A Review of Morphing Aircraft PDF

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures
http://jim.sagepub.com/
A Review of Morphing Aircraft

Silvestro Barbarino, Onur Bilgen, Rafic M. Ajaj, Michael I. Friswell and Daniel J. Inman
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 2011 22: 823
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X11414084
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jim.sagepub.com/content/22/9/823
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jim.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jim.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jim.sagepub.com/content/22/9/823.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 30, 2011

What is This?
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014
A Review of Morphing Aircraft

SILVESTRO BARBARINO,1,* ONUR BILGEN,1 RAFIC M. AJAJ,1 MICHAEL I. FRISWELL1 AND DANIEL J. INMAN2
1
College of Engineering, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
Center for Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
ABSTRACT: Aircraft wings are a compromise that allows the aircraft to fly at a range of
flight conditions, but the performance at each condition is sub-optimal. The ability of a wing
surface to change its geometry during flight has interested researchers and designers over the
years as this reduces the design compromises required. Morphing is the short form for metamorphose; however, there is neither an exact definition nor an agreement between the
researchers about the type or the extent of the geometrical changes necessary to qualify an
aircraft for the title shape morphing. Geometrical parameters that can be affected by morphing solutions can be categorized into: planform alteration (span, sweep, and chord), out-ofplane transformation (twist, dihedral/gull, and span-wise bending), and airfoil adjustment
(camber and thickness). Changing the wing shape or geometry is not new. Historically,
morphing solutions always led to penalties in terms of cost, complexity, or weight, although
in certain circumstances, these were overcome by system-level benefits. The current trend for
highly efficient and green aircraft makes such compromises less acceptable, calling for innovative morphing designs able to provide more benefits and fewer drawbacks. Recent developments in smart materials may overcome the limitations and enhance the benefits from
existing design solutions. The challenge is to design a structure that is capable of withstanding
the prescribed loads, but is also able to change its shape: ideally, there should be no distinction
between the structure and the actuation system. The blending of morphing and smart structures in an integrated approach requires multi-disciplinary thinking from the early development, which significantly increases the overall complexity, even at the preliminary design
stage. Morphing is a promising enabling technology for the future, next-generation aircraft.
However, manufacturers and end users are still too skeptical of the benefits to adopt morphing
in the near future. Many developed concepts have a technology readiness level that is still very
low. The recent explosive growth of satellite services means that UAVs are the technology of
choice for many investigations on wing morphing. This article presents a review of the stateof-the-art on morphing aircraft and focuses on structural, shape-changing morphing concepts
for both fixed and rotary wings, with particular reference to active systems. Inflatable solutions have been not considered, and skin issues and challenges are not discussed in detail.
Although many interesting concepts have been synthesized, few have progressed to wing
tunnel testing, and even fewer have flown. Furthermore, any successful wing morphing
system must overcome the weight penalty due to the additional actuation systems.
Key Words: bio-inspired, morphing < piezoelectric, shape change, review.
INTRODUCTION
HE observation of flight in nature has motivated the
human desire to fly, and ultimately the development
of aircraft. The designs of the first flying machines were
relatively crude and even today nature has much to
teach us and continuously inspires research. By directly
comparing aircraft with nature, designers seek inspiration, in order to achieve the simplicity, elegance, and
efficiency that characterize animal species obtained by
thousands of years of biological evolution. In particular,
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: silvestro.barbarino@gmail.com
Figures 1 and 3 appear in color online: http://jim.sagepub.com
JOURNAL
OF INTELLIGENT
the attraction for designers is the integration between

the structure and function that characterizes the wings
of birds (Bowman et al., 2002). Even in complex urban
environments, birds are able to rapidly change shape to
transition from efficient cruise to aggressive maneuvering and precision descents. Avian morphology permits a
wide range of wing configurations, each of which may be
used for a particular flight task (Abdulrahim and Lind,
2006).
The idea of changing the wing shape or geometry is
far from new. The Wright Flyer, the first heavier than
air aircraft with an engine, enabled roll control by
changing the twist of its wing using cables actuated
directly by the pilot. The increasing demand for higher
cruise speeds and payloads led to more rigid aircraft
MATERIAL SYSTEMS
AND
STRUCTURES, Vol. 22June 2011
1045-389X/11/09 082355 $10.00/0

DOI: 10.1177/1045389X11414084
The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
823
824
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
structures that are unable to adapt to different aerodynamic conditions, characterizing a typical mission profile. The deployment of conventional flaps or slats on a
commercial airplane changes the geometry of its wings.
The wings are designed as a compromise geometry that
allows the aircraft to fly at a range of flight conditions,
but the performance at each condition is often sub-optimal. Moreover, these examples of geometry changes are
limited, with narrow benefits compared with those that
could be obtained from a wing that is inherently deformable and adaptable. The ability of a wing surface to
change its geometry during flight has interested
researchers and designers over the years: an adaptive
wing diminishes the compromises required to insure
the operation of the airplane in multiple flight conditions (Stanewsky, 2001).
In spite of the apparent complexity of variable-geometry aircraft, nature has evolved thousands of flying
insects and birds that routinely perform difficult missions. Observations by experimental biologists reveal
that birds such as falcons are able to loiter on-station
in a high-aspect ratio configuration using air currents
and thermals until they detect their prey. Upon detection, the bird morphs into a strike configuration to
swoop down on an unsuspecting prey.
Morphing is short for metamorphose and, in the aeronautical field, is adopted to define a set of technologies
that increase a vehicles performance by manipulating
certain characteristics to better match the vehicle state
to the environment and task at hand (Weisshaar, 2006).
Using this definition, established technologies such as
flaps or retractable landing gear would be considered
morphing technologies. However, morphing carries the
connotation of radical shape changes or shape changes
only possible with near-term or futuristic technologies.
There is neither an exact definition nor an agreement
between the researchers about the type or the extent of
the geometrical changes necessary to qualify an aircraft
for the title shape morphing.
As early as 1890, the French aviation pioneer Clement
Ader proposed a bat wing for an airplane (Eole) that
could reduce its size to half or one-third of its full
deployment. The first examples of polymorphic aircraft
include the Pterodactyl IV, designed by Geoffrey Hill at
Westland that flew in 1931, and the Russian fighter IS-1,
which flew in 1940 and was able to switch from a
maneuverable biplane to a faster monoplane.
Weisshaar (2006) gave an historical overview and
Figure 1 shows a broad summary of fixed-wing aircraft
(of different categories and sizes) implementing flying
morphing technologies as a timeline. Historically,
morphing solutions always led to penalties in terms of
cost, complexity, or weight, although in certain circumstances, these were overcome by the benefits attained at
the overall system level. Airplanes such as the F-14
Tomcat and the Panavia Tornado are good examples,
where varying the wing sweep angle allows good performance at both low and high speeds (alleviating the problems of compressibility).
Recent developments in SMART materials may overcome these limitations and enhance the benefits from
similar design solutions. Chopra (2002) presented a
review of the state-of-the-art of smart structures and
integrated systems. The design of a morphing aircraft
by means of smart materials is a multidisciplinary problem. The challenge is to design a structure that is capable
of withstanding not only the prescribed loads, but also
to change its shape in order to withstand several load
conditions. In order to reduce the complexity and hence
increase the reliability, the actuation system, consisting
of active materials, should be embedded in the structure.
Ideally there should be no distinction between the structure and the actuation system, so that the system used to
produce and carry the loads, is also capable of changing
shape. In addition to benefits in terms of complexity,
reliability, and production cost, such a concept could
also prove to be lighter.
The timeline in Figure 1 highlights that most large
shape modification techniques have been developed for
military applications, where a more versatile vehicle
compensates for the additional complexity and weight.
Furthermore, in recent years, focus has moved to small
aircraft (mostly unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs).
The move toward UAVs results from greater efficiency
requirements and a short time-to-deliver because of
reduced certification issues and qualification tests. The
lower aerodynamic load on UAVs also increases the
number of potential morphing technologies. Except for
variable-sweep and swing-wing concepts, most previous
morphing concepts were applied to lightly loaded, relatively low-speed airplane designs. It is fair to ask why
new investment should be made in morphing wings
when this concept has been tried in the past and has
had so little impact. The answer to this question has
two parts, both of which are concerned with the technology that exists today, compared to that which existed
several decades ago. First, many new, novel materials,
material systems, and actuation devices have been developed during the past decade. These developments allow
designers to distribute actuation forces and power optimally and more efficiently. Properly used, these devices
reduce weight compared to other, more established
designs. Second, missions today differ markedly from
those a decade ago. Adversaries may be sophisticated
or unsophisticated. Targets are more distributed and
are smaller, but the proliferation of sophisticated air
defenses mean that these targets may be very dangerous
to attack. Morphing provides mission flexibility and versatility to deal with these kinds of targets in a cost-effective manner.
Wing shape-changing concepts require actuators
attached to internal mechanisms, covered with flexible/
825
Morphing Aircraft
1903
1931
1931
1932
1937
1947
1951
Wright Flyer
Twist
Pterodactyl IV
Sweep
MAK-10
Span
IS-1
Bi-to monoplane
LIG-7
Chord
MAK-123
Span
X5
Sweep
1952
1964
1964
1966
1967
1967
1969
XF10F
Sweep
F 111
Sweep
XB 70
Span bending
Su 17 IG
Sweep
MIG 23
Sweep
SU 24
Sweep
Tu 22 M
Sweep
1970
1972
1974
1974
1979
1981
1985
F 14
Sweep
FS 29
Span
B1
Sweep
Tornado
Sweep
1993
1994
2001
2002
FLYRT
Span
MOTHRA
Camber
AAL
Pitch
F/A 18
A.A.W.
2006
2006
2007
2007
MFX 1
Sweep & Span
Univ. of Florida
Sweep
Virginia Tech
Camber
Univ. of Florida
Folding
AD 1
Obliquing
Tu 160
Sweep
2003
2004
Virginia Tech
Span
Univ. of Florida
Twist
2007
2008
MFX 2
Sweep & span
Delft Univ.
Sweep
AFTI/F 111
M.A.W.
2005
Univ. of Florida
Gull
2010
Virignia tech
Camber
Figure 1. Timeline of fixed wing aircraft implementing morphing technologies.
sliding aerodynamic surfaces, together with load-transfer attachments between the skin and the skeleton. This
requires a distributed array of actuators, mechanisms,
and materials that slide relative to each other or skin
materials that stretch. Inman (2001) presented the actuator requirements for controlled morphing air vehicles.
Mechanism design requirements include the range of
motion, concerns about binding and friction, the effects
of wing structural deformability under load, and the
control of the actuator stroke under load. Actuator performance power and actuator force capability are essential to design success. The size, weight, and volume of
the actuators are important metrics, as are the range of
motion, bandwidth, and fail-safe behavior. Locking is
important when the wing is under load since, without
locking features, the actuators must withstand full load
unless the actuator works in parallel with a structural

element. Morphing designs may also benefit from geometrically flexible structures if the aeroelastic energy
from the airstream can be used to activate the shape
changing and tabs can maintain the shape using aeroelastic control. The wealth of new technologies available
to the wing designer provides intriguing design possibilities. Internal control and the strategy used to move
from one wing form to another is also an important
design goal. This involves sensor selection, braking,
and locking and the integration of sensors, actuators,
and the associated software. The speed at which morphing shape change occurs is also important. While slow
changes may be sufficient to alter performance for some
missions, rapid changes may significantly increase aircraft maneuverability.
826
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Shape morphing wing
Rotary-wing aircrafts have challenged aeronautical

engineers with a plethora of issues to obtain stable
flight. A major component of these issues is the complex
flow field that a rotor blade is exposed to. Even in hover,
each section of the rotor blade has different oncoming
flow velocities, and engineers have designed the blade
with a pre-built twist to compensate for them.
However, the optimum amount of this pre-twist varies
with the flight condition, and hence classical rotor blade
designs are a compromise. Aside from the performance
issues, the rotor blades emanate a significant amount of
vibration and noise, caused by factors including the
increased asymmetrical loading of the rotor disc, and
blade tip shocks that occur with increasing forward
speed. Furthermore, the noise emitted by the rotor
blades is compounded by the interaction of the blades
with the tip vortices of the proceeding blades
(bladevortex interaction (BVI) noise) (Leishman,
2006). These problems, while not necessarily imperative
to performance improvements, have to be solved in
order to obtain a smooth ride.
This article focuses on structural, shape-changing
morphing concepts for both fixed and rotary wings,
with particular reference to active systems (system characterized by an actuator). Thus, applications excluded
from this study are those dealing with synthetic jets,
vibration issues, and flight control, or belonging to
other fields such as naval, automotive, or space.
Inflatable solutions have been not considered. The
wing morphing concepts have been classified into three
major types, as shown in Figure 2: planform alteration
(involving span, chord, and sweep changes), out-ofplane transformation (twist, dihedral/gull, and spanwise bending), and airfoil adjustment (camber and
thickness). For each geometrical parameter, a table summarizes the studies available in literature on that specific
topic, together with some useful information to give the
reader an immediate picture of the developed work.
However, some studies and past projects (for example,
the DARPA (2011) Morphing Adaptive Structure
(MAS) program) combine several morphing variables
and are difficult to categorize. These works have been
referenced in the section which best suits the principal
affected parameter.
Planform
Sweep
Span
Chord
Out-of-plane
Twist
Dihedral/
Gull
Spanwise
bending
Airfoil
Camber
Figure 2. Organization of the review.
Thickness
In morphing applications, where large shape changes

are expected, the design of a suitable skin is a huge challenge and a key issue. The skin has to withstand the
aerodynamic pressure loads, while being sufficiently
compliant for the underlying morphing structure. This
topic will be discussed only briefly within this article.
BENEFITS OF MORPHING
The current use of multiple aerodynamic devices (such
as flaps and slats) represents a simplification of the general idea behind morphing. Traditional control systems
(with fixed geometry and/or location) give high aerodynamic performance over a fixed range and for a limited
set of flight conditions. Outside of this range, these traditional systems can be neutral or negatively influence
the aerodynamics and hence often give lower efficiency.
Conventional hinged mechanisms are effective in controlling the airflow, but they are not efficient, as the
hinges and other junctions usually create discontinuities
in the surface, resulting in unwanted fluid dynamic
phenomena.
Since 1920, airplanes have used devices that can
increase the lift during landing and takeoff (Renken,
1985). Increases in aircraft weight and cruise speed,
and increases in the wing structural stiffness to avoid
multiple aero-elastic phenomena (divergence, flutter,
etc.) have led to the use of discrete control surfaces
such as ailerons and flaps in place of wing twist. Only
since the late 1970s have researchers seriously revisited
concepts of variable wing shape. Most of this research
was based on two concepts, namely the active control of
the curvature along the wingspan and the implementation of flexible wings, able to exploit the aero-elastic
forces to obtain the desired deformations (wing
shapes). Many studies have targeted the variation of
the wing shape (Weiss, 2003; Sofla et al., 2010) to
achieve several objectives, such as the control of shock
waves during transonic flight conditions, or the control
of turbulence, the wake (laminar flow separation), vortices, active control of flutter, etc. (Stanewsky, 2001).
Civil and military aircrafts are designed to have optimal aerodynamic characteristics (maximum lift/drag
ratio) at one point and fuel condition in the entire
flight envelope. However, the fuel loading and distribution change continuously throughout the flight, and the
aircraft may often have to fly at non-optimal flight conditions due to air traffic control restrictions. The consequent sub-optimal performance has more significance
for commercial aircraft as they are more flexible than
military aircraft and also fuel efficiency has far greater
importance as a performance measure. There is also
much recent interest in high-altitude long endurance
(HALE) aircrafts that are designed to fly for several
days. HALE aircrafts have a larger proportion of fuel
weight than other aircrafts, and hence the resulting
Morphing Aircraft
changes in aeroelastic shape throughout the flight can be

substantial. Fuel efficiency is becoming increasingly
important for civil and HALE aircrafts, and any
approach that enables better aerodynamic performance
throughout a flight needs to be investigated and
developed.
Using an adaptive wing, whose geometry varies
according to changing external aerodynamic loads, the
airflow in each part of the aircraft mission profile may
be optimized, resulting in an increase of aerodynamic
performance during cruise (Szodruch, 1985; Smith and
Nelson, 1990; Siclari et al., 1996; Martins and Catalano,
1998) and maneuvers (Thornton, 1993). In the literature,
the change in wing shape is also referred to as the mission adaptive wing. Even a 1% reduction in airfoil drag
would save the US fleet of wide-body transport aircraft
$140 million/year, at a fuel cost of $0.70/gal (source
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Dryden Studies). For a medium-range transport aircraft with an adaptive wing, the projected fuel
saving should be about 35%, depending on mission
distance.
Large shape change concepts usually have associated
design penalties such as added weight or complexity
and, without these penalties, morphing would always
make sense. For most applications, there is a crossover point where fuel penalties for not morphing begin
to exceed the morphing weight penalty (Bowman et al.,
2007). However, when overall system performance and
mission requirements are assessed, large shape change
concepts can be a viable approach for some missions,
particularly those that combine several requirements in
terms of speed, altitude, or take-off and landing. The
adaptive wing would allow a given aircraft to perform
multiple missions and enable a single aircraft with multirole capabilities, radically expanding its flight envelope.
From a military perspective, a single morphing aircraft
could perform different roles within a given mission that
otherwise would require different vehicles. Jha and
Kudva (2004) studied how changing wing parameters
affect the performance of an aircraft, and demonstrated
that an optimal design requires large geometric changes
to satisfy a multi-role mission. Therefore, choosing
between high efficiency or high maneuverability at the
design stage would not be necessary. Aerodynamic optimization for a single flight condition would not be necessary. Compared to conventional aircraft, morphing
aircrafts become more competitive as more mission
tasks or roles are added to their requirements. The
impact that a morphing wing has on aircraft performance for a range of flight conditions may be presented
graphically using a radar (or spider) plot.
Figure 3 shows a spider plot for 11 flight conditions,
where each axis of the plot represents the performance
metric associated with each flight condition. The outer
radius of the spider plot indicates the best possible
827
performance. For a test case based on a BQM-34

Firebee unmanned target drone aircraft (Joshi et al.,
2004), the performance of the baseline aircraft can be
compared to various wing morphing strategies on the
spider plot. Planform morphing (a wing capable of
telescoping, chord extension, and variable sweep) significantly improves the aircraft performance over that provided by morphing the airfoil alone or by the baseline
aircraft.
Many researchers follow a multidisciplinary optimization and systems approach to morphing solutions
(Samareh et al., 2007), focusing on the integration of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computational structural dynamics models for geometric optimization. Morphing wing airfoil and configuration
geometry, design methodology, effectors, flight control,
aero-elasticity, and stability may also be considered
(Rodriguez (2007) gave an overview). Bowman et al.
(2007) demonstrated that for a hunter-killer mission,
that is mainly cruise- and loiter-dominated, morphing
does make sense (even with a 10% empty weight penalty), especially for vehicles under 20,000 lbs. For more
difficult missions, for example, increasing the search
radius, this break point in vehicle weight would increase.
Roth et al. (2002) showed that morphing could have a
large impact on fleet size for a Coast Guard patrol mission. The key to requirements for this mission was a
high-altitude cruise out to station with a fast response
time, and then a slow, low-altitude patrol.
Smith et al. (2007) investigated the benefits of morphing wing technology for fighter aircraft systems (with
both turbojet and turbofan propulsions), showing that
the optimized mission-integrated designs yield significant fuel savings over fixed-wing aircraft. Mission segment analysis shows that most fuel savings due to
morphing are obtained in the least-constrained (subsonic) flight segments.
Wittmann et al. (2009) gave a methodology to assess
morphing strategies and technologies for a wide range of
applications, including civil and military, using a variety
of figures of merit to evaluate achievable benefits. For
instance, a single degree-of-freedom variable-chord
morphing concept evaluated for a high-speed scenario
yielded 79% morphing efficiency for the maximum
speed as a figure of merit. An efficient transport scenario
saw a 23% improvement in lift-to-drag ratio when the
morphing parameters were optimized simultaneously.
For a high-lift scenario, a 74% increase in lift coefficient
could be achieved by maximizing wing area and camber.
From a flight control perspective, the pitching moment
is strongly influenced by wing sweep (and can lead to a
reduction of the trim surfaces), while roll and pitch control can be efficiently modified by variable span (and
also variable twist).
Adaptive wings can provide a significant increase in
performance. However, the realization of such an
828
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Firebee
Airfoil
Takeoff: SL
goemetry
Climb: SL
S-Turn: 60k
Climb: 30k
I-Turn: SL
Cruise: SL
Loiter: 60k
Cruise: 30k
Dash: 30k
Accel: 30k
Cruise: 60k
Figure 3. Spider plot comparing predicted performance of the baseline Firebee, a morphing airfoil Firebee and a morphing planform Firebee
(Joshi et al., 2004, reprinted with permission of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).
aircraft poses new design challenges. In traditional

design approaches, the airfoil profile and wing shape
are dictated by the aerodynamics at fixed flight conditions and the structure is lightweight and extremely
rigid. This approach must be abandoned, and innovative
structures designed that are inherently deformable and
continuously adaptable, in real time and during flight,
according to the operational conditions and requirements imposed by the mission. Singh et al. (2009) gave
a methodology to create innovative products, labeled as
transformers, with a broader functional repertoire than
traditional designs, and able to transform into different
configurations. They highlighted the lack of a systematic
methodology to create such products and identified
analogies in nature, patents, and products. They also
hypothesized the existence of such products in different
environments and situations.
Increasing wing structural weight is a serious problem.
Skillen and Crossley (2006, 2008b) showed in their
numerical study that mechanisms can account for a substantial portion of the weight and are a strong function
of the wing geometry. Moreover, the opportunity to
realize a morphing wing requires the availability of
materials and implementation solutions that guarantee

in all circumstances the necessary deformation of the
structure while maintaining structural integrity and
load-bearing capability. Smart materials may be the
solution to realize distributed actuators within the
wing structure capable of providing shape
modifications.
The current challenges of morphing vehicle design are
the additional weight and complexity, the power consumption of the required distributed actuation concepts,
and the development of structural mechanization concepts covered by flexible skins (Reich and Sanders,
2007). Additionally, there is a strong need to understand
the scalability of morphing wing concepts to achieve
sufficient structural stiffness, robust aero-elastic designs,
and an adequate flight control law to handle the changing aerodynamic and inertia characteristics of morphing
vehicles (Moorhouse et al., 2006).
Flight control represents another big challenge for
morphing aircraft, as additional terms appear in the
governing equations and may require complex control
systems. Seigler et al. (2007) studied the modeling
and flight control of vehicles with large-scale
Morphing Aircraft
planform changes. The equations of atmospheric flight

were derived in a general form, methods to integrate the
aerodynamic forces examined, and various approaches
and methods of flight control distinguished.
The absence of sharp edges and deflected surfaces on
morphing aircraft also has the potential to reduce the
radar signature and visibility of the vehicle, thus enhancing its stealth properties. Gern et al. (2005) highlighted
that redundancy generally requires a conventional flap
to be connected to at least one or two additional actuators to provide sufficient flight control in case of airframe damage or actuator failure. This may
dramatically increase the power installed in a vehicle;
for instance, the B-2 stealth bomber has 24 actuators
to drive 11 primary control surfaces. In contrast, morphing wings usually have heavily distributed actuation that
provides sufficient robustness and redundancy to
account for actuator failures with only a negligible
effect on weight.
Current research on rotary wings focuses on improvements in terms of increased speed, payload, and maneuverability, along with reductions in costs, vibrations, and
noise. The DARPA Mission Adaptive Rotor (MAR)
initiative (Warwick, 2009) plan to fly an adaptive rotor
by 2018. Boeing, Sikorsky, and the Bell Boeing tiltrotor
team have received 16-month Phase 1 contracts to assess
a wide range of adaptive rotor technologies and develop
designs for both a completely new rotor system and a
retro-fit demonstrator rotor. The goal of the MAR project is a rotor that can change its configuration before a
mission and in flight, between mission segments and
with every revolution. DARPA has identified a wide
range of potential approaches to reconfigure the rotor
in flight, including varying the blade diameter, sweep,
and chord; morphing tip shapes and variable-camber
airfoils; varying blade twist, anhedral/dihedral, tip
speed, stiffness, and damping. DARPA is looking for
technologies that can increase rotorcraft payload by
30% and range by 40%, while reducing the acoustic
detection range by 50% and vibration by 90% over
fixed geometry rotors. Some studies demonstrate the
aerodynamic and acoustic benefits of an active twist
rotor (Bailly and Delrieux, 2009; Boyd and Douglas,
2009; Zhang and Hoffmann, 2009), rotor power reduction using trailing-edge flaps (Leon and Gandhi, 2009)
and envelope expansion using extendable chord sections
(Leon et al., 2009). This article only includes morphing
applications with performance objectives.
MORPHING SKINS
Most of the morphing technologies or concepts
assume the existence of an appropriate flexible skin.
The design of flexible skins is challenging and has
many conflicting requirements. The skin must be soft
enough to allow shape changes but at the same time it
829
must be stiff enough to withstand the aerodynamic loads

and maintain the required shape/profile. This requires
thorough trade-off design studies between the requirements. In addition, the type of flexible skin required
depends on the loading scenario and the desired
change in shape (one-dimensional or multi-dimensional). Therefore, the design of flexible skins depends
on the specific application.
Thill et al. (2008) performed a comprehensive review
of flexible skins and considered various novel material
systems concepts and technologies. Only papers published since this review are briefly described here. Thill
et al. (2010) investigated the use of a composite corrugated structure as morphing skin panels in the trailingedge region to vary the camber and chord of an airfoil.
Wereley and Gandhi (2010) examined extensively the
challenges and requirements of flexible skins and listed
the state-of-the-art solutions. Skin concepts including
elastomeric matrix composites have been investigated
for large area changes (Peel et al., 2009; Bubert et al.,
2010; Murray et al., 2010, Olympio et al., 2010).
Furthermore, the use of morphing core sandwich structures covered by compliant face sheet has been investigated for both low- and for high-strain applications
depending on the cellular arrangement and the material
of the core (Joo et al., 2009; Bubert et al., 2010, Olympio
and Gandhi, 2010a, b). In addition, McKnight et al.
(2010) studied the use of segmented reinforcement (discrete) to create a variable-stiffness material that can be
adopted as a flexible skin.
WING PLANFORM MORPHING

Wing planform is mainly affected by three parameters
(individually or in combination): span, chord, and
sweep. Both span and sweep can affect the wing aspect
ratio, a parameter that modifies the lift-to-drag ratio.
Thus, an increase in wing aspect ratio would result in
an increase in both range and endurance (Anderson,
2000). From an aerodynamic perspective, the change
in aspect ratio produces differences in lift curve slope
and forces due to the change in the wing area. From a
dynamics perspective, the inertia of the aircraft also
changes. Span and sweep morphing have been investigated for military applications, particularly for UAVs,
which must loiter during surveillance and rapidly switch
into high-speed dash mode to move reconnaissance area
or to attack a target. Chord morphing has mainly been
applied to helicopter rotor blades so far. The objective
of the DARPA MAS program was to design and built
active, variable-geometry wing structures with the ability
to change wing shape and wing area substantially. All
three MAS contractors (Lockheed Martin, Hypercomp/
NextGen, and Raytheon Missile Systems) conducted a
functional analysis that concluded that changing wing
830
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
planform area and wingspan were the primary enablers

of a new class of morphing air vehicles.
Tables 13 summarize the literature for each geometrical parameter. However, due to the intrinsically coupled nature of many applications of planform change,
some papers appear in more than one table.
Variable Span for Fixed Wing Aircraft
Wings with large spans have good range and fuel efficiency, but lack maneuverability and have relatively low
cruise speeds. By contrast, aircrafts with low-aspect
ratio wings are faster and highly maneuverable, but
show poor aerodynamic efficiency (McCormik, 1995).
A variable-span wing can potentially integrate into a
single aircraft the advantages of both designs, making
this emerging technology especially attractive for military UAVs. Increasing the wingspan increases the aspect
ratio and wing area and decreases the span-wise lift distribution for the same lift. Thus, the drag of the wing
decreases, and consequently, the range of the vehicle
increases. Unfortunately, the wing-root bending
moment can increase considerably due to the longer
span. Thus, both the aerodynamic and the aeroelastic
characteristics should be investigated in the design of
variable-span morphing wings.
Most span morphing concepts are based on a telescopic mechanism, following the ideas of the Russian
expatriate Ivan Makhonine, where the wing outer
panel telescoped inside the inner panel to enable span
and wing area changes. The MAK-10 was the first
design with a telescopic wing and it first flew in 1931.
The mechanism was powered pneumatically and enabled
span increased up to 62% (from 13 to 21 m) and area
increased up to 57% (from 21 to 33 m2) (Weisshaar,
2006).
The US Department of Defense has designed numerous vehicle configurations in the past 20 years to meet
various mission objectives. Bovais and Davidson (1994)
from the Naval Research Laboratory built an experimental non-recoverable ship-launched expendable
radar decoy named FLYRT (Flying Radar Target)
that was first flown in September 1993. FLYRT was
launched with rigid folded wings and tail surfaces from
an MK 36 launcher using a solid-propellant rocket
motor which burned for about 1.6 s. The fully expanded
rigid wing had a span of 2.4 m and weighed 60 kg.
Immediately after launch, the tail fin unfolded mechanically to control the vehicle during ascent. A total of 13
drones were built before the program ended, and the
decoy successfully demonstrated the defense of a variety
of ships against simulated radar threats.
Gevers Aircraft Inc. (1997) investigated a telescopic
wing, capable of variable span, for use on a six-seat
amphibious aircraft. The wing was composed of a
fixed center section and two extendable outer sections,
using an overlapping extension spar system. The center

section was a high-speed wing (low drag and strong) and
the completely retractable high-lift section moved in the
span-wise direction.
The morphing unmanned aerial attack vehicle, developed by AeroVisions Inc. (2011; Website) within the
Morphing Aircraft Structures program funded by
DARPA, consisted of several sliding segments. The
wingspan was inversely proportional to the cruise
speed, and allowed for several operating conditions
from loitering to fast cruise to high-speed attack.
Bae et al. (2005) performed both static aerodynamic
and aeroelastic studies on the wing of a long-range
cruise missile and highlighted some of the benefits and
challenges associated with the design of a morphing
wing capable of span change. The total drag of the
morphing wing decreased by approximately 25%, and
the range increased by approximately 30%. The aeroelastic analysis showed that the flexibility of the morphing wing structure increased as the wingspan increased.
At a given flight condition, the deformation from the
aerodynamic loads was much larger than that of the
conventional wing. Static aeroelastic considerations
showed that a variable-span wing requires increased
bending stiffness because the bending deformation is
more significant than twist.
The Air Force Research Laboratory (2011; AFRL)
Vehicle Research Section (Website) developed an
unmanned planform called ALICE (Air Launched
Integrated Counter-measure, Expendable) that can be
air launched from a tactical aircraft at speeds up to
Mach 0.8 and altitudes up to 45,000 ft. After launch,
ALICE glides using tail control surfaces until it reaches
a speed of 250 knots. The rigid wing and propeller then
deploy and the heavy fuel engine starts. ALICE will
cruise approximately 200 nautical miles in 1 h before
the outer rigid wing panels deploy for loiter. Research
advances included the development of the polymorphic
wing, a JP-8 fueled rotary engine, a high-efficiency starter/generator, a folding variable-pitch propeller, and an
advanced EW payload.
Arrison et al. (2003) modified a Delta Vortex RC aircraft by adding telescopic wings. The new vehicle,
renamed BetaMax, could increase wingspan by 10 in.
(over a 43.5 in. basic span). A range increase of 19%
over the conventional aircraft was predicted, allowing
for the increased weight. The RC vehicle was successfully flown, and it highlighted a change in static stability
between the retracted and extended case of nearly 5%.
Neal et al. (2004) designed and demonstrated a variableplanform aircraft capable of large wing planform
changes, both in sweep and span, using a telescopic
pneumatic actuator. The aspect ratio could change up
to 131% through combined span and sweep, while wing
area could change by 31%. Wind tunnel results showed
that only three planform geometries were required to
UAV
UAV
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Span
Span
Span
Obliquing
and Span
Span, sweep,
and twist
Span and sweep
Span
Wang et al. (1999)
Arrison et al. (2003)

Blondeau et al.
(2003)
Blondeau and
Pines (2007)
Sullivan and
Watkins (2003)
Neal et al.
(2004, 2006)
Alemayehu et al.
(2004, 2005)
Bae et al. (2005)
Heryawan et al.
(2005)
Joo et al. (2006)
Vale et al.
(2006, 2007)
Gamboa et al.
(2007)
Bharti et al. (2007)
UAV
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Span
Fixed wing
Span
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Span and camber
Span and sweep

Span and airfoil
shape
Sweep and span
Rotary wing
Rotary wing
UAV
UAV
Cruise
missile
MAV
UAV
UAV
Civil tiltrotor
Civil tiltrotor
Civil tiltrotor
UAV
Civil tiltrotor
Helicopter
Brender et al. (1997)
Rotary wing
Span
Rotary wing
Rotary wing
Span
Civil tiltrotor
Size
Span
Rotary wing
Span
Category
Vehicle
Martin and Hall

(1969)
Fradenburgh
(1973)
Frint (1977)
Studebaker and
Matuska (1993)
Bovais and
Davidson (1994)
Davis et al. (1995)
References
Geometrical
parameters
Table 1. Planform morphing: Span.
DC motor
Pneumatic
DC motor
Pneumatic and
electromechanical
DC motor and servos
Electromechanical
Rack and pinion

Pneumatic
Jackscrew (electric)
Strap around a
drum (main rotor)
Jackscrew (main rotor)
Actuation
Flexible
Rigid
Sliding
Sliding
Sliding
Sliding
Sliding
Sliding
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Sliding
Skin
Performance (CD)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D, range)
Performance (L/D)
Control (roll)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (cruise
and hover efficiency)
Performance (disc
loading
and rotor tip speed)
Performance (disc
loading
and rotor tip speed)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (cruise
and hover efficiency)
Performance (disc
loading, rotor tip speed)
Performance (drag at
high forward speeds)
Purpose

Numerical

Prot.
8
8

8
FTB
(continued)
8
8
8
WT
Experimental
Investigation
Morphing Aircraft
831
Grady (2010)
Leite et al. (2009)

Scott et al. (2009)
Prabhakar et al.
(2007)
Supekar (2007)
Yu et al. (2007)
Gamboa et al. (2009)
Bye et al. (2007)

Ivanco et al. (2007)
Love et al. (2007)
Andersen et al. (2007)
Flanagan et al. (2007)
Han et al. (2007)
References
Table 1. Continued.
Fixed wing
Span
Span and sweep
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed Wing
Span
Span
Span
airfoil
Span
Span
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
Span
and gull
and sweep
and
shape
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Category
Sweep and span
Span and sweep
Geometrical
parameters
Size
UAV
UAV
UAV
UAV
UAV
UAV
UAV
Vehicle
Pneumatic
Pneumatic
SMP hinge
Variable RPM
(main rotor)
Servos
Electric motor
Rotary mechanical
system
Actuation
Hybrid (rigid
and flexible)
Flexible
Sliding
Sliding
Flexible
Hybrid (rigid
and flexible)
Skin
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (CD)
Performance (L/D)
Control (roll)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Performance (L/D)
Purpose

Numerical

8
Prot.
8
8
8
8
8
WT
8
8
8
8
8
FTB
Experimental
Investigation
832
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
833
Morphing Aircraft
Table 2. Planform morphing: Chord.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
Authors
Perkins et al. (2004)
Reed et al. (2005)
Leon et al. (2009)
Leon and Gandhi
(2009)
Barbarino et al.
(2010b)
Khoshlahjeh et al.
(2010, 2011)
Geometrical
Year parameters Category
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Size
Actuation
DC motor
Skin
Purpose
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
UAV
Performance
(flight envelope)
Rotary
wing
Rotary
wing
Helicopter Variable RPM Flexible Performance

(main rotor)
(flight envelope)
Helicopter
Performance
(flight envelope)
Helicopter DC motor
Numerical Prot. WT FTB
Flexible Performance (CL)
Rigid
Table 3. Planform morphing: Sweep.

Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
References
Geometrical
parameters
Marmier and
Wereley (2003)
Neal et al.
(2004, 2006)
Alemayehu et al.
(2004, 2005)
Hall et al. (2005)
Span and
sweep, twist
Span and
sweep
Sweep
Grant et al. (2006)
Sweep
Joo et al. (2006)
Span and
sweep
Sweep
Mattioni et al. (2006)

Bharti et al. (2007)
Bye et al. (2007)
Ivanco et al. (2007)
Love et al. (2007)
Andersen et al.
(2007)
Flanagan et al.
(2007)
Yu et al. (2007)
Grady (2010)
Sofla et al. (2010)
Sweep
Category
Size
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
UAV
Pneumatic
Rigid
UAV
Pneumatic and
electromechanical
DC motor
and servos
Sliding
Sweep and
span
Span and
sweep
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Sweep and
span
Fixed
wing
Span and
sweep
Span and
sweep
Sweep
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
UAV
Actuation
Skin
Servos
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Sliding
MAV
MAV
Purpose
Rigid
Performance
(L/D)
Control (turn
radius and
crosswind
rejection)
Pneumatic
UAV
DC motor
UAV
Rotary
mechanical
system
Electric motor
UAV
Hybrid
(rigid and
flexible)
Flexible
SMP hinge
Pneumatic
UAV
SMA
Performance
(power
consumption)
834
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
maintain minimum drag over a range of possible lift

coefficients. Neal et al. (2006) redesigned the vehicle to
implement a variable-geometry tail and increased the
strength of the structure and mechanisms.
Blondeau et al. (2003) designed and fabricated a threesegmented telescopic wing for a UAV. Hollow fiberglass
shells were used to preserve the span-wise airfoil geometry and insure compact storage and deployment of the
telescopic wing. To reduce the weight, they replaced the
wing spars with inflatable actuators that could support
the aerodynamic loads on the wing. Their telescopic spar
design consisted of three concentric circular aluminum
tubes of decreasing diameter and increasing length, connected by ceramic linear bearings, and deployed and
retracted using input pressure. The wing could undergo
a 114% change in the aspect ratio, while supporting
aerodynamic loads. Wind tunnel test results showed
that the wing suffered from parasitic drag created by
the seams of the wing sections. Fully deployed the telescopic wing achieved lift-to-drag ratios as high as 9 to
10, which is approximately 25% lower than its rigid
fixed wing counterpart. In a further development,
Blondeau and Pines (2007) adopted two identical telescopic spars instead of one, mechanically coupled by the
ribs, to prevent wing twist and fluttering. The new prototype could undergo a 230% change in aspect ratio,
and seam heights were reduced giving less parasitic
drag. In its fully deployed condition, the telescopic
wing could achieve lift-to-drag ratios as high as 16,
which was similar to its solid foam-core wing
counterpart.
Supekar (2007) evaluated the structural and aerodynamic performance of a two-segment telescopic wing for
a UAV that could also undergo variable dihedral of the
outer wing. Although a crude prototype was manufactured, no successful actuation of the mechanism was
reported due to the fabrication problems. Sullivan and
Watkins (2003) investigated an oblique wing aircraft (an
aircraft capable of rotating its wing around a central
pivot) that was capable of symmetric and asymmetric
span extensions. With only symmetric span extension,
the aspect ratio could change between 3.3 and 4.7, leading to an increase in stall and cruise speed (approximately 30%) and an increase in take-off ground roll
(100% increase). The Virginia Tech Morphing Wing
Team (Alemayehu et al., 2005) developed a morphing
wing with three different morphing characteristics:
change in span, sweep angle, or chord length.
Heryawan et al. (2005) designed an expandable
morphing wing for a micro-aerial vehicle (MAV) based
on a typical bird wing. The wing was divided into two
rigid parts (made of carbon composite and balsa at the
leading edge, and carbon fiber composite mimicking
wing feathers on the remaining part); the outer wing
was driven by a small direct current (DC) motor through
reinforced composite linkages. The wing was able to
change aspect ratio from 4.7 to 8.5 in 2 s. Additionally,

two lightweight piezo-composite actuators (LIPCAs)
were attached under the inner wing to modify camber.
Wind tunnel tests carried out for a 7.5 m/s wind speed
(Re 30,000) and at angles of attack between 0 and 8
showed that the total drag decreased significantly (more
than 10%) during wing expansion while the lift more
than trebled. The maximum value of lift-to-drag ratio
occurred at 2 angle of attack for the low-aspect ratio
configuration, in contrast to 0 for the high-aspect
ratio configuration. Finally, the actuation of the two
LIPCAs produced an additional 16% lift.
Han et al. (2007) performed wind tunnel tests on a
model with telescopic wings actuated by two separate
servomotors to study the effect of variable aspect ratio
on wing-in-ground effect vehicles operating inside a
channel. Changing the aspect ratio from 3.2 to 3.5
improved the lift-to-drag ratio more than the effect of
both the ground and the sidewalls. Span changing also
had a bigger advantage with walls present (up to 54.7%
lift-to-drag increase compared to the original wing).
Wing tip extension does not control rolling moment efficiently on its own, but the influence of the ground or
sidewall effects generates a positive rolling moment due
to the high-pressure air trapped between the lower surface of the wing and the ground (or sidewall).
An alternative approach to changing wingspan uses a
scissor-like mechanism for the wingbox. Joo et al. (2006)
studied the optimal location of a distributed network of
actuators within such a mechanism. Their reconfigurable wingbox was constructed of four-bar mechanisms
with rigid links, and an experiment was conducted on a
single cell linkage using a pneumatic actuator. An optimization analysis was performed to select the optimal
actuator placement. Springs were used in their design to
account for a stretchable skin, but a parametric study of
the compliance was not performed. Johnson et al. (2009)
further developed this work by exploring the effect of
the optimal actuator placement and position on energy
efficiency in morphing wings. Bharti et al. (2007)
explored a scissor-mechanism to alter the aircraft span
and sweep with a design based on the TSCh wing
(NextGen Aeronautics Inc.). A scale prototype mechanism was constructed that achieved a 55% span change.
Vale et al. (2006, 2007) and Gamboa et al. (2007)
designed a wing section capable of independent changes
of span and airfoil chord and shape by the use of extendable ribs and spars. They compared the performance
achievable with such a morphing wing, in terms of minimum drag, to a traditional fixed wing at different flight
speeds (1550 m/s). An aero-structural analysis was performed, considering a mechanism that could expand in
the span-wise direction, keeping the ribs evenly distributed, and increasing the chord using the ribs. The skin
was assumed to be rubber, wrapped as a sleeve around
the wing internal mechanism and structure, with
Morphing Aircraft
some pre-tension. However, the aerodynamic loads

acting on the skin, and airfoil thickness and area,
reduce between consecutive ribs (where it is unsupported), leading to a non-optimal shape that also affects
parasitic drag (for instance, at 30 m/s, the reduction in
drag is 22.5% when compared to the non-morphing
wing). The final design was also heavy due to the servomotors, transmission components, and other equipments; moreover, the torque actuation requirements for
the chord expansion mechanism were prohibitive.
Gamboa et al. (2009) proposed new structural designs
for chord and span extension, but no prototype results
are available.
Leite et al. (2009) further investigated the concept of a
telescopic wing with airfoil shape change capability,
although their prototype had only span change. The airfoil change was assumed to be between two different and
specific airfoils (Eppler 434 and NACA 0012). The coupled aero-structural analysis studied the optimal combination of morphing parameters within a typical mission
profile for a proposed remote piloted vehicle, producing
an optimum morphing wing polar curve that outperformed the original vehicle in terms of extra take-off
weight and lower drag at all speeds.
Scott et al. (2009) developed a novel low-stored volume
wing for a HALE aircraft using a hybrid design incorporating a telescoping and load-bearing spar within an
inflatable wing. The primary benefits include significantly lower required inflation pressures and lower
overall system weight. The overall goal was to develop
a low-stored volume wing design with a projected vehicle
lift-to-drag ratio greater than 27 at altitudes ranging from
60,000 to 75,000 ft. The sequence from initial ballistic
delivery to complete vehicle deployment is as follows:
the aircraft is separated from a rocket in the stowed position either by mechanical means or a parachute; the tail
deploys and the rigid wing rotates 90 to provide a stable
craft capable of weathering the deployment dynamics;
the span extensions deploy, giving the vehicle four times
the span of the stowed rigid wing. The design of highaspect-ratio wings is driven by the ability to sustain substantial root bending moments: to bear these bending
moments with a purely inflatable wing would require
very high (50100 psi) pressurization causing problems
specifying the skin fabric and in vehicle certification.
The hybrid approach utilizes ribfoils and tension wires
to support the skin, thereby reducing the chamber pressure to the minimum required to maintain the airfoil profile. The telospar (hybrid structural actuator) serves as
the primary load path as the wing section is deployed,
and this concept has proven viable in a series of deployment tests, in ambient and vacuum conditions. Systemlevel studies concluded that this deployed span design
would reduce pressurization requirements by almost an
order of magnitude, and reduce wing weight by 2535%
(compared to a purely inflatable vectran-baffled wing).
835
The most dramatic morphing wing involving span

change that has been realized as a wind tunnel prototype
is the Agile Hunter by Lockheed Martin (Bye and
McClure, 2007; Ivanco et al., 2007; Love et al., 2007).
Funded by DARPA within the MAS program, the prototype (also called a Z-wing) was based on a military
UAV capable of folding the inner sections of the wing
near to the fuselage to reduce the surface area and drag
during transonic flight at low altitude. The major challenge was the realization of suitable hinges that connect
the two wing portions; the hinges have to sustain the
aerodynamic loads but offer a smooth, continuous aerodynamic surface. Several materials were considered,
including silicone-based and shape memory polymer
(SMP) skins. Wind tunnel tests at Mach 0.6 showed a
morphing capability from 0 to 130 over 65 s with a
controllable, reliable, and precise actuation.
Asymmetrical span morphing can be used for roll
control. Henry and Pines (2007) extended the standard
aircraft dynamics model to include the additional terms
(as perturbations) due to morphing and demonstrated
that asymmetrical span morphing was effective for roll
control. The total damping in the system increased when
the span extension rate was positive (span increase) due
to the conservation of angular momentum. Span extension induces a roll damping moment that is greater than
that due to aileron deflection.
Seigler et al. (2004) also investigated asymmetrical
span extension for increased maneuverability of bankto-turn cruise missiles. By formulating a full non-linear
model of the missile, due to the shift of the missiles
center of mass and the dependence of the rolling
moment on the angle of attack, they showed that the
control authority can be significantly larger when compared to conventional tail surface control. Improved
maneuverability, however, is highly dependent on the
angle of attack, linear actuation speed, and extension
length. Moreover, as the mass of the extending wings
becomes large relative to the missile body, the rigid
body dynamics can become increasingly complex. The
paper presented a non-linear control law to control the
roll, angle of attack, and sideslip angles in accordance
with bank-to-turn guidance. The control method proved
to be adept in tracking-commanded inputs while effectively eliminating sideslip.
Variable Span for Rotary-Wing Aircraft
The variable-diameter rotor (VDTR) is not a new
concept. In the late 1960s, the telescoping rotor aircraft
(TRAC) rotor system was designed and tested for use in
stowed rotor and compound helicopter applications.
For stowed rotors, the design alleviated dynamic and
strength problems associated with stopping a rotor
during flight, while for compound helicopters, the
design reduced drag at high forward speeds.
836
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
The TRAC rotor used a jackscrew mechanism to slide

an outer blade section over an inner aerodynamically
shaped tube. Wind tunnel tests and actuator mechanism
cycle tests demonstrated the performance benefits and
the feasibility of the concept (Fradenburgh, 1973; Frint,
1977). Prabhakar et al. (2007) used the inherent centrifugal force for actuation, reducing power requirements
and mechanical complexity. The span extension
increases with rotor speed and the amount is calibrated
during the design phase. A scaled prototype was built
and tested.
VDTRs could solve many of the technical problems
that arise in large civil tiltrotors. The rotors could
change diameter in flight, so that a large diameter (helicopter size) rotor is used in hover and a smaller diameter
(propeller size) rotor is used in cruise (Brender et al.,
1997). The low disc loading in hover and low tip
speeds in cruise made possible by the diameter change
could eliminate many of the undesirable conventional
tiltrotor attributes (Fradenburgh and Matuska, 1992).
Low-disc loading tiltrotor designs have many of the
advantages of helicopters during vertical flight including
low power requirements (as much as 30% lower for the
VDTR), low downwash velocities, good autorotation
performance, and reduced BVI noise during descent.
The advantages of the VDTR during cruise are derived
from the low rotor tip speeds made possible by the small
diameter. Low tip speeds reduce compressibility drag
and lead to higher blade loading during cruise. Both
factors contribute significantly to rotor propulsive efficiency (lower fuel consumption). Moreover, the VDTR,
in contrast to conventional tiltrotors, does not require
rotor speed reduction for efficient cruise flight as the
necessary tip speed reduction may be obtained by reducing the rotor diameter. Other important advantages are
reduced gust response due to higher blade loading and
reduced internal cabin noise levels (i.e., improved passenger comfort) due to low tip speeds and large rotor tip
distance from the fuselage. However, the diameter
change mechanism adds weight and complexity to the
rotor system.
Martin and Hall (1969) describe a VDTR concept
developed specifically for a tiltrotor aircraft. The outer
blade sections of this design telescoped into the inner
blade section and were actuated using a strap wound
around a drum attached to the drive shaft. A 25-ft diameter version of this rotor design demonstrated 700 extensions and retractions during ground tests.
Studebaker and Matuska (1993) performed a reducedscale wind tunnel test of a rotor designed for a 38,600 lb
aircraft with a 36-passenger payload. This test used a 1/6
scale semi-span model to demonstrate the aeroelastic
performance of the VDTR converting from hover to
cruise. No instabilities encountered in any flight mode.
The test also verified that the rotor root cut out had only
a small effect on the hover figure of merit and that the
VDTR had improved gust response characteristics over

conventional designs. The baseline VDTR design was
later modified to incorporate NASA Short Haul (Civil
Tiltrotor) guidelines.
Davis et al. (1995) developed a dual-point optimizer
to simultaneously optimize the rotor design for hover
and cruise, based on the EI-IPIC/HERO (Evaluation
of Hover-Performance using Influence Coefficients/
Helicopter Rotor Optimizer) design tool. Several designs
showed significantly higher cruise efficiency when compared to conventional tiltrotor designs. The calculated
figures of merit were only slightly lower for the VDTR
designs compared to conventional designs and the corresponding hover power loading (thrust/hp) was about
30% lower for the VDTR due to its inherent lower disc
loading. Wang et al. (1999) showed the potential of the
VDTR concept to reduce the prop-rotor-whirl flutter
and the flutter airspeed was increased by 54% for a
hypothetical civil tiltrotor design.
DARPA (Website) is currently funding the DiscRotor
Compound Helicopter program, whose goal is to
develop a new type of compound helicopter capable of
high-efficiency hover, high-speed flight, and seamless
transition between these flight states. The aircraft is
equipped with an aft-swept wing, together with a midfuselage disc with extendable rotor blades, enabling the
aircraft to takeoff and land like a helicopter. Transition
from helicopter flight to full fixed-wing flight is achieved
by fully retracting the blades within the disc. An aircraft
capable of long-range high speed and vertical takeoff/
landing and hover will satisfy an ongoing military interest. Extending and retracting telescopic rotor blades are
an important DiscRotor-enabling technology.
Chord Morphing
The chord length of a conventional aircraft wing is
altered using leading-/trailing edge-flaps, usually actuated by screw systems. Many of these devices are patented and operational, and few alternatives have been
considered. In fixed-wing aircraft, the presence of spars,
fuel tanks, and other components presents additional
structural complexity; in contrast, the blades of rotarywing aircraft are characterized by a single D-spar and
honeycomb filler. This, together with the larger displacements required for morphing and aerodynamic loads,
has restricted most chord morphing applications to
rotary-wing aircraft.
The Bakshaev LIG-7 was designed in the USSR in
1937 and was probably the first aircraft capable of
chord increase (Weisshaar, 2006). The telescopic mechanism consisted of six chord-wise overlapping wing sections, which were retracted and extended using
tensioned steel wire, driven manually from the cockpit.
All retractable sections were completely hidden inside
the fuselage when retracted with an area change of 44%.
Morphing Aircraft
Reed et al. (2005) used an interpenetrating rib mechanism to change the chord length by means of miniature
DC motors and lead screws. They used partial rib structures that could slide through a central slotted box and
alter the chord-wise position of the leading and trailing
edges. The ribs were designed to support camber bending due to the aerodynamic loads; an additional flexible
honeycomb could be attached to these ribs to maintain
the airfoil shape. The smooth operation of the mechanism under aerodynamic loads and maintaining the
chord-wise bending stiffness are significant challenges.
The added weight and complexity of the design are disadvantages. A solution for the skin using SMPs was
suggested with thin wires for heating.
The application of smart materials to achieve chord
change has received little attention. The Cornerstone
Research Group experimented with dynamic modulus
foam (DMF) to alter chord length (Perkins et al.,
2004) and their goal was to achieve an 80% increase in
lift. DMF foam is a lightweight form of SMP with similar behavior. An SMP was proposed for the skin, to
accommodate large strains, and temperature activation
was realized using thin nichrome wires embedded in the
skin. Although the prototype wing section was able to
extend the chord upon heating, it could not return to its
original shape upon cooling because of the low recovery
stress of shape memory foams.
Leon et al. (2009) quasi-statically increased the chord
through the extension of a flat plate (named the trailingedge plate or TEP) through a slit trailing edge over a
section of a rotor blade. The objective was to increase
the maximum speed, altitude, and gross-weight, and
reduce the main rotor power near envelope boundaries.
The concept, referred to as the static extended trailing
edge (SETE) appeared to give better high-lift performance than trailing edge or Gurney flaps at high lift
coefficients. Simulation results, based on a UH-60 helicopter, indicated that in stall-dominated conditions,
increases of up to 3000 ft in the maximum altitude,
2400 lbs in the maximum gross-weight, and 26 knots in
the maximum speed, and reductions of up to 33.4% in
the rotor power, may be obtained. They also demonstrated the feasibility of a morphing X-truss mechanism
to actuate the extendable plate. Barbarino et al. (2010b)
extended this work by substituting the flat plate with a
morphing cellular structure, suitably designed to accommodate large deformations and undergo cyclic actuation. The chord may be increased by almost 30%. The
flexible pre-strained skin must maintain a smooth, continuous shape in the presence of aerodynamic loads, and
several methods to attach the skin to the cellular honeycomb were investigated. The inherent centrifugal force
was proposed for actuation, using a variable-speed main
rotor, thus reducing the overall complexity.
Khoshlahjeh et al. (2010, 2011) investigated the chord
extension of rotor blade for a utility helicopter, adopting
837
the TEP concept of Leon and Gandhi (2009) deployed at

2 downward incidence between 63% and 83% of the
blade span, and able to increase the airfoil chord by
20%. The aerodynamic modeling of airfoil sections
with TEP was improved by adding CFD calculated
deltas to the baseline aerodynamic coefficients.
Initially, they performed analyses on a rigid blade with
CFD data for the blade sections with chord extension.
An elastic blade was considered and the nose-down
pitching moment applied on the blade caused by the
extended chord was accounted for. They also included
the LeishmanBeddoes semi-empirical dynamic stall
model in order to more accurately predict performance.
Estimates were performed at moderate cruise speed and
high-speed conditions for various aircraft gross weights
and operating altitudes. The TEP extension allowed
large increases in aircraft gross weight at high altitude,
or alternatively significant power reductions. In stalldominated conditions, where the TEP extension is
most effective, it significantly reduced the blade section
angles of attack on the retreating side, and although
drag increased over span-wise regions where the TEP
was deployed, the overall reduction in drag due to the
change in rotor trim reduced the power required. The
increase in maximum speed was more modest.
Variable-Wing Sweep
The notion of a swept wing is not a novel idea. After
World War II, aviation entered the jet age, and the
resulting increases in flight speed represented a new tactical advantage. The only way to reduce the significant
drag at high subsonic speeds was to use a low thicknessto-chord ratio and low-aspect ratio wings, until the allies
found some evidence of German swept wing activity to
confirm work published by Jones (1945). Before this,
Adolf Busemann in 1935 and Michael Gluhareff in
1941 investigated aerodynamics phenomena at supersonic speeds (Loftin, 1985). New aircraft designs started
to incorporate sweep, even though they suffered from a
pitch-up moment at high angles of attack and mediocre
handling qualities at low speeds. The idea of a variablesweep wing (or swing-wing) was born and offered a
compromise: to combine efficient low-speed (for takeoff and landing) and high-speed (fast cruise or supersonic capability) flights. Pivoting of the wing has been
the method of choice for the sweep change. Variable
sweep changes the wing aspect ratio and area, affecting
the aerodynamic forces; the lift curve slope tends to
decrease as sweep increases, due to the change in
aspect ratio. Performance is improved at high velocities,
where compressibility effects are important, by delaying
the drag rise at Mach numbers close to unity and also
the buffet onset.
Full-scale development of variable-geometry wings
began in Germany during World War II with the
838
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Messerschmitt P-1101, which had preset wing sweep (the

sweep angle was set on the ground). The first swing-wing
aircraft, the Bell X-5, flew in 1951 and was adapted from
the P-1101, with a variable-sweep mechanism (Perry,
1966) actuated by a jackscrew assembly. This aircraft
tended to uncontrollable spins at stall and the sweep
mechanism itself was not very efficient. The wing was
swept and translated forward simultaneously to control
the position of the aerodynamic center (Kress, 1983).
The Grumman XF-10-F used a similar mechanism but
never entered service. Swing-wings became viable in the
mid-1950s when the NASA Langley Research Center
developed a system with pivots outboard of the fuselage
(Polhamus and Hammond, 1967).
The first production aircraft with swing wing capability was the F-111, which was developed in the 1960s and
first entered service in 1967. The aircraft was designed to
fulfill two roles: as a Navy fleet defense interceptor and
an Air Force supersonic strike aircraft. The F-111 could
take off and land within 2000 ft with fully extended
wings and fly over Mach 2 with fully swept back
wings. Its wing could sweep from 16 to 72.5 , although
the inboard mounting of the wing pivots resulted in very
high trim drag at supersonic speeds.
Similar requirements also led TsAGI, the Soviet aerodynamics bureau, to explore the possibilities of variable
geometry. TsAGI evolved two distinct planforms, differing mainly in the distance between the wing pivots; a
wider spacing reduced the negative aerodynamic effects
of changing wing sweep, and also provided a larger
fixed-wing section that could be used for landing gear
or pylons for stores. This could also be adapted to existing airframes, with the Sukhoi Su-17 (based on the earlier swept wing Sukhoi Su-7) and the Tupolev Tu-22M
(based on the Tupolev Tu-22). However, the wide spacing also reduced the benefits of variable geometry.
TsAGI also devised a vehicle with narrow pivot spacing,
similar to that of the F-111. This design was used (albeit
at different scales) for the MiG-23 fighter and the
Sukhoi Su-24 interdictor, whose prototypes flew at the
end of the 1960s, entering service in the early 1970s.
The Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat entered service
in 1974 and its wing sweep angle could vary between 20
and 68 to give the optimum lift-to-drag ratio in flight
automatically. The F-14 can fly and land safely with
asymmetrically swept wings in emergencies. Rockwell,
meanwhile, adopted variable geometry for the
Advanced Manned Strategic Bomber program that produced the B-1 Lancer bomber, intended to provide an
optimum combination of high-speed cruising efficiency
and fast, supersonic penetration speeds at extremely low
level.
Many military aircraft appeared with variable-sweep
wings during the 1960s and 1970s, including the Panavia
Tornado, the Mikoyan Mig-23, the Shukoi Su-22, the
Su-24, and the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack, which first
flew in 1981. While variable sweep provides many

advantages, particularly in takeoff distance, load-carrying ability, and in the fast, low-level penetration role, the
configuration imposes a considerable penalty in weight
and complexity. The advent of relaxed stability flight
control systems in the 1970s negated many of the disadvantages of a fixed platform. The large gearbox that
moved the wings of variable-sweep aircraft was complicated and heavy. Furthermore, all the aerodynamic
loads on the wing are supported by the pivoting mechanism. The maintenance requirements therefore
increased and fuel efficiency decreased. No new variable-sweep aircraft have been built since the Tu-160,
though the replacement of the F-14 (the F/A-18E) has
a reduced payload/range capability largely because of its
small fixed wings.
Changing wing sweep also moves the center of gravity, as well as the aerodynamic center, thus affecting the
longitudinal stability of the airplane. The sweep angle
also influences the lateral stability, and sweeping the
wing back has a stabilizing effect similar to adding dihedral (Shortal and Maggin, 1946; Hunton and Dew, 1947;
Kress, 1983).
The oblique wing was first proposed by German
designer Richard Vogt in 1942, for the Blohm & Voss
P.202 variable-geometry jet fighter project. The pivoting
oblique wing was mounted on top of the fuselage.
NASA aerodynamicist Robert T Jones developed the
theory for oblique-wing aircraft in 1952, and concluded
that an oblique wing, supersonic transport aircraft
might achieve twice the fuel economy of an aircraft
sporting a conventional wing. By 1961, Handley Page
designer Geoffrey Lee proposed a Mach 2 oblique
flying-wing airliner, the Sycamore. Oblique wings have
failed to make much progress, although several experimental aircraft have been tested. NASA Dryden flew a
small, remotely piloted oblique-wing research aircraft in
the mid-1970s and followed this with the single-seat AD1 with a fuselage-mounted oblique wing pivoted by up to
60 . A supersonic oblique-wing research aircraft based
on NASAs Vought F-8 fly-by-wire test bed was proposed, but the program was canceled. NASA Ames
completed a preliminary design study of a 500-seat,
Mach 1.6 supersonic transport in 1991. The 124-m
span aircraft was designed to take off and land with
37.5 oblique sweep, increasing to 68 in the cruise.
NASA built a small-scale remotely piloted demonstrator
that flew in 1994, and demonstrated stable, controlled
flight over a range of sweep angles. Oblique-wing
designs were ultimately rejected by NASAs High
Speed Research program, but DARPA is now revisiting
the concept. Challenges range from ground maneuvering, and the integration of fully embedded engines into
the airframe, to the control of a tailless, unstable, variable-sweep flying wing at speeds up to Mach 2. The
coupling between the asymmetric aircrafts aerodynamic
Morphing Aircraft
and aerostructural modes pose a control challenge.

