Journal of Bionic Engineering 13 (2016) 458–467

Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with

Autonomous Flight Control Capability

Sriyulianti Widhiarini1, Ji Hwan Park1, Bum Soo Yoon1, Kwang Joon Yoon1, Il-Hyun Paik2, Jong Heon Kim3,
Chan Yik Park3, Seung Moon Jun3, Changho Nam4
1. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Konkuk University, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, South Korea
2. Deptartment of PGM Technology, Hanwha Corp. R&D Center, Daejeon, South Korea
3. Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, South Korea
4. Department of Engineering Technology, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona

Abstract
A micro air vehicle with a bird-mimetic up-down and twisting wing drive system was developed in this study. The Flap-
ping-wing Micro Air Vehicle (FMAV), with a 50 cm wingspan and a double-crank drive system, performed successful flights of
up to 23 min. The performance and capabilities of the FMAV were enhanced by adapting a number of unique features, such as a
bird-mimetic wing shape with a span-wise camber and an up-down and twisting wing drive mechanism with double-crank
linkages. This lift-enhancing design by mimicking the flapping mechanism of a bird’s wing enabled the 210 g FMAV to fly
autonomously in an outdoor field under wind speeds of less than 5 m·s−1. Autonomous flight was enabled by installing a flight
control computer with a micro-electro-mechanical gyroscope and accelerometers, along with a micro video camera and an
ultralight wireless communication system inside the fuselage. A comprehensive wind tunnel test shows that the FMAV with a
high-camber wing and double-crank mechanism generates more lift and less net thrust than the FMAV with a flat wing and
single-crank mechanism, which confirms the improved performance of the developed FMAV, as well as the superior slow flying
or hovering capabilities of the FMAV with a high-camber wing and double-crank wing drive system.
Keywords: flapping-wing MAV, autonomous flight, biomimetic wing, double crank wing
Copyright © 2016, Jilin University. Published by Elsevier Limited and Science Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(16)60319-0

explore the flight of nature’s flyers, based on the prin-

1 Introduction
Nature’s flyers have long been the inspiration for
human-made flight devices. Birds, for example, have a
wide range of abilities, which shows how versatile they
can be, from hovering and soaring to gliding. The de-
velopment, so far, mimics nature as closely as possible,
in the shape of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicles
(FMAVs).Since FMAVs are limited by their size, the
wings with relatively small aspect ratios could reduce
the effective angle of attack and induces a 3-D flow
structure when they fly. This type of vehicle is also more
sensitive to wind gusts, which makes the attitude of the
vehicle more difficult to control[1].
In recent years, a number of studies have been
conducted to investigate the natural flight of insects[2,3],
bats[4], and birds[5,6]. These studies have attempted to
ciple of biomimetics, in order to increase the capabilities
of future FMAVs. Biomimetics involves the extraction
of good design from nature, for use in human-designed
technology[7,8]. It represents an inspiration based on
nature’s methods, designs, or processes, which are use-
ful for human ability to adapt to varying environmental
conditions. The various principles used by nature’s fly-
ers were studied and applicable principles were used in
the development of man-made vehicles. For instance,
insect-inspired FMAV design has received increasing
attention in recent years, including the studies in control
and stability[9–12], aerodynamics[13–16], and structural
analysis[17]. However, with respect to controlled flight,
bird-sized fliers or ornithopters are favorable for use in
the design of functional FMAVs[18–21]. Ornithopter-sized
systems were also implemented in a number of studies

