Publications (28) View all
-
Article: Kinematics and wing shape across flight speed in the bat, Leptonycteris yerbabuenae.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The morphology and kinematics of a flying animal determines the resulting aerodynamic lift through the regulation of the speed of the air moving across the wing, the wing area and the lift coefficient. We studied the detailed three-dimensional wingbeat kinematics of the bat, Leptonycteris yerbabuenae, flying in a wind tunnel over a range of flight speeds (0-7 m/s), to determine how factors affecting the lift production vary across flight speed and within wingbeats. We found that the wing area, the angle of attack and the camber, which are determinants of the lift production, decreased with increasing speed. The camber is controlled by multiple mechanisms along the span, including the deflection of the leg relative to the body, the bending of the fifth digit, the deflection of the leading edge flap and the upward bending of the wing tip. All these measures vary throughout the wing beat suggesting active or aeroelastic control. The downstroke Strouhal number, St(d), is kept relatively constant, suggesting that favorable flow characteristics are maintained during the downstroke, across the range of speeds studied. The St(d) is kept constant through changes in the stroke plane, from a strongly inclined stroke plane at low speeds to a more vertical stroke plane at high speeds. The mean angular velocity of the wing correlates with the aerodynamic performance and shows a minimum at the speed of maximum lift to drag ratio, suggesting a simple way to determine the optimal speed from kinematics alone. Taken together our results show the high degree of adjustments that the bats employ to fine tune the aerodynamics of the wings and the correlation between kinematics and aerodynamic performance.Biology open. 12/2012; 1(12):1226-38. -
Article: Elytra boost lift, but reduce aerodynamic efficiency in flying beetles.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Flying insects typically possess two pairs of wings. In beetles, the front pair has evolved into short, hardened structures, the elytra, which protect the second pair of wings and the abdomen. This allows beetles to exploit habitats that would otherwise cause damage to the wings and body. Many beetles fly with the elytra extended, suggesting that they influence aerodynamic performance, but little is known about their role in flight. Using quantitative measurements of the beetle's wake, we show that the presence of the elytra increases vertical force production by approximately 40 per cent, indicating that they contribute to weight support. The wing-elytra combination creates a complex wake compared with previously studied animal wakes. At mid-downstroke, multiple vortices are visible behind each wing. These include a wingtip and an elytron vortex with the same sense of rotation, a body vortex and an additional vortex of the opposite sense of rotation. This latter vortex reflects a negative interaction between the wing and the elytron, resulting in a single wing span efficiency of approximately 0.77 at mid downstroke. This is lower than that found in birds and bats, suggesting that the extra weight support of the elytra comes at the price of reduced efficiency.Journal of The Royal Society Interface 05/2012; 9(75):2745-8. · 4.40 Impact Factor -
Article: Leading edge vortex in a slow-flying passerine.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most hovering animals, such as insects and hummingbirds, enhance lift by producing leading edge vortices (LEVs) and by using both the downstroke and upstroke for lift production. By contrast, most hovering passerine birds primarily use the downstroke to generate lift. To compensate for the nearly inactive upstroke, weight support during the downstroke needs to be relatively higher in passerines when compared with, e.g. hummingbirds. Here we show, by capturing the airflow around the wing of a freely flying pied flycatcher, that passerines may use LEVs during the downstroke to increase lift. The LEV contributes up to 49 per cent to weight support, which is three times higher than in hummingbirds, suggesting that avian hoverers compensate for the nearly inactive upstroke by generating stronger LEVs. Contrary to other animals, the LEV strength in the flycatcher is lowest near the wing tip, instead of highest. This is correlated with a spanwise reduction of the wing's angle-of-attack, partly owing to upward bending of primary feathers. We suggest that this helps to delay bursting and shedding of the particularly strong LEV in passerines.Biology letters 03/2012; 8(4):554-7. · 3.76 Impact Factor -
Article: Comparing aerodynamic efficiency in birds and bats suggests better flight performance in birds.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Flight is one of the energetically most costly activities in the animal kingdom, suggesting that natural selection should work to optimize flight performance. The similar size and flight speed of birds and bats may therefore suggest convergent aerodynamic performance; alternatively, flight performance could be restricted by phylogenetic constraints. We test which of these scenarios fit to two measures of aerodynamic flight efficiency in two passerine bird species and two New World leaf-nosed bat species. Using time-resolved particle image velocimetry measurements of the wake of the animals flying in a wind tunnel, we derived the span efficiency, a metric for the efficiency of generating lift, and the lift-to-drag ratio, a metric for mechanical energetic flight efficiency. We show that the birds significantly outperform the bats in both metrics, which we ascribe to variation in aerodynamic function of body and wing upstroke: Bird bodies generated relatively more lift than bat bodies, resulting in a more uniform spanwise lift distribution and higher span efficiency. A likely explanation would be that the bat ears and nose leaf, associated with echolocation, disturb the flow over the body. During the upstroke, the birds retract their wings to make them aerodynamically inactive, while the membranous bat wings generate thrust and negative lift. Despite the differences in performance, the wake morphology of both birds and bats resemble the optimal wake for their respective lift-to-drag ratio regimes. This suggests that evolution has optimized performance relative to the respective conditions of birds and bats, but that maximum performance is possibly limited by phylogenetic constraints. Although ecological differences between birds and bats are subjected to many conspiring variables, the different aerodynamic flight efficiency for the bird and bat species studied here may help explain why birds typically fly faster, migrate more frequently and migrate longer distances than bats.PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(5):e37335. · 4.09 Impact Factor -
Article: Vortex wake, downwash distribution, aerodynamic performance and wingbeat kinematics in slow-flying pied flycatchers.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many small passerines regularly fly slowly when catching prey, flying in cluttered environments or landing on a perch or nest. While flying slowly, passerines generate most of the flight forces during the downstroke, and have a 'feathered upstroke' during which they make their wing inactive by retracting it close to the body and by spreading the primary wing feathers. How this flight mode relates aerodynamically to the cruising flight and so-called 'normal hovering' as used in hummingbirds is not yet known. Here, we present time-resolved fluid dynamics data in combination with wingbeat kinematics data for three pied flycatchers flying across a range of speeds from near hovering to their calculated minimum power speed. Flycatchers are adapted to low speed flight, which they habitually use when catching insects on the wing. From the wake dynamics data, we constructed average wingbeat wakes and determined the time-resolved flight forces, the time-resolved downwash distributions and the resulting lift-to-drag ratios, span efficiencies and flap efficiencies. During the downstroke, slow-flying flycatchers generate a single-vortex loop wake, which is much more similar to that generated by birds at cruising flight speeds than it is to the double loop vortex wake in hovering hummingbirds. This wake structure results in a relatively high downwash behind the body, which can be explained by the relatively active tail in flycatchers. As a result of this, slow-flying flycatchers have a span efficiency which is similar to that of the birds in cruising flight and which can be assumed to be higher than in hovering hummingbirds. During the upstroke, the wings of slowly flying flycatchers generated no significant forces, but the body-tail configuration added 23 per cent to weight support. This is strikingly similar to the 25 per cent weight support generated by the wing upstroke in hovering hummingbirds. Thus, for slow-flying passerines, the upstroke cannot be regarded as inactive, and the tail may be of importance for flight efficiency and possibly manoeuvrability.Journal of The Royal Society Interface 06/2011; 9(67):292-303. · 4.40 Impact Factor
