spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online June 6, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 2303-2318 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01612
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fry, S. N.
Right arrow Articles by Dickinson, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fry, S. N.
Right arrow Articles by Dickinson, M. H.

The aerodynamics of hovering flight in Drosophila

Steven N. Fry1,*, Rosalyn Sayaman2 and Michael H. Dickinson2

1 Institute of Neuroinformatics, University/ETH Zürich, Switzerland
2 California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 138-78, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

* Author for correspondence (e-mail: steven{at}ini.phys.ethz.ch)

Accepted 21 March 2005

Using 3D infrared high-speed video, we captured the continuous wing and body kinematics of free-flying fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, during hovering and slow forward flight. We then `replayed' the wing kinematics on a dynamically scaled robotic model to measure the aerodynamic forces produced by the wings. Hovering animals generate a U-shaped wing trajectory, in which large drag forces during a downward plunge at the start of each stroke create peak vertical forces. Quasi-steady mechanisms could account for nearly all of the mean measured force required to hover, although temporal discrepancies between instantaneous measured forces and model predictions indicate that unsteady mechanisms also play a significant role. We analyzed the requirements for hovering from an analysis of the time history of forces and moments in all six degrees of freedom. The wing kinematics necessary to generate sufficient lift are highly constrained by the requirement to balance thrust and pitch torque over the stroke cycle. We also compare the wing motion and aerodynamic forces of free and tethered flies. Tethering causes a strong distortion of the stroke pattern that results in a reduction of translational forces and a prominent nose-down pitch moment. The stereotyped distortion under tethered conditions is most likely due to a disruption of sensory feedback. Finally, we calculated flight power based directly on the measurements of wing motion and aerodynamic forces, which yielded a higher estimate of muscle power during free hovering flight than prior estimates based on time-averaged parameters. This discrepancy is mostly due to a two- to threefold underestimate of the mean profile drag coefficient in prior studies. We also compared our values with the predictions of the same time-averaged models using more accurate kinematic and aerodynamic input parameters based on our high-speed videography measurements. In this case, the time-averaged models tended to overestimate flight costs.

Key words: fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, flight, aerodynamics, power, biomechanics, behavior


Related articles in JEB:

INSECT FLIGHT: THE DRONE FLY PERSPECTIVE
Kathryn Phillips
JEB 2008 211: iii. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
Y. Liu and M. Sun
Wing kinematics measurement and aerodynamics of hovering droneflies
J. Exp. Biol., July 1, 2008; 211(13): 2014 - 2025.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
M. R. Frazier, J. F. Harrison, S. D. Kirkton, and S. P. Roberts
Cold rearing improves cold-flight performance in Drosophila via changes in wing morphology
J. Exp. Biol., July 1, 2008; 211(13): 2116 - 2122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
G. Card and M. Dickinson
Performance trade-offs in the flight initiation of Drosophila
J. Exp. Biol., February 1, 2008; 211(3): 341 - 353.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
H. Aono, F. Liang, and H. Liu
Near- and far-field aerodynamics in insect hovering flight: an integrated computational study
J. Exp. Biol., January 15, 2008; 211(2): 239 - 257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
T. Hesselberg and F.-O. Lehmann
Turning behaviour depends on frictional damping in the fruit fly Drosophila
J. Exp. Biol., December 15, 2007; 210(24): 4319 - 4334.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
J. A. Bender and M. H. Dickinson
Visual stimulation of saccades in magnetically tethered Drosophila
J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2006; 209(16): 3170 - 3182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
S. Gordon and M. H. Dickinson
Role of calcium in the regulation of mechanical power in insect flight.
PNAS, March 14, 2006; 103(11): 4311 - 4315.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
D. L. Altshuler, W. B. Dickson, J. T. Vance, S. P. Roberts, and M. H. Dickinson
Short-amplitude high-frequency wing strokes determine the aerodynamics of honeybee flight
PNAS, December 13, 2005; 102(50): 18213 - 18218.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005