pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23359 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Flapping Wings Amplify Pitch Stability: Insights from a Robotic Bird

R\'on\'an Gissler , Kenneth S. Breuer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 07:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords flapping flightpitch stabilityStrouhal numberlongitudinal stabilityquasi-steady aerodynamicsrobotic ornithopterwind tunnelblade-element model
0
0 comments X

The pith

Flapping faster amplifies longitudinal pitch stability and can stabilize an otherwise unstable flier.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows through wind-tunnel tests on a robotic flapper that raising the flapping frequency relative to forward speed strengthens the restoring pitch moment that returns the body to level flight. This effect is governed by the Strouhal number in addition to the conventional static margin. A quasi-steady blade-element model reproduces the measured increase and traces it mainly to the higher average airspeed experienced by the wings. The result implies that flapping-wing vehicles and animals can achieve passive pitch stability by adjusting wingbeat frequency even when the center-of-pressure location alone would predict instability.

Core claim

Using a flapping robot in a wind tunnel, we show that flapping faster amplifies existing longitudinal static stability (focusing on the pitch stiffness) and can even make an unstable flier stable. We show that stability for a flapper is not just a function of the static margin, but also the Strouhal number (St). Experimental data from measurements over a wide range of frequencies and wind speeds show good agreement with a quasi-steady blade-element (QSBE) model and a low-order approximation of the QSBE model. The increase in pitch stiffness at higher St can primarily be explained by the increase in the mean effective wind speed.

What carries the argument

Strouhal number (flapping speed divided by forward speed), which raises the mean effective wind speed seen by the wings and thereby increases pitch stiffness in the quasi-steady blade-element calculation.

If this is right

  • Pitch stiffness grows with Strouhal number across the tested range of frequencies and speeds.
  • If amplitude is allowed to vary, stiffness rises with amplitude at high St but falls with amplitude at low St.
  • A negative static margin can be offset by sufficiently high flapping frequency to produce net positive pitch stiffness.
  • The low-order approximation of the QSBE model already recovers the leading-order dependence on St.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Birds may select flapping frequency during gliding or slow flight to maintain passive pitch stability without continuous active control.
  • Ornithopter designers could treat flapping frequency as a tunable parameter for stability across different airspeeds or payloads.
  • Stability criteria for flapping flight must be revised to include Strouhal number rather than static margin alone.

Load-bearing premise

The quasi-steady blade-element model together with the chosen simplified wingbeat kinematics captures the dominant forces that set pitch stiffness.

