Design and analysis of aerodynamic force platforms for free flight studies

Small deviations in kinematics and body form dictate muscle performances in the finely tuned avian downstroke

Avian takeoff requires peak pectoralis muscle power to generate sufficient aerodynamic force during the downstroke. Subsequently, the much smaller supracoracoideus recovers the wing during the upstroke. How the pectoralis work loop is tuned to power flight is unclear. We integrate wingbeat-resolved muscle, kinematic, and aerodynamic recordings in vivo with a new mathematical model to disentangle how the pectoralis muscle overcomes wing inertia and generates aerodynamic force during takeoff in doves. Doves reduce the angle of attack of their wing mid-downstroke to efficiently generate aerodynamic force, resulting in an aerodynamic power dip, that allows transferring excess pectoralis power into tensioning the supracoracoideus tendon to assist the upstroke-improving the pectoralis work loop efficiency simultaneously. Integrating extant bird data, our model shows how the pectoralis of birds with faster wingtip speed need to generate proportionally more power. Finally, birds with disproportionally larger wing inertia need to activate the pectoralis earlier to tune their downstroke.

Bio-inspired flapping wing robots with foldable or deformable wings: a review

Traditional flapping-wing robots (FWRs) obtain lift and thrust by relying on the passive deformation of their wings which cannot actively fold or deform. In contrast, flying creatures such as birds, bats, and insects can maneuver agilely through active folding or deforming their wings. Researchers have developed many bio-inspired foldable or deformable wings (FDWs) imitating the wings of flying creatures. The foldable wings refer to the wings like the creatures' wings that can fold in an orderly manner close to their bodies. Such wings have scattered feathers or distinct creases that can be stacked and folded to reduce the body envelope, which in nature is beneficial for these animals to prevent wing damage and ensure agility in crossing bushes. The deformable wings refer to the active deformation of the wings using active driving mechanisms and the passive deformation under the aerodynamic force, which functionally imitates the excellent hydrodynamic performance of the deformable body and wings of the creatures. However, the shape and external profile changes of deformable wings tend to be much smaller than that of folding wings. FDWs enable the FWRs to improve flight degree of flexibility, maneuverability, and efficiency and reduce flight energy consumption. However, FDWs still need to be studied, and a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art progress of FDWs in FWR design is lacking. This paper analyzes the wing folding and deformation mechanisms of the creatures and reviews the latest progress of FWRs with FDWs. Furthermore, we summarize the current limitations and propose future directions in FDW design, which could help researchers to develop better FWRs for safe maneuvering in obstacle-dense environments.

Characterizing the hum of hovering animals

The sounds of flying animals, such as the hum of a hummingbird as it hovers, are influenced by the unique forces generated by the flapping of their wings.

How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird's hum and other animals in flapping flight

How hummingbirds hum is not fully understood, but its biophysical origin is encoded in the acoustic nearfield. Hence, we studied six freely hovering Anna’s hummingbirds, performing acoustic nearfield holography using a 2176 microphone array in vivo, while also directly measuring the 3D aerodynamic forces using a new aerodynamic force platform. We corroborate the acoustic measurements by developing an idealized acoustic model that integrates the aerodynamic forces with wing kinematics, which shows how the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum arises from the oscillating lift and drag forces on each wing. Comparing birds and insects, we find that the characteristic humming timbre and radiated power of their flapping wings originates from the higher harmonics in the aerodynamic forces that support their bodyweight. Our model analysis across insects and birds shows that allometric deviation makes larger birds quieter and elongated flies louder, while also clarifying complex bioacoustic behavior.

Anyone walking outdoors has heard the whooshing sound of birdwings flapping overhead, the buzzing sound of bees flying by, or the whining of mosquitos seeking blood. All animals with flapping wings make these sounds, but the hummingbird makes perhaps the most delightful sound of all: their namesake hum. Yet, how hummingbirds hum is poorly understood.

Bird wings generate large vortices of air to boost their lift and hover in the air that can generate tones. Further, the airflow over bird wings can be highly turbulent, meaning it can generate loud sounds, like the jets of air coming out of the engines of aircraft. Given all the sound-generating mechanisms at hand, it is difficult to determine why some wings buzz whereas others whoosh or hum.

Hightower, Wijnings et al. wanted to understand the physical mechanism that causes animal wings to whine, buzz, hum or whoosh in flight. They hypothesized that the aerodynamic forces generated by animal wings are the main source of their characteristic wing sounds. Hummingbird wings have the most features in common with different animals’ wings, while also featuring acoustically complex feathers. This makes them ideal models for deciphering how birds, bats and even insects make wing sounds.

To learn more about wing sounds, Hightower, Wijnings et al. studied how a species of hummingbird called Anna’s hummingbird hums while drinking nectar from a flower. A three-dimensional ‘acoustic hologram’ was generated using 2,176 microphones to measure the humming sound from all directions. In a follow-up experiment, the aerodynamic forces the hummingbird wings generate to hover were also measured. Their wingbeat was filmed simultaneously in slow-motion in both experiments. Hightower, Wijnings et al. then used a mathematical model that governs the wing’s aeroacoustics to confirm that the aerodynamic forces generated by the hummingbirds’ wings cause the humming sound heard when they hover in front of a flower. The model shows that the oscillating aerodynamic forces generate harmonics, which give the wings’ hum the acoustic quality of a musical instrument.

Using this model Hightower, Wijnings et al. found that the differences in the aerodynamic forces generated by bird and insect wings cause the characteristic timbres of their whines, buzzes, hums, or whooshes. They also determined how these sounds scale with body mass and flapping frequency across 170 insect species and 80 bird species. This showed that mosquitos are unusually loud for their body size due to the unusual unsteadiness of the aerodynamic forces they generate in flight.

