© 2016. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.

042317

REVIEW

Flapping wing aerodynamics: from insects to vertebrates

Diana D. Chin* and David Lentink

ABSTRACT more advanced than that of vertebrate flight, and this contrast allows
More than a million insects and approximately 11,000 vertebrates us to identify gaps in our knowledge of how vertebrates harness
utilize flapping wings to fly. However, flapping flight has only been aerodynamic mechanisms to hover and fly forward. We thus begin
studied in a few of these species, so many challenges remain in this review by identifying the key mechanisms that enable insect
understanding this form of locomotion. Five key aerodynamic flight. The leading edge vortex (LEV; see Glossary), a mechanism
mechanisms have been identified for insect flight. Among these is common to both insects and vertebrates, can be used to bridge the
the leading edge vortex, which is a convergent solution to avoid stall discussion to birds and bats. We proceed by identifying three non-
for insects, bats and birds. The roles of the other mechanisms – dimensional numbers that dictate how aerodynamic forces are
added mass, clap and fling, rotational circulation and wing–wake generated in animal flight, and then compare and contrast the forces
interactions – have not yet been thoroughly studied in the context of generated within insect and vertebrate wingbeats. The observed
vertebrate flight. Further challenges to understanding bat and bird differences are explained through a discussion of the dynamic wing
flight are posed by the complex, dynamic wing morphologies of these morphologies that are unique to vertebrate flight. Finally, we
species and the more turbulent airflow generated by their wings propose a framework for integrating the aerodynamic mechanisms
compared with that observed during insect flight. Nevertheless, three employed by insects, bats and birds, highlighting current open
dimensionless numbers that combine key flow, morphological and challenges in the study of flapping flight. Addressing these
kinematic parameters – the Reynolds number, Rossby number and challenges will be essential to advancing our understanding of the
advance ratio – govern flapping wing aerodynamics for both insects comparative and integrative biomechanics of flight across insects
and vertebrates. These numbers can thus be used to organize an and vertebrates.
integrative framework for studying and comparing animal flapping
flight. Here, we provide a roadmap for developing such a framework, Insect aerodynamics model
highlighting the aerodynamic mechanisms that remain to be The wing stroke of an insect consists of two translational phases,
quantified and compared across species. Ultimately, incorporating the downstroke and upstroke, separated by two rotational phases,
complex flight maneuvers, environmental effects and developmental pronation and supination (see Glossary). By rotating the wing
stages into this framework will also be essential to advancing our during each stroke reversal, the leading edge of the wing (i.e. the
understanding of the biomechanics, movement ecology and evolution front-most edge of the wing section) always leads (Dickinson et al.,
of animal flight. 1999). Five key aerodynamic mechanisms have been identified to
explain how insects generate aerodynamic force with their wings
KEY WORDS: Aerodynamic mechanisms, Bat, Bird, Flapping flight, (Fig. 1). These mechanisms – added mass, absence of stall,
Kinematics, Wing morphology rotational circulation, clap and fling and wing–wake interactions –
are discussed below and can be combined to form the quasi-steady
Introduction model of flapping insect flight, which is discussed in the next
Flapping wings are a convergent solution for the powered flight of section.
more than a million insect species (Dudley, 2002), as well as over
1000 species of bat (Shi and Rabosky, 2015) and ∼10,000 bird Added mass
species (Jetz et al., 2012) living in complex aerial habitats. Many When the wing accelerates and decelerates during startup (Fig. 1A)
species migrate annually between habitats worldwide, some literally and stroke reversal (Fig. 1E), it must also start and stop the
across the globe (Gill et al., 2009); thus, identifying the surrounding air. The air closest to the wing experiences the greatest

Journal of Experimental Biology

aerodynamic principles that enable the evolutionary enigma of acceleration and deceleration, and this results in a pressure force that
flight is key to understanding the development, physiology and acts on the wing. This effect is experienced as additional wing mass
movement ecology of many insects and vertebrates. Remarkably, by the structure and muscles that enable the wing to flap. As such, it
these animals evolved to make use of aerodynamic principles is generally referred to as the ‘added mass’ effect, and is often
different from those used in aircraft to propel themselves through modeled mathematically as a time-variant increase in the inertia of
air. Despite recent progress (e.g. Shyy et al., 2013; Cheney et al., the wing (Lehmann, 2004; Sane, 2003; Sane and Dickinson, 2001).
2014; Crandell and Tobalske, 2015; Dial et al., 2008; Elimelech and The added inertia increases forces associated with acceleration of
Ellington, 2013; Kruyt et al., 2015; Lentink et al., 2015; Nabawy the wing, thereby augmenting aerodynamic force generation.
and Crowther, 2014; Song et al., 2014), there are still myriad open
questions about how animals fly with flapping wings, a form of Absence of stall
movement that is less well understood than terrestrial and aquatic As the wing translates during the downstroke and upstroke at a high
forms of locomotion. Our understanding of insect aerodynamics is angle of attack (see Glossary), air flow separates around the leading
edge, and the separated boundary layer (see Glossary) rolls up into a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, strong LEV that remains stably attached to the translating wing
USA.
(Fig. 1B) (Ellington et al., 1996; Lentink and Dickinson, 2009). The
*Author for correspondence (ddchin@[Link]) flow reattaches to the wing behind this vortex, so that the wing does

920
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

avoided rather than delayed. During midstroke, the LEV is stabilized

Glossary by centripetal and Coriolis accelerations (see Glossary) that drive
Advance ratio and guide axial flow along the span of the wing. These accelerations
The ratio of forward flight speed to wingtip speed. are induced by the revolving motion of the wing around its base
Angle of attack (Ellington et al., 1996; Lentink and Dickinson, 2009; Kruyt et al.,
The angle formed between the wing chord and incident flow velocity. 2015). The LEV has been observed in experiments and simulations
Boundary layer for a diverse range of insects, including fruit flies (Lehmann and
The thin viscous flow region adjacent to the surface of the wing. Dickinson, 1998; Sun and Tang, 2002), hawkmoths (Willmott et al.,
Coriolis acceleration 1997; Liu et al., 1998), dragonflies (Wang and Sun, 2005) and
The acceleration that results from the movement of mass in a rotating bumblebees (Bomphrey et al., 2009).
reference frame; this is equal to twice the product of the rotational velocity
of the reference frame and the radial velocity of the mass relative to that Rotational circulation
frame. During pronation and supination, the rotation of the wing generates
Fixed wing aspect ratio circulation in the surrounding air (Fig. 1C) that is proportional to the
The ratio of the wing length from tip to tip to average chord length, angular velocity of wing rotation (Sane, 2003). This rotational effect,
calculated as wing length squared divided by surface area.
the Kramer effect (see Glossary), decreases in magnitude as the axis
Flapping wing aspect ratio of rotation moves towards the trailing edge of the wing. Based on the
The ratio of wing radius from the shoulder to the wingtip to average chord
length, calculated as wing radius squared divided by surface area.
duration and timing of the rotation relative to each wing stroke, this
effect can either enhance or attenuate forces generated during
Fluid
A substance, typically a gas or liquid, that deforms (flows) continuously
translation (Sane, 2003; Sane and Dickinson, 2001). In advanced
under a shear stress (force per unit area acting parallel to a surface rotation, the wing flips before stroke reversal, which increases lift.
element), such as air or water. By contrast, in delayed rotation, the wing flips after stroke reversal,
Inviscid so the leading edge rotates forwards relative to the translational
Idealized airflow without viscosity (no friction). direction and generates a downwards force (negative lift).
Kramer effect Symmetric rotation, when the wing flips during stroke reversal,
The generation of additional circulation during wing rotation so that flows leads to a positive peak in lift forces before stroke reversal and a
over both surfaces of the wing join smoothly at the trailing edge. negative peak after stroke reversal (Dickinson et al., 1999; Lehmann,
Leading edge vortex 2004). Although many studies focus primarily on lift, to assess the
A vortex formed on the leading edge of wings moving at high angles of impact of the Kramer effect from a performance perspective, we
attack. must also consider drag and power requirements. Drag increases
Pronation monotonically with flip duration (Sane and Dickinson, 2001), and
The transition from upstroke to downstroke, when the ventral surface of symmetric rotations require the least power per unit lift (Sun and
the wing rotates to face downwards. Tang, 2002); therefore, rapid, symmetric rotations are best for
Reynolds number efficient flight. However, other combinations of rotation timing and
The ratio of inertial to viscous forces. duration are more useful for maneuvering. In hovering flight,
Rossby number rotational effects have been found to contribute up to 35% of lift in
The ratio of inertial to Coriolis forces. robotic model fruit flies and up to 50% in robotic hoverflies
Supination (Dickinson et al., 1999). Note, however, that these values may not be
The transition from downstroke to upstroke, when the ventral surface of quantitatively accurate for real fruit flies and hoverflies, because the
the wing rotates to face upwards.
kinematics of the robotic models differ from those of the real insects;
Turbulence such kinematic differences can lead to significant discrepancies in
Flow characterized by random, chaotic motion – this motion can also mix
measured aerodynamic forces (Bos et al., 2008). Nevertheless, these
higher energy flow into the boundary layer, which can help delay
separation. lift contribution values should provide a reasonable estimate of the
relative importance of the Kramer effect. These results are also
Vorticity
The curl (rotation) of the flow velocity. assumed to be applicable for forward flight at low or intermediate
speeds, when the mean wing tip velocity far exceeds the forward