DARPA has awarded Northrop Grumman a contract
for an X-plane Obliquing Flying Wing (OFW) demonstrator, known as the Switchblade, which is scheduled to
fly in 2020.
Sullivan and Watkins (2003) investigated the design of
an obliquing wing aircraft (an aircraft capable of rotating its wing around a central pivot) also capable of both
symmetric and asymmetric span extensions. The three
proposed morphing goals were: symmetrical span extension, roll control using asymmetric span extension, and a
combination of wing obliquing with asymmetric span
deployment to trim the aircraft. The maximum rolling
moment with asymmetric span actuation was found to
be equivalent to the 5 aileron deflection. A prototype
was designed adopting a worm gear system for the obliquing wing and two servos commanding a pulley and
cable system to deploy the telescoping wing. No experimental prototype has been built.
Marmier and Wereley (2003) built and tested in a
wind tunnel a variable-sweep UAV. A pair of antagonistic inflatable bellow actuators were embedded in a
cylindrical polyvinyl chloride fuselage and controlled
by solenoid valves that allowed wing sweep to vary
between 0 and 45 . Slide rods guaranteed a smooth
translation. The wings had a NACA 0012 airfoil with
00
a 45 span and made with foam cores wrapped with fiber
glass.
Neal et al. (2004) provided a sweeping mechanism for
their shape-morphing UAV that was actuated by means
of two electromechanical, lead-screw actuators via a
three-bar linkage. Neal et al. (2006) also implemented
a variable-geometry tail and increased the structural
strength. They included new direct-drive sweep actuators with a higher load capacity and added rotating
sweep supports to transmit reaction torques from the
twist actuation and normal wing loads.
Grant et al. (2006) investigated miniature air vehicles
with a variable-sweep wing inspired by birds for operation within urban environments at low altitudes. Agility,
in terms of enhanced turning capabilities, and crosswind rejection are important features, and hence seagulls
inspired the prototype. The inboard and outboard wing
sections were capable of independent symmetric or
asymmetric actuation. The wing sections were connected
to the fuselage and each other through a system of spars
and joints. The results demonstrate that symmetric
sweep reduces the turn radius and the asymmetric
sweep maintains sensor pointing in cross-winds.
NextGen Aeronautics (Andersen et al., 2007;
Flanagan et al., 2007) developed a UAV, called the
MFX-1 and referred to as the BatWing, with a wing
that could undergo significant sweep changes during
flight. An electric motor deformed an endoskeleton
wingbox structure that was covered with an elastomeric
skin with out-of-plane stiffeners. Five distinct
839
configurations can be maintained in flight, and the

aspect ratio can change by 200%, the span by 40%,
and the wing area by 70%. Wing sweep and wing area
could be controlled independently using four-bar linkages, revolute joints, and slider mechanisms. The skin
could strain by over 100% but still withstand airloads
of 400 lbs/ft. NextGen successfully flight tested the
MFX-1 in 2006. NextGen then developed a larger
morphing UAV named MFX-2 that flew in 2007 and
demonstrated a 40% change in wing area, a 73%
change in span, and a 177% change in aspect ratio.
The scissor-mechanisms of Joo et al. (2006) or Bharti
et al. (2007) also resulted in a change in sweep. The
mechanism by Bharti et al. (2007) was based on the
TSCh wing by NextGen Aeronautics Inc. (Andersen
et al., 2007; Flanagan et al., 2007) and implemented as
a pin-jointed mechanism. Grady (2010) extended the
wing concept of NextGen Aeronautics, focusing on optimal actuator orientation for rigid and flexible structures.
As the links flex, there is a non-linear stiffening effect
and an increase in the bending of the flexible links further from the root of the wing. Yu et al. (2007) used
SMP for the shear deformation of a scissor-mechanism.
The twisting deformation of a rectangular composite
plate made of SMP and carbon fiber upon heating
could rotate a hinge in the mechanism.
Mattioni et al. (2006) investigated a variable-sweep
wing concept based on bi-stable composite spars. The
wingbox in their design consisted of two spars with an
interconnected trussrib structure. Each spar had a significant transverse curvature, which increased the bending stiffness and also allowed the spar to behave like an
elastic hinge under high drag loads. The design could
eliminate hinges and mechanisms, but could suffer
from fatigue. No skin was included and adding a skin
could interfere with the snapping motion.
Sofla et al. (2010) proposed a wing that deforms to
target shapes by actuating the wingbox using SMAs.
The prototypes show excellent and smooth movement
under representative loads. Aerodynamic analysis was
conducted to evaluate the effect of reconfigured wing
shape on the lift and drag coefficients.
Variable-wing sweep has also been employed on
MAVs, even though compressibility effects at low
speeds and low Reynolds numbers are negligible. Hall
et al. (2005) highlighted that the goal of variable sweep
in this case is to increase the minimum drag speed. CFD
analysis showed that the sweep angle decreased the liftcurve slope through a decrease in effective camber. The
smaller frontal profile reduced the drag at high speeds.
Summary
All three contractors (Lockheed Martin, Hypercomp/
NextGen and Raytheon Missile Systems) of the recent
(20002007) DARPA Morphing Aircraft Structures
840
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
(MAS) program conducted a functional analysis that

concluded that changing wing planform area and wingspan were the primary enablers of a new class of morphing air vehicles.
Although several parameters define wing planform
(and can be sometimes interconnected), this review highlights that variable sweep has been implemented on real
world fixed wing aircraft more than any other morphing
strategy. Variable sweep was adopted for military fighter
aircraft from the 1950s, mainly to achieve faster supersonic cruising speeds. In contrast, recent studies have
focused on MAVs and UAVs, using variable sweep in
conjunction with span to improve the aerodynamic efficiency and multi-role capabilities (to achieve both lowspeed loiter and high-speed dash). Most studies produced at least a bench prototype. Some studies validated
their predictions with wind tunnel tests, for example the
Agile Hunter manufactured by Northrop Grumman
(Bye and McClure, 2007; Ivanco et al., 2007; Love
et al., 2007). Only NextGen Aeronautics (Andersen
et al., 2007; Flanagan et al., 2007) actually flew two
UAVs (MFX-1 and MFX-2), demonstrating in-flight
wing morphing capabilities which also affected sweep.
All the solutions investigated so far adopt traditional
actuation systems, with the exception of the SMP
hinge proposed in the proof-of-concept prototype by
Yu et al. (2007). Similarly, rigid or sliding skins are
adopted in most solutions, with the exception of the
flying test bed produced by NextGen, which had a flexible skin. Moreover, variable sweep is set to undergo
further investigation in the near future under a different
reincarnation, within the DARPA OFW program.
Variable span is a wing planform-morphing capability
that has been extensively investigated, with studies performed on both fixed and rotary wings, many of which
have been developed to the stage of wind tunnel tests.
Regarding rotary wings, the change in the blade span is
mainly beneficial for tiltrotors, which have opposing
requirements during vertical flight and cruise. For helicopters, span morphing also produces benefits in terms
of flight envelope expansion. For fixed wings, span
increase has been considered to improve cruise efficiency
at low speeds without the typical drawbacks (structural
and dynamical) of high-aspect ratio wings, or used as a
means of roll control (when span increase is asymmetrical). Most of the solutions found in the literature adopt
traditional actuators, mainly pneumatic, coupled to telescopic mechanisms, to reduce the weight penalty due to
morphing. This is generally possible because most applications are for UAVs. The use of the available centrifugal force on rotor blades for actuation, as proposed by
Prabhakar et al. (2007), is an interesting concept. The
skin is generally considered to be rigid, composed of
several sliding parts, although some authors also investigated the adoption of a flexible, stretchable rubber
(with some limitations). Research on this topic is well
spread over recent decades, and there is no indication

that this trend will stop in the near future.
Finally, variable chord has been investigated least,
with only a few works that are still at the early stages
of development, and mainly based on small-scale aircrafts (UAVs) or rotor blades. The limited investigation
arises because the small benefits and large challenges
involved in such a solution. Increasing the chord of a
wing (particularly for a fixed wing) represents a big challenge from a structural perspective (for instance, how to
move the spars or how to stretch the skin) and still produces small advantages when compared to other morphing configurations. However, the possibility to increase
wing area or to combine a chord increase with variable
camber of the airfoil could lead to morphing solutions
capable of further improving performance and competing with high-lift devices currently adopted on widebody aircraft: the latter solution may only require a
limited part of the wing chord to undergo morphing,
thus making such a configuration easier to implement
from a structural perspective.
WING OUT-OF-PLANE TRANSFORMATION
Wing out-of-plane transformation is mainly affected
by three parameters (individually or in combination):
twist, dihedral/gull, and span-wise bending. Rigid-body
rotation of the aerodynamic surfaces is also considered
in this section if the rotation is induced by smart materials. Tables 48 show the papers for each geometrical
parameter: due to the large literature on twist, an additional categorization has been adopted based on the
activation method/strategy.
Twist Using Active Aeroelastic Concepts
Varying the twist distribution of the wing to enhance
flight performance and control authority of the air vehicle can be regarded as the oldest form of morphing. The
Wright Brothers employed the wing warping technique
to change the twist of a flexible wing and provide roll
control for their first flying machine (Pendleton, 2000;
Pendleton et al., 2000). However, the quest for enhanced
performance and higher airspeed prohibited designers
required stiff structures to avoid aeroelastic instabilities
and to meet loading requirements. This increased the
structural weight of the vehicle and penalized its performance. Advances in aerospace materials and the continuous pressure to enhance aircraft performance and
expand their flight envelope have focused the interests
of aircraft designers again on using the flexibility of the
structure in a beneficial manner.
Rockwell International pioneered the Active Flexible
Wing (AFW) program in the 1980s (Miller, 1988), which
exploited wing flexibility to reduce structural weight
and prevent roll control problems (aileron reversal) for
841
Morphing Aircraft
Table 4. Out-of-plane morphing: Twist.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
References
Geometrical
parameters
Miller (1988)
Twist
Griffin and
Hopkins (1997)
Chen et al. (2000)
Twist
Twist
Nam et al. (2000)
Twist
Pendleton et al.
(2000)
Wilson (2002)
Clarke et al.
(2005)
Kuzmina et al.
(2002)
Amprikidis et al.
(2004)
Cooper et al.
(2005)
Amprikidis and
Cooper (2003)
Cooper (2006)
Florance et al.
(2004)
Runge et al.
(2010)
Garcia et al.
(2003)
Stanford et al.
(2007)
Bartley-Cho et al.
(2004)
Guiler and
Huebsch (2005)
Majji et al. (2007)
Twist
Mistry et al.
(2008)
Vos et al.
(2008b, 2010)
Mistry et al. (2010)
Category
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Size
Actuation
Skin
Advanced
fighter
Fighter
Hydraulic
Rigid
Advanced
Fighter
Fighter
Electric
motor
Mechanical
Flexible
Advanced
fighter
Hydraulic
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Purpose
Control
(Roll)
Control
(Roll)
Control
(Roll)
Control
(Roll)
Control
(Roll)
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB
Twist
Fixed
wing
Pneumatic
Rigid
Control
(Yaw)
Twist
Fixed
wing
Rigid
Performance
(CD)
Twist
Fixed
wing
Electric
MotorPneumatic
Hydraulic
Rigid
Control
(Roll)
Advanced
Fighter
Twist
Twist
Fixed
wing
MAV
Servo
Flexible
Control
(Roll)
Twist
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
UCAV
Ultrasonic
Motor
Servo
Stretchable
Flexible
Control
(Roll and Pitch)
Control (Roll,
Yaw, Pitch)
Servo
Elastomeric
Performance
Flexible
Control (Roll)
Rigid
Performance
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
Twist
UAV
Helicopter
Helicopter
Threaded
rod
Threaded rod
high-performance fighter aircraft at large dynamic pressures. In the AFW technology, the conventional control
surfaces were not used as primary control force-producing devices, but were used as aerodynamic tabs to control the aeroelastic twist of the wing. The wing
aeroelastic twist was used to produce the required roll
moments for control. This allowed the aircraft to operate beyond the dynamic pressure where conventional
aileron reversal begins. The AFW program was followed
by the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) research program, funded jointly by the US Air Force and NASA.
In the AAW program, the AFW technology was
implemented and tested using a modified F/A-18 fighter

to demonstrate its feasibility (Pendleton, 2000; Pendleton
et al., 2000; Wilson, 2002). The F/A-18 wing skin panels
near the rear section of the wing just ahead of the trailing
edge were replaced with thinner, more flexible skin
panels. The leading-edge flap was split into separate
inboard and outboard segments, and additional actuators were added to operate the outboard leading-edge
flaps separately from the inboard leading-edge surfaces.
Trailing-edge control surfaces and leading-edge flaps
were used to control the aeroelastic twist of the wing
and to achieve the required rolling power. Flight tests
842
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Table 5. Out-of-plane morphing: Twist and rigid-body rotation with piezoelectric actuation.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
References
Crawley et al.
(1989)
Barrett
(1990, 1992a, b)
Ehlers and
Weisshaar
(1990, 1992)
Barrett et al.
(1997)
(Mothra)
Barrett et al.
(1996)
(Gamara)
Barrett et al.
(1998)
(Kolibri)
Barrett and
Stutts (1998)
Barrett et al.
(1998, 2001)
(LuMAV)
Sahoo and
Cesnik (2002)
Cesnik and
Brown (2003)
Detrick and
Washington
(2007)
Geometrical
parameters
Bending
and twist
Twist
Camber
and twist
Category
Size
Actuation
Skin
Purpose
Flexible
Performance
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB
Fixed wing
PZT
Rotary wing
and missiles
Fixed wing
PZT
PZT
Rotation
Fixed wing
Small UAV
PZT
Flexible
Rigid
Control
(Yaw and
pitch only)
Control
Twist
Rotary wing
Small UAV
PZT
Rotation
Rotary wing
(tethered)
MAV
PZT
Rigid
Control
Rotation
Missiles
PZT
Rigid
MAV
PZT
Rigid
Performance
(CL)
Control
Rotation
Rotary wing
Twist
Fixed wing
UCAV
PZT
Flexible
Control (roll)
Twist
Fixed wing
PZT
Flexible
Control (roll)
Twist
Fixed wing
Joint-wing
Sensorcraft
UAV
PZT
FlexibleSliding
Control (roll)
demonstrated that 1g/360 rolls, and rolling pullout

maneuvers were possible within the structural and
hinge-moment limits of the aircraft (Clarke et al., 2005).
Active aeroelastic structures (AASs) are receiving
much interest for aeronautical applications due to the
potential to improve drag performance, as well as roll
and loads control. They are a sub-set of adaptive structures that allow significant performance and control
improvements by manipulating the aerodynamic shape
of a lifting surface by modifying the internal structure,
without the need for large planform modifications that
typically use complex and heavy mechanisms. A variety
of AAS concepts has been developed and studied to
control the aeroelastic twist of lifting surfaces. For
example, Griffin And Hopkins (1997) investigated the
use of the smart spar concept to vary the torsional stiffness and control the aeroelastic behavior of the wing to
enhance the roll performance of high-performance aircraft at large dynamic pressures. The solution proposed
was based on the simultaneous actuation of control surfaces and the modification of the wing torsional stiffness
using the smart spar concept. The smart spar concept
has a web that can either transmit shear between its
upper and lower caps or disable the shear transmission

between the upper and lower caps. This is achieved by
adjusting the position of the smart spar between its original position (along the leading edge) and a new position
where it runs from the leading-edge root to the trailingedge tip of the wingbox.
Chen et al. (2000) developed the variable stiffness spar
(VSS) concept to vary the torsional stiffness of the wing
and enhance the aircraft roll performance. Their VSS
concept consisted of a segmented spar having articulated
joints at the connections with wing ribs and an electrical
actuator capable of rotating the spar through 90 . At the
horizontal position, the segments of the spar are
uncoupled and the spar offers no bending stiffness.
While at the vertical position, the segments join completely and the spar provides the maximum torsional and
bending stiffness. The concept allows the stiffness and
aeroelastic behavior of the wing to be controlled as a
function of the flight conditions. Nam et al. (2000)
advanced the VSS concept and developed the torsionfree wing concept, where an enhanced VSS wing design
is used to attain further post-reversal aeroelastic amplification. The primary structure of the torsion-free wing
843
Morphing Aircraft
Table 6. Out-of-plane morphing: Twist and rigid-body rotation with SMA actuation.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
References
Geometrical
parameters
Martin et al. (1998)

Chandra (2001)
Prahlad and
Chopra (2001)
Nam et al. (2002)
Prahlad and
Chopra (2002)
Elzey et al. (2003)
Ruggeri et al.
(2008a, b)
Sofla et al. (2008)
Pagano et al. (2009)
Category
Size
Actuation
Twist
Fixed wing
Twist
Twist
Rotary wing
Rotary wing
Advanced
fighter
Helicopter
Tiltrotor
SMA
SMA
Twist
Twist
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
Fighter
Tiltrotor
SMA
SMA
Twist
Twist
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
Tiltrotor
SMA
SMA
Sliding
Flexible
Twist
Twist
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
SMA
SMA
Flexible
Helicoptor
SMA
Skin
Rigid
Purpose
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB

8
8
8
8
Control (roll)
Performance

8
8
8
8
8
Performance

8

8
8
8

8
8
Performance
(CL)
(References: Caldwell et al. (2007); Geometrical parameter: Twist; Category: Rotary wing; Actuation: SMA; Purpose: Performance; Investigation: Numerical)
Table 7. Out-of-plane morphing: Dihedral/gull.

Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
References
Abdulrahim and
Lind (2004)
Geom.
parameters Category
Gull
Fixed
wing
Size
MAV
Actuation
Linear
actuator
Bourdin et al.
Dihedral
(2008, 2010)
Gatto et al. (2010)
Shelton et al.
Dihedral
(2006)
Flying
wing
Fixed
wing
UAV
Bye and McClure

(2007)
Fixed
wing
UCAV
Electrical
actuator
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
UAV
Servo
Narrow
body
transport
aircraft
Servo
Supekar (2007)
Dihedral
(wing
folding)
Dihedral
Ursache et al.
(2007, 2008)
Dihedral
Cuji and Garcia

(2008)
Smith et al.
(2010)
Dihedral
Dihedral
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Servo
Skin
Numerical Prot.
WT
FTB
Performance
Performance
(SAR)
Control (roll

and turning flight)
Performance

(SAR, take-off, and
landing distances)
Flexible
(nylon film)
Control
(Flight
dynamics)
Flexible
Control
(carbon fiber) (multi-axis
control)
Performance
(range,
endurance, L/D)
Elastomer
Performance
Corrugated
Narrow body
transport
aircraft
consists of two parts. The first part is a narrow wingbox

tightly attached to the upper and lower wing skins to
provide the needed basic wing torsional stiffness. The
second part consists of two VSSs placed near the leading
and trailing edges, passing through holes in all of the rib.
This torsion-free wing can provide significant aeroelastic
amplification to increase the roll-rate between 8.44% to
48% above the baseline performance. Florance et al.
Purpose
(2004) extended the use of the VSS concept to exploit

wing flexibility and improve the aerodynamic performance of the vehicle. Their wing incorporated a spar
with a rectangular cross-section that runs from the
wing root up to 58% of the wingspan.
In Europe, the Active Aeroelastic Aircraft Structures
(3AS) research project, which involved a consortium of
15 European partners in the aerospace industry and was
844
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Table 8. Out-of-plane morphing: Span-wise bending.

Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
Authors
Wiggins et al.
(2004)
Manzo et al.
(2005)
Manzo and
Garcia (2010)
Lazos and
Visser (2006)
Sofla et al. (2010)
Geometrical
parameters
Category
Span-wise
bending
Span-wise
bending
Fixed wing
Span-wise
bending
Span-wise
bending
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Size
UAV
UAV
Actuation
SMA and
DC motor
SMA
partially funded by the European Community, developed active aeroelastic design concepts to exploit structural flexibility in a beneficial manner to improve the
aircraft efficiency (Kuzmina et al., 2002; Simpson
et al., 2005). One of these novel concepts is the allmoving vertical tail (AMVT) with a variable torsional
stiffness attachment. The AMVT concept provides a
smaller and lighter fin while maintaining stability and
control effectiveness at a wide range of airspeeds. The
AMVT employed a single attachment and the position
of the attachment can be adjusted in the chordwise
direction relative to the position of the center of pressure
to achieve aeroelastic effectiveness above unity
(Amprikidis et al., 2004). The 3AS project also investigated a variety of variable stiffness attachments and
mechanisms for the AMVT concept, including a pneumatic device (Cooper et al., 2005). Amprikidis and
Cooper (2003) and Cooper (2006) investigated two
AAS concepts that modified the static aeroelastic twist
of the wing by modifying its internal structure. The first
concept exploited the chord-wise translation of an intermediate spar in a three-spar wingbox to vary its torsional stiffness and the position of the shear center.
The second concept was similar to the VSS concept
and used rotating spars to vary the torsional and bending stiffnesses, and also the shear center position.
Prototypes of the concepts were built and tested in a
wind tunnel to examine their behavior under aerodynamic loading.
Ajaj et al. (2011a, b) investigated the adaptive torsion
structure (ATS) concept to control the static aeroelastic
twists of the wing. Their concept has a wingbox with two
spars, where the webs of the spars can translate inward
to vary the torsional stiffness and the position of the
shear center. This allows the external aerodynamic
flow to induce aeroelastic twist deformation on the
Skin
Stretchable
Flexible
Purpose
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB
Performance
Performance
(Drag)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
wing that can be used in a beneficial manner to enhance

the performance or control authority of the air vehicle.
Garcia et al. (2003) and Stanford et al. (2007) investigated the roll control of a MAV by twisting its flexible
wing. In their design, torque rods actuated by a single
servomotor created equal and opposite deformations for
each wing. Their numerical analysis showed that the
wing morphing could roll the MAV but led to a considerable drag penalty.
The DARPA Smart Wing program phase II (BartleyCho et al., 2004) demonstrated the gradual changing of
the airfoil camber to create wing twisting. In their
design, the control surface was sectioned into 10 segments. Each segment could undergo out-of-plane
shape changes by means of an eccentuator. The eccentuator was a concept developed by Vought (Musgrove,
1976, 1981) in the late 1970s for variable-camber control
surfaces for use on the supersonic transport. It consists
of a bent beam that converts a rotary input motion into
a vertical and lateral translation. The vertical motion
can then be delivered to the structure to flex it. Each
segment in the final design was connected to an eccentuator driven by an ultrasonic motor. A continuous silicone skin on the top and bottom surfaces covered the
segments.
Guiler and Huebsch (2005) developed an effective
wing morphing mechanism to vary wing twist to control a swept wing tail-less aircraft. A torque rod mechanism was located at the leading edge and 10 freefloating wing sections between the tip rib wing section
and the wing root were connected at the trailing edge
by a spring-loaded cable. The assembly was covered
with a latex skin. Initial wind tunnel testing indicated
that this morphing mechanism provided adequate control forces and moments to control a UAV and potentially a manned aircraft. This morphing wing
Morphing Aircraft
mechanism could allow a swept wing tail-less aircraft to fly in cruise without the added drag of built
in washout or winglets normally used to prevent
adverse yaw during maneuvering. Tests showed that
lift-to-drag ratio could be improved by 15% compared
to an elevon-equipped wing with built-in 10 of
washout.
Majji et al. (2007) studied a wing consisting of an
elastic wingbox structure (ABS plastic material) covered
with an elastomeric skin. The wingbox was rigidly coupled to four concentric tubes, which were independently
attached to the wing at four locations along the span.
The outer tubes passed through the inner tubes and were
connected to servomotors at the wing root. The wing
could be twisted by the arbitrary rotation of the tubes.
It was shown that the angle of attack envelope of the
twisted wing was increased because the tip section stalled
later than the inner sections.
Vos et al. (2008b, 2010) investigated a novel mechanism to actively control wing twist. A longitudinal slit
was introduced along the entire span of the wing, and a
threaded rod mechanism was positioned near the slit to
induce relative displacement between the upper and
lower skin. This induced warping of the wing and
hence modified its twist distribution.
Mistry et al. (2008) examined the twisting of an Ibeam spar through the application of differential loads
(Vlasov Bimoments) applied at the tip of a variable-twist
helicopter rotor blade. By clamping the web of the spar
at the root, while leaving the flanges free to warp, the Ibeam will have no warping restraint, and displays the
reduced torsion stiffness of a freefree beam, producing
larger twist deformations. Mistry et al. (2010) examined
a warp-induced twist concept to achieve a large quasistatic twist of a helicopter or tilt-rotor blade. The concept employed a cylindrical spar with rotating ribs with
the ribs attached to the skin, which was slit along the
trailing edge. Warping the skin then produced twisting
of the blade section. A threaded rod near the trailing
edge implemented warp actuation. During warp actuation, the torsion stiffness reduced and the blade
twisted easily. However, without power, the threaded
rod effectively produced a closed section with high torsional stiffness. A prototype based on this concept was
built and tested, and the results show tip twist variations
of up to 18 .
Runge et al. (2010) developed a novel method to control the wing twist by modifying the internal structure of
the wing using a mechanical system to change the shear
center position relative to the aerodynamic center, although details of the internal mechanism were
not provided. Their method is similar to the approach
used by Amprikidis and Cooper (2003) and Cooper
(2006). A full demonstrator was built and tested to
verify the ability of the concept to control the twist of
the structure.
845
Piezoelectric Actuation of Twist and Rigid-Body Rotation

Piezoelectric actuators are widely used in a variety of
smart structure designs for aeronautical applications due
to their high bandwidth, high output force, compact
size, and high power density properties. Crawley et al.
(1989) presented one of the first investigations of active
aerodynamic surfaces. They constructed a bending-twist
coupled graphiteepoxy plate actuated by conventionally attached piezoceramic sheets. When the plate was
subjected to airloads, it bent further, which increased the
twist and hence the control deflections were effectively
magnified through the coupling. The first twist-active
piezoceramic-actuated missile wing and helicopter
rotor blades were designed and prototyped from 1989
(Barrett, 1990). Ehlers and Weisshaar (1990, 1992) presented research on adaptive wings and missile fins and
showed that aeroelastic tailoring coupled with directionally attached piezoceramic (DAP) elements could be
used to generate sufficient deflections for flight control.
The first torque-plate rotor generated 4.5 static pitch
deflections and was capable of 3/rev individual blade
control (Barrett, 1992a, b). The torque-plate rotor concept was matured in the following years leading to a
whirling stand test of a 120-cm solid-state adaptive
rotor. This test showed that 8 static pitch deflections
could be generated and dynamic pitch deflections could
be commanded up to 2.5/rev (Barrett and Stutts, 1997).
Barrett and Law (1998) designed, fabricated, and tested
a new class of twist-active wing where the pitch angle of
the wing root was adjusted using a DAP torque-plate.
Wind tunnel tests showed that the wing tip of their prototype could twist up to 1.5 which is comparable to
8.4 of aileron deflection. The root-twist concept was
also over 20% lighter than conventional ailerons.
During the same period, the Flexspar solid-state
adaptive stabilator was introduced (Barrett, 1996). The
Flexspar actuator was used in several vehicles including
the first full missile configuration with an adaptive wing.
Even without aeroelastic tailoring, deflections in excess
of 30 were achieved in some configurations. The
Flexspar configuration employs a high-strength main
spar around which a flexible skin structure (shell) is
pivoted. A piezoelectric bimorph actuator is mounted
within the flexible skin structure and causes the skin
structure to rotate about the spar. Due to aerodynamic
loading, the deformation of a Flexspar-actuated control
surface is a combination of rigid-body rotation, twist
and some change in camber. The first fixed-wing UAV
to fly using adaptive materials for all flight control,
Mothra, was flown in 1994. This vehicle employed
Flexspar actuators for control of rudder and elevator
and it had no other control surfaces. Although the
two Flexspar-actuated stabilizers were not completely
solid-state, the aircraft showed the feasibility of piezoelectrics for flight control (Barrett et al., 1997). The first
846
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
rotary-wing UAV to fly using adaptive materials for all

flight control, Gamara, was flown in 1996 (Barrett et al.,
1998). A commercially available radio-controlled rotarywing UAV was stripped of all conventional servoactuator related hardware, including the servopaddle
assembly, and replaced with a pair of two solid-state
adaptive rotor torque-plate servopaddles. Flight tests
showed the feasibility of the piezoelectric control and
benefits in drag (26% reduction), weight (8% total
gross weight reduction), and part count (reduced from
94 to 5). In 1997, Kolibri became one of the first rotarywing MAVs to use piezoelectric actuators (Flexspar) for
flight control. This tethered, 15-cm diameter vertical
takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft demonstrated controlled flight with the Flexspar actuators (weighing 5.2 g
each) and achieved 11 static stabilator pitch deflection (Lee, 1997; Barrett and Howard, 2000). In 1999, the
Lutronix Coleopter VTOL MAV (LuMAV) followed
Kolibri by replacing the electric motor with an internal
combustion engine and removing the electrical tether
(Barrett and Lee, 2000; Barrett et al., 2001). This
rotary-wing aircraft also used the Flexspar actuators.
Barrett and Stutts (1998) proposed an actuator that
uses pairs of piezoceramic sheets arranged in a
pushpull assembly to turn a spindle of an aerodynamic
control surface. To demonstrate the actuator concept, a
maximum compression design for an air-to-ground
weapon was conceived. Modeling of the actuators was
accomplished by laminated plate theory and kinematics.
A 50% scale experimental model was built for bench
and wind tunnel testing. Bench testing showed that actuators could generate 10 fin deflections with a corner
frequency of 59 Hz with good correlation between
theory and experiment. Wind tunnel testing showed
the feasibility of the concept.
Sahoo and Cesnik (2002) investigated the use of high
authority anisotropic piezoelectric actuators to induce
wing warping and achieve roll controllability instead
of traditional discrete control surfaces for the next generation of unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). A
numerical design environment was developed for the
integrally distributed anisotropic piezocomposite actuators in a composite wing. A Boeing X-45A-based UCAV
model was used to highlight that the actuators not have
sufficient control authority to achieve a representative
roll rate while satisfying other design constraints. A
three- to four-fold increase in actuator authority is
needed for this type of aircraft and the improved properties of single-crystal fiber composites may provide the
desirable authority.
Similar results were obtained by Cesnik and Brown
(2003) for the use of high anisotropic piezoelectric actuators (APA) to induce wing warping actuation for roll
control of the joined-wing Sensorcraft. Detrick and
Washington (2007) developed two designs for morphing
wings for UAVs. The first design split the supporting
ribs and achieved wing twist using levers and a piezoelectric actuator. This design suffered from limitations
because the wing skin was attached directly to the ribs
and so stiffened the wing. The second concept used onepiece ribs interconnected by a truss structure. Wing
twisting was accomplished by varying the length of
some of the truss structure members. The ribs had rollers in contact with the skin to allow sliding, and so avoid
stiffening the wing.
Wilbur and Wilkie (2004) proposed an active twist
rotor (ATR) concept with active fiber composites piezocomposite actuators. The concept can reduce vibration
and noise, and reduce the rotor power requirements by
23% and improve its performance by 1%.
Shape Memory Alloy Actuation of Twist and
Rigid-Body Rotation
The Smart Wing program of DARPA, AFRL,
NASA, and Northrop Grumman (Martin et al., 1998;
Kudva and Carpenter, 2000) realized an UCAV by integrating SMAs within a morphing wing. This experimental study implemented both shape memory alloy (SMA)
torque tubes for wing twist and flexible leading and
trailing edges actuated by SMA wires. The SMA
torque rods were connected to a torque transmission
rod to transfer the loads to the wingbox. Martin et al.
(1998) provided a detailed description of the design,
integration, and testing of the mechanism.
Barrett et al. (2001) introduced the pitch active SMA
wing UAV with a 2 m span. This flight-tested fixed-wing
aircraft had SMA wires that changed the pitch of the
main wings. The SMAs caused a rigid-body rotation of
the wings. Nam et al. (2002) used SMA spars to replace
the mechanically actuated VSS concept to enhance the
aeroelastic performance of the wing. They adopted
active property tuning where the SMA was embedded
without plastic elongation. Therefore, no internal stresses are induced, and the SMA varies its stiffness. A wing
model based on the F-16 demonstrated that the SMA
spar can further amplify the aeroelastic forces and significantly enhance roll performance compared to the traditional VSS concept. Furthermore, locating the SMA
spar toward the trailing edge maximized the improvement in roll rate in comparison to the traditional VSS
concept (61%).
Elzey et al. (2003) developed an antagonistic shape
morphing structural actuator, comprising a cellular flexible core sandwiched between SMA face sheets that
induced curvature upon heating. The core was an assembly of modular elements able to rotate relative to one
another (vertebrate structure); hence, the actuator could
reverse its shape without any bias mechanism to provide
the elastic restoring force. A prototype wing was built in
which the vertebrate actuators were incorporated as
ribs. The wing also twisted by asymmetric actuation of
Morphing Aircraft
its two SMA-actuated vertebrate beams. Similarly, Sofla

