CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 230Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsFluid dynamics and aerodynamics studiesAerospace and Aviation Technology

The aerodynamics of revolving wings II. Propeller force coefficients from mayfly to quail

Usherwood, James R., Ellington, Charles P.·2002·Journal of Experimental Biology
DOI 10.1242/jeb.205.11.1565
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

SUMMARY: High force coefficients, similar to those observed for revolving model hawkmoth wings in the accompanying paper (for which steady leading-edge vortices are directly observed), are apparent for revolving model (mayfly,bumblebee and quail) and real (quail) animal wings ranging in Reynolds number(Re) from 1100 to 26000. Results for bumblebee and hawkmoth wings agree with those published previously for Drosophila(Re≈200). The effect of aspect ratio is also tested with planforms based on hawkmoth wings adjusted to aspect ratios ranging from 4.53 to 15.84 and is shown to be relatively minor, especially at angles of incidence below 50°. The normal force relationship introduced in the accompanying paper is supported for wings over a large range of aspect ratios in both `early' and`steady' conditions; local induced velocities appear not to affect the relationship.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1242/jeb.205.11.1565

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The precise magnitude of the effect of lower air density on hovering aerodynamics varies with the particular aerodynamic mechanisms and wing morphologies under consideration.

    “The precise magnitude of this effect, however, will vary with the particular aerodynamic mechanisms and wing morphologies under consideration”

    From The physiology and biomechanics of avian flight at high altitude (2006) · cites this paper as Usherwood and Ellington, 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Usherwood, J. R., & Ellington, C. P.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Usherwood, James R.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Biology
Publisher
The Company of Biologists
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
205
Issue
11
Pages
1565-1576
ISSN
  • 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9145
DOI
10.1242/jeb.205.11.1565
OpenAlex
W2154762949
Cited by
230
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
23.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid dynamics and aerodynamics studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Aerospace and Aviation Technology
Keywords
insect flight aerodynamics, leading-edge vortex, aspect ratio, normal force, induced velocity, Reynolds number, angle of incidence
MeSH terms
Animals, Bees, Biomechanical Phenomena, Coturnix, Flight, Animal, Insecta, Male, Models, Biological, Moths, Wings, Animal

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