Dynamics of flapping flight control: birds versus insects

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. S357
Author(s):  
G.K. Taylor
2005 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Taylor

AbstractHere a conceptual framework is provided for analysing the role of the flight muscles in stability and control. Stability usually refers to the tendency of a system to return to a characteristic reference state, whether static, as in gliding, or oscillatory, as in flapping. Asymptotic Lyapunov stability and asymptotic orbital stability as formal definitions of gliding and flapping flight stability, respectively, are discussed and a limit cycle control analogy for flapping flight control proposed. Stability can arise inherently or through correctional control. Conceptually, inherent stability is that which would arise if all body parts were rigid and all articulation angles were constants (gliding) or periodic functions (flapping), both of which require muscular effort. Pose can be maintained during disturbances by neural feedback or isometric contraction of tonic muscles: cyclic pose changes can be buffered by neural feedback or viscous damping by phasic muscles. Correctional control serves to drive the system towards its reference state, which will usually involve a phasic response, if only because of the tendency of flying bodies to oscillate during disturbances. Muscles involved in correctional control must therefore be tuned to the characteristic frequencies of the system. Furthermore, in manoeuvre control, these frequencies set an upper limit on the timescales on which control inputs can be effective. Flight muscle physiology should therefore be evolutionarily co-tuned with the morphological parameters of the system that determine its frequency response. Understanding this fully will require us to integrate internal models of physiology with external models of flight dynamics.


2021 ◽  
Vol 288 (1956) ◽  
pp. 20210677
Author(s):  
Brett R. Aiello ◽  
Milton Tan ◽  
Usama Bin Sikandar ◽  
Alexis J. Alvey ◽  
Burhanuddin Bhinderwala ◽  
...  

The evolution of flapping flight is linked to the prolific success of insects. Across Insecta, wing morphology diversified, strongly impacting aerodynamic performance. In the presence of ecological opportunity, discrete adaptive shifts and early bursts are two processes hypothesized to give rise to exceptional morphological diversification. Here, we use the sister-families Sphingidae and Saturniidae to answer how the evolution of aerodynamically important traits is linked to clade divergence and through what process(es) these traits evolve. Many agile Sphingidae evolved hover feeding behaviours, while adult Saturniidae lack functional mouth parts and rely on a fixed energy budget as adults. We find that Sphingidae underwent an adaptive shift in wing morphology coincident with life history and behaviour divergence, evolving small high aspect ratio wings advantageous for power reduction that can be moved at high frequencies, beneficial for flight control. By contrast, Saturniidae, which do not feed as adults, evolved large wings and morphology which surprisingly does not reduce aerodynamic power, but could contribute to their erratic flight behaviour, aiding in predator avoidance. We suggest that after the evolution of flapping flight, diversification of wing morphology can be potentiated by adaptative shifts, shaping the diversity of wing morphology across insects.


2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 789-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyan Deng ◽  
L. Schenato ◽  
S.S. Sastry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Ronald Aiello ◽  
Milton Tan ◽  
Usama Bin Sikandar ◽  
Alexis J Alvey ◽  
Burhanuddin Bhinderwala ◽  
...  

The evolution of flapping flight is linked to the prolific success of insects. Across Insecta, wing morphology diversified, strongly impacting aerodynamic performance. In the presence of ecological opportunity, discrete adaptive shifts and early bursts are two processes hypothesized to give rise to exceptional morphological diversification. Here, we use the sister-families Sphingidae and Saturniidae to answer how the evolution of aerodynamically important traits is linked to clade divergence and through what process(es) these traits evolve. Many agile Sphingidae evolved hover-feeding behaviors, while adult Saturniidae lack functional mouth parts and rely on a fixed energy budget as adults. We find that Sphingidae underwent an adaptive shift in wing morphology coincident with life history and behavior divergence, evolving small high aspect-ratio wings advantageous for power reduction that can be moved at high frequencies, beneficial for flight control. In contrast, Saturniidae, which do not feed as adults, evolved large wings and morphology which surprisingly does not reduce aerodynamic power, but could contribute to their erratic flight behavior, aiding in predator avoidance. We suggest that after the evolution of flapping flight, diversification of wing morphology can be potentiated by adaptative shifts, shaping the diversity of wing morphology across insects.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. de Boer ◽  
Karel Hurts

Abstract. Automation surprise (AS) has often been associated with aviation safety incidents. Although numerous laboratory studies have been conducted, few data are available from routine flight operations. A survey among a representative sample of 200 Dutch airline pilots was used to determine the prevalence of AS and the severity of its consequences, and to test some of the factors leading to AS. Results show that AS is a relatively widespread phenomenon that occurs three times per year per pilot on average but rarely has serious consequences. In less than 10% of the AS cases that were reviewed, an undesired aircraft state was induced. Reportable occurrences are estimated to occur only once every 1–3 years per pilot. Factors leading to a higher prevalence of AS include less flying experience, increasing complexity of the flight control mode, and flight duty periods of over 8 hr. It is concluded that AS is a manifestation of system and interface complexity rather than cognitive errors.


2014 ◽  
Vol 134 (9) ◽  
pp. 1269-1270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki Noma ◽  
Shun Tanabe ◽  
Takao Sato ◽  
Nozomu Araki ◽  
Yasuo Konishi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document