et al. (2008) used antagonistic flexural cells to create
two-way SMA flexural actuators using a one-way
shape memory effect. The cells provided four distinct
positions for each segment of the actuator, and two of
the positions required no external energy to be maintained. These actuators could control the twist of wing
sections if they are incorporated as ribs and are actuated
asymmetrically.
Lv et al. (2009) developed an SMA torsion actuator
based on NiTi wires and a thin-walled tube for an adaptive wing demonstration system. The angle of attack of
the wing could be changed continuously up to 15 in 1 s.
A novel smart wing rib with the swing angles up to 10
was investigated.
SMAs have also been applied for wing twist on helicopter rotor blades. Prahlad and Chopra (2001) developed and tested a torsional SMA actuator to alter the
twist distribution for a tiltrotor blade between hover and
forward flight. The design of the actuator (torque tube)
was optimized as a function of heat transfer, temperature, and actuation recovery torque. The effect of heat
treatment on the tuning of the actuation characteristics
of the SMA tube was also investigated, and thermoelectric modules were used to release excess heat through the
blade surface to improve the cooling and reduce the
actuation time. Chandra (2001) developed a method to
induce twisting deformation in a solid-section composite
beam using SMA bender elements. Bendingtorsion
coupled graphiteepoxy composite beams with Teflon
inserts were built using an autoclave molding technique
and the Teflon inserts were replaced by SMA bender
elements. The composite beams were actuated by heating the SMA via electrical resistive heating, and the
bending and twisting deformation measured using a
laser system. Such beams with SMA elements can be
used as spars in rotor blades to induce twist.
The goal of the reconfigurable rotor blade program
funded by NAVAIR was to demonstrate the potential to
improve rotorcraft performance by optimizing the configuration of major structures in flight (Bushnell et al.,
2008; Ruggeri et al., 2008b). The SMA actuation system
employed 55-Nitinol (Ni-55Ti) rotary actuators integrated as structural elements in a quarter-scale rotor
blade to control twist. A passive torque tube transmitted
the torque from the actuator assembly near the blade
root to the tip of blade causing the blade to twist. A
lightweight spring mechanism, the Strain Energy
Shuttle, provided an energy storage element between
the SMA actuator and the passive torque tube, and
halved the actuator system weight (Calkins et al.,
2008). The actuator was tested in 2007 using a scale
three-blade hub assembly mounted on the Boeing
Advanced Rotor Test Stand. The wind tunnel test was
a high-fidelity assessment of the SMA actuator (Ruggeri
et al., 2008a) and represents one of the first attempts to
847
produce a high-torque SMA actuator for the rotor environment. The actuator provided approximately 250
twist transitions during 75 h of testing with no loss of
performance or operational anomalies.
Pagano et al. (2009), within the European
Friendcopter project, investigated the control of a
rotor blade twist using an SMA-based device to extend
the flight envelope of the helicopter. An SMA rod was
pre-twisted to achieve a martensitic phase and then integrated in the span-wise direction within the blade structure at different positions. When heated, the SMA
actuator transmitted a torque couple which induced
twist into the blade. A prototype was been built and
tested, and achieved a maximum angular rotation of
6 , with a corresponding transmitted moment of
21.6 Nm.
Dihedral/Gull
Recently variable dihedral/gull wings have aroused
much interest because of their ability to enhance aircraft
performance and flight control. A variable dihedral wing
can: control the aerodynamic span; replace conventional
control surfaces; enhance the agility and flight characteristics of high-performance aircraft; reduce the
induced drag (by changing the vorticity distribution);
and improve the stall characteristics.
The IS-1 fighter, designed by Nikitin-Shevchenko in
1932, was one of the first applications of variable dihedral wings, and was capable of out-of-plane morphing
from a bi-plane to a monoplane to operate at high speed.
The XB-70 supersonic bomber also used a form of threedimensional wing morphing. This design used outer
wing panel rotation to control the lift-to-drag ratio at
both low subsonic and supersonic speeds.
Abdulrahim and Lind (2004) studied the flight
dynamics and characteristics of a variable gull-wing
morphing MAV. They used a hinged spar structure to
split the wing into inboard and outboard partitions and
vary the dihedral angle of each partition. A vertical
linear actuator controlled the angle of the inboard spar
via a telescoping shaft to prevent binding. The angle of
the outboard spar was passively controlled via a
mechanical linkage connected to the fuselage. During
actuation, the linkage caused the inboard and outboard
sections to deflect in opposite directions.
Shelton et al. (2006) studied the benefits of active multiple winglets for a UAV. The use of actively controlled
winglets can enhance the low-speed performance and
maneuverability of the vehicle and can increase the
range and endurance of the vehicle by up to 40%.
As part of the MAS program, Lockheed Martin
developed the folding wing (Z-wing), where the span
length, aspect ratio, and effective sweep angle may be
varied (Skillen and Crossley, 2008a). The folding wing
design incorporates hinged joints at two span-wise
848
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
stations enabling rigid body motion of four primary wing

sections. Two approaches to fold the wing were investigated: a thermo-polymer actuator driving a helical spline
gear or electro-mechanical rotary actuators. However,
the helical spline approach was high risk and hence electrical actuators were used (Bye and McClure, 2007).
Elastomeric skins covered the entire wing and provided
smooth shape changes. A morphing UAV aircraft was
successfully flight tested.
Bourdin et al. (2008) and Gatto et al. (2010) investigated the use of variable-cant angle winglets for morphing aircraft control. A pair of winglets with adaptive
cant angle were mounted at the tips of a flying wing
and actuated independently. A prototype of the concept
was constructed with servo-driven winglets at the tips of
a trapezoidal planar wing. A single pair of adaptive
winglets cannot replace all the conventional control surfaces and an elevator was included to trim the aircraft,
especially during level turns at arbitrary bank angles.
The concept was modified by adding a second pair of
folding wingtips (Bourdin et al., 2007, 2010), where the
split wingtips are actuated independently. The concept is
more effective at moderate and high lift coefficients, and
hence could be applied to low-speed morphing aircrafts.
Cuji and Garcia (2008) studied the dynamics of aircraft
turning for symmetric and asymmetric V-shaped changing wings. Wings with asymmetric dihedral perform
better in terms of bank angle, load factor, and rolling
moment coefficient than wings with symmetric dihedral.
Moreover, asymmetric dihedral can enhance the turning
performance significantly without losing the ability to
roll the vehicle. Very large dihedral angles are also good
for flight missions where the bank angle is more important than the turning rate and radius.
Ursache et al. (2007) investigated the MORPHing
wingLET (MORPHLET) concept to enhance the flight
performance of narrow body aircraft. The winglet
system consisted of four partitions at the outboard
region of the wing. The cant, twist, and span of each
partition were adjusted to maximize the vehicle performance across the entire flight envelope. Low-fidelity
mulitdisciplinary design optimization (MDO) studies
were performed using the winglet system to maximize
the specific air range (SAR) at three different points of
the flight envelope: start of initial cruise, start of final
cruise, and end of descent. Preliminary results indicated
that a significant increase in SAR can be achieved. A
mechanical prototype of the MORPHLET concept was
designed, built, and tested (Ursache et al., 2008). A corrugated skin was incorporated to allow the relative displacement of the MORPHLET partitions. Smith et al.
(2010) formulated a constrained multi-objective MDO
analysis of the MORPHLET concept to quantify operational performance benefits, and showed that a 45%
improvement in SAR over that for fixed winglets may be
achieved.
Span-wise Bending
Another way to achieve a continuous out-of-plane
wing morphing is through the biologically inspired
hyper elliptic cambered span (HECS) concept, developed by NASA researchers. Manzo et al. (2005) investigated two approaches to allow shape morphing of a
furled HECS wing. The first approach employed
a tendon-based spool system that was actuated using a
DC motor, while the second approach used an SMA
system. Manzo and Garcia (2010) studied the aerodynamic benefits of a furled and a planar (rigid) HECS
wings, in contrast to an elliptical rigid wing. A wing
was constructed that could mimic a furled HECS profile
by splitting the wing into five segments across the span.
The shape morphing of the HECS wing was achieved
using SMA-actuated segments that were powered in
tandem using closed-loop feedback control. Wiggins
et al. (2004) investigated the feasibility of a singledegree-of-freedom mechanism to continuously morph
a flat wing to a non-planar shape. Their scissor-like
mechanism used a repeating quaternarybinary link
configuration to translate the motion of one wing segment to the next. The mechanism was synthesized such
that only one actuator displacement to the first linkage
was required to deform all the segments.
Sofla et al. (2010) developed a morphing wing concept
where the wing can flex laterally in a continuous fashion
and is similar to the HECS wing concept. A prototype,
made from carbonepoxy and actuated using SMAs,
was built to examine the performance of the actuators.
The prototype showed excellent and smooth movement
under applied representative loads. A three-dimensional,
parametric aerodynamic analysis was also conducted to
evaluate the effect of the reconfigured wing shape on the
lift and drag coefficients. The power consumption of a
typical UAV was estimated from the aerodynamic performance of the wing. The numerical results showed
considerable benefits of the wing morphing concept.
Supekar (2007) designed a morphing wing concept
with adjustable span and gull angles. The gull angle
was controlled using a servomotor and bell-crank
arrangement, whereas the outer wing allowed an
increase in span.
Summary
Out-of-plane morphing is probably the least common
type of morphing solution, perhaps with the exception
of wing twist. Twist is the oldest shape morphing, but
was discarded for almost 80 years to prevent aeroelastic
problems. Advances in aerospace materials (composites)
have made twist morphing possible, for example with
the AFW research program. Following the AFW program, large numbers of research projects across the
world have investigated methods and techniques to
Morphing Aircraft
achieve twist morphing. The main reason for this large

interest is that twist morphing can produce a significant
impact on the aerodynamic behavior of a lifting surface
without the need for large platform modifications, such
those associated with variable sweep or span that usually
require complex and heavy mechanisms. In addition,
twist morphing (similar to camber morphing) can serve
multiple tasks simultaneously, such as alleviate gust and
maneuver load; increase the lift coefficient; and replace
conventional control surfaces. Furthermore, various
actuation methods ranging from SMA, piezoelectric,
AAS, and others have been investigated for twist
morphing. However the state-of-art piezoelectric actuators still fail to deliver the actuation authority required
to provide adequate roll control for fixed-wing air vehicles. Most of the research has been focused so far on
actively tailoring the wing elasticity to achieve desired
twist; moreover, traditional actuation systems have been
adopted in most of the studies which reached the wind
tunnel test stage.
Fewer studies have focused on dihedral/gull or spanwise bending morphing, although some have reached an
advanced stage, even producing a successful flying test
bed. The interest in these morphing capabilities mainly
arose from the need to optimize the performance of
fixed winglets. A variety of studies and research projects
focused on variable-cant winglets to maximize the performance of the air vehicle or to replace conventional
control surfaces. Actuators considered in these works
are generally traditional. The most recent studies have
focused on continuous geometric morphing of the wing
(root to tip) to generate improved outcomes; however,
this requires complex and heavy mechanisms coupled
with flexible skins.
AIRFOIL ADJUSTMENT
Airfoil adjustment is mainly concerned with camber
variation, although there is also some research concerned with thickness change. Tables 911 summarize
the literature available, with an additional categorization using the adopted activation method/strategy. In
aerodynamics, camber represents the effective curvature
(or shape) of an airfoil. The term camber control simply
refers to the change of the curvature of the airfoil by
means of actuators. There are many methods that can be
implemented in order to effectively vary the camber. The
wing camber can change either on specific parts (leading
or trailing edge) or in a global manner, letting the entire
wing act as a unique control surface. The choice of actuators can be conventional (i.e., electromagnetic motors,
hydraulic, pneumatic, and actuators with moving
parts) or solid-state smart materials (i.e., piezoelectrics,
SMAs, rubber muscle actuators (RMAs), magnetostrictive materials, etc.). The actuation (whether it is induced
849
by conventional or smart material systems) can be distributed or localized.

In this section, the main focus is applications of
camber control in fixed-wing and rotary aircraft in the
subsonic regime. The section is separated into four main
parts. The first part is organized from a flight regime
standpoint; therefore, examples of patents, flapping
wing aircraft, wind mills, etc. (in addition to fixed
wing and rotary aircraft) are given to better explain
the motivation and the necessity of camber morphing.
The second part deals specifically with fixed-wing and
rotary aircraft in the subsonic regime and actuated with
conventional systems. The third part deals with fixedwing and rotary aircraft (also in the subsonic regime)
that are actuated with SMAs or similar muscle-like
devices. In the final, fourth part, piezoelectric actuators
are considered.
Camber Motivation for Adoption on Fixed Wings
Although the idea of changing the wing camber was
born with the first airplanes, it is far from simple-todesign devices capable of achieving the necessary deformation and suitable control systems. Many patents have
been obtained and research carried out in this regard.
The need for wing curvature change arises from the possibility, in the subsonic regime, to adjust continuously
the airfoil geometry at different flight conditions, thus
increasing the lift/drag ratio (Spillman, 1992). The more
possible intermediate configurations, the greater are the
aerodynamic benefits. Some applications also realized a
small curvature change on the wing upper surface to
increase the aircraft performance in the transonic
regime (Stanewsky, 2001).
Parker (1920) patented one of the first examples of a
variable-camber wing. This concept involved changing
the wing configuration through aerodynamic loads on
the wing. This scheme divided the wing into three sections using two wing spars, one at the leading edge and
the other at the two-third chord. The portion of the wing
between the spars was flexible and the portion aft of the
second spar rigid. The wind tunnel test results showed
that the wing had a maximum lift coefficient of 0.76 and
minimum drag of 0.007.
Sachs and Mehlhorn (1991, 1993) presented a method
for endurance maximization, which consisted of the
periodic optimal control of camber in a coordinated
process with a corresponding control of throttle and elevator. It was shown that using camber control provides
an efficient means to improve the L/D ratio at each
flight condition during the unsteady phases of periodic
optimal endurance cruise. Fuel consumption during the
idle phase is also minimized.
McGowan et al. (1999, 2008) outlined the morphing
wing research activities at NASA Langley and also presented wing concepts that allowed shape changes
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Camber
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber
Camber and twist
Camber
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Shkarayev et al. (2004)
Baker et al. (2005)

Baker and Friswell (2009)
Bornengo et al. (2005)
Gern et al. (2005)

Lajux and Fielding (2005)
Null and Shkarayev (2005)
Edi and Fielding (2006)
Santangelo et al. (2006)

Stanford et al. (2007)
Diaconu et al. (2008)
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Camber
Camber and twist
van Dam (2002)

Garcia et al. (2003)
Boothe (2004)
Poonsong (2004)
UAV
Transport
MAV
UAV
Transport
MAV
Transport
Transport
UAV
MAV
Fighter UAV
Servo
Servo
Servo
Active
Servo
Pneumatic
Servo
Passive and servo

Ultrasonic Motor
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Hydraulic
Camber and twist

Camber (TE)
Transport
Linear-wave motor
Motor
Electro-hydraulic
Actuation
Pneumatic
Fixed wing
Transport
Fighter
Size
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Austin et al. (1997)
Monner (2001)
Monner et al. (1998)
Campanile (2008)
Campanile and Sachau (2000)
Ifju et al. (2001)
Bartley-Cho et al. (2004)
Fixed wing
Camber
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Camber
Camber
Category
Boeing (1973)
de Camp and Hardy
(1984)
Bonnema and Smith
(1988)
Smith and Nelson (1990)
Smith et al. (1992)
Powers et al. (1992)
Szodruch and Hilbig (1988)
References
Geometrical
parameters
Vehicle
Table 9. Airfoil morphing: Camber with conventional actuation.
Flexible
Rigid
Membrane
Rigid
Flexible
Flexible
Rigid
Flexible
Stretchable
Flexible
Stretchable
Flexible
Membrane
Flexible
Flexible
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Flexible
Skin
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Control (roll)
Performance
(CL)
Performance
(CL, CLmax)
Performance
(CL, range)
Performance
(CL, CLmax)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(CL, CLmax)
Performance
(CL, CLmax)
Performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(CD, Range)
Control and
performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Purpose

Numerical
8
8
8
8

Prot.
8
8
8
8

8
8
8
8

8
8
FTB
(continued)
WT
Experimental
Investigation
850
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Camber (LE)
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Ricci (2008)
Miller et al. (2010)
Shili et al. (2008)
Wildschek et al. (2008)
Boria et al. (2009)
Daynes et al. (2009)

Kota et al. (2009)
Monner et al. (2009)
Marques et al. (2009)
Perera and Guo (2009)
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
Fixed wing
Rotary wing
Camber (LE)
Kota et al. (2008)
Fixed wing
Category
Camber
Geometrical
parameters
Size
Small UAV
UAV
Transport
Transport
MAV
Transport
Vehicle
Frank et al. (2008)
References
Table 9. Continued.
Servo
Electromagnetic
Servo
Servo and
hydraulic
Motor
Actuation
Flexible
Rigid
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Skin
Performance
(L/D, range)
Performance
(CL, CLmax)
Performance
(CD)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(CLmax)
Purpose

Numerical

Prot.

8
8
WT
Experimental
Investigation
8
8
8
8
FTB
Morphing Aircraft
851
852
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Table 10. Airfoil morphing: Camber with SMA (and similar) actuation.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
Authors
Roglin and
Hanagud (1996)
Roglin et al. (1996)
Kudva et al. (1996b)
Martin et al. (1999)
Florance et al.
(2003)
Kudva (2004)
Sanders et al. (2004)
Beauchamp and
Nedderman (2001)
Chopra (2001)
Epps and
Chopra (2001)
Singh and
Chopra (2002)
Strelec et al. (2003)
Alasty et al. (2004)
Benavides and
Correa (2004)
Madden et al. (2004)
Yang et al. (2006)
Mirone (2007)
Mirone and
Pellegrino (2009)
Song and Ma
(2007)
Brailovski et al.
(2008)
Peel et al. (2009)
Chou and Philen
(2008)
Popov et al. (2008)
Seow et al. (2008)
Abdullah et al.
(2009)
Barbarino et al.
(2007)
Icardi and
Ferraro (2009)
Lv et al. (2009)
Barbarino
et al. (2010a)
Geometrical
param.
Category
Size
Actuation
Skin
Camber
(TE)
Rotary wing
UAV
SMA
Rigid
Camber
Fixed wing
Fighter
UAV
SMA
Flexible
Camber
Rotary wing
Wind mill
SMA
Flexible
Camber
(TE)
Rotary wing
SMA
Camber
Fixed wing
SMA
Flexible
Camber
(TE)
Camber
(TE)
Camber
(TE)
Camber
Fixed wing
SMA
Flexible
Fixed wing
SMA
Flexible
Rotary wing
PPy
Rigid
Fixed wing
Marine
Propeller
Small UAV
SMA
Flexible
Camber
Fixed wing
UAV
SMA
Flexible
Camber
(TE)
Thickness
Fixed wing
UAV
SMA
Purpose
Performance
(CLmax)
Performance
(CL)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Performance
(L/D)
Performance
(CL)
Performance
(L/D)
Num.
Prot.
WT
FTB
Fixed wing
SMA
Flexible
Camber
Camber
(TE)
Thickness
Fixed wing
RMA
FMC
Flexible
Flexible

8
8
8
8
8
Fixed wing
SMA
Flexible
Camber
(TE)
Camber
and
thickness
Thickness
Camber
Camber
(TE)
Camber
and twist
Camber
(TE)
Fixed wing
Small UAV
SMA
Stretchable
UAV
SMA
Flexible
Fixed wing
Transport
SMA
Flexible
Fixed wing
UAV
SMA
Corrugated
and stretchable
Fixed and
rotary wing
Fixed wing
SMA
Transport
SMA
Stretchable
Performance
(CD)
Performance
(L/D)
853
Morphing Aircraft
Table 11. Airfoil morphing: Camber with piezoelectric (and similar) actuation.
Vehicle
Investigation
Experimental
Authors
Spangler and
Hall (1990)
Lazarus et al.
(1991)
Pinkerton and
Moses (1997)
Lee (1999)
Chopra (2001)
Koratkar and
Chopra (2000)
Lee and Chopra
(2001a, b)
Bernhard and
Chopra (2001)
Geissler et al.
(2000)
Munday and
Jacob (2001)
Straub et al.
(2001, 2009)
Wang et al.
(2001)
Barrett (2002)
Barrett and
Tiso (2004)
Barrett et al.
(2005) (XQ-138)
VT Senior
Design, Eggleston
et al. (2002)
Vos et al.
(2007, 2008a)
Geometrical
parameters
Camber
(TE)
Camber
and twist
Camber (LE)
Camber
Camber (LE)
Camber and
thickness
Camber (TE)
Camber and
twist
Camber
Category
Size
Rotary
wing
PZT
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
Fixed
and
rotary
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
Actuation
PZT
Skin
Purpose
Numerical
Prot.
WT
FTB
Rigid
Control
Flexible
Performance
(CL, Weight)
Performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Control and
performance
Membrane
PZT and
magnetostrictive
PZT
Rigid
PZT
Membrane
PZT
Flexible
Fighter
UAV
UAV
PZT and
others
PZT
Flexible
Flexible and
membrane
Performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Performance
and control
Camber
Fixed
wing
Small
UAV
PZT, SMA,
servo
Flexible
Camber
Rotary
and
fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Rotary
wing
Rotary
and
fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Fixed
wing
Small
UAV
PZT
Membrane
Small
UAV
PZT
Flexible
PZT
Flexible
Small
UAV
PZT
Flexible
UAV
PZT
Flexible
UAV
PZT
Membrane
Small
UAV
PZT
Flexible
Bilgen et al.
(2007, 2009)
Grohmann et al.
(2006, 2008)
Bilgen et al.
(2009, 2011a)
Camber (TE)
Paradies and
Ciresa (2009)
Wickramasinghe
et al. (2009)
VT Senior
Design, Butt et al.
(2010a), Bilgen
et al. (2011b)
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber
Camber (TE)
Camber (TE)
Control (roll)
Performance
(L/D, CLmax)
Control (roll,
pitch, and yaw)
854
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
without surface discontinuities. In one concept, referred

to as the fish bone concept, the main load-bearing component resembles the spinal cord of a fish covered with
an elastomeric material to transfer pressure loads to the
main structure. The trailing-edge ribs can deflect up to
20 in camber and 25 in the span-wise direction.
Likewise, the leading-edge ribs can deflect 25 in
camber and 20 in the span-wise direction. The configuration was built for the assessment and demonstration of the structural concept and not for wind tunnel
testing. Bolonkin and Gilyard (1999) calculated the benefits of variable-camber ailerons that span the majority
of the wing. The main purpose is maximizing the L/D
ratio and reducing the fuel consumption of subsonic
transport aircraft.
Recent attention is given to multi-objective and multilevel (or multiscale) optimization problems due to the
increasing computational power. The design of morphing aircraft (or airfoil) geometries is now commonly
posed as a multilevel, multi-objective optimization problem. In most morphing aircraft problems, the two competing objectives are (1) maneuverability and (2) long
range/endurance. In general, multi-objective problems
have many optimal solutions each depicting a different
compromise scenario. Each optimal solution is known
as a Pareto point, and the set of all these points represents the Pareto curve. The Pareto description is known
to be a powerful means of showing the global picture of
the solution field.
Prock et al. (2002) explored a process to link analytical models and optimization tools to create energy-efficient, lightweight wing/structure/actuator combinations
for morphing aircraft wings. The energy required to
deform the airfoil was used as the performance index
for optimization while the aerodynamic performance
such as lift or drag was constrained. Three different,
but related, topics were considered: energy required to
operate articulated trailing-edge flaps and slats attached
to flexible two-dimensional (2D) airfoils; optimal, minimum energy, articulated control deflections on wings to
generate lift; and, deformable airfoils with cross-sectional shape changes requiring strain energy changes to
move from one lift coefficient to another. Results indicate that a formal optimization scheme using minimum
actuator energy as an objective and internal structural
topology features as design variables can identify the
best actuators and their most effective locations so
that minimal energy is required to operate a morphing
wing. Gano and Renaud (2002) presented a concept to
increase the efficiency of a UAV, based on changing the
airfoil thickness. They suggested to decrease the volume
of the wing tanks as the fuel is depleted, thus inducing a
thickness reduction and thereby a drag reduction. Gano
et al. (2004) discussed solution strategies for multi-objective, multi-level morphing aircraft design problems. Two
design tools were explored to combat the issues in the
optimization problem: conversion to a single-level

design problem and the use of variable-fidelity optimization. A variable-fidelity optimization framework was
discussed and applied to design a buckle wing morphing
aircraft concept. The buckle wing in cruise conditions
looks like a typical UAV with a standard high-aspect
ratio wing; though the wing may be slightly thicker.
However, the wing is actually composed of two thinner
wings which are fused together to form this high-aspect
ratio wing, and when the need for maneuverability arises
the aircraft can, via a buckling load applied at the wing
tips, morph into a configuration that resembles a
biplane with its outboard wing tips joined together.
When the UAV is in the buckled state, it can generate
much more lift and becomes more agile. The aerodynamic models used in the study include a high-fidelity
CFD model and a low-fidelity panel method. Rusnell
et al. (2004) also investigated the buckle-wing concept.
Compromise Programming was used as the optimization
method and the Vortex-Panel Method was used to calculate the aerodynamic behavior. The buckle-wing
UAVs enhanced capabilities were demonstrated both
quantitatively and qualitatively. Johnston at al. (2003,
2007) analyzed the resistance of an airfoil to change its
shape due to elastic and aerodynamic forces. The work
required to overcome this force was examined in a variety of different conditions. The energies required for a
pitching flat plate, conventional flap, conformal flap,
and two variable-camber configurations were investigated. It was determined that the distribution and the
size of actuators can make a significant difference in the
energy required. Namgoong et al. (2006) presented
the strain energy required to change the shape (camber
and thickness distribution) of a wing section. The additional power input to the morphing section was taken as
a new design constraint. This research determined the
energy required to deform airfoil sections, and proposed
that the morphing airfoil design problem is multi-objective when the aerodynamic constraints and strain energy
problems are both solved. Zhao et al. (2009) presented a
robust airfoil design problem. The authors reported that
the performance of an initial airfoil is enhanced through
reducing the standard deviation of CLmax. They also
concluded that the maximum thickness has the dominant effect on the mean value of CLmax, the location of
maximum thickness has the dominant effect on the standard deviation of CLmax, and the maximum camber has
a little effect on both the mean value and the standard
deviation.
Camber Motivation for Adoption in Rotary Wings
In addition to the fixed-wing applications above,
rotary aircraft have been an active research area with
the introduction of piezoelectric materials for vibration
control. Although the references presented next do not
Morphing Aircraft
propose camber morphing, the concepts are still capable

of camber control and they provide a good background
to some of the camber morphing research today. In the
early 1990s, Steadman et al. (1994) showed an application of a piezoceramic actuator for camber control in
helicopter blades. Structurecontrol interaction was
employed to develop an adaptive airfoil that can be
used in the cyclic and vibration control of the helicopter.
Giurgiutiu et al. (1994a, b) researched improved rotor
blades using strain-induced actuation methods (using
PZTs). Wind tunnel experiments proved the control
authority of the PZT actuators. Giurgiutiu (2000) presented a comprehensive review on the application of
smart material actuation to counteract aeroelastic and
vibration effects in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
Experiments of active flutter control, buffet suppression,
gust load alleviation, and sonic fatigue reduction were
discussed. Kerho (2007) presented analysis to reduce the
effects of dynamic stall on rotorcraft blades. The adaptive airfoil had an aerodynamically smooth variable
leading-edge droop which enabled dynamic stall control.
Such a concept incorporates the change in camber to
effectively postpone the occurrence of stall. A modified
NavierStokes solver (OVERFLOW) was employed
and the results clearly showed that the compliant structure had a higher CL than a baseline section, or could
eliminate the dynamic stall vortex at a CL equivalent to
the baseline section CLmax, while maintaining the baseline sections high-Mach number advancing blade characteristics. Gandhi et al. (2008b) proposed a variablecamber airfoil as an alternative to trailing-edge flaps
used for active helicopter vibration reduction. The
design consists of compliant mechanisms actuated
using PZTs, with the variable camber-achieved aft of
the leading-edge spar. An optimized shape was predicted
to achieve a trailing-edge deflection angle of 4.6 , resulting in a lift increase of 1722%. The aerodynamic loads
were found to cause only small deformations in comparison with those caused by the actuation. Bench-top tests
demonstrated that rotor airfoil camber is controllable
using the proposed concept. In a complementary
study, Gandhi and Anusonti-Inthra (2008a) focused on
identifying favorable attributes for a skin for a variablecamber morphing wing. The paper proposed that the
skin should be highly anisotropic, or more specifically
(1) has a low in-plane axial stiffness (so it can expand
and contract with the change in camber) and (2) has a
high out-of-plane flexural stiffness (to resist deformation
due to out-of-plane aerodynamic loading).
Camber Motivation for Adoption in Small Aircraft
The interest in MAVs and their morphing capabilities
is connected with the recent and increasing development
of UAVs. These aircrafts have similar flight conditions
to insects and birds, as they fly at low Reynolds and
855
Mach numbers (Santhanakrishnan et al., 2005). MAVs

represent a new challenge for aerodynamics, propulsion,
and control design. Typical MAV missions are projected
to be flown either by inexperienced operators or via
autonomous control. This requires robust flying characteristics. It is well known that during flight in the
Reynolds number range between 10,000 and 100,000,
flow separation around an airfoil can lead to sudden
increases in drag and loss of efficiency. The effects of
flow separation can be seen in nature where large species
soar for extended periods of time while small birds have
to flap vigorously to remain airborne. The Reynolds
numbers of the larger species are well above 100,000,
whereas hummingbirds fly at below 10,000 if they
attempt to soar. Aerodynamic efficiency is critical in
MAV development, and the low-Reynolds number
regime is relatively new to aeronautical applications.
There are several benefits of employing continuous
shape (or more specifically camber) control via active
materials over discrete trailing-edge control using conventional control surfaces in small air vehicles. First, the
low-Reynolds number flow regime can result in flow
separation that reduces the effectiveness of a trailingedge control surface. Second, small UAVs and MAVs
cannot afford to lose energy through control surface
drag because of their severe power limitations. Finally,
the opportunity for flow control is inherent in the active
material due to its direct effect on circulation and its
high operating bandwidth. In addition to replacing conventional control surfaces for camber control, these
actuators can be effective in dynamic laminar separation
bubble control (also referred to as flow control)
although this research field is not considered here.
Shyy et al. (1997, 2010) presented research on airfoils
whose camber changes in response to aerodynamic
loads, including a review of recent progress in flapping
wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Instead of
actively morphing the wing section, the airfoils described
in the review were deformed passively. Flexibility in the
airfoil section was shown to improve unsteady airfoil
performance by limiting flow separation at high angles
of attack. However, for moderate angles of attack where
flow separation on the rigid airfoil is limited, the flexible
airfoil suffers from a slightly degraded lift-to-drag ratio
compared to the rigid case. The computational study
was followed by an experimental study in a low-speed
wind tunnel with an unsteady flow velocity, where flexible membrane and rigid flat airfoil sections were tested,
as well as a hybrid section composed of a membrane
reinforced with stiff wires. Passive morphing appears
attainable for small MAVs operating in the Reynolds
number range where thin plate airfoils can be effective.
While no benefits are realized for steady flow conditions,
flexible camber membranes do appear to offer benefits
for vehicles such as helicopters and ornithopters. Song
et al. (2001) focused on the measurement of the upward
856
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
and downward strokes of a dragonfly wing. The paper

analyzed the camber change via optical fringe patterns.
The experimental results showed that the camber deformation was significantly different during the upstroke
and the downstroke and this difference is fundamental
to the generation of lift.
Barrett (2004) reviewed several families of adaptive
aerostructures and flightworthy aircraft, including
rotary and fixed wing vehicles, munitions, and missiles.
More than 40 adaptive aerostructure programs which
have had a direct connection to flight test and/or production UAVs, ranging from hover through hypersonic
and from sea-level to exo-stratospheric, were examined.
A historical analysis showed the evolution of flightworthy adaptive aircraft from the earliest flights in
1994 to the publication date in 2004. These aircrafts
are discussed in different sections of current review
paper.
Mesaric and Kosel (2004) investigated the prediction
of unsteady airloads imposed on a variable-camber wing
that change over time with deformation. Several methods were used for the analysis. Results from an analytical method based on incompressible, potential flow
theory were validated via a numerical time-step
method. This analysis also had important vibration
and flutter implications. Murua et al. (2010) numerically
investigated the effect of chord-wise flexibility on the
dynamic stability of compliant airfoils. A classical twodimensional aeroelastic model was expanded with an
additional degree of freedom to capture the time-varying
camber deformations. A number of situations were identified in which the flutter boundary of the compliant
airfoil exhibited a significant dip with respect to the
rigid airfoil models. The results can be used to estimate
the aeroelastic stability boundaries of membrane-wing
MAVs.
Kim and Han (2006) and Kim et al. (2009) designed
and fabricated a smart flapping wing using a graphite/
epoxy composite material and a macro-fiber composite
(MFC) actuator. This research aimed to mimic the flapping motion of birds. The wind tunnel tests were performed to measure the aerodynamic characteristic and
performance of the surface actuators. The test vehicle
was the Cybrid-P2 commercial ornithopter with and
without the MFC actuator. A 20% increase in lift was
achieved by changing the camber of the wing at different
stages of flapping motion. Hu et al. (2008) employed
particle image velocimetry to gain an in-depth understanding of the underlying aerodynamics in membrane
wings. The rigidity of the membrane wing was varied by
changing the number of evenly spaced ribs throughout
the wing surface. The trailing edge of the airfoil was
observed to deflect with increasing load, thus reducing
the effective angle of attack of the entire section and
delaying the onset of stall. The aerodynamic efficiency
of flexible airfoils was also confirmed in the study,
demonstrating an increase in L/D for more compliant

wings, except when the increased compliance induces
trailing-edge vibrations and/or instabilities. Song et al.
(2008), inspired by the membrane wings of small flying
mammals, performed a broad study of the effects of
membrane geometry and elasticity on aerodynamic performance. In this case, the wing was a sheet of latex
stretched between two rods at various aspect ratios,
and rigidity was increased by separating the rods further
from each other, stretching the material further. The
wings compliance to the airflow results in an increase
in aerodynamic efficiency, suggesting that the wing
adapts itself to a variety of flight regimes without any
cost in energy to whatever system may employ it. In
other words, instead of using actuators to change the
airfoil geometry and maximize lift, a membrane wing
does so automatically. Increasing compliance generally
leads to higher cambers at lower aerodynamic loads, but
can operate at higher angles of attack and stalls more
gently than less compliant or rigid wings. Drag also
increases with compliance, but an improvement in L/D
is still obtained compared to rigid wings.
Turnock and Keane (2009) considered several
approaches to minimize actuation requirements of
aerial and maritime autonomous vehicles. A concept
uses a combination of pushpull actuators coupled
with a snap-through composite lay-up to achieve shape
change. It was proposed that such a system could be
applied to the trailing edge of an autonomous underwater glider wing. The anisotropy achieved through use of
different composite ply orientations and stacking
sequence could also be used to generate bendtwist coupling such that fluid dynamic loads induce passive shape
adaptation. Another approach used a detailed understanding of the structural response of buckled elements
to apply control moments to deform a complete wing
surface.
Conventional Actuation for Camber
The most common form of camber variation uses conventional control surfaces. Camber control is widely
used in modern aircrafts in the form of elevators, rudders, ailerons, flaps, etc. By simply deflecting a control
surface on the airfoil, the camber of the airfoil is effectively increased along with the angle of attack, increasing the lift across that particular surface. Trailing-edge
control is the more popular of the two, although the F16 Fighting Falcon uses leading-edge flaps to change the
wing camber, for example. All commercial aircrafts
today utilize discrete control surfaces that are actuated
via conventional devices. Conventional systems are typically lumped systems with electromagnetic, hydraulic,
pneumatic or motor (with rotor and stator parts) actuators, and a revolute or a prismatic joint system(s). The
designs that are currently in use (in the aerospace
Morphing Aircraft
industry) are discrete and rotating leading- and trailingedge controls. While some of those mentioned (earlier)
may already be in use (i.e., leading electrolyte (LE) and
trailing electrolyte (TE) devices), those that focus on
morphing the complete airfoil to provide control of
the aircraft are still in development and are more interesting. Complete camber morphing offers huge potential
for advancement in the way modern and future aircraft
perform; however, due to its complexity, this method is
often utilized in small unmanned aircraft. In this section,
attention is given to camber morphing for fixed-wing
and rotary aircraft in the subsonic regime to achieve a
smooth variation of the airfoil shape using lumped (not
distributed) actuator systems.
Boeing (1973) presented an advanced technology variable-camber wing wind tunnel test in the NASA Ames
14-ft transonic wind tunnel. The wing had simple hinged
leading- and trailing-edge flaps but also smooth and
curved variable-camber flaps. Large improvements
over standard airfoil performance were obtained, but
the device was mechanically complex in the wing interior. Starting from the mid-80s, the researchers at
Boeing (de Camp and Hardy, 1984; Bonnema and
Smith, 1988; Smith and Nelson, 1990) integrated, on
board a military aircraft, a device capable of controlling
the wing curvature by means of an automated control
system. The goal was to optimize performance according
to the external wing pressure loads. This program,
named Advanced Fighter Technology Integration
(AFTI)/F-111, was promoted by NASA in collaboration
with the USAF. The F-111 wing was suitably modified,
adopting six independent sections for the trailing edge
(three for each wing, based on sliding panels for the
lower surface and flexible panels made of glass fiber
for the upper one) and two for the leading edge in flexible composite; all these surfaces were commanded by
electro-hydraulic actuators. Flight tests were conducted
on the AFTI/F-111 aircraft and confirmed the performance increase: 2030% range enhancement, 20% aerodynamic efficiency growth, and 15% increase of wing
airload at a constant bending moment. Bonnema and
Smith (1988) presented the comparative analysis
between Mission Adaptive wings and aircrafts with
fixed wings under the research program. Smith et al.
(1992) focused mainly on integration of the variablecamber control into the aircraft and assessed the performance and reliability. Powers et al. (1992) presented
additional flight test results from the Mission Adaptive
Wing program.
Szodruch and Hilbig (1988) presented a variablecamber wing concept to reduce drag and hence fuel consumption of a transport aircraft. The research gave
various wind tunnel results on wings of different cambers, wing design philosophy, systems requirements, and
finally the benefits of new wing concept. Austin et al.
(1997) proposed an adaptive trailing edge actuated by a
857
linear-wave motor with magnetostrictive material

