Efficient Flapping Wing Drone Arrests High-Speed Flight Using Post-Stall Soaring

SCIENCE ROBOTICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE
ANIMAL ROBOTS Copyright © 2020

The Authors, some
Efficient flapping wing drone arrests high-speed rights reserved;
exclusive licensee
flight using post-stall soaring American Association
for the Advancement
of Science. No claim
Yao-Wei Chin1,2, Jia Ming Kok3, Yong-Qiang Zhu4, Woei-Leong Chan2, Javaan S. Chahl5,6, to original U.S.
Boo Cheong Khoo2, Gih-Keong Lau7* Government Works
The aerobatic maneuvers of swifts could be very useful for micro aerial vehicle missions. Rapid arrests and turns
would allow flight in cluttered and unstructured spaces. However, these decelerating aerobatic maneuvers have
been difficult to demonstrate in flapping wing craft to date because of limited thrust and control authority. Here,
Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

we report a 26-gram X-wing ornithopter of 200-millimeter fuselage length capable of multimodal flight. Using tail
elevation and high thrust, the ornithopter was piloted to hover, fly fast forward (dart), turn aerobatically, and dive
with smooth transitions. The aerobatic turn was achieved within a 32-millimeter radius by stopping a dart with a
maximum deceleration of 31.4 meters per second squared. In this soaring maneuver, braking was possible by rapid
body pitch and dynamic stall of wings at relatively high air speed. This ornithopter can recover to glide stability
without tumbling after a 90-degree body flip. We showed that the tail presented a strong stabilizing moment
under high thrust, whereas the wing membrane flexibility alleviated the destabilizing effect of the forewings. To
achieve these demands for high thrust, we developed a low-loss anti-whirl transmission that maximized thrust
output by the flapping wings to 40 grams in excess of body weight. By reducing the reactive load and whirl, this
indirect drive consumed 40% less maximum electrical power for the same thrust generation than direct drive of a
propeller. The triple roles of flapping wings for propulsion, lift, and drag enable the performance of aggressive
flight by simple tail control.
INTRODUCTION ornithopter developed by Frank Kieser (22, 23, 29) could fly forward

The range of flight modes birds can operate in demonstrates that the under the power of a twisted rubber band (22, 29). Later versions of
flapping wing configuration is more versatile than fixed wing and X-winged ornithopters were developed with onboard motor and
rotary wing designs. Any avian flight starts with takeoff by forceful battery to sustain flight. Examples of hovering X-wing ornithopters
wingbeats and then settles to an efficient cruise condition before include Mentor (24), Cornell 3D-Printed Mechanical Insect (17),
ending with descent and touchdown at low vertical speed using an DelFly (14, 26), NUS Flower Fly (19), and Robotic Bird (21). With
aerodynamic braking maneuver known as flare (1–4). Among natural enough thrust to hover like helicopters (30, 31), a few tailless ornithopters
flyers, swifts can fly the fastest in level flight (at 20.8 to 31 m/s) have managed to perform similar aerobatics, such as hover, a vertical
during migration and aerial feeding (5). They sometimes fly in an loop by thrust vectoring forward/back and a flip by asymmetric thrust
erratic manner at speed chasing each other (6–8). Aside from accelerat- (16, 30, 32). Recently, insect-inspired drones have adopted multiple wing
ing to fly fast, the decelerating maneuver is also helpful for swiftlets to pairs like X wings (33–35) instead of a single pair (36, 37) to launch a
perch and evade obstacles. Swiftlets can pull up a dart (high-speed controlled takeoff and hover using muscle-like electro-active actuators.
level flight) to climb before perching (clinging) onto their nest Inspired by bats and avian flight, micro air vehicles could adopt
located at the top of a cave (7) or a vacant house (8, 9), such as the similar aerobatic maneuvers to enhance their functionality and to
corner between the ceiling and two walls (see Fig. 1). Before perch, differentiate from other types of small aircraft. A rapid turn using
swiftlets need to arrest relatively high-speed flight in addition to the wings to stop an aerial dart could enable obstacle avoidance in
staying aloft by hover. These complex acts of aerobatics indoors and cluttered spaces. A forceful thruster is the prerequisite to aggressive
outdoors are routinely performed by flying swifts. flight with thrust-based tail stabilization and control. Copying the
Most flapping wing micro air vehicles or ornithopters developed design of a natural flight apparatus is one strategy to improve the
to date can fly forward/backward, circle, and glide, but because of flight performance of ornithopters. Examples include (i) light flexible
limited excess thrust (10–13), only a few smaller examples can hover. wings capable of passive wing rotation (36, 38, 39), (ii) wing-wing
According to the literature (14–21), hovering ornithopters have re- interaction by clap and fling to enhance thrust generation (25, 29, 40, 41),
sorted to weight optimization (from a few grams to 20- to 30-g body and (iii) elastic storage to recover inertial power (42–49). However,
weight) and enhanced thrust generation by using an X-wing config- it emerges that the differences between the drive mechanism (24, 50)
uration (17, 22–27) or multiple wing pairs (15, 28). The first X-winged and flight muscle have presented a barrier to achieving comparable
flight performance. An electric motor can be more powerful than
1
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, natural flight muscle, as exemplified by the direct drive of spinning
Singapore, Singapore. 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University propellers in terms of the mass-specific maximum thrust generation
of Singapore, Singapore 117575, Singapore. 3Aerospace Division, Defence Science
and Technology Group, Edinburgh, SA SA5111, Australia. 4School of Mechanical and
(51). Indirect drive of flapping wings by motors still underperforms
Automotive Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Shandong, China. because of inefficient transmission. Recent studies (47, 52, 53) have
5
School of Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia. shown that frictional power loss in the drive mechanism is more
6
Joint and Operations Analysis Division, Defence Science and Technology Group, substantial than the aerodynamic and inertial power of flapping
Edinburgh, SA, Australia. 7Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan. wings. There is no clear technological solution to increase perform
*Corresponding author. Email: mgklau@nctu.edu.tw ance of miniaturized drives in this application.
Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 1 of 13

