Aerodynamic force generation and power requirements in forward flight in a fruit fly with modeled wing motion
Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Beijing 100083, People's Republic of China
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: sunmao{at}public.fhnet.cn.net)
Accepted 27 May 2003
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The unsteady force mechanisms revealed previously for hovering (i.e. delayed stall, rapid acceleration at the beginning of the strokes and fast pitching-up rotation at the end of the strokes) apply to forward flight. Even at high advance ratios, e.g. J=0.53-0.66 (J is the advance ratio), the leading edge vortex does not shed (at such advance ratios, the wing travels approximately 6.5 chord lengths during the downstroke).
At low speeds (J0.13), the lift (vertical force) for weight
support is produced during both the down- and upstrokes (the downstroke
producing approximately 80% and the upstroke producing approximately 20% of
the mean lift), and the lift is contributed mainly by the wing lift; the
thrust that overcomes the body drag is produced during the upstroke, and it is
contributed mainly by the wing drag. At medium speeds (J
0.27),
the lift is mainly produced during the downstroke and the thrust mainly during
the upstroke; both of them are contributed almost equally by the wing lift and
wing drag. At high speeds (J
0.53), the lift is mainly produced
during the downstroke and is mainly contributed by the wing drag; the thrust
is produced during both the down- and upstrokes, and in the downstroke, is
contributed by the wing lift and in the upstroke, by the wing drag.
In forward flight, especially at medium and high flight speeds, the work
done during the downstroke is significantly greater than during the upstroke.
At advance ratios J0.13, 0.27 and 0.53, the work done during the
downstroke is approximately 1.6, 2.8 and 4.2 times as much as that during the
upstroke, respectively.
At J=0 (hovering), the body-mass-specific power is approximately 29 W kg-1; at J=0.13 and 0.27, the power is approximately 10% less than that of hovering; at J=0.40, the power is approximately the same as that of hovering; when J is further increased, the power increases sharply. The graph of power against flying speeds is approximately J-shaped.
From the graph of power against flying speeds, it is predicted that the insect usually flies at advance ratios between zero and 0.4, and for fast flight, it would fly at an advance ratio between 0.4 and 0.53.
Key words: fruit fly, forward flight, unsteady aerodynamics, power requirement, computational fluid dynamics
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Dickinson and Götz
(1993) measured the aerodynamic
forces on an aerofoil started impulsively at a high angle of attack in the
Reynolds number (Re) range of a fruit fly wing and showed that lift
was enhanced by the presence of a dynamic stall vortex, or leading-edge vortex
(LEV). But lift enhancement was limited to only 2-3 chord lengths of travel
because of the shedding of the LEV. For most insects, a wing section at a
distance of 0.75R (where R is wing length) from the wing
base travels approximately 5.3 chord lengths during an up- or downstroke in
hovering flight (Ellington,
1984b
); in forward flight, the section would travel an even larger
distance during a downstroke.
Ellington et al. (1996)
performed flow visualization studies on the hawkmoth Manduca sexta
and a mechanical model of the hawkmoth, and discovered that on the flapping
wings of the insect, the LEV did not shed during the translational phase of
either up- or downstroke. Analysis of the momentum imparted to the fluid by
the vortex wake showed that the LEV could explain the high lift on the insect
wings. This high lift mechanism is called the delayed stall, or dynamic stall,
mechanism (Ellington et al.,
1996
; Dickinson et al.,
1999
). This mechanism has been confirmed by computational fluid
dynamic analysis (Liu et al.,
1998
). By measuring the flow field near the wings and the
aerodynamic force on the wings of a mechanical model of the fruit fly
Drosophila melanogaster (the Re of the fruit fly wing is 1-2
orders of magnitude smaller than that of the hawkmoth), Birch and Dickinson
(2001
) found that the LEV did
not shed in the translational phase of either up or downstroke and that large
lift was maintained in the phase, showing that the delayed stall mechanism is
valid for a wide range of Re.
Dickinson et al. (1999) and
Sane and Dickinson (2001
)
conducted force measurement studies using the mechanical model of the fruit
fly and showed that in the case of advanced rotation (wing rotation preceding
the stroke reversal), in addition to the large lift and drag during the
translatory phase of a stroke, large lift and drag peaks also occurred at the
beginning and the end of the stroke (i.e. around the stroke reversal).
Dickinson et al. (1999
)
suggested that the force peaks at the beginning of the stroke could be
explained by the wake capture mechanism [an increase in the effective fluid
velocity due to vortex wake shed by the previous stroke
(Dickinson, 1994
)], those at
the end of the stroke by the rotational circulation mechanism [the lift due to
wing rotation is related to the rotational circulation by the Kutta-Jukowski
equation and the rotational circulation is determined by the Kutta condition
as being proportional to the product of the rotation rate and the distance
between rotation-axis and 0.75 chord position
(Fung, 1969
)]. They provided
evidence for the wake capture by flow visualizations made at the start of a
stroke and by force measurements after halting the wing at the start of a
stroke. Dickinson et al. (1999
)
and later, Sane and Dickinson
(2002
), assumed that the total
force (lift and drag) due to the wing rotation (rotational force) could be
related to the rotational circulation by the Kutta-Jukowski equation, and
using measured rotational force, they determined the rotational circulation as
a function of the rotation rate and the rotation-axis position. The
experimentally determined rotational circulation agreed reasonably well with
that predicted by Fung's theory (Fung,
1969
), providing evidence that force peaks near the end of the
stroke were due to rotational circulation.
Using the method of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), Sun and Tang
(2002a) simulated the unsteady
flow around a model fruit fly wing conducting flapping motions similar to that
in the experiment of Dickinson et al.
(1999
). Different, but
complementary, explanations for the force peaks were provided. By varying the
acceleration at the beginning of a stroke, it was found that the force peaks
there were closely related to the acceleration. From the computed flow field,
it was observed that during the fast acceleration of the wing, strong
vorticity was continuously generated on the lower wing surface and shed at the
trailing edge, while strong vorticity of opposite sign was continuously
generated at the upper wing surface. From vorticity dynamics theory
(Wu, 1981
), this would give
rise to a large time rate of change of vorticity moment and thus large forces.
