Status and Challenges on Design and Implementation of Camber Morphing Mechanisms

Table 1

Comparison between a conventional wing and a morphing wing aircraft.

	Conventional wing aircraft	Morphing wing aircraft
Morphing devices or mechanisms	Control surfaces: slats, slotted flaps, winglets, retractable landing gear [2]	Leading edge (LE); Trailing edge (TE); Global (LE+TE)
Features	Discrete, hinged, jointed	Continuous, flexible, elastic, jointless
Cons	(i) More drag [3]; (ii) Flow separation; (iii) Airframe noise [4]	(i) Overconsumption of power [5]; (ii) Practicality of smart materials; (iii) Mostly applied to small aircrafts; (iv) Scalability (extending UAV to long range aircraft); (v) Aeroelastic complexities due to higher degree of freedom associated with morphing
Pros	(i) Reliability; (ii) functionality	(i) Minimized flow separation; (ii) Improved lift/drag; (iii) Increased range [6]; (iv) Reduced fuel consumption; (v) Reduced airframe noise [7]; (vi) Drag minimization; (vii) Expanded operational envelope; (viii) Multifunctional; (ix) No weight penalties of control surfaces; (x) Reduced assembly complexities and costs that otherwise from control surface deployment mechanisms