actuator weight and power were not affected by the use of the AFW concept, but there was a significant reduction In trailing edge surface actuator weight and power. This reduction in actuator weight and power resulted from the reduced surface deflection requirements of the AFW control concept over a conventional approach. This study required the roll control system of

11

each concept to apply the required surface deflections to meet the roll performance requirement of MIL-F-87B5C. Required surface deflections were assumed at 80 percent of the actuator stall hinge: moment value. Linear aerodynamic data estimated for the aircraft configuration and flex-to-rigid ratio estimates for each wing were applied for the roll control effectiveness and actuator hinge moment computations. The effect of wing flexibility on aerodynamic performance was studied using the three structural designs. Figure 4 presents the effect of wing flexibility on transonic drag-due-to-lift. The curve was generated from Rockwell's experimental data base. The effect of supersonic dragdue-to-lift was estimated using linear panel codes. Figure 5 presents this data. Base line wing design with stiffness Active Flexible Adaptive Wing* Control Surface Hinge moment per surf. (in-lb) Inboard TE (2 per A/C) Outboard TE (2 per A/C) Inboard LE (2 per A/C) Outboard LE (2 per A/C) Total per . A/C 0.99x10 6 .49xlo 6 176 Actuator Weight (lb) Hyd Power H.P at Maximum Rate 132 Hinge moment per surf. (in-lb) 0.172x10 6 80 39 .155x10 6 .20xl0 6 20 16 .1I2x106 .18x106 19 14 .172x10 6 590 402 150 224 19 14 19 14 18 14 19 Actuator Weight (lb) Hyd Power H.P at Maximu m Rate 14

*Flex-to-rigid ratio (F/R) : 0.18 for inboard T.E, and .90 for outboard T.E surface Table 2 The benefits of AFW technology in terms of aircraft take off gross weight (TOGW) reduction were estimated by using the structural and system weight changes Table 1 Table 2, and the improvements in aerodynamic performance from Figures 4 and 5. The weights were subtracted from an empirical wing weight estimate for the configuration. These changes in weight were multiplied by the TOGW sensitivity factor for dead weight. The aerodynamic benefits were determined by subtracting the change

12

in drag at a given flexibility from the estimated non-ATW flexibility, and multiplying the difference by the TOGW sensitivity factors for the associated transonic maneuver and supersonic maneuver and cruise drag changes. These TOGW results were then plotted versus wing flexibility as shown on Figure 6. Three points were plotted, 1(1I) stiff wing, (2) without MLC wing, and (3) with MLC wing] for both the structural and system weight effects and for the aerodynamic drag effects. The summation of the two effects was also plotted to obtain a total TOGW effect. The zero point on the TOGW axis on Figure 6 was calculated by using the empirical weight estimate for a similar, non-ATW aircraft with a rolling tail. As seen on Figure 6, the estimated benefit of AFW technology is a reduction in TOGW of 15 to 30 percent for a constant performing aircraft. Conversely, the technology could be used to obtain significant performance improvements for a fixed TOGW aircraft design.

Figure 6

13

3. CURRENT DEVELOPEMENTS
3.1 NASA RESEARCHES
NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and Boeing Phantom Works, researched a high-tech adaptation of the Wright Brothers rudimentary "wing-warping" approach to aircraft flight control in the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) flight research project. The focus of AAW research was on developing and validating the concept of aircraft roll control by twisting a flexible wing on a full-size aircraft. The test aircraft chosen for the AAW research is a modified F/A-18A obtained from the U.S. Navy in 1999. The aerodynamic forces acting on the F/A-18s traditional aircraft control surfaces, such as ailerons and leading-edge flaps, were used to twist a more-flexible wing to provide aircraft roll maneuvering control. GOALS AND RESULTS

The AAW project's goal was to demonstrate improved aircraft roll control through aerodynamically induced wing twist on a full-scale high-performance aircraft at transonic and supersonic speeds. Data was obtained to develop design information for blending flexible wing structures with control law techniques to obtain the performance of current day aircraft with much lighter wing structures. The flight data included aerodynamic, structural, and flight control characteristics that demonstrated and measured the AAW concept in a comparatively low-cost, effective manner. The data also will provide benchmark design criteria as guidance for future aircraft designs. Over the course of the second phase of flight tests, roll rates adequate for lateral control, or within 15 to 20 percent of that obtained by a production F/A-18, were obtained by use of active control of wing flexibility alone, without use of the differential rolling horizontal tail used by standard F/A-18s at transonic and supersonic speeds. Roll rates at 15,000 feet were highest at Mach .85 and Mach 1.2, and lowest at Mach .95, similar to a conventional F/A-18.