Corresponding author: Kwang Joon Yoon

E-mail: kjyoon@konkuk.ac.kr
 Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 459
using flight parameters of real birds or a patented re- 2 Design and construction
motely controlled ornithopter[22–25].
2.1 Wing drive mechanism
Current research on FMAVs is concentrated on
The single- and double-crank drive systems,
reducing the size of vehicles, as a way to mimic nature’s
shown in Fig. 1, were designed to make various stroke
flyers more closely. Therefore, the development and
and rotation angles to show the aerodynamic benefits of
optimization of the structural design of FMAVs are nec-
the two systems. The stroke angle further shows how
essary. One valuable breakthrough in minimizing the
the two mechanisms are different from one another, as
weight of FMAVs has been the use of composite mate-
the double-crank drive system was able to produce a
rials for the vehicle structure. The use of these advanced
larger flapping angle. The single-crank mechanism was
materials is expected to reduce the weight of MAVs
designed to produce a wing-flapping angle up to 25˚,
without appreciably affecting their flight performance.
while the double-crank mechanism was able to create a
Besides, for slow forward flight of FMAVs, flexi-
phase angle difference, resulting in a larger flapping
ble-membrane wings may be used to reduce the effects
angle up to 55˚ with wing rotation. In the double-crank
of wind gusts and delay airfoil stall[26]. Therefore, stud-
system, the front cranks are connected to front spars and
ies on lightweight composite structures and flexible
the rear cranks are connected to diagonal spars. This
wings are being conducted to demonstrate the possibili-
design enables active wing twisting with a phase shift
ties of these materials[22,23]. By altering the physical
between the front and rear cranks. As shown in
properties of the wings, better performance can be ex-
Fig. 1(b-3), the double-crank system generates a 55˚
pected from the vehicles, for instance by modifying the
flapping angle and a 7˚ active wing twist angle (7˚ = 12˚
stiffness distribution in the chordwise or spanwise di-
– 5˚), which is the difference between the angles of the
rection[24,25]. Preliminary studies on the biomimetic de-
front and diagonal spars at the end of the up-stroke and
sign of wings were successfully applied to several sizes
the angles of the front and diagonal spars at the end of
of ornithopters, and successful sustained controlled
the down-stroke.
flight was achieved[26]. Based on these results, we ex-
pected that better aerodynamic performance of an orni- (a-1) (b-1)
thopter could be achieved by mimicking a simplified
version of bird’ wings. The drive mechanism design also
plays an important role in the performance of the vehicle
since the flapping motion can improve the stability and (a-2) Diagonal (b-2) Diagonal
spar spar
flight performance of the vehicle[27].
Front spar Front spar
In the present work, a FMAV equipped with a dou-
Rear crank
ble-crank up-down and twisting drive system was de- Single crank Front crank
veloped. Experimental observations were conducted to (a-3) (b-3)
investigate the effects of this bird-mimetic wing design Front spar
at the end of
that was simplified as a span-wise variation of the wing Front spar at up-stroke 12˚
the end of
camber, and updated the wing drive mechanism from a up-stroke
single-crank system of a previous effort to a dou- 25˚ Diagonal spar 55˚
at the end of
up-stroke
ble-crank system. We simplified the wing by applying
Front spar at the
camber variation to the design to modify the spanwise end of down-
stroke
Front spar at
flexibility. The wing was installed to an ornithopter the end of
5˚
down-stroke
Diagonal spar at the
model and underwent a wind tunnel experiment from end of down-stroke
Hu et al.[22] to quantify the aerodynamic performance as
a function of flapping frequency and forward flight Fig. 1 Wing drive mechanisms. (a-1) Photograph of FMAV with
speed, with respect to incoming flows. We also applied a single-crank system; (a-2) schematic of single-crank system, in
which front cranks are connected to front spars; (a-3) flapping
different wing drive-mechanism system to enhance the angle of single-crank system; (b-1) photograph of FMAV with
flapping force and assess its aerodynamic advantage to double-crank system; (b-2) schematic of double-crank system;
(b-3) flapping angle of double-crank system.
flapping flight.
 460 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3