Vertical Take-off or hover Forward flight To evade an obstacle or perch Ceiling
C Brake and Climb

A T>=W Indirect drive Projected area S
by soaring manoeuvre
v MD
Flexible X wings
L Dw
G (closed position) G v
D v
a Wall
W T <<W G
b
Battery
D L Dt
Tail servos mg
b v
B Level flight

Fin-like tail V
162mm Elevator z v
v
Front view Side view x
L
D
b
Elevator T <W
Relative
wind
Fig. 1. Aggressive flight maneuvers by X-winged ornithopter with tail control. (A) Hover (at upright body attitude b = 90°) with thrust T being equal or greater than
weight W = mg. (B) Level flight (nearly level b ≈ 0°) at relative high speed v that induces lift L against weight. (C) Brake and climb by tail elevation and wing dynamic stall
using the soaring maneuver. Then, the ornithopter translates at velocity v at an angle v, and it is thus subjected to lift L and drag D at the angle of attack  = b – v. As
shown in the inset of the free-body force diagram, the weight W and drag D help rapid flight arrest. This soaring maneuver leads to a climb while braking. Meanwhile, the
asymmetric drag distribution between wings and elevated tail induced a turning moment MD = Dwa − Dtb, where Dw and Dt are drags that act momentarily on the
wing and tail, respectively, at distance a and b off the center of gravity G, respectively.
Although aerodynamic performance of flapping wings has been sion with anti-whirl features and elastic storage provided the indi-
reported to be comparable to spinning propellers (24, 54), if not better rect drive of these flapping X wings. The anti-whirl features included
(55–57), previous indirect drive of flapping wings did not perform tandem nylon hinges and double shaft bearings to suppress the
better than direct drive of propellers in terms of electrical power flapping-induced rocking that tends to disengage or bind the trans-
loading, i.e., thrust per unit electric power (49). Similarly, geared mission and gear train. In addition, tandem nylon hinges provided
drive of a larger propeller was reported to suffer from additional partial elastic storage to recover the wing kinetic energy during their
frictional power loss in the gearbox; it thus became less efficient as deceleration at extrema. Under full throttle drive by a small motor
compared to direct drive of a smaller propeller (58–60) despite be- (HobbyKing AP03 7000 kV, 3.1 g) at its rated 4.2 V, this optimized
ing advantaged with lower disk loading (T/A) (4, 24, 61). We hereby drive of 14- to 15-Hz flapping X wings produced nearly 40 g of static
compare indirect drive of flapping wings with direct drive of a spin- thrust, as much as the static thrust generated by the recommended
ning propeller to unravel the complex interplays among drive, 82.25-mm diameter propeller (Prop 3020). In turn, the excess
transmission, and aerodynamics. thrust can power the energy-costly hover and accelerate a fast dart
Here, we identified shaft whirl (or wobble) shown in Fig. 2 to be while producing strong downwash around the tail to stabilize
the cause of most mechanical loss in reciprocating the set of flapping flight.
wings. Furthermore, we found the problem of shaft whirl (62–64) to This tailed ornithopter with flexible X wings is passively stable in