If the velocity due to the previous strokes was directed towards the wing at
the start of the stroke, wake capture mechanism would also contribute to the
force peaks. But the computed results showed that the velocity was directed
downward. Therefore, the authors suggested that the large force peaks at the
beginning of the stroke could be explained by the rapid generation of strong
vorticity due to the fast translational acceleration of the wing. However, it
should be noted that the computed flow field in front of the wing at the start
of a stroke is different from that visualized experimentally
(Dickinson et al., 1999
; the
later shows the existence of wake capture effect and the former does not), and
that although the computed forces are generally in agreement with the
measured, there are noticeable discrepancies around the stroke reversal [see
the comparisons in Sun and Tang
(2002b
) and in the
`validation' section of the present paper]. Thus there exists the possibility
that the CFD simulations could not capture accurately all features of the
flow. During the fast pitching-up rotation near the end of the stroke, it was
also observed that new vorticity of large strength was produced. The authors
suggested that the large force peaks near the end of the stroke could be
explained by the rapid generation of strong vorticity due to the fast
pitching-up rotation of the wing. Note that the rotational circulation
approach (Dickinson et al.,
1999
; Sane and Dickinson,
2002
) is a special case of the vorticity dynamics theory; under
conditions that the flow is quasi-steady and inviscid, the equations in the
rotational circulation approach can be derived from the vorticity dynamics
theory. Therefore, the above explanation for the wing rotation effects is
complementary to that based on the rotational circulation approach.
As a result of the above works and numerous others (e.g.
Vogel, 1966;
Weis-Fogh, 1973
; Ellington,
1984a
,b
,
1995
;
Ennos, 1989
; Dudley and
Ellington,
1990a
,b
;
Willmott et al., 1997
;
Wang, 2000
), we are now better
able to understand how insects produce large lift.
With the current understanding of the unsteady force production mechanisms,
researchers have attempted to estimate the mechanical power of insect flight
based on unsteady aerodynamic forces. Sane and Dickinson
(2001), using the measured
unsteady drag of a model fruit fly wing, showed that the mechanical power for
a fruit fly was approximately twice as much as the previous estimate based on
quasi-steady theory (Lehmann and
Dickinson, 1997
). Recently, Sun and Tang
(2002b
), through unsteady flow
simulation by the CFD method, studied the lift and power requirements of
hovering flight in the fruit fly. Under conditions where the mean lift
balanced the insect weight, they computed the required mechanical power. With
the computed mechanical power and available metabolic data, a value of 0.17
for the muscle efficiency was obtained, and was approximately twice as much as
that estimated using the quasi-steady theory (0.09;
Lehmann and Dickinson,
1997
).
Though the above works on unsteady mechanisms of force production and power
requirements were primarily concerned with hovering flight, it is believed
that the unsteady mechanisms of force production are also applicable to the
case of forward flight. In fact, flow visualization experiments on the
tethered hawkmoth (Ellington et al.,
1996; Willmott et al.,
1997
) have already shown that the delayed stall mechanism operates
at advance ratios ranging from 0 to 0.9. However, the flow visualization
results for the tethered insect were not so clear-cut because of the
difficulty in obtaining good flow visualization near the wings. It is of
interest to investigate the flow around the flapping wings during forward
flight in more detail. For the power requirements in forward flight, Ellington
et al. (1990
), measured the
oxygen consumption of bumblebees and showed that the metabolic power changed
little from hovering to intermediate flight speeds. Assuming that muscle
efficiency was constant over different flight speeds, it was concluded that
the mechanical power would vary with the flight speed according to a
J-shaped curve (Ellington et al.,
1990
; Ellington,
1991
). It is of great interest to calculate the mechanical power
directly and to see how it varies with the flight speed.
We here investigate these problems using a virtual fruit fly. Systematic kinematic data on free-flying fruit flies are not available at present. Assumptions on the wing motion and its variation with flight speed are made on the basis of existing data from tethered and free-flying fruit flies and some data from other insects. The method of computational fluid dynamics is used in the study. In the method, the pressure and velocity fields around the flapping wing are obtained by solving the Navier-Stokes equations numerically; the lift and thrust and the torques due to the aerodynamic forces are calculated based on the flow pressure and velocities. The inertial torques due to the acceleration and rotation of the wing-mass are calculated analytically. From the aerodynamic and inertial torques, the mechanical power required for the flight is calculated.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Three coordinate systems are used. Two are inertial coordinate systems,
OXYZ and
o'x'y'z'. For
OXYZ, the origin O is at the wing base (see
Fig. 1A); X and
Y form the horizontal plane (X is in the direction of the
free stream velocity), and the Z-direction is vertical. The
coordinate system
o'x'y'z' has the
same origin as the coordinate system OXYZ, its y' axis
coincides with the Y axis, and its
o'x'y' plane coincides with the
stroke plane (see Fig. 1A,B).
The third is the body-fixed coordinate system oxyz. It has the same
origin as the two inertial coordinate systems, but it rotates with the wing.
The x axis is parallel to the wing chord and the y axis is
on the pitching-rotation axis of the wing (see
Fig. 1C). The free-stream
velocity, which has the same magnitude as the flight velocity, is denoted by
V, and the stroke plane angle denoted by ß
(see Fig. 1A).
|
The flow computation method
The flow equations and computational method used in the present study are
the same as those in Sun and Tang
(2002a,b
).
Only an outline of the method is given here. The Navier-Stokes equations are
solved using the algorithm developed by Rogers and Kwak
(1990
) and Rogers et al.
(1991
), which is based on the
method of artificial compressiblity. The algorithm uses a third-order
flux-difference splitting technique for the convective terms and the
second-order central difference for the viscous terms. The time derivatives in
the momentum equation are differenced using a second-order, three-point,
backward-difference formula. The algorithm is implicit and has second-order
spatial and time accuracy.
Evaluation of the aerodynamic forces, aerodynamic and inertial
torques and mechanical power
Once the Navier-Stokes equations are numerically solved, the fluid velocity
components and pressure at discretized grid points for each time step are
available. The aerodynamic forces and torques acting on the wing are
calculated from the pressure and the viscous stress on the wing surface. The
inertial torques due to the acceleration of the wing-mass are calculated
analytically.
The wing lift l is the component of the total aerodynamic force
perpendicular to the translational velocity of the wing (defined below), i.e.
perpendicular to the stroke plane, and is positive when it is in the positive
z' direction (see Fig.
1B). The wing drag d is the component of the total
aerodynamic force parallel to the translational velocity and is positive when
directed opposite to the direction of the translational velocity of the
downstroke (see Fig. 1C). (The
wing drag is the force that the insect must overcome for the translational
motion of its wing and is relevant to the power requirement of flight.) The
x' component of d is denoted as d', and
d'=dcos, where
is the positional angle of
the wing (see Fig. 1C).
Resolving the wing lift l and the force d' into the
Z and X axes, we obtain the lift L (vertical force)
and the thrust T, respectively (see
Fig. 1B,C): L=lcosß+d'sinß and
T=lsinß-d'cosß. The coefficients of
the above force components are defined as follows:
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
![]() | (5) |
Kinematics of the flapping wings
As noted by Dickinson et al.
