QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online March 31, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1362-1377 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02746

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lehmann, F.-O. Articles by Pick, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lehmann, F.-O. Articles by Pick, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The aerodynamic benefit of wing–wing interaction depends on stroke trajectory in flapping insect wings

Fritz-Olaf Lehmann^* and Simon Pick

BioFuture Research Group, Institute of Neurobiology, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081 Ulm, Germany

^* Author for correspondence (e-mail: fritz.lehmann{at}uni-ulm.de)

Accepted 12 February 2007

Flying insects may enhance their flight force production by contralateral wing interaction during dorsal stroke reversal (`clap-and-fling'). In this study, we explored the forces and moments due to clap-and-fling at various wing tip trajectories, employing a dynamically scaled electromechanical flapping device. The 17 tested bio-inspired kinematic patterns were identical in stroke amplitude, stroke frequency and angle of attack with respect to the horizontal stroke plane but varied in heaving motion. Clap-and-fling induced vertical force augmentation significantly decreased with increasing vertical force production averaged over the entire stroke cycle, whereas total force augmentation was independent from changes in force produced by a single wing. Vertical force augmentation was also largely independent of forces produced due to wing rotation at the stroke reversals, the sum of rotational circulation and wake capture force. We obtained maximum (17.4%) and minimum (1.4%) vertical force augmentation in two types of figure-eight stroke kinematics whereby rate and direction of heaving motion during fling may explain 58% of the variance in vertical force augmentation. This finding suggests that vertical wing motion distinctly alters the flow regime at the beginning of the downstroke. Using an analytical model, we determined pitching moments acting on an imaginary body of the flapping device from the measured time course of forces, the changes in length of the force vector's moment arm, the position of the centre of mass and body angle. The data show that pitching moments are largely independent from mean vertical force; however, clap-and-fling reinforces mean pitching moments by approximately 21%, compared to the moments produced by a single flapping wing. Pitching moments due to clap-and-fling significantly increase with increasing vertical force augmentation and produce nose-down moments in most of the tested patterns. The analytical model, however, shows that algebraic sign and magnitude of these moments may vary distinctly depending on both body angle and the distance between the wing hinge and the animal's centre of mass. Altogether, the data suggest that the benefit of clap-and-fling wing beat for vertical force enhancement and pitch balance may change with changing heaving motion and thus wing tip trajectory during manoeuvring flight. We hypothesize that these dependencies may have shaped the evolution of wing kinematics in insects that are limited by aerodynamic lift rather than by mechanical power of their flight musculature.

Key words: clap-and-fling, wing–wake interaction, wing tip trajectory, heaving motion, analytical modelling, robotic wing, force control, insect flight

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. M. Walker, A. L. R. Thomas, and G. K. Taylor Deformable wing kinematics in free-flying hoverflies J R Soc Interface, January 6, 2010; 7(42): 131 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Miller and C. S. Peskin Flexible clap and fling in tiny insect flight J. Exp. Biol., October 1, 2009; 212(19): 3076 - 3090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M Walker, A. L.R Thomas, and G. K Taylor Photogrammetric reconstruction of high-resolution surface topographies and deformable wing kinematics of tethered locusts and free-flying hoverflies J R Soc Interface, April 6, 2009; 6(33): 351 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mronz and F.-O. Lehmann The free-flight response of Drosophila to motion of the visual environment J. Exp. Biol., July 1, 2008; 211(13): 2026 - 2045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F.-O. Lehmann When wings touch wakes: understanding locomotor force control by wake wing interference in insect wings J. Exp. Biol., January 15, 2008; 211(2): 224 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]