The experimental study of aerodynamic characteristics with wing flexibility for hawkmoth-like wings in hovering flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study on flapping wing flexibility in hovering flight has been conducted to investigate the wing flexibility for insect-inspired flapping Micro Aerial Vehicles (MAVs). Hawkmoth-like wing models, derived from Manduca sexta, were made of Polycarbonate (PC) sheet with a spanwise length of 200 mm and an aspect ratio of 6.18. For the distributions of wing flexibility, the wing thickness was selected as the design variable: rigid wing (3 mm-thick) and flexible wings (2, 1, 0.8, 0.5, 0.35, 0.2, and 0.1 mm-thick). In the experiment, the wing models were constrained to the symmetrical and sinusoidal flapping motions with sweeping and rotating amplitudes of 120° and 90° in water tank with size of 3.5 m×1.0 m×1.1 m. Aerodynamic force and flow structures for flapping the wing were measured using a six-axis force/torque sensor and a high speed camera with a laser using Digital Particle Image Velocimetry (DPIV). To compare the flow structures of flexible wings with rigid wing, they were captured at the same chordwise cross-section as the rigid wing, 50% of wing length. Based on the experimental results, vortices and aerodynamic force. Consequently, the wing with thickness of 0.8 mm has better aerodynamic characteristics than other wings in hovering flight. This finding will be instrumental in identifying the range of wing flexibilities that improves the aerodynamic efficiency for the development of insect-inspired flapping MAVs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".