Journal of Experimental Biology

velocity (Sane and Dickinson, 2001; Dickson et al., 2008).

not stall and is thus able to transfer a greater downward momentum Clap and fling
to the fluid (see Glossary) than would be possible under fixed-wing Further lift enhancement during pronation can result from
steady-state conditions (Dickinson et al., 1999; Ellington et al., interaction between the wings (Fig. 1D). After the upstroke, the
1996). Stall avoidance through LEV stabilization is the primary leading edges of the wings may meet during the ‘clap’. This causes
mechanism for augmenting lift during mid-downstroke and mid- the opposing air circulations on each wing to cancel one another out,
upstroke. However, because the resultant pressure force acts normal reducing the vorticity (see Glossary) shed from the trailing edge
to the wing surface, drag is also significantly increased by the during the next stroke. Consequently, the wings can generate
presence of an LEV (Sane, 2003). For fixed wings translating at circulation at a faster rate and extend the period of lift generation
high angles of attack, the LEV continues to grow until the flow can during the following downstroke (Lehmann, 2004). In addition, the
no longer reattach; consequently, the flow separates from the wing. fluid pushed out from between the wings during this motion can
Thus, this effect is often referred to in the literature as ‘stall delay’ or help to enhance thrust. Of course, the ‘clap’ may also simply be a
‘delayed stall’. However, this name may be misleading for flapping result of efforts to maximize the stroke amplitude, which can greatly
flight; remarkably, the LEV remains stably attached to a flapping increase flight forces (Sane, 2003). As the wings continue to
wing after it is formed at the start of the stroke. Therefore, stall is pronate, the leading edges separate first during the ‘fling’ or ‘peel’.

921
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

(F)
(B)

(C) (C)
(E) (D)
(B) (F) (E)

A Added mass startup B Absence of stall C Rotational circulation

i ii i ii iii

D Clap and fling E Added mass stroke reversal F Wing–wake interaction

i Rear view ii iii i ii iii

Fig. 1. Complex aerodynamic mechanisms underpin insect flight. (A) As the wing begins to accelerate, the fluid near it must accelerate too, which the wing
experiences as ‘added mass’ (shaded orange region). This fluid acceleration increases the pressure force acting on the wing. (B) During mid-upstroke and mid-
downstroke, a leading edge vortex forms, which prevents stall. This process is often referred to as ‘stall delay’ and greatly enhances lift. (C) During supination and
pronation, additional vortex circulation (red arrows) is generated. The magnitude and direction of the resulting force enhancement depends on how the wing
rotation is timed with respect to translation: advanced, symmetric or delayed. The wing is shown (i) immediately before, (ii) during and (iii) immediately after
rotation. (D) (i) As the wings come together during the ‘clap’, opposing circulations cancel out. (ii) Fluid pushed out from between the wings aids thrust, and trailing
edge vorticity is shed as stopping vortices. (iii) When the wings part during the ‘fling’, new fluid rushes in, which speeds up circulation generation as translation
begins. (E) Added mass effects come into play again as the wing (i) decelerates for (ii) rotation and (iii) accelerates for translation. (F) Interactions of the wing with
the wake generated during the previous stroke may lead to a peak in aerodynamic forces immediately following stroke reversal. Mechanisms shown in panels with
solid borders (B–F) are then repeated as wingbeats continue. The relative timings of the mechanisms during each wingbeat are indicated in the upper right
diagram. In all panels, the wing is represented by its chord, drawn from a point of view directed along the span-wise axis of the wing, as shown in the upper left
diagram. Airflow direction is indicated by black arrows, induced velocity is indicated by dark blue arrows and net forces are represented by light blue arrows. Black
triangles indicate the top surface of the leading edge. Figures adapted from Sane (2003), with permission.

The region of lower pressure between the wings sucks in fluid, lift when combined with clap and fling during hovering, and its
which also helps to generate bound circulation more rapidly as the relative importance is assumed to increase with stroke amplitude
wings begin the downstroke (Sane, 2003; Lehmann, 2004). The (Sane and Dickinson, 2001). This effect has been qualitatively
combined interaction of the wings during pronation is often referred observed in butterflies (Srygley and Thomas, 2003), and it has been
to as the ‘clap and fling’, ‘clap and peel’ or the Weis-Fogh effect. quantified as the difference between the measured and predicted
This mechanism can enhance lift by up to 15%, but this value varies forces in a robotic fruit fly (Dickinson et al., 1999). Flow
widely across experiments (Lehmann, 2004). Clap and fling is not measurements suggest a correlation between vortices near the
used continuously, but rather for more demanding flight behaviors wing and this difference. We cannot, however, assume that this
such as when carrying loads, making sharp turns or during take-off difference is a direct result of wing interactions with wake vortices,
and climbing flight (Lehmann, 2004; Wakeling and Ellington, because there is no aerodynamic model to predict the magnitude and
1997; Sunada, 1993). Although many insect species, including phase of forces resulting from wing–wake interactions. These forces
butterflies, chalcid wasps, fruit flies, Diptera and damselflies, show are also difficult to quantify because the wing–wake interactions
variations of this mechanism (Lehmann, 2004; Weis-Fogh, 1973), inevitably alter fluid velocities and coherent structures in the wake.
some species do not utilize it at all, suggesting that clap and fling is a Many vortex wake studies rely on particle image velocimetry (PIV)
specialization (Wakeling and Ellington, 1997; Dickinson et al., to obtain measurements of these velocity fields, and are thus unable

Journal of Experimental Biology

1999). It is also hypothesized that this mechanism is used by to isolate the aerodynamic effect that the wake interactions have on
vertebrates during more strenuous flight behaviors (Weis-Fogh, the flying animal (Bomphrey, 2012).
1973); in fact, clap and fling has been observed during the slow
flight of diamond doves (Crandell and Tobalske, 2015). Quasi-steady model
Quasi-steady models allow for an estimate of aerodynamic forces to
Wing–wake interaction be calculated. The quasi-steady assumption is that fluid dynamic
During stroke reversal, the wing can ‘capture’ vortices shed during forces do not depend on their time history; instead, they only depend
the previous stroke (Fig. 1F), which occur in a region known as the on instantaneous wing kinematics such as velocities and
wake. In doing so, some of the energy lost from the previous stroke accelerations. A quasi-steady model for insect flight is of
is supposedly recovered from the air, thereby improving the overall particular interest because it simplifies the first four of the
efficiency of force production. This unsteady aerodynamic effect is aerodynamic mechanisms discussed above (added mass, absence
known as wake capture or wing–wake interaction. It is thought to of stall, rotational circulation and clap and fling) into manageable
result in a peak in aerodynamic forces immediately following stroke equations (Box 1). Note that wake capture forces are excluded from
reversal, the magnitude and direction of which depends on the phase this model, because they are poorly understood and inherently
relationship between rotation and translation (Dickinson et al., dependent on flow history. A quasi-steady model incorporating both
1999). The wing–wake interaction may contribute up to 25% of total translational and rotational effects can capture the time course of

922
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

Box 1. Quasi-steady methods for estimating aerodynamic forces of flapping animal wings

A Quasi-steady wing (or blade) B Actuator disc theory

Thrust
element theory F Lift

F
Fa U⬁

Fs,lift Fr
Fs,drag

F≈L= –2ρAdw2
ue
C Vortex theory

F=Fs,lift+Fs,drag+Fr+Fa+FWake capture F≈L=ρΓUb

Translational lift ∂w – ∂u
i Γ= ∫A ∂x ∂z
dA
Fs,lift =Σ-ρc||u 2
e|| CL(α)Δr
1
2

Translational drag
ii ΓLEV=πdLEVuθ
1
Fs,drag=Σ-ρc||u 2
2 e|| CD(α)Δr

Rotational force
iii
.
Fr=ΣCrραc2||ue||Δr
WT
Γideal=
ρS
Added mass force .
Fa=Σ
ρπc2 [Link]
4 ||ue|| { .
sinα + ||ue||αcosα Δr } Γdeal=
W
ρUb

