1

Adaptive Leading Edge Droop Mechanism

Technical Concept Report
Team Xavier Falcons from Xavier High School
Leading the Edge to the Future
1.0 Executive Summary
Stalling is one of the largest dangers while flying an aircraft. Stalling occurs when the
separation of airflow over and under the wing becomes too significant and results in the sudden
loss of lift and control over the aircraft. However, there are solutions that exist to ameliorate this
danger. Some pilots utilize a leading edge cuff, which is a device that adds a droop to the
outboard leading edge of a wing. This greatly reduces the chances of stalling. However, a leading
edge cuff also increases the drag along with fuel consumption during cruise conditions. In a time
when fuel is becoming evermore expensive, this added safety feature may become a much larger
expense than previously anticipated.
The goal of this project was to design an adaptive leading edge cuff for private aircraft
which will decrease drag by utilizing corresponding fuel efficient wing cuff angles at all
conditions, while increasing stall angle by adapting the wing cuff angle for this purpose when
high angles of attack are approached. The design was created using computer aided design
(CAD) software and was analyzed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software. Statics
equations were used to calculate the required actuator force, and thus weight, for the mechanism
2

of the adaptive wing cuff. Ultimately, the purpose of this design was to not only increase fuel
efficiency but also increase safety by reducing the risk of stalling in flight.
Current technology that already exists with the purpose of preventing aircraft from
stalling include fixed components, such as the leading edge droop, and dynamic components,
such as slats. The main reason that our adaptive leading edge droop mechanism is better than
today's aeronautical technology is that the adaptive droop functions to increase stalling angle
while decreasing drag, compared to fixed components, and maintaining stronger and simpler
mechanisms, compared to dynamic components. Our design for the adaptive leading edge droop
utilizes a basic actuator mechanism against moment arm to change the droop angle.
Analysis of drag results from CFD studies of the various leading edge droop
configurations at the different climb, cruise, and descent conditions of flight indicated that
incorporation of the designed mechanism on all private aircraft, given about one hundred
thousand flights per year, will save approximately one hundred fifty thousand gallons of fuel,
corresponding to savings of almost one million dollars, per year. This correlates to reductions in
over two and one half million pounds of CO
2
emissions, which is about the amount absorbed by
sixty thousand trees, per year. As private aircraft usage increases over the years, since this class
of aircraft was only recently introduced, these savings statistics will also grow in significance.
Future work in the area of research and development that must be completed for a more
fully functional design includes more intensive CFD analyses, with wind tunnel analysis to
corroborate results and more dependence on higher accuracy three-dimensional analysis than on
two-dimensional analysis, additional materials analyses to ensure structural integrity, and
analysis of the mechanism on many different private aircraft.

3

2.0 Need Statement
An aircraft stalls when it surpasses its critical angle of attack, the angle at which the
separation of airflow behind the aircrafts wings causes a sudden loss of lift (Figure 2.1). For
most aircraft, the stalling angle is typically around fifteen degrees. Stalling most often occurs
during takeoff and landing because both of these scenarios require a higher angle of attack. A
high angle of attack is required during take-off for the aircraft to generate sufficient lift. The
aircraft may stall if the pilot attempts to achieve a high rate of climb by increasing the angle of
attack too much. When landing, stalling usually occurs due to the pilot's miscalculation in
runway distance required. For instance, if a pilot is attempting to land and realizes the possibility
of overshooting the landing, the pilot may be inclined to slow down in order to complete the
landing instead of restarting the landing scenario. Here, if the aircraft velocity is lowered too
much, it will stall. During other flight conditions, a seemingly innocuous maneuver may send the
aircraft into a stall. Sometimes, the pilot may not even be culpable for causing a stall. A stall can
occur from a simple change in wind, or a draft hitting a plane in a certain way, which is likely in
mountainous regions.

