Phoenix Ornithopter Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System (1).docx

DR. T.M.A. PAI POLYTECHNIC MANIPAL – 576104

Project report on

FLAPPING WING UNMANNED ARIEL VEHICLE SYSTEM

Phoenix UAV System Submitted by ABHIJITH MENDON

CLINTON OLIVERA

ADLIN SEEDON D’SOUZA

MOHAMMED RASHAD

ANUSHA RAO

SAKSHATH AJILA

AKASH ASHOK BANGERA

SHEIK UBEDULLA SAHEB

Under the guidance of

Lect. Arun B Rao (dept. of Mechatronics engineering)

Board of technical education Karnataka 2012-2013

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

1|Page

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

DR. T.M.A. PAI POLYTECHNIC MANIPAL – 576104

Department of Mechatronics Engineering

CERTIFICATE Certified that this project report entitled ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------which is being submitted by Mr./Ms. ………………………….……………….., Reg. No…..……………, a bonafide student of …………………………………….in partial fulfillment for the award of Diploma in -----------------Engineering during the year ……………………... is record of students own work carried out under my/our guidance. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions indicated for internal Assessment have been incorporated in the Report and one copy of it being deposited in the polytechnic library. The project report has been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements in respect of Project work prescribed for the said diploma. It is further understood that by this certificate the undersigned do not endorse or approve any statement made, opinion expressed or conclusion drawn there in but approve the project only for the purpose for which it is submitted. Guide Arun B Rao Examiners 1 2 Head of Department

Dept. of --------------------

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

2|Page

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I, ------------------------------------------ a student of Diploma in ----------------------------- Department bearing Reg No---------------------------------------of --------------------------------------------- hereby declare that I own full responsibility for the information, results and conclusions provided in this project work titled “---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “submitted to State Board of Technical Examinations, Government of Karnataka for the award of Diploma in ----------------------------------. To the best of my knowledge, this project work has not been submitted in part or full elsewhere

in

any

other

institution/organization

for

the

award

of

any

certificate/diploma/degree. I have completely taken care in acknowledging the contribution of others in this academic work. I further declare that in case of any violation of intellectual property rights and particulars declared, found at any stage, I, as the candidate will be solely responsible for the same.

Date:

Place:

Signature of candidate Name: --------------------Reg No---------------------

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

3|Page

AKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to thank the almighty, for his grace and blessings on our project work. We are highly obliged to our parents for supporting us throughout the academic and making this project a grand success. We would like to express our gratitude for the people and organizations without which our project work would have been incomplete. We would like to thank our project guide Mr. Arun B Rao lecturer dept. of mechatronics for supporting us throughout our semester, by suggesting and guiding us in the right path, We are obliged to Mr. K Nanda Kumar (Chennai) for guiding and training us. We would like to thank Mr. Prashanth Shetty (HOD of Mechatronics), and all the staff especially Lect. PrahaladhPai, Lect. J V D’Souza, Lect. Shivprasad Acharya, for timely guiding us.. We would like to thank Sir. Thomas M J (2011-12 lect. at Mechatronics Dept) for giving us the idea about mechanism, and Motivating us to do this project right when we were in 4th semester. Miss your Lectures sir :). We are highly obliged to our ex HOD Mr. SuhasNayak for his support. We would like to thank our Principle Sir. T RangaPai, Our academiccoordinator Lt. Col. Victor D’Souza and our Vice Principle Mr. Narendra Pai for their continuous support with which our design was able to win first place national level. Would like to thank my friends from E&C, for helping me troubleshoot some annoying problems in electronics. Would like to thank PramodMadhwaraj for sponsoring 10% of our project cost. Souparnika art gallery Manipal, for lending us their workshop for project research purpose, and Mr. Ritheshkamath for promoting or idea around schools and colleges in dakshinkannada. Last but not the least would like to thank our hard work, and sleepless nights without which this would have still remained a dream! For any information, feedback visit our official website www.phoenixuav.tk 091 87222 95112

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

4|Page

INDEX Contents

Page No

1.

Abstract

2.

Introduction 2.1.

History

3.

Scope of the project

4.

Literature 4.2.

Components 4.2.1. Carbon fiber 4.2.2. Mylar 4.2.3. Brushless Motor 4.2.4. Li-Po Battery 4.2.5. ESC 4.2.6. Servos 4.2.7. Radio Transmitter 4.2.8. Radio Receiver 4.2.9. Video Transmitter 4.2.10. Video Receiver 4.2.11. USB Video Card

5.

Working Principle 5.1.

Aerodynamics

5.2.

Radio RX/TX

5.3.

Brushless Motor

5.4.

Brushless ESC

5.5.

Servo Mechanism

5.6.

Brushless Motor

5.7.

Gear & Crank Mechanism

5.8.

Video RX/TX

7.

Cost Analysis

8.

Pros and Cons

9.

Applications

10.

Future Advancements

11.

Conclusion

12.

Bibliography

13.

Photographs

5 6 6-20 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 28 2832 3238 39 4043 4447 4849 5051 52 53 54 55 56 57 58-

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

5|Page

ABSTRACT

Primary aim of our project was to design and build an unmanned Ariel vehicle capable of sustaining flight by flapping its wings, with no other form of power source other than its wings. This design basically is called as an ornithopter first know to be designed by Leonardo da Vinci but was not successful due to heavy body, in order to overcome these hurdles our design meets strict standards and aerodynamics with this sleek and innovative designs the following will be some of the features our final product will avail. Our final product features will include an ultra light weight body designed with high quality carbon fiber. A high-speed high-torque brushless outrunner 3-phase AC motor as prime mover with aprox 1500 rpms for 1 volt supply. A high density 7.2 V 350 mAh Lithium ion battery. Total weight aprox 250 grams, Wing span 1.25 meters from tip to tip, Digital proportional 2.4 GHz 4-CH radio link with range of 1000 meters. HD 720P 5.8 GHz digital video camera smallest of its kind with weight only 5 grams with real-time audio and video transmission, Radar Avoiding capabilities due to extremely sleek design and complete carbon body. Flight time of around 15 minsaprox. Wing thickness of only 40 Microns. This idea can be applied in the following fields of research: Robotic Industry As a design of nature resembling robots. Military For real-time surveillance in close quarters without getting detected. Weather Forecasting to get low altitude weather information. Air Traffic Control: Can be used as an supplementary solution to scare away seagulls which obstruct normal air traffic by flying around on runway while takeoff and landing of jets, this is hazardous for both the gulls and the passengers travelling, hence an ornithopter which looks like an eagle can be used to scare away seagulls off the runway. Further research on this idea could be made to increase the range and effectiveness of the radio controller using GSM 3G network as the communication medium, and a dedicated Global Positioning System for navigation, A digital Gyroscope can be added for more stable flight, The entire system can be increased in size for heavier payload using more powerful motor, the noise can be reduced by implementing Hydraulic drives rather than default gear drive mechanism for power transmission.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

6|Page

INTRODUCTION An ornithopter is a device that imitates the flapping-wing flight found in nature. The word "ornithopter" (coined in 1908 AD) combines the ancient Greek words for "bird" and "wing". An ornithopter doesn't need to have feathers, though. What makes it birdlike is the flapping motion! Airplanes have a rotating propeller. Helicopters have a rotary wing that provides both lift and thrust. But animals don't have any rotating parts!, flapping wings potentially offer improved efficiency, better maneuverability, and reduced noise compared with the rotary-driven airplanes and helicopters. The resemblance to a real bird can also be useful, e.g., for spying or for keeping birds away from airport runways. The ornithopter works on the same principle as the airplane. The forward motion through the air allows the wings to deflect air downward, producing lift. The flapping motion of the wings takes the place of a rotating propeller.

History: Often people think of ornithopters as a relic from the early days of aviation. I would like to present a different view. Successful flapping-wing flight actually requires more technology than the simple airplane. The current, rapid progress in this field means the ornithopter will see its greatest development in the future, not in the past. It is important to realize that most ornithopter work is not aimed at producing manned aircraft. There are probably more practical applications for unmanned ornithopters. The main reason to build a manned ornithopter is because of the technical challenge. It is why people climb mountains and why the peacock has such an elaborate tail. Perhaps for that reason, most people who build manned ornithopters try to use their own muscle power to flap the wings. It works a lot better if you use an engine. With further development, the ornithopter should offer excellent fuel economy, coupled with the ability to take off and land vertically. On the other hand, the ornithopter is inherently complex, and that might prevent its widespread application as a means of human transport. In either case, further research will expand our knowledge and expertise in the field of aeronautics. People often associate ornithopters with Leonardo da Vinci, the Renaissance artist who sketched some ideas for flapping-wing machines. Really, the idea of a flappingwing aircraft goes back to ancient times. Ornithopters were depicted in ancient Assyrian stone carvings, circa 1000 BC. The Hindu epic Ramayana (5th century BC) describes an ornithopter powered by biofuels. Actual flight attempts were made well before Leonardo's time, some resulting in short glides. But it was not until 1929 that the first person travelled through the air in a flapping-wing vehicle.

Alexander Lippisch A capable engineer, Lippisch would later design the world's first rocket-powered fighter plane, the Me 163 Komet. Lippisch was intrigued by the flapping-wing flight attempts of a Dr. Brustmann. Brustmann's machine did not fly, but as a medical

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

7|Page

doctor he had actually measured the amount of power that could be obtained from a person's arm and leg muscles. Lippisch accepted the challenge to design an aircraft that could be driven solely by the muscles of the pilot. He chose flapping wings because of their potentially greater efficiency compared with the airplane concept. Lippisch constructed an ornithopter and began tests. A young pilot and athlete, Hans Werner Krause, was selected to fly this machine. Since a small engine could have done the job better, he didn't feel inclined to expend much effort. Lippisch promised Krause a vacation if he could reach a predetermined mark at about 250-300 meters from launch. The goal was achieved.