be an issue for the direct drive of a spinning propeller, causing substan- both hover (vertically) and glide (at level body pitch attitude) when
tial frictional power loss. To maximize thrust output by flapping wings, the tail elevator was set to the neutral position. Similar to birds (66, 67),
we designed and developed a low-loss transmission that used an anti- this ornithopter could also be trimmed (i.e., adjusted) by tail eleva-
whirl elastic mechanism and bearings. This efficient transmission tion under pilot control to fly at different attitude. Hover stability at
yields forceful flapping wing propulsion to perform energetically cost- vertical body attitude with neutral elevator was achieved by the pen-
ly aerial tasks such as hover, acceleration, and an aerial dart. Further- dulum effect (15, 68, 69) with the placement of thrust-generating
more, using our design, we show that a soaring maneuver supports a wings above the center of gravity. However, when the body was
vertical climb and an aerobatic turn by arresting the fast aerial dart, turned 90°, its forward glide stability could not be assured by the
without the need to increase throttle (Movie 1). A prerequisite to this lift-generating wings, which were ahead of the center of gravity, sim-
maneuver is the initial condition of high-speed dart and subsequent ilarly to the forward placement of canard wings (30, 31). To achieve
dynamic stalling (4, 65) of wings in a rapid pitch up by tail elevation glide stability, we purposely have (i) axial symmetry of X wings and
like birds do (66, 67). Likewise, the same soaring effect was exploited to “+” shape fin-like tails, (ii) the center of gravity placed closer aft of
help pull up and arrest the ornithopter from a nose-down dive. the aerodynamic center, (iii) a relatively large horizontal tail plane
area being 35% of the wing plane area, and (iv) a small longitudinal
dihedral (<5°) at neutral elevator position. High-authority flight con-
RESULTS trol and stability are possible when provided with high thrust that
Ornithopter design and principle of operation induces strong downwash around the tail. Tail elevation can control
Figure 1A and fig. S1 show our 26-g prototype tailed ornithopter the mode of flight, for example, neutral elevator for vertical climb and
with four flexible wings of 280-mm span. A low-loss transmis- side elevator for turning sideways. In this way, there is no need to

Mentor [24]
A Direct drive of B Indirect drive of flapping wings C TL Robotic
This work
DelFly
propeller Twist and tear FD Bird [21] Nimble [32]
40
This work
T/4 100 van Breugel [15]
(2 motors)
Axle whirl of film hinge Drag 35 DelFly Nimble
Pitch Arm force FD TL Flowerfly [19]
30 TL Robotic
Max Thrust, T (g)

Unbalance Thrust force T lengths DelFly II [26]
Bird
T=W
FC=me 2 Stroke 25
aD angle
10
e, Radius of Fc/2 Richter [17] Jung’s X wing
25 30
Carbon
Motor
eccenetricy T/4 T=W Jung Tandem X wing
Motor fuselage ac ¼ of total thrust [28] (2 motors)
rocks 1
Spin Gear Fc/2 Crank –rocker force 1 10 100 1000
tilts MAV body weight, W (g)
D Solution with anti-whirl, low-loss transmission and partial elastic storage

T/4 D/4
Nylon Tandem Nylon Wing foil

hinge Wings Hinges2 2 Assembly Bearings
Nylon
Nylon Unloaded Nylon
hinge hinge 14.4mm
Fc
Bearing
Motor
Arm
lengths ac
1mm
Fc/2 Crank – Crank Gear Intermediate Brass Gear