These results explain why flying animals’ wings sound the way they do – for example, why larger birds are quieter and mosquitos louder. Better understanding of how the complex forces generated by animal wings create sound can advance the study of how animals change their wingbeat to communicate. Further, the model that explains how complex aerodynamic forces cause sound can help make the sounds of aerial robots, drones, and fans not only more silent, but perhaps more pleasing, like the hum of a hummingbird.

Humming hummingbirds, insect flight tones and a model of animal flight sound

Why do hummingbirds hum and insects whine when their wings flap in flight? Gutin proposed that a spinning propeller produces tonal sound because the location of the center of aerodynamic pressure on each blade oscillates relative to an external receiver. Animal wings also move, and in addition, aerodynamic force produced by animal wings fluctuates in magnitude and direction over the course of the wingbeat. Here, we modeled animal wing tone as the equal, opposite reaction to aerodynamic forces on the wing, using Lowson's equation for the sound field produced by a moving point force. Two assumptions of Lowson's equation were met: animal flight is low (<0.3) Mach and animals from albatrosses to mosquitoes are acoustically compact, meaning they have a small spatial extent relative to the wavelength of their wingbeat frequency. This model predicted the acoustic waveform of a hovering Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae), which varies in the x, y and z directions around the animal. We modeled the wing forces of a hovering animal as a sinusoid with an amplitude equal to body weight. This model predicted wing sound pressure levels below a hovering hummingbird and mosquito to within 2 dB; and that far-field mosquito wing tone attenuates to 20 dB within about 0.2 m of the animal, while hummingbird humming attenuates to 20 dB at about 10 m. Wing tone plays a role in communication of certain insects, such as mosquitoes, and influences predator-prey interactions, because it potentially reveals the predator's presence to its intended prey.

The aerodynamic force platform as an ergometer

Animal flight requires aerodynamic power, which is challenging to determine accurately in vivo Existing methods rely on approximate calculations based on wake flow field measurements, inverse dynamics approaches, or invasive muscle physiological recordings. In contrast, the external mechanical work required for terrestrial locomotion can be determined more directly by using a force platform as an ergometer. Based on an extension of the recent invention of the aerodynamic force platform, we now present a more direct method to determine the in vivo aerodynamic power by taking the dot product of the aerodynamic force vector on the wing with the representative wing velocity vector based on kinematics and morphology. We demonstrate this new method by studying a slowly flying dove, but it can be applied more generally across flying and swimming animals as well as animals that locomote over water surfaces. Finally, our mathematical framework also works for power analyses based on flow field measurements.

How the hummingbird wingbeat is tuned for efficient hovering

Both hummingbirds and insects flap their wings to hover. Some insects, like fruit flies, improve efficiency by lifting their body weight equally over the upstroke and downstroke, while utilizing elastic recoil during stroke reversal. It is unclear whether hummingbirds converged on a similar elastic storage solution, because of asymmetries in their lift generation and specialized flight muscle apparatus. The muscles are activated a quarter of a stroke earlier than in larger birds, and contract superfast, which cannot be explained by previous stroke-averaged analyses. We measured the aerodynamic force and kinematics of Anna's hummingbirds to resolve wing torque and power within the wingbeat. Comparing these wingbeat-resolved aerodynamic weight support measurements with those of fruit flies, hawk moths and a generalist bird, the parrotlet, we found that hummingbirds have about the same low induced power losses as the two insects, lower than that of the generalist bird in slow hovering flight. Previous analyses emphasized how bird flight muscles have to overcome wing drag midstroke. We found that high wing inertia revises this for hummingbirds - the pectoralis has to coordinate upstroke to downstroke reversal while the supracoracoideus coordinates downstroke to upstroke reversal. Our mechanistic analysis aligns with all previous muscle recordings and shows how early activation helps furnish elastic recoil through stroke reversal to stay within the physiological limits of muscles. Our findings thus support Weis-Fogh's hypothesis that flies and hummingbirds have converged on a mechanically efficient wingbeat to meet the high energetic demands of hovering flight. These insights can help improve the efficiency of flapping robots.

Biomechanics of hover performance in Neotropical hummingbirds versus bats

Hummingbirds and nectar bats are the only vertebrates that are specialized for hovering in front of flowers to forage nectar. How their aerodynamic performance compares is, however, unclear. To hover, hummingbirds consistently generate about a quarter of the vertical aerodynamic force required to support their body weight during the upstroke. In contrast, generalist birds in slow hovering flight generate little upstroke weight support. We report that nectar bats also generate elevated weight support during the upstroke compared to generalist bats. Comparing 20 Neotropical species, we show how nectarivorous birds and bats converged on this ability by inverting their respective feathered and membrane wings more than species with other diets. However, while hummingbirds converged on an efficient horizontal wingbeat to mostly generate lift, bats rely on lift and drag during the downstroke to fully support their body weight. Furthermore, whereas the ability of nectar bats to aerodynamically support their body weight during the upstroke is elevated, it is much smaller than that of hummingbirds. Bats compensate by generating more aerodynamic weight support during their extended downstroke. Although, in principle, it requires more aerodynamic power to hover using this method, bats have adapted by evolving much larger wings for their body weight. Therefore, the net aerodynamic induced power required to hover is similar among hummingbirds and bats per unit body mass. This mechanistic insight into how feathered wings and membrane wings ultimately require similar aerodynamic power to hover may inform analogous design trade-offs in aerial robots.