The current quasi-steady insect wing model (Dickson et al., 2008; shown in A) calculates total force on the wing by summing the listed force components
along the span for wing elements with chord c and width Δr. Fs,lift acts perpendicular to the wing velocity (ue), and Fs,drag opposes velocity. Fr and Fa act normal
to the wing surface, with Fa pointing opposite to wing acceleration, and Fr pointing dorsally during supination and ventrally during pronation. No model exists
for wake capture. Translational lift (CL) and drag (CD) coefficients are measured as functions of the angle of attack (α) with a spinning wing. Harmonic
functions have been fitted to this data for fruit flies (Dickinson et al., 1999) and hummingbirds (Kruyt et al., 2014). The rotational force coefficient (Cr) and
added mass coefficients have been calculated using inviscid flow theory (Dickson et al., 2008). In the equations presented in A, ρ represents air density, a_
represents angle of attack velocity and u_ e represents wing acceleration. An alternative method of estimating aerodynamic forces, actuator disc theory
(shown in B), estimates lift as the product of mass flux through the stroke plane area, Ad (represented by the green shaded area), and twice the induced
velocity, w (Muijres et al., 2011a). In contrast, inviscid vortex theory (shown in C) estimates lift as the product of air density, circulation (Γ), velocity (U) and
wingspan (b). Circulation equations are given for: (i) a general velocity field with area A (image shows a velocity field derived from PIV measurements and
colored based on relative vorticity, adapted from Muijres et al., 2008, with permission); (ii) an LEV with average diameter dLEV and swirl velocity at the edge of
the vortex uθ; and (iii) vortices shed by straight-flying animals with body weight W. These vortices are modeled either as elliptical vortex loops with projected
horizontal area S and period T, for slow flight (upper bird), or as vortex lines called tip vortices separated by wingspan b during fast flight (lower bird;
Hedenstrom et al., 2006; Hubel et al., 2010; van den Berg and Ellington, 1997).

aerodynamic force generation with reasonable biological accuracy, helicopter blades or an actuator disc (Box 1). By measuring this
but not with mechanistic precision (Sane, 2003; Lehmann, 2004). velocity and estimating the mass flux through the disc, the resulting

Journal of Experimental Biology

As with most ad hoc models, these quasi-steady models are lift can be estimated based on the rate of change in the downwards
grounded in theory, but typically require empirical data to determine momentum. Wake measurements during forward flight can also be
the time-invariant parameters. Translational lift and drag used to measure the wake width for a more accurate estimate of the
coefficients, for example, have been found experimentally by mass flux throughout a wingbeat. The actuator disc theory has the
revolving model insect wings at a constant velocity and angle of benefit of greater simplicity compared with the kinematics-based
attack (Dickinson et al., 1999). However, a recent model by Nabawy quasi-steady model described above. However, the actuator disc
and Crowther (2014) improves upon the generalizability of existing theory only estimates vertical lift production and corresponding
quasi-steady models by parameterizing wing geometry and induced power. Thrust forces are assumed to be negligible, and the
kinematics. This enables the application of the model to different model cannot be used to estimate temporal or spatial variations
insects without detailed kinematic recordings, allowing more during a wingbeat (Muijres et al., 2011a).
comparative studies (Nabawy and Crowther, 2014). The second method for estimating aerodynamic forces relies on
Two other quasi-steady methods for estimating aerodynamic using the vorticity derived from velocity field measurements of the
forces rely on measuring flow instead of wing kinematics. These wakes. A rough estimate of the generated lift can then be calculated
flow measurements generally involve using PIV to capture the wake based on inviscid vortex theory (Box 1) (Hedenstrom et al., 2006;
below or behind the flying animal. The first method models the Hubel et al., 2010). When the wake is thin near the trailing edge, the
induced velocity of the flapping wings analogously to that of velocity field in a plane perpendicular to the wake can be used to

923
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

derive a good approximation of aerodynamic forces. However,

Seed
thrust is often overestimated if the wake is not thin, as is the case for
hovering birds (Minotti, 2011). The PIV plane may also be an
imperfect representation of the flow because of wake deformations
that occur in time and space (Bomphrey, 2012). Additionally, Stiff wing
accounting only for vortex forces results in errors due to the
omission of fluid acceleration around the wing. Direct numerical
simulations have shown that local accelerations due to unsteady
Insect
inertial effects are non-negligible in flapping flight; thus, time-
resolved velocity measurements are needed to capture local vertical
accelerations and more accurately determine lift generation (Wang
et al., 2013). To resolve the net force accurately, the velocity field
needs to be both temporally and spatially resolved. Flexible wing

A convergent solution for avoiding stall: leading edge

vortices Bat
Compared with what we know about insect flight, our current
understanding of bird and bat aerodynamics is limited owing to
the greater morphological complexity of vertebrate wings and the
turbulent flow associated with their flight at intermediate Reynolds
numbers (see Glossary). Nevertheless, a number of aerodynamic Membranous
mechanisms have been shown to enhance lift across both insects muscular wing
and vertebrates; in particular, the LEV has been identified as a
convergent solution for preventing stall. At high angles of attack,
LEVs have been observed across a wide range of biological wings
Hummingbird
(Fig. 2) that range in complexity from stiff-winged plant seeds
(Lentink et al., 2009) to bird wings that can change shape (i.e.
morphing wings) (Muijres et al., 2012; Videler et al., 2004). Based
on studies of robotic insects, this aerodynamic mechanism may
Minimal morphing
enhance lift by up to 45% in hovering fruit flies (Dickinson et al.,
feathered wing
1999) and support up to two-thirds of the lift during the
downstroke of hovering hawkmoths (van den Berg and
Ellington, 1997). Among vertebrates, the LEV can increase lift
by up to 40% in slow-flying bats (Muijres et al., 2008), and it Bird
represents up to 26% of the total lift in hovering hummingbirds
(Warrick et al., 2009) and up to ∼50% of the lift in some forward-
flying birds (Muijres et al., 2012). However, these estimates of
vertebrate lift enhancement may only be rough approximations of
the true values, because they are based on the quasi-steady method
that uses inviscid vortex theory (Box 1). As described previously, Morphing
this method does not account for unsteady effects, which may feathered wing
become particularly significant during stroke reversal when the
LEV is shed and regenerated. Fig. 2. The leading edge vortex (LEV) is a convergent solution for high lift
across body plans. Stable LEVs have been found in (top to bottom): an auto-
Comparing insect versus vertebrate aerodynamics: rotating maple seed (Lentink et al., 2009), a model hawkmoth (Manduca)
flapper (Ellington et al., 1996), Pallas’ long-tongued bat, Glossophaga soricina
informative dimensionless numbers

Journal of Experimental Biology

(Muijres et al., 2008), the rufous hummingbird, Selasphorus rufus (Warrick
The convergent use of the LEV among insects and vertebrates et al., 2009), and a pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca (Muijres et al., 2012).
suggests that these animals may employ other common The LEV images shown for the seed and insect wing are from smoke
aerodynamic mechanisms. Comparing aerodynamics across visualizations, and those for the vertebrate wings are from particle image
insects and vertebrates may therefore extend our limited velocimetry (PIV) measurements. The local bat wing profile and relative motion
understanding of bat and bird flight. Given the wide array of are shown by the red curve and arrows. The hummingbird wing profile is shown
different variables related to the wing morphology and flapping by the white curve, with the dashed body outline superimposed for reference.
Color bars in PIV images refer to vorticity ranges, scaled from −1750 (red)
kinematics of insects and vertebrates, how can their flapping wing to 1750 s−1 (black) for the bat, −6000 (blue) to 6000 s−1 (red) for the
aerodynamics best be compared? Non-dimensional parameters hummingbird, and −2000 (red) to 2000 s−1 (white) for the bird. All images are
combining the most relevant variables that describe the properties of reproduced with permission.
air, wing morphology and kinematics provide a useful means for
comparing such diverse groups of animals. In particular, parameters
that govern aerodynamic mechanisms – such as the formation of empirical, but are key non-dimensional parameters of Newton’s law
stable LEVs – may offer the greatest comparative insight. Here, we for fluids (represented by the Navier–Stokes equations), expressed
identify and discuss three particularly informative dimensionless for flapping wings (Lentink and Dickinson, 2009). These three
numbers: the Reynolds number (Re), the Rossby number (Ro) and parameters are shown in Fig. 3, and provide the context for
the advance ratio (J ) (see Glossary). These numbers are not comparing insect and vertebrate aerodynamics.

924
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

A Transition B
region LEV
Laminar Turbulent
boundary boundary
Uf layer layer
Uf
δ c

Boundary layer
c
C
2
Ufc c
A Re ⬀
v δ
Uw

R R
Ro J 2 + 1. c

Uf s
J
Uw 2A
LEV
Uf S

Fig. 3. Non-dimensional parameters that determine flapping wing aerodynamics. Three non-dimensional numbers that relate air, kinematic and morphology
parameters to key flow phenomena in flapping animal flight – the Reynolds number (Re), advance ratio (J ) and Rossby number (Ro) – can be interpreted visually
as length scale ratios (Lentink and Dickinson, 2009). (A) Transition of the wing boundary layer from laminar to turbulent flow depends on Re, which is proportional
to the square of the chord length, c, measured in boundary layer thickness, δ: Re∝(c/δ)2. At the high Re of vertebrates, the chord length is much larger than
the boundary layer thickness – compare this with insects, which have relatively thick viscous boundary layers. Uf, forward velocity. Figure adapted from Shyy et al.
(2013), with permission. (B) The stability of the leading edge vortex on a wing swinging around a ‘shoulder’ joint depends on Ro, which is equal to the wing
radius, R, divided by chord length, c, during hovering flight when J=0 (the boundary layer on the lower side corresponds to A). Figure adapted from Sane (2003),
with permission. (C) The interactions of a vortex wake with the flapping wing depend on J, which is equal to the forward distance traveled by the wing base, s,
divided by the total distance traveled by the wingtip in the stroke plane, 2A, during one wingbeat. The wing is shown during mid-stroke, when a stable LEV is
present (the cross-section corresponds to B). The LEV connects to the tip vortex and is shed after each half-stroke. J governs the resulting wake dynamics and the
interactions of the wake with the wing. Uw, wingtip velocity in the stroke plane; ν, kinematic viscosity of the fluid. During forward flight, Ro increases with J, which
explains why less-prominent LEVs are formed at high J in animal flight. Figure adapted from Lentink and Dickinson (2009), with permission.

