Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
CLASSICS
Eppur si vola (and yet it flies)
Sanjay P. Sane
Journal of Experimental Biology 2017 220: 514-516; doi: 10.1242/jeb.151324
Sanjay P. Sane
National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sane@ncbs.res.in
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Sanjay Sane discusses the impact of Charles Ellington's classic series of papers, ‘The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight’ parts I–VI, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1984.

In his book ‘Le Vol des Insectes’, which was published in 1934, the French entomologist Antoine Magnan mentioned in passing that when he and his assistant, the mathematician André Sainte-Laguë, applied the conventional laws of fixed-wing aerodynamics to flapping wings, they were unable to explain how insects could fly (Magnan, 1934). Thus was born the infamous ‘bumblebee paradox’, much to the annoyance of many future generations of insect flight researchers (McMasters, 1989). Yet, at the core of this myth was a genuine problem: the principles of fixed wing flight did indeed come up short in predicting how insects could offset their body weight during flight. This question formed the basis of Charles P. Ellington's seminal six paper opus in 1984, entitled ‘The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight’, parts I–VI, which occupied a whole issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Ellington, 1984a,b,c,d,e,f).

Ellington was a young American graduate student in Torkel Weis-Fogh's laboratory at the University of Cambridge, UK. Weis-Fogh had recently conducted an expansive survey of wing movements in diverse flying insects using state-of-the-art high-speed cinematography (Weis-Fogh, 1973). Having already made several pioneering discoveries in organismal biology, Weis-Fogh turned his attention to the physical and neural basis of insect flight (e.g. Sane, 2011). His laboratory was a premier centre for studies on all aspects of insect flight, ranging from physics to physiology. This exhaustive survey led Weis-Fogh to suggest a theoretical framework called ‘the steady-state paradigm’ (later retooled as the quasi-steady paradigm) in which the moving wing could be viewed as a series of instantaneous ‘snapshots’. In each snapshot, the wing position and attitude were assumed to be static relative to a steady ambient flow. The whole kinematic sequence of the moving wing could then be viewed as a time series of static states, each experiencing a steady force that depends only on its instantaneous state. From this sequence, a time series of forces could be reconstructed; however, it did not incorporate the history-dependent effects, such as those due to a vortex that changes its strength with time. From his investigations, Weis-Fogh concluded that the steady-state (or quasi-steady) paradigm could reasonably predict the aerodynamic forces on a flapping wing. In other words, the bumblebee paradox was an anomaly in a few insects, but unnecessary for most others.

In cases where the quasi-steady theory failed, there must be specific unsteady mechanisms that aid in enhancing lift. One such mechanism was the clap-and-fling, a novel aerodynamic mechanism that Weis-Fogh proposed for enhanced lift generation in certain small flying insects (Weis-Fogh, 1973). This mechanism caught the attention of the foremost fluid mechanists of the time, Sir James Lighthill (Lighthill, 1973), but it was by no means generally explanatory of the bumblebee paradox because very few insects displayed clap-and-fling. This meant that there were other unsteady mechanisms that needed to be discovered. Given the depth of knowledge in aerodynamics of fixed-wing flight, it was hard for aerodynamicists to fathom what could possibly be still left undiscovered. The discovery of clap-and-fling was greeted with excitement because it was a completely new mechanism. Perhaps insects offered more solutions that had eluded aeronautics engineers.

Following Weis-Fogh's tragic death in 1975, the task of synthesizing the many loose ends of this survey into a coherent set of ideas and observations fell on the shoulders of the young Ellington. Much of what is published in ‘the Ellington, 1984 papers’ (as they are often referred) emerges from his broad-ranging survey of flying insects in which he not only re-examined the quasi-steady theory but also proposed a complete overhaul of the theoretical set-up, and laid down the basic mathematical language and concepts that were necessary for such studies. Not surprisingly, the Ellington papers became absolutely indispensable for all future studies on the physics of insect flight.

How was this opus constructed? In the first of his six-part monograph (Ellington, 1984a), Ellington invoked the logical construct of ‘proof-by-contradiction’ to put the quasi-steady theory to a rigorous test. He argued that if the mean lift required to hover was greater than the maximum lift predicted by the quasi-steady model, then the model was insufficient. However, if the maximum force calculated from the model exceeded or equalled the mean forces for hovering, then the quasi-steady model remained unfalsified. When the available data from the broad survey were put to this litmus test, it came up short, thus reprising the bumblebee paradox. This meant that the existing theory needed to be revised to explain how insects generate sufficient forces for flight.

Ellington focused the next two parts on describing in great detail the morphology (Ellington, 1984b) and kinematics (Ellington,1984c) of wings during flight, as well as the methodological details for filming flying insects and reconstructing their kinematics. He established standard procedures for comparing the wing shapes of all insects ranging in size from a few millimetres to tens of centimetres, by accounting for their dimensions. This process, called ‘non-dimensionalization’, is just one of many procedures laid down in these papers that have been embraced by the entire field as an ‘industry standard’. Although mostly descriptive, these papers were certainly not lacking in surprises. For instance, when Ellington plotted the dimensionless higher-order distributions (or moments) of wing area against wing mass or virtual mass due to accelerative effects, there emerged extraordinarily tight correlations which he was unable to explain using any available concepts. He called these relationships the ‘laws of shape’, hinting at some underlying evolutionary scaling rules (Ellington, 1984b). Even three decades later, these relationships remain remarkably unexplored and scientifically fresh.