What would settle it

A measurement of pitch restoring moment on the same robotic bird at high Strouhal numbers but with a wing shape or kinematics that produces strong unsteady flow effects would falsify the claim if the stiffness increase disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23359 by Kenneth S. Breuer, R\'on\'an Gissler.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental setup in the wind tunnel. The flapping robot has a single DoF flapping view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Diagram of the flapping wing showing geometric parameters of the wingbeat kine view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The multiplicative factor representing the contribution of flapping to pitch stiffness as a view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Typical portrait of static stability: cycle average pitch moment coefficient about the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pitch stability slope (inverse of pitch stiffness) as a function of Strouhal number. In view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Static stability as a function of center of mass (CoM) location. For a given CoM, static view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pitch moment at the aerodynamic center (AC) and neutral point (NP) decreases with view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using a flapping robot in a wind tunnel, we show that flapping faster amplifies existing longitudinal static stability (focusing on the pitch stiffness) and can even make an unstable flier stable. We show that stability for a flapper is not just a function of the static margin, but also the Strouhal number (St). Experimental data from measurements over a wide range of frequencies and wind speeds show good agreement with a quasi-steady blade-element (QSBE) model and a low-order approximation of the QSBE model. The increase in pitch stiffness at higher St can primarily be explained by the increase in the mean effective wind speed. If wingbeat amplitude was allowed to vary, the model suggests that the pitch stiffness would increase with amplitude at high St but decrease with amplitude at low St. Despite using simplified wingbeat kinematics and a restricted analysis of stability, these results provide insight into how altering wingbeat kinematics can affect the passive stability of flying animals and ornithopters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports wind-tunnel experiments on a robotic flapping bird showing that higher flapping frequencies (higher Strouhal number St) amplify longitudinal static stability by increasing pitch stiffness (Cm_α magnitude), and can stabilize configurations that are unstable at low St. Stability depends on both static margin and St. Data over wide frequency and speed ranges agree with a quasi-steady blade-element (QSBE) model and its low-order approximation; the trend is attributed primarily to increased mean effective wind speed. The model further predicts that pitch stiffness increases with wingbeat amplitude at high St but decreases at low St. The analysis uses simplified kinematics and is restricted to static pitch stiffness.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work provides direct experimental evidence that flapping kinematics can modulate passive pitch stability beyond traditional static-margin considerations, with clear relevance to animal flight and ornithopter design. Strengths include the parameter-range experiments, quantitative model-experiment agreement, and the low-order approximation that isolates the effective-wind-speed mechanism. These elements supply a falsifiable, kinematics-dependent prediction for stability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section (comparison of Cm_α vs St): the claim that higher St can reverse an unstable configuration rests on the measured sign change in Cm_α; however, the restricted analysis (only static pitch stiffness, omitting damping and full longitudinal modes) makes the stability conclusion an extrapolation whose load-bearing status requires explicit justification or additional dynamic data.
  2. [Model] QSBE model section: the attribution of the Cm_α trend primarily to mean effective wind speed is interpretive; a quantitative decomposition (e.g., isolating the contribution of each term in the blade-element integrals) is needed to confirm that other velocity-dependent terms do not dominate the α-sensitivity.
  3. [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no visible uncertainty quantification, error bars, or statistical analysis for the time-averaged moment measurements; without these, the reported agreement with the QSBE model cannot be assessed for robustness, especially at higher St where the skeptic concern about omitted unsteady effects (wake vorticity, apparent mass) is most relevant.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'good agreement' would be more informative if it stated the St or frequency range over which the match holds.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: several model-experiment comparison plots would benefit from explicit indication of whether error bars are present or omitted.
  3. [Model] Notation: the definition of the low-order approximation to the QSBE model should be stated as an equation rather than described only in text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas for clarification and improvement. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (comparison of Cm_α vs St): the claim that higher St can reverse an unstable configuration rests on the measured sign change in Cm_α; however, the restricted analysis (only static pitch stiffness, omitting damping and full longitudinal modes) makes the stability conclusion an extrapolation whose load-bearing status requires explicit justification or additional dynamic data.

    Authors: We agree that the analysis is limited to static pitch stiffness (Cm_α) and does not encompass damping or full longitudinal dynamic modes. The central claim is that higher St can change the sign of Cm_α, thereby converting a statically unstable configuration to a statically stable one. Static stability is a necessary condition for dynamic stability, and the sign of Cm_α directly governs the existence of a restoring moment for small perturbations in pitch angle. We will revise the manuscript to state this limitation explicitly, provide additional justification for focusing on static stiffness as the primary modulated quantity, and note that dynamic effects remain outside the scope of the present study. No new dynamic data will be added. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Model] QSBE model section: the attribution of the Cm_α trend primarily to mean effective wind speed is interpretive; a quantitative decomposition (e.g., isolating the contribution of each term in the blade-element integrals) is needed to confirm that other velocity-dependent terms do not dominate the α-sensitivity.

    Authors: We accept that the current attribution is interpretive and will strengthen it with a quantitative decomposition. In the revised manuscript we will break down the blade-element integrals for the pitching moment, isolating the contribution of the mean effective wind speed from other velocity-dependent terms (e.g., those arising from wing kinematics and angle-of-attack variations). This decomposition will demonstrate that the effective-wind-speed mechanism accounts for the dominant share of the observed Cm_α trend with St. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no visible uncertainty quantification, error bars, or statistical analysis for the time-averaged moment measurements; without these, the reported agreement with the QSBE model cannot be assessed for robustness, especially at higher St where the skeptic concern about omitted unsteady effects (wake vorticity, apparent mass) is most relevant.

    Authors: We agree that uncertainty quantification is required for robust assessment of the model-experiment agreement. We will add error bars to all experimental Cm_α data points, calculated from repeated measurements, together with a brief description of the statistical procedure used to obtain the time-averaged moments. These additions will be included in the Methods and Results sections and will allow readers to evaluate the strength of the agreement, particularly at higher St. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central claims rest on direct experimental measurements

full rationale

The paper grounds its primary result—that higher Strouhal number amplifies pitch stiffness and can stabilize an otherwise unstable configuration—in wind-tunnel force and moment measurements across a range of flapping frequencies and freestream speeds. The QSBE model and its low-order approximation are invoked only to interpret the observed trend via increased mean effective wind speed; they are not used to generate the data or to define the stability metric itself. No step equates a fitted parameter to a claimed prediction, renames an input as an output, or relies on a self-citation chain for a uniqueness or ansatz justification. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the external benchmark of the robotic experiments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on a quasi-steady assumption for the blade-element model and simplified kinematics; no new entities are postulated. Free parameters appear in the low-order approximation but are not enumerated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quasi-steady aerodynamics apply to the flapping wing forces
    Invoked to justify the QSBE model matching experimental data