Lippisch’s human powered Ornithopter

Although Lippisch declared the flight a success, some other people competing for the claim of first manned ornithopter have expressed their doubts. One argument is that the Lippisch’sornithopter did not have enough wing area to fly on muscle power alone. If you know the wing area, coefficient of lift, etc. then you can

calculate the power requirement. However, we can only estimate some of the variables. Another problem is that the ornithopter was launchedusing an elastic cord. Thecord imparted a certain amount of energy, which got the ornithopter off the ground and got it up to speed. You can launch an unpowered glider in this way. If the launch speed is higher than the stall speed or minimum flying speed, then the aircraft can continue for some distance without losing any height. In such a case, the aircraft speed would decrease throughout the flight as kinetic energy is used to keep the aircraft aloft. To demonstrate a truly "sustained" flight, one would need to show that the speed and height are both maintained for some distance. We simply don't have enough documentation to know if that was the case. Lippisch’s engine powered Ornithopter

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

8|Page

Lippisch continued his ornithopter research. He and his students in the 1930s constructed a whole series of engine-powered, unmanned ornithopters. Generally they used small flappers in conjunction with larger fixed wings (not totally fixed because the whole machine would move up and down in reaction to the flapping). This meant they didn't need as much gear reduction, so the machines were easier to build. The flapper designs were backed up by extensive laboratory testing and theory. The longest flight on record was over 16 minutes! At the same time, the Muscle Flight Institute under Oskar Ursinus was acquiring more information on human muscle power. They found that a person using arms and legs together could produce over 1 horsepower in a short burst. Also significantly, the athletes could produce the greatest amount of power when working their muscles at about 1.7 cycles per second. For ornithopters, the flapping rate is related to the size of the wings. For the wings to operate at 1.7 Hz, they had to be smaller than what would be required to support a manned aircraft. [Note 1] The answer was found in Lippisch's small-flapper configuration. The small flapping wings could operate at 1.7 Hz, and a separate fixed wing could provide most of the lift.

AdalbertSchmid Because his talents were needed in the war effort, Lippisch was not able to continue his ornithopter work. Therefore it was AdalbertSchmid who constructed the smallflapper manned ornithopter that seemed to follow logically from what had been done so far. On June 26th, 1942, Schmid'sornithopter shown here made a flight of 900 meters at a constant 20 meters above the ground near Munich. The pilot, Mueller, also supplied the power to flap the wings. This ornithopter still relied on a tow launch.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

9|Page However, Schmid went beyond the limitations of musclepowered flight by putting an engine in this ornithopter. With a 3 hp Sachs motorcycle engine, and presumably wheels added, the

to

AdalbertSchmid 1942 manned ornithopter

AdalbertSchmid 1947 manned ornithopter

ornithopter was able take off unassisted from the ground. It made a quiet 15minute flight at about 60 kilometers per hour. Then a 6 hp engine was installed, increasing the speed to 80 kph. After these historic accomplishments, Schmid's work was

interrupted by the war. By 1947, however, Schmid had built a second ornithopter. This one, a modified Grunau-Baby IIa sailplane, was constructed with flapping outer wing sections. Using a 10 hp engine, this double-seater was capable of speeds estimated at 100 to 120 kilometers per hour. James DeLaurier The use of an engine with appropriate gearing would enable progressively more of the wing area to be flapping. Birds get some lift from the body and tail, but the flapping wings are comparatively large. A team at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies, led by James DeLaurier, constructed an ornithopter in the 1990s Toporov four-winged ornithopter

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

10|Page

which had comparatively smaller fixed wing area. This ornithoptermade a 14-second flight in 2006. It was assisted by a small jet engine, but the flapping wings did most of the work. One of the problems encountered during this project was that the aircraft tended to bounce on takeoff, due to the flapping of the wings. The jet assist allowed a smoother takeoff and helped compensate for the added weight of a rebuilt undercarriage.

Vladimir Toporov Percival Hopkins Spencer had proposed a four-winged ornithopter design, which would provide a smoother ride for the occupants of the ornithopter. He demonstrated the concept in 1960 with the world's first successful radio-controlled ornithopter. The proposed manned ornithopter was not built. In the mid-1990s, however, Vladimir Toporov tested a humanpowered ornithopter with four flapping wings. The four-winged ornithopter design showed it is possible to greatly reduce the body oscillation, an important step toward a practical manned aircraft. Toporov'sornithopter is significant for another reason. With much greater wing area, and the greatly improved efficiency of the fourwinged design, it is quite likely that this aircraft sustained flight with muscle power alone, rather than relying on the energy of the tow launch. James DeLaurier jet-assisted ornithopter

Todd Reichert The University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies followed its manned, engine-powered ornithopter attempt with a human-powered ornithopter called the Snowbird. The project was led by Todd Reichert. The human-powered ornithopter was designed to have a large wing area, in order to minimize the power requirement. It was powered by a leg-press motion, and only the outer portions of the wings were made to flap, thus addressing the need to match the flapping rate with the optimal rate of cycling the muscles. As with previous human-powered ornithopter attempts, the Snowbird relied on a tow launch.I had suggested to Reichert that in order to document a sustained flight, he would have to measure not just the height, but also the speed of the aircraft, over time. These measurements are difficult to make, and Reichert went to great lengths to collect the required data. Unfortunately, I failed to anticipate one serious problem. The wing flapping causes a cyclical fluctuation in both the height and speed of the aircraft. Thus, it was still difficult to assess whether a sustained flight was made.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

11|Page

Reichert erroneously added the downstroke energy gain, which is cyclical and temporary, to the total flight energy when evaluating whether the total energy was maintained. As a result, he falsely claimed that a 19.3 second sustained flight had been made. In reality, his own data show that the duration of sustained flight was somewhat shorter. Reichert also claimed that his human-powered ornithopter was the first to sustain flight. Even if there is some uncertainty in the prior claims, it cannot be stated with any confidence that Reichert was the first to sustain flight in a human-powered ornithopter. Regardless of who was the first to sustain flight, when a human-powered ornithopter finally takes off under its own power, instead of using a tow launch that will be a truer measure of success. See also the links at your left for micro-sized and rubber-bandpowered ornithopters. This page pertains to engine-powered and electric ornithopters that are too small to carry people and too large to be considered micro air vehicles. Many of these are radio-controlled (RC) ornithopters. Most of the recent RC Todd Reichert Snowbird human-powered ornithopters are powered by an ornithopter with flight data showing electric motor and lithium-polymer downward trend in total energy and rechargeable batteries. Flying an RC airspeed for the 19.3 second interval ornithopter is similar to flying an RC claimed as a sustained flight airplane, and both require a similar degree of skill. A throttle stick on the controller varies the flapping rate. This allows the ornithopter to climb or descend. Moveable tail surfaces are used for steering. Some RC ornithopters have a bird-like tail, but if you see airplane-like control surfaces, it is probably a more efficient flier. The timeline below shows the development of this technology starting with the first internal-combustion-powered ornithopter in 1870.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

12|Page

1870. In this ornithopter constructed by GustaveTrouvé, twelve gunpowder charges were fired successively into a bourdon tube to flap the wings, an unusual type of internal combustion engine. It flew 70 meters in a demonstration to the French Academy of Sciences.

1890. Lawrence Hargrave built some ornithopters powered by steam and compressed air. The ornithopter shown here is about 2 meters long and hangs in the National Air & Space Museum. Hargrave used a rear fixed wing, like the tail of a bird but much larger in size and carrying more weight. This eliminated the need for gear reduction and therefore simplified the construction.

1930s.VincenzChalupsky built a series of ornithopters that could be powered either by compressed air or carbon dioxide. These ornithopters had a birdlike appearance.

1930s. Alexander Lippisch and members of his NSFK group in Germany constructed a number of piston-driven ornithopters. One of Lippisch'sornithopters had a 3 meter wingspan and weighed 1950 grams. Using a 4 cc petrol engine, it made flights up to 16 minutes. Lippisch also designed the Me 163 rocket-powered fighter aircraft.

No

Photo

Available

1935. In Walden NY around 1935-1936, Early Bird pilot Harry D. Graulich successfully flew in tethered flight an engine-powered ornithopter with about a 4.8 meter wingspan. It was powered by a four-cylinder, air-cooled engine.

1958. Percival Spencer constructed a series of enginedriven ornithopters in the shape of a bird. They ranged in size from a small 0.02-engine-powered ornithopter to one with an eight-foot wingspan. Spencer is also noted as a pioneer pilot and the designer of the Republic Seabee amphibious airplane. He also designed a toy, called the Wham-O Bird, which introduced thousands of children to

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System the

idea

of

13|Page mechanized

flapping-wing

flight.

1960. Spencer collaborated with Jack Stephenson to build the Orniplane. This was the first radio-controlled ornithopter. It now resides at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks; CT. Spencer sought funding to build a manned version. The biplane wing configuration was to provide a smoother ride for the pilot and also protected the sensitive early radio equipment. Reportedly, Spencer's colleague Dale Anderson later converted one of Spencer's Seagull ornithopters to radio control as well, using the improved radio equipment of the 1980s.

1984. Valentin Kiselev's radio controlled, tandem-wing ornithopter is shown. This ornithopter was powered by an internal combustion engine. Kiselev also flew some of the first electric ornithopters.

1986. Despite being underpowered, Paul Macready’s QN pterosaur replica achieved new levels of realism and demonstrated active stabilization methods like those used by birds and other flying animals. The otherwise-unstable ornithopter had an onboard computer to keep it from going into a spin. The flight path was controlled by radio. It had a wingspan of 18 feet.

1990. Horst Räbiger's radio-controlled ornithopter, EV7, was a technical marvel, using thick-airfoil wings and a pneumatic spring to provide extra power in the down stroke. In this ornithopter, the twisting of the wings was actively driven by the motor, whereas most ornithopter wings twist in response to aerodynamic forces.

1991. James DeLaurier and Jeremy Harris flew a large radio-controlled ornithopter, powered by internal combustion. The wing appeared similar to the EV7's, but it used passive aeroelastic wing twisting. The news media inaccurately reported this as the first engine-powered, radio-controlled ornithopter, at a time when few people

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System knew

about

14|Page the

prior

successes.