2.2 Wing design U = 0.75(4.77W 1/6 ), (4)

The wings shown in Table 1, Table 2, and Fig. 2,
where W is the weight of FMAV.
were designed based on a simplified bird’s wing, with
The values of necessary parameters of the FMAV
two major features adapted in the FMAV for both the
for calculation are given in Table 3. The lift coefficient
single-crank and the double-crank drive systems. The
of the current FMAV, as the function of the advance ratio,
adaptation was made in the form of low- and
J could be obtained using Eq. (1), as shown Fig. 3.
high-camber shapes to the front diagonal spars of the
wing. The wing area, shown in Table 1, was kept within
Table 1 Specifications of FMAVs with single-crank and dou-
the range of the wing areas of the dove prion and the ble-crank systems
black-headed gull[28]. Three different camber shapes
Specification
were fashioned by varying the radius, as shown in Parameters
Single crank Double crank
Table 2, to investigate how the camber affects lift and Wing span 50 cm
thrust production. The spar wing curvature was applied Wing area 0.062 m2 0.075 m2
to both the front and diagonal spars. Weight 100 g 210 g
Flight duration 13 min 23 min
3 Analysis of aerodynamic parameters Motor specification 1700 kV (15 g) 1700 kV (15 g)
Battery 300 mA (27 g) 800 mA (60 g)
Aerodynamic parameters of the current FMAV
Stroke angle 25˚ 55˚
were analyzed. The lift and thrust coefficients, CL and CT
can be expressed as
Table 2 Biomimetic wing design with flat, low-, and high-camber
carbon/epoxy spars
⎧ 2L
⎪CL = ρ AU 2 Camber
⎪ Wing Stroke Camber
radius Spar dimension
⎨ , (1) mechanism angle shape
(m)
⎪C = 2T Flat ∝
⎪⎩ T ρ AU 2 Single
Carbon/epoxy spar cross
section
25˚ Low 0.97
Crank(SC) Height: 1.5 mm
where L, T, U, A and ρ are lift, thrust, flight speed, wing High 0.49 Width: 1.8 mm
Flat ∞ Elastic modulus in fiber
planform area, and air density, respectively. The advance Double direction: 114 GPa
53.5˚ Low 0.97
ratio J, which is the ratio of the flight speed to the speed Crank(DC)
High 0.49
of the wingtip, is given by

U
J= , (2) 500 mm
2Φ fb
where Φ, f, and b are stroke angle, flapping frequency,
137 mm

and wing semi-span, respectively. Calculating the ad- Area = 0.062 m2

vance ratio J is necessary to estimate the design flight
speed of a FMAV. By referring to the statistical data on
400 mm
the relationship between speed and size for a wide range
(a) Wing design of single-crank drive sysstem
of birds, the flight speed can be approximately given 500 mm
as[29]

U = 4.77m1/6 , (3)
170 mm

where U is the flight speed in m·s−1 and m is the mass in Area = 0.075 m2

grams. Since the current FMAV is expected to be less

efficient than the natural flyers, the maximum speed
would be less than the calculated speed from Eq. (3). We 431 mm
expected that the approximate speed would be about (b) Wing design of double-crank drive sysstem

25% less than the calculated speed[26], or 25% slower Fig. 2 Wing designs of the single-crank and double-crank drive
than the real birds. Thus, Eq. (3) becomes Eq. (4): systems.
 Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 461
According to our analysis results, the FMAV is in Table 3 Parameters of the developed FMAV
the quasi-steady flow regime (i.e., J > 1). Most birds, Single crank Double crank
such as the dove prion and the Cape pigeon, operate in Wing span (cm) 50
this regime[24]. The lift coefficient decreases exponen- m (g) 100 210

tially with an increasing advance ratio for the FMAV U (m·s−1) 7.707 8.722
Φ (deg) 25 55
with a single-crank mechanism, while the vehicle with a
f (Hz) 8–16 8–11
double-crank mechanism experiences only a slight de-
crease with an increasing advance ratio value. This
0.80
tendency complies with the typical behavior of the lift
coefficient as a function of advance ratio[14,20]. 0.60

4 Wind tunnel test 0.40

A flapping test system was designed and con-

0.20
structed in a wind tunnel to characterize the aerody-
namic effects of the biomimetic wing structure. Ex- 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
perimental observations were conducted to investigate
Advance ratio J
the effects of the bird-mimetic wing design that was
Single crank Double crank
simplified as a span-wise variation of the wing camber,
and that changed the wing drive mechanism from a sin- Fig. 3 Comparison of lift and thrust coefficients of the flat-wing
gle-crank drive system to a double-crank drive system, FMAV with single-crank mechanism and double-crank mecha-
nism.
which gave active rotation to the flapping wings. To
assess the aerodynamic benefits of these two variations,
the time-averaged lift and thrust generated by the dif- Inside wind tunnel
ferent versions of the flapping mechanism were meas-
ured and compared. The FMAVs aerodynamic features
as a function of flapping frequency with respect to the
incoming flow were measured with a 3-axis load cell. To Test rig High speed camera setup
see the effects of the span-wise cambered spar on the
aerodynamic forces, a series of wings were constructed
with carbon-epoxy spar beams and a 0.015 mm thick
PET film. The drive mechanisms of the FMAV were also 3-axis load cell