rocker force
Brass Gear
Fig. 2. Effect of axle whirl on the drive of propulsion. (A) Direct drive of a spinning propeller (subjected to centrifugal force Fc = me2). (B) Indirect drive of flapping
wings (subjected to crank-rocking force Fc/2 at an arm length ac). During wingbeat at stroke angle  and wing rotation , the drive of each wing needs to overcome drag
force FD to produce thrust T/4. (C) Reported thrust generations by flapping X wings relative to the body weights of micro air vehicles. (D) Our proposed transmission de-
sign to suppress the axle whirl by using tandem pairs of bearing and nylon hinges.
2.5
Turn
2
Level Flight
1.5
Dive/Glide
z (m)
1 Pulling up
Take off
& Hover
0.5
-0.5
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 x (m) 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Movie 1. Multimodal flight including aerobatic turn by X-winged ornithopter.
shift the center of gravity, as in previous work (69), when the orni- Aerobatic maneuvers
thopter needs to switch the flight mode from hover to forward flight. We showed that an aerobatic turn (greater than 90° flip) is the result
Here, we demonstrated the soaring maneuver of an ornithopter to of dynamic stall of the wings and tail elevation during the “soaring”
climb by air brake. Our analysis focuses on (i) the dynamics of flying maneuver that arrests a fast dart. The soaring maneuver describes
a rapid turn with the help of drag on flapping wings and (ii) frictional the climb by air brake similarly to that performed by soaring birds in
power loss in the drive mechanism for a flapping wing thruster. the presence of wind. Likewise, the same maneuver also happens

when pulling up a dive, albeit the direction is rotated by 90°. As shown Power requirement and friction in the thruster
in the free-body force diagram of Fig. 1C, weight mg and drag D assist Flight muscles drive flapping wings of natural flyers (1, 2); a brushless
in rapid deceleration (stopping a dart) when soaring up to 90° pitch motor is the choice of drive for powered micro air vehicles, either
direct drive of a propeller or indirect drive of flapping wings (see
m ─
 dv  = −
  mgsin   v −  D (1) Fig. 2). A typical indirect drive for flapping wing ornithopters consists
dt of a gear train and a crank-rocker mechanism (24, 50, 72). The trans-
where v is the dart speed along the flight path and v is the velocity mission leverages the output torque required for forceful wingbeat
angle. The parachuting effect of drag also helps gliding animals, such by reducing a high motor spin rate fm to a low wingbeat frequency f.
as flying squirrels, to soar to a 90° angle of attack before landing on Meanwhile, the double crank-rocker mechanism is responsible for
a tree trunk at the end of a glide (1). This strategy can be equally converting rotary spin of the drive motor into a sweeping wing
useful for an ornithopter to land upside down on a surface (a bat-like stroke 2. However, the transmission is far from perfect as was as-
flip) or to arrest rapidly while stopping a dart. sumed in previous studies (24, 47). In particular for a small-motorized