The parameter that differs the most between insect and When flapping wings ‘translate’ during the downstroke and
vertebrate flight is Re, the ratio between inertial and viscous upstroke, they are actually revolving about the shoulder joint (or
forces in the airflow. Re can range up to six orders of magnitude equivalent point of rotation). Ro is used to characterize these
among flying animals, from values close to 1 for the smallest rotational effects by describing the ratio of inertial to Coriolis forces.
hovering insects to ∼1,000,000 for a diving falcon (Swartz et al., For hovering flight, Ro can also be interpreted more intuitively as
2008). Beyond Re of ∼10,000, the regime in which most the aspect ratio (see Glossary) of a single wing with respect to the
vertebrates fly, the boundary layer flow can become transitional center of rotation (the shoulder joint). It ranges roughly from 1 to 10,
or turbulent, which governs aerodynamic performance with average values between 3 and 4 for hovering insects and

Journal of Experimental Biology

optimization in a way that is not yet fully understood for bats vertebrates (Fig. 4B) (Lentink and Dickinson, 2009). Flapping
and birds (Elimelech and Ellington, 2013; Lentink and de Kat, wings can be approximated experimentally by spinning wings
2014; van Bokhorst, et al., 2015). Studies have shown that Re has during midstroke, when angular velocity is near constant. When this
important implications for the structure of the LEVs formed on is the case, Ro governs the ability of the wing to maintain a stable
insect and vertebrate wings (Fig. 4A). For example, at the lower Re LEV, because it is inversely proportional to the centripetal and
values associated with insect flight, axial flow in the LEV Coriolis accelerations that induce the stabilizing span-wise flow on
increases with Re (Birch et al., 2004). As Re continues to increase spinning and flapping wings. LEV stabilization requires Ro of ∼4 or
to values associated with vertebrate flight, the LEV may bifurcate lower (Lentink and Dickinson, 2009; Kruyt et al., 2015).
or burst (Lentink and Dickinson, 2009). Although Re is well suited The advance ratio, J, is used to characterize the effects resulting
for describing the average flow around fixed wings, it is not from the reciprocating motion of a flapping wing. J is the ratio of
sufficient to describe the flow around flapping wings, which the forward flight velocity component of the wing tip (Uf ) to the
accelerates and decelerates significantly during each wingstroke. velocity component in the stroke plane of the flapping wing (Uw).
We thus require two more dimensionless numbers, namely Ro and The wingtip velocity component in the stroke plane can also
J, to characterize the locally accelerating flow around flapping be expressed as the distance traveled by the wingtip in the stroke
wings. Unlike Re, these two numbers are remarkably similar across plane – twice the peak-to-peak amplitude (A), times the flapping
all animals with flapping wings. frequency ( f ) – so J=Uf/2Af. Using this definition, J is purely a

925
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

A B C
Re↓ Re↑ Slow flight: J ↓ Fast flight: J ↑
Ro

flow
b λ Upstroke

Stalled air
LEV can burst Vhor/V0(r)
8 1.5

0
Insect

00
Re=1400
Re=110

1 Downstroke

Re=14,00
Hummingbird

Re=280,0
0.5
Rossby wing tip

Bat 0
6 Bird –0.5

Rossby wing tip

Upstroke
4 Ro
4

y
Stall dela
2

Hummingbirds
2
Downstroke
0

Insects
Fruit 10–3 10–1 101 103 Mute

Birds
Bats
fly Mass (g) swan
0

Fig. 4. How leading edge vortex (LEV) and vortex wake formation depends on dimensionless numbers. (A) Reynolds number (Re) effect on LEV formation.
Re ranges over orders of magnitude in animal flight, from 102 for small insects to 106 for diving falcons. Throughout this range, Re significantly influences LEV
formation. At the Re of insect flight, axial flow in the LEV increases with Re. Upper left plots show sectional velocity fields over a wing at Re=120 and 1400,
superimposed over a color plot of axial velocity; the color bar ranges from 0 (white) to 0.5 m s−1 (black). At Re over 1400, LEVs may bifurcate (λ) or burst (b) (as
shown in the upper right image; bifurcated vortices are separated by the red line), especially when the boundary layer begins to transition from laminar to turbulent
flow. This transition occurs at Re≈104, which is intermediate to insects and most birds, but where hummingbirds fly. Figures adapted from Birch et al. (2004) and
Lentink and Dickinson (2009), with permission. (B) Rossby number (Ro) effect on LEV stability. Horizontal air speed distributions (Vhor) over a wing revolving at a
high angle of attack (45 deg) are shown relative to the wing speed [(Vo(r)]. Most flying animal wings fall within Ro of 3 to 4, where stall delay is maintained [white
regions on the wing, where Vhor/Vo(r)<1]. As Ro increases, the wing becomes unable to maintain a stable LEV, resulting in stalled airflow. During stall, the
horizontal air velocity is close to the wing speed, so it sticks to the surface and stands still [colored regions, where Vhor/Vo(r)≈1]. Figure adapted from Kruyt et al.
(2015), with permission. (C) Advance ratio (J ) effect on vortex wake formation and interaction. The structure of the vortex wake is strongly dependent on J, which
can range from 0 to 5 in animal flight. During slow flight (small J ), wingtip vortices shed by birds during the downstroke (blue) and upstroke (red) form two distinct
loops. Slow-flying bats shed vorticity at their wing base as well as at the wingtip, leading to separate vortex loops for each wing. At cruising speed (large J ), smaller
vortices are shed throughout the stroke cycle, forming a wake structure that resembles a ladder. Figure adapted from Hedenstrom et al. (2007) and Spedding et al.
(2003), with permission.

kinematic parameter. However, if we assume that flapping the wide range of body sizes of these species. The effects of different
frequency is equivalent to the vortex shedding frequency, then J body sizes on the aerodynamics of flying animals are often
becomes precisely half the inverse of another well-known non- estimated using isometric scaling arguments and empirical
dimensional parameter, the Strouhal number (St=Af/Uf ). allometric relationships. Many power functions have been
Although St is often used in biological literature, it is undefined developed to express flight variables, such as characteristic speeds
for hovering flight (Uf=0 results in St=∞), so we use J for and the power required for steady horizontal flight, as functions of
describing both hovering (J=0) and forward flight (J>0). With f wing dimensions or body mass (Shyy et al., 2013; Rayner 1988;
defined as the vortex shedding frequency, J governs the time scales Norberg, 1990). However, mechanical and physical constraints
of vortex growth and shedding in the wake, so different vortex often lead to deviations from these scaling relationships, and
wake structures are formed at different values of J (Taylor et al., isometry is generally only a reasonable approximation at lower
2003; Hedenstrom et al., 2007; Spedding et al., 2003; Fig. 4C). taxonomic levels (Alerstam et al., 2007; Shyy et al., 2013; Rayner,
Based on the typical ranges of St reported for flapping animal 1988; Norberg, 1990). Thus, to understand the implications of size
flight (Taylor et al., 2003), J varies from 0 to 5, with optimal differences across insects and vertebrates, we instead examine the
propulsive efficiency at 1.25<J<2.50. This range has been effects of size on the dimensionless numbers (Ro, J and Re) that
correlated with higher efficiency of propulsion in both aquatic govern flapping flight aerodynamics.