investigated by comparing the single-crank and dou-

ble-crank drive systems. Power supply & Amplifier

4.1 Test setup
The experimental setup for the vehicle was pre-
pared by building a test rig and a high-speed camera
video capture system. The test rig shown in Fig. 4 was
made by connecting the vehicle to a vertical rod with an
aerodynamic shape, which was then fixed to the middle
of the wind tunnel and connected to a load cell at its base.
The wind tunnel was a subsonic, closed return-type wind
tunnel located in the aerodynamic analysis laboratory at
Konkuk University.
The flapping test specimen was placed in the mid-
dle of the tunnel’s test section, which had dimensions of
1 m × 1 m × 3 m (height × width × length). By using a
Fig. 4 Wind tunnel test setup for FMAV.
fully assembled configuration as was used by Hu et
al.[22], the analysis of the vehicle performance included
the contributions of all components of the ornithopter:
wings, fuselage, and tail. Six test FMAVs with different
wing cambers and drive mechanisms were prepared for
the experiment, as shown in Table 2. During the ex-
periment, the flapping frequency of the mechanism was
adjusted by changing the output voltage of the DC power
supply. The aerodynamic forces (i.e., lift and net thrust)
acting on the experimental wings were measured by a
3-axis force-moment load cell (CMAS121-5L, Curiosity
 462 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3

Technology). The precision of the load cell was

± 0.03 kgf of the full scale (i.e., 3 kgf).
In order to observe the flapping motion of the ve-
hicle to determine its flapping frequency and flapping Lift
Wing neutral
angle, a high-speed camera recorded the experiment. position
The capture system used a Photron APX at 1,000 fps Body angle
with a pixel resolution of 1024 × 1024 pixels. The NetThrust
camera was positioned outside and next to the wind
tunnel test section to capture the side view of the flap-
ping vehicle. Then, the images were transferred to a PC,
to be synchronized with the load cell results.
The FMAV was powered by a DC power supply,
and controlled remotely. The side view of the vehicle Fig. 5 The mounting position of the vehicle during the wind tunnel
shown in Fig. 5 also shows the setting shape of the ve- test.
hicle during the wind tunnel test, as well as the flight
Flapping
parameters. The Body Angle (BA) was defined as the On Off On Off