(Terfenol-D), which provided wing morphing through
the internal structure displacement.
Monner et al. (1998) and Monner (2001), within the
ADIF project carried out by EADS-Airbus,
DaimlerChrysler F&T and DLR, developed a concept
to replace rigid, fixed ribs with a flexible alternative with
a high stiffness (intended for large transport aircraft).
The flexible plates were realized by combining several
plates, contoured to the airfoil section shape, with revolute joints. A single actuator was then used to actuate
the first plate in the series, which transferred the motion
to the adjoining plates via the kinematic constraints
imposed by the joints. In this way, the desired degree
of camber was achieved. The skin is allowed to move
relative to the joint by incorporating slide joints and
stringers to maintain stiffness. A proof of concept
achieved the desired degree of camber. The research concentrated on the optimization of the rib elements to
achieve minimum joint stress and maintain the camber
objectives. The actuation was hydraulic and the concept
was considered as lift augmentation/drag reduction
rather than direct control. Santangelo et al. (2006) developed and simulated a servo-actuated articulated rib,
similar to the original work presented by Monner
et al. (1999). Monner et al. (2009) focused on leadingedge morphing, based on a collaboration between DLR
and EADS within the SmartLED project. A smart leading-edge device was developed, which delivered an alternative to the droop nose device used by the A380: it was
developed from Dornier Patent DE 2907912 using a
suitable optimization process. The main emphasis of
this new device was to realize a structure/system solution
for a smooth leading surface, which can be deflected in a
typical high-lift application: a deflection of 20 was
selected as the target.
Campanile and Sachau (2000) and Campanile (2008)
described a method of airfoil shape morphing using
structronic instead of mechatronic mechanisms. The
concept is to replace the rigid rib in an airfoil with a
belt rib, which is a compliant structure that can be
realized with a conventional material. The basic form
of the airfoil was achieved using in-plane stiff spokes
attached to the belt-rib by solid-state hinges. Due to the
relatively low bending stiffness of the hinges, the spokes
are mainly loaded in a tensioncompression mode.
During the deformation in the shape, these spokes can
be assumed rigid. With this assumption, the shape
behavior of the belt-rib structural frame is defined by
the belts bending flexibility and the configuration of the
spokes. The variation in camber was achieved by several
methods such as conventional actuation or embedded
smart material actuation. Static (proof of concept)
bench tests were conducted using mechanical wires and
SMA actuation although no details of the actuation suitable for specific aircraft applications were given.
858
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Bartley-Cho et al. (2004) presented the smooth variablecamber wing that was applied in a Northrop Grumman
UCAV test model (part of the Smart Wing Program,
discussed in the next section). The unmanned aircraft
demonstrated high actuation rate (80 /s), large deflection (20 ), hinge-less, smoothly contoured control surfaces with chord-wise and span-wise shape variabilities.
Ultrasonic (piezoelectric material driven) motors were
used as actuators. van Dam (2002) presented a comprehensive review of recent developments in aerodynamic
design and analysis methods for multi-element high-lift
systems on transport airplanes. Attention was given to
the associated mechanical and cost problems since a
multi-element high-lift system must be as simple and
economical as possible while meeting the required aerodynamic performance levels.
Poonsong (2004) designed and implemented a multisection wing model based on the NACA 0012 airfoil,
capable of variable curvature. Each rib was divided
into six sections, each able to rotate up to 5 with respect
to the previous one without significant discontinuities on
the wing surface. The camber change was obtained by
means of pneumatic actuators. Wind tunnel tests
showed that the lift produced by a similar wing was
comparable to that of the same one piece airfoil, but
the surface drag was higher due to the increased required
flexibility of the skin. Baker et al. (2005) and Baker and
Friswell (2006, 2009) proposed a compliant structure to
effect a change in airfoil camber. The trailing edge of the
airfoil section was morphed using a combination of 3 or
88 actuators placed within 14- or 1752-element truss
structures, respectively. The trusses supported and
defined the shape of the airfoil. The focus of the paper
was to select which truss elements to replace by active
materials capable of extending or contracting their
length while minimizing the required actuation strain.
Several optimization algorithms were evaluated the
best optimization being performed by a relatively timeconsuming genetic algorithm (GA). This sort of concept
is well suited to actuation by SMAs or piezoelectric
stacks.
Bornengo et al. (2005) examined a possible internal
wing structure that is adaptive to shape/camber changes.
The chiral honeycomb design differed from classical
wing box structures and presented unique structural
behavior in terms of its effective Poissons ratio. The
paper details the numerical finite element analysis
models used to better predict a homogenized material
behavior. It was determined that the material would
change camber with changes in flow speed. Gern et al.
(2005) proposed the replacement of trailing-edge flaps
by distributed structural actuation. The power requirements for the actuation of the conventional flaps were
compared to that of the morphing wing design.
Lajux and Fielding (2005) developed a new methodology for wing leading-edge devices for variable camber
applications. The research provided insight into CFD

simulation, new mechanism design solutions, and structural analysis. It also described estimation methods for
weight and reliability and trade-off studies of alternative
configurations. The methodology proposed aimed to
speed up the design process while incorporating the variable camber technology. A comparative study between
conventional LE mechanisms and variable camber technology was also given. Edi and Fielding (2006) examined
the viability of using variable camber airfoils on transport aircraft. An airfoil employing hybrid laminar-flow
control (at the LE) and variable camber (at the TE) was
considered and a three-dimensional CFD analysis used
to determine the aerodynamic properties of the design.
Diaconu et al. (2008) presented a non-linear static
finite element study of a morphing airfoil to determine the forces required for various levels of deflection
for a graphite/epoxy composite material. The study proposed three bi-stable concepts and the respective geometric properties, including a control surface fixed
between two vertical spars with a bi-stable adaptive
trailing edge.
Flexsys Inc. (2011; Website) focused on the aerodynamic smoothness of the wing and developed a functional, seamless, hinge-free wing whose trailing and/or
leading edges morphed on demand to adapt to different
flight conditions. Kota et al. (2009) presented results
(from Flexsys) on the variable-camber trailing edge for
a high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft. The flight testing of the Mission Adaptive Compliant Wing adaptive
structure trailing-edge flap used in conjunction with a
natural laminar flow airfoil was described. The airfoil
flap system was optimized to maximize the laminar
boundary layer extent over a broad lift coefficient
range for endurance aircraft applications. The wing
was flight tested (in 2006) at full-scale dynamic pressure,
full-scale Mach number, and reduced-scale Reynolds
numbers on the Scaled Composites White Knight aircraft. Data from flight testing revealed that laminar flow
was maintained over approximately 60% of the airfoil
chord for much of the lift range. Drag results were provided based on a dynamic pressure scaling factor to
account for White Knight fuselage and wing interference
effects. The expanded laminar bucket capability allows
the endurance aircraft to significantly extend its range
(15% or more) by continuously optimizing the wing L/D
throughout the mission.
Frank et al. (2008) mechanized a controlled spanwisevarying airfoil camber change for a high-aspect ratio
wing, resulting in optimized aerodynamic performance
for an aircraft that changed weight by 50% over its mission. Two separate design methodologies were used to
achieve these shape changes: (1) a rigid body kinematics
approach and (2) a compliant mechanism approach. A
framework to optimize these two mechanisms was presented. The designed mechanisms were evaluated based
Morphing Aircraft
on the error in the shapes and on the energy efficiency of

the systems.
Ricci (2008) developed a rotating rib concept capable
of gapless camber variation, achieved by an internal
hinge to which the trailing-edge rib was attached. Both
the upper and lower skins were allowed to glide over the
rib contour (they were not connected at the trailing
edge). A wing section was fabricated and equipped
with four rotating ribs driven by four servo actuators
and a maximum rotation of 5.5 was demonstrated.
Miller et al. (2010) presented the research of the
SMorph (Smart Aircraft Morphing Technologies) project which was a Eurocores S3T collaboration. The aim
of the project was to develop novel structural concepts
to implement morphing aeroelastic structures. An overview of the current status of the project was provided,
including descriptions of the development, modeling,
and design optimization of several morphing aeroelastic
structures. The design, fabrication, and bench-testing of
concepts were presented.
Shili et al. (2008) introduced a systematic approach to
design compliant structures to perform required shape
changes under distributed pressure loads. The distributed compliant mechanism was optimized using a GA.
A direct search method was used to locally optimize the
dimension and input displacement after the GA optimization. The resultant structure achieved a 9.3 angle
change, which was also validated using a prototype.
Wildschek et al. (2008) proposed an all-composite
morphing trailing-edge design for flying wing aircraft
control. An adaptive wing demonstrator with an allelectric actuation system was proposed by splitting the
trailing edge of the wing into upper and lower seamless
control surfaces. The upper and lower structures were
moved independently by two electric actuators. These
inner structures of both upper and lower surfaces were
hinged to several bars which were rigidly connected to
the upper and lower surfaces. This multi-functional
morphing trailing edge was shown to provide full control authority, such as roll, pitch, yaw, and load control,
high lift, and airbrake function at the same time. The
proposed morphing trailing edge device achieved a maximum deflection angle of 35 .
In addition to the fixed-wing applications (presented
above), researchers at FlexSys and Kota et al. (2008)
addressed the problem of helicopter retreating blade
stall through the use of a morphing variable-camber airfoil capable of being actuated once per rotor revolution.
Morphing of the airfoil camber was accomplished by a
compliant structure that precisely deformed the leading
edge of the airfoil section using a single linear electromagnetic actuator. Aerodynamic optimization was
employed to identify a deformed airfoil shape that
would delay flow separation at high angles of attack
with minimal drag penalty. Likewise, structural optimization was used to find a structure capable of morphing
859
between the nominal and deformed airfoil shapes with

low actuation force requirements, constrained by fatigue
life limits. A model scale rotor was designed using a
similar process, except that a rotary actuator was
selected; the model was fabricated and shown to achieve
a 6 Hz response rate.
Daynes et al. (2009) presented the design and wind
tunnel testing results of a full-scale helicopter rotor
blade section with an electromagnetic-actuated bistable
trailing-edge flap, developed under the Intelligent
Responsive Composite Structures program. The flap system was designed to change between two stable positions when the helicopter moves between hover and
forward flight conditions. The bistability of the flap
system meant that the electromagnetic actuator was
only required to transit between these two stable
states, and not to maintain the states. The use of bistable
composites as aerodynamic surfaces was proven to be
possible, and stable trailing-edge deflections of 0 and
10 were achieved. The wind tunnel model clearly demonstrated a significant change in lift coefficient compared to the standard airfoil section when the flap was
deflected.
In the area of small UAVs and MAVs, Ifju et al.
(2001) and the researchers at the University of Florida
(Waszak et al., 2001; Ifju et al., 2002; Torres, 2002)
developed a series of vehicles that incorporated a
unique, thin, reflexed, flexible wing design. The wings
were constructed of a carbon fiber skeleton and a thin
flexible latex membrane. The flexible wing design
reduced the adverse effects of gusts and unsteady aerodynamics, exhibited desirable flight stability, and
enhanced structural durability. There have been numerous experimental and analytical studies on flexible-wing
MAVs. Albertani et al. (2004) investigated the effects of
a propeller on the aerodynamic characteristics of MAVs
and the coupling with the wing flexibility in steady conditions. The wind tunnel test data provided a detailed
account of the aerodynamics as they relate to the propeller effects and to the structural deformations, namely
the wing flexibility. Garcia et al. (2003, 2005) and
Boothe (2004) developed a fleet of small UAVs, with a
carbon fiber fuselage and wings of thin flexible sheets.
The wing camber change and twisting were obtained by
means of torsion bars (one for each wing), implemented
by servos inside the fuselage. The attained roll rate was
much higher than the yaw rate, indicating that pure roll
control through wing twist was almost possible. These
model aircrafts show a high agility and maneuverability,
which makes them hard to manage remotely. In a similar study, Stanford et al. (2007) implemented morphing
(in the form of asymmetric twisting) through the use of a
torque-actuated wing structure with thousands of discrete design permutations. A static aeroelastic model
of the MAVs was developed and validated to optimize
the performance of the torque-actuated wing structure.
860
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Objective functions included the steady-state roll rate

and the lift-to-drag ratio during such a maneuver. An
optimized design was obtained through the use of a GA
presenting significant improvements in both performance metrics compared with the baseline design.
Boria et al. (2009) outlined an effective experimental
technique for shape management optimization of a
morphing airfoil: a GA with wind-tunnel hardware
(strain-gage sting balance) in the loop. Optimal wing
shapes were found to maximize the measured lift or efficiency for a range of angles of attack by allowing the
wing shape control to be defined through deformation at
a single actuation point (camber control) or two actuation points (camber and reflex control).
Shkarayev et al. (2004) presented a method to alter
the camber of an MAV using micro-servos. A servomotor was placed at the inflection point of the airfoil,
rather than just deflecting the trailing edge of the airfoil.
One issue was the increase in nose-down pitching
moment, which was compensated by adding reflex to
the wing. The method transforms the shape of the
wing, rather than just deflecting the trailing edge. Null
and Shkarayev (2005) presented four MAV wind-tunnel
models with 3%, 6%, 9%, and 12% cambered thin airfoils. Aerodynamic coefficients were measured using a
low-speed wind tunnel. Large positive, nose-up pitching
moment coefficients were found with all cambers at the
lowest Reynolds number. These results were verified by
flight tests of MAVs utilizing these airfoils. The 3%
camber wing gave the best lift-to-drag ratio of the four
camber values and theoretically would be the optimal
choice for high-speed, efficient flight. In contrast, the
6% and 9% camber wings were predicted to give the
best low-speed performance because of their high liftto-drag ratios and mild pitching moments near their
stall angles of attack.
Marques et al. (2009) described a process by which the
camber of flaps could be changed via a hinged rigid flap
and presented the aerodynamic optimization of the flap
parameters. Variable camber was proposed to improve
aerodynamic efficiency in a UAV. Perera and Guo
(2009) investigated the optimal design of a seamless
aeroelastic wing (SAW) structure for a lightweight aircraft. A hinge-less flexible trailing edge control surface
and an eccentuator actuation mechanism were proposed. An innovative sliding trailing edge was created
by improving an existing curved torque beam design.
The SAW camber was varied in a desirable shape with
minimum control power demand (an open trailing edge
was used for this purpose). This design concept was simulated numerically and demonstrated by a test model.
Subsequently, the wing structure configuration was optimized and aeroelastic tailored. The results showed that
the initial baseline weight can be reduced by approximately 30% under the strength criteria. The resulting
reductions in the wingbox stiffness and aeroelastic
stability have been improved by applying aeroelastic

tailoring.
SMA and Similar Actuation for Camber
In recent years, the development of innovative materials allowed the adoption of new techniques for wing
morphing, enabling the substitution of traditional servo,
pneumatic, hydraulic, or motor-like actuation mechanisms with more integrated and lighter actuation elements made of solid-state smart materials. The
possibility of changing the airfoil shape by means of
muscle-like actuators (for example, SMAs, RMAs, and
other similar actuators that can contract with the application of thermal, electrical, and mechanical energies) is
very attractive. By directly implementing these materials
within the structural elements, an actuation capability is
integrated within the structure, with significant benefits
in terms of: (1) weight, (2) reliability and maintenance,
and (3) structural and aerodynamic efficiencies. The use
of smart material systems can allow for both load-bearing and deformable structures, with the possibility of
implementing a continuous, variable, adaptive, and integrated actuation.
Roglin et al. (1994) and Roglin and Hanagud (1996)
presented an adaptive airfoil that used a SMA actuator
mechanism to actively change the camber of an airfoil
for a remotely piloted helicopter. The airfoil concept was
demonstrated on a remote control helicopter with active
camber airfoils. Embedded SMA wires were used to
bend the trailing edge of the rotor blade to morph the
airfoil camber. This camber morphing was then used to
replace the collective pitch control of the helicopter. The
change in rotor thrust response due to the SMA is linearized by a controller which accepts the signal from the
radio receiver and applies the heating required to deform
the SMA. Due to the low-frequency response of the
system, only steady collective control was attempted.
Kudva et al. (1996a, b), Kudva and Carpenter (2000),
Kudva (2001), and Florance et al. (2003) worked on
SMA applications for a morphing wing. Kudva (2004)
documented the DARPA, AFRL, NASA, Northrop
Grumman Smart Wing program as it evolved since its
inception in 1995. The program aimed to realize a
UCAV and considered the application of smart materials to improve the performance of military aircraft.
The project consisted of two phases and both phases
had experiments with SMAs. The program utilized an
SMA to contour the trailing-edge control surfaces, and
SMA torque tubes to vary the wing twist. Early efforts
highlighted the bandwidth issues of SMAs. During the
second phase, a 30% scaled design was tested over a
range of Mach 0.30.8, and resulted in significance performance improvements (increased lift, and a roll rate of
80 /s). From wind tunnel tests, an improvement between
8% and 12% in lift and roll control over a traditional
Morphing Aircraft
wing was observed. A wing twist up to 5 was attained,

together with a deflection of up to 4.5 for the leading
edge and 15 for the trailing edge. Kudva (2004) mentioned that the Smart Wings control surfaces showed
no degradation in performance during the 3 weeks of
wind tunnel testing. Martin et al. (1999, 2002) presented
the design and fabrication details of the two Smart Wing
Phase 1 wind tunnel models. Sanders et al. (2004) presented the wind tunnel results obtained during Phases 1
and 2 of the Smart Wing program.
Chopra (2001, 2002) and Epps and Chopra (2001)
systematically investigated the development of an
SMA-actuated trailing-edge tab for in-flight blade tracking. This wing section was tested in the open-jet wind
tunnel, and tab deflections in the order of 20 were
obtained. Singh and Chopra (2002) improved this
design and successfully tested it in the wind tunnel
with repeatable open-loop and closed-loop performances. Beauchamp and Nedderman (2001) patented a
design with SMAs that were embedded within a control
surface on the blade of a wind turbine.
Strelec et al. (2003) utilized a global optimization
method that incorporated a coupled structural, thermal,
and aerodynamic analyses to determine the necessary
placement of the SMA wire actuators within a compliant wing. A GA was chosen as the optimization tool to
efficiently converge to a design solution. The GA used
was a hybrid version with global search and optimization capabilities augmented by the simplex method with
selective line search as a local search technique. The liftto-drag ratio was maximized for a reconfigured airfoil
shape at subsonic flow conditions. A wind tunnel model
of the reconfigurable wing was fabricated based on the
design optimization to verify the predicted structural
and aerodynamic responses. Wind tunnel tests indicated
an increase in lift for a given flow velocity and angle of
attack by activating the SMA wire.
Alasty et al. (2004) studied the effect of a variableshape wing applied to an ultra-light aircraft, in order
to improve aerodynamic efficiency and flight control.
Given the size (less than a meter of wingspan) and the
low weight of this aircraft, SMAs were more appropriate
than traditional actuators, thanks to their high strength,
low weight, and reduced footprint. The structure was
made of balsa wood with nylon sticks; wings were composed of two parts, a rigid front element, and a deformable rear. SMA actuators were used in pairs, and so each
wire acted in opposition to another: this concept is often
found in the literature and is called the antagonistic
configuration.
Benavides and Correa (2004) realized a wing section
based on the symmetric Gottingen 776 airfoil, with a
deformable trailing edge actuated by SMA wires.
Wind tunnel tests verified the improvement in terms of
lift-to-drag ratio and lift coefficient of this solution with
respect to a traditional one. The wing section used six
861
NiTiNOL wires that could pull, upon electrical activation, the upper part of the wing trailing edge downward.
In a different application, Madden et al. (2004) varied
the camber of a marine propeller using polypyrrole actuators. These actuators behave like artificial muscle by
extending and contracting with voltage, and promise
to provide the actuation forces and strains required to
change the camber of the propeller foils. Two polypyrrole actuators operated as an antagonistic pair to operate tendons attached to the trailing edge of the foil. In
order to achieve the desired degree of strain, two concepts were compared; the two actuators were arranged
in the form of a bimetallic strip so as to complement
each other, or a lever arrangement was used. Both
these methods were examined by experimental testing.
Yang et al. (2006) presented the camber change of an
airfoil via the use of SMAs. A symmetric wing containing four pairs of SMA actuators was used in the wind
tunnel experiments. The smooth change in the camber
caused a significant lift increase with a small drag
penalty.
Mirone (2007) and Mirone and Pellegrino (2009)
investigated the ability of the wing to modify its crosssection (assuming the shape of two different airfoils) and
the possibility of deflecting the profiles near the trailing
edge in order to obtain hingeless control surfaces. Oneway SMA wires coupled to springs provided the actuation. The points to be actuated along the profiles and the
displacements to be imposed were selected so that they
satisfactorily approximated the change from one airfoil
to the other and resulted in an adequate deflection of the
control surface. The actuators and their performance
were designed to guarantee adequate wing stiffness in
order to prevent excessive deformations and undesired
airfoil shape variations due to aerodynamic loads. Two
prototypes were realized, incorporating the variable airfoil and the hingeless aileron features respectively, and
the verification of their shapes in both the actuated and
non-actuated states. The comparison of the real wing
profiles with the theoretical airfoil coordinates showed
a good performance of the actuation system. A significant trailing edge displacement, close to 10% of the wing
chord, was achieved in the experimental tests. Song and
Ma (2007) used SMA wires to control the flap movement of a model airplane wing mainly to achieve weight
reduction. Two SMA actuators were used in an antagonistic way. A sliding mode-based non-linear robust
controller was designed and implemented on a realtime data acquisition and control platform to control
the position of the flap. Experimental results show that
high control accuracy has been achieved for both the
position regulation and tracking tasks, even with uncertainties and disturbances.
Brailovski et al. (2008) considered a morphing wing
concept designed for subsonic cruise flight conditions
combining three principal sub-systems: a flexible skin,
862
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
a rigid interior structure, and an actuator group located

inside the wingbox. Using a weighted evaluation of the
aerodynamic and mechanical performances in the
framework of a multi-criteria optimization procedure,
an adaptive structure consisting of a four-ply flexible
skin powered by two individually controlled actuators
was designed. The forces these actuators must provide in
order to fit target wing profiles are calculated for a given
flexible structure and given flight conditions. Each actuator includes linear SMA active elements with one
extremity connected, through a cam transmission
system, to the flexible skins and other extremity connected to the rigid structure of the wing through a bias
spring. To meet the functional requirements of the application, the geometry (length and cross-section) of the
SMA active elements and the bias spring characteristics
are calculated.
Peel et al. (2008, 2009) constructed a variable-camber
morphing wing using elastomeric composites as the
internal actuators. The skin of the wing was a carbon
fiber and polyurethane elastomeric composite that was
able to flex in the chordwise direction. The actuators
were RMAs. When pressurized with air, the RMAs contract with a force generally proportional to the applied
pressure. Similar to hydraulic systems, these actuators
require pneumatic systems, which typically have a
weight penalty of the supporting hardware (compressor
and accumulator, or pressure storage vessel, solenoids,
control circuitry). The RMA actuators were connected
to the leading and trailing edges of the wing; hence the
contraction would cause an increase in camber. Two
generations of prototypes were described with significant improvements made on the second generation. A
very simple morphing wing was fabricated in phase one:
the nose was able to elastically camber down by about
25 and the tail by 20 . The second-generation wing fabrication methodology showed smooth elastic cambering
and no buckling or waviness in the skins. In this
case, the LE and the TE achieved 23 and 15 deflections, respectively. Chou and Philen (2008) presented
morphing skins employing pressurized flexible
matrix composites (FMCs) for trailing-edge flap control
of a glider wing. The FMC skins consisted of embedded pressurized composite tubes in an elastomeric
resin. A mathematical model for a single pressurized
FMC composite tube was developed and the rule of mixtures was employed to find the effective properties of the
multi-tube active skin. A 2D vortex panel method estimated the aerodynamic loading on the trailing-edge
flaps.
Popov et al. (2008) presented an adaptive wing
concept with an upper surface that deflected under
single-point control. The flexible skin was placed at
the laminarturbulent boundary layer transition point,
and different functions were tested to find whether the
transition could be shifted toward the trailing edge and
whether drag could be reduced. In addition to static

deflections, sinusoidal deflections are evaluated.
Seow et al. (2008) presented a study on morphing
flaps actuated by SMA wires, including a theoretical
analysis of the aerodynamic loading. A wing prototype
was designed and fabricated, and the actuation of the
flap was demonstrated, achieving an actuation angle of
5.2 . A second prototype achieved 15 deflection.
Flexible skins were also explored and experimented.
Finally, the controllability of the prototype was investigated, including the measurement and estimation of
power consumption, and the dependence of heating
and cooling time on input variations. Abdullah et al.
(2009) used SMAs to alter the shape of an airfoil to
increase the L/D ratio throughout the flight regime of
a UAV. A flexible skin was also utilized for variablecamber control. The aerodynamic effect of camber location and magnitude was analyzed using a 2D panelmethod. The researchers found that shifting the location
of maximum camber thickness from 10% to 50% of the
chord, and increasing the camber from 1% to 5%, maximized L/D for low angles of attack. Ideally, the wing
would use this range to accommodate multiple flight
conditions. The objective was predominantly cruise efficiency rather than control, and hence the response time
of the SMA was considered to be acceptable.
Barbarino et al. (2009a) investigated an active wing
(via SMAs) that deformed its shape to provide a bumped
wing geometry. This variation in the wing thickness is
advantageous for transonic flight, but also has benefits
in subsonic flight. Benchtop experiments validated the
efficacy of the concept. Barbarino et al. (2007, 2008,
2009b) introduced several morphing trailing edge architectures to replace a conventional flap device. A compliant rib structure was designed, based on SMA actuators
exhibiting structural potential (i.e., bearing the external
aerodynamic loads). Numerical results, achieved
through an FE approach, were presented in terms of
trailing edge-induced displacement and morphed
shape. Barbarino et al. (2010a) proposed a flap architecture for a variable-camber trailing edge, whose reference
geometry was based on a full-scale wing for a regional
transport aircraft. The compliant rib was based on a
truss-like structure where some members were active
rods made of SMA. The layout of the structure was
obtained using a preliminary optimization process,
incorporating practical constraints, by focusing on a
basic truss-like element and its repetition and position
within the overall truss. The structural performance was
estimated using FE analysis. The SMA behavior was
modeled using a dedicated routine to evaluate the internal stress state and the minimum activation temperature.
The design fulfills a number of key requirements: a
smooth actuation along the chord; morphed shapes
that assure the optimal aerodynamic load distribution
for high lift; light weight; and low mechanical
Morphing Aircraft
complexity. The design features of the architecture were

investigated and the requirements of the morphing skin
discussed.
Icardi and Ferraro (2009) designed morphing wings
with SMA torsion tubes and independent SMA wires for
wing camber control. The analysis delivered stressstrain curves for various types of SMA wires and stresses
on structural wing components of the indicated design,
including a supporting wingbox section and surface
material. Their theoretical model predicted that for a
1000 kg UAV with 1.2 m (mean) chord and 3 m span,
the camber varied from 5 to 15.5 with SMA torsion
tubes delivering 150200 Nm and drawing 1.2 kW of
power. Lv et al. (2009) presented a brief survey of adaptive materials and structures research in China. The
growing application of SMP, SMA, electro-active polymer, MFC, and piezoelectric materials for aerospace
were discussed. Functional composite filler materials
such as conductive nanoparticles, short carbon fiber,
and ferroelectric ceramics were introduced. The authors
provided an example of an SMA torsion actuator based
on NiTi wires and thin-walled tubes used for a morphing
wing. The angle of attack of a wing model with the SMA
torsion actuator could be changed continuously up to
15 in 1 s. In addition, a novel smart wing rib was presented, capable of reaching 10 deflection.
Piezoelectric Actuation for Camber