Journal of Experimental Biology

and aerial locomotion, because, within this range, J is optimally The effect of animal size on Ro and J may not be immediately
tuned to form vortex wake structures associated with efficient apparent, because these values are fairly consistent across the
thrust development (Triantafyllou et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 2003; diverse groups of flying animals. J, for example, is a function of
Nudds et al., 2004). flapping amplitude, flight speed and wingbeat frequency, all of
In summary, these three key aerodynamic parameters determine which scale with mass. Ro is a function of J and the single-wing
the generation of turbulent flow (Re), the stability of the LEV (Ro) aspect ratio, which also scales with mass, and yet most animals fly
and the formation of an efficient vortex wake (J ). Re differs greatly within a narrow range of Ro and J, regardless of their size. This
between insects and vertebrates, whereas Ro and J are similar consistency can be explained by the constraints associated with
for insect and vertebrate flight. The significance of the differences in sustaining flight performance; to maintain a stable LEV, Ro must be
Re and similarities in Ro and J may be better appreciated by ∼4 or less, and for optimal forward flight, J must be between 1.25
considering scaling effects in the context of these numbers. and 2.5. In light of the fact that animals with comparable behavior or
niches tend to exhibit similar flight morphology (Rayner, 1988;
Interpreting the aerodynamic implications of body size with Norberg, 1990), we may also interpret the consistency of these
dimensionless numbers parameters as less of a constraint, and more of a strategy to optimize
The dimensionless numbers Ro, J and Re can provide a useful lens flight performance for necessary behaviors. In either case, we see
for examining how the flight of insects and vertebrates is affected by that the insensitivity of Ro and J to differences in scale make these

926
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

numbers useful for understanding aerodynamic performance across primarily during the downstroke. Bat wings, which similarly flex
a wide range of animal sizes. during the upstroke and extend during the downstroke, also
In contrast, size has a much greater effect on Re and the generate the majority of aerodynamic force during the downstroke
aerodynamics that it governs. Small and lightweight insects tend to (Hedenstrom et al., 2007; Tian et al., 2006). Flow studies at
have shorter wings and fly at lower speeds, and thus at lower Re. For intermediate speeds suggest that bats may also generate a small
very low values of Re (between 1 and 1000), fluid interaction amount of negative lift and positive thrust at the end of their
between the wings and surroundings is limited; viscous forces damp upstroke with reversed vortex dipoles (Hedenstrom et al., 2009;
out external disturbances in the flow and limit the spatial and Muijres et al., 2011b). At higher speeds, these vortex structures
temporal extent of wakes (Swartz et al., 2008). In contrast, large become more prominent for two nectar-feeding bats (Muijres
birds and bats tend to have longer wings and fly at higher Re. In this et al., 2011b), but fade or disappear altogether for an insectivorous
regime, the boundary layer flow over the wing is more sensitive to bat (Hubel et al., 2012).
turbulence in the atmosphere and other environmental effects. Large Given that vertebrates seem to generate aerodynamic force
animals also tend to generate more turbulence and leave behind primarily during the downstroke across all flight speeds, how
longer wakes that dissipate more slowly (Swartz et al., 2008). does their specialized wing morphology help to facilitate this?
Because Re strongly affects how flow develops close to the wing, Similar to insect wings, bird and bat wings have a sharp
vertebrates require different wing morphology and kinematics than leading edge that promotes the formation of a LEV (Videler
insects to generate aerodynamic force. et al., 2004; Norberg, 1972). Vertebrates can use their arm and
hand muscles to actively twist and bend the wing surface
Wing stroke and morphology functions unique to vertebrates within a stroke. For birds, this wing twist reduces the angle of
How do morphological and kinematic features of the flapping attack along the wingspan, which may help to stabilize the
wings of flying vertebrates contrast with those of insects and LEV and prevent flow separation (Muijres et al., 2012). Birds
mediate differences in aerodynamic performance? Although there can also use their alula, a small winglet attached to the bird’s
are limited data that can be compared directly, we can compare thumb, as a wing slot to prevent flow separation (Lee et al.,
current lift and drag force estimates resolved within a wing beat 2015; Hedenstrom et al., 2009). Bats can actively optimize the
for insects and vertebrates (Fig. 5). Most of the force data shape of their wing through the use of tiny muscles in the
available for insects and hummingbirds only pertain to hovering membrane (Cheney et al., 2014) in concert with over two
flight; thus, to make this comparison, we pooled data for hovering dozen independently controlled joints of deformable bones that
insects and hummingbirds with that derived from slow-flying stretch the wing (Tian et al., 2006). By flexing their first and
(∼2–3 m s−1) bats and birds. Although insects in forward flight fifth digits and/or the leading edge flap between their second
generate more lift during the downstroke than the upstroke and third digits, bats increase the camber, and thus the lift
(Willmott et al., 1997; Ennos, 1989; Young et al., 2009; coefficient, of their wings (Hedenstrom et al., 2009; Norberg,
Henningsson and Bomphrey, 2013), many hovering insects 1972). These changes in camber may also help maintain the
support their body weight relatively symmetrically during the LEV (Muijres et al., 2008). To fully establish these functions
upstroke and downstroke (Dickinson et al., 1999). In contrast, of active twist and camber changes, we need better physical
most bats and birds support their body weight primarily during the models and novel in vivo animal manipulations.
downstroke across all flight speeds. Finally, insect wings are corrugated and covered with scales,
Insect wings exhibit significant flexibility that can reduce drag hairs and other features that protrude into the boundary layer flow.
or increase lift (Zhao et al., 2010; Du and Sun, 2010; Young et al., Bird and bat wing surfaces are similarly architecturally
2009), but the only active control that insects have over these wing sophisticated, and the boundary layer over vertebrate wings is
deformations comes from forces applied at the wing base sensitive to these surface protrusions because Re values of these
(Wootton, 1981). Flying vertebrates, in contrast, have intrinsic species are above 10,000. If the angle of attack is high enough and
wing musculature that allows for greater control over shape the protrusion height is similar to the local boundary layer thickness,
changes during different flight modes. For example, fast-flying the flow over the upper surface of the wing will transition to
birds and those with rounded low-aspect-ratio wings tend to fully turbulent flow (van Bokhorst et al., 2015). Turbulent boundary
flex their entire wing during the upstroke, without generating lift. layers are more resistant to flow separation, and allow the high drag
Another type of upstroke often referred to as the ‘wingtip reversal and hysteresis effects caused by laminar flow separation to be

Journal of Experimental Biology

upstroke’ is used predominately by slow-flying birds, especially overcome (Shyy et al., 2013). In swifts, the feather rachides act as
those with pointed higher-aspect-ratio wings. This upstroke ‘turbulator’ strips to force the flow to become turbulent, which
involves supination of the hand wing, the distal section of the dramatically reduces flow separation (van Bokhorst et al., 2015).
avian wing, using multiple points of rotation within the wing Similarly, in bats, the ridges formed by digits that project over the
(Crandell and Tobalske, 2011; Hedenstrom et al., 2009; Ros et al., dorsal surface may reduce flow separation (Norberg, 1972). There is
2011). As the hand wing supinates, the primary feathers separate also behavioral evidence that bats monitor flow on their wings with
like a Venetian blind and function as individual airfoils, allowing small hairs on the dorsal surface of their membranous wings; when
air to flow through the wing (Hedenstrom et al., 2009; Crandell these hairs are removed, bats fly faster and make wider turns
and Tobalske, 2011). A variety of studies, including those (Sterbing-D’Angelo et al., 2011).
involving wing spinners (Crandell and Tobalske, 2011) and We thus begin to see how vertebrates can control the intermediate
kinematics (Ros et al., 2011; Hedrick et al., 2004), as well as a few Re flow over their wings using specialized morphological
flow studies (Warrick et al., 2009; Crandell and Tobalske, 2015), adaptations. By manipulating the shape of their wings, birds and
suggest that this upstroke generates some thrust and weight bats may be able to significantly improve lift during the downstroke
support. The first direct force measurements in animal flight by maintaining the LEV, and they may also be able to minimize drag
(Lentink et al., 2015) suggest that slow-flying birds that reverse and power during the upstroke. Further studies are needed to
their wingtips during the upstroke support their body weight quantify these aerodynamic functions.

927
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

Fig. 5. How flapping wing force within a wingbeat compares among

insects, birds and bats. (A) Many hovering insects generate similar lift and
drag forces during the downstroke (gray background) and upstroke (white
background). Force estimates are based on measurements from a robotic
model fruit fly. Figure adapted from Dickinson et al. (1999), with permission.
1 (B) For Glossophaga soricina (dashed lines) and Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
A Total (dash-dotted lines), body-weight-normalized lift (L*, red and dark blue lines)
Drag (N) force and thrust (T*, orange and light blue lines) forces dominate during the
downstroke. Results shown are based on vorticity measurements and vortex
Insect theory for slow (2 m s−1) forward flight. Figure adapted from Muijres et al.
0 (2011b), with permission. (C) Hovering hummingbirds generate less, but still
significant, lift and drag during their upstroke compared with their downstroke.
Translational
The coefficients of lift (CL) and drag (CD) shown are based on computational
component
0.75 fluid dynamics. Figure adapted from Song et al. (2014), with permission.
Hovering (D) Slow-flying pigeons produce much less net aerodynamic force (|F|) during
the upstroke than the downstroke, based on 3D kinematics and body mass
Lift (N)

distributions. The force trace shown is the pooled mean±s.d. of the mean |F| for
three pigeons, normalized to body weight (BW) and wingbeat duration. The
0 discontinuity is caused by variations in stroke durations. Figure adapted from
Ros et al. (2011), with permission. (E) Pacific parrotlets produce little weight
support during the upstroke, based on direct force measurements during slow
B 2 forward flight. Horizontal axis shows time (t) normalized to total wingbeat
Bat duration (T ). Figure adapted from Lentink et al. (2015), with permission.
L* and T*

An integrative and comparative framework for flapping

wings
Slow level Using non-dimensional numbers to understand the aerodynamics of
flight 0 flapping animal flight
In spite of morphological and kinematic differences between insect
6 and vertebrate flight, the available aerodynamic mechanisms of
C CL
force generation, such as the convergent LEV, are governed by the
CD same non-dimensional parameters. Consequently, we infer that
Hummingbird animals may employ similar aerodynamic mechanisms if Ro and J
of their flapping wings are similar and Re effects are small. Using
CL and CD

these parameters, we have organized an integrative and comparative

framework of flapping wing aerodynamics as outlined in Fig. 6,
Hovering which is based on our current knowledge. To determine what
research remains to be performed to complete this framework, we
have categorized seven aerodynamic mechanisms studied in animal
0
flight by animal group and flight speed in Fig. 7. To streamline the
D overview, we have grouped diverse ‘morphological effects’ as the
Bird 4
seventh mechanism (light green shading in Fig. 7). The overview
reveals that our integrative and comparative understanding of
Force (BW)

flapping animal flight is remarkably incomplete.