angle of the body with respect to the incoming flow, for t = 120 s
t=0s Signal Signal
vehicles in which the wing roots were assembled in 120 s 30 s
20 s 20 s
30 s
Flow 10 s
Idle Flow idle
parallel with the body of the vehicle. The BA was as- start Settling time Data
Freq adjustment Collection
Stop
Wind tunnel on Wind tunnel off
sumed to be similar to the orientation angle[26], which is
the angle of the inclined body with respect to incoming
flow that is parallel to the horizontal. The Angle of At-
tack (AoA) of the wing constantly changed during the
flight. The wing was always set to a neutral position,
Net thrust (Fx)
such that AoA = BA before every test run. The BA was
set using a regulator connected to the test rig. The shape
of the wing changed as the change of inflow speed and
the BA.
Lift (Fz)
4.2 Data acquisition
The data-collecting procedure was a combination
of load cell data acquisition and high-speed camera
image capturing. The timeline in Fig. 6 defines one batch Fig. 6 Data capture procedure and Graphic User Interface (GUI)
measurement in the experiment. The idle condition be- of measurement data.
fore and after the measurement is that there was no load
and the vehicle was turned off. The idle at constant wind data. Then, five data acquisition points per experimental
speed condition is that the wind tunnel was turned on variation were processed by taking their average and
and incoming flow was started, but the flapping drive standard deviation. The sampling rate was 1000 Hz.
system was still off. To adjust the wing flapping fre- Although the captured data was taken for 20 s, only
quency, a settling time was chosen. An example of the 10 flapping cycles (within 60 s) were used as represen-
signal from LabVIEW, taken from the load cell data, is tative data. A FFT was applied to the measured raw
also shown in Fig. 6. The horizontal force was the raw signal in LabVIEW. Five batch measurements were
data used to calculate thrust and drag, while the vertical taken for each experimental variation, which included
force was the raw data used to calculate lift. A Fast the following flight parameters: flapping frequency, BA,
Fourier Transform (FFT) was applied to the raw meas- and incoming flow velocity. Then, the average of the set
ured signal in LabVIEW. Ten cycles of the flapping was calculated. The calculation of the time-averaged
period (within 60 s) were analyzed from the captured aerodynamic forces from the raw data is shown in Fig. 7.
 Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability
The total force is the force generated by the vehicle
during flight, which also accounts for the influence of
wing, body, tail, and test rig. The effect of the test rig
was deducted early in the calculation process, from the
force generated at the idle in the constant flow condi-
tions. To obtain the time-averaged thrust, the in-
flow-generated drag was deducted from the total hori-
zontal force. On the other hand, the time-averaged lift
was not deducted from any other force, as the vertical
component was equal to the total lift produced by the
vehicle.
FMAVs with different wing shapes were tested with
a forward flight speed (i.e., incoming flow velocity) of
6 m·s−1 at a BA of 14˚. The flapping frequencies used in
Fig. 7 Diagram for calculation of the time-averaged lift and thrust.
463
the experiments were 8 Hz, 10 Hz, 12 Hz, 14 Hz, and
16 Hz. In order to quantify the aerodynamic perform-
ance of the FMAV, the lift and the net thrust (Fx = thrust
– drag) were measured in the flow direction produced by
the FMAV during flapping motion at a designated BA.
FMAVs with three different wing types, flat, low-camber,
and high-camber, were tested at different flapping fre-
quencies.
5 Wind tunnel test results and discussion
We measured the lift and the net thrust at 6 m·s−1
wind speed and calculated the lift coefficient (CL) and
the net thrust coefficient (CT) using Eq. (1) for each type
of wing and crank mechanism (Fig. 8). The lift of the
high-camber wing was more than 30% higher than that
of the flat wing, and the net thrust of the high-camber
wing was more than 20% higher than that of the flat
wing, which partially coincides with the results by
Hu et al.[22] and Krashanitsa et al.[30]. The wind tunnel
flapping test for the FMAV with the high-camber wing
and double-crank mechanism beyond the 10 Hz flapping
frequency range was not possible because of insufficient
electric power supply of the required equipment.
In the case of the FMAV with a single-crank system
(Fig. 8a), the lift coefficient increases almost linearly
within the range of 0.5–1.0 when the flapping frequency
increases from 8 Hz to 16 Hz. The increasing trend and
the range of the lift coefficient of our measured data are
quite similar to those of the lift coefficients obtained
from the wind tunnel test of the FMAV with a sin-
gle-crank system with a wing span of 74 cm, freestream
velocity of 7.2 m·s−1, and flapping frequency ranging
from 6 Hz to 12 Hz, which was reported by Krashanitsa
et al.[30]. However, in the case of the FMAV with the
double-crank system (Fig. 8c), the lift coefficient in-
creases a little when the flapping frequency increases
from 8 Hz to 11 Hz. Comparing the lift data and gravi-
tational force (0.98 N, 100 g) of the single-crank-system
FMAV, the single-crank-system FMAV with any cam-
bered wing can generate sufficient lift for flying over a
flapping frequency of 8 Hz. Meanwhile, comparing the
lift data and gravitational force (2.06 N, 210 g) of the
double-crank-system FMAV, the double-crank-system
FMAV with any cambered wing should flap with more
than 11 Hz flapping frequency. From the data of the
positive net thrust for the six types of FMAV, all FMAVs
can fly forward with a speed greater than 6 m·s−1.
 464 Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3

2.0 3.0 35
2.4
2.5
30
1.5
2.2
2.0
25
Lift (N)

1.0 1.5 2.0

CL
20
1.0 1.8
0.5
1.6 15
0.5
Lift-flat Lift-High CL-low
Lift-low CL-flat CL-high 10
0.0 0.0 1.4
8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz) Lift: Single crank
(a) 1.2 Lift: Double crank 5
Lift/Wing-area: Single crank
0.25 0.30 Lift/Wing-area: Double crank
1.0 0
8 10 12 14 16
0.25
0.20 Flapping frequency (Hz)
0.20 (a)
Thrust (N)

0.15
0.15
CT

0.40 4.0
0.10
0.10 3.5
0.35
0.05 0.05 3.0
Thrust-flat Thrust-high CT-low 0.30
Thrust-low CT-flat CT-high 0.00
0.00 2.5
8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz)
(b) 0.25 2.0

2.0 2.5 1.5

0.20
2.0 1.0
1.5
0.15 Thrust: Single crank
1.5 Thrust: Double crank 0.5
Thrust/Wing-area: Single crank
Lift (N)