Piezoelectric materials offer relatively high force
output in a wide frequency bandwidth. Although the
strain output is relatively low (compared to SMAs),
the fast response of PZTs (initially) caused interest in
terms of vibration control. Many researchers focused
on the application of piezoelectrics to rotor systems to
improve their performance and effectiveness. Several
smart rotor concepts have been developed: leadingand trailing-edge flaps actuated with smart material
actuators, controllable camber/twist blades with embedded piezoelectric elements/fibers, and active blade tips
actuated with tailored smart actuators. For flap actuation, actuators range from piezobimorphs (Spangler and
Hall, 1990; Koratkar and Chopra, 2000, 2001), piezostacks (Janker et al., 1999; Lee, 1999; Lee and Chopra,
2001a, b; Straub et al. 2001, 2009), and piezoelectric/
magnetostrictive-induced composite-coupled systems
(Derham and Hagood, 1996; Rogers and Hagood,
1997; Bernhard and Chopra, 2001; Cesnik and Shin,
2001; Cesnik et al., 2001; Shin, 2001; Shin et al., 2002;
Kovalovs et al., 2007). Straub et al. (2001, 2009) presented Boeings smart active rotor, with piezoelectricactuated blade flaps, which was tested in a wind tunnel
at NASA Ames Research Center in 2008, demonstrating
over 80% reduction in vibration and the potential for
zero vibration at the hub.
863
Static control of aerodynamic surfaces using piezoelectrics started in early 1990s. Lazarus et al. (1991)
examined the feasibility of using representative box
wing adaptive structures for static aeroelastic control.
Greater control authority and a lower weight penalty
are achieved using adaptive aeroelastic structures for a
variety of wing designs. In addition, the important
parameters associated with inducing curvature and
twist, to alter the lift on the airfoil, were determined:
the airfoil thickness ratio, the actuation strain produced
by the induced strain actuators, and the relative stiffness
ratio of the actuator to the wing skin for both camber
and twist control.
Pinkerton and Moses (1997) discussed the feasibility
of controlling the wing geometry employing a piezoelectric actuator known as thin-layer composite-unimorph
ferroelectric driver and sensor (known as the
THUNDER actuator). This morphing skin was used
to create a bubble in the skin of the airfoil near the
leading edge to extend the region of attached flow further toward the trailing edge. Such a capability would
expand the airspeeds over which the aircraft could maintain flight in general, but more importantly efficient
flight. Hysteresis non-linearity was observed in the voltage-to-displacement relationship.
Geissler et al. (2000) adopted piezoelectric materials
as the actuation element for a morphing leading edge;
however, in this case, the leading edge is an independent
element able to rotate around an internal hinge. This
technique was conceived and adopted for rotorcraft
morphing, due to the small size of actuators. Munday
and Jacob (2001) developed a wing with conformal curvature, characterized by a piezoelectric actuator internally mounted in a position to alter the upper surface
shape of the airfoil, resulting in a variation of the effective curvature. The concept allowed for the modification
of airfoil thickness and position of its maximum value.
The piezoelectric actuator (THUNDER) allows for a
continuously variable movement, thus resulting in both
static and dynamic shape change controls.
In 2001, Barrett (2002) introduced a convertible
coleopter UAV, capable of hovering like a helicopter,
and then transition nearly 90 to fly like an airplane.
The XQ-138 aircraft achieved yaw control through
deflections of its turning vane flaps, and pitch and roll
control were maintained by a set of cascading grid fins.
The aircraft was later fitted with the post-buckled-precompression (PBP) actuators (Barrett and Tiso, 2004).
Wang et al. (2001) presented results from the Smart
Wing Phase 2 program which demonstrated high-rate
actuation of hingeless control surfaces using several
smart material-based actuators. In the first study, several actuation concepts with different transducers were
modeled and analyzed. These concepts included distributed piezoelectric stack actuators with and without
hydraulic amplifiers and pumps, antagonistic tendon
864
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
actuation, and eccentuation. The transducers selected

for the trade studies included piezoelectric ultrasonic
motors, actively cooled SMA, ferromagnetic SMA,
and stacks made from piezoelectric ceramic wafer, piezoelectric single crystal wafer, irradiated PVDF-TrFE
film, and dielectric elastomer film. The analyses
showed that distributed polymer stacks provided the
most elegant solution, but eccentuation was deemed
the most realistic and lowest risk approach to attaining
the program goals. A common issue to all the concepts
was the structural stiffness that the actuators worked
against. This was resolved in the second study by developing a flexcore elastomeric skin trailing edge structure
with eccentuation using high-power ultrasonic motors.
Grohmann et al. (2006, 2008) presented the active
trailing edge and active twist concepts applied to helicopter rotor blades. The sizing and placement of piezocomposite patches were optimized to obtain the desired
wing weight and pitching moment. A piezo-composite
actuator was developed with a relatively high strain and
force output.
The recent interest in smaller and lighter aircraft has
driven the use of smart materials for flight and flow
control. For example, field-deployable aircraft have flexible wings that can be folded during transportation, and
they can be unfolded for operation. These compliant
wings can be realized with the integration of smart materials. For smart material-actuated devices, operating a
relatively compliant, thin structure (desirable for piezoelectric actuators) in situations where there are relatively
high external forces is challenging. Establishing a wing
configuration that is stiff enough to prevent flutter and
divergence, but compliant enough to allow the range of
available motion is the central challenge in developing a
piezocomposite airfoil. Novel methods of supporting the
actuator can take advantage of aerodynamic loads to
reduce control input moments and increase control
effectiveness. In the following paragraphs, small
unmanned (and/or remotely piloted) fixed-wing,
rotary, and ducted fan aircraft are considered that
employ piezoelectric materials for aerodynamic control.
The 2002 Virginia Tech Morphing Wing Design Team
(Eggleston et al., 2002) experimented with the use of
piezoelectric ceramics (THUNDER), shape memory
alloys (NiTi), and conventional servomotors. A flying
wing planform was chosen as the testbed for this project.
A morphing specific VLM code (MorphVLM) was
developed to obtain aerodynamic loads. Theoretical
analysis was conducted on various trailing-edge shapes
in order to optimize values for a trimmed CLmax. Wind
tunnel testing analyzed the aerodynamic characteristics
of the morphing and conventional models. The project
concluded that morphing technologies have great potential to improve the aerodynamics of aircraft.
Barrett et al. (2005) employed piezoelectric elements
along with elastic elements to magnify control
deflections and forces. The so-called PBP concept was

employed as guide vanes in a small rotary aircraft. The
PBP concept, in its earliest incarnation, was primarily
intended to increase the coupling coefficient exhibited by
piezoelectric transducer elements (Lesieutre and Davis,
1997). Early experimentation showed that apparent coupling coefficients approaching one could be achieved by
axially loading bending elements with forces that
approached the buckling load of the beam. Vos et al.
(2007a, b, 2008a) improved the PBP concept for aerodynamic applications. An elastic skin covering the outside of the wing generated the axial precompression in
the piezoelectric elements and also served as an aerodynamic surface. Trailing-edge deflections of around 3.1
could be attained up to 34 Hz. Roll control authority
was increased on a 1.4-m span unmanned air vehicle.
The experiments showed an increase in roll authority
while reducing weight, part-count, and power
consumption.
Bilgen et al. (2007, 2009) presented a new application
for piezo-composite actuators on a 0.76-m wingspan
morphing wing air vehicle with approximately 0.815 kg
total weight. In this application, two MFC patches were
bonded to the wings of a small demonstration vehicle to
change the camber of the wing. The change in the wing
camber provided adequate roll control authority in the
wind tunnel and also in flight. The aircraft demonstrated
that lightweight, conformal actuators can be used as primary control surfaces on an aircraft. All electronics,
including the MFC power electronics, were powered
by an 11.1 V Lithium polymer battery, which is a
common choice for remotely controlled aircraft. The
aircraft used a 150-W brushless motor for thrust; in contrast, the MFC power electronics consumed only 3 W
during peak actuation. In a different application,
Bilgen et al. (2009) presented a variable-camber airfoil
design (employing MFCs) intended for a ducted fan aircraft. The study focused on 2D aerodynamic and structural response characterization under aerodynamic
loads for circular-arc airfoils with variable pinned
boundary conditions. A parametric study of fluidstructure interaction was employed to find pin locations
along the chord-wise direction that resulted in high lift
generation. Wind tunnel experiments were conducted on
a 1.0% thick MFC-actuated bimorph airfoil that was
simply supported at 5% and 50% chord. Aerodynamic
and structural performance results were given and nonlinear effects due to aerodynamic and piezoceramic hysteresis were identified and discussed. A lift coefficient
change of 1.46 was observed purely due to voltage actuation. A maximum 2D L/D ratio of 17.8 was recorded.
Paradies and Ciresa (2009) implemented MFCs as
actuators in an active composite wing. The research
designed a wing for a UAV with a thin profile and integrated the piezoelectric elements for roll control. The
design and its optimization were based on a fully
Morphing Aircraft
coupled structural fluid dynamics model that implemented constraints from available materials and
manufacturing. A scaled prototype wing was manufactured. The design model was validated with static and
preliminary dynamic tests of the prototype wing. The
qualitative agreement between the numerical model
and experiments was good. Dynamic tests were also performed on a sandwich wing of the same size with conventional aileron control for comparison. Even though
the roll moment generated by the active wing was lower,
it proved sufficient for the intended control of the UAV.
The active wing with piezoelectric flight control was one
of the first examples where such a design had been optimized and the numerical model had been validated in
experiments. Wickramasinghe et al. (2009) presented the
design and verification of a smart wing for a UAV. The
proposed smart wing structure consisted of a composite
spar and ailerons that had bimorph active ribs consisting
of MFC actuators. The actuation was enhanced by preloading the piezoceramic fiber actuators with a compressive axial load. The preload was exerted on the actuators
through a passive latex or electro active polymer skin
that wrapped around the airfoil.
Bilgen et al. (2010a, b) presented research to enable
solid-state aerodynamic force generation in highdynamic pressure airflow. A bi-directional variablecamber airfoil employing MFCs was presented. The
airfoil employed two active surfaces and a single solidstate four-bar (box) mechanism as the internal structure.
The unique choice of boundary conditions allowed variable and smooth deformation in both directions from a
flat camber line. The paper focused on actuation modeling and response characterization under aerodynamic
loads. First, a parametric study of the aerodynamic
response was used to optimize the kinematic parameters
of the airfoil. The concept was fabricated with MFC
actuators in a bimorph configuration for the active surfaces. Wind tunnel experiments were conducted on a
12.6% maximum thickness airfoil. Non-linear effects
due to aerodynamic and piezoceramic hysteresis were
identified and discussed. A lift coefficient change of
1.54 was observed and the results compared to conventional, zero-camber NACA and other airfoils. The variable-camber airfoil produced 72% higher lift curve slope
when compared to the lift curve slope of a symmetric
NACA 0009 airfoil. Bilgen et al. (2011a) presented a
surface-actuated variable-camber morphing airfoil
employing MFC actuators. The continuity of the airfoil
surface was achieved using a single substrate that wraps
around the airfoil shape. This substrate forms the surface of the airfoil and serves as the host material for the
two cascading bimorph actuators. A parametric study of
the fluidstructure interaction problem optimized the
geometric parameters and the boundary conditions of
the variable-camber airfoil. The coupled treatment of
the fluidstructure interaction allowed a design that
865
can sustain large aerodynamic loads. The paper identified the effects of four important structural parameters
to achieve the highest possible lift coefficient and lift-todrag ratio.
The 2010 Virginia Tech Wing Morphing Design Team
(Butt et al., 2010a, b; Bilgen et al., 2011b) developed a
completely servo-less, operational, wind-tunnel, and
flight-tested remotely piloted aircraft. The team members were able to develop lightweight control surfaces
and the necessary driving high-voltage DCDC converters, culminating in a landmark first flight on April
29, 2010. The morphing design replaced all the traditional servomotor-controlled surfaces with MFC-actuated surfaces in an effective manner and all systems
were powered with a single Lithium polymer battery.
This vehicle became the first fully solid-state piezoelectric controlled, non-tethered, flight-tested aircraft. The
MFC-actuated control surfaces did not employ any
rotating, moving, or multi-piece parts or mechanisms.
Kinematic or compliant mechanical amplification mechanisms were not employed, which resulted in a virtually
solid-state and practical aerodynamic control surface.
Summary
It is clear that the airfoil morphing, and more specifically camber morphing, is the dominant research topic
in subsonic aerodynamic applications when compared to
the planform and out-of-plane morphing methods. The
research in airfoil morphing (which includes camber and
thickness distribution changes) is dominated by the
camber morphing concepts. The categorization of
camber morphing by the method of actuation causes a
relatively distinct division of the size of the aircraft
where (1) conventional actuators are used in all aircraft
sizes (except sub-MAV scale), (2) SMAs are used in
rotorcraft blades and UAVs, and (3) PZTs are used
mostly in small UAVs and MAVs.
The most common actuation method in airfoil
morphing is conventional (lumped) actuators. Airfoil
morphing through conventional actuation has one
example in 1973 with the rest of the examples starting
from 1984. Of the total number of academic works, less
than a third of these papers provide wind tunnel and
flight tests. The applications are broad, ranging from
transport and fighter aircraft to small UAVs and
MAVs. The lumped actuation methods are servo- and
ultrasonic motors, and pneumatic and hydraulic devices.
Observing the number of papers, the range of actuators
and applications, it is important to note that these conventional (and lumped) actuation methods appear to be
able to provide the force and frequency requirements for
subsonic aerodynamic flight control. It is also observed
that the conventional actuators are almost solely used in
morphing of fixed-wing aircraft (and rarely in airfoil
morphing of blades of rotary-wing aircraft).
866
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
The second most popular actuation method is SMAlike actuation where relatively large strains can be
applied by the contracting active elements. Although
SMAs are smart material actuators, due to their slow
frequency response (inherent due to the thermodynamic
heating and cooling behavior), they are used with conventional logistical systems. In most applications, where
a low-temperature thermal sink is not available, SMAs
are typically employed with relatively complex mechanical components (such as active fluidic cooling systems)
to speed up their thermodynamic behavior. Applications
of SMAs (and similar devices) vary between fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, and UAVs, both for fixed-wing
and rotary-wing configurations. The research has the
first example in 1994, and other examples of wind
tunnel testing in the 19942006 period. Only one flight
test has been achieved, where the application was a
rotary-wing UAV. Almost all the research employs theoretical analysis, whereas only half employs experimental (benchtop) validation. The research has been directed
mostly toward the fixed-wing application since 2003.
The third actuation method for inducing camber
change is via PZTs (which has typical characteristics of
high frequency, high load, and low strain). The research
in this area has examples since 1990, almost all having
theoretical analysis and benchtop and wind tunnel validation. There are four flight-tested aircrafts which are
all small UAVs. Equal attention is given to rotary- and
fixed-wing aircrafts. PZT actuation is directed mostly to
overall camber change of the airfoil, and specifically the
camber of the trailing section. No MAV applications are
presented for PZT actuation (mainly because flappingwing aircrafts are not considered in this review). PZTs
are good candidates for actuation in small UAVs and
MAVs due to the required high-frequency response.
Overall, the lack of benchtop and wind tunnel validation of the proposed airfoil morphing concepts is consistent for all actuation methods in the topic of camber
morphing (for subsonic aerodynamic applications). Due
to their inherent frequency response, SMAs are more
popular (and probably more attractive in the future)
for large vehicles such as transport aircrafts, where
PZTs are more popular (and desired) for small UAVs
and MAVs. For all applications and actuation methods,
the importance of the skin is usually overlooked because
the proposed concepts usually deal with 2D aerodynamic configurations. This could be one reason why
there are a significant number of wind tunnel evaluations, however only a few flight tests.
CONCLUSIONS
The field of shape morphing aircraft has attracted the
attention of hundreds of research groups worldwide.
Although many interesting concepts have been synthesized, few have progressed to wing tunnel testing, and
even fewer have ever flown. Wing morphing is a promising technology, because it allows the aerodynamic
potential of an aircraft wing to be explored, by adapting
the wing shape for several flight conditions encountered
in a typical mission profile. Moreover, the aero-elastic
deformations can increase the performance and maneuverability, and improve the structural efficiency.
Variable sweep has proven successful, particularly to
enable military aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds, albeit
with a large weight penalty. The current trend for highly
efficient and green aircraft makes this compromise less
likely to be acceptable, calling for innovative morphing
designs able to provide more benefits and fewer drawbacks. For military applications, the current level of performance required by the next-generation vehicles
cannot sustain this trade-off. In general, any successful
wing morphing system must overcome the weight penalty due to the additional actuation systems. Compared
to supersonic aircrafts, small or low-speed vehicles
require more dramatic wing variations to produce a
noticeable and practical change in their aerodynamic
properties.
The explosive growth of satellite services during the
past few years has made UAVs the technology of choice
for many routine applications such as border patrol,
environmental monitoring, meteorology, military operations, and search and rescue. For this and other reasons
(such as lower production costs, lower safety and certification requirements, and lower aerodynamic loads),
many investigations on wing morphing are focused
toward small or radio-controlled aircraft, i.e., UAVs.
This also offers a great opportunity to showcase and
test successful designs at an early stage, and to attract
industry attention to develop new technologies for largescale vehicles. However, manufacturers are still too
skeptical of the benefits to adopt morphing technologies
in the near future, as many developed concepts have a
technology readiness level that is still too low.
Recent advances in smart materials research, including developments in actuation technology, constitutive
laws and modeling, optimization and control, and failure prediction, demand more purposeful steps to progress variable-geometry small aircraft. The blending of
morphing and smart structures (defined as structures
capable of sensing the external environment, processing
the information and reacting accordingly) seems mandatory to enable innovative solutions to be realizable and
competitive with traditional designs, and overcome the
penalties associated with current morphing applications.
This integrated approach requires multi-disciplinary
thinking from the early stages of development, which
significantly increases the overall complexity even of
the preliminary design. Design interactions are more
problematic with morphing vehicles.
The future of morphing is uncertain. Technology programs (beyond basic research) need to be matched to
Morphing Aircraft
capability gaps to insure relevance and funding.

Morphing does show promise for several types of missions, but to say there is a compelling case for morphing
is perhaps an overstatement. Morphing should be
viewed as a design option to be incorporated in a specific
vehicle if justified by system-level benefits achieved for
the costs incurred.
Morphing as a suite of technologies is not flight ready.
Much work is needed in maturing component technologies such as skins (flexible or stretchable while carrying
loads), actuators/mechanisms (distributed and capable
of supporting part of the external loads), and control
theory (primary flight and actuation) for morphing to
be truly realized. But for all these efforts to pay off,
morphing technology needs a transition program for
the aerospace community to take the technology seriously and include it as a design option. While morphing
on vehicles exceeding several thousand pounds gross
weight may not be practical in the near term due to
the low technology readiness levels, opportunities
exists on smaller unmanned aircraft or missiles where
current or near-term technology can be applied to
achieve morphing.
According to studies at NASA, it will take another
2030 years before skies could be filled by aircraft more
similar to birds, having wings without discrete control
surfaces that can change their shape in a smart way.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge funding from the European
Research Council through grant number 247045 entitled
Optimisation
of
Multiscale
Structures
with
Applications to Morphing Aircraft.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, E.J., Bill, C. and Watkins, S. 2009. Application of Smart
Materials for Adaptive Airfoil Control, In: Proceedings of 47th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 58 January, Orlando, FL,
AIAA 2009-1359 (11 pp).
Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. 2004. Flight Testing and Response
Characteristics of a Variable Gull-Wing Morphing Aircraft,
In: Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference and Exhibit, 1619 August, Providence, RI, AIAA,
2004-5113, pp. 16641679.
Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. 2006. Using Avian Morphology to
Enhance Aircraft Maneuverability, In: Proceedings of AIAA
Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2124
August, Keystone, CO, AIAA 2006-6643.
AeroVisions Inc. 2011. Available at: http://www.canosoarus.com/
05UMAAV/UMAAV01.htm (accessed date May 22, 2011).
AFRL Vehicle Research Section, Air Launched Integrated
Countermeasure, Expendable (ALICE). 2011. Available at
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/vrs/factsheets/index.php (accessed date
May 22, 2011).
Ajaj, R.M., Friswell, M.I., Dettmer, W.G., Allegri, G. and Isikveren,
A.T. 2011a. Conceptual Modelling on Adaptive Torsion Wing
Structure, 19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures
Conference, Denver, Colorado, AIAA 20111883 (15 pp).
867
Ajaj, R.M., Friswell, M.I., Smith D.D. and Isikveren, A.T. 2011b.
Roll Control of a UAV Using an Adaptive Torsion
Structure 7th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
Specialist Conference, Denver, Colorado, AIAA 20111884
(15 pp).
Alasty, A., Alemohammad, S.H., Khiabani, R.H. and Khalighi, Y.
2004. Maneuverability Improvement for an Ultra Light
Airplane Model Using Variable Shape Wing, In: Proceedings
of AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit,
1619 August, Providence, RI, AIAA 2004-4831 (10 pp).
Albertani, R., Hubner, J.P., Ifju, P.G., Lind, R. and Jackowski, J.
2004. Experimental Aerodynamics of Micro Air Vehicles,
In: SAE World Aviation Congress and Exhibition, 3 November,
Reno, NVPaper 04AER-8.
Alemayehu, D., Leng, M., McNulty, R., Mulloy, M., Somero, R. and
Tenorio, C., 2004. Virginia Tech Morphing Wing Team Fall 2004
Final Report. Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Departments, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Available at:
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MorphF04Rpt.pdf
(accessed date May 22, 2011).
Alemayehu, D., Leng, M., McNulty, R., Mulloy, M., Somero, R. and
Tenorio, C., 2005. Virginia Tech Morphing Wing Team Spring
2005 Final Report. Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Departments, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Available at:
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MorphS05Rpt.pdf
Amprikidis, M. and Cooper, J.E. 2003. Development of Smart Spars
for Active Aeroelastic Structures, In: Proceedings of 44th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, 710 April, Norfolk, VA, AIAA 20031799.
Amprikidis, M., Cooper, J.E. and Sensburg, O. 2004. Development
of An Adaptive Stiffness All-Moving Vertical Tail,
In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
1922 April, Palm Spring, CA, AIAA 2004-1883 (13 pp).
Anderson, J.D. 2000. Introduction to Flight, 4 edn, McGraw Hill Book
Company, New York.
Andersen, G.R., Cowan, D.L. and Piatak, D.J. 2007. Aeroelastic
Modeling, Analysis and Testing of a Morphing Wing
Structure, In: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 2326 April,
Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-1734 (15 pp).
Arrison, L., Birocco, K., Gaylord, C., Herndon, B., Manion, K. and
Metheny, M. 2003. 2002-2003 AE/ME Morphing Wing
Design, Spring Semester Final Report, Virginia Tech
Aerospace Engineering Senior Design Project.
Austin, F., Siclari, M.J., Van Nostrand, W., Weisensel, G.N.,
Kottamasu, V. and Volpe, G. 1997. Comparison of Smart
Wing Concepts for Transonic Cruise Drag Reduction, In
Proceedings of SPIE 1997 Smart Structures and Materials 1997:
Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart Structures
Technologies, 4 March San Diego, CA, 3044:3340.
Bae, J.-S., Seigler, T.M. and Inman, D.J. 2005. Aerodynamic and
Static Aeroelastic Characteristics of a Variable-Span Morphing
Wing, Journal of Aircraft, 42:528534.
Bailly, J. and Delrieux, Y. 2009. Improvement of Noise Reduction
and Performance for a Helicopter Model Rotor Blade by
Active Twist Actuation, In: Proceedings of 35th European
Rotorcraft Forum, 2225 September, Hamburg, Germany,
Article 1157.
Baker, D. and Friswell, M.I. 2006. Design of a Compliant Aerofoil
using Topology Optimisation, In: Proceedings of International
Workshop on Smart Materials and Structures (Cansmart 2006),
1213 October, Toronto, Canada (9 pp).
Baker, D. and Friswell, M.I. 2009. Determinate Structures for Wing
Camber Control, Smart Materials and Structures, 18:035014.
Baker, D., Friswell, M.I. and Lieven, N.A.J. 2005. Active Truss
Structures for Wing Morphing, In: Proceedings of II
ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Smart Structures and
Materials, 1821 July, Lisbon, Portugal (11 pp).
868
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Barbarino, S., Ameduri, S., Lecce, L. and Concilio, A. 2009a. Wing

Shape Control through an SMA-Based Device, Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 20:283296.
Barbarino, S., Ameduri, S. and Pecora, R. 2007. Wing Chamber
Control
Architectures
based
on
SMA:
Numerical
Investigations, In: Du, S., Leng, J. and Asundi, A.K. (eds),
Proceedings of SPIE International Conference on Smart
Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering (SMN2007), 14
July, Harbin, China, Vol. 6423, p. 64231E.
Barbarino, S., Concilio, A., Pecora, R., Ameduri, S. and Lecce, L.
2008. Design of an Actuation Architecture based on SMA
Technology for Wing Shape Control, In: Proceedings of
Actuator 2008 Conference, 911 June, Bremen, Germany, p. 144.
Barbarino, S., Dettmer, W.G. and Friswell, M.I. 2010a. Morphing
Trailing Edges with Shape Memory Alloy Rods, In: Proceedings
of 21st International Conference on Adaptive Structures and
Technologies (ICAST), 46 October, State College, PA (17 pp).
Barbarino, S., Gandhi, F. and Webster, S.D. 2010b. Design of
Extendable Chord Sections for Morphing Helicopter Rotor
Blades, In: Proceedings of ASME 2010 Conference on Smart
Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems
(SMASIS2010), 28 September1 October, Philadelphia,
PASMASIS2010-3668 (14 pp).
Barbarino, S., Pecora, R., Lecce, L., Concilio, A., Ameduri, S. and
Calvi, E. 2009b. A Novel SMA-Based Concept for Airfoil
Structural Morphing, Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, 18:696705.
Barrett, R.M. 1990. Intelligent Rotor Blade Actuation through
Directionally Attached Piezoelectric Crystals, In: Proceedings
of 46th American Helicopter Society National Conference and
Forum, 2123 May, Washington, DC.
Barrett, R.M. 1992a. Actuation Strain Decoupling trough Enhanced
Directional Attachment in Plates and Aerodynamic Surfaces,
In: Proceedings of First European Conference on Smart
Structures and Material, 1214 May, Glasgow, Scotland.
Barrett, R.M. 1992b. High Bandwidth Electric Rotor Blade Actuator
Study, Phase 1 SBIR Proposal, The US Army Aviation Systems
Command, St. Louis, MO.
Barrett, R.M. 1996. Active Aeroelastic Tailoring of an Adaptive
Flexspar Stabilator, Smart Materials and Structures, 5:723730.
Barrett, R.M. 2002. Convertible Vertical Take-Off and Landing
Miniature Aerial Vehicle, US Patent 6,502,787,22.
Barrett, R.M. 2004. Adaptive Aerostructures: The First Decade of
Flight on Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, In: Proceedings of SPIE,
Smart Structures and Materials 2004: Industrial and Commercial
Applications of Smart Structures Technologies, 36 March, San
Diego, CA, Vol. 5388, pp. 190201.
Barrett, R.M., Brozoski, F. and Gross, R.S. 1997. Design and
Testing of a Subsonic All-Moving Adaptive Flight Control
Surface, AIAA Journal, 35:12171219.
Barrett, R.M., Burger, C. and Melian, J.P. 2001. Recent Advances in
Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Flight Control with Adaptive
Aerostructures, In: Proceedings of 4th European Demonstrators
Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Barrett, R.M., Frye, P. and Schliesman, M. 1998. Design,
Construction and Characterization of a Flightworthy
Piezoelectric Solid State Adaptive Rotor, Journal of Smart
Materials and Structures, 7:422431.
Barrett, R.M. and Howard, N. 2000. Adaptive Aerostructures for
Subscale Aircraft, In: Proceedings of 20th Southeastern
Conference on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 1618 April,
Pine Mountain, GA.
Barrett, R.M. and Law, D. 1998. Design, Fabrication and Testing of
a New Twist-Active Wing Design, In: Regelbrugge, M.E. (ed.),
Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 27
July, San Diego, CA, Vol. 3329, pp. 3341.
Barrett, R.M. and Lee, G. 2000. Design Criteria, Aircraft Design,
Fabrication and Testing of Sub-Canopy and Urban Micro-Aerial
Vehicles, In: Proceedings of AIAA/AHS International Powered
Lift Conference, November, Alexandria, VA.
Barrett, R.M. and Stutts, J.C. 1997. Design and Testing of a 1/12th
Scale Solid State Adaptive Rotor, Journal of Smart Materials
and Structures, 6:491497.
Barrett, R.M. and Stutts, J.C. 1998. Development of a Piezoceramic
Flight Control Surface Actuator for Highly Compressed
Munitions, In: Proceedings of 39th Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, 2023 April, Long Beach,
CA, AIAA 98-2034, pp. 28072813.
Barrett, R.M. and Tiso, P. 2004. PBP Adaptive Actuators and
Embodiments, International Patent Filing from the Faculty of
Aerospace Engineering, Technical University of Delft,
Netherland.
Barrett, R.M., Vos, R., Tiso, P. and De Breuker, R. 2005. PostBuckled Precompressed (PBP) Actuators: Enhancing VTOL
Autonomous High Speed MAVs, In: Proceedings of 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structure, Structural Dynamics
& Materials Conference, 1821 April, Austin, TX, AIAA 20052113 (13 pp).
Bartley-Cho, J.D., Wang, D.P., Martin, C.A., Kudva, J.N. and West,
M.N. 2004. Development of High-Rate, Adaptive Trailing Edge
Control Surface for the Smart Wing Phase 2 Wind Tunnel
Model, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
15:279291.
Beauchamp, C.H. and Nedderman Jr., W.H. 2001. Patent:
Controllable Camber Windmill Blades. Office of Naval
Research.
Benavides, J.C. and Correa, G. 2004. Morphing Wing Design Using
Nitinol Wire. University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR), Intelligent
System Center, Rolla, MO. Available at: http://isc.mst.edu/reu/
2004indprojects/2004-6.html (accessed date May 22, 2011).
Bernhard, A.P.F. and Chopra, I. 2001. Analysis of a BendingTorsion Coupled Actuator for a Smart Rotor with Active
Blade Tips, Smart Materials and Structures, 10:3552.
Bharti, S., Frecker, M.I., Lesieutre, G. and Browne, J. 2007. Tendon
Actuated cellular Mechanisms for Morphing Aircraft Wing,
In: Proceedings of SPIE Modeling, Signal Processing, and
Control for Smart Structures, 19 March, San Diego, CA, Vol.
6523, doi:10.1117/12.715855.
Bilgen, O., Butt, L.M., Day, S.R., Sossi, C.A., Weaver, J.P., Wolek,
A., Mason, W.H. and Inman, D.J. 2011b. A Novel Unmanned
Aircraft with Solid-State Control Surfaces: Analysis and Flight
Demonstration, In: Proceedings of 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials, 47
April, Denver, CO, AIAA 2011-2071 (24 pp).
Bilgen, O., Friswell, M.I., Kochersberger, K.B. and Inman, D.J.
2011a. Surface Actuated Variable-Camber and Variable-Twist
Morphing Wings Using Piezocomposites, In: Proceedings of
52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials, 47 April, Denver, CO, AIAA 20112072.
Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K.B., Diggs, E.C., Kurdila, A.J. and
Inman, D.J. 2007. Morphing Wing Micro-Air-Vehicles Via
Macro-Fiber-Composite Actuators, In: Proceedings of 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures,
Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2326 April, Honolulu,
HI, AIAA 2007-1785 (17 pp).
Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K.B. and Inman, D.J. 2009. Macro-Fiber
Composite Actuators for a Swept Wing Unmanned Aircraft,
Aeronautical Journal, Special issue on Flight Structures
Fundamental Research in the USA, 113:385395.
Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K.B. and Inman, D.J. 2010a. MacroFiber Composite Actuated Simply-Supported Thin Morphing
Airfoils, Smart Material and Structures, 19:055010 (11pp).
Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K.B. and Inman, D.J. 2010b. Novel, BiDirectional, Variable Camber Airfoil via Macro-Fiber
Composite Actuators, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 47:303314.
Blondeau, J. and Pines, D. 2007. Design and Testing of a Pneumatic
Telescopic wing for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Journal of
Aircraft, 44:10881099.
Blondeau, J., Richeson, J. and Pines, D.J. 2003. Design,
Development and Testing of a Morphing Aspect Ratio Wing
Morphing Aircraft
Using an Inflatable Telescopic Spar, In: Proceedings of 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference, 710 April, Norfolk, VA, AIAA 20031718.
Boeing, Aerospace Company. 1973. Variable Camber Wing, Second
Progress Report.
Bolonkin, A. and Gilyard, G.B. 1999. Estimated Benefits of VariableGeometry Wing Camber Control for Transport Aircraft,
Technical Memorandum, NASA Dryden Flight Research
Center, Edwards, CA, NASA/TM-1999-206586.
Bonnema, K.L. and Smith, S.B. 1988. AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive
Wing Flight Research Program, In: Proceedings of 4th AIAA
Flight Test Conference, 1820 May, San Diego, CA, pp. 155161.
Boothe, K. 2004. Dynamic Modeling and Flight Control of
Morphing Air Vehicles, Masters Thesis, University of
Florida, FL.
Boria, F., Stanford, B., Bowman, S. and Ifju, P. 2009. Evolutionary
Optimization of a Morphing Wing with Wind-Tunnel Hardware
in the Loop, AIAA Journal, 47:399409.
Bornengo, D., Scarpa, F. and Remillat, C. 2005. Evaluation of
Hexagonal Chiral Structure for Morphing Airfoil Concept,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:
Journal of Aerospace Engineering 219:185192.
Bourdin, P., Gatto, A. and Friswell, M.I. 2007. Potential of
Articulated Split Wingtips for Morphing-Based Control of
Flying Wing, In: Proceedings of 25th AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, 2528 June, Miami, Florida, AIAA
2007-4443 (16 pp).
Bourdin, P., Gatto, A. and Friswell, M.I. 2008. Aircraft Control via
Variable Cant-Angle Winglets, Journal of Aircraft, 45:414423.
Bourdin, P., Gatto, A. and Friswell, M.I. 2010. Performing Co-ordinated Turns with Articulated Wing Tips as a Multi-axis Control
Effectors, Aeronautical Journal, 114:3547.
Bovais, C.S. and Davidson, P.T. 1994. Flight Testing the Flying
Radar Target (FLYRT), In: Proceedings of 7th Biennial Flight
Test Conference, 2023 June, Colorado Springs, CO, AIAA 942144, pp. 279286.
Bowman, J., Sanders, B., Cannon, B., Kudva, J., Joshi, S. and
Weisshaar, T. 2007. Development of Next Generation
Morphing Aircraft Structures, In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, 2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 20071730 (10 pp).
Bowman, J., Sanders, B. and Weisshaar, T. 2002. Evaluating the
Impact of Morphing Technologies on Aircraft Performance,
In: Proceedings of 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
2225 April, Denver, CO, AIAA 2002-1631 (11 pp).
Boyd Jr. and Douglas, D. 2009. Aerodynamic and Acoustic
Study of an Active Twist Rotor using a Loosely Coupled
CFD/CSD Method, In: Proceedings of 35th European
Rotorcraft
Forum,
2225
September,
Hamburg,
GermanyArticle 1160.
Brailovski, V., Terriault, P., Coutu, D., Georges, T., Morellon, E.,
Fischer, C. and Berube, S. 2008. Morphing Laminar Wing
with Flexible Extrados Powered by Shape Memory Alloy
Actuators, In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems
(SMASIS 2008), 2830 October, Ellicott City, MDPaper
SMASIS2008-377 (9 pp).
Brender, S., Mark, H. and Aguilera, F. 1997. The Attributes of a
Variable-Diameter Rotor System Applied to Civil Tiltrotor
Aircraft, NASA Contractor Report, Ames Research Center,
NASA-CR-203092.
Bubert, E.A., Woods, B.K.S., Lee, K., Kothera, C.S. and Wereley,
N.M. 2010. Design and Fabrication of a Passive 1D
Morphing Aircraft Skin, Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, 21:16991717.
Bushnell, G.S., Arbogast, D.J. and Ruggeri, R.T. 2008. Shape
Control of a Morphing Structure (Rotor Blade) Using a Shape
869
Memory Alloy Actuator System, Future of SMA,