Figure 2.1 A wing experiences separated air flow at high angles of attack
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association reports that stalling accounts for 13.7% of all
fatal accidents, and from 1993 to 2001 there were between 35 and 65 fatal stalling accidents per
year [7]. Most solutions that exist today to ameliorate the danger of stalling involve devices on
the leading edge of the aircraft's wings. One of the more common devices is the leading edge
4

cuff. This device adds a droop to the leading edge of an aircraft, allowing the air to remain
attached to the upper profile of the wing at higher angles of attack (Figure 2.2). This mechanism
helps to increase the critical angle of attack to over thirty degrees. The leading edge cuff is
typically added to an aircraft as a post-production component. With a leading edge cuff, flying is
much more convenient, and take-off and landing maneuvers are safer. Also, the required length
of the airstrip to land is cut down significantly.

Figure 2.2 A wing with leading edge cuff experiences attached air flow at high angles of attack
However, a major drawback of the leading edge cuff is its increase in drag force on the
aircraft due to air resistance against its larger frontal profile and surface area. An increase in
aircraft drag requires an increase in engine thrust as well, resulting in higher fuel consumption.
Therefore, an optimal wing design for private aircraft should be able to adapt to the flight
conditions by implementing a low-drag geometry at cruise conditions and implementing a high-
stalling-angle geometry when reaching high angles of attack at climb and descent.
An adaptive leading edge droop would achieve this by altering its droop angle during
flight via an internal mechanism in the wing. Hypothetically, the wing would adopt a low droop
angle for cruise conditions and a significant droop angle for high angles of attack. This design is
corroborated by CFD analyses to prove that our adaptive design is capable of decreasing drag
and increasing stalling angle when necessary through respective droop angle alterations. In
addition to increasing stalling angle, the adaptive leading edge droop mechanism is capable of
increasing lift by increasing the wing's effective surface area. An increase in the wing's area
5

results in a higher lift force for a given coefficient of lift. This results in a lower required angle of
attack for a given flight condition to generate the same lift force as that of a wing of smaller
planform area. Ultimately, the lower angle of attack provides for decreased drag and
corresponding increased fuel efficiency.
Therefore, the adaptive leading edge droop has twofold function - increase safety by
increasing aircraft stalling angle, and increase fuel efficiency by decreasing aircraft drag.
3.0 Background Technology
The team created a design that is fairly unique. Currently, there is no marketable product
that combines safety and efficiency via a morphing leading edge. However, our design is an
enhancement of a previously made design, the fixed leading edge cuff. The work conducted by
the team in designing an innovative leading edge cuff did not conflict with any previously
published findings. Despite the fact there is no morphing leading edge cuff on the market
currently, there are a number of designs for such a device. However, these designs appear to be
mostly speculation as they lack any definitive CFD results to prove monetary or environmental
benefits. In addition, most of these patents and proposals suggest a mechanism much more
complex than the actuator mechanism we propose. This indicates that our design has an
increased ease of manufacturing, and thus lower material and labor costs, as well as a decreased
component weight, and thus higher factor of safety as more mechanisms can be placed inside the
wing to provide redundancy to account for potential failure during flight.
Another device, slats, is similar to an adaptive wing cuff in that it is adaptable to flight
conditions and contributes to increasing stalling angle. However, an adaptive wing cuff is more
efficient than slats because the latter generate higher drag force due to the acceleration of air
6

between the slat and the baseline leading edge [26]. The fragile shape of a slat also requires
stronger materials and a more complex interior mechanism, resulting in issues regarding cost and
weight. The inherent complexity of the interior mechanism also reduces the factor of safety
because a heavy mechanism cannot be included multiple times in the wing to allow for
redundancy. An additional asset of the adaptive leading edge droop design, as opposed to the
current technology of slats, is that movement of slats during flight makes a more significant
alteration to the wing geometry than movement of a leading edge droop mechanism. Therefore,
slats work in tandem with flaps such that both devices simultaneously move so that the
aerodynamic center of the wing does not shift drastically when slats are adapting to flight
conditions. The advantage of the adaptive leading edge droop, in this respect, is that because the
droop is always attached to the wing's leading edge without a space as is present in the slat
mechanism, the droop does not change the wing's aerodynamic center as drastically as the slat
does. This allows for incorporation of an adaptive leading edge droop on many private aircraft
that do not have wing flaps.
Other devices used in today's aeronautics industry to increase stalling angle during flight
include stall strip, leading edge flap, notched leading edge, dogtooth leading edge, and boundary
layer fence. Prior analyses and flight tests have indicated that these devices are far less efficient
than fixed leading edge droops and slats.
4.0 Concept Details
4.1 Materials and Methods
In order to begin conducting an analysis of the effect of an adaptive wing cuff on the
average private aircraft wing, the team chose the Cessna 162 Skycatcher (Figure 4.1) for the
7