1998. Albert Kempf'sTrueflyornithopter used electric power and actively twisted foam wings. Kempf reported that this system was energy-efficient. Kempf went on to build some other ornithopters using a similar mechanism. One of the ornithopters was made to resemble an eagle and was more realistic than the initial design shown here.

1998. Sean Kinkade'sSkybird, based somewhat on the Spencer Seagulls and using a 0.15 methanol-fueled engine, was an attempt at small-scale commercial production of an RC ornithopter. Smaller, electric versions were later offered. Unfortunately, many would-be customers paid their money and never received the product.

2000. Some applications for ornithopters rely on their resemblance to real birds. Intercept Technologies experimentally used radio-controlled ornithopters for bird control. Styled to look like birds of prey, the RoboFalconornithopters were used to chase flocks of birds away from airports, where they can pose a threat to aircraft.

2003. Neuros Company of Korea introduced the first commercially mass-produced RC ornithopter. Called the Cybird, it was sold in two different versions. The Cybird P2 had a 39" wingspan and three-channel radio control. The later-introduced Cybird P1 had a 29" wingspan and twochannel radio.

2007. Robert Musters began a series of RC ornithopters with foam, actively twisted wings. The appearance of these ornithopters is close to that of a real bird and they are being offered for use in bird control at airports.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

15|Page

2008. I built this four-winged RC ornithopter for a demonstration at IIT Bombay. It represents a concept for a manned ornithopter at 1/10th scale. The wingspan is 36 inches. The four-winged design gives this ornithopter excellent slow-flight capability, and it can even be configured for hovering flight.

Folding or Articulated Wing Ornithopters 1930s. Erich von Holst experimented with various bird and dragonfly ornithopter configurations. Some of his rubber-powered ornithopters achieved a very high level of realism. In this one, the outer wing panels were hinged, to more closely mimic the movement of a bird's wings. However, the wings could not actually fold by way of overlapping feathers in the way that a real bird's wings do.

2004. Jonathan Howes constructed a bending-wing ornithopter, functionally similar to von Holst's ornithopter shown above, but much lighter for indoor flying. It achieved flight times of 4 or 5 minutes, which is comparable to conventional membrane-winged ornithopters. Nice job!

2011. Festo AG announced a radio-controlled ornithopter with bending wings. They are similar in function to the bending wings of Erich von Holst, except that the wing twisting (not the bending action) is driven by a servo motor in each wing. This allows the amount of wing twist to be adjusted on the fly.

1997.VS1 ornithopter was the first successful implementation of an ornithopter with true variable-area wings. Instead of multiple feathers, VSI used a simplified design with just two overlapping plates. The plates correspond to the primary and secondary feathers of a bird's wings and produce a very life-like wing-folding action.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

16|Page

Micro Air Vehicle Ornithopters Micro air vehicles, also known as MAVs, result from the US military's interest in miniature spying devices. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has heavily funded some of these projects. Small radio-controlled ornithopters can carry a camera payload for spying inside buildings. The ultimate goal is to produce an ornithopter so small and lifelike that it can pass as a real insect or small bird, going unnoticed as it performs its deadly mission. With recent advances in hobby radio control products, now you can build your own micro-sized ornithopters and hopefully find some non-violent purpose for them.

2000. The MicroBat, developed by Aerovironment and Caltech, was the first microsized ornithopter resulting from MAV funding. It had three-channel radio control and used one of the lithium-polymer batteries which had just become available.

2000s. At the International Micro Air Vehicle Competition, university teams compete to see who can perform the most pylon circuits with the smallest ornithopter. This annual event is held in a different location each year and also includes rotary-driven MAVs. (University of Florida entry is shown.)

2002. Although some hovering freeflightornithopters had been built by hobbyists, Mentor, developed at University of Toronto, was the first hovering ornithopter with radio control. Hovering is important for MAV applications that require maneuvering in tight spaces.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

17|Page

2006.Delfly, developed at the Technical University of Delft and Wageningen University, is able to transition between hovering and forward flight. These ornithopters also carry a small video camera. The live images are analyzed by a computer on the ground, giving Delfly the capacity for autonomous navigation.

2007. This prototype developed by Nathan Chronister can hover and perform aerobatic maneuvers. Though developed for recreational use, this ornithopter achieved a MAV benchmark because it is the size and weight of a real hummingbird. The ornithopter weighs 3.3 grams and has a 15 cm wingspan.

2007. Currently the world's smallest radiocontrolled ornithopter, this one constructed by PetterMuren has a wingspan of 10 cm and weighs only 1 gram.

2010.Aerovironment'sNano Hummingbird, while not especially small, was a huge breakthrough in MAV ornithopter research because of its gyroscopically stabilized flight without any tail surfaces.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

18|Page

Rubber Band Powered Ornithopters Some of the first successful ornithopters were powered by rubber band. In 1858, Pierre Jullien flew a small ornithopter 40 feet powered by India rubber in tension. This is the earliest report I know of describing a successful ornithopter flight, and sadly I haven't found any pictures of the device. Several others devised rubberpowered ornithopters in the 1870s. Their goal was to figure out another way for people to fly after balloons. Experiments with rubber-powered ornithopters did help pave the way for Schmid's manned ornithopters of the 1940s. However, the rubberband-powered ornithopter is a fascinating endeavor in its own right, today providing an excellent educational opportunity for students, as well as great enjoyment for hobbyists.

Here are some rubber-powered ornithopters developed in France during the 1870s. Starting from the left, Jobert flew this ornithopter powered by a stretched rubber band turning a crank. In the following year, he built a biplane ornithopter with the twisted rubber band motor more common today. The use of four wings was a clever innovation that reduced the amount of torque needed to flap the wings. The other ornithopters shown here were built by Alphonse Penaud and Hureau de Villeneuve,

respectively, in 1872. In 1874, Victor Tatin devised a more complicated crank mechanism that actively drove the twisting of the wings. His ornithopter shown here is on exhibit at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington. Most of the mechanism was fashioned from bent wire, and it is quite interesting to examine up close. A similar mechanism was used by Pichancourt in his toy bird, "loiseaumécanique". This was perhaps the first commercial venture involving ornithopters. Pichancourt is shown at right with his

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

19|Page

lovely assistant and the biggest rubberpowered ornithopter I have ever seen! He must have needed a huge bundle of rubber to flap those huge wings. In fact, the thickness of the rubber band has to increase faster than the scale of the ornithopter. If you double the wingspan and every other dimension, the rubber band needs to be more than twice the thickness of the original. This could be corrected by using some sort of gear reduction to amplify the torque of the rubber band. However, that is not so easy to do. Lawrence Hargrave, working in the 1890s, discovered an easier solution, which many people after him have adopted. To reduce the torque requirement, he made the flapping wings smaller and provided a large fixed wing. Two examples are shown below. At left is one of Hargrave'sornithopters. The center photo shows an ornithopter built by Alexander Lippisch.

Alexander Lippisch led a group of aviation students during the 1930s. He and his students built many large ornithopters powered by rubber band and by internal combustion engines. The science of aeronautics had advanced greatly since Hargrave. These ornithopters had better airfoils and more efficient flappers, even though the flapping wings remained comparatively small. Erich von Holst experimented with various bird and dragonfly ornithopterconfigurations in the 1930s. His work included experimentation with biplane wing phasing and hinged outer wing panels. Some of his rubber-powered ornithopters achieved a very high level of realism, as in the example shown above. He used pulleys to increase the torque. Indoor ornithopter contests began in the 1930s. A model airplane club called the Chicago Aeronauts was holding various contests for the indoor flying of model airplanes. For some extra challenge, they decided to add ornithopters to the list of events. Ed Lidgard's design shown here could be built from magazine plans, and many of the rubber-band-powered ornithopters built over the subsequent decades followed a similar pattern. Eventually the ornithopter event became part of the national contest arranged by the Academy of Model Aeronautics.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

20|Page

In the 1980s, it was found that biplane ornithopters had a huge advantage in these indoor flying contests. With monoplane ornithopters, much energy was lost at the end of each wingstroke, when the crank went through its "dead center" position and snapped forward without doing any useful work. With four wings, you can set it up so one pair of wings is in mid-stroke, maintaining a load on the crank, while the other pair is at the end of its stroke. The cranks don't reach dead center at the same time, so the crank doesn't snap forward, we can harness the energy of its full rotation, and the smoother flapping motion allows overall weight reduction. By coupling the upstroke of one wing to the downstroke of another, two other benefits were achieved. First, the upstroke could proceed more slowly, so the wing could continue producing lift during the upstroke. Second, the lift on that wing would partially offset the force required for the other wing downstroke, reducing the overall torque requirement.

Another modification was to move the stabilizer to the front of the model. With the flapping wings at the back of the motor stick, the stabilizer could be positioned directly above the motor stick and in clean air where it could function more effectively as a lifting surface.With these innovations, ornithopter flight times increased from around four minutes, to the current record of 21 minutes, 44 seconds held by Roy White. Successful competition models are extremely light-weight and delicate. Careful adjustments must be made to maximize the flight time without hitting the ceiling. Perhaps as you refine your ornithopter skills, you will be able to log some impressive flight times of your own. The rubber-band-powered ornithopter also offers a range of interesting projects, aside from duration contests. Some examples are Ken Johnson's lifelike butterfly model.John White's ornithopter in which the tail moves as well as the wings.Albert Kempf's dragonfly using a geared rubber band motor and foam wings.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

21|Page

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The aim of our project is to design a robot capable of sustaining flight just by flapping its wings; this design is also called as an ornithopter. We want to implement this idea of adding a wireless video camera on the model so has to be helpful for the military for low altitude surveillance and reconnaissance. There are both advantages and disadvantages of our design, but the advantages easily overtake them, and hence this cutting edge technology will be far more helpful for the military then any existing uav.