What makes the above two descriptive papers special is the deep scholarship and their strongly comparative flavour. While being able to synthesize the broader information into concepts such as the laws of shape, these papers also provided ready reference tables for specific values on specific insects that made them an essential resource for later studies. I have lost track of the number of times that I have had to say, ‘Look up Ellington II/III’, whenever students asked me questions about the wing morphology or shape of a specific insect wing, or the kinematics of their movement.

Having dealt with the descriptive aspects pertaining to flight, Ellington then focused his attention on the core topic of aerodynamics of flight in part IV (Ellington, 1984d). He first elucidated the basic elements of quasi-steady theory and the various known unsteady (i.e. history-dependent) effects. He drew extensively from all available sources of information on insect flight aerodynamics and applied them to the data in diverse insects. In doing so, he had to refer to literature well beyond the conventional boundaries of a biological study, to include concepts from helicopter and aerofoil theory. Based on these investigations, he concluded that the existing quasi-steady theory, when applied to insect flight, was insufficient and perhaps incomplete. To complete it required the inclusion of the aerodynamic effects of wing rotation at the end of each stroke and Ellington again made specific recommendations. It also required inclusion of specific history-dependent effects such as the Wagner effect, in which the forces generated by an aerofoil are influenced by its proximity to a vortex that has just been shed, or the clap-and-fling in which the proximity of two aerofoils to each other affects their aerodynamic forces.

Next, in part V, Ellington proposed a completely new theoretical structure, called the ‘vortex theory’ in which he used averaged flow parameters around a flapping wing to deduce lift (Ellington, 1984e). This theory was inspired by the helicopter or propeller (or Rankine–Froude) theory, in which a steadily rotating propeller could be idealized into an ‘actuator disc’ – a pulsating disc that generated periodic momentum pulses, not unlike those generated by the flap of every wing. A similar theory was developed in parallel by Jeremy Rayner for birds (Rayner, 1979a,b), and Ellington made explicit comparisons between Rayner's theory and his own. For the most part, the two theories agreed with each other, which was not surprising, because their basic assumptions were similar. However, there were minor differences which Ellington pointed out, mostly due to different assumptions for birds versus insects. Both theories focused on averaged wakes rather than instantaneous forces, which greatly constrained their scope. Nevertheless, they served as a source of inspiration for several studies on both avian and entomological flight in subsequent decades. They were particularly useful for field-based studies in which detailed wing kinematics were not easy to acquire.

In the final paper in this series, Ellington applied these ideas to derive quantities, such as power, efficiency and elastic storage, to bridge the gap between physics and physiology (Ellington, 1984f). He presented an accounting scheme for mechanical power as the sum of aerodynamic and inertial power. This scheme was strongly grounded in measurements and experiments, with aerodynamic power being divided into induced, profile and parasite power. Much of aerodynamic theory comes to bear in deriving these quantities from reconstructions of wing movements and morphological measurements. This made paper VI a particularly useful reference for researchers studying the role of flight muscles and energetics.

Collectively, these papers completely transformed the field of insect flight. They provided a common language that could be understood by biologists as well as aeronautical engineers. Ellington struck a very fine balance between mathematical rigour on the one hand and comparative approach on the other; these papers are as useful to taxonomists wondering about how wing shape changes from one order of insects to another, as they are to aerodynamicists who wish to model the forces on a flapping wing of any shape. This 1984 issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London rapidly became a must-read for all students of the topic. My PhD advisor owned a bound, much-battered and coffee-stained copy filled with many scribbles in the margins. My own copy has suffered a similar fate, and is one of my most prized possessions. It is a staggering fact that this was Ellington's graduate work, for which he received a PhD in 1982.

In the decades following the publication of the Ellington papers, the insect flight problem became a paradox no more (Sane, 2003). In the mid-1990s, detailed studies on smoke flows around insect wings by Ellington and his colleagues led to the discovery of the leading edge vortices, and a large piece of the insect flight puzzle fell into place (Ellington et al., 1996). Through the efforts of many international research teams, this question now stands experimentally resolved and the forces on insect wings can be analytically calculated using the quasi-steady model (Sane and Dickinson, 2002) or computationally solved using full Navier–Stokes solvers (Liu and Kawachi, 1998; Liu et al., 1998; Sun and Tang, 2002). The flows around flapping wings can be simulated by computational methods or visualized using state-of-the-art particle image velocimetry techniques in both models (Lehmann et al., 2005) and real insects (Bomphrey, 2006). Much of the focus now is on using these principles to develop small flapping robots that are inspired by insects, or to understand other aspects of flight as it relates to ecology or neurobiology. The Ellington 1984 papers are undoubtedly the centrepiece of all these achievements and continue to guide our thinking on these topics.

