The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 1. The vortex wake of a hovering animal
Abstract
The distribution of vorticity in the wake of a hovering bird or insect is considered. The wake is modelled by a chain of coaxial small-cored circular vortex rings stacked one upon another; each member of the chain is generated by a single wing-stroke. Circulation is determined by the animal's weight and the time for which a single ring must provide lift; ring size is calculated from the circulation distribution on the animal's wing. The theory is equally applicable to birds and insects, although the mechanism of ring formation differs. This approach avoids the use of lift and drag coefficients and is not bound by the constraints of steady-state aerodynamics; it gives a wake configuration in agreement with experimental observations. The classical momentum jet approach has steady momentum flux in the wake, and is difficult to relate to the wing motions of a hovering bird or insect; the vortex wake can be related to the momentum jet, but adjacent vortex elements are disjoint and momentum flux is periodic. The evolution of the wake starting from rest is considered by releasing vortex rings at appropriate time intervals and allowing them to interact in their own velocity fields. The resulting configuration depends on the feathering parameter f(which depends on the animal's morphology);f increases with body size. At the lower end of the wake rings coalesce to form a single large vortex, which breaks away from the rest of the wake at intervals. Wake contraction depends on f; the minimum areal contraction of one-half (as in momentum-jet theory) occurs only in the limit f→ 0, but values calculated for smaller insects of just over one-half suggest that the momentum jet may be a good approximation to the wake when f is small. Induced power in hovering is calculated as the limit of the mean rate of increase of wake kinetic energy as time progresses. It can be related to the classical momentum-jet induced power by a simple conversion factor. For an insect or hummingbird the usual momentum-jet estimate may be between 10 and 15% too low, but for a bird it may be as much as 50% too low. This suggests that few, if any, birds are able to sustain aerobic hovering, and that as small a value of f as possible would be necessary if the bird were to hover. Tip losses (energy cost of the vortex-ring wake compared with the equivalent momentum jet) are negligible for insects, but can be in the range 15–20% for birds.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evans, M. R., & Thomas, A. L. R. (1992) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80229-5 · Cited by 133
Livezey, B. C. (2003) · Ornithological Monographs · doi:10.2307/40168337 · Cited by 81
Elaborate horns in a giant rhinoceros beetle incur negligible aerodynamic costs
McCullough, E. L., & Tobalske, B. W. (2013) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.0197 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Rayner, J. M. V.
- Venue
- Journal of Fluid Mechanics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1979-04-27
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 697-730
- ISSN
- 0022-1120 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7645
- OpenAlex
- W2152759371
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 1. The vortex wake of a hovering animal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0022112079000410
- The paper
- Rayner, J. M. V. (1979). A vortex theory of animal flight. Part 1. The vortex wake of a hovering animal. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022112079000410
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.