baseline model as it is a very common private aircraft. The Cessna 162 has a wing area of 120
ft
2
, a chord length of 3 ft 11 in, and a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lb [8,9,10]. The NACA
2412 airfoil profile was chosen due to its frequent usage on many aircraft. From this baseline
wing 1) the optimal angles of the wing cuff were determined through analysis of two-
dimensional (2-D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software of XFOIL and XFLR5 in flight
conditions as ascertained from the Cessna website (Table 4.1; Figure 4.1) [8]; 2) a computer
aided design (CAD) model of the baseline wing and down-selected wing cuffs were created in
Pro-Engineer Wildfire - based on research regarding today's typical wing cuffs, the cuff was to
be placed at the outboard of the wing occupying approximately one third of the wing span in
order to achieve maximum efficiency (Figure 4.2) [1]; 3) these CAD models were tested at
various conditions using three-dimensional (3-D) CFD software of Autodesk Simulation CFD to
determine optimal wing cuff angle at each condition; and 4) the force required by the interior
mechanism was determined using statics equations and a diagram of the system was created.

Figure 4.1 The Cessna 162 Skycatcher is a commonly used private aircraft
8

Flight
Condition
Altitude
(ft)
Velocity
(kts)
Air
Pressure
(psi)
Air
Temperature
(F)
Reynolds
Number
Mach
Number
Lift
Required
(lbs)
1 2000 60 13.665 51.8684 2484787 0.091 1300
2 9000 90 10.506 26.9184 3133831 0.14 1280
3 14000 105 8.6364 9.1073 3213572 0.166 1260
4 14000 112 8.6364 9.1073 3427934 0.178 1200
5 9000 80 10.506 26.9184 2785560 0.124 1190
6 2000 50 13.665 51.8684 2070596 0.076 1180

Table 4.1 Six flight conditions were considered for climb, cruise, and descent

Figure 4.1 The six flight conditions are compiled into a visualization of the flight path

Figure 4.2 An outboard wing cuff, as designed in this CAD model, is efficient
60 kts
90 kts
105 kts 112 kts
80 kts
50 kts
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
f
e
e
t
)

Distance (nautical miles)
Average Flight Conditions of Private Aircraft
9

4.1.4 Design of Interior Mechanism
Several designs were considered for an interior mechanism to facilitate adaptability of
wing cuff angle during flight. An initial idea was to use an inflation system similar to a de-icing
boot (Figure 4.3) placed on the leading edge of the wing and inflated when a cuff was optimal.
The plan was to inflate this rubber boot into only one cuff angle at climb and descent conditions,
and deflate into the baseline wing during cruise conditions. Since CFD results indicated that
different wing cuff angles are optimal at different flight conditions, an inflatable leading edge
will not suit the purpose of optimizing flight at all conditions as it is limited to the baseline wing
and only one possible wing cuff angle. Hence, two other possible mechanisms were studied, a
linear actuator and a rotary actuator, which will allow for multiple wing cuff angles during
flight. A linear actuator system functions by utilizing the thickness of the wing as a moment arm,
while a rotary actuator system functions as a motor and hinge on the lower profile of the wing
where the cuff joins to the baseline portion of the wing. Based on the force and moment required
from each actuator, respectively, to counteract the lift generated by the wing cuff, actuator
weights were determined to decide which mechanism is optimal.