Like birds (66, 67), tail deflection by this ornithopter creates sub- drive, the frictional power loss is higher than aerodynamic and
stantial pitching moment provided in either high-speed free inertial power alone (47, 49).
stream– or strong thrust–induced downwash. In the case of a fast Transmission whirl may happen and cause substantial frictional
dart, forward air speed dominates thruster’s downwash. Hence, power loss in fast spinning propellers under direct motorized drive
the tail moments induced by the former can initiate the pitch up of (62–64). It was thought to be a minor effect in wing-reciprocating
the ornithopter, increasing the angle of attack of the flapping wings. transmissions that drive at reduced speed. However, the high recipro-
The post-stall of wings and tails can quickly decelerate the ornitho- cating force required for wingbeat will rock a poorly supported
pter. The drag coefficient for the wing and tail can be estimated from spinning shaft in a gear train, whirling and thus compromising effi-
CD = 2∆D/(v2S), where S is the total projected area of the wing or tail ciency. For example, in our previous design of indirect drives (49),
normal to the flight path. The ratio of the projected area to the plane the rotating gears in the transmission were observed to whirl about
area is S/A0 = sin(b − v) (see Fig. 1C). Experiments show that the a cantilevered pin, causing wear in the bore (see Fig. 2B). An effi-
drag coefficient can be as high as 2.8 during air brake. Calculation cient transmission requires bearing support (see Fig. 2D) to suppress
of nondimensional aerodynamic coefficients is elaborated in Supple- shaft whirl despite the stringent weight constraints.
mentary Text. In short, for a motorized flapping wing drive, mechanical shaft
As the soaring (translation) path goes to a vertical climb (v = 90°), power output is expended to work against loads and friction
the ornithopter body turns simultaneously (b > 90°) with the help
of drag-induced pitching moment. Because of the plane area differ- P mech = P load + P  (3)
ence and tail elevation, the drag acting on the wings is greater than This load power Pload is required to work against the total torque,
that on the tail. The asymmetrical drag distribution creates a sub- Qload, which is the sum of the aerodynamic drag torque, inertia, and
stantial pitching moment MD to flip the ornithopter following elastic torque of the four flapping wings on elastic hinges
J G θ¨   b = ΔD[(  ─
S)
   a − (1  −  ─
S) ]
Sw  Sw 
   b (2) P load = Q load ̇  = (4 F D  a 
¯  D + 4 Jw  ¨  + 4k )  ̇ (4)
where JG is the mass moment of inertia of the whole ornithopter where FD is the drag force acting on each flapping wing (thruster)
about the center of gravity CG, ΔD is the sum of wing and tail drags, at the force center away from the wing pivot by an equivalent arm
Sw is the projected area of X wing in the normal, and a and b are the distance āD, Jw is the rotational inertia of each wing, and k is the
distance of the drag force center to CG for the wing and tail, respec- torsional spring constant of each elastic hinge. In the case of har-
tively. The pitching moment increases with increasing dart speed. monic wingbeat  =  sin 2ft, the stroke speed amplitude is 2f ,
While the dart speed starts to decrease beyond the stall angle, the drag with f being the wingbeat frequency and  being the angular stroke
generating area increases until the wing plane becomes normal to the amplitude.
dart direction. In this way, the ornithopter can flip rapidly beyond When a double crank-rocker mechanism is used to drive two pairs
90° pitch. This analysis suggests that the routine execution of flips of flapping X wings, a crank-rocker force Fc acts on the wing base of
by swifts and bats during perching could be achieved by arresting each wing pair at a distance ac away from the fulcrum (pivot). This,
a dart. in turn, produces the total load torque Qload = 2Fcac for driving the
Figure S9 shows the feasibility of other drones performing a flight two wing pairs. This normal force tends to tilt the shaft off the axis
arrest. In principle, both ornithopter and fixed wing aircraft can of the bearing bore, causing extra rubbing between the whirling shaft
maneuver a post-stall arrest of flight by a rapid pitch up. However, and the bearing bore. In turn, this leads to substantial frictional
this soaring maneuver requires enough initial kinetic energy to con- power loss and bore wear. The frictional power loss can be calculated
vert into gravitational potential energy. To date, a few fixed wing as the product of induced frictional force and the rubbing speed at
aircraft have demonstrated level perching (70) but not climbing by the interface of frictional coefficient  following
post-stall arrest. High thrust is needed to prevent a fall during the
P  = 2 Fc  r  b(2 fn  c ) =  (─
  c  )
flight arrest. In comparison, a quadcopter has neither lift-generation bn 
P  (5)
a load

or drag-generation surfaces to command airbrake. To arrest forward

flight, the quadcopter body needs to revert backward with thrust where rb is the radius of bearing bore in contact with the spinning
opposing the forward motion. In some special cases, contact by cor- shaft and nc is the speed reduction ratio by crank-rocker mechanism
ner impact helped arrest the quadcopter flight in preparation for (49). This shows the frictional power loss being linearly proportional
perching to a vertical wall (71). to load power. This explains why higher thrust is associated with

more frictional power loss being incurred. The obvious solution to Figure 3B shows that the wing stroke angle 2 is nearly constant at
reduce the friction is by using a shaft bearing. the designed 50°, largely independent of the wingbeat frequency.
A small brushless motor of limited torque output cannot directly Meanwhile, the wing pitch amplitude B increases with increasing
drive the high load of flapping wings and associated friction. A speed wingbeat frequency, i.e., B ∝ f, because of increasing inertial and
reduction gear train was used to reduce the reactive load and thus aerodynamic loads (73), but the maximum wing pitch amplitude
improve the motor efficiency, which follows (59, 60) tapers toward full throttle drive because of wing membrane tension
(see fig. S2). Also shown in Fig. 3 (B to G) are the frequency depen-
P
  K
t  I2nf dence of wing stroke, pitch, and their rates and the time profiles over
  mech
 = ─       ─
=       (6)
IV IV a cycle of wingbeat.
where fm = nf is the motor rate of rotation and n is the total speed Next, we studied the effect of elastic hinges on wing kinematics
reduction ratio, which reduces the reactive load torque Qload/n. This given the same drive and transmission. The benchmarks are con-
formula suggests that motor efficiency increases in proportion to ventional pin-jointed X wings, which show little elastic resistance to