  • © 2017. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd
http://www.biologists.com/user-licence-1-1/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bomphrey, R. J.
    (2006). Insects in flight: direct visualization and flow measurements. Bioinspir. Biomim. 1, S1-S9. doi:10.1088/1748-3182/1/4/S01
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.,
    2. van den Berg, C.,
    3. Willmott, A. P. and
    4. Thomas, A. L. R.
    (1996). Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Nature 384, 626-630. doi:10.1038/384626a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984a). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. I. The quasi-steady analysis. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 305, 1-15. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0049
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984b). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. II. Morphological parameters. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 305, 17-40. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0050
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984c). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. III. Kinematics. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 305, 41-78. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0051
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984d). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. IV. Aerodynamic mechanisms. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 305, 79-113. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0052
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984e). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. V. A vortex theory. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 305, 115-144. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0053
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Ellington, C. P.
    (1984f). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. VI. Lift and power requirements. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 305, 145-181. doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0054
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Lehmann, F.-O.,
    2. Sane, S. P. and
    3. Dickinson, M.
    (2005). The aerodynamic effects of wing–wing interaction in flapping insect wings. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 3075-3092. doi:10.1242/jeb.01744
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Lighthill, M. J.
    (1973). On the Weis-Fogh mechanism of lift generation. J. Fluid Mech., 60, 1. doi:10.1017/s0022112073000017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Liu, H. and
    2. Kawachi, K.
    (1998). A numerical study of insect flight. J. Comput. Phys. 146, 124-156. doi:10.1006/jcph.1998.6019
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Liu, H.,
    2. Ellington, C. P.,
    3. Kawachi, K.,
    4. van den Berg, C. and
    5. Willmott, A. P.
    (1998). A computational fluid dynamic study of hawkmoth hovering. J. Exp. Biol. 201, 461-477. doi:10.1006/jcph.1998.6019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Magnan, A.
    (1934). Le Vol des Insectes. Paris: Hermann.
  14. ↵
    1. McMasters, J. H.
    (1989). The flight of the bumblebee and related myths of entomological engineering: bees help bridge the gap between science and engineering. Am. Sci. 77, 164-169.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Rayner, J. M. V.
    (1979a). A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 1. The vortex wake of a hovering animal. J. Fluid Mech. 91, 697. doi:10.1017/S0022112079000410
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Rayner, J. M. V.
    (1979b). A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 2. The forward flight of birds. J. Fluid Mech. 91, 731-763. doi:10.1017/S0022112079000422
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Sane, S. P.
    (2003). The aerodynamics of insect flight. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 4191-4208. doi:10.1242/jeb.00663
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Sane, S. P.
    (2011). Steady or unsteady? Uncovering the aerodynamic mechanisms of insect flight. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 349-351. doi:10.1242/jeb.048330
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Sane, S. P. and
    2. 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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Sun, M. and
    2. Tang, J.
    (2002). Unsteady aerodynamic force generation by a model fruit fly wing in flapping motion. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 55-70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Weis-Fogh, T.
    (1973). Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including novel mechanisms for lift production. J. Exp. Biol. 59, 169-230.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Eppur si vola (and yet it flies)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
CLASSICS
Eppur si vola (and yet it flies)
Sanjay P. Sane
Journal of Experimental Biology 2017 220: 514-516; doi: 10.1242/jeb.151324
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
CLASSICS
Eppur si vola (and yet it flies)
Sanjay P. Sane
Journal of Experimental Biology 2017 220: 514-516; doi: 10.1242/jeb.151324

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Safety in numbers
  • The V-ATPase in insect epithelia
  • Neurotransmission: peptide transmitters turn 36
Show more CLASSICS

Similar articles

Subject collections

  • Comparative biomechanics of movement

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Welcome to JEB’s new Editor Monica Daley

We are pleased to welcome Monica Daley to JEB’s Editorial team. Monica has had a long association with JEB before taking up her new role, overseeing peer review of neuromuscular physiology, terrestrial biomechanics and integrative physiology of locomotion.


In the field with Robyn Hetem

Continuing our fieldwork series, Robyn Hetem reflects on working with species ranging from aardvark to zebra, and the impact COVID-19 has had on fieldwork.


Read & Publish participation continues to grow

“It is particularly encouraging for early career researchers, as it allows them to display their research globally without the need to find costs to cover the open access option.”

Professor Fernando Montealegre-Z (University of Lincoln) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 150 institutions in 15 countries and four library consortia taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.


Nocturnal reef residents have deep-sea-like eyes

Fanny de Busserolles and colleagues from The University of Queensland have discovered that the eyes of nocturnal reef fish have multibank retinas, layers of photoreceptors, similar to the eyes of deep-sea fish that live in dim light conditions.


Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects

In their Review, Konstantin Schmidt and Philipp Engel summarise recent findings about the mechanisms involved in gut colonisation and the provisioning of beneficial effects in gut microbiota–insect symbiosis.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992