Figure 4.3 A de-icing boot functions by inflating the leading edge
10

4.2 Results and Discussion
4.2.1 Two-Dimensional Analysis
The test results from XFOIL and XFLR5 were used to determine the lift-to-drag ratio and
the maximum stall angle of each of the preliminary airfoils at each condition (Table 5.1). Since
the optimal cuff angle for both lift-to-drag ratio and maximum stall angle is not constant, a fixed
cuff is not optimal. This demonstrates the superiority of the adaptive cuff design over the fixed
cuff design. Based on the performance of each wing cuff angle, it was determined that cuff
angles in-between 12.5 and 22.5 in intervals of 2.5 (Figure 4.4) was the optimal range of wing
cuffs for increasing stall angle while reducing drag. CAD models of the baseline wing and wings
with these wing cuffs were then designed to be tested three-dimensionally.

Figure 4.4 A range of five optimal wing cuff angles were selected for 3-D CFD analysis
comparison against the baseline wing
4.2.2 Three-Dimensional Analysis
After conducting the preliminary 3-D CFD analysis, the range of the optimal AOAs for
each wing model at each condition was refined based on the relative lift-to-drag ratios and
maximum stall angles. At cruise conditions, a low drag is desirable in order to improve fuel
Baseline (no wing cuff)
12.5 Wing Cuff
15 Wing Cuff
17.5 Wing Cuff
20 Wing Cuff 22.5 Wing Cuff
11

efficiency. At climb and descent conditions, a high maximum stall angle is desirable in order to
decrease the likelihood of fatal stall accidents due to extreme AOAs.
Data gathered from the high order 3-D CFD analysis was organized by optimal drag force
and stalling angle of each wing at each condition to allow for ease of comparison to establish the
optimal wing for each condition (Table 5.2). During all six flight conditions, the 12.5 wing cuff
was found to sustain the lowest drag force at the required lift force for each condition. However,
the optimal wing model for stalling angle was found to be either the 20 or 22.5 wing cuff.
Therefore, if and when the adaptive wing cuff technology is implemented, the 12.5 wing cuff
will be utilized during cruise conditions. At climb and descent conditions, the 12.5 wing cuff
will be utilized until the aircraft reaches a relatively high AOA around 20, at which point
sensors on the wings will activate the mechanism to incorporate a wing cuff with optimal stalling
angle at the corresponding flight condition.
The adaptive wing cuff design does not significantly improve stalling angle compared to
the fixed wing cuff. However, compared to the baseline wing, the stall angles during climb and
descent are increased significantly, by up to 13 (Figure 5.1). Therefore, the purpose of the
adaptive wing cuff is to maintain the same stalling angles that are achieved by the fixed cuff,
while decreasing fuel consumption compared to the fixed cuff. The adaptive wing cuff is optimal
not only during climb and descent conditions when high stalling angle is required, but also
during cruise conditions when high lift-to-drag ratio is required.
4.2.3 Calculating Fuel Efficiency
The thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) of an aircraft's engine is used to calculate
fuel consumption based on drag values of an aircraft. Based on specifications of the Cessna 162
12

Skycatcher, the TSFC is calculated to approximately 0.2 lb/lbf-hr determined from Equation 3.1
where C is fuel consumption (lb/hr), Hp
Brake
is brake horsepower (hp), and P is percentage of
engine power.

Based on the average Skycatcher flight plan as determined by the six previously defined
flight conditions, the fixed cuff uses more fuel than the baseline, and the baseline uses more fuel
than the adaptive cuff (Figure 5.2). Over the course of a single year, in which one hundred
thousand such flights take place, if all aircraft used the adaptive wing cuff, 121,589 gallons of
fuel will be saved compared to the baseline and 147,016 gallons compared to the fixed cuff.
Also, carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by 2,229,334 lbs compared to the baseline and
2,695,548 lbs compared to the fixed cuff, which is equal to the amount of carbon dioxide
absorbed by 46,444 and 56,157 trees respectively in a single year. Ultimately, if the entire
private aircraft community implemented the adaptive wing cuff, savings of fuel cost will result
in a total of $751,420 compared to the baseline wing or $908,562 compared to the fixed cuff.
Moreover, since the amount of private aircraft flights is increasing by approximately 16,000
flights per year, the projected savings will grow as time progresses [11]. Therefore, the adaptive
wing cuff is clearly far superior in fuel efficiency compared to both the fixed cuff and the
baseline wing.
4.2.4 Design of Interior Mechanism
Once an actuator system was determined to be optimal, the choice between a rotary
actuator and a linear actuator was presented. CFD analysis was conducted on the wing cuff by
13