The Defense and Research Development Organization(DRDO) of India is currently developing unmanned Ariel vehicle that are fast and fly high, the major disadvantage of these in a battlefield is that they are too high to capture a clear image of the scenario; even if the implement high resolution video devices they will be limited by the transmission bandwidth which will make the video feed lag a second or two …. This is very important in a real-time surveillance where the soldiers will have to take quick second decisions. Here is a design which can fly low altitude, to get slow real-time and clear video feed, with a very low velocity, but the big question is wont our design be vulnerable to enemy fire ???? No it won’t. Why?? Because the enemy soldiers can shoot it down only if they can detect it, and there is no way anybody can detect this UAV, you can see it only if someone tell you it’s there in the sky, because this design makes virtually no noise, and the flight mechanism and its structure resembles a bird, and hence this camouflage will fool the human eye. But what about the sophisticated radar devices which can detect any thing flying for thousands of kilometers? We have a solution for that too; radar can detect anything that can bounce back the signals which it sends, what if we can absorb everything what its sends to us? Then the bounced signal will be too weak for the radar to detect us. And hence we made the complete body using carbon fiber, to make it invisible for the radar.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

22|Page

LITERATURE Components Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which contains carbon fibers. The polymer is most often epoxy, but other polymers, such as polyester, vinyl ester or nylon, are sometimes used. The composite may contain other fibers, such as aramid e.g. Kevlar, Twaron, aluminum, or glass fibers, as well as carbon fiber. The strongest and most expensive of these additives, carbon nanotubes, are contained in some primarily polymer baseball bats, car parts and even golf clubs.We use 3 different sizes of carbon fiber rods, i.e. 1mm, 1.5mm & 2mm. Each for their distinctive property of relative strength and elasticity, the following table will easily explain.

Number Tensile of Strength Fibe (ksi) Filamen r a) ts Typ e 3000 Rod 6000 s 12000

Tensile Modulus* (MP (Msi) Pa)

Standar Strain* Weight/Leng Densit d (G * th y (%) (g/m) (g/cm Spool Size 3) (lb)

653

4500

33.5

231

1.8

0.210

1.79

4.0

628

4330

33.5

231

1.8

0.427

1.79

4.0

649

4475

33.5

231

1.8

0.858

1.79

8.0

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

23|Page

Mylar Sheet BoPET (Biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate) is a polyester film made from stretched polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and is used for its high tensile strength, chemical and dimensional stability, transparency, reflectivity, gas and aroma barrier properties, and electrical insulation. A variety of companies manufacture boPET and other polyester films under different brand names. In the UK and US, the most well-known trade names are Mylar, Melinex and Hostaphan.

Chemical structure of polyethylene terephthalate Biaxially oriented PET film can be metallized by vapor deposition of a thin film of evaporated aluminum, gold, or other metal onto it. The result is much less permeable to gases (important in food packaging) and reflects up to 99% of light, including much of the infrared spectrum. For some applications like food packaging, the aluminized boPET film can be laminated with a layer of polyethylene, which provides sealability and improves puncture resistance. The polyethylene side of such a laminate appears dull and the PET side shiny. Other coatings, such as conductive indium tin oxide (ITO), can be applied to boPET film by sputter deposition. We here use Mylar because it’s very strong and thin, only 40 microns and can withstand the intense forces generated by the flapping of the wings of the ornithopter.

Brushless DC electric motor Brushless DC electric motor (BLDC motors, BL motors) also known as electronically commutated motors (ECMs, EC motors) are synchronous motors which are powered by a DC electric source via an integrated inverter/switching power supply, which produces an AC electric signal to drive the motor (AC, alternating current, does not imply a sinusoidal waveform but rather a bi-directional current with no restriction on waveform); additional sensors and electronics control the inverter output amplitude and waveform (and therefore percent of DC bus usage/efficiency) and frequency (i.e. rotor speed). Two key performance parameters of brushless DC motors are the Motor constants Kv and Km (which are numerically equal in SI units)

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

24|Page

We used 2200 KV Outrunner motor which means it can spin 2200 RPM per 1volt. 12N, 14P (DLRK) - Common for higher torque applications. Noted commonly for its smooth and quiet operation. Winding Pattern is AabBCcaABbcC (lowercase implies reverse in winding direction).

Lithium polymer battery Lithium-ion polymer batteries, polymer lithium ion or more commonly lithium polymer batteries (abbreviated Li-poly, Li-Pol, LiPo, LIP, PLI or LiP) are rechargeable (secondary cell) batteries. LiPo batteries are usually composed of several identical secondary cells in parallel to increase the discharge current capability, and are often available in series "packs" to increase the total available voltage. There are currently two commercialized technologies, both lithium-ion-polymer (where "polymer" stands for "polymer electrolyte/separator") cells. These are collectively referred to as "polymer electrolyte batteries". The battery is constructed as: Positive electrode: LiCoO2 or LiMn2O4 Separator: Conducting polymer electrolyte (e.g., polyethyleneoxide, PEO) Negative electrode: Li or carbon-Li intercalation compound Typical reaction: Negative electrode: carbon–Lix → C + xLi+ + xe− Separator: Li+ conduction Positive electrode: Li1−xCoO2 + xLi+ + xe− → LiCoO2 Polymer electrolytes/separators can be solid polymers (e.g., polyethyleneoxide, PEO) plus LiPF6, or other conducting salts plus SiO2, or other fillers for better mechanical properties (such systems are not available commercially yet). Some manufacturers like Avestor (since merged with Batscap) are using metallic Li as the negative electrode (these are the lithium-metal polymer batteries), whereas others wish to go with the proven safe carbon intercalation negative electrode. Both currently commercialized technologies use PVdF (a polymer) gelled with conventional solvents and salts, like EC/DMC/DEC. The difference between the two technologies is that one (Bellcore/Telcordia technology) uses LiMn2O4 as the positive electrode, and the other the more conventional LiCoO2. Other, more exotic (although not yet commercially available) Li-polymer batteries use a polymer positive electrode. For example, Moltech is developing a battery with a plastic conducting carbon-sulfur positive electrode. However, as of 2005 this technology seems to have had problems with self-discharge and manufacturing cost.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

25|Page

Yet another proposal is to use organic sulfur-containing compounds for the positive electrode in combination with an electricallyconductive polymer such as polyaniline. This approach promises high power capability (i.e., low internal resistance) and high discharge capacity, but has problems with cycleability and cost.

Electronic speed control An electronic speed control or ESC is an electronic circuit with the purpose to vary an electric motor's speed, its direction and possibly also to act as a dynamic brake. ESCs are often used on electrically powered radio controlled models, with the variety most often used for brushless motors essentially providing an electronically-generated three phase electric power low voltage source of energy for the motor. An ESC can be a stand-alone unit which plugs into the receiver's throttle control channel or incorporated into the receiver itself, as is the case in most toy-grade R/C vehicles. Some R/C manufacturers that install proprietary hobby-grade electronics in their entry-level vehicles, vessels or aircraft use onboard electronics that combine the two on a single circuit board. ESCs designed for radio-control airplanes usually contain a few safety features. If the power coming from the battery is insufficient to continue running the electric motor the ESC will reduce or cut off power to the motor while allowing continued use of ailerons, rudder and elevator function. This allows the pilot to retain control of the plane to glide or fly on low power to safety.

Servo A servomechanism, sometimes shortened to servo, is an automatic device that uses error-sensing negative feedback to correct the performance of a mechanism. The term correctly applies only to systems where the feedback or error-correction signals help control mechanical position, speed or other parameters. A common type of servo provides position control. Servos are commonly electrical or partially electronic in nature, using an electric motor as the primary means of creating mechanical force. Other types of servos use hydraulics, pneumatics, or magnetic principles. Servos operate on the principle of negative feedback, where the control input is compared to the actual position of the mechanical system as measured by some sort of transducer at the output. Any difference between the actual and wanted values (an "error signal") is amplified (and converted) and used to drive the system in the direction necessary to reduce or eliminate the error. This procedure is one widely used application of control theory.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

26|Page

Radio Transmitter and Receiver Specification Receiver：SM-RF601 Receive frequency：35、40、72MHz Control System：Pulse width control (PPM) Power Supply：4.8V ~ 6V Current：Less than 12mA Weight：11.5g Receiver size：37 X 20 X 15(mm)

Transmitter：SM-TF601 Transmission frequency：35、40、72MHz Modulation：FM-PPM Control System：Pulse width control (PPM) Control system：6 channel Power Supply：8 AA Ni-MH/Alkaline batteries Current：Less than 200mA Transmitter size：201 X 192 X 60(mm) FinetuneWay：Mechanical trim

Video Transmitter and Receiver This is the smallest 2.4 GHz Audio/ Video receiver on the market. Fully synthesized this receiver has an SMA connector for different type of antennas 2.4 GHz. It has 4 selectable channels. This receiver works with any TV system. Specifications of transmitter: Battery Operated 3.6-8 volt Video Input 1 Volt Current Consumption 8 Ma

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

27|Page

Smallest Size 0.3" X 0.2" X 0.25" Built In Antenna NTSC, PAL or SECAM TV Systems Video Signal 1V, 75 ohm RF Power Level: 94 dBuV/m@3m Weighs Only 3 Gram Open Wire Video Connection Specifications of receiver: Battery Operated 9-12 Volt Current Consumption 180 Ma Frequency Demodulation Sensitivity -86 dBm Video Outputs 2 12 Selectable Channels Dimensions 2" X 1.2" X 0.7" Size Transmitter .3" X .25" X .2" Receiver 2" X 1.2" X 0.7"

TV tuner card A TV tuner card is a kind of television tuner that allows television signals to be received by a computer. Most TV tuners also function as video capture cards, allowing them to record television programs onto a hard disk much like the digital video recorder (DVR) does. The interfaces for TV tuner cards are most commonly either PCI bus expansion card or the newer PCI Express (PCIe) bus for many modern cards, but PCMCIA, ExpressCard, or USB devices also exist. In addition, some video cards double as TV tuners, notably the ATI All-In-Wonder series. The card contains a tuner and an analog-to-digital converter (collectively known as the analog front end) along with demodulation and interface logic. Some lower-end cards lack an onboard processor and, like a Winmodem, rely on the system's CPU for demodulation.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

28|Page

WORKING PRINCIPLE How birds fly The first thing anyone asks when they see an ornithopter fly is, “How does it work?”. We’ve all wondered the same thing about birds too at one time or another. Since the ornithopter flies like a bird, we can answer both questions at the same time. All flying creatures, and ornithopters too, have a stiff structure that forms the leading edge or front part of the wing. Birds have their wing bones at the leading edge. For insects, the veins of the wing are concentrated there. Ornithopters have a stiff spar at the leading edge. The rest of the wing is more flexible. It needs to be flexible so the wing can change shape as it flaps.