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1130 out tokens · 79476 ms · 2026-05-08T07:16:16.564456+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michael V. Cook. Flight Dynamics Principles . Elsevier Science & Technology, 2 edition, 2007. URL http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=311429

    2007

  2. [2]

    Robert C. Nelson. Flight stability and automatic control . WCB/McGraw Hill, 2 edition, 1998. ISBN 0070462739

    1998

  3. [3]

    The importance of the nervous system in the evolution of animal flight

    John Maynard Smith. The importance of the nervous system in the evolution of animal flight. Evolution, 6:127–129, 1952

    1952

  4. [4]

    Shifts in stability and control effectiveness during evolution of paraves support aerial maneuvering hypotheses for flight origins

    Dennis Evangelista, Sharlene Cam, Tony Huynh, Austin Kwong, Homayun Mehrabani, Kyle Tse, and Robert Dudley. Shifts in stability and control effectiveness during evolution of paraves support aerial maneuvering hypotheses for flight origins. PeerJ, 2014, 2014. ISSN 21678359. doi: 10.7717/peerj.632

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj.632 2014

  5. [5]

    G. K. Taylor and A. L.R. Thomas. Animal flight dynamics ii. longitudinal stability in flapping flight. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 214:351–370, 2002. ISSN 00225193. doi: 10.1006/jtbi. 2001.2470

    work page doi:10.1006/jtbi 2002

  6. [6]

    The elements of aerofoil and airscrew theory

    Hermann Glauert. The elements of aerofoil and airscrew theory . Cambridge University Press, 1926

    1926

  7. [7]

    Weis-Fogh and Martin Jensen

    T. Weis-Fogh and Martin Jensen. Biology and physics of locust flight i. basic principles in insect flight. a critical review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 239, 7 1956

    1956

  8. [8]

    C. P. Ellington. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. i. the quasi-steady analy- sis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 305:1–15, 1984. URL https: //royalsocietypublishing.org/

    1984

  9. [9]

    Taylor and Adrian L.R

    Graham K. Taylor and Adrian L.R. Thomas. Dynamic flight stability in the desert lo- cust schistocerca gregaria. Journal of Experimental Biology , 206:2803–2829, 8 2003. ISSN 00220949. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00501

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.00501 2003

  10. [10]

    Flight dynamics of a flapping-wing air vehicle

    Roman Y Krashanitsa, Dmitro Silin, Sergey V Shkarayev, and Gregg Abate. Flight dynamics of a flapping-wing air vehicle. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles , 1, 2009

    2009

  11. [11]

    Experimental study on the flight dynamics of a bioinspired ornithopter: Free flight testing and wind tunnel testing

    Jun Seong Lee and Jae Hung Han. Experimental study on the flight dynamics of a bioinspired ornithopter: Free flight testing and wind tunnel testing. Smart Materials and Structures , 21, 9 2012. ISSN 09641726. doi: 10.1088/0964-1726/21/9/094023

    work page doi:10.1088/0964-1726/21/9/094023 2012

  12. [12]

    Fundamentals of Aerodynamics

    John Anderson. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill Education, 6 edition, 2017. 14

    2017

  13. [13]

    Taylor, Robert L

    Graham K. Taylor, Robert L. Nudds, and Adrian L. R. Thomas. Flying and swimming animals cruise at a strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature, 425:705–707, 10

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.1038/nature02047

    ISSN 00280836. doi: 10.1038/nature02047

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02047

  15. [15]

    Papaspyros, G

    Haithem E. Taha, Sevak Tahmasian, Craig A. Woolsey, Ali H. Nayfeh, and Muhammad R. Hajj. The need for higher-order averaging in the stability analysis of hovering, flapping-wing flight. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics , 10, 2 2015. ISSN 17483190. doi: 10.1088/1748-3190/ 10/1/016002

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-3190/ 2015

  16. [16]

    Longitudinal flight dynamics of bio-inspired ornithopter considering fluid-structure interaction