14

3.2 MISSION ADAPTIVE COMPLIANT WING

The mission adaptive compliant flap can effectively control the upper surface pressure distribution while maintaining a sufficiently large transition radius into the pressure recovery region. This geometry minimizes flow separation and airfoil/wing drag. The aerodynamic data (lift, moment, and preliminary drag) measured during the flight test program agree reasonably well with the predicted levels determined computationally. The flight test measurements on the wing upper surface confirmed extensive runs of laminar flow (up to 60% chord) even at high operating lift conditions. At the higher Mach flight test point, M = 0.55, 40k ft., the test airfoil lift and moment levels matched the predicted level over the entire airfoil operating lift range. The MACW flight validation experiment successfully demonstrated that an adaptive compliant trailing edge flap can be successfully designed, manufactured, and operated in an atmospheric environment compatible with long endurance military aircraft mission requirements. And, while it is difficult to determine the exact impact MACW technology might have on specific endurance aircraft without first knowing the configuration, prior Air Force sponsored studies have shown that constant altitude endurance flight may be required to carry fuel loads of 45% to 55% of the aircraft gross weight. The ability to operate at minimum drag over large lift ranges is essential for fuel efficiency and mission success. Examining aerodynamic improvements alone, MACW technology has the potential for increasing the endurance of these air vehicles 15% ormore. If gust load alleviation is taken into account or the ability of the flap to twist along the span to further lower wing root bending moment, more dramatic weight savings are suitably envisioned. Mission adaptive compliant wing technology has been brought to a technology readiness level that will support its application on the next generation high-altitude long-endurance aircraft. As demonstrated during the flight test program, the overall mission performance benefit of a carefully integrated variable camber trailing edge can be substantial. During flight testing, the MACW model was demonstrated at full scale dynamic pressure, Mach, and reduced scale Reynolds numbers. The flap was successfully operated in a high altitude, low temperature environment and did not encounter any operational restrictions or limitations. A final validation of MACW

15

design/fabrication technology to consider might be replacing a trailing edge surface on a flying endurance aircraft with a compliant flap/control. A program of this type would demonstrate fully the aircraft structural integration aspects as well as highlight the lightweight and low power actuation benefits of MACW.

3.3 FLEXSYS
In contemporary aerospace design wings are created with mechanical flaps that shift to help a craft climb during takeoff, remain aerodynamic while cruising, and generate more braking power during landings. While flaps perform these tasks admirably their design leads to inefficiencies as wind whistles through seams and across the rivets that link the mechanism to the wing. To some these forces seem negligible but, over the course of a flight, they can lead to major fuel inefficiencies. To solve this problem Michagan-based FlexSys has created the FlexFoil, a seamless flap design that can be retrofitted onto planes, or built into newly manufactured wings. Designed in a manner similar to a suspension bridge, the FlexFoil uses cables embedded in a wing to distribute pressure across the whole of its surface. As a planes wing requires a different geometry whether it be during takeoff, landing, cruising or banking the FlexFoil shifts into a new configuration by using computer algorithm controlled servos. As the servos tug the wings structure it shifts shape while remaining solid. Because of the wings seamless design FlexSys says airplanes can achieve between 8-12% greater fuel efficiency, a massive savings, particularly for an industry struggling with profitability. Beyond its applications on airplane wings the FlexFoil could also be used to improve the performance of a number of other technologies including helicopter blades, ship rudders or any other surface that cuts needs to slice through a fluid medium.

16

3.4 FLEXIBLE WING BASED MICRO-AERIAL-VEHICLE

This flexible wing has numerous advantages over convention wing designs including passive gust rejection, improved aerodynamic efficiency, delayed stall, the ability to be reconfigured for storage and morphing, as well as improved durability. Micro air vehicles, or MAVs, are a class of aircraft with a maximum size of about 6 inches and are capable of operating at speeds of 25 mph or less. The concept is for a small, inexpensive and expendable platform that can be used for missions of surveillance and measurements in situations where larger vehicles are not practical. For example, they can be used for small unit battlefield surveillance, mapping out the extent of chemical/radiation spills or viral outbreaks, as well as more routine applications such as monitoring crops or wildlife distributions. Many potential uses involve launching of large numbers of MAVs to secure the necessary coverage with the intrinsically close up type of maneuvering allowed by a micro sized aircraft. In some applications , MAVs could be used in swarms or sent to a predesignated grid to collect and transmit data. Practical applications of MAVs are becoming more achievable with the ever-decreasing size and weight of the payload components that could include video cameras, chemical sensors, electronics, and communication devices.