Wings of different animals all have a rigid structure at the front. The rest of the wing is more flexible

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

29|Page

You may be surprised to learn that a bird or ornithopter flies in much the same way as an airplane. The wings produce lift in the same way as an airplane, simply by their forward motion through the air. To understand how this works, let's start with the simple case of gliding flight. Gliding Flight When a bird is just gliding, it moves forward through the air, with its wings held in a fixed position. The wings are at a slight angle, so they deflect the air gently downward. Pushing the air downward causes a reaction force in the opposite direction. You will notice a reaction force, any time you push against anything! The reaction force is called lift. Lift is a force that acts roughly perpendicular to the wing surface and keeps the bird from falling.

In gliding flight, a bird's wings deflect air downward, causing a lift force that holds the bird up in the air.

There is also air resistance or drag on the body and wings of the bird. This force would eventually cause the bird to slow down, and then it wouldn't have enough speed to fly. To make up for this, the bird can lean forward a little and go into a shallow dive. That way, the lift force produced by the wings is angled forward slightly and helps the bird speed up. Really what the bird is doing here is giving up some height in exchange for increased speed.The bird must always lose altitude, relative to the surrounding air, if it is to maintain the forward speed that it needs to keep flying.

By tilting forward and going into a slight dive, the bird can maintain forward speed.

Angle of Attack

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

30|Page

Recall that the wings are angled slightly, which allows them to deflect the air downward and produce lift. The slight angle of the wings is called the angle of attack. If the angle of attack is too great, the wing will produce a lot of drag. If the angle is too small, the wing won't produce enough lift. The best angle depends on the shape of the wing, but it's usually just a few degrees! Notice that what matters is the angle relative to the direction of travel, not relative to the horizon.

The angle of attack determines the amount of lift and drag made by the wing.

The bird wing has a cambered, or curved, cross-section.

The ornithopter wing usually consists of a thin fabric membrane, which curved or cambered shape, when it pushes against the air. Birds have rounded leading edge to help reduce air resistance. The inner part of the the bird's body, is more curved than the outer part. As you read on, see figure out why!

takes on a more of a wing, near if you can

Flapping-Wing Flight Flapping wings work on the same principle as an airplane propeller, except they are moving back and forth. The wings flap with an up-and-down motion, usually. But as the wings move up and down, they are also moving forward through the air along with the rest of the bird. Close to the body, there is very little up and down movement. Farther out toward the wingtips, there is much more vertical motion. As the bird is flapping along, it needs to make sure it has the correct angle of attack all along its wingspan. Since the outer part of the wing moves up and down more steeply than the inner part, the wing has to twist, so that each part of the wing can maintain just the right angle of attack. The wings are flexible, so they twist automatically. This picture shows how the wing must twist in the downstroke, to keep each part of the wing aligned with the local direction of travel. Airplane propellers also have a twisted shape, but their continual rotation means the shape doesn't have to change. As the wing moves downward and twists, the lift force in the outer part of the wing is angled forward. This is what would happen if the whole bird went into a steep dive. However, only the wing is moving downward, not the whole bird. Therefore the bird can generate a large amount of forward propulsive force or thrust, without any loss of altitude.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

The wing twists as shown to maintain the correct angle of attack for the downstroke.

31|Page

The bird's wing produces lift and thrust during the downstroke.

The air is not only deflected downward, but also to the rear. The air is forced backward just as it would be by the propeller of an airplane. You can feel this blast of air when a bird takes off from your hand. If thrust is produced in the downstroke, you might be wondering what happens in the upstroke. Often people have the wrong-headed notion that the upstroke will somehow cancel out the downstroke. But remember, the force produced depends on the angle of attack. It can be controlled. And here is what birds do to make the upstroke more efficient: The outer part of the wing points straight along its line of travel so it can pass through the air with the least possible resistance. In other words, the angle of attack is reduced. Ornithopters do this too. The bird partially folds its wings. This reduces the wingspan and eliminates the draggy outer part of the wing. This is not strictly necessary though. Most insects and most ornithopters lack this capability. The inner part of the wing is different from the outer part. There is little up-and-down movement there, so that part of the wing continues to provide lift just as a result of its forward motion. Only the inner part of the wing produces lift in the upstroke, so the upstroke as a whole offers less lift than the downstroke. As a result, the bird's body will bob up and down slightly as the bird flies.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

The inner part of the wing produces lift, even during the upstroke.

32|Page

The outer part of the wing is angled to pass through the air with little resistance.

So, like an airplane, lift and thrust functions are separated. The outer part of the wing provides thrust. The inner part of the wing produces lift. What you've read so far is a basic description of how birds fly, when they are already up to speed and just cruising along. Birds also have other flying techniques, which they use when taking off or landing, or for other special maneuvers.

Working of a Radio Transmitter and Receiver

Traditional narrow-band RC systems on anywhere from 27MHz to 72MHz are fairly easy to understand because they work just like your regular AM or FM radio - sending out a signal that is picked up by the receiver and then sent to the servos.Unfortunately, just like regular FM broadcast radio, these RC systems require a frequency all to themselves if they're going to avoid interference with each other. What's more, it doesn't take much to disrupt a regular narrow-band signal. A noisy thermostat or electric drill can often cause massive amounts of electrical interference when listening to an AM broadcast and FM isn't always that much better.But manufacturers of spread spectrum (SS) radio systems are claiming that you need never wo rry about being shot down by other fliers and that all 2.4GHz systems can get along in harmony, despite apparently using the same frequencies.

So how can that work?

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

33|Page

Well to explain this, I'm going to use a series of illustrations that I call "the freeway analogy". Using these diagrams and explanations, I will do my best to convey the complex world of spread spectrum in a form that most people can get their brains around. Of course in doing this I've had to take a few liberties with the details but these are not important.

The first and most common type is what we call Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS). This involves the transmitter and receiver staying within a fixed part of the 2.4GHz spectrum.

The second type is called Frequency Hopping Spread Spectru m (FHSS) and involves having the transmitter and receiver constantly changing their operating frequency within the alowed limits of the 2.4GHz band.

At the present time, only Futaba and Airtronics use FHSS, the remainder using DSSS.And right now I can hear you asking "which flavor is best?"... to which I have to say... neither and both.Or, in other words, neither solution is best all the time, there are benefits and drawbacks to both, as you will see. However, it's safe to say that in theory, the Futaba FASST system does give the best of both worlds because it is not only FHSS but also DSSS.But first, let's see how a traditional "narrowband" FM RC set works on frequencies such as 27, 35, 36, 40, 41 or 72MHz.Ever since the first radio control systems for models were built over half a century ago, the technology has been "narrowband".Narrowband refers to the amount of space that signal takes on the spectrum of available frequencies.Today's FM/PCM radio control systems operate on a tiny sliver of space on relatively low frequencies (27, 35, 36, 40, 41 or 72Mhz).This tiny allocation of bandwidth for each RC channel creates a number can be likened to riding a bicycle down a narrow trail and the same problems apply:Firstly, you can't ride very quickly simply because it's such a squeeze to get past the bushes and fences either side of your trail. In radio terms this means you can't send the control information between transmitter and receiver very quickly.Secondly, if you run into another cyclist on that narrow track, chances are that you'll both fall off and get hurt. In radio terms it means that almost any other signal on the narrowband frequency you're using will result in interference (glitches or lock-out).Clearly this isn't the best situation for controling a potentially expensive and sometimes dangerous radio controlled model but, with careful channel management, it has served us well for decades

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

34|Page

Distributed Spread Spectrum (DSS)

Distributed Spread Spectrum radio can be likened to a multi-lane freeway where your car seems to appear at random in different lanes. In fact, it appears and disappears so quickly that it almost appears to exist in all lanes at the same time.In radio terms, the transmitter uses a wide spread of frequencies to send data to the receiver, rather than the very narrow band of frequencies used by the older narrowband RC sets we've seen up until now. So what's the point in spreading yourself so thinly? Well if you stop and think about it, if your "DSS" car encounters another on the freeway, it won't have very much effect. Your own vehicle won't be blocked because it will simply continue past when it suddenly appears in another lane which isn't blocked.In radio terms, a single (or even quite a few) other transmissions won't have much effect on your RC system because they'll only block a tiny amount of the signal being sent. In fact, unless the freeway is almost completely blocked, at least some of the signal from your transmitter will get through to deliver your control inputs to the receiver. Even better, if another DSS transmitter (or even several more) is operating on the same channel, it is also unlikely to interfere because it'll be jumping lanes in a different sequence and at a different rate. So in a DSSS system, the last SS stands for Spread Spectrum and the first two letters stand for Direct Sequence. This relates to the order and frequency at which your vehicle moves between the lanes.

How DSSS Handles Interference? Another way to help you understand how a DSSS system avoids being "shot down" by interference is the battle-field analogy. When an army goes into the modern battlefield, they're usually ordered to "spread out" -- and that's exactly what DSSS does, it spreads your transmitter's signal out over a much wider area than is the case with FM/PCM gear. Just as on the battlefield, it's much harder to kill an enemy when they're spread over a wide front, so it is with a DSSS radio signal. Thechances of any single rifle-shot actually hitting a soldier on the battlefield are significantly reduced when they're widely spaced across the whole front. With DSSS, your radio signal is similarly spread very thinly across the radio spectrum and thus virtually immune to enemy fire, unless that fire is very intense. By comparison, a closely grouped army of men can be decimated in moments by a single mortar shell or burst of machine-gun fire. That would be the equivalent of your

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

35|Page

old RC gear being shot down by interference or another transmitter on the same frequency being turned on while you're flying. So what if someone turns on another DSSS system that uses the same channel you're already on? Well because DSSS spreads your troops so thinly across the battlefield, there's plenty of room for another platoon from a totally different army to run between the ranks without the two colliding. This is why multiple DSSS systems can co-exist on the same channel without interfering. Which radios use DSSS Of the currently available 2.4GHz spread spectrum systems, all use some form of DSSS but others, such as the Spectrum/JR and Futaba FASST systems use other techniques to offer even greater protection from interference. Several other systems that have gained a small following are those from XPS, Assan and iMax. These also use DSSS but appear to have no effective way of coping with the kind of crippling interference that might leave the other systems unaffected.