1.0 Thrust/Wing-area: Double crank

CL

0.10 0.0
1.0 8 10 12 14 16
Flapping frequency (Hz)
0.5 (b)
0.5
Lift-flat Lift-high CL-low
Lift-low CL-flat CL-high
0.0
Fig. 9 Lift and net thrust for wind speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA = 14˚. (a)
0.0
7 8 9 10 11 12 Measured lift of high-camber wing for single- and double-crank
Flapping frequency (Hz) systems; (b) measured net thrust of high-camber wing for single-
(c) and double-crank systems.
0.30 0.50
Thrust-flat Thrust-high CT-low
Thrust-low CT-flat CT-high
0.25 Fig. 9 shows that the system with the high-camber
0.40
wing and double-crank mechanism generates more than
0.20
20% more lift and 10% less net thrust than the system
Thrust (N)

0.30
0.15 with the high-camber wing and single-crank system.
CT

0.10
0.05
0.00
7 8 9 10
Flapping frequency (Hz)
(d)
Fig. 8 Lift and net thrust (i.e., T – D: difference between thrust and
drag) for different spar cambers when wind speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA
= 14˚, for the single- and double-crank systems. (a) Measured lift
of the single-crank system for various cambers; (b) measured
thrust of the single-crank system for various cambers; (c) measured
lift of the double-crank system for various cambers; (d) measured
thrust of the double-crank system for various cambers.
0.20
However, there is no significant difference between the
0.10 lifts per wing area for the single-crank and double-crank
systems. This implies that FMAVs with a high-camber
0.00
11 12 wing and double-crank mechanism have better slow
flying or hovering capabilities. The higher lift and slow
moving or hovering capability of the double-crank drive
system are thought to be derived from the larger flapping
angle and wing twisting angle shown in Fig. 10. The
photographs include front views of the FMAV wing
flapping captured by a high-speed camera for both the
single- and the double-crank drive systems.
 Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability 465

6 Autonomous flight control system and test

Top
flight
Krashanitsa et al.[30] developed a compact light-
weight autopilot system that was integrated into an or-
nithopter with a 74 cm flapping wing span, and demon-
strated that the ornithopter was capable of sustained and
controlled flight in the autonomous mode. For the Neutral

autonomous flight test of our FMAV with a 50 cm flap-

ping wing span, we applied a Flight Control System
(FCS) within the vehicle, a Ground Control Unit (GCU),
a control stick, and a Ground Data Terminal (GDT), in
which a bluetooth data modem and a video receiver were Bottom

integrated. The compact lightweight FCS installed in the

FMAV fuselage included various electronic parts, such (a) Flat wing single-crank system (b) High-camber wing double-crank system