Flexible Wing Design The flexible nature of the wings can provide several non- obvious advantages over their conventional rigid counterparts. The wings that we have fabricated with a carbon fiber skeleton and extensible latex rubber skin have the ability to adapt to the airflow to provide smoother flight. This is accomplished via the passive mechanism of adaptive washout. In the wings that we have designed, the shape changes as a function of the airspeed and the angle of attack. The adaptive washout is produced through extension of the membrane and twisting of the framework, resulting in angle of attack changes as well as decambering along the length of the wing in response to air speed and overall angle of attack. For example, as the plane hits a head-on wind gust the airspeed suddenly increases. The increased airspeed causes a shape change in the wing that decreases the lifting efficiency, but because the airspeed in the gust is higher, the wing maintains nearly the same lift. Once the airspeed decreases, the wing recovers to

17

the original configuration. If there is a decrease in the relative airspeed, the angle of attack increases and the wing becomes more efficient and near constant lift is restored. The net result is a wing that flies with exceptional smoothness, even in gusty wind conditions. The adaptive washout mechanism need be tuned into the wings in order to work effectively. We have built hundreds of wing configurations and have been able to produce many wings with remarkably smooth flying characteristics. Figure 4 illustrates the flexible nature of our wing.

Aerodynamic Assessment

For a rigid wing, the pressure distribution is determined by the wing shape and free-stream flow properties. For a flexible wing, its shape changes under aerodynamic load, and, consequently, the angle of attack and surface pressure distribution will change along with the flight environment. In order to shed light on the aerodynamic characteristics of membrane wing, one needs to solve coupled fluid-solid dynamics to track both the shape change and the pressure distribution on the wing shape.

18

4. WHAT DOES FUTURE HOLD FOR FLEXIBLE WING?

As already seen in this seminar, the researchers are going on various streams using the flexible wings. The NASA has profound steps in this part and has gone far beyond in this matter. It has plans for complete commercialization of the flexible winged aircraft by 2035. They are going for the completely flexible winged aircraft, which can fold or reshape its wings completely so that it get adjust to the changing flow patterns. Such wings will be of very much use to the defense sector, where the flight conditions will be unpredictable and frequently changing from supersonic to subsonic and vice versa. Now Boeing and NASA are working on the Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap (VCCTEF) system (figure 7), which would smoothly change the wings shape continuously throughout the flight. By continuously varying camber, the VCCTEF would provide efficient high lift for takeoff and landing and reduced cruise drag through active control of the twist of a flexible wing.There are 42 flap sections on each outboard-wing trailing edge (figure 8), each commanded individually to change wing twist as aircraft weight and cruise conditions change. In place of conventional flaps and ailerons, the outboard wing has 14 tri-flap sections, each 24-in wide with an 8-in flexible fillet between them, providing a continuous trailing edge. Each tri-flap has three chordwise segments, actuated at their hinges to vary the flaps camber.

Figure 7

Figure 8

19

In cruise mode, the VCCTEF controls wing twist to optimize lift-to-drag ratio. Deflection is limited to a 2 differential between sections by the flexible strip. For landing, all the outboard tri-flaps are deflected 45 down and conventional three-section inboard flaps deployed to provide full-span high-lift devices (figure 9).

Figure 9
In the absence of conventional ailerons, roll control is accomplished by differential deflection of the tri-flap trailing segments across the full span. The inner two segments of each tri-flap have shape-memory alloy actuators, which are light, but slow. The trailing flap segment has a heavier but fast-acting electric rotary actuator, allowing it to act as an aileron. By 2015, the outer flaps of the wing will be divided in to number of sections, each moving in a sequential manner, to control the aircraft.Then by 2020 the flap section will be made by a flexible material, or more conveniently a smart material. The aileron will be made no changes. The movement of this flexible material will be controlled by the control surfaces inside the cockpit. As required by the pilot this flexible flap will move in the desired direction and provide the necessary control deflection, which is shown in the figure 10 b. The trailing edge of the wing will be somewhat completely flexible by 2025 with the inner and outer flaps joined together to perform the function. The ailerons will also be made flexible yet with two distinguishable parts for ailerons and flaps, as shown in the figure 10 c. The wing will have a small change in its shape as compared to the conventional wing. Here the wing will be little pointed to make the movements of the flexible ailerons more effective. The potential concept by 2035 is that the wing will be made completely flexible without any 20

distinguishable flaps or ailerons, such that the wing will itself bent to obtain the desired shape and twist. These wings can change its span area and the wing twist during the flight without much effort. The wing will be able to flap just like a birds wing. The figure 10 d is shown in the list of figures, where it is shown that the wing bents itself to any desirable shape to cope up with any different flying conditions. These wings will be faster in movement compared to the conventional fixed wing, which are moved by the servo motors and cables. They will also be light in weight, as they arent using any hinges to attach the control surfaces. This type of wings makes them easier to maneuver and perform speed rolling and turns, which will be the most controversial point of the future airpower.Work on the VCCTEF concept is part of NASAs research into flexible low-drag, high aspect-ratio wings for aircraft that could enter service after 2025. NASA is aiming for structural weight reductions of 25% and aspect-ratio increases of 30-40% for cantilever wings.A small-scale wind-tunnel test of the flap system is planned this year at Washington State University, using a 6ft semi-span flexible wing model.