itself, separate from the rest of the wing geometry, and the maximum lift force was 130.909 lb,
sustained at wing cuff angle of 22.5 and AOA of 30. Based on optimal placement of the
actuator inside the wing at the joint to the cuff (Figure 4.5), a required force of 162.35 lb was
calculated for the linear actuator and a required torque of 76.3 lb-ft was calculated for the rotary
actuator. As indicated, the linear actuator system functions by pushing or pulling a rod,
functioning as a moment arm, connected to the cuff which will subsequently increase or decrease
the wing cuff angle; the rotary actuator system simply rotates at the hinge, or pivot, of the wing
cuff. For these corresponding stipulations, the required rotary actuator weighs 8.2 lb [20]. On
the other hand, one linear actuator providing 200 lb force, and thus a factor of safety of 1.25,
weighs only 5.35 lb [21]. The choice was made to use two linear actuators, weighing a total of
10.7 lb, and producing a factor of safety of 2.5. During flight, a computer will monitor cuff angle
so that during cruise it is at an optimal angle for low drag based on the findings in this research
study. At climb and descent, when the AOA reaches 20, the cuff angle will be at an optimal
angle for maximum stall angle based on the findings in this research study.

30
5 . 22
@
131

ack angleof att

gle wingcuf f an
ce MaxLif tFor
lb Lif tForce F
rce ActuatorFo F
L
A


in lb F
lb MaxF
F F
A
A
L A



1000 64 . 5
160
2
1 . 14
5 . 22 30 cos 64 . 5


Figure 4.5 This configuration provides optimal usage of a linear or rotary actuator system
14

4.3 Conclusions and Additional Required Research and Development
In the initial researching stages of the project, the team discovered that the number of
fatalities related to the stalling of private aircraft was relatively high. Also, the team found that
the use of leading edge cuffs to ameliorate this danger poses a major disadvantage in that it
increases fuel consumption by increasing the drag force, especially during cruise conditions. The
main goal of this project was to determine whether it was possible to have the advantages of a
leading edge cuff while eliminating the devices shortcomings. Through research, design, and
analysis, the team was able to create a device that accomplishes this purpose via a leading edge
cuff adaptable by a linear actuator.
However, a number of assumptions were made in order to complete this project in a
timely manner. One such assumption was that the optimal placement of a wing cuff was at
outboard of wing occupying one third of the wing span. However, it is possible that optimal
placement of the wing cuff may vary with flight condition or wing dimensions. Furthermore, the
team assumed a general wing planform of a Cessna 162 Skycatcher. There are many possible
wing planforms for private aircraft. As the Skycatcher is fairly popular, and most other private
aircraft planforms do not drastically differentiate from that of the Skycatcher, it was considered
reasonable to use only the Skycatcher for testing purposes. Another area of study where the team
sacrificed extensive research and design was the mechanism to facilitate wing cuff motion. The
team explored only three possibilities for the interior mechanism - inflatable leading edge, and
rotary and linear actuators. Although the actuator system that was designed will suffice, there
definitely is the possibility of the existence of a more efficient system that the team did not have
the time and resources to investigate. Also, the team did not conduct 3-D CFD analysis on all of
the cuff angles. Instead, the team utilized XFOIL and XFLR5, 2-D CFD software, to narrow
15

