MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY
Daniel Chabolla, Sean Gowen, Aimee Kim, Michael Lo, Wenbin Zhao
May 7, 2013

1|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................... 3
OVERALL DESIGN........................................................................................................... 4
TESTING/PROTOTYPING RESULTS............................................................................... 8
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS/LESSONS LEARNED..................................................... 12
REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE...................................................................................... 14
COST.................................................................................................................................. 15

2|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

PROJECT OVERVIEW

An ornithopter is a flying machine which uses flapping wings for propulsion. Due to the close
resemblance to insects and birds in both their physical and flight characteristics, ornithopters have been
developed for clandestine surveillance as well as to study the aerodynamics of flapping wings. At the
request of Dr.Howard Hu, the team has decided to design and build the smallest ornithopter possible from
the ground up. Dr.Hu is interested in the study and manipulation of wing tip vortices which only have
significant relevance at small scales. Furthermore, Dr. Hu would like an ornithopter for recreational
purposes.
According to the requirements of the teams customer, the ornithopter should be a maximum of 10
inches in wingspan and be able to operate at normal building altitudes of the University of Pennsylvania at
standard room temperature and pressure. Additionally, the ornithopter should be able to produce level
flight for at least one minute.
An additional goal which the team set for itself was to have the ornithopter feature at least rudder
and throttle control. These control features were not required by the customer.
While there are a few ornithopters on the market at 10 inch wingspan, Dr. Hu wanted a freely
customizable model that he could easily change in his lab using the tools available at UPenn.

3|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

OVERALL DESIGN
FLAPPING MECHANISM:
The team focused on constructing a 2-winged ornithopter. Flapping is achieved through the drivetrain
illustrated below:

Two acrylic plates (4), held together by a 0.09 diameter carbon fiber rod, house the DC motor (6). The
motor used in the model is a 30:1 High Power Brushed DC Gearmotor purchased from Pololu. The carbon
fiber extends beyond the gearbox of the motor where it interfaces with the flapping mechanism bracket
(5). The wing actuator component (1) pivots about front plane of the flapping mechanism bracket (5).
The wing actuator component (1) interfaces with the connecting rod (2) which in turn interfaces with the
motor coupler component (3). The motor coupler component (3) is directly attached to the D-shaft of the
DC motor. Two Lithium-Polymer cells, capable of providing a nominal 3.7V each (for a series total of
7.4V), provide the onboard power necessary to operate the DC motor.
When a voltage is applied between the two terminals of the DC motor, the shaft of the motor spins. This in
turn causes the motor coupler component to rotate. As the motor coupler rotates the end of the
connecting rod interfacing with the wing actuator components moves in a vertical fashion. This motion in
turn causes the wing actuator to pivot about a point which induces the flapping motion that results in flight.

4|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

MOTOR SELECTION
Typically two types of motors are utilized to operate an ornithopter: DC pager motors and
brushless DC motors. Regardless of motor choice, a gearbox is required and the team did not have
sufficient equipment for fabricating the gearbox. Pre-fabricated gearboxes available online did not feature
the necessary gear ratios or were too heavy. Therefore, the team decided to work with Pololu High Power
Gearmotor, which featured integrated, lightweight gearboxes at the appropriate gear ratios. Currently
there is no ornithopter in existence that makes use of brushed DC motors.

ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLLER:

A microcontroller onboard a hand-held controller communicates via the nRF24LE1 wireless module to
issue commands to the on-board ornithopter microcontroller. The packet structure features a start packet
followed by two 8-bit numbers signifying the voltage to be supplied to the motor and electromagnetic
actuator. The user is able to control the control number values by manipulating two joysticks which
produce a varying voltage that is sampled by the microcontroller on the hand-held.
On-board the ornithopter is a wireless receiver which receives signals from the users handheld
transmitter. The packets received are read by the on-board microcontroller. The microcontroller
determines how much voltage to supply to the motor and actuator and regulates these voltages through
means of pulse width modulation (PWM) signals that is essentially buffered by a half-bridge. The rate at
which the wings flap is dictated by the rate at which the motor shaft rotates, which is proportional to the
voltage applied to the motor.