Figure 10-a,b,c,d

21

5. ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES
5.1 ADVANTAGES
The conventional tri-flap wings use hinges to support the flaps, which mean that extra added weights. Also the hinges are more susceptible to damages and malfunctioning. The main advantage of flexible wing is that the functions of flaps are replaced by active flexible control surfaces. This means that safety is also ensured in addition with weight reduction. Flaps and ailerons are replaced by a single flexible control surface to move in accordance with pilots commands. The movements of these controls are faster than the conventional wings. Airflow over the hinge-less wings is smoother than over the hinged wings as there is no gap between control surface and wing in flexible wing. Flexible wing has the ability to adapt its wings in any flight condition and flow direction. Therefore transition from subsonic to transonic or from transonic to supersonic and vice versa is more feasible. In fighter aircrafts, where abrupt maneuvers and deep dives are necessary, instant movement of the control surfaces are necessary. This is achieved by using flexible wings. With the successful demonstration of actively controlled "wing warping" techniques for aircraft roll control at transonic speeds in the Active Aeroelastic Wing project, engineers will now have more freedom in designing more efficient, thinner, higher aspect-ratio wings for future highperformance aircraft while reducing the structural weight of the wings by 10 to 20 per cent. This will allow increased fuel efficiency or payload capability, along with potentially reduced radar signature. The technology also has application to a variety of other future aircraft, such as high-altitude, long-endurance unmannedaircraft, transports, and airliners.

5.2 DISDVANTAGES
Disadvantages of flexible wing include that the cost of the material used for the construction is higher compared to the conventional fixed wing. But considering the fuel cost saved by this type of wing, this increase in cost is negligible. Other negatives include that the FAA regulations may not be followed by these types of wings. A secondary option for the flight control may not be available in case the primary control fails.

22

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has reviewed some of the history of flexible wings, has shown that the flexible wing concept covers a very broad spectrum of wing shapes, wing structures, and applications, and has presented performance characteristics of some typical allflexible wings. All-flexible wings are rapidly gaining general and often enthusiastic acceptance for applications that can be satisfied by a lift-drag ratio of 3 or less. Research and development of such wings is expanding rapidly. The stiffened high-performance flexible wings at the other end of the spectrum, however, are not getting the attention they deserve. Such wings show promise of becoming economical, light-weight, rugged, stowable wings for applications including roadable aircraft, flying boats, flying submersibles, cargo tow gliders and a variety of sports gliders, and for recovery of boosters and hypersonic aircraft. Different research works conducted by various departments and companies worldwide on the flexible wing aircrafts were also discussed. All these shows that there are greater things to be achieved, in this field of study. Flexible wings are now being used in the micro aerial vehicles used for the aerial study and surveillance aircrafts.NASA has promised that the fully flexible winged aircraft will dominate the sky 2035. These have more advantages compared the conventional fixed wing aircraft in the matters of weight, response time, safety, more economical and smooth flight, control effectiveness, maneuvering ability etc.. But enthusiasm for stiffened flexible wings may have beendulled by previous attempts to use rigid or inflated frame wings of conical shape (low performance) in some applications that need greater performance to be practical. It is hoped that research can be accelerated on the entire spectrum, especially on high-performance flexible wings, and that the results will generate a variety of useful applications, private, commercial, and military.

23

7. REFERENCES
1) Croom, Delwin R.; Naeseth, Rodger L.; and Sleeman, William C., Jr. Effects Of Canopy Shape On Low-Speed Aerodynamic

Characteristics Of A 55 Swept Parawing With Large-Diameter Leading Edges. NASA TN D-2551, 1964. 2) Dr. S. Srinathkumar, Flutter Suppression For The Active Flexible Wing: AIAA-92-2097-Cp Control System Design And Experimental Validation M.R. Waszak, NASA Langley Research Center, Homplon. Virginia, Dr. S. Srinathkumar, National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore, India 3) Francis M. Rogallo Nasa Research On Flexible Wings NASA Langley Research Center.1951 4) Gerald D. Miller : Active Flexible Wing (Afw) Technology. AFWAL-TR-87-3096 5) Johnson, Joseph L._ Jr.; and Hassell, James L._ Jr.: Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel Investigation Of A Flexible-Wing Mannedtest Vehicle. NASA TN D-1946, 1963 6) Johnson , Joseph L., Jr.: Low-Speedwind-Tunnel Investigation To Determine The Flight Characteristics Of A Model Of A Parawing Utility Vehicle. NASATN D-1255, 1962. 7) Rogallo, Francis M.; and Rogallo, Gertrude S.: U.S. Patent No. 2,546,078. March 20, 1951. 8) http://www.flxsys.com/aerospace.shtml

24