(1999), a down- or upstroke of
an insect is typically divided into three portions: pitching-down rotation and
translational acceleration at the beginning of the stroke, translation at
constant speed and constant angle of attack during the middle of the stroke,
and pitching-up rotation and translational deceleration at the end of the
stroke. This simplified flapping pattern is employed here. It is assumed that
the geometric angle of attack and the duration of the upstroke are the same as
that of the downstroke, respectively [Vogel's observation
(Vogel, 1967
) shows that this
is approximately true for tethered Drosophila virilis in forward
flight]. The flapping motion is modeled as follows. The azimuthal rotation of
the wing about the z' axis, which is normal to the stroke plane
(see Fig. 1A), is called
translation, and the pitching rotation of the wing near the end of a stroke
and at the beginning of the following stroke is called rotation or flip. The
translational velocity is denoted by ut, which takes a
constant value of Um except at the beginning and near the
end of a stroke. During the acceleration at the beginning of a stroke,
ut is given by:
![]() | (6) |
![]() | (7) |
![]() | (8) |
In the flapping motion described above, the reference velocity U,
the velocity at midstroke Um, the geometric angle of
attack at midstroke m, the deceleration/acceleration
duration
t, the wing rotation duration
r, the flip timing
r, the period of
flapping cycle
c and the stroke plane angle ß must be
specified.
Ennos (1989) made
observations of free forward flight of two fruit flies Drosophila
melanogaster, one at advance ratio 0.16 and the other at advance ratio
0.33. Ellington (1984a
) made
observations of free hovering flight of craneflies, hoverflies and droneflies
(and many other insects). Their data show that the deceleration/acceleration
duration
t and the duration of wing rotation
r are approximately 0.2
c, and that wing
rotation is symmetrical. It is assumed here that
t=0.18
c and
r=0.24
c (these values were used in
previous work on fruit fly lift and power requirements in hovering flight;
Sun and Tang, 2002b
) and that
the wing rotation is symmetrical (as a result,
r may be
determined).
To determine the reference velocity U and some other parameters,
data in the previous study on free hovering in Drosophila virilis
(Sun and Tang, 2002b) are used
again here. These data were taken from Weis-Fogh
(1972
,
1973
) and they are as follows:
insect weight is 1.96x10-5 N, wing length R is 0.3
cm, area of both wings St is 0.058 cm2, stroke
amplitude
is 150°, and stroke frequency n is 240
s-1. The reference velocity is determined as
U(=2
nr2)=218.7 cm s-1 (for all
cases considered in the present study, the reference velocity, reference
length and reference time are fixed as U=218.7 cm s-1,
c=0.108 cm and c/U=0.495x10-3
s).
To determine U+m and c
(U/nc), data on how the stroke amplitude and stroke
frequency vary with flight speed are needed. They are not available for fruit
flies in free flight. Studies on the free flight of bumblebees
(Dudley and Ellington, 1990a
)
and the hawkmoth (Willmott and Ellington,
1997a
) showed that for both insects, the stroke frequency was
constant. For bumblebees, the stroke amplitude did not vary significantly, but
for the hawkmoth, the stroke amplitude varied with flight speed. Studies on
tethered Drosophila virilis
(Vogel, 1967
) showed that the
stroke frequency was constant and the stroke amplitude varied with flight
speed. But in tethered D. melanogaster, Lehmann and Dickinson
(1997
) showed that both
frequency and stroke amplitude changed with flight force. In the present
study, we examine three different cases. (1) It is assumed that the stroke
amplitude and stroke frequency do not vary with flight speed (
=150°
and n=240 s-1). (2) The stroke amplitude is allowed to
vary with flight speed and is determined by force balance condition (frequency
kept constant, n=240 s-1). (3) The frequency is allowed to
vary with flight speed and is determined by force balance condition (stroke
amplitude kept constant,
=150°).
m and ß remain to be determined. They are determined
by the force balance condition, i.e. mean lift is equal to insect weight and
mean thrust is equal to the insect body drag. The weight of the insect is
given above. The body drag in Drosophila virilis, as a function of
body angle, was measured by Vogel
(1966
) for five flight speeds,
ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 m s-1. In the present study, we examine
forward flight at these flight speeds and used Vogel's body-drag data
[fig. 5 in
Vogel, 1966
). It is assumed
the angle between the stroke plane and the longitudinal body axis is constant
[data in Drosophila virilis in tethered flight
(Vogel, 1967
) and in other
flies (Ellington, 1984a
) show
that this is approximately true]. On the basis of Vogel's data in
Drosophila virilis in tethered flight, the body angle
is
related to stroke plane angle ß as follows
(Vogel, 1966
):
![]() | (9) |
|
![]() |
Results and Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In earlier studies (Sun and Tang,
2002b), the code was tested by measured unsteady aerodynamic
forces on a model fruit fly wing in flapping motion
(Dickinson et al., 1999
; the
wing geometry was obtained from Prof. M. H. Dickinson). Three cases of wing
rotation timing were considered (the stroke amplitude was 160° and the
midstroke geometric angle of attack was 40°), but only the lift forces
were compared. In a recent paper by Sane and Dickinson
(2001
), both lift and drag on
the same model wing are given for a wide range of wing kinematic parameters.
Here, we make further comparisons between calculations and experiments, using
the data of Sane and Dickinson
(2001
). The computed and
measured lift and drag coefficients are shown in
Fig. 2 [for results in
Fig. 2A,B, the stroke amplitude
is 60° and the midstroke geometric angle of attack is 50°; for results
in Fig. 2C,D, these parameters
have values of 180° and 50°, respectively; experimental data are taken
from fig. 3C,D of Sane and
Dickinson (2001
)].
|
|
The calculated drag coefficient agrees well with the measured (see
Fig. 2A,C). For the lift
coefficient (see Fig. 2B,D), in
the translational phase of the downstroke, the computed value agrees well with
the measured; around the stroke reversal, the computed peak values are smaller
than the measured; in the translational phase of the upstroke, the computed
value is a little less than the measured, but they are in qualitative
agreement (note that the value of the measured lift coefficient in the
upstroke is higher than that in the downstroke). The above is also true in the
lift coefficient comparisons in Sun and Tang
(2002b) [see
fig. 4 of Sun and Tang
(2002b
); there the downstroke
was plotted as the second half of the flapping cycle].
|
The above comparisons show that although the CFD simulations might not capture accurately all the flow features around the stroke reversal, the agreement of the aerodynamic force coefficients between the computational and experimental simulations is reasonably good. We think that the present CFD method can calculate the unsteady aerodynamic forces and torques of the model insect wing with reasonable accuracy.
In the above calculations, the computational grid has dimensions
93x109x71 in the normal direction, around the wing section and in
the spanwise direction, respectively. The normal grid spacing at the wall was
0.002. The outer boundary was set at 10 chord lengths from the wing. The time
step was 0.02. Detailed studies of the numerical variables such as grid size,
domain size, time step, etc., were conducted in our previous work on the
unsteady lift mechanism of a flapping fruit fly wing (Sun and Tang,
2002a,b
),
where it was shown that the above values for the numerical variables were
appropriate for the flow calculation. Therefore, in the following calculation,
the same set of numerical variables is used.
