4.7 Article

Effects of phase lag on the hovering flight of damselfly and dragonfly

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 100, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.100.063102

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Taiwan University [NTU-CC-108L894201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work we studied the differences in flight kinematics and aerodynamics that could relate to differences in wing morphologies of a dragonfly and a damselfly. The damselflies and dragonflies normally fly with the fore wing or hind wing in the lead, respectively. The wing of the damselfly is petiolate, which means that the wing root is narrower than that of the dragonfly. The influence of the biological morphology between the damselfly and the dragonfly on their hovering strategies is worthy of clarification. The flight motions of damselflies and dragonflies in hovering were recorded with two high-speed cameras; we analyzed the differences between their hovering motions using computational fluid dynamics. The distinct mechanisms of the hovering flight of damselflies (Matrona cyanoptera) and dragonflies (Neurothemis ramburii) with different phase lags between fore and hind wings were deduced. The results of a comparison of the differences of wing phases in hovering showed that the rotational effect has an important role in the aerodynamics; the interactions between fore and hind wings greatly affect their vortex structure and flight performance. The wake of a damselfly sheds smoothly because of slender petiolation; a vertical force is generated steadily during the stage of wing translation. Damselflies hover with a longer translational phase and a larger flapping amplitude. In contrast, the root vortex of a dragonfly impedes the shedding of wake vortices in the upstroke, which results in the loss of a vertical force; the dragonfly hence hovers with a large amplitude of wing rotation. These species of Odonata insects developed varied hovering strategies to fit their distinct biological morphologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据