    Jun Seong Lee, Joong Kwan Kim, Dae Kwan Kim, and Jae Hung Han. Longitudinal flight dynamics of bio-inspired ornithopter considering fluid-structure interaction. In AIAA Atmo- spheric Flight Mechanics Conference 2010 . American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau- tics Inc., 2010. ISBN 9781624101519. doi: 10.2514/6.2010-8237

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2010-8237 2010

  17. [17]

    Crall, Lucas McNeilly, Susan F

    Sridhar Ravi, James D. Crall, Lucas McNeilly, Susan F. Gagliardi, Andrew A. Biewener, and Stacey A. Combes. Hummingbird flight stability and control in freestream turbulent winds. Journal of Experimental Biology , 218:1444–1452, 5 2015. ISSN 14779145. doi: 10.1242/jeb. 114553

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb 2015

  18. [18]

    Quinn, Jade L

    Brooke L. Quinn, Jade L. Bajic, Santiago J. Romo, Ariel Wu, Alberto Bortoni, Kenneth Breuer, and Sharon M. Swartz. Anatomical distribution and flight control function of wing sensory hairs in seba’s short-tailed bat. Anatomical Record, 2025. ISSN 19328494. doi: 10.1002/ar.25679

    work page doi:10.1002/ar.25679 2025

  19. [19]

    Ortega-Jimenez, Nir Sapir, Marta Wolf, Evan A

    Victor M. Ortega-Jimenez, Nir Sapir, Marta Wolf, Evan A. Variano, and Robert Dudley. Into turbulent air: Size-dependent effects of von kármán vortex streets on hummingbird flight kinematics and energetics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 281, 3 2014. ISSN 14712954. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0180

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0180 2014

  20. [20]

    Victor Manuel Ortega-Jimenez, Jeremy S. M. Greeter, Rajat Mittal, and Tyson L. Hedrick. Hawkmoth flight stability in turbulent vortex streets. Journal of Experimental Biology , 216: 4567–4579, 2013. doi: 10.1242/jeb.089672

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.089672 2013

  21. [21]

    Badger, Hao Wang, and Robert Dudley

    Marc A. Badger, Hao Wang, and Robert Dudley. A voiding topsy-turvy: How anna’s hum- mingbirds (calypte anna) fly through upward gusts. Journal of Experimental Biology , 222, 2

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.1242/jeb.176263

    ISSN 00220949. doi: 10.1242/jeb.176263

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.176263

  23. [23]

    Boerma, Kenneth S

    David B. Boerma, Kenneth S. Breuer, Tim L. Treskatis, and Sharon M. Swartz. Wings as inertial appendages: How bats recover from aerial stumbles. Journal of Experimental Biology , 222, 2019. ISSN 00220949. doi: 10.1242/jeb.204255

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.204255 2019

  24. [24]

    Biomechanics of insect flight stability and perturbation response

    Tyson L Hedrick, Emily Blandford, and Haithem E Taha. Biomechanics of insect flight stability and perturbation response. Integrative And Comparative Biology , 6 2024. ISSN 1540-7063. doi: 10.1093/icb/icae076

    work page doi:10.1093/icb/icae076 2024

  25. [25]

    Miller, J

    Tsevi Beatus, John M. Guckenheimer, and Itai Cohen. Controlling roll perturbations in fruit flies. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 12, 4 2015. ISSN 17425662. doi: 10.1098/rsif. 2015.0075. 15

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif 2015

  26. [26]

    Deep learning for early warning signals of tipping points

    Leif Ristroph, Attila J. Bergou, Gunnar Ristroph, Katherine Coumes, Gordon J. Berman, John Guckenheimer, Z. Jane Wang, and Itai Cohen. Discovering the flight autostabilizer of fruit flies by inducing aerial stumbles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 107:4820–4824, 3 2010. ISSN 00278424. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2010

  27. [27]

    David E.H. Jones. The stability of the bicycle. Physics Today, 59:51–56, 2006. ISSN 00319228. doi: 10.1063/1.2364246

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2364246 2006

  28. [28]

    Boublil, Chao Yu, Grant Shewmaker, Susanne Sterbing, and Cynthia F

    Brittney L. Boublil, Chao Yu, Grant Shewmaker, Susanne Sterbing, and Cynthia F. Moss. Ventral wing hairs provide tactile feedback for aerial prey capture in the big brown bat, eptesi- cus fuscus. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Be- havioral Physiology, 210:761–770, 9 2024. ISSN 14321351. doi: 10.1007/s00359-023-01682-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00359-023-01682-2 2024

  29. [29]

