|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online July 23, 2003
Into thin air: contributions of aerodynamic and inertial-elastic forces to wing bending in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: scombes{at}u.washington.edu)
Accepted 18 May 2003
During flapping flight, insect wings must withstand not only fluid-dynamic forces, but also inertial-elastic forces generated by the rapid acceleration and deceleration of their own mass. Estimates of overall aerodynamic and inertial forces vary widely, and the relative importance of these forces in determining passive wing deformations remains unknown. If aeroelastic interactions between a wing and the fluid-dynamic forces it generates are minor compared to the effects of wing inertia, models of insect flight that account for passive wing flexibility would be far simpler to develop. We used an experimental approach to examine the contributions of aerodynamic and inertial-elastic forces to wing bending in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. We attached fresh Manduca wings to a motor and flapped them at a realistic wing-beat frequency and stroke amplitude. We compared wing bending in normal air versus helium (approx. 15% air density), in which the contribution of fluid-dynamic forces to wing deformations is significantly reduced. This 85% reduction in air density produced only slight changes in the pattern of Manduca wing deformations, suggesting that fluid-dynamic forces have a minimal effect on wing bending. We used a simplified finite element model of a wing to show that the differences observed between wings flapped in air versus helium are most likely due to fluid damping, rather than to aerodynamic forces. This suggests that damped finite element models of insect wings (with no fluid-dynamic forces included) may be able to predict overall patterns of wing deformation prior to calculations of aerodynamic force production, facilitating integrative models of insect flight.
Key words: insect flight, wing flexibility, wing bending, aerodynamic forces, inertial forces, finite element model, Manduca sexta
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. L. Hedrick and T. L. Daniel Flight control in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta: the inverse problem of hovering J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2006; 209(16): 3114 - 3130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. P. Sane and N. P. Jacobson Induced airflow in flying insects II. Measurement of induced flow J. Exp. Biol., January 1, 2006; 209(1): 43 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Borrell, J. A. Goldbogen, and R. Dudley Aquatic wing flapping at low Reynolds numbers: swimming kinematics of the Antarctic pteropod, Clione antarctica J. Exp. Biol., August 1, 2005; 208(15): 2939 - 2949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. N. Balint and M. H. Dickinson Neuromuscular control of aerodynamic forces and moments in the blowfly, Calliphora vicina J. Exp. Biol., October 15, 2004; 207(22): 3813 - 3838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Combes and T. L. Daniel Flexural stiffness in insect wings I. Scaling and the influence of wing venation J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2003; 206(17): 2979 - 2987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Combes and T. L. Daniel Flexural stiffness in insect wings II. Spatial distribution and dynamic wing bending J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2003; 206(17): 2989 - 2997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