5|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

CONTROL SURFACES:
It is important to note that the only control surface on the ornithopter is a rudder. The rudder was
fabricated from 1/16 balsa wood and actuation was achieved using an electromagnetic coil. The position
and area of the control surface was determined through test flights. Elevation control was achieved by
altering the flap rate of the ornithopter, which it turn altered thrust produced and moment generated. A
faster flapping rate would result in climb while a smaller flapping rate would result in the descending of the
ornithopter.
An image of rudder design with implemented magnetic actuator follows:

WINGS:
Fixed to the wing actuator components were carbon fiber rods of 0.025 diameter. The rods functioned as
the main structural member for the wing. Tissue paper wings were fabricated using a wing template to
achieve consistency in fabrication, and were attached to the carbon fiber rods using adhesive. Tissue
paper material for wing fabrication was attractive because of its low weight and its deformation properties,
which resulted in larger thrust generation. To improve lift performance carbon fiber struts were added to
wing to stiffen the material.

6|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

TAIL:
Unlike the rudder, the tail was set in a fixed position. It was fabricated from three carbon fiber rods,
laminate, and balsa wood. As with the wings, the carbon fiber rods provided structural members on which
the laminate rested. The three carbon fiber rods interfaced with a balsa assembly that is presented in the
image below. The balsa assembly interfaced with the 0.09 carbon fiber rod (main body rod). Trimming of
the ornithopter was achieved by varying the angle of the middle balsa brackets of the tail angle adjuster.
This angle was changed before each flight test to find an optimal angle.

7|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

TESTING/PROTOTYPING RESULTS
BEFORE MIDREPORT:
Previous Tests:
The team completed multiple flight tests in the lobby of the Levine building. Precautions were taken
so that when the ornithopter landed, no parts were broken. This was done by having team members catch
the ornithopter. Many ornithopter components were laser cut multiple times in order to ensure that quick
fixes could be made during the testing process in the case of any breakages.
The teams initial test of was of the original acrylic model with a single laminate wing without a
vertical stabilizer. In the video (Test 1) the ornithopter flew a couple feet then drastically veered to the right
and fell. Around 5-7 attempts were made and all had the same conclusion, a vertical stabilizer was
needed so the ornithopter flew straight and the weight needed to be reduced.
Test 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkihjml_GW4
The second flight test (Test 2) consisted of the same model as the previous test but included a
vertical stabilizer fabricated from laminate and 2 thin carbon fiber rods as support and parts were made
from 1/16 acrylic. The results of this test were significantly better. The ornithopter flew straighter and
further than in the first field test. In order to get this model to fly further and more level the team worked
toward reducing the weight as well as increasing the force produced by the wings.
Test 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRnKT1msB4
The third flight test (Test 3) addressed the ornithopter weight problem by attempting to use a
double layer of tissue. This change was made on the test 2 model. Although the weight was slightly
reduced, the tissue paper did not produce enough lift. This prototype failed to provide stability which
caused the ornithopter to drift off in different directions.
Test 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2slzwaJ55AA
The fourth test (Test 4) addressed the lack of force issue by attempting to use a double layer of
laminate in hopes of creating a stronger thrust and greater stability. Multiple tests were run and it was
concluded that double layered laminate wings was the least effective material of all the materials the team
tested. The videos of the flights showed definitely lack of force and stability. Even with the vertical
stabilizer the ornithopter did not fly straight. The material was too stiff and did not allow enough motion to
create thrust upward and downward.
Test 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXiYeBI1loI

8|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

AFTER MIDREPORT:
The test stand, shown in the photo below, provided the means to compare the performance of
different wing materials and designs in thrust generation. The test stand was composed of an L-shaped
beam pivoting about an aluminum rod inserted through the trapezoidal stand.
The initial design was to mount the ornithopter directly on top of the L-beam with the bottom of the
L-beam resting on a scale. The idea was to determine exact thrust by measuring the reaction force on the
scale caused by the thrust generatedbecause the L-beam would be static the thrust-moment and scalemoment would be equal. However, a consistent reading on the scale could not be achieved due to the
vibration caused by the flapping wings.
To resolve this problem, the team decoupled the measuring system from the flapping system. As
shown in the figure, the ornithopter was attached to a fixed stand next to the L-beam. A plate of laminate
sheet was attached to the top of the L-beam to catch the wind produced from the flapping. As the thrust
hit the laminate cover, it created a moment on the L-beam, pushing the bottom of the L-beam onto the
scale. Multiple trials were conducted in order to ensure consistent readings. Although this method could
only measure relative thrust, the results were repeatable.