as the Flight Control Computer (FCC), Attitude and Fig. 10 Front view of two FMAV wing-flapping shapes for wind
Heading Reference System (AHRS), Global Positioning speed = 6 m·s−1 and BA = 14˚, captured by high speed camera.
System (GPS), modem, micro camera, video transmitter,
motor, etc. All of these components, along with a battery,
were integrated into the fuselage of the vehicle, as
shown in Fig. 11a. Traditional stand-alone AHRSs,
based on MEMS sensors, are embedded with an accel-
erometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer. Attitude
and heading are estimated by data fusion from these
three different types of sensors. However, a traditional
AHRS cannot estimate the vehicle’s attitude accurately
if it is exposed to a long acceleration flight, as occurs in
(a) Compact FCC devices fully integrated into fuselage
small-radius circular turning.
The FMAV can experience even greater accelera-
tion flight conditions from the environmental effects of
even a mild breeze. Thus, the GPS velocity information
of this study was coupled with the AHRS to measure
pure gravity, after eliminating the acceleration flight
effect. An extended Kalman filter was also implemented
for data fusion from various kinds of sensors, such as a (b) Ground Data Terminal (GDT)
barometer and a GPS. A digital signal processor was
used for the FCC data. The AHRS, GPS, and modem
(data up and down link) were integrated on the FCC
mainboard to minimize the weight. To transmit the video
wirelessly, a Micro 5.8 GHz video transmitter RF mod-
ule was also developed, by applying a highly efficient
frequency-shift keying modulation scheme to the RF
module. The front of the fuselage was equipped with a
forward-looking pinhole micro camera, based on a 1/4”
CMOS sensor (Fig. 11b). (c) Ground Control System (GCS)
A series of flight tests were conducted at an outdoor Fig. 11 FCC devices integrated into fuselage structure, ground
field in order to validate the capabilities of the developed data terminal, and ground control system.
 466
FMAV. Fig. 11c shows the ground control station with a
typical vehicle test setup. For a fully integrated FMAV
with flat wings, a double-crank system, and a wireless
communication micro video camera system, the FMAV
flew up to 23 min (including automatic take-off and
landing) in an outdoor field (Fig. 12) when the wind
speed was less than 5 m·s−1. During the flight, the GCS
was able to control the FMAV and receive the video
signals in real time without interruption. It was also
capable of changing the waypoints in real time, when
necessary.
36.3980
Way point 3
36.3978
36.3976
Latitude (deg)
36.3974
Way point 4
36.3972
36.3970
36.3968 Way point 1
36.3966
127.3194 127.3198 127.3202
Longitude (deg)
Fig. 12 Autonomous flight trajectory with Proportional Naviga-
tion Guidance (PNG) and Nonlinear Path Flight Guidance
(NPFG).
7 Conclusion
This study considered the design of an FMAV with
a bird-mimetic up-down and twisting wing flapping
system, as well as the construction and performance
evaluation of an FMAV capable of fully autonomous
flight. The single-crank mechanism of the FMAV was
designed to produce a wing-flapping angle up to 25˚,
while the double-crank driving mechanism was able to
create a phase angle difference, resulting in a larger
flapping angle (up to 55˚) with wing twisting. We found
that the FMAV with a high-camber wing and dou-
ble-crank mechanism generates more lift but less net
thrust when using the same driving brushless motor and
different batteries, which demonstrates its superior slow
flying or hovering capabilities. The higher lift and better
hovering capacity was found to be a result of the larger
flapping angle and the wing-twisting angle.
Journal of Bionic Engineering (2016) Vol.13 No.3
A series of wind tunnel tests indicated that the
aerodynamic performance had significant enhancement.
The revised FMAV has a unique configuration similar to
that of a bird, a better performance than the first proto-
type, and fully autonomous flight capability with a GPS
waypoint navigation system, a take-off and landing
wheel system, and video surveillance. Further studies on
increasing the aerodynamic performance of the FMAV,
such as modifying the crank drive mechanism and add-
ing a camber to the carbon-fiber wing spar are still
needed to further the understanding of autonomous
FMAVs having a flexible wing design.
PNG
NPFG
Acknowledgment
This paper was supported by Konkuk University in
2014.
References
Way point 2 [1] Viieru D, Tang J, Lian Y, Liu H, Shyy W. Flapping and
flexible wing aerodynamics of low Reynolds number flight
vehicles. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Ex-
hibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 2006.
[2] Ellington C P, van den Berg C, Willmott A P, Thomas A L R.
Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Nature, 1996, 384,
127.3206 127.3210
626–630.
[3] Dickinson M H, Lehmann F, Sane S P. Wing rotation and the
aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science, 1999, 284,
1954–1960.
[4] Muijres F T, Johansson L C, Barfield R, Wolf M, Spedding
G R, Hedenstom A. Leading-edge vortex improves lift in
slow-flying bats. Science, 2008, 319, 1250–1253.