Fig. 7 identifies the many gaps that must be filled to form an
inclusive framework for understanding the aerodynamics of
Slow level 0
flapping animal flight. Aside from the LEV, it is unclear to what
flight degree vertebrates make use of the five key aerodynamic
mechanisms that have been identified for insects, particularly

Journal of Experimental Biology

wake capture, in addition to morphological effects. In contrast,
E 0.6
upstroke effects found in vertebrates have not yet been studied in
Bird insects. More quantitative studies will be essential to determine the
relative contribution of all of these mechanisms to lift and drag; this
is especially true for birds and bats across different flight speeds.
Force (N)

However, even among insects, quantitative studies have focused

predominately on hovering flight, so more quantitative studies of
Slow level insect forward flight are also needed. Although several flow studies
flight in recent years have examined forward vertebrate flight, many focus
0 primarily on elucidating vortex wake structures (Bomphrey, 2012;
0 0.5 1 Hubel et al., 2010; von Busse et al., 2014; Henningsson et al., 2014,
Wingbeat (t/T) 2011; Johansson and Hedenstrom, 2009; Hedenstrom et al., 2007,
2006; Muijres et al., 2011b). Also, although some vorticity
measurements have been able to account for full weight support,
many show deficits in estimated lift, especially at lower speeds when
unsteady effects become more significant (von Busse et al., 2014;

928
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

1. Morphology 2. Kinematics
• Wing shape (surface area, aspect ratio, • Flapping frequency
taper, camber) • Forward velocity (Uf)
• Geometric angle of attack (αg)

αg Uf
• Surface features (skin, feathers,
protruding bone/rachis, hairs, serration)
• Stroke plane angle (γ)
• Body angle (β)

• Morphing
β γ

3. Flow parameters combine morphology and kinematics

Reynolds number, Re=Ufc/v
Rossby number, Ro=(J 2+1)0.5R/c
Advance ratio, J=Uf/Uw

Known Added mass effects

aerodynamic Leading edge vortices / absence of stall
mechanisms Clap and fling Wing morphing
depend on the
Wing–wake interaction Wingtip and root vortices
combination
of morphology Rotational effects Reversed vortex dipole Tip-reversal
and kinematics Front–hind wing interaction Tail effects

Fig. 6. Integrated framework for modeling flapping flight of insects, bats and birds, based on current knowledge. The aerodynamic mechanisms
employed by animals during flapping flight are governed by (1) morphology and (2) flight kinematics. Note that although morphing is also inherently kinematic, it is
listed as a morphological factor because the morphing capabilities of insects and vertebrates are strongly dependent on their wing morphology. As shown in Fig. 3,
key aerodynamic parameters of morphology and kinematics are combined in three non-dimensional numbers (3): Re, Ro and J. As shown in Fig. 4, these
dimensionless numbers are coupled to essential flow phenomena that have been shown to determine aerodynamic performance in animal flight. They can thus be
used to efficiently organize the relevance of aerodynamic mechanisms that have been identified in flapping animal flight. Effects that only span the left-most
column are those that have been studied primarily for insects. Those that span only the right two columns are those that have been studied primarily for
vertebrates. Reversed vortex dipoles and tip reversal have been studied primarily in bats and birds, respectively. Adapted from Hedenstrom et al. (2009), Norberg
(2002), Brown (1963) and Shyy et al. (2013), with permission.

Henningsson et al., 2011). Placing an additional emphasis on induced drag (drag due to lift) is also underestimated. However,
accurately resolving these forces, especially in the context of drag tends to be even more greatly underestimated than lift,
different aerodynamic mechanisms, would be a valuable because total drag force also includes profile drag (drag due to
complement to such vortex wake studies. skin friction and the shape of the body), which is difficult to
Furthermore, the quasi-steady model, which uses different model precisely (Sane and Dickinson, 2001). As a result, quasi-
equations for modeling lift and drag (Dickinson et al., 1999), is steady model equations vastly underestimate mean drag
unable to match the time course of either measured force coefficients, despite the fact that stroke-averaged mean lift
component. Lift predicted by the model typically accounts for coefficients are reasonably accurate for hovering flight (Sane
only ∼70% of body weight support (Kruyt et al., 2014), so and Dickinson, 2001). Thus, for all animals and modes of flight,

Slow Faster

Journal of Experimental Biology

Absence of stall
Rotational effects
Added mass
Clap and fling
Wing–wake interaction
Upstroke effects
Wing morphology
Body/tail/hindwing

In vivo Prepared real wing Robot or model wing CFD Theory

Fig. 7. Gaps in our understanding of aerodynamic mechanisms across insects and vertebrates. Vertically, we list seven aerodynamic mechanisms studied
so far for flapping animal flight (the light green shading groups morphological effects as the seventh mechanism). Horizontally, we list animals (insects, bats,
hummingbirds and other birds). White columns represent slow flight and light blue columns represent faster flight. Colored circles indicate the methodology used
to study the aerodynamic mechanism. CFD, computational fluid dynamics. Filled and open circles indicate quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. Note
that filled circles do not imply direct force measurements, as many studies rely on force estimates based on flow field or kinematic measurements combined with
theory. The corresponding references are provided in Tables S1 and S2.

929
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

more studies are needed that determine drag. The deficit in drag of juvenile birds suggests that distant ancestors of birds may also
studies is likely due in large part to the technical challenges have benefitted from non-flying wings (Dial et al., 2008).
inherent in measuring drag compared with lift. Nevertheless, Asymmetric wing motions used by juvenile chukar for aerial
quantifying drag is essential for the determination of the righting also suggest another key function of incipient wings – they
corresponding aerodynamic power requirements, which underpin facilitate controlled aerial maneuvering (Evangelista et al., 2014;
flight energetics. Finally, more in vivo flight studies are necessary Dudley and Yanoviak, 2011). Further studies are needed to
to validate results derived from theoretical and physical models. determine whether the same aerodynamic mechanisms that are
For example, power requirements based on theory and employed by adult birds and bats are also present in the wing strokes
experimental measurements have recently been compared for a of juvenile vertebrates. Elucidating the development of these
fruit bat (von Busse et al., 2014), and similar comparisons would mechanisms will thus not only aid us in forming a comprehensive
prove valuable for validating models across different species. It model for flapping flight, but may also provide greater insight into
would also be of interest to expand research to include other taxa the evolution of flight.
that have not yet been studied owing to technical challenges
associated with their relatively large or small size. By filling in Conclusions: challenges and opportunities for
these gaps, an overview of the aerodynamic mechanisms used by understanding flapping animal flight
flying animals can be established. Re, Ro and J can then be used From our review of the literature, we can identify five key
to classify which mechanisms are available for insects, bats and challenges for developing a comprehensive model that provides a
birds based on their wing morphology and motion across specific mechanistic basis for understanding the physiology, movement
flight modes. ecology and evolution of animal flight. (1) The aerodynamic
mechanisms of vertebrates still need to be examined as thoroughly
Understanding flapping flight in its biological context as has been done for insects. (2) Next, the models will need to be
Many questions remain unanswered in the realm of hovering and extended to work for various flight maneuvers, including
forward flight, but even more exist for some of the most interesting climbing, descending and turning flight. (3) Furthermore, these
animal flight behaviors. Animals that fly with flapping wings have models will need to be validated by in vivo measurements of lift
the ability to execute dynamic aerial maneuvers such as obstacle and drag forces across flight behaviors, preferably during natural
avoidance, sharp turns or the capture of prey in mid-air. The non- behavior in the field. (4) Quantifying the effects of environmental
dimensional parameters discussed above can adequately cover the factors, such as turbulence, precipitation and changes in air
essential flow phenomena for straight and level flight. However, to density, will advance our understanding of movement ecology. (5)
encompass and organize the dynamics and aerodynamic effects Finally, integrating information on the developmental stage of
relevant to these more complex maneuvers, we suspect that animal flight will provide a lens for studying the evolution of
additional parameters are needed. flight. Overcoming these challenges to gain a deeper
From a biological perspective, a comprehensive framework will understanding of animal flight will be exciting from both a
also entail further study of environmental effects on animal flight. biological and an engineering perspective. It will enable the
For example, studies have shown that hummingbirds change their development of more robust and maneuverable aerial robots, and
flight kinematics, such as wingbeat frequency, flapping amplitude could also inspire more efficient designs in wind turbines and
and body orientation, to compensate for turbulence (Ortega- other technologies that operate in the atmosphere.
Jimenez et al., 2014) and precipitation (Ortega-Jimenez and
Dudley, 2012). Bats, in contrast, appear to avoid rain because of Competing interests
The authors declare no competing or financial interests.
both sensory and energy limitations (Voigt et al., 2011). Increased
elevation leads to reduced air density and oxygen levels, so altitude Funding
is another environmental factor that can affect flight performance. This work was supported by the KACST Center of Excellence for Aeronautics and
Hummingbirds, for example, can sustain hovering at high elevations Astronautics at Stanford.
at no additional metabolic cost with increased wing size and stroke
amplitude. However, at these altitudes, they may not be able to Supplementary information
Supplementary information available online at
perform complex maneuvers that are more energetically demanding [Link]
(Altshuler et al., 2004). Given that animals can fly through a range