Once the team was confident in the effectiveness of the test stand, it was used to determine the most
desirable set of parameters for thrust generation, specifically the flapping range, wing material and wing
design. Wings of different materials were flapped at the same voltage and wings made of tissue paper
9|Page

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

produced the most thrust of the materials tested, as shown in the figure below. This result differed from
the previous conclusion that laminate was the best material for wings. Slow motion video showed that the
tissue paper deformed much more fluidly than the laminate which may have contributed to its efficiency in
thrust generation.
Flights tests showed, however, that a wing composed of plain tissue paper was not rigid enough to
generate sufficient lift force at the applicable velocities since it featured too much give. It was clear that
reinforcement was needed to provide the rigidity for the tissue paper. Thin carbon fiber rods were an
obvious choice since they were relatively strong and light. The team experimented with various
arrangements of carbon fiber rods on the wing. The wing design as shown previously produced the most
thrust while still capable of sustaining level flight. Test stand results showed that carbon fiber stiffeners did
not significantly vary the thrust characteristics of the flapping wing.

The team also experimented with various lengths of the motor coupler to determine the best flapping
range. As indicated in the figure below, the thrust output is nearly linearly proportional to the length of the
motor coupler. However, a motor coupler which was too long created instability in the flight of the
ornithopter by making the average wing position anhedral. The team chose the longest motor coupler
which maintained a dihedral configuration.

10 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

The optimal components found from these tests were incorporated into the final design. As evident
in flight Test 5, the ornithopter exhibited high lift potential. Afterwards, the team introduced the on-board
electronics for controlled flight. The added 12 grams from the electronics proved too heavy for this
prototype. To resolve this issue, the team increased the wingspan to 18. At this size, thrust control was
achieved. However, yaw control required a more powerful actuator than the one the team possessed.
Level flight with on-board electronics can be viewed in the Test 6 video linked below.
Test 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16VXJRbaMM&feature=youtu.be
Test 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMnAx2E6xg&feature=youtu.be

11 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS/LESSONS
LEARNED
Problems - Wingspan and Lack of Literature
Currently, there is no definitive literature on thrust generation from flapping wings and none of the
faculty has had any experience studying ornithopters. This resulted in a lot of guess and check work as
well as time spent in iterative development based on empirical results. Simple aerodynamic wing and
propellor theory was used to guide progress but never matched up adequately to test results.
A task in which lack of theory proved especially problematic was motor selection. During most of
the project, the group was in the dark as to which motor would be most appropriate for the ornithopter and
designing flapping mechanism around different motors was time consuming. Only through extensive
testing did the team finally arrive upon the Pololu Micro Gearmotor, which is not typically used to power
aircraft, as the final selection.
Once the team designed a prototype that produced adequate thrust, the 10 inch wingspan
requirement was next to cause problems for the team. At such a scale, careful machining and
manufacturing is required as even small discrepancies in each wing can cause huge differences in flight
characteristics and stability.

Lessons Learned - Parallel Path Approach, Setting Feasible Goals, and Lead-Time Management
The team had most success approaching the project on parallel paths--with one team focusing on
robust design and the other on weight reduction. It seemed that when one team encountered difficulty, the
other would find success. The most difficult part of this process, however, is knowing when to reconvene
and work together. The process thrives, to some degree, on competition to drive individual paths, yet
excessive competition and stubbornness can cause a delay or failure in the reintegration process.
The team originally set out to make a hovering ornithopter with the knowledge that it took
Aerovironment 4.5 years with full time engineers and incredible amounts of funding to accomplish such a
feat. The group questioned all the current methods of building ornithopters and attempted to innovate on
every front. Many of these ideas had to be dropped due to lack of time or simply because they were not
feasible and, in the end, the group had to rush to design a functional ornithopter. Also, it should be noted
that a previous senior design group that had tried to make an uncontrolled ornithopter and failed to make
it fly at all, which should have been an indication to the current team exactly how difficult it is to fly with
flapping wings at all.
The group also learned the importance of factoring in lead-time for purchasing parts. This lesson
has significant importance moving forward because we will most likely deal with purchasing procedures in
our future careers. These procedures, such as submitting purchase orders for approval, will add lead time
to part delivery. This will affect the scheduling for deliverables on future projects.
Future Improvements/Changes
Given greater funds, the team would have been able to purchase micro-machined gearboxes
allowing the use of light, high-efficiency coreless 6-7mm motors or even high-efficiency, expensive
12 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