Force balance in forward flight
Since we wished to study the aerodynamic force and power requirements for
balanced flight, we first investigated the force balance. In the study of
hovering flight by Sun and Tang
(2002b), there was no body
drag. The stroke plane was assumed to be horizontal (ß=0) and the mean
thrust was zero, therefore the horizontal force was balanced. The midstroke
angle of attack
m was adjusted such that the weight of the
insect was balanced by the mean lift.
In forward flight, the body drag is not zero and the stroke plane is tilted
forward to produce thrust. At a given flight speed or advance ratio, for
different values of m and ß, the mean lift and mean
thrust are different (the stroke amplitude
and stroke frequency
n were assumed to be constant).
m and ß at a
given flight speed are determined using the force balance condition (mean lift
equals the weight and mean thrust equals the body drag).
The calculation procedure is as follows. A flight speed is specified. A set
of values for m and ß is guessed; the flow equations
are solved and the corresponding mean lift and thrust coefficients
L and
T are calculated. The body
drag for the given flight speed and body angle (body angle is related to
ß by Equation 9) is obtained from Vogel
(1966
). The
L was compared with
L,W and the mean thrust
(=0.5
U2St
T)
is compared with the body drag. If
L is not equal to
L,W or the mean thrust is
not equal to the body drag, then
m and ß are adjusted
[the gradients of
L (and
T) with respect to
m and ß are used as markers for adjusting
m and ß]; and the calculations are repeated until the
magnitudes of difference between
L and
L,W and between
T and body drag (divided
by 0.5
U2St) are less than
0.01.
The calculated results for four forward flight speeds are shown in
Table 1 (the results for
hovering flight are also included). It is seen that
L is close to 1.15, as it
should be.
T increases
almost linearly with flight speed, as does the body drag. (For a fixed body
angle, the drag would increase more rapidly than linearly with flight speed;
but here the body angle decreased with flight speed.)
m is
close to that that of hovering flight at small and medium speeds
(J=0.13, 0.27; V
=0.5, 1.0 m
s-1) but increases to large values at higher speeds. ß
increases almost linearly with flight speed. From the ratio between
T and
L, the orientation of the
total force vector can be calculated. At hovering, ß=0, and the total
force vector is vertical; at medium speed (J=0.27;
V
=1.0 m s-1), ß=29°, and the
total force vector tilts forward by 4.4°; at high speed (J=0.53;
V
=2.0 m s-1), ß=60°, and the
total force vector tilts forward by 10°.
|
It should be noted that calculated results are not given for
J=0.66 or V=2.5 m s-1 (at which
flight speed body drag is available). At this flight speed, no matter how
m and ß are adjusted, enough lift cannot be obtained.
(As will be seen below, at this flight speed, if the stroke amplitude is
increased, enough lift can be obtained, but the power required would be very
large.)
The generation of the lift and thrust
Here, we investigate how the lift and the thrust on the insect are
generated.
The lift (vertical force) and thrust
Fig. 3B,C gives the lift
(CL) and thrust (CT) coefficients
versus non-dimensional time in a flapping cycle for five advance
ratios, J=0, 0.13, 0.27, 0.40 and 0.53
(V=0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m s-1). (The
mean values of the force coefficients have been given in
Table 1.)
As seen in Fig. 3B,C, at low flight speed (J=0.13), CL in the upstroke is smaller than that in the downstroke; both down- and upstroke contribute to the mean lift, but approximately 75% of it is from the downstroke. Negative thrust is produced in the downstroke and positive thrust in the upstroke, but the amount of the positive thrust in the upstroke is larger than that of negative thrust in the downstroke, resulting in a positive mean thrust. Therefore, the mean thrust is contributed by the upstroke (the downstroke has negative contribution).
At medium flight speed (J=0.27), CL is large in the downstroke but very small in the upstroke, so the mean lift is mainly contributed by the downstroke. Similar to the case of low speed, the mean thrust is contributed by the upstroke (the downstroke has negative contribution).
At high flight speed (J=0.53), CL in the downstroke is even larger, and CL in the upstroke is negative but is of small magnitude. Therefore, the mean lift is contributed by the downstroke (the upstroke has negative contribution). Positive thrust is produced in the downstroke (because in this case, the stroke plane angle is large, ß=60°), and relatively large positive thrust is produced in the upstroke; approximately 74% of the mean thrust is from the upstroke.
The lift and thrust coefficients (CL and CT, respectively) shown above are the results of the wing lift and wing drag coefficients (Cl and Cd, respectively). In fact, only the x' component of Cd (Cd'; see Fig. 1B,C) contributes to CL and CT (Cd is relevant to the aerodynamic power of the wing). The corresponding Cl, Cd and Cd' values are shown in Fig. 3D-F.
At low speed (J=0.13), as shown above, 75% and 25% of the mean lift are contributed by the downstroke and the upstroke, respectively. In most of the downstroke, the magnitudes of Cl and Cd are approximately the same. Since ß is not very large (ß=16.5°), the major part of CL is from Cl, and approximately 20% of CL is from Cd'. In the upstroke, Cd' has negative contribution to CL. Also as shown above, the mean thrust is contributed by the upstroke; in the upstroke, it is Cd' that gives the major portion of the thrust, and Cl contributes approximately 20% of CT. Therefore, it can be stated that the mean lift is contributed by the wing lift of both the down- and upstrokes (the contribution of downstroke is approximately three times as large as that of upstroke), and that the mean thrust is contributed mainly by the x' component of the wing drag of the upstroke.
At medium flight speed (J=0.27), as shown above, the mean lift is contributed mainly by the downstroke and the mean thrust is contributed by the upstroke. In the downstroke, Cl and Cd' have same sign and are approximately of the same magnitude (around 1.8), and in the upstroke, Cl is mostly positive and Cd' is negative, and they are also approximately of the same magnitude. Noting that ß is about 30°, it can be stated that the mean lift is contributed almost equally by the wing lift and the x' component of the wing drag of the downstroke, and that the mean thrust is contributed almost equally by the wing lift and the x' component of the wing drag of the upstroke.
At high flight speed (J=0.53; m=56°,
ß=60°), based on similar analysis, it can be stated that the mean
lift is contributed mainly by the the x' component of the wing
drag of the downstroke (note the similarity between
Cd' in
Fig. 3F and
CL in Fig.
3B during the downstroke), and that a relatively large part of the
mean thrust is contributed by the x' component of the wing drag
of the upstroke and a relatively small part of the mean thrust is contributed
by the wing lift of the downstroke.
The mechanism of the generation of the wing lift and drag
The mechanisms of unsteady force production by the model fruit fly wing in
the case of hovering flight were studied by Dickinson et al.