[5] Warrick D R, Tobalske B W, Powers D. Aerodynamics of the
hovering hummingbird. Nature, 2005, 435, 1094–1097.
[6] Tobalske, B W. Hovering and intermittent flight in birds.
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2010, 5, 045004.
[7] Siochi E J, Anders J B, Cox D E, Jegley D C, Fox R L,
Katzberg S J. Biomimetics for NASA langley research cen-
ter. NASA Technical Memorandum, 2002, 211445.
[8] Benyus, J M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature,
1st ed., Harper Perennial, New York, 1998.
[9] Ma K Y, Chirarattananon P, Fuller S B, Wood R J. Controlled
flight of biologically inspired, insect-scale robot. Science,
2013, 340, 603–607.
[10] Phan H V, Nguyen Q V, Truong Q T, Van Truong T, Park H C,
Goo N S, Byun D, Kim M J. Stable vertical takeoff of an
insect-mimicking flapping-wing system without guide im-
plementing inherent pitching stability. Journal of Bionic
Engineering, 2012, 9, 391–401.
 Widhiarini et al.: Bird-mimetic Wing System of Flapping-wing Micro Air Vehicle with
Autonomous Flight Control Capability
[11] Phan H V, Truong Q T, Park H C. Implementation of initial
passive stability in insect-mimicking flapping-wing micro
air vehicle. International Journal of Intelligent Unmanned
Systems, 2015, 3, 18–38.
[12] De Croon G C H E., De Clercq K M E., Ruijsink, Remes, De
Wagter C. Design, aerodynamics, and vision-based control
of the DelFly. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles,
2009, 1, 71–97.
[13] Shyy W, Aono H, Chimakurthi S K, Trizila P, Kang C K,
Cesnik C E, Liu H. Recent progress in flapping wing aero-
dynamics and aeroelasticity. Progress in Aerospace Sciences,
2010, 46, 284–327.
[14] Ho S, Nassef H, Pornsin-sirirak N, Tai Y C, Ho C M. Un-
steady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing
flyers. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2003, 39, 635–681.
[15] Van Truong T, Byun D, Kim M J, Yoon K J, Park H C.
Aerodynamic forces and flow structures of the leading edge
vortex on a flapping wing considering ground effect. Bio-
inspiration & Biomimetics, 2013, 8, 036007.
[16] Phan H V, Truong Q T, Loan T K, Park H C. Effect of wing
kinematics modulation on aerodynamic force generation in
hovering insect-mimicking flapping-wing micro air vehicle.
Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2015, 12, 539–554.
[17] Ha N S, Truong Q T, Phan H V, Goo N S, Park H C.
Structural characteristics of allomyrina dichotoma beetle's
hind wings for flapping wing micro air vehicle. Journal of
Bionic Engineering, 2014, 11, 226–235.
[18] Yoon K J, Park J H, Widhiarini S. MAV-motivated structure
and materials. Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, 1st
ed, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2010, 3550–3555.
[19] Nguyen V Q, Syaifuddin M, Park H C, Byun D Y, Goo N S,
Yoon K J. Characteristics of an insect-mimicking flapping
system actuated by a unimorph piezoceramic actuator.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2008,
19, 1185–1193.
[20] Kim J H, Park C Y, Jun S M, Parker G, Yoon K J, Chung D
K, Paik I H, Kim J R. Instrumented flight test of flapping
micro air vehicle. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, 2013, 85, 326–339.
467
[21] Kim J H, Park C Y, Jun S M, Chung D K, Kim J R, Hwang H
C, Stanford B, Beran P, Parker G, Mrozinski D. Flight test
measurement and assessment of a flapping micro air vehicle.
International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
2012, 13, 238–249.
[22] Hu H, Kumar A G, Abate G, Albertani R. An experimental
investigation on the aerodynamic performances of flexible
membrane wings in flapping flight. Aerospace Science and
Technology, 2010, 14, 575–586.
[23] Kim D K, Han J H, Kwon K J. Wind tunnel tests for a flap-
ping wing model with a changeable camber using
macro-fiber composite actuators. Smart Materials and
Structures, 2009, 18, 024008.
[24] Bejgerowski W, Ananthanarayanan A, Mueller D, Gupta, S
K. Integrated product and process design for a flapping wing
drive mechanism. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2009, 131,
061006.
[25] Mazaheri K, Ebrahimi A. Experimental investigation on
aerodynamic performance of a flapping wing vehicle in
forward flight. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2011, 27,
586–595.
[26] Park J H, Yoon K J. Designing a biomimetic ornithopter
capable of sustained and controlled flight. Journal of Bionic
Engineering, 2008, 5, 39–47.
[27] Gerdes, J W, Gupta S K, Wilkerson, S A. A review of
bird-inspired flapping wing miniature air vehicle designs.
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2012, 4, 021003.
[28] Shyy W, Berg M, Ljungqvist D. Flapping and flexible wings
for biological and micro air vehicles. Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, 1999, 35, 455–505.
[29] Pornsin-Sirirak T N, Lee S W, Nassef H, Grasmeyer J, Tai Y
C, Ho C M, Keennon M. MEMS technology for a bat-
tery-powered ornithopter. The 13th IEEE Annual Interna-
tional Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems,
Miyazaki, Japan, 2000, 799–804.
[30] Krashanitsa R, Silin D, Shkarayev S, Abate G. Flight dy-
namics of a flapping-wing air vehicle. International Journal
of Micro Air Vehicles, 2009, 1, 35–49.