Maxxon motors. Alternatively, had there been more time, the team could have produced a high efficiency,
light gearbox out of thin acrylic, bushings, and low module gears. Using these alternate gearboxes would
have allowed for greater thrust generation and more robust flight.
With more time the team would have been able to professionally make the finalized PCBs, which
would allow for more robust mechanical interface between the electronics and main frame--a step
necessary to stabilize the ornithopter.
The team would have liked to design a protective structure to encapsulate the flapping mechanism,
preventing various components from breaking when the ornithopter impacts the ground. This would save
tremendous amount of time spent laser cutting parts, disassembling the broken ornithopter and
reassembling. This could drastically reduce up to an hour in downtime between test flights. Using ABS
instead of acrylic may also have made the flapping mechanism less brittle and prone to breakage.
The team would have had professionals manufacture the wings as the team had clearly reached
the fullest potential of hand manufacturing. Professional manufacturing would most likely stabilize the
ornithopter as the lift on either wing would be nearly identical and the dihedral configuration would be able
to compensate for the minute amount of roll instability remaining.
Finally, the team would have begun sourcing carbon fiber rods from BP Hobbies in New Jersey
rather than DragonPlate in California, which would allow for more rapid prototyping because of a twoweek reduction in lead-time.
Overall, the team believes that, with a couple more weeks, it could have fixed the instability
problem simply by using more careful and time-consuming manufacturing techniques and methods.

13 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE
Customer Requirements:
Three functional requirements were set forth by Dr. Howard Hu at the opening of the project:
1) Maximum 10 wingspan
2) Minimum 1 minute flight time
3) The ornithopter should operate at normal Penn building altitudes
The team designed a model with a 10 inch wingspan that achieved level flight for about 50 feet (as
seen in our testing/prototyping video). The lithium-polymer batteries that were purchased did allow for
more than a minute of continuous flapping. This is known because the 160mAh batteries would be able to
provide 6 minutes of power at the 1.6A stall (max) current draw of the system, and the motor drew about
half that amount during flight.
Team Goals:
1) Yaw Control
2) Thrust Control
The team set the two personal goals stated above. Yaw control was achieved by using an
electromagnetic actuator attached to the rudder. Although the team could not demonstrate the rudder
control in the final test due to broken leads, the group tested the functionality of the electromagnetic
actuator prior to the breakage. The team was able to manipulate the rudder using the wireless controller.
Thrust control was achieved by PWM signals generated by a microcontroller. During the final
presentation and in test videos, the team was able to demonstrate how the thrust could be varied using
the joystick on the wireless controller.
Unfortunately the ornithopter faced issues with stability mainly due to limits of manufacturing
accuracy. Should the project have continued, the group would have worked on improving manufacturing
techniques or, more likely, had wings made by professional manufacturing companies.

14 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

COSTS
Company

Description

Amount

Radical RC 34756

Pinion Gears

$12.00

Dragonplate 15915

Carbon Fiber

$45.50

Ebay - ZHANGZIXING2008

Universal Joints

$43.96

McMaster Carr PO 291727

M2 screws, aluminum rods

$14.84

Reliance Precision

Bearing Spacers

$92.50

Technobots

Worm Gears

$28.15

Dragon Plate Carbon Fiber

Carbon Fiber

$21.15

VXB Bearings

Bearings

$55.93

Robotshop C8209726

1:30 Pager Motor

$26.90

Robotshop 1676-7268

1:30 Pager Motor

$24.67

McMaster Carr PO 2938115

Aluminum Rods,

$61.50

BP Hobbies.com 467070-13

Carbon Fiber

$32.77

Dragon Plate 16985

Carbon Fiber

$24.81

Digikey

Force Sensors

$124.06

Amazon

E-flite Motors

$194.53

DragonPlate

Carbon Fiber

$23.45

Amazon.com

Magnetic Actuator

$19.78

Amazon.com

E-Flite Batteries

$24.20

Tower Hobbies

Balsa Sheets

$46.78

Solarbotics

1:30 Pager Motor

$61.53
15 | P a g e

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS

FINAL STATUS REPORT

Mouser

Molex Headers

Amazon

Fog Liquid

Amazon

Fog Machine

$31.79

Amazon

Magnetic Actuator

$38.56

Pololu

Polulu Motors

$44.85

BP Hobbies

Pager Motors

$34.58

BP Hobbies

Pager Motors, Carbon Fiber

$42.93

BP Hobbies

Pager Motors, Carbon Fiber

$44.98

Digi-Key

Atmega32U4

$34.75

Digi-Key

Resistors, Capacitors

$23.46

Digi-Key

Voltage Regulator, Motor Drivers

$43.64

Digi-Key

Atmega32U4

$37.01

Digi-Key

PCB Material

$9.60

Digi-Key

Joysticks, Wireless Chips

Total

$22.39
$9.53

$39.43

$1,436.51

Max budget: $1500.

16 | P a g e