In: Proceedings of SPIE Active and Passive Smart Structures
and Integrated Systems 2008, 913 March, San Diego, CA,
Vol. 6928, pp. 69282A69282A-11.
Butt, L., Bilgen, O., Day, S., Sossi, C., Weaver, J., Wolek, A., Inman,
D.J. and Mason, W.H. 2010b. Wing Morphing Design Utilizing
Macro Fiber Composite, In: Proceedings of Society of Allied
Weight Engineers (SAWE) 69th Annual Conference, May,
Virginia Beach, VAPaper Number 3515-S.
Butt, L., Day, S., Sossi, C., Weaver, J., Wolek, A., Bilgen, O., Inman,
D.J. and Mason, W.H. 2010a. Wing Morphing Design Team
Final Report 2010, Virginia Tech Departments of Mechanical
Engineering and Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Senior
Design Project, Blacksburg, VA.
Bye, D.R. and McClure, P.D. 2007. Design of a Morphing Vehicle,
2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-1728 (16 pp).
Caldwell, N., Gutmark, E. and Ruggeri, R. 2007. Performance
Predictions of a Blade Twist Actuator System, In: Proceedings
of 45th AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (2007),
811 January, Reno, NV, AIAA 2007-1216 (10 pp).
Calkins, F.T., Mabe, J.H. and Ruggeri, R.T. 2008. Overview of
Boeings
Shape
Memory
Alloy
Based
Morphing
Aerostructures, In: Proceedings of ASME Conference on
(SMASIS 2008), 2830 October, Ellicott City, MD, Paper
SMASIS2008-648.
Campanile, L.F. 2008. Modal Synthesis of Flexible Mechanisms for
Airfoil Shape Control, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
Campanile, L.F. and Sachau, D. 2000. The Belt-Rib Concept: A
Structronic Approach to Variable Camber, Journal of
Cesnik, C.E.S. and Brown, E.L. 2003. Active Warping Control of a
Joined-Wing Airplane Configuration, In: Proceedings of 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, 710 April, Norfolk, VA, AIAA 2003-1715
(15 pp).
Cesnik, C.E.S. and Shin, S.J. 2001. On the Twist Performance of a
Multiple-Cell Active Helicopter Blade, Smart Materials and
Structures, 10:5361.
Cesnik, C.E.S., Shin, S.J. and Wilbur, M.L. 2001. Dynamic Response
of Active Twist Rotor Blades, Smart Materials and Structures,
10:6276.
Chandra, R. 2001. Active Shape Control of Composite Blades using
Shape Memory Actuation, Smart Materials and Structures,
10:10181024.
Chen, P.C., Sarhaddi, D., Jha, R., Liu, D.D., Griffin, K. and
Yurkovich, R. 2000. Variable Stiffness Spar Approach for
Aircraft Maneuver Enhancement Using Astros, Journal of
Aircraft, 37:865871.
Chopra, I. 2001. Recent Progress on Development of a Smart Rotor
System, Presentation, NASA Langley Research Center,
Langley, VA.
Chopra, I. 2002. Review of State of Art of Smart Structures and
Integrated Systems, AIAA Journal, 40:21452187.
Chou, A. and Philen, M. 2008. High-Performance Flexible Matrix
Composite Actuators for Trailing Edge Flap Control,
In: Proceedings of Virginia Space Grant Consortium 2008
Student Research Conference, 21 April, Norfolk, VA (8 pp).
Clarke, R., Allen, M.J., Dibley, R.P., Gera, J. and Hodgkinson, J.
2005. Flight Test of the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing
Airplane, In: Proceedings of AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 1518 August, San
Francisco, CA, AIAA 2005-6316 (31 pp).
Cooper, J.E. 2006. Adaptive Stiffness Structures for Air Vehicle Drag
Reduction, In: Multifunctional Structures/Integration of Sensors
and Antennas, Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-AVT-141, Neuillysur-Seine, France, pp. 15.115.12.
870
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Cooper, J.E., Amprikidis, M., Ameduri, S., Concilio, A., San Milan, J.
and Castanon, M. 2005. Adaptive Stiffness Systems for an
Active All-Moving Vertical Tail, In: Proceedings of European
Conference for Aerospace Sciences (EUCASS), 47 July,
Moscow, Russia (7 pp).
Crawley, E.F., Lazarus, K.B. and Warkentin, D.J. 1989. Embedded
Actuation and Processing in Intelligent Materials,
In: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Composite
Materials and Structures, 1415 September, Troy, NY.
Cuji, E. and Garcia, E. 2008. Aircraft Dynamics for Symmetric and
Asymmetric V-Shape Morphing Wings, In: ASME Conference
on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent
Systems (SMASIS08), 2830 October, Ellicott City,
MDSMASIS 2008-424.
DARPA Tactical Technology Office (TTO). 2011. Available at: http://
www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/DiscRotor/DiscRotor_Compound_Helicopter.aspx (accessed date May 22,
2011).
Davis, S.J., Moffitt, R., Quackenbush, T.R. and Wachspress, D.A.
1995. Aerodynamic Design Optimization of a Variable
Diameter Tilt Rotor, In: Proceedings of American Helicopter
Society 51st Annual Forum, 911 May 1995, Fort Worth, TX,
pp. 101111.
Daynes, S., Nall, S.J., Weaver, P.M., Potter, K.D., Margaris, P. and
Mellor, P.H. 2009. On a Bistable Flap for an Airfoil,
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 47
May, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2009-2103.
de Camp, R.W. and Hardy, R. 1984. Mission Adaptive Wing
Advanced Research Concepts, AIAA 1984-2088.
Derham, R.C. and Hagood, N.W. 1996. Rotor Design Using Smart
Materials to Actively Twist Blades,
In: Proceedings of
American Helicopter Society 52nd Annual Forum, June,
Washington, DC, Vol. 2, pp. 12421252.
Detrick, M. and Washington, G. 2007. Modeling and Design of a
Morphing Wing for Micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicles via Active
Twist, In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conference, 2326
April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-1788 (7 pp).
Diaconu, C.G., Weaver, P.M. and Mattioni, F. 2008. Concepts for
Morphing Airfoil Sections Using Bi-Stable Laminated Composite
Structures, Thin-Walled Structures, 46:689701.
Edi, P. and Fielding, J.P. 2006. Civil-Transport Wing Design
Concept Exploiting New Technologies, Journal of Aircraft,
43:932940.
Eggleston, G., Hutchison, C., Johnston, C., Koch, B., Wargo, G. and
Williams, K. 2002. Morphing Aircraft Design Team, Virginia
Tech Aerospace Engineering Senior Design Project.
Ehlers, S.M. and Weisshaar, T.A. 1990. Static Aeroelastic Behavior
of an Adaptive Laminated Piezoelectric Composite Wing, AIAA
Journal, 28:16111623.
Ehlers, S.M. and Weisshaar, T.A. 1992. Adaptive Wing Flexural Axis
Control, In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Adaptive Structures, 911 November, San Diego, CA.
Elzey, D.M., Sofla, A.Y.N. and Wadley, H.N.G. 2003. A BioInspired, High-Authority Actuator for Shape Morphing
Structures, In: Logoudas, D.C. (ed.), Proceedings of SPIE,
Smart Structures and Materials 2003: Active Materials:
Behavior and Mechanics, 13 August, San Diego, CA, Vol. 5053,
pp. 92100.
Epps, J.J. and Chopra, I. 2001. In-Flight Tracking of Helicopter
Rotor Blades Using Shape Memory Alloy Actuators, Smart
Flanagan, J.S., Strutzenberg, R.C., Myers, R.B. and Rodrian, J.E.
2007. Development and Flight Testing of a Morphing Aircraft,
the NextGen MFX-1, In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials, 2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-1707.
FlexSys Inc. 2011. Available at: http://www.flxsys.com/index.shtml
Florance, J.P., Burner, A.W., Fleming, G.A., Hunter, C.A. and

Graves, S.S. 2003. Contributions of the NASA Langley
Research Center to the DARPA/AFRL/NASA/Northrop
Grumman Smart Wing Program, In: Proceedings of 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, 710 April, Norfolk, VA, AIAA 20031961.
Florance, J.R., Heeg, J., Spain, C.V. and Lively, P.S. 2004.
Variable Stiffness Spar Wind-Tunnel Modal Development
and Testing, In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC/
Structures,
Structural
Dynamics
and
Materials Conference, 1922 April, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA
2004-1588 (11 pp).
Fradenburgh, E. 1973. Dynamic Model Wind Tunnel Tests of a
Variable-Diameter, Telescoping-Blade Rotor System (TRAC
Rotor), USAAMRDL Technical Report 73-32, Eustis
Directorate, US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory, Fort
Eustis, VA.
Fradenburgh, E. and Matuska, D. 1992. Advancing Tiltrotor Stateof-the-Art with Variable Diameter Rotors, In: Proceedings of
American Helicopter Society 48th Annual Forum, 35 June,
Washington, DC.
Frank, G.J., Joo, J.J., Sanders, B., Garner, D.M. and Murray, A.P.
2008. Mechanization of a High Aspect Ratio Wing for
Aerodynamic Control, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
Frint, H., 1977. Design Selection Tests for TRAC Retraction
Mechanism, USAAMRDL Technical Report 76-43, Eustis
Directorate, US Army Air Mobility R&D Laboratory, Fort
Eustis, VA.
Gamboa, P., Aleixo, P., Vale, J., Lau, F. and Suleman, A. 2007.
Design and Testing of a Morphing Wing for an Experimental
UAV, RTO-MP-AVT-146, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Gamboa, P., Vale, J., Lau, F.J.P. and Suleman, A. 2009.
Optimization of a Morphing Wing Based on Coupled
Aerodynamic and Structural Constraints, AIAA Journal,
47:20872104.
Gandhi, F. and Anusonti-Inthra, P. 2008. Skin Design Studies for
Variable Camber Morphing Airfoils, Smart Materials and
Gandhi, F., Frecker, M. and Nissly, A. 2008. Design Optimization of
a Controllable Camber Rotor Airfoil, AIAA Journal,
46:142153.
Gano, S.E., Perez, V.M., Renaud, J.E., Batill, S.M. and Sanders, B.
2004. Multilevel Variable Fidelity Optimization of a Morphing
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
2004-1763 (16 pp).
Gano, S.E. and Renaud, J.E. 2002. Optimized Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle with Wing Morphing for Extended Range and
Endurance, In: Proceedings of 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium
and Exhibit on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 46
September, Atlanta, GA, AIAA 2002-5668 (9 pp).
Garcia, H.M., Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. 2003. Roll Control for a
Micro Air Vehicle Using Active Wing Morphing,
In: Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference Exhibit, 1114 August, Austin, TX, AIAA J. 20035347 (10 pp).
Garcia, H.M., Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. 2005. Flight
Characteristics of Shaping the Membrane Wing of a Micro Air
Vehicle, Journal of Aircraft, 42:131137.
Gatto, A., Bourdin, P. and Friswell, M.I. 2010. Experimental
Investigation into Articulated Winglet Effects on Flying Wing
Surface Pressure Aerodynamics, Journal of Aircraft,
47:18111815.
Geissler, W., Sobieczky, H. and Trenker, M. 2000. New Rotor Airfoil
Design Procedure for Unsteady Flow Control, In: Proceedings
of 26th European Rotorcraft Forum, 24 May, The Hague,
HollandPaper No. 31.
Morphing Aircraft
Gern, F.H., Inman, D.J. and Kapania, R.K. 2005. Computation of
Actuation Power Requirements for Smart Wings with Morphing
Airfoils, AIAA Journal, 43:24812486.
Gevers Aircraft Inc. 1997. Multi-Purpose Aircraft, United States
Patents Office, Patent Number 5,645,250.
Giurgiutiu, V. 2000. Review of Smart-Materials Actuation Solutions
for Aeroelastic and Vibration Control, Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, 11:525544.
Giurgiutiu, V., Chaudhry, Z. and Rogers, C.A. 1994a. Active
Control of Helicopter Rotor Blades with Induced Strain
Actuators, In: Proceedings of 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
1820 April, Hilton Head, SC (10 pp).
Giurgiutiu, V., Chaudhry, Z. and Rogers, C.A. 1994b. Engineering
Feasibility of Induced-Strain Actuators for Rotor Blade Active
Vibration Control, In: Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials 94 Conference, 1318 February, Orlando, FL, Vol.
2190, Paper # 2190-11, pp. 107122.
Grady, B. 2010. Multi-Objective Optimization of a Three Cell
Morphing Wing Substructure, Masters Thesis, University of
Dayton, OH.
Grant, D., Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. 2006. Flight Dynamics of a
Morphing Aircraft Utilizing Independent Multiple-Joint Wing
Sweep, In: Proceedings of AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference and Exhibit, 2124 August, Keystone, CO, AIAA
2006-6505 (15 pp).
Griffin, K.E. and Hopkins, M.A. 1997. Smart Stiffness for Improved
Roll Control, Journal of Aircraft, Engineering Notes,
34:445447.
Grohmann, B.A., Maucher, C.K. and Janker, P. 2006.
Actuation Concepts for Morphing Helicopter Rotor Blades,
In:
Proceedings
of
25th
International
Congress
of the Aeronautical Sciences, 38 September, Hamburg,
Germany (10 pp).
Grohmann, B.A., Maucher, C.K., Janker, P. and Wierach, P. 2008.
Embedded Piezoceramic Actuators for Smart Helicopter Rotor
Blades, In: 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials, 710 April, Schaumburg,
IL, AIAA 2008-1702 (10 pp).
Guiler, R. and Huebsch, W. 2005. Wind Tunnel Analysis of a
Morphing Swept Tailless Aircraft, In: Proceedings of 23rd
AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 69 June, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, AIAA 2005-4981 (14 pp).
Hall, J., Mohseni, K. and Lawrence, D. 2005. Investigation of
Variable Wing-Sweep for Applications in Micro Air Vehicles,
In: Proceedings of Infotech@Aerospace, 2629 September,
Arlington, VA, AIAA 2005-7171 (11 pp).
Han, C., Ruy, K. and Lee, S. 2007. Experimental Study of a
Telescopic Wing Inside Channel, Engineering Notes, Journal of
Aircraft, 44:10291030.
Henry, J.J. and Pines, D.J. 2007. A Mathematical Model for Roll
Dynamics by Use of a Morphing-Span Wing, In: Proceedings of
48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
HI, AIAA 2007-1708 (16 pp).
Heryawan, Y., Park, H.C., Goo, N.S., Yoon, K.J. and Byun, Y.H.
2005. Design and Demonstration of a Small Expandable
Morphing Wing, In: Proceedings of SPIE 12th Annual
International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
610 March, San Diego, CA, 5764: 224-231.
Hu, H., Tamai, M. and Murphy, J. 2008. Flexible Membrane
Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers, Journal of Aircraft,
45:17671778.
Hunton, L.W. and Dew, J.K. 1947. Measurements of the
Damping in Roll of Large-Scale swept-Forward and SweptBack Wings, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, NACA RMA7D11.
Icardi, U. and Ferrero, L. 2009. Preliminary Study of an Adaptive
Wing with Shape Memory Alloy Torsion Actuators, Materials
and Design, 30:42004210.
871
Ifju, P.G., Ettinger, S., Jenkins, D.A. and Martinez, L. 2001.

Composite Materials for Micro Air Vehicles, In: Proceedings
of SAMPE Annual Conference, 610 May, Long Beach, CA
(12 pp).
Ifju, P.G., Jenkins, D.A., Ettinger, S., Lian, Y., Shyy, W. and Waszak,
M.R. 2002. Flexible-Wing-Based Micro Air Vehicles,
In: Proceedings of AIAA Annual Conference, January, Reno,
NV, AIAA 2002-0705 (13 pp).
Inman, D.J. 2001. Wings: Out of the Box. Determining Actuator
Requirements for Controlled Morphing Air Vehicles
Aerodinamic Loads, DARPA Technology Interchange
Meeting, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH.
Ivanco, T.G., Scott, R.C., Love, M.H., Zink, S. and Weisshaar, T.A.
2007. Validation of the Lockheed Martin Morphing Concept
with Wind Tunnel Testing, In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA/
Materials Conference, 2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 20072235 (17 pp).
Janker, P., Kloppel, V., Hermle, F., Lorkowski, T., Storm, S.,
Christmann, M. and Wettemann, M. 1999. Development and
Evaluation of a Hybrid Piezoelectric Actuator for Advanced
Flap Control Technology, In: Proceedings of 25th European
Rotorcraft Forum (ERF 1999), 1416 September, Rome, Italy.
Jha, A.K. and Kudva, J.N. 2004. Morphing Aircraft Concepts,
Classifications, and Challenges, In: Anderson, E.H. (ed.),
Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and Materials 2004:
Industrial and Commercial Applications, 29 July, San Diego,
CA, Vol. 5388, pp. 213224.
Johnson, T., Frecker, M., Abdalla, M., Gurdal, Z. and Lindner, D.
2009. Nonlinear Analysis and Optimization of Diamond Cell
Morphing Wings, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Johnston, C.O., Mason, W.H., Han, C. and Inman, D.J. 2007.
Actuator-Work Concepts Applied to Unconventional
Aerodynamic Control Devices, Journal of Aircraft,
44:14591468.
Johnston, C.O., Neal, D.A., Wiggins, L.D., Robertshaw, H.H.,
Mason, W.H. and Inman, D.J. 2003. A Model to Compare
the Flight Control Energy Requirements of Morphing and
Conventionally Actuated Wings, In: Proceedings of 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, 710 April, Norfolk, VA, AIAA 20031716 (9 pp).
Jones, R.T. 1945. Wing Plan Forms for High-Speed Flight, NACA
Report 863.
Joo, J.J., Reich, G.W. and Westfall, J.T. 2009. Flexible Skin
Development for Morphing Aircraft Applications Via
Topology Optimization, Journal of Intelligent Material
Joo, J.J., Sanders, B., Johnson, T. and Frecker, M.I. 2006. Optimal
Actuator Location within a Morphing Wing Scissor Mechanism
Configuration, In: Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials 2006: Modeling, Signal Processing, and Control, 27
February2 March, San Diego, CA, Vol. 6166 (12 pp).
Joshi, S.P., Tidwell, Z., Crossley, W.A. and Ramakrishnan, S. 2004.
Comparison of Morphing Wing Strategies Based Upon Aircraft
Performance Impacts, In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2004-1722
(7 pp).
Kerho, M. 2007. Adaptive Airfoil Dynamic Stall Control, Journal of
Aircraft, 44:13501360.
Khoshlahjeh, M., Bae, E.S. and Gandhi, F. 2010. Helicopter
Performance Improvement with Variable Chord Morphing
Rotors, In: Proceedings of 36th European Rotorcraft Forum,
79 September, Paris, France (12 pp).
Khoshlahjeh, M., Gandhi, F. and Webster, S. 2011. Extendable
Chord Rotors for Helicopter Envelope Expansion and
Performance Improvement, In: Proceedings of 67th American
Helicopter Society (AHS) Annual Forum, 35 May, Virginia
Beach, VA.
872
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Kim, D.K. and Han, J.H. 2006. Smart Flapping Wing using MacroFiber Composite Actuators, In: Matsuzaki, Y. (ed.),
Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, San Diego, CA, Vol.
6173, pp. 133141.
Kim, D.K., Han, J.H. and Kwon, K.J. 2009. Wind Tunnel Tests for a
Flapping Wing Model with a Changeable Camber using MacroFiber Composite Actuators, Smart Materials and Structures,
18:024008.
Koratkar, N.A. and Chopra, I. 2000. Development of a Mach-Scaled
Model with Piezoelectric Bender Actuated Trailing-Edge Flaps
for Helicopter Individual Blade Control (IBC), AIAA Journal,
38:11131124.
Koratkar, N.A. and Chopra, I. 2001. Wind Tunnel Testing of a
Mach-Scaled Rotor Model with Trailing-Edge Flaps, Smart
Kota, S., Ervin, G., Osborn, R. and Ormiston, R.A. 2008. Design
and Fabrication of an Adaptive Leading Edge Rotor Blade, In:
Proceedings of American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum,
29 April1 May, Montreal, Canada (9 pp).
Kota, S., Osborn, R., Ervin, G., Maric, D., Flick, P. and Paul, D.
2009. Mission Adaptive Compliant Wing - Design, Fabrication
and Flight Test, In: RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel
(AVT) Symposium, Evora, Portugal, RTO-MP-AVT-168.
Kovalovs, A., Barkanov, E. and Gluhihs, S. 2007. Active Twist
of Model Rotor Blades with D-Spar Design, Transport,
22:3844.
Kress, R.W. 1983. Variable Sweep Wing Design, In: Proceedings of
Aircraft Prototype and Technology Demonstrator Symposium,
2324 March, Dayton, OH, AIAA 1983-1051.
Kudva, J.N. 2001. Overview of the DARPA/AFRL/NASA Smart
Wing Phase II Program, In: Proceedings of SPIE Smart
Structures and Materials Conference, Vol. 4332, pp. 383389.
Kudva, J.N. 2004. Overview of the DARPA Smart Wing Project,
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
15:261267.
Kudva, J.N. and Carpenter, B. 2000. Smart Wing Program,
In: Proceedings of DARPA Technology Interchange Meeting, June.
Kudva, J.N., Jardine, P., Martin, C. and Appa, K. 1996a. Overview
of the ARPA/WL Smart Structures and Material Development
Smart Wing Contract, In: Proceedings of SPIE North
American Conference on Smart Structures and Materials, San
Diego, CASPIE, 2721: 1016.
Kudva, J.N., Lockyer, A.J. and Appa, K. 1996b. Adaptive Aircraft
Wing, In: Proceedings of AGARD SMP Lecture series 205,
Smart Structures and Materials: Implications for Military
Aircraft of New Generation, 3031 October, Philadelphia,
PAAGARD-LS-205.
Kuzmina, S., Gennadi, A., Schweiger, J., Cooper, J., Amprikidis, M.
and Sensberg, O. 2002. Review and Outlook on Active and
Passive Aeroelastic Design Concepts for Future Aircraft,
In: Proceedings of International Congress of the Aeronautical
Sciences (ICAS 2002), pp. 432.1432.10.
Lajux, V. and Fielding, J. 2005. Development of a Variable Camber
Leading Edge Device Design Methodology, In: Proceedings of
AIAA 5th ATIO and 16th Lighter-Than-Air Sys Tech. and Balloon
Systems Conferences, 28 September, Arlington, VA, AIAA 20057356.
Lazarus, K.B., Crawley, E.F. and Bohlmann, J.D. 1991. Static
Aeroelastic Control Using Strain Actuated Adaptive
Structures, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Lazos, B.S. and Visser, K.D. 2006. Aerodynamic Comparison of
Hyper-Elliptic Cambered Span (HECS) Wings with
Conventional Configurations, In: Proceedings of 24th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamic Conference, 58 June, San Francisco, CA,
AIAA 2006-3469 (18 pp).
Lee, G. 1997. Design and Testing of the Kolibri Vertical Take-Off and
Landing Micro Aerial Vehicle, Final Report for the Department
of Defense CounterDrug Technology Office.
Lee, T. 1999. Design of High Displacement Smart Trailing Edge Flap

Actuator Incorporating Dual-Stage Mechanical Stroke
Amplifiers for Rotors, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Aerospace
Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, December
1999.
Lee, T. and Chopra, I. 2001a. Design of Piezostack-Driven TrailingEdge Flap Actuator for Helicopter Rotors, Smart Materials and
Lee, T. and Chopra, I. 2001b. Wind Tunnel Test of Blade Sections
with
Piezoelectric
Trailing-Edge
Flap
Mechanism,
In: Proceedings of 57th Annual Forum of the American
Helicopter Society, 911 May, Washington, DC, Vol. 2, pp.
19121923.
Leishman, G.J. 2006. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics,
Cambridge Aerospace Series No. 12, Cambridge University
Press, ISBN: 0521858607.
Leite, A., Vale, J., Lau, F. and Suleman, A. 2009. Development of
Morphing Strategies for Flight Demonstrator RPV,
May, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2009-2134 (15 pp).
Leon, O. and Gandhi, F. 2009. Rotor Power Reduction using
Multiple Spanwise-Segmented Optimally-Actuated TrailingEdge Flaps, In: Proceedings of 35th European Rotorcraft
Forum, 2225 September, Hamburg, Germany, Article 1309.
Leon, O., Hayden, E. and Gandhi, F. 2009. Rotorcraft Operating
Envelope Expansion Using Extendable Chord Sections,
In: Proceedings of American Helicopter Society 65th Annual
Forum, 2729 May, Grapevine, TX (14 pp).
Lesieutre, G. and Davis, C. 1997. Can a Coupling Coefficient of a
Piezoelectric Device be Higher Than Those of Its Active
Material? Journal of Intelligent Materials Systems and
Loftin, L. 1985. Quest for Performance, NASA SP 468.
Love, M.H., Zink, P.S., Stroud, R.L., Bye, D.R., Rizk, S. and White,
D. 2007. Demonstration of Morphing Technology through
Ground and Wind Tunnel Tests, In: Proceedings of 48th
Structures,
Structural
HI, AIAA 2007-1729 (12 pp).
Lv, H., Leng, J. and Du, S. 2009. A Survey of Adaptive Materials
and Structures Research in China, In: Proceedings of 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASH/ACS
Structures,
Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 47 May, Palm Springs,
CA, AIAA 2009-2389 (8 pp).
Madden, J.D.W., Schmid, B., Hechinger, M., Lafontaine, S.R.,
Madden, P.G.A. and Hover, F.S. 2004. Application of
Polypyrrole Actuators: Feasibility of variable camber Foils,
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 29:738749.
Majji, M., Rediniotis, O. and Junkins, J.L. 2007. Design of a
Morphing Wing: Modeling and Experiments, In: Proceedings
of AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit,
2023 August, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA 2007-6310 (9 pp).
Manzo, J. and Garcia, E. 2010. Demonstration of an in situ
Morphing Hyperelliptical Cambered Span Wing Mechanism,
Smart Materials and Structures, 19:025012.
Manzo, J., Garcia, E., Wickenheiser, A. and Horner, G.C. 2005.
Design of a Shape-Memory Alloy Actuated Macro-scale
Morphing Aircraft Mechanism, In: Flatau, A.B. (ed.),
Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 17 May, San Diego,
CA, Vol. 5764, p. 744.
Marmier, P. and Wereley, N.M. 2003. Control of Sweep Using
Pneumatic Actuators to Morph Wings of Small Scale UAVs,
In: Proceedings of 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 710 April,
Norfolk, VA, AIAA 2003-1802 (10 pp).
Marques, M., Gamboa, P. and Andrade, E. 2009. Design and Testing
of a Variable Camber Flap for Improved Efficiency,
In: Proceedings of RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel
(AVT) Symposium, 2024 April, Evora, Portugal (22 pp).
Morphing Aircraft
Martin, C.A., Bartley-Cho, J., Flanagan, J.S. and Carpenter, B.F.
1999. Design and Fabrication of Smart Wing Wind Tunnel
Model and SMA Control Surfaces, In: Jacobs, J.H. (ed.),
Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Industrial and Commercial
Applications of Smart Structures Technologies, Newport Beach,
CA, Vol. 3674, pp. 237248.
Martin, S. and Hall, G. 1969. Rotor Will Retract in Flight to
Improve V/STOL Cruise Performance, Space Aeronautics.
Martin, C.A., Hallam, B.J., Flanagan, J.S. and Bartley-Cho, J. 2002.
Design, Fabrication and Testing of Scaled Wind Tunnel Model
for the Smart Wing Phase 2 Program, In: McGowan, A.R. (ed.),
Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart Structures
Technologies, San Diego, CA, Vol. 4698, pp. 4452.
Martin, C.A., Kudva, J., Austin, F., Jardine, A.P., Scherer, L.B.,
Lockyer, A.J. and Carpenter, B.F. 1998. Smart Materials and
Structures-Smart Wing Volumes I, II, III, and IV, Report:
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-1999-4162,
Northrop
Grumman
Corporation, Hawthorne, CA.
Martins, A.L. and Catalano, F.M. 1998. Viscous Drag Optimization
for a Transport Aircraft Mission Adaptive Wing,
In: Proceedings of 21st ICAS Congress, 1318 September,
Melbourne, AustraliaPaper A98-31499.
Mattioni, F., Gatto, A., Weaver, P.M., Friswell, M.I. and Potter, K.D.
2006. The Application of Residual Stress Tailoring of Snapthrough
Composites
for
Variable
Sweep
Wings,
May, Newport, RI, AIAA 2006-1972.
McCormik, B.W. 1995. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight
Mechanics, 2 edn, Wiley, New York.
McGowan, A.R. 2008. Overview: Morphing Activities in the USA,
In: Proceedings of Advanced Course on Morphing Aircraft
Materials, Mechanisms and Systems, 1720 November, Lisbon,
Portugal.
McGowan, A.R., Horta, L.G., Harrison, J.S. and Raney, D.L. 1999.
Research Activities within NASAs Morphing Program,
In: RTO Meeting Proceedings 36 (AC/323(AVT)TP/17)
from the RTO AVT Specialists Meeting on Structural
Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control, October, Ottawa, AL,
Canada.
McKnight, G., Doty, R., Keefe, A., Herrera, G. and Henry, C. 2010.
Segmented Reinforcement Variable Stiffness Materials for
Reconfigurable Surfaces, Journal of Intelligent Material
Mesaric, M. and Kosel, F. 2004. Unsteady Airload of an Airfoil with
Variable Camber, Aerospace Science and Technology,
8:167174.
Miller, G.D. 1988. Active Flexible Wing (AFW) Technology,
Report: AFWAL-TR-87-3096, Rockwell International North
American Aircraft Operations, Los Angeles, CA.
Miller, S., Vio, G.A., Cooper, J.E., Vale, J., da Luz, L., Gomes, A.,
Lau, F., Suleman, A., Cavagna, L., De Gaspari, A., Ricci, S.,
Riccobene, L., Scotti, A. and Terraneo, M. 2010. SMorph
Smart
Aircraft
Morphing
Technologies
Project,
In: Proceedings of 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
1215 April, Orlando, FL, AIAA 2010-2742.
Mirone, G. 2007. Design and Demonstrators Testing of Adaptive
Airfoils and Hingeless Wings Actuated by Shape Memory
Alloy Wires, Smart Structures and Systems, 3:89114.
Mirone, G. and Pellegrino, A. 2009. Prototipo di Sezione Alare
Adattiva per UAV: Centina Deformabile con Attuatori in
SMA, In: Proceeding of the XXXVIII Convegno Nazionale,
Associazione Italiana per lAnalisi delle Sollecitazioni (AIAS),
911 September, Turin, Italy, in Italian.
Mistry, M., Gandhi, F. and Chandra, R. 2008. Twist Control of an IBeam Through Vlasov Bimoment Actuation, In: Proceedings of
49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Material Conference, 711 April, Schaumburg,
IL, AIAA 2008-2278 (12 pp).
873
Mistry, M., Nagelsmit, M., Ganhdi, F. and Gurdal, Z. 2010.