down the suitable range of the cuff angles. Since XFOIL and XFLR5 are not as accurate as
Autodesk Simulation CFD, there may have been inaccuracies which may have resulted in the
elimination of some cuff angles that may have been more efficient.
If the team had more time to conduct this project, there are a number of objectives that
the team would like to complete. The team would utilize CFD analysis to determine the optimal
placement of the wing cuff suitable to the specific wing design, rather than a generic cuff
placement derived from research. The team would also examine a variety of wing geometries
other than that of the Cessna 162 Skycatcher. In such a scenario, the team would choose the
design that was optimal on the most geometries to be identified as the overall best design. The
team would also analyze a wider variety of interior mechanism systems. Another subject crucial
to the development of an adaptive wing cuff system is the selection of materials. Unfortunately,
the team did not possess sufficient resources to conduct materials analysis on the system.
Currently, without having been able to delve into the issue, the team believes that a shape
memory alloy would be optimal for the mobile components on the wing cuff's joints. In addition,
if permitted the time, the team would conduct 3-D CFD analysis of all wing cuff angle values
instead of limiting to a small range of angles based on 2-D CFD analysis of airfoils.





16

5.0 Additional Illustrations
Condition Airfoil L/D Stalling Angle (deg)
1 5 deg cuff 118.6874 19
1 10 deg cuff 109.156 19
1 15 deg cuff 125.4709 19.5
1 20 deg cuff 115.8416 19
1 25 deg cuff 113.6261 19
1 baseline 116.5869 17
2 5 deg cuff 121.0316 18.5
2 10 deg cuff 112.4955 16
2 15 deg cuff 133.4764 19.5
2 20 deg cuff 123.2056 20
2 25 deg cuff 108.1532 18.5
2 baseline 118.6043 18
3 5 deg cuff 119.507 18.5
3 10 deg cuff 113.3182 19
3 15 deg cuff 133.0461 19
3 20 deg cuff 123.4504 19.5
3 25 deg cuff 108.1362 18.5
3 baseline 119.1954 17.5
4 5 deg cuff 120.4369 19
4 10 deg cuff 115.1193 18
4 15 deg cuff 135.605 19
4 20 deg cuff 125.1338 20
4 25 deg cuff 109.2836 18.5
4 baseline 119.9835 17.5
5 5 deg cuff 120.0102 19
5 10 deg cuff 110.5069 15.5
5 15 deg cuff 130.1263 19.5
5 20 deg cuff 119.4874 20
5 25 deg cuff 106.1632 19
5 baseline 117.6861 18
6 5 deg cuff 115.7283 18
6 10 deg cuff 105.496 19
6 15 deg cuff 119.8388 19
6 20 deg cuff 110.3513 19.5
6 25 deg cuff 113.8811 18
6 baseline 114.4907 17.5

Table 5.1 This data shows lift-to-drag ratios and stalling angles for each airfoil at each condition
17

Condition Wing Model Drag (lbs) Stalling Angle (deg)
1 12p5 deg cuff 66.1254 30
1 15 deg cuff 81.3968 27
1 17p5 deg cuff 68.3037 25
1 20 deg cuff 78.3918 40
1 22p5 deg cuff 68.06 30
1 baseline 93.4916 26
2 12p5 deg cuff 68.4837 27
2 15 deg cuff 91.6808 25
2 17p5 deg cuff 75.9879 23
2 20 deg cuff 95.8385 29
2 22p5 deg cuff 76.2329 30
2 baseline 93.1847 24
3 12p5 deg cuff 72.2101 N/A
3 15 deg cuff 102.111 N/A
3 17p5 deg cuff 83.3621 N/A
3 20 deg cuff 104.706 N/A
3 22p5 deg cuff 82.4943 N/A
3 baseline 99.2688 N/A
4 12p5 deg cuff 80.3874 N/A
4 15 deg cuff 110.424 N/A
4 17p5 deg cuff 89.2469 N/A
4 20 deg cuff 114.388 N/A
4 22p5 deg cuff 90.737 N/A
4 baseline 105.84 N/A
5 12p5 deg cuff 58.2614 28
5 15 deg cuff 76.9341 25
5 17p5 deg cuff 64.5803 23
5 20 deg cuff 82.5324 31
5 22p5 deg cuff 65.8811 25
5 baseline 82.0957 27
6 12p5 deg cuff 63.2092 25
6 15 deg cuff 80.0781 25
6 17p5 deg cuff 68.3702 25
6 20 deg cuff 78.2081 29
6 22p5 deg cuff 70.1722 25
6 baseline 78.6167 26