How do FHSS RC systems work?

Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum radio systems work by constantly hopping between a number of frequencies.If you've just read the description of how DSSS systems work you're probably wondering "what's the difference?" Well, whereas the DSSS system is like a car that repeatedly appears and disappears on various lanes of a freeway, at such a rate that it almost appears to be everywhere at once, a FHSS system effectively sees your car not simply jumping a small distance to a nearby lane, but all the way to a completely new freeway. In radio terms, this means that the frequency sent by the transmitter doesn't just jump around within the chosen operating channel but actually jumps between a whole range of different channels. It can be seen that, at least in theory, the FHSS system should be even more immune to the type of congestion that would cause problems with a DSSS system. That's because although nothing may get through while it was using a very congested freeway, the hop to a less congested one would allow the normal transfer of data to resume. Under normal circumstances a FHSS system hops between a fixed number of channels in a repeating random sequence. When multiple FHSS systems are used together, the random nature of the hopping sequence means it's very unlikely you'll find multiple sets trying to use the same channel (freeway) at the same time.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

36|Page

How FHSSS Handles Interference? In a pure FHSS system, the troops are all closely grouped together as was the case with an old narrowband system but, because they're constantly jumping from battlefield to battle-field, the effect of enemy fire in any particular field is minimal. Imagine that the whole army is teleported onto a battle-field and then, before you realize it, teleported away to another. Clearly this makes a FHSS system a hard target for interference to hit. However, the FHSS systems we're seeing used in radio control systems right now are a blend of both DSSS and FHSS. This means that not only is the signal spread across a whole channel but it also hops continuously from one channel to another. This means that an FHSS system is an incredibly difficult target for any interference to hit -- and when you're flying RC models, that's a very good thing. Which radios use FHSS Right now, only two readily available 2.4GHz spread spectrum radio control systems use FHSS. These are the FASST radios from Futaba and the Airtronics offerings. Basically there are two modes of configuration in a radio transmitter, as shown in the image below.The construction of an ornithopter is almost similar to that of an rc airplane so let me explain few basic structural details. There is a great deal of variety in the shape and configuration of RC airplanes. However, there are basic parts found in most any style plane. Understanding these basics can help you in making a good choice when purchasing your first RC airplane and in learning how to fly them. The parts described here paint the big picture. There is much more detail involved as you dig deeper (or fly higher) into the world of RC airplanes. Nose:Part of the fuselage, the nose is the front of the airplane forward of the wings. Some RC airplanes have a propeller on the nose. This part of the airplane is susceptible to damage in diving crashes. Fuselage: The main body of the airplane. In a real airplane this is where the pilot, passengers, and cargo would be found. The RC electronics (motors, servos, batteries, wiring) are often housed inside the fuselage.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

37|Page

Some RC airplanes have little more than a long stick or rod for a fuselage Wing: Airplanes are called fixed wing aircraft. Attached to the fuselage, the wings don't usually flap or turn. Wings may be straight, curved, flat, rounded, elliptical, triangular (such as Delta wing style, the plane on the right in the illustration), or other shapes. Tail: At the back end of the fuselage, the tail comes in many forms including conventional or T-tail, V-tail, or flat. Propeller: Most RC airplanes have some form of propeller. 2 and 3 blade propellers are common. The propeller is usually affixed to the motor and may be mounted on the nose, tail, or the wings. RC airplanes may have 1, 2, or more propellers. Moveable portions of RC aircraft that, when moved into specific positions, cause the airplane to move in a certain direction is control surfaces. Movements of the sticks on RC airplane transmitters correspond to the different control surfaces available on that model. The transmitter sends signals to the receiver which tells the servos or actuators on the plane how to move the control surfaces. Most RC airplanes have some kind of rudder and elevator control for turning, climbing, and descending. Ailerons are found on many hobby-grade models. In place of moveable control surfaces, some types of RC airplanes may use multiple propellers and differential thrust for maneuvering. It doesn't provide the most realistic flying experience but can be easier to master for novice pilots and children. Elevator: Yes, just like elevators for people the elevators on an RC airplane can take a plane to a higher level. On the tailend of an airplane, hinged control surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer -- the mini-wing at the tail of the plane -- are the elevators. The position of the elevator controls whether the nose of the airplane is pointing up or down and thus moving up or down. The nose of the plane moves in the direction of the elevators. Point the elevator up and the nose goes up and the airplane climbs. Move the elevator so it is pointing down and the nose goes down and the airplane descends.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

38|Page

Not all RC airplanes have elevators. Those type of planes rely on other means such as thrust (power to the motors/propellers) to ascend and descend. The rudder is a hinged control surface on the vertical stabilizer or fin at the tail of an airplane. Moving the rudder affects the left and right movement of the airplane. The airplane turns in the same direction that the rudder is turned. Move the rudder to the left, the plane turns to the left. Move the rudder to the right, the plane turns to the right. Although rudder control is basic to most RC airplanes, a few simple, indoor RC airplanes might have a rudder fixed at an angle so that the plane always flies in a circle. The radio receiver on the ornithopter drives 2 servo motors and an electronic speed controller.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

39|Page

How does a brushless electric motor work? In a typical DC motor, there are permanent magnets on the outside and a spinning armature on the inside. The permanent magnets are stationary, so they are called the stator. The armature rotates, so it is called the rotor. The armature contains an electromagnet. When you run electricity into this electromagnet, it creates a magnetic field in the armature that attracts and repels the magnets in the stator. So the armature spins through 180 degrees. To keep it spinning, you have to change the poles of the electromagnet. The brushes handle this change in polarity. They make contact with two spinning electrodes attached to the armature and flip the magnetic polarity of the electromagnet as it spins. This setup works and is simple and cheap to manufacture, but it has a lot of problems: The brushes eventually wear out. Because the brushes are making/breaking connections, you get sparking and electrical noise. The brushes limit the maximum speed of the motor. Having the electromagnet in the center of the motor makes it harder to cool. The use of brushes puts a limit on how many poles the armature can have. With the advent of cheap computers and power transistors, it became possible to "turn the motor inside out" and eliminate the brushes. In a brushless DC motor (BLDC), you put the permanent magnets on the rotor and you move the electromagnets to the stator. Then you use a computer (connected to high-power transistors) to charge up the electromagnets as the shaft turns. This system has all sorts of advantages: Because a computer controls the motor instead of mechanical brushes, it's more precise. The computer can also factor the speed of the motor into the equation. This makes brushless motors more efficient. There is no sparking and much less electrical noise. There are no brushes to wear out. With the electromagnets on the stator, they are very easy to cool. You can have a lot of electromagnets on the stator for more precise control. The only disadvantage of a brushless motor is its higher initial cost, but you can often recover that cost through the greater efficiency over the life of the motor.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

40|Page

Brushless ESC ESC stands for electronic speed controller. The term is most often used in the remote control industry. High-end RC vehicles utilize a modular design where parts can easily be replaced if they fail, and help with troubleshooting. An ESC is usually an enclosed unit (often just shrink-wrap, as above), with connections for power, output (motor), and input, usually in the form of standard logic-level RC servo pulses, as shown below, with 1->2ms pulses representing 0->100% speed control (or in some designs, full reverse -> stop -> full forward) Brushless ESC systems basically drive tri-phase brushless motors by sending sequence of signals for rotation. Brushless motors, otherwise called outrunners or inrunners, have become very popular with radio controlled airplane hobbyists because of their efficiency, power, longevity and light weight in comparison to traditional brushed motors. However, brushless AC motor controllers are much more complicated than brushed motor controllers. The correct phase varies with the motor rotation, which is to be taken into account by the ESC: Usually, back EMF from the motor is used to detect this rotation, but variations exist that use magnetic (Hall Effect) or optical detectors. Computerprogrammable speed controls generally have user-specified options which allow setting low voltage cut-off limits, timing, acceleration, braking and direction of rotation. Reversing the motor's direction may also be accomplished by switching any two of the three leads from the ESC to the motor.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

41|Page

The center point of the motor is often not provided, but it can be contructed using resistors in parallel connected to each phase, often referred to as the "virtual neutral point" (VNP). This virtual neutral point is simply an average of all 3 voltages present on each motor wire. Below is an oscilloscope waveform showing the voltage on phase A (top), and the voltage of the VNP (bottom).

Phase A (top) and the virtual neutral point (bottom). As you can see, there is a lot of switching noise from PWM. This noise makes the task of detecting the correct zero crossing point even harder. These two waveforms are directed to a comparator, which gives a digital output (0 or 1) depending on which voltage is higher. Combining the two waveforms using an oscilloscope maths function reveals the input to this comparator, as shown below.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

42|Page

Using a maths function to combine the two waveforms This may still look a bit messy, but this waveform will only be sensed during the floating phase, and the slope is mostly straight. By importing the captured values into MATLAB, the output can be changed to 1 when above zero or 0 when below zero, which simulates the comparator output as seen by the microcontroller. The following image is the resulting waveform, zoomed in to show one commutation period.

Virtual neutral voltage compared with floating phase voltage.

The spikes from PWM are very unpredictable, and can sometimes happen before the actual zero crossing event, so the comparator output must be digitally filtered to reconstruct the real zero crossing point as accurately as possible. The implementation of this comparator method is shown below, using an abstract circuit diagram.

