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

This Article 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 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 WEIS-FOGH, T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by WEIS-FOGH, T.

Journal of Experimental Biology 56,79-104 (1972)
Published by Company of Biologists 1972

Energetics of Hovering Flight in Hummingbirds and in Drosophila

TORKEL WEIS-FOGH ¹

¹ Department of Zoology Cambridge, England

1. Expressions have been derived for an estimate of the average coefficient of lift, for the variation in bending moment or torque caused by wind forces and by inertia forces, and for the power output during hovering flight on one spot when the wings move according to a horizontal figure-of-eight.

2. In both hummingbirds and Drosophila the flight is consistent with steady-state aerodynamics, the average lift coefficient being 1.8 in the hummingbird and 0.8 in Drosophila.

3. The aerodynamic or hydraulic efficiency is 0.5 in the hummingbird and 0.3 in Drosophila, and in both types the aerodynamic power output is 22-24 cal/g body weight/h.

4. The total mechanical power output is 39 cal g^-1 h^-1 in the hummingbird because of the extra energy needed to accelerate the wing-mass. It is 24 cal g^-1 h^-1 in Drosophila in which the inertia term is negligible because the wing-stroke frequency is reduced to the lowest possible value for sustained flight.

5. In both animals the mechanical efficiency of the flight muscles is 0.2.

6. It is argued that the tilt of the stroke plane relative to the horizontal is an adaptation to the geometrically unfavourable induced wind and to the relatively large lift/drag ratio seen in many insects. The vertical movements at the extreme ends may serve to reduce the interaction between the shed ‘stopping’ vortex and the new bound vortex of opposite sense which has to be built up during the early part of the return stroke.

7. Two additional non-steady flow situations may exist at either end of the stroke, delayed stall and delayed build-up of circulation (Wagner effect), but since they have opposite effects it is probable that the resultant force is of about the same magnitude as that estimated for a steady-state situation.

8. Most insects have an effective elastic system to counteract the adverse effect of wing-inertia, but small fast-moving vertebrates have not. It is argued that the only material available for this purpose in this group is elastin and that it is unsuited at the rates of deformation required because recent measurements have shown that the damping is relatively high, probably due to molecular factors.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. W. Tobalske, D. R. Warrick, C. J. Clark, D. R. Powers, T. L. Hedrick, G. A. Hyder, and A. A. Biewener Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight J. Exp. Biol., July 1, 2007; 210(13): 2368 - 2382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F.-O. Lehmann and N. Heymann Unconventional mechanisms control cyclic respiratory gas release in flying Drosophila J. Exp. Biol., October 1, 2005; 208(19): 3645 - 3654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. N. Fry, R. Sayaman, and M. H. Dickinson The aerodynamics of hovering flight in Drosophila J. Exp. Biol., June 15, 2005; 208(12): 2303 - 2318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sun and S. L. Lan A computational study of the aerodynamic forces and power requirements of dragonfly (Aeschna juncea) hovering J. Exp. Biol., May 1, 2004; 207(11): 1887 - 1901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. L. Hedrick, J. R. Usherwood, and A. A. Biewener Wing inertia and whole-body acceleration: an analysis of instantaneous aerodynamic force production in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) flying across a range of speeds J. Exp. Biol., April 15, 2004; 207(10): 1689 - 1702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. W. Tobalske, D. L. Altshuler, and D. R. Powers Take-off mechanics in hummingbirds (Trochilidae) J. Exp. Biol., March 15, 2004; 207(8): 1345 - 1352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Usherwood, T. L. Hedrick, and A. A. Biewener The aerodynamics of avian take-off from direct pressure measurements in Canada geese (Branta canadensis) J. Exp. Biol., November 15, 2003; 206(22): 4051 - 4056. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sun and J. H. Wu Aerodynamic force generation and power requirements in forward flight in a fruit fly with modeled wing motion J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2003; 206(17): 3065 - 3083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Liu Computational Biological Fluid Dynamics: Digitizing and Visualizing Animal Swimming and Flying Integr. Comp. Biol., November 1, 2002; 42(5): 1050 - 1059. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Altshuler and R. Dudley The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2002; 205(16): 2325 - 2336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sun and J. Tang Lift and power requirements of hovering flight in Drosophila virilis J. Exp. Biol., August 15, 2002; 205(16): 2413 - 2427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. N. Askew, R. L. Marsh, and C. P. Ellington The mechanical power output of the flight muscles of blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis) during take-off J. Exp. Biol., January 11, 2001; 204(21): 3601 - 3619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Ellington The novel aerodynamics of insect flight: applications to micro-air vehicles J. Exp. Biol., January 12, 1999; 202(23): 3439 - 3448. [Abstract] [PDF]