(1999) and Sun and Tang
(2002a
). It was shown that
(for symmetrical rotation) the peak in Cd and the dip in
Cl at the beginning of a down- or upstroke (see
Cl and Cd for J=0 in
Fig. 3D,E) were due to the
combined effects of acceleration and rotation of the wing; the large
Cl and Cd (around 1.2) during the
translational phase of the down- or upstroke were due to the delayed stall
mechanism, and the peaks in Cl and Cd
near the end of the down- or upstroke were due to the pitching-up rotation of
the wing.
In the case of forward flight, as shown in
Fig. 3D,E, the
Cl and Cd peaks near the end of the
strokes and the Cd peak and Cl dip at
the beginning of the strokes still exist and are similar to those in the case
of hovering flight. This is because at the beginning or the end of a stroke,
the positional angle of the wing is either near min or
max (see Fig.
1C) where the component of the free-stream velocity that is normal
to the wing span is small, and as a result the free-stream velocity has very
limited effect on the force production of the wing there. The difference in
size of the peaks for various advance ratios were mainly caused by the
difference in rotation rate of the wing. Therefore, the force production
mechanisms at the beginning and near end of the strokes in forward flight are
the same as that in hovering flight.
We now consider Cl and Cd in the translatory phase of the down- or upstroke (the middle 64% of the down- or upstroke). In order to assist the analysis of the force coefficients, the contours of the non-dimensional spanwise component of vorticity at mid-span location are given in Figs 4, 5, 6 for J=0, 0.27 and 0.53, respectively, and the corresponding sectional streamline plots (seen in the body-fixed frame oxyz) are given in Figs 7, 8, 9.
|
|
|
|
For the case of medium flight speed (J=0.27; ß=29°;
m=34°), during the translatory phase of the downstroke
(
=0.09
0.41
c), similar to the case of hovering, both
Cl and Cd maintain large and almost
constant values (see Fig.
3D,E). From Fig.
5B-D (and Fig.
8A-C), it is seen that during this period, the LEV does not shed.
Therefore, maintaining the large Cl and
Cd during this period is due to the delayed stall
mechanism. Cl is approximately 2.1 and
Cd approximately 1.8. Both are larger than in hovering
flight (approximately 1.4 and 1.2, respectively). This is because during the
downstroke of forward flight, due to the free-stream velocity, the wing sees a
relative velocity that has a larger magnitude and a slightly smaller effective
angle of attack (the z' component of
V
acting to decrease the effective angle of
attack). During the translatory phase of the upstroke
(
=0.59
0.91
c), both Cl and
Cd are much smaller than that of hovering flight. This is
because during the upstroke, the wing sees a relative velocity that has a
smaller magnitude and a smaller effective angle of attack (in the upstroke,
since the magnitude of the relative velocity is small, the same
z' component of V
causes a greater
decrease in effective angle of attack than in the downstroke). Comparing the
streamline plots for J=0.27 in
Fig. 8D-F and that for
J=0 in Fig. 7D-F, it
is seen that the streamlines in front of the wing for J=0.27 have a
much smaller angle of attack than that for J=0. From
Fig. 5D-F, it is interesting to
see that during the upstroke of forward flight, due to the smaller effective
angle of attack, the vorticity on the upper surface of the wing is only a
little different from that on the lower surface.
For the case of high flight speed (J=0.53; ß=60°;
m=56°), during the translatory phase of the downstroke
(
=0.09
0.41
c), even larger Cl and
Cd are maintained. As seen in
Fig. 6B-D (and
Fig. 9A-C), the LEV does not
shed, and again, maintaining the large Cl and
Cd is due to the delayed stall mechanism. Because
m is large in this case (56°), Cd is
larger than Cl. During the translatory phase of the
upstroke, both Cl and Cd are small,
for the same reason as given above for the case of J=0.27. (In
Fig. 9D-F, it is seen that
during this period, the streamlines in front of the wing are almost aligned
with the wing chord, i.e. the effective angle of attack is very small.)
It should be noted that the effective angle of attack varies during a
downstroke or upstroke. For example, in
Fig. 7 (J=0), during
the downstroke (Fig. 7A-C), the
effective angle of attack is small at the early part of the stroke
(Fig. 7A), and becomes larger
in the later part of the stroke (Fig.
7B,C); the same is true during the upstroke
(Fig. 7D-F). (Similar variation
of effective angle of attack during a down- or upstroke can be seen in Figs
8,
9). This is because, as
explained in Birch and Dickinson
(2001) and Sun and Tang
(2002a
), during the stroke
reversal the wing rotation induced a downwash, which decreased the effective
angle of attack of the wing in the early part of the following stroke.
The above discussion helps to explain the negative Cl
at the early part of the upstroke in the cases of higher advance ratios
(Fig. 3D,J=0.27-0.53). At higher advance ratios, ß is relatively large, and so is the `downwash'
velocity due to V. This `downwash' velocity
together with the induced downwash velocity by wing rotation makes the
effective angle of attack to be around zero (see Figs
8D,
9D,E), resulting in the
negative Cl.
Finally, we consider the wing drag Cd (see
Fig. 3E). At low and medium
flight speeds (J=0.13, 0.27), in the downstroke, the magnitude of
Cd is larger than that of hovering (J=0), yet in
the upstroke it is slightly smaller than that of hovering, indicating that the
average of the magnitude of Cd over a flapping cycle is a
little smaller than that of hovering. But at high flight speed
(J=0.53), in the downstroke, the magnitude of Cd
is much larger than that of hovering, and in the upstroke, it is only a little
smaller than that of hovering, indicating that the average of the magnitude of
Cd over a cycle is much larger than that of hovering.
Since the aerodynamic power is mainly determined by Cd
(the inertial power for Drosophila is relatively small;
Sun and Tang, 2002b), it is
foreseen that the mechanical power at low and medium flight speeds is a little
smaller that of hovering and increases rapidly at higher flight speeds.
Power required
As shown above, at a given flight speed, when m and
ß were properly chosen, the insect produced enough lift and thrust to
support its weight and to overcome the body drag, respectively. We calculated
the power required for production of the above lift and thrust, and
investigated its properties and how it varied with the flight speed.
As expressed in equation 20 of Sun and Tang
(2002b), the aerodynamic power
consists of two parts, one due to the aerodynamic torque for translation and
the other to the aerodynamic torque for rotation. The coefficients of these
two torques, CQ,a,t and CQ,a,r, are
shown in Fig. 10A,B (for
clarity, only the results for J=0, 0.27 and 0.53 are shown).
CQ,a,t is much larger than CQ,a,r. The
CQ,a,t curve is similar in shape to the
Cd curve shown in Fig.
3E, for obvious reasons.
|
The inertial power also consists of two parts (see equation 35 of
Sun and Tang, 2002b). The
coefficients of the inertial torques for translation
(CQ,i,t) and for rotation (CQ,i,r) are
shown in Fig. 10C,D.