    Cheney, Jeremy C

    Jorn A. Cheney, Jeremy C. Rehm, Sharon M. Swartz, and Kenneth S. Breuer. Bats actively modulate membrane compliance to control camber and reduce drag. Journal of Experimental Biology, 225, 7 2022. ISSN 14779145. doi: 10.1242/jeb.243974

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.243974 2022

  30. [30]

    Stability shifts in gliding flight: hawks morph from an unstable to stable state when navigating a gap

    Kiran Weston, Huanglun Adam Zhu, Graham Keith Taylor, and Christina Harvey. Stability shifts in gliding flight: hawks morph from an unstable to stable state when navigating a gap. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface , 23, 3 2026. ISSN 17425662. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2025. 0868

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2025 2026

  31. [31]

    Taylor and Rafał Zbikowski

    Graham K. Taylor and Rafał Zbikowski. Nonlinear time-periodic models of the longitudinal flight dynamics of desert locusts schistocerca gregaria. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 2:197–221, 2005. ISSN 17425662. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2005.0036

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0036 2005

  32. [32]

    Dynamic flight stability of a bumblebee in forward flight

    Yan Xiong and Mao Sun. Dynamic flight stability of a bumblebee in forward flight. Acta Mechanica Sinica/Lixue Xuebao , 24:25–36, 2 2008. ISSN 05677718. doi: 10.1007/ s10409-007-0121-2

    2008

  33. [33]

    Stability and sensitivity analysis of bird flapping flight

    Gianmarco Ducci, Victor Colognesi, Gennaro Vitucci, Philippe Chatelain, and Renaud Ron- sse. Stability and sensitivity analysis of bird flapping flight. Journal of Nonlinear Science , 31, 4 2021. ISSN 14321467. doi: 10.1007/s00332-021-09698-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00332-021-09698-1 2021

  34. [34]

    Mwongera and Mark H

    Victor M. Mwongera and Mark H. Lowenberg. Bifurcation analysis of a flapping wing mav in longitudinal flight. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference 2012 , 2012. ISBN 9781624101847. doi: 10.2514/6.2012-4407

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2012-4407 2012

  35. [35]

    On the role of tail in stability and energetic cost of bird flapping flight

    Gianmarco Ducci, Gennaro Vitucci, Philippe Chatelain, and Renaud Ronsse. On the role of tail in stability and energetic cost of bird flapping flight. Scientific Reports, 12, 12 2022. ISSN 20452322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27179-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-27179-7 2022

  36. [36]

    Design and performance of an ultra-compact, low-speed, low turbulence level, wind tunnel for aerodynamic and animal flight experiments

    Kenneth Breuer, Mark Drela, Xiaozhou Fan, and Matteo Di Luca. Design and performance of an ultra-compact, low-speed, low turbulence level, wind tunnel for aerodynamic and animal flight experiments. Experiments in Fluids , 63, 11 2022. ISSN 14321114. doi: 10.1007/ s00348-022-03519-1

    2022

  37. [37]

    Dietl and Ephrahim Garcia

    John M. Dietl and Ephrahim Garcia. Stability in ornithopter longitudinal flight dynamics. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 31:1157–1162, 2008. ISSN 15333884. doi: 10.2514/1.33561. 16

    work page doi:10.2514/1.33561 2008

  38. [38]

    Flapping wing micro air vehicles: An analysis of the importance of the mass of the wings to flight dynamics, stability, and control

    Christopher T Orlowski. Flapping wing micro air vehicles: An analysis of the importance of the mass of the wings to flight dynamics, stability, and control. Technical report, 2011

    2011

  39. [39]

    Jeremy M. V. Rayner and Coen Van Den Berg. The moment of inertia of bird wings and the inertial power requirement for flapping flight. Journal of Experimental Biology , 198, 5 1995

    1995

  40. [40]

    Title of dissertation: Modeling and system identification of an ornithopter flight dynamics model

    Jared Grauer and James E Hubbard. Title of dissertation: Modeling and system identification of an ornithopter flight dynamics model. Technical report, 2012

    2012

  41. [41]

    Spanwise Mean

    José Iriarte-Díaz, Daniel K. Riskin, David J. Willis, Kenneth S. Breuer, and Sharon M. Swartz. Whole-body kinematics of a fruit bat reveal the influence of wing inertia on body accelerations. Journal of Experimental Biology , 214:1546–1553, 5 2011. ISSN 00220949. doi: 10.1242/jeb.037804. 17 Quasi-static Assumption The quasi-static assumption (also known a...

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.037804 2011