Journal of Experimental Biology

of environmental conditions, quantifying the role of such References
environmental factors will strengthen our comprehension of the Alerstam, T., Rosé n, M., Bä ckman, J., Ericson, P. G. P. and Hellgren, O. (2007).
aerodynamic mechanisms that underpin an animal’s movement Flight speeds among bird species: Allometric and phylogenetic effects. PLoS Biol.
5, 0050197.
ecology (Swartz, et al., 2008).
Altshuler, D. L., Dudley, R. and McGuire, J. A. (2004). Resolution of a paradox:
Understanding how the aerodynamic mechanisms described hummingbird flight at high elevation does not come without a cost. Proc. Natl.
above have evolved over time may also lend further insight into the Acad. Sci. USA 101, 17731-17736.
function and importance of these mechanisms. The structures of Birch, J. M., Dickson, W. B. and Dickinson, M. H. (2004). Force production and
extinct taxa generally differ too greatly from extant adult animal flow structure of the leading edge vortex on flapping wings at high and low
Reynolds numbers. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1063-1072.
forms to allow us to fully understand the evolution of animal flight. Bomphrey, R. J. (2012). Advances in animal flight aerodynamics through flow
Instead, researchers often use an evolutionary developmental measurement. Evol. Biol. 39, 1-11.
approach to complement perspectives gained from the fossil Bomphrey, R. J., Taylor, G. K. and Thomas, A. L. R. (2009). Smoke visualization
record. This approach involves using the morphology and of free-flying bumblebees indicates independent leading-edge vortices on each
behavior of juvenile animals to gain insight into transitions from wing pair. Exp. Fluids. 46, 811-821.
Bos, F. M., Lentink, D. Van Oudheusden, B. W. and Bijl, H. (2008). Influence of
ancient ancestors to modern bats and birds (Cooper et al., 2012; Dial wing kinematics on aerodynamic performance in hovering insect flight. J. Fluid.
et al., 2008; Heers and Dial, 2012). For example, the observation of Mech. 594, 341-368.
aerodynamically active wing strokes in the under-developed wings Brown, R. H. J. (1963). The flight of birds. Biol. Rev. 38, 460-489.

930
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

Cheney, J. A., Konow, N., Middleton, K. M., Breuer, K. S., Roberts, T. J., Giblin, Lentink, D. and de Kat, R. (2014). Gliding swifts attain laminar flow over rough
E. L. and Swartz, S. M. (2014). Membrane muscle function in the compliant wings wings. PLoS ONE 9, e99901.
of bats. Bioinspir. Biomim. 9, 025007. . Lentink, D. and Dickinson, M. H. (2009). Rotational accelerations stabilize leading
Cooper, L. N., Cretekos, C. J. and Sears, K. E. (2012). The evolution edge vortices on revolving fly wings. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 2705-2719.
and development of mammalian flight. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 1, Lentink, D., Dickson, W. B., van Leeuwen, J. L. and Dickinson, M. H. (2009).
773-779. Leading-edge vortices elevate lift of autorotating plant seeds. Science 324,
Crandell, K. E. and Tobalske, B. W. (2011). Aerodynamics of tip-reversal upstroke 1438-1440.
in a revolving pigeon wing. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 1867-1873. Lentink, D., Haselsteiner, A. F. and Ingersoll, R. (2015). In vivo recording of
Crandell, K. E. and Tobalske, B. W. (2015). Kinematics and aerodynamics of avian aerodynamic force with an aerodynamic force platform: from drones to birds.
upstrokes during slow flight. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2518-2527. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141283.
Dial, K. P., Jackson, B. E. and Segre, P. (2008). A fundamental avian wing-stroke Liu, H., Ellington, C. P., Kawachi, K., van den Berg, C. and Willmott, A. P. (1998).
provides a new perspective on the evolution of flight. Nature 451, 985-989. A computational fluid dynamic study of hawkmoth hovering. J. Exp. Biol. 201,
Dickinson, M. H., Lehmann, F.-O. and Sane, S. P. (1999). Wing rotation and the 461-477.
aerodynamic basis of insect flight. Science 284, 1954-1960. Minotti, F. O. (2011). Determination of the instantaneous forces on flapping wings
Dickson, W. B., Straw, A. D. and Dickinson, M. H. (2008). Integrative model of from a localized fluid velocity field. Physics Fluids 23, 111902.
Drosophila flight. AIAA J. 46, 2150-2164. Muijres, F. T., Johansson, L. C., Barfield, R., Wolf, M., Spedding, G. R. and
Du, G. and Sun, M. (2010). Effects of wing deformation on aerodynamic forces in Hedenstrom, A. (2008). Leading-edge vortex improves lift in slow-flying bats.
hovering hoverflies. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 2273-2283. Science 319, 1250-1253.
Dudley, R. (2002). The Biomechanics of Insect Flight: Form, Function, Evolution. Muijres, F. T., Spedding, G. R., Winter, Y. and Hedenstrom, A. (2011a). Actuator
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. disk model and span efficiency of flapping flight in bats based on time-resolved
Dudley, R. and Yanoviak, S. P. (2011). Animal aloft: the origins of aerial behavior PIV measurements. Exp. Fluids 51, 511-525.
and flight. Integr. Comp. Biol. 51, 926-936. Muijres, F. T., Johansson, L. C., Winter, Y. and Hedenströ m, A. (2011b).
Elimelech, Y. and Ellington, C. P. (2013). Analysis of the transitional flow field over Comparative aerodynamic performance of flapping flight in two bat species using
a fixed hummingbird wing. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 303-318. time-resolved wake visualization. J. R. Soc. Interface 8, 1418-1428.
Ellington, C. P., van den Berg, C., Willmott, A. P. and Thomas, A. L. R. (1996). Muijres, F. T., Johansson, L. C. and Hedenstrom, A. (2012). Leading edge vortex
Leading-edge vortices in insect flight. Nature 384, 626-630. in a slow-flying passerine. Biol. Lett. 8.
Ennos, A. R. (1989). The kinematics and aerodynamics of the free flight of some Nabawy, M. R. A. and Crowther, W. J. (2014). On the quasi-steady aerodynamics
Diptera. J. Exp. Biol. 142, 49-85. of normal hovering flight part II: model implementation and evaluation. J. R. Soc.
Evangelista, D., Cam, S., Huynh, T., Krivitskiy, I. and Dudley, R. (2014). Interface 11, 20131197.
Ontogeny of aerial righting and wing flapping in juvenile birds. Biol. Lett. 10, Norberg, U. M. (1972). Bat wing structures important for aerodynamics and rigidity
20140497. (Mammalia, Chiroptera). Z. Morph. Tiere 73, 45-61.
Gill, R. E., Tibbitts, T. L., Douglas, D. C., Handel, C. M., Mulcahy, D. M., Norberg, U. M. (1990). Vertebrate Flight: Mechanics, Physiology, Morphology,
Gottschalck, J. C., Warnock, N., McCaffery, B. J., Battley, P. F. and Ecology, and Evolution (Zoophysiology). Berlin: Springer.
Piersma, T. (2009). Extreme endurance flights by landbirds crossing the Pacific Norberg, U. M. L. (2002). Structure, form, and function of flight in engineering and
Ocean: ecological corridor rather than barrier? Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 276, the living world. J. Morph. 252, 52-81.
447-457. Nudds, R. L., Taylor, G. K. and Thomas, A. L. R. (2004). Tuning of Strouhal
Hedenstrom, A., Rosen, M. and Spedding, G. R. (2006). Vortex wakes generated number for high propulsive efficiency accurately predicts how wingbeat frequency
by robins Erithacus rubecula during free flight in a wind tunnel. J. R. Soc. Interface and stroke amplitude relate and scale with size and flight speed in birds. Proc. R.
3, 263-276. Soc. Lond. B. 271, 2071-2076.
Hedenstrom, A., Johansson, L. C., Wolf, M., von Busse, R., Winter, Y. and Ortega-Jimenez, V. M. and Dudley, R. (2012). Flying in the rain: hovering
Spedding, G. R. (2007). Bat flight generates complex aerodynamic tracks. performance of Anna’s hummingbirds under varied precipitation. Proc. R. Soc. B
Science 316, 894-897. Biol. Sci. 279, 3996-4002.
Hedenstrom, A., Johansson, L. C. and Spedding, G. R. (2009). Bird or bat: Ortega-Jimenez, V. M., Sapir, N., Wolf, M., Variano, E. A. and Dudley, R. (2014).
comparing airframe design and flight performance. Bioinsp. Biomim. 4, 015001. Into turbulent air: size-dependent effects of von Karman vortex streets on
Hedrick, T. L., Usherwood, J. R. and Biewener, A. A. (2004). Wing inertia and hummingbird flight kinematics and energetics. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281,
whole-body acceleration: an analysis of instantaneous aerodynamic force 20140180.
production in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) flying across a range of Rayner, J. M. V. (1988). Form and function in avian flight. Curr. Ornithol. 1, 1-66.
speeds. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1689-1702. Ros, I. G., Bassman, L. C., Badger, M. A., Pierson, A. N. and Biewener, A. A.
Heers, A. M. and Dial, K. P. (2012). From extant to extinct: locomotor ontogeny and (2011). Pigeons steer like helicopters and generate down- and upstroke lift during
the evolution of avian flight. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 296-305. low speed turns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19990-19995.
Henningsson, P. and Bomphrey, R. J. (2013). Span efficiency in hawkmoths. Sane, S. P. (2003). The aerodynamics of insect flight. J. Exp. Biol. 206,
J. R. Soc. Interface 10, 20130099. 4191-4208.
Henningsson, P., Muijres, F. T. and Hedenstrom, A. (2011). Time-resolved vortex Sane, S. P. and Dickinson, M. H. (2001). The control of flight force by a flapping
wake of a common swift flying over a range of flight speeds. J. R. Soc. Interface 8, wing: lift and drag production. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 2607-2626.
807-816. Shi, J. J. and Rabosky, D. L. (2015). Speciation dynamics during the global
Henningsson, P., Hedenstrom, A. and Bomphrey, R. J. (2014). Efficiency of lift radiation of extant bats. Evolution 69, 1528-1545.
production in flapping and gliding flight of swifts. PLoS ONE 9, e90170. Shyy, W., Aono, H., Kang, C. and Liu, H. (2013). An Introduction to Flapping Wing
Hubel, T. Y., Riskin, D. K., Swartz, S. M. and Breuer, K. S. (2010). Wake structure Aerodynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
and wing kinematics: the flight of the lesser dog-faced fruit bat, Cynopterus Song, J., Luo, H. and Hedrick, T. L. (2014). Three-dimensional flow and lift