Table 5.2 This data highlights the optimal drag and stalling angle values for each flight condition
18


Figure 5.1 An added wing cuff increases the stall angle throughout the flight

Figure 5.2 The adaptive wing cuff consumes the least fuel throughout the flight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
)

Condition #
Wing Configuration Stalling Angle
Comparison
Baseline
Wing Cuff
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F
u
e
l

C
o
n
s
u
m
e
d

P
e
r

F
l
i
g
h
t

(
g
a
l
)

Condition #
Wing Configuration Fuel Consumption
Comparison
Baseline Wing
Fixed Wing Cuff
Adaptive Wing Cuff
19


Figure 5.3 3-D CFD analysis indicates greater separation of airflow behind a baseline wing (left)
than behind a wing with cuff (right) at high AOAs

Figure 5.4 3-D CFD analysis indicates greater separation of airflow behind a baseline wing (top)
than behind a wing with cuff (bottom) at high AOAs



20

6.0 References
[1] B. Adams, K. Clark, G. Davidson, P. Spindler, Wing Cuff Design for Cessna CJ1, West
Lafayette: Purdue University, 2004.
[2] [Anonymous], The Lynch STOL 26 configuration by Lynch Aircraft, [Online document],
[cited 2012 Jul 23], Available HTTP: http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id591.html
[3] Flight Learnings, Secondary Flight Controls (Part Two) Leading Edge Devices, [Online
document], [cited 2012 Jul 24], Available HTTP: http://www.flightlearnings.com/secondary-
flight-controls-part-two-%E2%80%93-leading-edge-devices/556/
[4] Petersons Performance Plus Inc.,Upgrade Pricing, [Online document], [cited 2012 Jul 25],
Available HTTP: http://www.katmai-260se.com/price.html
[5] U.S. Department of Transportation, Preliminary Accident and Incident Notices. Washington,
DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 2011.
[6] U.S. Department of Transportation, Sport and Recreational Accident Summaries.
Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 2010.
[7] Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Stall/spin: Entry point for crash and burn? [Online
document], [cited 2012 Aug 19], Available HTTP:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.html
[8] Cessna, Performance & Specs, [Online document], [cited 2012 July 27], Available HTTP:
http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-performance.html
[9] Cessna, Pilots Operating Handbook and Flight Training Supplement, [Online document],
2011 Oct 21 (Rev. 4), [cited 2012 Jul 27], Available HTTP:
https://support.cessna.com/docs/custsupt/cessnasupport/documents/162PHUS.pdf
21

[10] Cessna, Cessna Skycatcher, [Online document], [cited 2012 Jul 28], Available HTTP:
http://www.pacificaircenter.com/downloads/skycatcher/pages.pdf
[11] U.S. Department of Transportation, General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys - CY
2010. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 2012.
[12] Shell, Shell Avgas 100LL, [Online document], 1999 Feb 19, [cited 2012 Aug 21],
Available HTTP: http://www-
static.shell.com/static/aus/downloads/aviation/avgas_100ll_pds.pdf
[13] 100LL, Aviation Fuel Prices, [Online document], [cited 2012 Aug 24], Available HTTP:
http://www.100ll.com/
[14] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
(TSFC), [Online document], 2008 Jul 11, [cited 2012 Aug 24], Available HTTP:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/sfc.html
[15] Cessna, A high-performance engine for a highly affordable aircraft, [Online document],
[cited 2012 Aug 24], Available HTTP: http://www.cessna.com/single-
engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-engine.html
[16] Aeronautics Learning Laboratory for Science, Technology, and Research, Aircraft Engine
Thrust Calculations - Level 3, [Online document], 2004 Mar 12, [cited 2012 Aug 24],
Available HTTP: http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Propulsion2.htm
[17] E. Evans, Tree Facts, [Online document], [cited 2012 Aug 24], Available HTTP:
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm
[18] PilotFriend, Icing Conditions in Flight, [Online document], [cited 2012 Sep 1], Available
HTTP: http://www.pilotfriend.com/safe/safety/icing_conditions.htm
22