Virtual neutral voltage compared with floating phase voltage.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

43|Page

Six step commutation process and back-EMF waveforms. The total commutation cycle encompasses 360 electrical degrees and is broken up into 6 steps, so one commutation period is 60 electrical degrees. At the time of commutation, one of the driven wires is swapped with the floating phase, so each wire is energized for 120 electrical degrees, or 2 commutation periods, as is seen in the figure below.

Successful and accurate detection of the zero crossing point results in smooth, efficient operation of the motor.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

44|Page

How do RC Servos Work? RC servos come in an amazing range of sizes, speeds, strengths, weights, shapes colors and varieties but they all work on the same basic principles.

The job of an RC servo is to position its output arm to a position that exactly corresponds with the movement of the corresponding stick, switch or slider on the transmitter. What's more, it should do this as quickly as possible and provide a high level of accuracy regardless of the effects of aerodynamic loads or other factors. Most servos, regardless of brand or type, consist of several main parts: The mechanics. These are the gears and the case. The motor. This provides the motive force to drive the output arm The feedback pot. This allows the servo to measure the actual position of the output arm The amplifier. This is the electronics that hook all those other bits together to make it work Now let's take a look at those bits in more detail...

The Mechanics Most RC servos have a plastic case, the top section of which contains a set of gears that can be either plastic or metal. The strength and rigidity of these mechanics play a significant role in determining the robustness and weight of the servo, with metal gears usually being significantly stronger (and heavier) than plastic. The choice of gear material depends very much on the type and size of model in which the servo will be used. Generally speaking, plastic gears are only suited to models up to 5-6 lbs in weight.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

45|Page

Bearings The output shaft and gear of a servo experiences significant side-loading during its operation and this means it needs some kind of support to stop it from moving out of mesh with the rest of the gears. Cheap servos tend to simply rely on the plastic shaft rubbing against the plastic of the case and for small/slow models this isn't too much of a problem. These servos are often called 'bushed" and, because there has to be some clearance between the shaft and the case, usually demonstrate some side-to-side slop in the output shaft, which can appear as a degree of rocking up and down of the output arm. However, precision and hi-torque servos really do benefit from the addition of a ballbearing or two on the output shaft. This significantly reduces the friction, virtually eliminates wear and means there should be no slop at all in the output shaft. Good servos have a single bearing (usually in the top of the case) while even better servos have two bearings -- one in the case and one at the bottom of the output shaft.

The Motor There are basically three different types of motors used in model servos, the most common of which is a brushed motor with three or five-pole armature. The benefit of these motors is their low cost and robustness. The downside is that, because of their heavy iron armature, they tend to respond more slowly.

The second most common type is the coreless motor which, as suggests, does not have an iron-cored armature but instead has a lightweight plastic armature on which the field windings are formed. This has the advantage of being able to start and stop far more quickly (due to its low mass) and also produce more torque -- since the diameter of the windings is much greater than with a cored motor. Because they cost more to manufacture, coreless motors are usually only found in expensive servos designed for very fast transit times (such as used on helitail rotors).

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

46|Page

The final motor type is the brushless variety being offered in just a few servo models from big-names like Futaba. The brushless motor can be designed to provide very high levels of torque and has no brushes to wear out. Servos with brushless motors are few and far-between right now though because of the costs involved.

Pots and Amplifiers Inside every servo is a tiny circuit board that contains a bunch of components. It is the job of this circuit (which is called an amplifier) to convert the signal from the receiver into a signal that drives the servo's motor to position the output arm to the requested position. Way-back, when proportional RC gear was first developed, there was only one kind of servo amplifier: the analog amp, but today we also have digital versions.

Standard/analog Servo Amplifiers Modern receivers send a series of pulses to each servo. Those pulses vary in width from about 1 thousandth of a second (1mS) to two thousandths of a second (2mS) -with the center-point being around 1.5mS. These pulses are sent at a rate of about 50 per second and every time a pulse arrives in a standard/analog servo, the amplifier checks to see if the servo's output arm needs to be moved one way or the other. If the amplifier decides that the servo arm does need moving because the transmitter stick has been moved then it sends a short burst of power to the motor in order to rotate the gears and (ultimately) the output. For most applications, this works just fine but since the servo motor isn't being driven continuously (only for a moment every time a new pulse is sent from the receiver), the full torque potential and speed of the servo isn't fully realized. Another issue with standard servos is that the torque tends to drop off quite dramatically as the difference between the requested position and actual position of the output arm gets smaller. In fact, when this difference is very small, the torque of the servo be insufficient to move the arm against a slightly binding linkage and the result will be a buzzing noise.

Digital Servo Amplifiers Since the standard/analog servo amp was designed, electronics have moved on significantly and now manufacturers can put tiny computer chips called microcontrollers in servos. These little computers can provide significantly improved speed, torque and accuracy. They do this by allowing the servo's motor to be driven far more frequently than was the case before. Instead of only driving the motor each time a pulse arrives from the receiver (a mere 50 times per second), they effectively remember the length of the pulse and then drive

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

47|Page

the motor almost continuously (or at a much higher frequency). The result is that the motor produces more torque and can accelerate/stop more quickly. Digital servos are often easily identified when running because of the different sound they make as a result of this increased motor-drive. Hitec digitals will "sing" at a high frequency and some others like Futaba and JR will "growl".

Feedback Pots So how does a servo know exactly where its output arm is so that it can command the motor to move it to the position commanded by the transmitter stick? Well that's the job of the feedback potentiometer ("pot" for short). The pot is just a tiny version of the volume control knob on older-type radios and TV sets. It's a variable resistor which can be used to create a voltage that changes as the servo's output arm moves. That voltage can then be used by the servo amp to work out the exact position of the arm and decide whether it needs moving and if so, which way to drive the motor. Good servos use high quality pots, cheap servos tend to use inferior ones and the quality of the feedback pot is very important to the accuracy and reliability of a servo. When a pot becomes worn or dirty, the servo can jitter and become erratic in movement. Cheap pots may also be adversely affected by highvibration environments.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

48|Page

How the brushless motors work? The trick of operation in BLDC motors is the Hall sensor that is attached to the stator. It faces the magnets perpendicularly and can distinguish if the North or South pole is in front of it. The following image shows this Hall senor. The photo is taken from a PC fan (yes, PC fans do have BLDCs!): The Hall sensor is this little component under the right electromagnet. When it senses the South pole, it keeps the coils turned off. When the sensor senses no magnetic field (or could be also the South pole), then it turns on the coils. The coils have both the same magnetic polarity which is North. So they pull the opposite pole and torque is then created.

If you put a probe to the Hall sensor and watch the signal, then you will discover that during a full rotation of the rotor, the Hall sensor is two times HIGH and two times LOW. The waveform on oscilloscope would be like this one:

Yet another great advantage for the brushless motors. This very signal that is used to control the coils, can be used as is for measuring the speed of the motor! It can also be used to see if the motor is functional or not! Actually, this signal is exactly the one that comes out from the third wire from the PC fans that have 3 (or 4 wires)! These fans do not have any extra circuitry to measure the speed of the motor. They use the signal from the Hall sensor. Each revolution will generate 2 pulses. With a simple frequency measuring circuitry, someone can measure precisely the rpm of the motor Yet another variation of the brushless motors. Using a Hall sensor will result in an increase of the overall price of the motor. Moreover, there are situations that a sensor cannot be used, as for example in submersible pumps, or in applications where the wiring must be kept to minimum. In such applications, the sensorless BLDC can be used instead. The operation of such motor is based on the BEMF effect. The BEMF (Back Electro-Magnetic Force) is inducted by the movement of a permanent magnet in front of a stator coil.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

49|Page

There are two problems that must be solved for the proper operation of the motor. First of all, the rotation direction. As no sensor is used, the controller cannot know where the rotor is stopped at any time. Thus, the rotation direction that the motor will start is -at least for the first degrees of rotation- coin toss. The other problem is the zero detection. The controller does not know when to change the polarity of the coils, as there is no sensor to sense when the permanent magnet pole crosses a specific point. There are special designed controller chips to solve these problems. The chips will use the characteristics of the BEMF and the voltage generated on the coils from the BEMF effect. For example, the current produced on a coil due to BEMF will change its polarity, if the rotation of the permanent magnet is changed. Also, the amplitude of the produced waveform is proportional to the speed of the rotors, and the phase of the waveform depends on the position of the permanent magnet in respect to the coil. Yet, this is not the proper article to discuss about sensorless BLDCs in details.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

50|Page

Gear Mechanism Spur gears or straight-cut gears are the simplest type of gear. They consist of a cylinder or disk with the teeth projecting radially, and although they are not straight-sided in form, the edge of each tooth is straight and aligned parallel to the axis of rotation. These gears can be meshed together correctly only if they are fitted to parallel shafts. The brushless motor will be rotating at 5500 RPM And hence 91.6666 Rotations per second. There fore to get an output of 5 rotations per second which is the expected flapping

frequency of our model we must set the gear ratio to 18:1 i.e. for every 18 rotations of the driver gear the driven gear must rotate once, but practically this isn’t possible using 2 gears and hence we use a combination of 4 gear to get a net ratio of 18:1, this combination is called as compound gear.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

51|Page

Crank (mechanism) The displacement of the end of the connecting rod is approximately proportional to the cosine of the angle of rotation of the crank, when it is measured from top dead center (TDC). So the reciprocating motion created by a steadily rotating crank and connecting rod is approximately simple harmonic motion:

where x is the distance of the end of the connecting rod from the crank axle, l is the length of the connecting rod, r is the length of the crank, and α is the angle of the crank measured from top dead center (TDC). Technically, the reciprocating motion of the connecting rod departs slightly from sinusoidal motion due to the changing angle of the connecting rod during the cycle. This difference becomes significant in high-speed engines, which may need balance shafts to reduce the vibration due to this "secondary harmonic imbalance". The mechanical advantage of a crank, the ratio between the force on the connecting rod and the torque on the shaft, varies throughout the crank's cycle. The relationship between the two is approximately: where the torque and F isis the force on the connecting rod. For a given force on the crank, the torque is maximum at crank angles of α = 90° or 270° from TDC. When the crank is driven by the connecting rod, a problem arises when the crank is at top dead centre (0°) or bottom dead centre (180°). At these points in the crank's cycle, a force on the connecting rod causes no torque on the crank. Therefore if the crank is stationary and happens to be at one of these two points, it cannot be started moving by the connecting rod. For this reason, in steam locomotives, whose wheels are driven by cranks, the two connecting rods are attached to the wheels at points 90° apart, so that regardless of the position of the wheels when the engine starts, at least one connecting rod will be able to exert torque to start the train. The crank shaft, connecting rods, pivot and fulcrum together form the wings and wing actuating mechanism of the ornithopter.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