CQ,i,t does not vary with flight speed since the
translational motion of the wing is the same for all flight speeds.
CQ,i,r at J=0.53 is smaller than that at
J=0 and 0.13, because at J=0.53,
m is
larger and the angle rotated at stroke reversal is smaller, thus
is smaller.
With the above results for the aerodynamic and inertial torque
coefficients, the power coefficients can be computed using equations 41-43 of
Sun and Tang (2002b). The
coefficients of power for translation (CP,t) and for
rotation (CP,r) are plotted against the non-dimensional
time in Fig. 11. Throughout a
flapping cycle, the magnitude of CP,t is much larger than
that of CP,r. CP,t varies with flight
speed in the same way as the wing drag coefficient Cd
does. That is, at low to medium flight speeds (J=0.13-0.27), the
average of CP,t over a flapping cycle is a little smaller
than that of hovering, but at high flight speed (J=0.53), the average
of CP,t is much larger than that of hovering. This
indicates that the power requirement at low to medium speeds is a little
smaller than that of hovering, and becomes much larger at higher speeds.
|
From Fig. 11 it is also seen that at hovering (J=0), CP,t is the same during the down- and upstrokes, but at forward flight, especially at medium and high speeds (J=0.27-0.53), CP,t during the downstroke is much larger than CP,t during the upstroke. At J=0.13, 0.27 and 0.53, average values of CP,t over the downstroke are approximately 1.6, 2.6 and 3.5 times as much as that over the upstroke, respectively. This indicates that in forward flight, the flight muscle of the insect must do significantly more work during the downstroke than during the upstroke.
Integrating CP,t over the part of a wingbeat cycle where it is positive gives the coefficient of positive work for translation, which is represented by C+W,t. Integrating CP,t over the part of the cycle where it is negative gives the coefficient of `negative' work for `braking' the wing in this part of the cycle, which is represented by C-W,t. Similar integration of CP,r gives the coefficients of positive and negative work for rotation; and they are denoted by C+W,r and C-W,r, respectively. The results of the integration are shown in Table 1.
The mass specific power, repressed by P*, is defined as the mean
mechanical power over a flapping cycle divided by the mass of the insect
m, and it can be written as follows:
![]() | (10) |
When calculating Cw, one needs to consider how the
negative work fits into the power budget
(Ellington, 1984c). There are
three possibilities (Ellington,
1984c
; Weis-Fogh,
1972
,
1973
). One is that the
negative power is simply dissipated as heat and sound by some form of an end
stop, then it can be ignored in the power budget. The second is that in the
period of negative work, the excess energy can be stored by an elastic
element, and this energy can then be released when the wing does positive
work. The third is that the flight muscles do negative work (i.e. they are
stretched while developing tension, instead of contracting as in `positive'
work) but the negative work uses much less metabolic energy than an equivalent
amount of positive work. In the previous work on hovering flight
(Sun and Tang, 2002b
), out of
these three possibilities, Cw was calculated based on the
assumption that the muscles act as an end stop, i.e.:
![]() | (11) |
The calculated results of Cw are also given in Table 1. With Cw known, the specific power P* was computed using Equation 10, and is plotted against flight speed in Fig. 12 (see the circles in the figure). At J=0.13 and 0.27, P* is only approximately 10% smaller than that of hovering; at J=0.40, P* is about the same as that of hovering; but at J=0.53, P* is approximately 41% larger than that of hovering. As foreseen above (on the basis of the variation of Cd with flight speed), the power requirement at low to intermediate speeds is a little smaller than that of hovering, and it increases rapidly at higher flight speeds.
|
The case of stroke amplitude and stroke plane angle varying with
flight speed
In the above calculations, the midstroke angle of attack of the wing
m and the stroke plane angle ß were allowed to vary
with flight speed but the stroke amplitude
and stroke frequency
n were assumed constant. In this section, we considered the case in
which the stroke amplitude
and stroke plane angle ß were allowed to
vary with flight speed but
m and n were assumed
constant. Vogel (1967
)
observed that the geometrical angle of attack of Drosophila virilis
in tethered flight did not vary with flight speed, and that it was between
40° and 50° (see fig. 4
of Vogel, 1967
); here we took
m as 46.5°. (Other parameters were the same as in the
above case.)
For a given flight speed, and ß were chosen such that the lift
and thrust balanced the insect weight and the body drag, respectively. The
calculation procedure was similar to that in the case of
m
and ß varying with flight speed (see above).
The calculated L,
T,
and ß as
functions of flight speed or advance ratio are shown in
Table 2. It is seen, as when
m and ß vary with flight speed, ß increases almost
linearly with flight speed, and in both cases ß is almost the same
(compare the ß values in Table
2 and Table 1).
is close to that of hovering flight at low flight speeds
(J=0.13, 0.27) but increases to large values at higher speeds;
varies with flight speed in the same way as
m did in the
case of
m and ß varying with flight speed. (As seen
Table 2, we again only have
results up to J=0.53. At a higher flight speed, J=0.66, no
matter how
and ß were adjusted, enough lift could not be
obtained.)
|
The lift (vertical force) and thrust coefficients (CL
and CT) versus non-dimensional time for various
advance ratios are shown in Fig.
13B,C. They are similar to their counterparts in the case of
m and ß varying with flight speed (see
Fig. 3B,C). At low flight speed
(J=0.13), both the down- and upstrokes contribute to the mean lift
but approximately 80% of the mean lift is from the downstroke; the mean thrust
is contributed by the upstroke (the downstroke has negative contribution). At
medium flight speed (J=0.27), the mean lift is contributed by the
downstroke, and the mean thrust is contributed by the upstroke (the downstroke
has negative contribution). At high flight speed (J=0.53), the mean
lift is contributed by the downstroke (the upstroke has a small negative
contribution), and the mean thrust is contributed almost equally by the down-
and upstrokes (in the case of
m and ß varying with
flight speed, at high flight speed, the upstroke has relatively large
contribution to the mean thrust).
|
The wing lift and drag coefficients (Cl,
Cw and Cd')
versus non-dimensional time for various advance ratios are shown in
Fig. 13D-F, and are also
similar to their counterparts in the case of m and ß
varying with flight speed (see Fig.
3D-F). Using the flow field information (vorticity contours and
streamline patterns around the wing), it was shown that the mechanisms
operating in the generation of Cl and
Cd in the present case were the same as that in the case
of
m and ß varying with flight speed.
The coefficients of power for translation and for rotation versus
non-dimensional time are shown Fig.
