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