COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF

FIXED AND FLAPPING WING

DYNAMICS

Team

Tejas KN
"It's interesting that scientists are still working [Link] Yashwanth
to uncover the exact secrets behind how birds
fly."
[Link]
A. Sai Kiran Reddy
T. S. S. Sashank
Harishankar Tiwari
 AGENDA

♣ The science of flapping wing flight

♣ Aerodynamics hidden behind flapping wings
♣ Fixed wing
♣ Dynamics of fixed and flapping with
♣ Cons and Pros of Fixed and flapping wing, Challenges
posed by latter
♣ Performance comparison
♣ Conclusion
 Principles of Flapping Wing Flight
1 Wing Kinematics
 Flapping-wing UAVs use a cyclic motion that combines
flapping, pitching, and sweeping, where each phase contributes
to generating lift and thrust efficiently.
 Flexible wings that deform in response to airflow improve lift
and efficiency by adapting naturally, reducing energy use and
enhancing stability.

2 Unsteady Aerodynamics
 Flapping wings create complex, rapidly changing flow patterns
that differ from steady-state fixed wing aerodynamics.
 Forces generated are periodic.

3 Power Generation
 Efficient conversion of the organism's muscle power into
aerodynamic forces is key to sustained flight.
 Flapping Wing and Fixed wing
1 Camouflage 1 Payload capacity
Flapping wings allow for rapid changes in Fixed-wing UAVs can often carry heavier
direction and the ability to hover, perch, payloads compared to flapping wing,
making them suitable for applications
and perform tight turns.
requiring larger sensors, cameras, or
equipment.
2 Endurance
Flapping wing have longer duration of 2 Large coverage areas
flight for same input power compared to Fixed-wing UAVs are ideal for mapping,
surveying, and agricultural monitoring, as
fixed and rotary wing. they can cover extensive areas efficiently
3 Efficiency in a single flight.
At small scales, flapping wings can be
more energy-efficient than fixed wings for 3 High altitude flights
certain flight regimes. Fixed-wing UAVs can typically reach
higher altitudes than rotary-wing systems,
4 Stability making them useful for applications that
The active control mechanisms of flapping require greater elevation, such as
atmospheric research or long-range
wings provide inherent stability and the surveillance.
ability to reject disturbances.
 Dynamics and analysis of flapping
wing  Knollar Betz Effect: Introduces the concept of effective AoA
 During down stroke effective AoA is positive creating positive lift and
thrust.
 During Upstroke, effective AoA is negative creating negative lift and
positive thrust.
 Effect of Re no:
 Flapping strategies for high Re and low Re flight are different.
 Low Re is accompanied by massive LE separation.
 Taylor’s Analysis:
 Analysed flapping frequencies and amplitudes for over 42 species of
birds and insects and concluded that St no is one of the important
parameters in the governing their flight.
 St no lies b/w 0.2 - 0.4
 Birnbaun Analysis:
 Introduced the concept of reduced frequcny and nondimensioned plunge
amplitude. { }, 0.3<Kh<0.6 for specified St no h=a/C

All this above analysis is made using the inviscid theory assumptions

Source: [Link]
 Physics of thrust generation for pure plunging motion
 As Kh increases karman vortex sheet transitions to
reverse karman vortex sheet
 Fluid entrainment is present as this reverse vortex sheet
develops in horizontal plane
 Thus plunge oscillations creates a jet and thrust is
produced
 Thrust increases with increase in flapping frequency and
amplitude of oscillation

Source: [Link]
 ROLE OF TAIL IN CRUSING FLIGHT
 Flapping wings create time-varying forces due to periodic lift and thrust
oscillations.

 This causes the plunging motion of the overall body of the bird.
 This plunging motion reduces the forward speed as forward flight is
coupled in vertical and horizontal motion.
 Here comes the role of tail.
 During flight, birds tail constantly oscillate about the longitudinal axis for
every wing flap.
 The forces generated on the tail will counteract the plunging motion of
the bird keeping it stable cruising.
 Birds feather their tail to increase effective area during cruising as well as
maneuvering.
 Tail plays an important in stability and controllability.

Source: [Link]
Challenges in Flapping Wing Dynamics
1 Fatigue loads:
Due to cyclic motion of wings, they are prone to fatigue failure.

2 Decreased forward speed:

Thrust is produced by the primary wing which is in less magnitude

compared to lift

3 Early resonance for larger scale wings:

 Scaling up the flapping objects would result in lesser natural
frequency.
 The flapping frequency should be very less to avoid matching with
Natural frequency.

4 Control Difficulties:
Actively controlling the flight of flapping-wing vehicles requires
advanced sensors and algorithms.

5 Less payload capacity:

They have less payload carrying capacity.
 Comparison to Fixed Wing
Aerodynamics
Lift Generation Thrust Production
Fixed wings rely on steady lift from Flapping wings can actively
wing camber, while flapping wings produce thrust, unlike fixed wings
generate unsteady, dynamic lift. which require a separate propulsion
system.