52|Page

Wireless 2.4 GHz Camera The Camera sees the image, the camera then provides the video to the transmitter, and then the transmitter sends the wireless signal to the receiver. There are many types of wireless cameras. You can make most any camera wireless by adding a wireless transmitter and receiver. The camera and transmitter require power. The power is provided by battery and/ or transformer / adapter. The complete wiring for the wireless camera and transmitter end follows. As you can see The camera and transmitter both need power. The camera sees an image, sends it to the transmitter, and the transmitter sends the signal out to the air. The receiver picks up the signal and outputs it to a TV / Computer / Digital Video recorder/ This is a basic diagram many wireless cameras and transmitters are very small and the power is provided to both from one source. A good example of this is an Hidden wireless camera. IE: A clock radio wireless camera is powered by plugging in the clock. The camera and wireless transmitter are provided power by the clock radio internally. A wireless receiver has only one function. After the camera and wireless transmitters have provided the wireless video signal the receiver collects this signal and routes it the Monitor, TV, VCR , DVR or PC (or alternative recording or viewing device). See diagram 2 . As you can see in Diagram 2 The receiver accepts the wireless transmitters signal and then out puts it to your TV, VCR, Monitor or PC. The receiver needs only power and a Device to view and or record the Signal /Video.The video received by the receiver is then fed to a local personal computer, using an usbtv stick which converts the analog tv signals into process able digital signal, these signals are then used by a local tool which will detect motion and specific object/shape like a bomb or so, and will save snapshots of face detected, no much information about the tool can be provided as it’s an third party application and can be downloaded using the link in the reference section.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

53|Page

Cost analysis SL NO

COMPONENT

QUANTITY

COST

1

Carbon fiber rods

1mmX1mtr

1500.00

2

Mylar sheet

1sq mtr

5.00

3

Coro sheet

1sq feet

50.00

4

Servos

9grmX2

1500.00

5

ESC

1

900.00

6

Brushless Motor

2200kvX1

2000.00

7

Radio Transmitter 2.4Ghz

4chX1

7000.00

8

Radio Receiver 2.4Ghz

6chX1

2000.00

9

Video Transmitter/Receiver

1,1

10000.00

10

USB AV Stick

1

1500.00

11

Gear Cutting

-

500.00

12

CNC cutting charges

-

1000.00

13

Labor Charges

-

3000.00

14

Travelling Charge

-

6000.00

15

Li-Po Battery

1

2500.00

16

Balance Charger

1

1000.00

17

Booster Dish Antenna

1

700.00

18

Internet Charges & Other Miscellaneous Charges

-

6000.00

Total

Aproxx Estimate

46655.00 INR

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

54|Page

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

As stated earlier our design has numerous advantages, but on the other hand there are a few disadvantages too..a few are listed bellow,

Advantages.             

Ultra light weight only 200 grams. Sleek design Highly durable structure. Strong structure made up of carbon fiber. Can take a lot of damage. Heavy duty motor. 15 mins endurance. Video transmission up to 250 mtrs. Radio control up to 1000mtrs. Real time video processing. Face and Motion detection. Radar avoiding capabilities. No storage only transmission, so enemy won’t get any data even if they capture it.

Disadvantages.     

Slow flight, Low video quality Only 10 gram payload Only 15 mins flight time Low range 1000mtrs compared to other uav.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

55|Page

APPLICATION



Military: Can be used in military for surveillance and reconnaissance, as it can camouflage itself as a bird low altitude surveillance is possible without any problem of detection, and it is also invisible to the radar, because of absorbing capabilities of the carbon body.



Bionic Research: Research and development in bionic robotic industry in an attempt to recreate nature identical robot, for more efficient and innovative way of flying.



Weather Forecast: Can be fitted with weather measuring instruments like temperature sensors, pressure sensors, Humidity sensors, etc and can get low altitude weather information within seconds, and can be broadcasted locally.



Air Traffic Control: Flocks of birds are a hazard at airports, sometimes causing planes to crash. Build a radio-controlled ornithopter that looks like a peregrine falcon. We can use it to chase away flocks of geese or seagulls that may appear on the runway. This method is far more eco-friendly than the current method in which High frequency ultra sound waves are used to scare away birds, which sometimes damage the inner ear of the bird.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

56|Page

FUTURE ADVANCEMENTS

Further modification of our design is endless, we can add a gps device onboard and can develop a autonomous piloting system, for automatic navigation, the overall quality of our model can be increased to get a flight time of 45 mins and a better battery can be place instead of the default battery package to increase the endurance, another camera can be added to get both vertical and horizontal view, it is also possible for us to increase the size of our design for manned flight, but the only limitation is funding.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

57|Page

CONCLUSION

Our design currently holds the record for the longest wingspan of an ornithopter in India with 125 cms from oct 2012 till then the ornithopter made by students of MIT, Manipal held the record with 100 cms and hence we conclude that our design is one of the most efficient flight mechanism ever incorporated in any UAV’s and hopefully some private or government organization eyes catch our project idea in the next two or three years and come forward to fund us,

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

58|Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Joseph Needham and Ling Wang, Science and civilisation in China: Physics and physical technology. Mechanical engineering, Volume 4, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, 1965, p. 588. 2. White, Lynn. "Eilmer of Malmesbury, an Eleventh Century Aviator: A Case Study of Technological Innovation, Its Context and Tradition." Technology and Culture, Volume 2, Issue 2, 1961, pp. 97–111 (97–99 resp. 100–101). 3. W. Hudson Shaw and Olaf Ruhen. 1977. Lawrence Hargrave: Explorer, Inventor & Aviation Experimenter. Cassell Australia Ltd. p. 53. 4. W. Hudson Shaw and Olaf Ruhen. 1977. Lawrence Hargrave: Explorer, Inventor & Aviation Experimenter. Cassell Australia Ltd. pp. 53–160. 5. Kelly, Maurice. 2006. Steam in the Air. Ben & Sword Books. Pages 49–55 are about Frost. 6. Rubber Band Powered Ornithopters at Ornithopter Zone web site 7. Bruno Lange, Typenhandbuch der deutschenLuftfahrttechnik, Koblenz, 1986. 8. FAI web site. 9. Dr. James DeLaurier's report on the Flapper's Flight July 8, 2006 10. University of Toronto ornithopter takes off July 31, 2006 11. Human-Powered Ornithoper Flight in Flapping Wings: The Ornithopter Zone Newsletter, Fall 2010. 12. Human-Powered Ornithopter Project 13. Anderson, Ian (10 October 1985), "Winged lizard takes to the air of California", New Scientist (No.1477): 31, 14. MacCready, Paul (November 1985), "The Great Pterodactyl Project", Engineering & Science: 18–24, 15. Schefter, Jim (March 1986), "Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird, it's a plane it's a pterodactyl", Popular Science: 78–79, 124, 16. Winged robot learns to fly New Scientist, August 2002 17. Creation of a learning, flying robot by means of Evolution In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2002 (pp. 1279–1285). New York, 9–13 July 2002. Morgan Kaufmann. Awarded "Best Paper in Evolutionary Robotics" at GECCO 2002. 18. Article in Dutch newspaper Trouw, partial translation:..."The so-called 'Horck', an electrical controllable bird is the newest means to scare birds. Because they can cause much damage to airplanes. (...) ...it is a design by Robert Musters, a falconer from Enschede" 19. FLYING HIGH: Bird Man". Scientific American Frontiers Archive. 20. T.J. Mueller and J.D. DeLaurier, "An Overview of Micro Air Vehicle Aerodynamics", Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle Applications, Paul Zarchan, Editor-in-Chief, Volume 195, AIAA, 2001 21. a b "An Ornithopter Wing Design" DeLaurier, James D. (1994), 10–18 22. a b "Aeroelastic Design and Manufacture of an Efficient Ornithopter Wing" Benedict, Moble. 3–4.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

59|Page

23. "The development of an efficient ornithopter wing" DeLaurier, J.D. (1993), 152–162 (accessed February 25, 2013) 24. "The development of an efficient ornithopter wing" DeLaurier, J.D. (1993), 152–162, (accessed November 30, 2012) 25. Warrick, Douglas, Bret Tobalske, Donald Powers, and Michael Dickinson. "The Aerodynamics of Hummingbird Flight". American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1–5. Web. 30 Nov 2010. 26. Liger, Matthieu, Nick Pornsin-Sirirak, Yu-Chong Tai, Steve Ho, and ChihMing Ho. "Large-Area Electrostatic-Valved Skins for Adaptive Flow Control on Ornithopter Wings" (2002): 247–250. 27. DeLaurier, James D. "An Ornithopter Wing Design" 40. 1 (1994), 10–18, 28. Chronister, Nathan. (1999). TheOrnithopter Design Manual. Published by The Ornithopter Zone 29. Mueller, Thomas J. (2001). "Fixed and flapping wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicle applications". Virginia: American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 30. Anderson, John D. A history of aerodynamics and its impact on flying machines. Cambridge: United Kingdom, 1997.

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

PHOTOGRAPHS

Tools Used

Tail Section

60|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

LiPo Battery

2.4Ghz Radio 6 chReciever

61|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

9gram nylon gear servo

fuselage

62|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

Brushless out runner motor inside view

Electronics arranged as it is to be fixed

63|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

front view

right view

64|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

left view

wireless camera

65|Page

Phoenix Unmanned Ariel Vehicle System

Graphical User Interface

66|Page