14; again they are very similar to their counterparts in the case
of m and ß varying with flight speed (see
Fig. 11). At low speed
(J=0.13), medium speed (J=0.27) and high speed
(J=0.53), the average values of CP,t over the
downstroke are approximately 1.6, 2.8 and 4.2 times as large as that over the
upstroke, respectively.
|
The coefficients of work per cycle (Cw), calculated in
the same way as in last section, are shown in
Table 2. With
Cw, the specific power P* was computed and the
results shown Fig. 12
(triangles). It is seen that P* in the present case is approximately
the same as that in the case of m and ß varying with
flight speed.
The case of stroke frequency and stroke plane angle varying with
flight speed
In this section, we consider the case in which the stroke frequency
n and stroke plane angle ß were allowed to vary with flight
speed (m and
were assumed constant;
m=46.5°,
=150°; other parameters were the same
as in the above two cases).
For a given flight speed, n and ß were chosen such that lift
and thrust balance the insect weight and body drag, respectively. The
calculation procedure was similar to that in the case of and ß
varying with flight speed).
The calculated L,
T, n, ß and
Cw as functions of advance ratio are shown in
Table 3. (Similar to the above
two cases, we have results up to J=0.53. At J=0.66, no
matter how n and ß were adjusted, enough lift could not be
obtained.) Comparing the results in Table
3 (n varying with flight speed) and in
Table 2 (
varying with
flight speed) shows that n varies with flight speed in the same way
as
does in their respective cases. Note that at each of the advance
ratios (or flight speeds) considered, n
is approximately the
same for the two cases. This shows that (in the range of
and n
considered in the present study), the insect can change its
or
n by approximately the same percentage to produce a similar change of
aerodynamic force. The reason for this is obvious: the aerodynamic force is
approximately proportional to the square of the translational velocity of the
wing, which is proportional to n
.
|
The specific power P* is given in Fig. 12 (see the squares in the figure). P* is almost the same as that in the other two cases.
An additional case
In the above analyses, we considered three cases where m,
ß,
and n varied with flight speed. In the first case,
m and ß varied with flight speed and
and
n were constant (
=150°, n=240 s-1); in
the second case,
and ß varied with flight speed and
m and n were constant
(
m=46.5°, n=240 s-1); in the third
case, n and ß varied with flight speed and
m
and
were constant (
m=46.5°,
=150°). In all
the three cases, when the advance ratio was increased to J=0.66
(V
=2.5 m s-1), enough lift to balance
the weight could not be obtained. For reference, we conducted an additional
calculation at J=0.66, in which
,
m and ß
could be adjusted (n fixed as 240 s-1).
It was shown that when =160°,
m=71° and
ß=70°, the lift and thrust balanced the weight and the body drag,
respectively. The thrust coefficient CT was 0.27; the body
angle
was -2°. The specific power P* was included in
Fig. 12 (see the dot in the
figure); it is about three times as large as that of hovering, and it is
believed that the insect does not fly at such a speed for flights of long
duration.
Comparisons between the present results and previous data
LEV and delayed stall mechanism in forward flight
Flow visualization on tethered hawkmoth
(Ellington et al., 1996;
Willmott et al., 1997
) showed
that even at high speeds, when the wing traveled a large distance during
downstroke (more than 6 chord lengths), the LEV did not shed in the
translatory phase of the stroke. In the present work, we show that this also
true for the model fruit fly wing. At high speeds (J=0.53, 0.66), a
wing section at half-wing length travels approximately 6.5 chord lengths
during downstroke and the LEV did not shed. Here, chord lengths travelled
during downstroke,
d, is approximately estimated by the
following formula:
![]() | (12) |
The present results complement the flow visualization on the hawkmoth in
two ways. One is that the wings of the hawkmoth and that of the fruit fly
operated at Reynolds numbers of about 4000 and 100, respectively, and the
Reynolds number of most insects are between these two values; this indicates
that the delayed stall mechanism applies to most insects in both hovering and
forward flight. The other is that the flow visualization pictures for the
tethered hawkmoth were not so clearcut because of the difficulty in obtaining
good flow visualization near the wings of the insect, but the present
CFD-visualized LEV was clear. [Liu et al.
(1998) presented
CFD-visualized LEV on a model wing of the hawkmoth, but only for the case of
hovering flight.]
The aerodynamic and energetic roles of the down- and upstrokes
Dudley and Ellington
(1990a,b
)
systematically studied the kinematics, lift and power requirements of forward
flight in bumblebees. On the basis of wing kinematics and quasi-steady
aerodynamic theory, they demonstrated that the downstoke progressively became
more important in production of the lift (vertical force) as flight speed
increased. They considered that quantitative treatment of the relative
contributions to the thrust generation of the downstroke and upstroke was not
possible at the time, because the condition of horizontal force balance could
not be satisfied in the analysis. In a subsequent paper by Ellington
(1995
), on the basis of a
further analysis of the data from Dudley and Ellington
(1990a
), it was demonstrated
that, as the advance ratios increased, the downstroke would increasingly
dominate weight support, and that the upstroke contributed thrust at all
speeds but its contribution decreased with increasing forward speed, a trend
that was offset by an increasing thrust component from the downstroke
force.
The present results on the aerodynamic roles of the down- and upstrokes of
the Drosophila virilis in forward flight are in agreement with those
of bumblebees by Dudley and Ellington
(1990a,b
)
and Ellington (1995
), although
the results for bumblebees were based on steady-state aerodynamic
analysis.
In previous studies on power requirements of forward flight of insects, to
the author's knowledge, the relative contributions to the mechanical power of
the downstroke and the upstroke were not mentioned (only the mean power over a
flapping cycle was presented). The present study (see Figs
11,
14) showed that although in
hovering with a horizontal stroke plane the work done in the downstroke was
the same as that in the upstroke, in forward flight, even at low flight speed,
the work done in the downstroke was considerably more than that done in the
upstroke. In the case of ß and varying with flight speed, at
advance ratios J=0.13, 0.27 and 0.53, the work done in the downstroke
was approximately 1.6, 2.8 and 4.2 times as much as that in the upstroke.
Graph of mechanical power against flight speed approximately
J-shaped
The measured oxygen consumption of bumblebees and a hummingbird in forward
flight showed little dependence of metabolic power on speed from hovering to
intermediate speeds, and for the hummingbird, a sharp increase at higher
speeds (measurement for bumblebees at higher speeds are not available; for a
review, see Ellington, 1991).
If the muscle efficiency of the animals is assumed constant over various
speeds, the mechanical power would vary with speed according to a
J-shaped curve (Ellington et al.,
1990
; Ellington,
1991
).
From results of the present study, this is approximately true for fruit fly Drosophila virilis. As illustrated in Fig. 12, at hovering, the body mass-specific power P* is approximately 29 W kg-1; at J=0.13 and 0.27, P* is only approximately 10% less than that of hovering; at J=0.4, P* is almost the same as that of hovering; but when J is furthered increased, P* has a sharp increase (at J=0.53, P* is approximately 40% larger than that of hovering, and at J=0.66, P* is approximately 150% larger than that of hovering). That is, the graph of the specific power against flight speed is approximately J-shaped.