Flight Regimes Energy Efficiency

Flapping flight excels at low Flapping flight can be more
speeds, hovering, and tight efficient at small scales, but fixed
maneuvers, while fixed wings are wings are generally more efficient
better suited for high-speed cruise. for larger vehicles.
Comparison of Power Requirements : Flapping vs. Fixed Wing Vehicles

The power required by flapping and fixed wing vehicles in level flight is determined and
compared. Based on a new modelling approach, the effects of flapping on the induced drag in
flapping wing vehicles are mathematically described. It is shown that flapping causes a
significant increase in the induced drag when compared with a non-flapping, fixed wing vehicle.

There are two effects for that induced drag increase; one is due to tilting of the lift vector caused
by flapping the wings and the other results from changes in the amount of the lift vector during
flapping. The induced drag increase yields a significant contribution to the power required by
.
flapping wing vehicles

There are two effects for that induced drag increase; one is due to tilting of the lift vector caused
by flapping the wings and the other results from changes in the amount of the lift vector during
flapping. The induced drag increase yields a significant contribution to the power required by
flapping wing vehicles

Reference :
Sachs, G. Comparison of Power Requirements: Flapping vs. Fixed Wing Vehicles. Aerospace 2016, 3,
31. [Link]
Basic Equations For Power Required To Stay Afloat In Fixed Wing Vehicles

Basic Equations For Power Required To Stay Afloat In Flapping Wing Vehicles

Modelling of Lift Characteristics of Flapping Wing Vehicles

Reference :
Sachs, G. Comparison of Power Requirements: Flapping vs. Fixed Wing Vehicles. Aerospace 2016, 3,
31. [Link]
Modelling of Drag Characteristics of Flapping Wing Vehicles

Drag polar showing relation between drag coefficient

different 𝑣 ( For Pigeon Wing Model ) ( Ref )

and lift coefficient acting in vertical direction at

this relation shows that there are 2 effects of flapping that increase the induced drag factor 𝑘𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝
when compared with the induced drag factor of a non-flapping fixed wing, 𝑘 :
1)Tilting of lift vector due to flapping the wings, resulting in the term cos𝑣∗ .
2)Changes in the amount of the lift vector in the course of the flapping cycle, resulting in the term 𝛥𝑎𝑣

Reference : Time history of lift coefficient during wing stroke ( Ref )

Sachs, G. Comparison of Power Requirements: Flapping vs. Fixed Wing Vehicles. Aerospace 2016, 3,
31. [Link]
Power Requirements of Flapping & Fixed Wing Vehicles

Comparison of Power Required by Flapping and Fixed Wing Vehicle

aerodynamic configuration of the flapping wing vehicle at a zero flapping angle 𝜈=0
To compare the power required by flapping and fixed wing vehicles, it is assumed that the aerodynamic configuration of the fixed wing vehicle is equivalent to the basic

Power required in level flight (𝑘𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝=1.5 , Power required in level flight (𝑘𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝=1.5 , Power required in level flight (𝑘𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑝=2.5 ,
𝜂𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝=0.5) 𝜂𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝=0.9) 𝜂𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝=0.5)
For fixed wing vehicles, the propeller efficiency plays a major role. Experience with
propeller efficiencies shows that these are lower for small sized vehicles. As a result, there
is a tendency such that fixed wing vehicles show a power requirement advantage in the
case of larger size vehicles and flapping wing vehicles in the case of smaller size ones.

Regions of superiority of flapping and fixed wing vehicles.

Reference :
Sachs, G. Comparison of Power Requirements: Flapping vs. Fixed Wing Vehicles. Aerospace 2016, 3,
31. [Link]
 References:

1. Rozhdestvensky, K. V., and Ryzhov, V. A., “Aerohydrodynamics ofFlapping-wing Propulsors,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 39,
2. No. 8, 2003, pp. 585–[Link].1016/S0376-0421(03)00077-0

Shyy, W., Berg, M., and Ljungqvist, D., “Flapping and Flexible Wings for Biological and Micro Air Vehicles,” Progress in Aerospace
3. Sciences, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1999, pp. 455–505. doi:10.1016/S0376-0421(98)00016-5.

Ho, S., Nassef, H., Pornsinsirirak, N., Tai, Y. C., and Ho, C. M., “Unsteady Aerodynamics and Flow Control for Flapping Wing Flyers,”
4. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 8, 2003, pp. 635–681. doi:10.1016/[Link].2003.04.001.

Triantaflyllou, M. S., Techet, A. H., and Hover, F. S., “Review of Experimental Work in Biomimetic Foils,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic
5. Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2004, pp. 585–594. doi:10.1109/JOE.2004.833216.

Ansari, S. A., Zbikowski, R., and Knowles, K., “Aerodynamic Modelling of Insect-like Flapping Flight for Micro Air Vehicles,”
6. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2006, pp. 129–172. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.07.001.

7. Knoller, R., “Die Gesetze des Luftwiderstandes,” Flug- und Motortechnik (Wien), Vol. 3, No. 21, 1909, pp. 1–7.

Betz, A., “Ein Beitrag zur Erklaerung des Segelfluges,” Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, Vol. 3, 1912, pp. 269–272

8. [Link]