Journal of Experimental Biology

brachyotis. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 34287-33440. characteristics of a hovering ruby-throated hummingbird. J. R. Soc. Interface 11,
Hubel, T. Y., Hristov, N. I., Swartz, S. M. and Breuer, K. S. (2012). Changes in 20140541.
kinematics and aerodynamics over a range of speeds in Tadarida brasiliensis, the Spedding, G. R., Rosen, M. and Hedenstrom, A. H. (2003). A family of vortex
Brazilian free-tailed bat. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 1120-1130. wakes generated by a thrush nightingale in free flight in a wind tunnel over its entire
Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. and Mooers, A. O. (2012). The natural range of flight speeds. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 2313-2344.
global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444-448. Srygley, R. B. and Thomas, A. L. R. (2003). Unconventional lift-generating
Johansson, L. C. and Hedenstrom, A. (2009). The vortex wake of blackcaps mechanisms in free-flying butterflies. Nature 420, 660-664.
(Sylvia atricapilla L.) measured using high-speed digital particle image Sterbing-D’Angelo, S., Chadha, M., Chiu, C., Falk, B., Xian, W., Barcelo, J.,
velocimetry (DPIV). J. Exp Biol. 212, 3365-3376. Zook, J. M. and Moss, C. F. (2011). Bat wing sensors support flight control. Proc.
Kruyt, J. W., Quicazan-Rubio, E. M., van Heijst, G. F., Altshuler, D. L. and Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11291-11296.
Lentink, D. (2014). Hummingbird wing efficacy depends on aspect ratio and Sun, M. and Tang, J. (2002). Lift and power requirements of hovering flight in
compares with helicopter rotors. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140585. Drosophila virilis. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 2413-2427.
Kruyt, J. W., van Heijst, G. F., Altshuler, D. L. and Lentink, D. (2015). Power Sunada, S. (1993). Performance of a butterfly in take-off flight. J. Exp. Biol. 183,
reduction and the radial limit of stall delay in revolving wings of different aspect 249-277.
ratio. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150051. Swartz, S. M., Breuer, K. S. and Willis, D. J. (2008). Aeromechanics in
Lee, S., Kim, J., Park, H., Jabłoń ski, P. G. and Choi, H. (2015). The function of the aeroecology: flight biology in the aerosphere. Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 85-98.
alula in avian flight. Scientific Reports 5, 9914. Taylor, G. K., Nudds, R. L. and Thomas, A. L. R. (2003). Flying and swimming
Lehmann, F.-O. (2004). The mechanisms of lift enhancement in insect flight. animals cruise at a Strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature 425,
Naturwissenschaften 91, 101-122. 707-711.
Lehmann, F. and Dickinson, M. H. (1998). The control of wing kinematics and flight Tian, X., Iriarte-Diaz, J., Middleton, K., Galvao, R., Israeli, E., Roemer, A.,
forces in fruit flies (Drosophila spp.). J. Exp. Biol. 201, 385-401. Sullivan, A., Song, A., Swartz, S. and Breuer, K. (2006). Direct

931
REVIEW Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 920-932 doi:10.1242/jeb.042317

measurements of the kinematics and dynamics of bat flight. Bioinspir. Biomim. 1, Wang, J. K. and Sun, M. (2005). A computational study of the aerodynamics and
S10-S18. forewing-hindwing interaction of a model dragonfly in forward flight. J. Exp. Biol.
Triantafyllou, G. S., Triantafyllou, M. S. and Grosenbaugh, M. A. (1993). Optimal 208, 3785-3804.
thrust development in oscillating foils with application to fish propulsion. J. Fluid. Wang, S., Zhang, X., He, G. and Liu, T. (2013). On applicability of the Kutta-
Struct. 7, 205-224. Joukowski theorem to low-Reynolds-number unsteady flows. 51st AIAA
van Bokhorst, E., de Kat, R., Elsinga, G. E. and Lentink, D. (2015). Feather Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and
roughness reduces flow separation during low Reynolds number glides of swifts. Aerospace Exposition, 7-10 January 2013, Grapevine, Texas. AIAA 6.2013-6.
J. Exp. Biol. 218, 3179-3191. Warrick, D. R., Tobalske, B. W. and Powers, D. R. (2009). Lift production in the
van den Berg, C. and Ellington, C. P. (1997). The three-dimensional leading-edge hovering hummingbird. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3747-3752.
vortex of a ‘hovering’ model hawkmoth. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. Weis-Fogh, T. (1973). Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including
352, 329-340. novel mechanisms for lift production. J. Exp. Biol. 59, 169-230.
Videler, J. J., Stamhuis, E. J. and Povel, G. D. E. (2004). Leading-edge vortex lifts Willmott, A. P., Ellington, C. P. and Thomas, A. L. R. (1997). Flow visualization
swifts. Science 306, 1960-1962. and unsteady aerodynamics in the flight of the hawkmoth, Manduca sexta. Philos.
Voigt, C. C., Schneeberger, K., Voigt-Heucke, S. L. and Lewanzik, D. (2011). Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 352, 303-316.
Rain increases the energy cost of bat flight. Biol. Lett. 7, 793-795. Wootton, R. J. (1981). Support and deformability in insect wings. J. Zool. 193,
Von Busse, R., Waldman, R. M., Swartz, S. M., Voigt, C. C. and Breuer, K. S. (2014). 447-468.
The aerodynamic cost of flight in the short-tailed fruit bat (Carollia perspicillata): Young, J., Walker, S. M., Bomphrey, R. J., Taylor, G. K. and Thomas, A. L. R.
comparing theory with measurement. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140147. (2009). Details of insect wing design and deformation enhance aerodynamic
Wakeling, J. M. and Ellington, C. P. (1997). Dragonfly flight. II. function and flight efficiency. Science 325, 1549-1552.
Velocities, accelerations, and kinematics of flapping flight. J. Exp. Biol. 200, Zhao, L., Huang, Q., Deng, X. and Sane, S. P. (2010). Aerodynamic effects of
557-582. flexibility in flapping wings. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 485-497.

Journal of Experimental Biology

932