Speed for fast flight
From Fig. 13, it is seen
that at J=0.4, the power is a little larger than that at lower speeds
and is almost the same as that of hovering, and afterwards the power increases
sharply. This indicates that the insect would usually fly at advance ratios
between 0 and 0.4, and that for fast flight, it would fly at an advance ratio
around 0.4. (Flying at higher advance ratios would be very energy-demanding.)
No data are available for Drosophila virilis in free forward flight;
there exist some data for Drosophila melanogaster, however. Ennos
(1989) observed D.
melanogaster flying at J=0.33. Marden et al.
(1997
) showed that the upper
limit of D. melanogaster flight speed was around 0.85 m
s-1. The corresponding advance ratio is around 0.32, estimated
using the measured (Ennos,
1989
) stroke angle (150°) and stroke frequency (254
s-1) of free flying D. melanogaster (wing length
R=2 mm). David (1978
)
recorded a maximum advance ratio of about 0.4 for D. melanogaster in
experimental setting. The present computed results are consistent with these
observations.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Birch, J. M. and Dickinson, M. H. (2001). Spanwise flow and the attachment of the leading-edge vortex on insect wings. Nature 412,729 -733.[CrossRef][Medline]
David, C. T. (1978). The relationship between body angle and flight speed in free-flying Drosophila. Phys. Ent. 3,191 -195.
Dickinson, M. H. (1994). The effects of wing
rotation on unsteady aerodynamic performance at low Reynolds numbers.
J. Exp. Biol. 192,179
-206.
Dickinson, M. H. and Götz, K. G. (1993).
Unsteady aerodynamic performance of model wings at low Reynolds numbers.
J. Exp. Biol. 174,45
-64.
Dickinson, M. H., Lehman, F. O. and Sane, S. P.
(1999). Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight.
Science 284,1954
-1960.
Dudley, R. and Ellington, C. P. (1990a). Mechanics of forward flight in bumblebees. I. Kinematics and morphology. J. Exp. Biol. 148,19 -52.
Dudley, R. and Ellington, C. P. (1990b). Mechanics of forward flight in bumblebees. II. Quasi-steady lift and power requirements. J. Exp. Biol. 148, 53-88.
Ellington, C. P. (1984a). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. III. Kinematics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 305,41 -78.
Ellington, C. P. (1984b). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. IV. Aerodynamic mechanisms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 305,79 -113.
Ellington, C. P. (1984c). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. VI. Lift and power requirements. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 305,145 -181.
Ellington, C. P. (1991). Limitations on animal flight performance. J. Exp. Biol. 160, 71-91.
Ellington, C. P. (1995). Unsteady aerodynamics of insect flight. In Biological Fluid Dynamics. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 49 (ed. C. P. Ellington and T. J. Pedley), pp. 109-129. Cambridge: Company of Biologists.
Ellington, C. P., Machin, K. E. and Casey, T. M. (1990). Oxygen consumption of bumblebees in forward flight. Nature 347,472 -473.
Ellington, C. P., van den Berg, C. and Willmott, A. P. (1996). Leading edge vortices in insect flight. Nature 384,626 -630.[CrossRef]
Ennos, A. R. (1989). The kinematics and aerodynamics of the free flight of some Diptera. J. Exp. Biol. 142,49 -85.
Fung, Y. C. (1969). An Introduction to the Theory of Aeroelasticity. New York: Dover.
Lan, S. L. and Sun, M. (2001a). Aerodynamic of properties of a wing performing unsteady rotational motions at low Reynolds number. Acta Mech. 149,135 -147.
Lan, S. L. and Sun, M. (2001b). Aerodynamic interaction between two airfiols in unsteady motions. Acta Mech. 150,39 -51.
Lehmann, F.-O. and Dickinson, H. D. (1997). The
changes in power requirements and muscle efficiency during elevated force
production in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. J.
Exp. Biol. 200,1133
-1143.
Liu, H., Ellington, C. P., Kawachi, K., Van Den Berg, C. and
Willmott, A. P. (1998). A computational fluid dynamic
study of hawkmoth hovering. J. Exp. Biol.
201,461
-477.
Marden, J. H., Wolf, M. R. and Weber, K. E.
(1997). Aerial performance of Drosophila melanogaster
from populations selected for upwind flight ability. J. Exp.
Biol. 200,2747
-2755.
Rogers, S. E. and Kwak, D. (1990). Upwind differencing scheme for the time-accurate incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA J. 28,253 -262.
Rogers, S. E., Kwak, D. and Kiris, C. (1991). Numerical solution of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations for steady-state and dependent problems. AIAA J. 29,603 -610.
Sane, S. P. and Dickinson, M. H. (2001). The
control of flight force by a flapping wing: lift and drag production.
J. Exp. Biol. 204,2607
-2626.
Sane, S. P. and Dickinson, M. H. (2002). The
aerodynamic effects of wing rotation and a revised quasi-steady model of
flapping flight. J. Exp. Biol.
205,1087
-1096.
Sun, M. and Tang, J. (2002a). Unsteady
aerodynamic force generation by a model fruit fly wing in flapping motion.
J. Exp. Biol. 205,55
-70.
Sun, M. and Tang, J. (2002b). Lift and power requirements of hovering flight in Drosophila. J. Exp. Biol. 205,2413 -2427.[Medline]
Vogel, S. (1966). Flight in Drosophila. I. Flight performance of tethered flies. J. Exp. Biol. 44,567 -578.
Vogel, S. (1967). Flight in Drosophila. II. Variations in stroke parameters and wing contour. J. Exp. Biol. 46,383 -392.[Medline]
Wang, Z. J. (2000). Two dimensional mechanism for insect hovering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,2216 -2219.[CrossRef][Medline]
Weis-Fogh, T. (1972). Energetics of hovering flight in hummingbirds and in Drosophila. J. Exp. Biol. 56,79 -104.
Weis-Fogh, T. (1973). Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including novel mechanism for lift production. J. Exp. Biol. 59,169 -230.
Willmott, A. P. and Ellington, C. P. (1997a).
The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. I. Kinematics
of hovering and forward flight. J. Exp. Biol.
200,2705
-2722.
Willmott, A. P. and Ellington, C. P. (1997b).
The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. II.
Aerodynamic consequences of kinematic and morphological variation.
J. Exp. Biol. 200,2723
-2745.
Willmott, A. P., Ellington, C. P. and Thomas A. R. (1997). Flow visualization and unsteady aerodynamics in the flight of the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 352,303 -316.[CrossRef]
Wu, J. C. (1981). Theory for aerodynamic force and moment in viscous flows. AIAA J. 19,432 -441.