Actuation Requirements of a Warp Induced Variable Twist
Rotor Blade, In: Proceedings of AMSE 2010 Conference on
PASMASIS 2010-3615.
Monner, H.P. 2001. Realization of an Optimized Wing Camber by
Using Form Variable Flap Structures, Aerospace Science and
Technology, 5:445455.
Monner, H.P., Bein, T., Hanselka, H. and Breitbach, E. 1998.
Design Aspects of the Adaptive Wing The Elastic Trailing
Edge and the Local Spoiler Bump, Royal Aeronautical
Society,
Multidisciplinary
Design
and
Optimization,
London, UK.
Monner, H.P., Kintscher, M., Lorkowski, T. and Storm, S. 2009.
Design of a Smart Droop Nose as Leading Edge High Lift
System for Transportation Aircrafts, In: Proceedings of 50th
Structures,
Structural
CA, AIAA 2009-2128 (10 pp).
Monner, H.P., Sachau, D. and Breitbach, E. 1999. Design Aspects of
the Elastic Trailing Edge for an Adaptive Wing, In: Proceedings
of RTO AVT Specialists Meeting on Structural Aspects of
Flexible Aircraft Control, 1820 October, Ottawa, Canada, Vol.
RTO MP-36 (8 pp).
Moorhouse, D., Sanders, B., von Spakovsky, M. and Butt, J. 2006.
Benefits and Design Challenges of Adaptive Structures for
Morphing Aircraft, Aeronautical Journal, Royal Aeronautical
Society, London, 110:157162.
Munday, D. and Jacob, J. 2001. Active Control of Separation on a
Wing with Conformal Camber, AIAA Journal, 20010293.
Murray, G., Gandhi, F. and Bakis, C. 2010. Flexible Matrix
Composite Skins for One-Dimensional Wing Morphing,
21:17711781.
Murua, J., Palacios, R. and Peiro, J. 2010. Camber Effects in the
Dynamic Aeroelasticity of Compliant Airfoils, Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 26:527543.
Musgrove, R.G. 1976. Unites States Patent 3,944,170, Apparatus For
Producing Pivotal Movement, 16 March 1976.
Musgrove, R.G. 1981. Unites States Patent 4,286,761, Eccentric
Actuator, 1 September 1981.
Nam, C., Chattopadhyay, A. and Kim, Y. 2002. Application of Shape
Memory Alloy (SMA) Spars for Aircraft Maneuver
Enhancement, In: Davis, L.P. (ed.), Proceedings of SPIE Smart
Structures and Materials 2002: Smart Structures and Integrated
Systems, 15 July, San Diego, CA, Vol. 4701, pp. 226236.
Nam, C., Chen, P.C., Sarhaddi, D., Liu, D., Griffin, K. and
Yurkovich, R. 2000. Torsion-Free Wing Concept for Aircraft
Maneuver Enhancement, In: Proceedings of 41st AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference, 36 April, Atlanta, GA, AIAA 2000-1620.
Namgoong, H., Crossley, W.A. and Lyrintzis, A.S. 2006.
Aerodynamic Optimization of a Morphing Airfoil Using
Energy as an Objective, In: Proceedings of 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 912 January, Reno,
NV, AIAA 2006-1324.
Neal, D.A., Farmer, J. and Inman, D.J. 2006. Development of a
Morphing Aircraft Model for Wind Tunnel Experimentation,
May, Newport, RI, AIAA 2006-2141.
Neal, D.A., Good, M.G., Johnston, C.O., Robertshaw, H.H., Mason,
W.H. and Inman, D.J. 2004. Desing and Wind-Tunnel Analysis
of a Fully Adaptive Aircraft Configuration, In: 45th AIAA/
2004-1727.
Null, W. and Shkarayev, S. 2005. Effect of Camber on the
Aerodynamics of Adaptive-Wing Micro Air Vehicles, Journal
of Aircraft, 42:15371542.
874
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Olympio, K.R. and Gandhi, F. 2010a. Flexible Skins for Morphing

Aircraft Using Cellular Honeycomb Cores, Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, 21:17191735.
Olympio, K.R. and Gandhi, F. 2010b. Zero Poissons Ratio Cellular
Honeycombs for Flex Skins Undergoing One-Dimensional
Morphing, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Olympio, K.R., Gandhi, F., Asheghian, L. and Kudva, J. 2010.
Design of a Flexible Skin for a Shear Morphing Wing,
21:17551770.
Pagano, A., Ameduri, S., Cokonaj, V., Prachar, A., Zachariadis, Z.
and Drikakis, D. 2009. Helicopter Blade Twist Control through
SMA Technology: Optimal Shape Prediction, Twist Actuator
Realisations and Main Rotor Enhanced Performance
Computation, In: Proceedings of 35th European Rotorcraft
Forum, 2225 September, Hamburg, Germany, Paper 1297
(11 pp).
Paradies, R. and Ciresa, P. 2009. Active Wing Design with Integrated
Flight Control Using Piezoelectric Macro Fiber Composites,
Smart Material and Structure, 18:035010.
Parker, H.F. 1920. The Parker Variable Camber Wing, Annual
Report, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Report
No.77.
Peel, L.D., Mejia, J., Narvaez, B., Thompson, K. and Lingala, M.
2008. Development of a Simple Morphing Wing Using
Elastomeric
Composites
as
Skins
and
Actuators,
In: Proceedings of ASME Conference on Smart Materials,
Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems (SMASIS 2008),
2830 October, Ellicott City, MD, Paper SMASIS2008-544
(8 pp).
Peel, L.D., Mejia, J., Narvaez, B., Thompson, K. and Lingala, M.
2009. Development of a Simple Morphing Wing Using
Elastomeric Composites as Skins and Actuators, Journal of
Mechanical Design, 131:091003 (8 pp).
Pendleton, E. 2000. Back to the Future-How Active Aeroelastic
Wings are a Return to Aviations Beginnings and a Small Step
to Future Bird-Like Wings, In: Proceedings of RTO AVT
Symposium on Active Control Technology for Enhanced
Performance Operational Capabilities of Military Aircraft, Land
Vehicles, and Sea Vehicles, 811 May, Braunschweig, Germany
(8 pp).
Pendleton, E.W., Bessette, D., Field, P.B., Miller, G.D. and Griffin,
K.E. 2000. Active Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program:
Technical Program and Model Analytical Development,
Journal of Aircraft, 37:554561.
Perera, M. and Guo, S. 2009. Optimal Design of a Seamless
Aeroelastic Wing Structure, In: Proceedings of 50th AIAA/
Materials Conference, 47 May, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA
2009-2195 (14 pp).
Perkins, D.A., Reed, J.L. and Havens, E. 2004. Morphing Wing
Structures for Loitering Air Vehicles, In: Proceedings of 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
& Materials Conference, 1922 April, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA
2004-1888 (10 pp).
Perry, R.L. 1966. Variable Sweep: A Case History of Multiple
Re-Innovation, p. 3459, The Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, CA.
Pinkerton, J.L. and Moses, R.W. 1997. A Feasibility Study to
Control Airfoil Shape Using THUNDER, Technical
Memorandum, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Polhamus, E.C. and Hammond, A.D. 1967. Aerodynamic Research
Relative to Variable-Sweep Multimission Aircraft, Langley
Research Center, NASA N67-33072.
Poonsong, P. 2004. Design and Analysis of a Multi-Section Variable
Camber Wing, Masters Thesis, University of Maryland, MD.
Popov, A.V., Labib, M., Fays, J. and Botez, R.M. 2008. ClosedLoop Control Simulations on a Morphing Wing, Journal of
Aircraft, 45:17941803.
Powers, S.G., Webb, L.D., Friend, E.L. and Lokos, W.A. 1992.
Flight Test Results from a Supercritical Mission Adaptive
Wing
With
Smooth
Variable
Camber,
Technical
Memorandum, NASA 4415.
Prabhakar, T., Gandhi, F. and McLaughlin, D. 2007. A Centrifugal
Force Actuated Variable Span Morphing Helicopter Rotor,
In: Proceedings of 63rd Annual AHS International Forum and
Technology Display, 13 May, Virginia Beach, VA.
Prahlad, H. and Chopra, I. 2001. Design of a Variable Twist
Tiltrotor Blade Using Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) Actuators,
In: Prahlad, H. (ed.), Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials 2001: Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 16
August, Newport Beach, CA, Vol. 4327, pp. 4659.
Prahlad, H. and Chopra, I. 2002. Characterization of SMA Torsional
Actuators for Active Twist of Tilt Rotor Blades, In: Proceedings
of 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Material Conference, 2225 April, Denver, CO,
AIAA 2002-1445.
Prock, B.C., Weisshaar, T.A. and Crossley, W.A. 2002. Morphing
Airfoil Shape Change Optimization With Minimum Actuator
Energy As An Objective, In: Proceedings of 9th AIAA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 46
September, Atlanta, GA, AIAA 2002-5401 (13 pp).
Reed, J.L., Hemmelgarn, C.D., Pelley, B.M. and Havens, E. 2005.
Adaptive Wing Structures, In: Proceedings of SPIE Smart
Structures and Materials 2005: Industrial and Commercial
Applications of Smart Structures Technologies, 9 March, San
Diego, CA, Vol. 5762.
Reich, G.W. and Sanders, B. 2007. Introduction to Morphing
Aircraft Research, Journal of Aircraft, 44:1059.
Renken, J.H. 1985. Mission Adaptive Wing Camber Control
Systems for Transport Aircraft, In: Proceedings of 3rd Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, 1416 October, Colorado Springs, CO
, AIAA 85-5006.
Ricci, S. 2008. Adaptive Camber Mechanism for Morphing
Experiences at DIA-PoliMI, In: Proceedings of Advanced
Course on Morphing Aircraft Materials, Mechanisms and
Systems, 1720 November, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rodriguez, A.R. 2007. Morphing Aircraft Technology Survey,
In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, 811 January, Reno, NV, AIAA 2007-1258 (16 pp).
Rogers, J.P. and Hagood, N.W. 1997. Design and Manufacture of an
Integral Twist-Actuated Rotor Blade, In: Proceedings of 38th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference and Adaptive Structures Forum, Reston,
VA.
Roglin, R.L. and Hanagud, S.V. 1996. A Helicopter with Adaptive
Rotor Blades for Collective Control, Smart Materials and
Structures, 5:7688.
Roglin, R.L., Hanagud, S.V. and Kondor, S. 1994. Adaptive Airfoils
for Helicopters, In: Proceedings of 35th AIAA Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1820 April,
Hilton Head, SC, pp. 279287.
Roth, B., Peters, C. and Crossley, W. 2002. Aircraft Sizing with
Morphing as an Independent Variable: Motivation, Strategies,
and Investigations, In: Proceedings of AIAA Aircraft
Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) 2002
Conference, 13 October, Los Angeles, CA, AIAA 2002-5840.
Ruggeri, R.T., Arbogast, D.J. and Bussom, R.C. 2008a. Wind
Tunnel Testing of a Lightweight - Scale Actuator Utilizing
Shape Memory Alloy, In: Proceedings of 49th AIAA/ASME/
Materials Conference, 710 April, Schaumburg, IL, AIAA
2008-2279.
Ruggeri, R.T., Bussom, R.C. and Arbogast, D.J. 2008b.
Development of a -scale NiTinol actuator for reconfigurable
structures, In: Proceedings of SPIE Industrial and Commercial
Applications of Smart Structures Technologies 2008, 10 March,
San Diego, CA, Vol. 6930doi:10.1117/12.7759.
Runge, J.B., Osmont, D. and Ohayon, R. 2010. Twist Control of
Aerodynamic Profiles By a Reactive Method (Experimental
Morphing Aircraft
Results), In: Proceedings of AMSE 2010 Conference on Smart
PASMASIS 2010-3824 (10 pp).
Rusnell, M.T., Gano, S.E., Perez, V.M., Renaud, J.E. and Batill, S.M.
2004. Morphing UAV Pareto Curve Shift for Enhanced
Performance, 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, 1922 April 2004,
Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2004-1682.
Sachs, G. and Mehlhorn, R. 1991. Endurance Increase by periodic
Optimal Camber Control, In: Proceedings of AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference, August, New Orleans, LA,
AIAA 1991-2670, pp. 635641.
Sachs, G. and Mehlhorn, R. 1993. Enhancement of Endurance
Performance by Periodic Optimal Camber Control, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 16:572578.
Sahoo, D. and Cesnik, C.E.S. 2002. Roll Maneuver Control for
UCAV Wing Using Anisotropic Piezoelectric Actuators,
In: Proceedings of 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,
2225 April, Denver, CO, AIAA 2002-1720 (11 pp).
Samareh, J.A., Chwalowski, P., Horta, L.G., Piatak, D.J. and
McGowan, A.M.R. 2007. Integrated Aerodynamic/Structural/
Dynamic Analyses of Aircraft with Large Shape Changes,
2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-2346.
Sanders, B., Cowan, D. and Scherer, L. 2004. Aerodynamic
Performance of the Smart Wing Control Effectors, Journal of
Santangelo, M., Iuspa, L. and Blasi, L. 2006. Analisi Cineto-Statica
di una Struttura Alare Adattiva Hingeless, In: Proceedings of
XXXV Convegno Nazionale Associazione Italiana per lAnalisi
delle Sollecitazioni (AIAS), 1316 September, Polytechnic
University of Marche, Ancona (in Italian) (7 pp).
Santhanakrishnan, A., Pern, N.J., Ramakumar, K., Simpson, A. and
Jacob, J.D. 2005. Enabling Flow Control Technology for Low
Speed UAVs, In: Proceedings of Infotech@Aerospace, 2629
September, Arlington, VA, AIAA 2005-6960 (13 pp).
Scott, M.J., Jacob, J.D., Smith, S.W., Asheghian, L.T. and Kudva,
J.N. 2009. Development of a Novel Low Stored Volume HighAltitude Wing Design, In: Proceedings of 50th AIAA/ASME/
Materials Conference, 45 May, Palm Springs, CAAIAA 20092146 (12 pp).
Seigler, T.M., Bae, J.S. and Inman, D.J. 2004. Flight Control of a
Variable Span Cruise Missile, In: Proceedings of 2004
ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, 1319 November, Anaheim, CA, Paper No.
IMECE2004-61961.
Seigler, T.M., Neal, D.A., Bae, J.S. and Inman, D.J. 2007. Modeling
and Flight Control of Large-Scale Morphing Aircraft, AIAA
Seow, A.K., Liu, Y. and Yeo, W.K. 2008. Shape Memory Alloy as
Actuator to Deflect a Wing Flap, In: Proceedings of 49th AIAA/
2008-1704.
Shelton, A., Tomar, A., Prasad, J., Smith, M.J. and Komerath, N.
2006. Active Multiple Winglets for Improved UnmannedAerial-Vehicle Performance, Journal of Aircraft, 43:110116.
Shili, L., Wenjie, G. and Shujun, L. 2008. Optimal Design of
Compliant Trailing Edge for Shape Changing, Chinese Journal
of Aeronautics, 21:187192.
Shin, S.J. 2001. Integral Twist Actuation of Helicopter Rotor Blades
for Vibration Reduction, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Shin, S.J., Cesnik, C.E.S. and Hall, S.R. 2002. Control of Integral
Twist-Actuated Helicopter Blades for vibration Reduction,
In: Proceedings of 58th American Helicopter Society Annual
Forum, 1113 June, Montreal, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 21222134.
875
Shkarayev, S., Null, W. and Wagner, M. 2004. Development of

Micro Air Vehicle Technology with In-Flight Adaptive Wing
Structure, Contractor Report, NASA Langley Research
Center, Hampton, VA.
Shortal, J.A. and Maggin, B. 1946. Effect of Sweepback and Aspect
Ratio on Longitudinal Stability Characteristics of wings at Low
Speeds, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, NACA
TN-1093.
Shyy, W., Aono, H., Chimakurthi, S.K., Trizila, P., Kang, C.K.,
Cesnik, C.E.S. and Liu, H. 2010. Recent Progress in Flapping
Wing Aerodynamics and Aeroelasticity, Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, 46:284327.
Shyy, W., Jenkins, D. and Smith, R. 1997. Study of Adaptive Shape
Airfoils at Low Reynolds Number in Oscillatory Flows, AIAA
Journal, 35:15451548.
Siclari, M.J., Van Nostrand, W. and Austin, F. 1996. The Design of
Transonic Airfoil Sections for an Adaptive Wing Concept Using
a Stochastic Optimization Method, In: Proceedings of 34th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1518 January, Reno,
NV, AIAA 1996-0329.
Simpson, J., Anguita-Delgado, L., Kawieski, G., Nilsson, B., Vaccaro,
V. and Kawiecki, G. 2005. Review of European Research
Project Active Aeroelastic Aircraft Structures (3AS),
In: Proceedings of European Conference for Aerospace Sciences
(EUCASS), 47 July, Moscow, Russia (9 pp).
Singh, K. and Chopra, I. 2002. Design of an Improved Shape
Memory Alloy Actuator for Rotor Blade Tracking,
In: Proceedings of 2002 Society of Photo-Optical
Instrumentation Engineers North American Symposium on
Smart Structures and Materials, 1721 March, Newport Beach,
CA, Vol. 4701, pp. 244266.
Singh, V., Skiles, S.M., Krager, J.E., Wood, K.L., Jensen, D. and
Sierakowski, R. 2009. Innovations in Design Through
Transformation: A Fundamental Study of Transformation
Principles, Journal of Mechanical Design, 131: doi: 10.1115/
1.3125205.
Skillen, M.D. and Crossley, W.A. 2006. Developing Morphing Wing
Weight Predictors with Emphasis on the Actuating Mechanism,
May, Newport, RI, AIAA 2006-2042 (17 pp).
Skillen, M.D. and Crossley, W.A. 2008a. Modeling and Optimization
for Morphing Wing Concept Generation II Part I: Morphing
Wing Modeling and Structural Sizing Techniques, NASA
Report, NASA/CR-2008-214902.
Skillen M.D. and Crossley, W.A. 2008b. Morphing Wing Weight
Predictors and Their Application in a Template-Based
Morphing Aircraft Sizing Environment II, Part II: Morphing
Aircraft Sizing Via Multi-Level Optimization, NASA Report,
CR-2008- 214903.
Smith, K., Butt, J., Spakovsky, M.R. and Moorhouse, D. 2007. A
Study of the Benefits of Using Morphing Wing Technology in
Fighter Aircraft Systems, In: Proceedings of 39th AIAA
Thermophysics Conference, 2528 June, Miami, FL, AIAA
2007-4616 (12 pp).
Smith, D.D., Isikveren, A.T., Ajaj, R.M. and Firswell, M.I. 2010.
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of an Active
Nonplanar Polymorphing Wing, In: Proceedings of 27th
International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS
2010), 1924 September, Nice, France.
Smith, J.W., Lock, W.P. and Payne, G.A. 1992. Variable Camber
Systems Integration and Operational Performance of the AFTI/
F-111 Mission Adaptive Wing, Technical Memorandum,
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA.
Smith, S.B. and Nelson, D.W. 1990. Determination of the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Mission Adaptive Wing,
Sofla, A.Y.N., Elzey, D.M. and Wadley, H.N.G. 2008. Two-Way
Antagonistic Shape Actuation Based on the One-Way Shape
Memory Effect, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
876
S. BARBARINO ET AL.
Sofla, A.Y.N., Meguid, S.A., Tan, K.T. and Yeo, W.K. 2010. Shape
Morphing of Aircraft Wing: Status and Challenges, Materials
and Design, 31:12841292.
Song, G. and Ma, N. 2007. Robust Control of a Shape Memory
Alloy Wire Actuated Flap, Smart Materials and Structures,
16:N51N57.
Song, A., Tian, X., Israeli, E., Galvao, R., Bishop, K., Swartz, S. and
Breuer, K. 2008. Aeromechanics of Membrane Wings with
Implications for Animal Flight, AIAA Journal, 46:20962106.
Song, D., Wang, H., Zeng, L. and Yin, C. 2001. Measuring the
Camber Deformation of a Dragonfly Wing Using Projected
Comb Fringe, Review of Scientific Instruments, 72:24502454.
Spangler, R.L. and Hall, S.R. 1990. Piezoelectric actuators for helicopter rotor control, In: Proceedings of 31st AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, 24 April, Long Beach, CA, AIAA1990-1076.
Spillman, J. 1992. The Use of Variable Camber to Reduce Drag,
Weight and Costs of Transport Aircraft, Aeronautical Journal,
96:19.
Stanewsky, E. 2001. Adaptive Wing and Flow Control Technology,
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 37:583667.
Stanford, B., Abdulrahim, M., Lind, R. and Ifju, P. 2007.
Investigation of Membrane Actuation for Roll Control of a
Micro Air Vehicle, Journal of Aircraft, 44:741749.
Steadman, D.L., Griffin, S.L. and Hanagud, S.V. 1994. StructureControl Interaction and the Design of Piezoceramic Actuated
Adaptive Airfoils, In: Proceedings of AIAA/ASME Adaptive
Structures Forum, 2122 April, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA 19941747, pp. 135142.
Straub, F., Anand, V.R., Birchette, T. and Lau, B.H. 2009. SMART
Rotor Development and Wind Tunnel Test, In: Proceedings of
35th European Rotorcraft Forum 2009 (ERF 2009), 2225
September, Hamburg, Germany, Article 1200 (21 pp).
Straub, F.K., Ngo, H.T., Anand, V. and Domzalski, D.B. 2001.
Development of a Piezoelectric Actuator for Trailing-Edge
Flap Control for Full Scale Rotor System, Smart Materials
Strelec, J.K., Lagoudas, D.C., Khan, M.A. and Yen, J. 2003. Design
and Implementation of a Shape Memory Alloy Actuated
Reconfigurable Airfoil, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
Studebaker, K. and Matuska, D. 1993. Variable Diameter Tiltrotor
Wind Tunnel Test Results, In: Proceedings of American
Helicopter Society 49th Annual Forum, May, St. Louis, MO.
Sullivan, J. and Watkins, W. 2003. Obliquing Wing with Extendable
Span Critical Design Review, Critical Design Review, AAE
490T/590T AT 490D Tech 581N Design/Build/Test, Purdue
University, IN.
Supekar, A.H. 2007. Design, Analysis and Development of a
Morphable Wing Structure for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Performance Augmentation, Masters Thesis, University of
Texas at Arlington, TX.
Szodruch, J. 1985. The Influence of Camber Variation on the
Aerodynamics of Civil Transport Aircraft, In: Proceedings of
23rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1417 January, Reno, NV,
AIAA 85-0353.
Szodruch, J. and Hilbig, R. 1988. Variable Wing Camber for
Transport Aircraft, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 25:297328.
Thill, C., Etches, J., Bond, I., Potter, K. and Weaver, P. 2008.
Morphing Skins, The Aeronautical Journal, 112:117139.
Thill, C., Etches, J.A., Bond, I.P., Potter, K.D. and Weaver, P.M.
2010. Composites Corrugated Structures for Morphing Wing
Skin Applications, Smart Materials and Structures, 19:124009.
Thornton, S.V. 1993. Reduction of Structural Loads Using
Maneuver Load Control on the Advanced Fighter Technology
Integration (AFTI)/F-111 Mission Adaptive Wing, NASA TM
4526.
Torres, G.E., 2002. Aerodynamics of Low Aspect Ratio Wings at
Low Reynolds Numbers with Applications to Micro Air
Vehicle Design, PhD Dissertation, Aerospace and Mechanical

Engineering Department, University of Notre Dame, South
Bend, IN.
Turnock, S.R. and Keane, A.J. 2009. Morphing of Flying Shapes
for Autonomous Underwater and Aerial Vehicles,
In: Proceedings of RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel
(AVT) Symposium, 2024 April, Evora, Portugal (19 pp).
Ursache, N.M., Melin, T., Isikveren, A.T. and Friswell, M.I. 2007.
Morphing Winglets for Aircraft Multi-Phase Improvement,
In: Proceedings of 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration
and Operations Conference (ATIO), 1820 September, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, AIAA 2007-7813 (12 pp).
Ursache, N.M., Melin, T., Isikveren, A.T. and Friswell, M.I. 2008.
Technology Integration for Active Poly-Morphing Winglets
Development, In: Proceedings of ASME Conference on Smart
(SMASIS08), 2830 October, Ellicott City, MD, SMASIS
2008-496 (8 pp).
Vale, J., Lau, F., Suleman, A. and Gamboa, P. 2006.
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Morphing Wing
for an Experimental UAV, In: Proceedings of 11th AIAA/
ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference,
68 September, Portsmouth, VA, AIAA 2006-7131.
Vale, J., Lau, F., Suleman, A. and Gamboa, P. 2007. Optimization of
a Morphing Wing Based on Coupled Aerodynamic and
Structural Constraints, In: Proceedings of 3rd AIAA
MultiDisciplinary Design Optimization Specialists Conference,
2326 April, Honolulu, HI, AIAA 2007-1890 (27 pp).
van Dam, C.P. 2002. The Aerodynamic Design of Multi-Element
High-Lift Systems for Transport Airplanes, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, 38:101144.
Vos, R., Barrett, R., de Breuker, R. and Tiso, P. 2007a. Post-Buckled
Precompressed Elements: a New Class of Control Actuators for
Morphing Wing UAVs, Smart Materials and Structures,
16:919926.
Vos, R., Barrett, R. and Zehr, D. 2008a. Magnification of Work
Output in PBP Class Actuators Using Buckling/Converse
Buckling Techniques, In: Proceedings of 49th AIAA/ASME/
2008-1705.
Vos, R., De Breuker, R., Barrett, R. and Tiso, P. 2007b. Morphing
Wing Flight Control via Postbuckled Precompressed
Piezoelectric Actuators, Journal of Aircraft, 44:10601068.
Vos, R., Gurdal, Z. and Abdalla, M. 2008b. A Novel Mechanism for
Active Wing Warping, In: Proceedings of 49th AIAA/ASME/
2008-1879.
Vos, R., Gurdal, Z. and Abdalla, M. 2010. Mechanism for WarpControlled Twist of a Morphing Wing, Journal of Aircraft,
47:450457.
Wang, D.P., Bartley-Cho, J.D., Martin, C.A. and Hallam, B.J. 2001.
Development of High-Rate, Large Deflection, Hingeless
Trailing Edge Control Surface for the Smart Wing Wind
Tunnel Model, In: Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials 2001: Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart
Structures Technologies, 58 March, Newport Beach, CA, Vol.
4332, pp. 407418.
Wang, J.M., Jones, C.T. and Nixon, M.W. 1999. A Variable
Diameter Short Haul Civil Tiltrotor, In: Proceedings of 55th
Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, 2527 May,
Montreal, Canada (8 pp).
Warwick, G. 2009. Morphing Methods, Aviation Week & Space
Technology, p. 55.
Waszak, M.R., Jenkins, L.N. and Ifju, P.G. 2001. Stability and
Control Properties of an Aeroelastic Fixed Wing Micro Aerial
Vehicle, In: AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,
69 August, Montreal, Canada, AIAA 2001-4005 (11 pp).
Weiss, P. 2003. Wings of Change: Shape-Shifting Aircraft may Ply
Future Skyways, Science News, 164:359, 362 and 365.
Morphing Aircraft
Weisshaar, T.A. 2006. Morphing Aircraft Technology New Shapes
for Aircraft Design, RTO-MP-AVT-141, Neuilly-sur-Seine,
France.
Wereley, N.M. and Gandhi, F. 2010. Flexible Skins for Morphing
Aircraft, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
21:16971698.
Wickramasinghe, V.K., Chen, Y., Martinez, M., Kernaghan, R. and
Wong, F. 2009. Design and Verification of a Smart Wing for an
Extremely-Agile Micro-Air-Vehicle, In: Proceedings of 50th
Structures,
Structural
CA, AIAA 2009-2132 (11 pp).
Wiggins, L.D., Stubbs, M.D., Johnston, C.O., Robertshaw, H.H.,
Reinholtz, C.F. and Inman, D.J. 2004. A Design and Analysis
of a Morphing Hyper-Elliptic Cambered Span (HECS) Wing,
In: Proceedings of 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,
1922 April, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2004-1885 (10 pp).
Wilbur, M.L. and Wilkie, W.K. 2004. Active-Twist Rotor Control
Applications for UAVs, Report, US Army Research
Laboratory Vehicle Technology Directorate, Hampton, VA.
Wildschek, A., Grunewald, M., Maier, R., Steigenberger, J., Judas,
M., Deligiannidis, N. and Aversa, N. 2008. Multi-Functional
Morphing Trailing Edge Device for Control of All-Composite,
All-Electric Flying Wing Aircraft, In: Proceedings of The 26th
Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences
(ICAS), 1419 September, Anchorage, Alaska, AIAA 20088956.
877
Wilson, J.R. 2002. Active Aeroelastic Wing: A New/Old Twist on

Flight, Aerospace America, 40:3437.
Wittmann, J., Steiner, H.-J. and Sizmann, A. 2009. Framework for
Quantitative Morphing Assessment on Aircraft System Level,
May, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA J. 2009-2129 (18 pp).
Yang, S.M., Han, J.H. and Lee, I. 2006. Characteristics of Smart
Composite Wing with SMA Actuators and Optical Fiber
Sensors, International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and
Mechanics, 23:177186.
Yu, Y., Li, X., Zhang, W. and Leng, J. 2007. Investigation on
Adaptive Wing Structure based on Shape Memory Polymer
Composite Hinge, In: Proceedings of SPIE International
Conference on Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in
Engineering, 1 July, Harbin, China, Vol. 6423. doi:10.1117/
12.779394 (7 pp).
Zhang, Q. and Hoffmann, F. 2009. Benefit Studies for Rotor with
Active Twist Control Using Weak Fluid-Structure Coupling,
In: Proceedings of 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, 2225
September, Hamburg, Germany, Article 1217.
Zhao, L., Dawes, W.N., Parks, G., Jarrett, J.P. and Yang, S. 2009.
Robust Airfoil Design with Respect to Boundary Layer
Transition, In: Proceedings of 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
47 May, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA 2009-2273 (11 pp).

A Review of Morphing Aircraft PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Review of Morphing Aircraft PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and

A Review of Morphing Aircraft

>> Version of Record - Aug 30, 2011

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

A Review of Morphing Aircraft

College of Engineering, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

the attraction for designers is the integration between

STRUCTURES, Vol. 22June 2011

1045-389X/11/09 082355 $10.00/0

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

Figure 1. Timeline of fixed wing aircraft implementing morphing technologies.

unless the actuator works in parallel with a structural

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

Shape morphing wing

Rotary-wing aircrafts have challenged aeronautical

Figure 2. Organization of the review.

In morphing applications, where large shape changes

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

changes in aeroelastic shape throughout the flight can be

performance. For a test case based on a BQM-34

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

aircraft poses new design challenges. In traditional

materials and implementation solutions that guarantee

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

planform changes. The equations of atmospheric flight

must be stiff enough to withstand the aerodynamic loads

WING PLANFORM MORPHING

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

planform area and wingspan were the primary enablers

using an overlapping extension spar system. The center

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

Wang et al. (1999)

Arrison et al. (2003)

Span and camber

Span and sweep

Sweep and span

Brender et al. (1997)

Martin and Hall

Table 1. Planform morphing: Span.

Rack and pinion

Performance (L/D, range)

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

Leite et al. (2009)

Bye et al. (2007)

Span and sweep

Sweep and span

Span and sweep

Helicopter Variable RPM Flexible Performance

Numerical Prot. WT FTB

Flexible Performance (CL)

Table 3. Planform morphing: Sweep.

Grant et al. (2006)

Joo et al. (2006)

Mattioni et al. (2006)

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

maintain minimum drag over a range of possible lift

change aspect ratio from 4.7 to 8.5 in 2 s. Additionally,

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com by guest on January 29, 2014

some pre-tension. However, the aerodynamic loads

The most dramatic morphing wing involving span