[19] E. Rollefson, Winter Weather Tips from Team Mustang - Model 510 ATA 30-00, [Online
document], [cited 2012 Sep 2], Available HTTP:
https://support.cessna.com/docs/custsupt/directapproach/Archives/nov07.html
[20] Valve Solutions, Inc., Item # 1010, Series 1000 On-Off Rotary Electric Actuator, [Online
document], [cited 2012 Sep 15], Available HTTP:
http://products.valvesolutions.com/item/vsi-actuators/series-1000-on-off-rotary-electric-
actuator/item-1985?
[21] DC Actuators, AEI Linear Actuator Comparison Chart, [Online document], [cited 2012
Sep 15], Available HTTP: http://www.dcactuators.com/actuator_comparison_chart.pdf
[22] H.P. Monner and J. Riemenschneider, Morphing high lift structures: Smart leading edge
device and smart single slotted flap, In Aerodays 2011, 2011.
[23] SARISTU, Enhanced adaptive droop nose for a morphing wing, [Online document],
[cited 2012 Sep 4], Available HTTP: http://www.saristu.eu/project/activities/as01-
enhanced-adaptive-droop-nose-for-a-morphing-wing/
[24] X. Letron, A380 Flight Controls Overview, In Presentation at Hamburg University of
Applied Sciences, 2007.
[25] M. Kintscher, M. Wiedemann, H.P. Monner, O. Heintze, and T. Khn, "Design of a smart
leading edge device for low speed wind tunnel tests in the European project SADE,"
International Journal of Structural Integrity, vol. 2, iss. 4, pp.383 405, 2011.
[26] Zenith Air, STOL CH 701 Design, [Online document], [cited 2012 Sep 18], Available
HTTP: http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design-wing.html
23

[27] G. Dockter and B. Hamilton, Geographic Morphing Wing with Expandable Spars, The
Boeing Company, Chicago, IL, 14 Aug 2002.
[28] D. Cadogan, W. Graham, and T. Smith, Inflatable and Rigidizable Wings for Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA.
[29] D. Pitt, Apparatus for Increase of Aircraft Lift and Maneuverability, The Boeing
Company, Chicago, IL, 28 Aug 2003.
[30] A. Y. N. Sofla, S. A. Meguid, K. T. Tan, and W. K. Yeo, Shape morphing of aircraft wing:
Status and challenges, Materials and Design, vol. 31, iss. 3, pp. 1284-1292, 2010.
[31] S. Kota, J. Hetrick, R. Osbon, D. Paul, E. Pendleton, P. Flick, and C. Tilmann, Design and
application of compliant mechanisms for morphing aircraft structures, AFRL, Air Vehicles
Directorate, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH.
[32] C. Thill, J. Etches, I. Bond, K. Potter, and P. Weaver, Morphing skins, Advanced
Composites Centre for Innovation and Science (ACCIS) Department of Aerospace
Engineering, University of Bristol, UK, Mar 2008.
[33] M. Kintscher, H.P. Monner, and O. Heintze, Experimental Testing of a Smart Leading
Edge High Lift Device for Commercial Transportation Aircrafts, In 27
th
International
Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2010.
[34] K. Burdges and A. Robertson, Airfoil with Extendible and Retractable Leading Edge,
Lockheed Aircraft Cooporation, Burbank, CA, 26 Jan 1973.
[35] K. Wernicke, Inflatable Wing Leading Edge for High Lift and Deicing, Sky Technology
Vehicle Design & Development Co., Hurst, TX 76053.