Numerical investigation of different morph wing configurations for the rolling maneuver
Source abstract
Abstract
Wing design in the last decades directed efforts and studies to improve the aircraft performance allowing fuel reduction, which implies more ecological and sustainable solutions and cost reduction for air transportation. Efficient design with a morph wing can fulfill such objectives. Different concepts of morph wing have been numerically investigated in this study proposing different wing configurations with the aim to improve aircraft performance in particular for the rolling maneuver. The assessment is performed by using an aerodynamic analysis based on a low fidelity 2D method such as the panel method, in combination with a 3D analysis using vortex lattice method, without considering elastic structural effects. The main morph wing concept is based on the constant morph of a part of the wing tip which has the aim of acting as a control surface hence as a substitution of the aileron for the rolling maneuver. The twist will then be applied linearly decreasing to the center of the wing. Within this concept three main configurations were evaluated: (a) the twist of the fixed airfoil section (Morph type M1 – rib twist), (b) the twist of the aileron which profile is changing according to a curvilinear law based on two morph angles (Morph type M2) and (c) both trailing edge and leading edge are morphed (Morph type M3). A comparison with a correspondent conventional aileron configuration at the same rolling moment coefficient showed an advantage of the morph wing in terms of drag coefficient with reductions that go up to 30%. It was also observed that in some cases such as M1 and M2C a morph deflection lower than 10° produce the same rolling moment coefficient of a typical small aircraft aileron deflection of 25°. Moreover, a parametric evaluation showed an optimum of the span wise parameter y rib to be 40% of the semi span b . Furthermore, a smoother distribution of the lift along the span wise direction will be determined in comparison with a conventional aileron. This also implies a smoother approach to stall conditions that can be beneficial for the pilot.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms · Aeroelasticity and Vibration Control · Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
DIMEAS, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Funding
MechaTwing TWINNING FOR EXCELLENCE IN MORPHING AND AEROMECHATRONIC WING CONTROL: A LEAP TOWARDS ECO-SMART AVIATION
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Abbot IH Von Doenhoff A Stivers LSJr (1945) Theory of wing section including summary of Airfoil data Report no 824. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
2. 10.1017/S000192400000800910.1017/S0001924000008009 ↗
3. 10.1177/095440622094442310.1177/0954406220944423 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.02010.1016/j.ast.2019.01.020 ↗
5. Castellani M (2011) Studio di una wing tip aeroelastica passiva. Master Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
6. Castillo Acero MA de la Escalera FM Essa Y (2018) Morphed technologies for advanced future commercial aircraft. In Morphing Wing Technologies Elsevier Ltd. pp 585–618. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/edited-volume/9780081009642/morphing-wing-technologies#about-the-book10.1016/B978-0-08-100964-2.00019-8 ↗
7. Cestino E, Frulla G, Lanzillotti A (2018) Preliminary assessment of a warping wing configuration in rolling control. In: 31st congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences, 2018, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
8. Drela M (1989) XFOIL: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils. In: Low reynolds number aerodynamics: Proceedings of the conference notre dame, Indiana, USA, 5–7 June 1989, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
9. 10.2514/3.978910.2514/3.9789 ↗
10. Drela M Youngren H (2015) AVL overview. MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Available at: http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/ (accessed September 2025).
11. Frulla G Cestino E Gili P et al. (2015) A possible adaptive wing apparatus for new UAV configurations. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2463. 2015. doi: 10.4271/2015-01-2463.10.4271/2015-01-2463 ↗
12. Gilardelli A (2015) Soluzioni strutturali per ipersostentatori con caratteristiche morphing. Politecnico di Milano.
13. Gudmunson S (2014) General Aviation Aircraft Design Analyses and Procedures. Chapter 10 2018 pp. 415–479. Amsterdam The Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/monograph/9780128184653/general-aviation-aircraft-design
14. 10.1016/j.ast.2019.10541910.1016/j.ast.2019.105419 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.01210.1016/j.cja.2020.03.012 ↗
16. Kovar P, Marhan T, Furst J, et al. (2025) On determination of aerodynamic properties of morphing wing by numerical simulations. In: 34th international conference on adaptive structure and technologies, ICAST, 9–21 May 2025, Capua, Italy.
17. 10.1002/aisy.20230042010.1002/aisy.202300420 ↗
18. 10.1017/pma.2024.210.1017/pma.2024.2 ↗
19. 10.3390/aerospace1203026210.3390/aerospace12030262 ↗
20. 10.2514/6.2017-005910.2514/6.2017-0059 ↗
21. 10.1017/S000192400001781410.1017/S0001924000017814 ↗
22. 10.1088/1742-6596/2716/1/01202910.1088/1742-6596/2716/1/012029 ↗
23. 10.3390/drones808039210.3390/drones8080392 ↗
24. 10.1007/s42417-022-00759-710.1007/s42417-022-00759-7 ↗
25. Raymer (1992) Aircraft Design a Conceptual Approach. AIAA Education series.
26. 10.2514/6.2006-204310.2514/6.2006-2043 ↗
27. Sciotto M (2020) Caratterizzazione dei sistemi attivi per l’alleviazione dei carichi da raffica e da manovra. Master Thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
28. Sirigu G, Cassaro M, Battipede M, et al. (2016) Wind generator innovative blade design: Variable twist and start-up control. International Journal of Mechanics 10: 53–61.
29. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.01110.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.011 ↗
30. 10.1007/s42405-022-00474-310.1007/s42405-022-00474-3 ↗
31. 10.3390/biomimetics909052110.3390/biomimetics9090521 ↗
32. Wentz, et al. (1977) Force and pressure tests of the GA(W)-1 airfoil with a 20% aileron and pressure tests with a 30% fowler flap. NASA CR 2833, June 1977.
33. 10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.01310.1016/j.ast.2017.08.013 ↗