the motor rotation speed. Ideally, the drive efficiency is maximized wing opening as compared to the nylon hinges (see fig. S2). The wing
at full throttle; this is desirable during the energetically costly flight kinematics does not change much with the kind of wing-base joints,
operation, such as hover and ascent. except the induced pitch speed. Figure 3C shows that the peak pitch
Re-expression of the equation above further shows linear pro- speed amplitude with nylon-hinged wings rose to 60 rad/s under
portionality between the load torque and electrical power input full throttle drive, whereas that of the pin-hinged X wings tapered to
50 rad/s under the same drive. The elastic recoil enables more forceful
2nf ( V )
P mech Kt  wingbeat by faster wing pitch speed. As a result, the drive of nylon-
Q load ∝  ─     =  ─     IV
(7)
hinged wings requires 13% less electrical power than the drive of
from which we can deduce that aerodynamic force, either thrust or pin-joined ones for the same thrust generation near full throttle (see
drag, of flapping wings will be linearly proportional to the electri- Fig. 4, D and E). The maximum electrical power loading of the former
cal power input IV. Departure from ideal linearity may happen drive is 6.4 g/W at full throttle, whereas that of the latter drive is
when drive performance deteriorates. For example, prolonged drive lower. Maximum electrical power loading at full throttle drive is
and temperature elevation might cause reduction in battery output good for energetically costly hover and ascent flight.
voltage (24). Furthermore, the input electrical power to the motor It is commonly thought (13, 57) that direct drive of a spinning
depends on the conversion efficiency of the electronic speed con- propeller is more efficient than indirect drive of flapping wings for
troller, which decreased substantially with respect to increasing load micro air vehicles. To show that this is not the case, we compared
according to (59). these two distinct drives with the same motor. Figure 4 (A and B)
The same power analysis can also be applied to the direct drive and table S1 show five propeller designs obtained from the market.
of a two-blade propeller. On the assumption that the same drag was The propeller radius (weight) ranges from 80.2 mm (1.37 g) for
required for the same thrust generation, the load torque increases Prop 3020 to 177.05 mm (2.89 g) for Prop 7035. Figure S7 shows
with increasing radius of the propeller. Load torque further increases the test setup for propeller static thrust measurement. The smallest
because of the friction between high-speed turning shaft and bearing. propeller (Prop 3020) performed the best. Its full-throttle electrical
Hence, the total mechanical power incurred is the sum of load- and power loading is 4.6 g/W, lower than the maximum of 4.8 g/W near
friction-induced power when the propeller spins at angular speed half throttle. The electromechanical conversion rate at full-throttle
 following direct drive was 49% when the propeller spun at 233 Hz (see Fig. 4D).
Its electrical losses included resistive and windage losses and the loss
  ¯  d  +   B F C(  ) r  B 
P mech,prop = 2 F d r  (8) in the electronic speed controller (59, 60), whereas the mechanical
losses include substantial frictional power loss caused by axle whirl.
where the first term is the aerodynamic power induced by mean drag Hence, Fig. 4C shows electrical power loading (T/IV) being lower than
¯   d
force Fd acting on each blade of the propeller at radial position  r  the mechanical power loading (i.e., the ratio of thrust to mechanical
off rotation axis, spinning at an angular speed  = 2fm. The second power, T/KtI), which is proportional to aerodynamic efficiency (24).
term is the frictional power loss induced by the centrifugal force of Axle whirl is a classical problem for cantilevered propeller and
the propeller/shaft, which acts normal to the bearing bore of radius rotor machinery (62, 63). It is less a problem to a larger propeller that
rB with frictional coefficient B. The centrifugal force FC() = me2 spins at a slower speed with proper balancing because of gyroscopic
was caused by the rotating unbalanced mass m of the whirling pro- effect as described by the classic textbook (64). However, we found
peller at radius of eccentricity e off the axis of rotation. Although the that axle whirl is substantial with the small propeller tested (Prop
frictional coefficient of bearings is low, the high propeller rotational 3020 of 82.25-mm diameter and 1.37 g) that spun at 233 Hz. Figure 5
speed combined with high normal force can lead to non-negligible shows the total force vector generated by three different propulsive
frictional power loss. This formula suggests that a smaller propeller devices—namely, a small propeller (Prop 3020), a larger propeller
requires less torque to drive as compared to a larger propeller, if the (Prop 6030), and large flapping X wings of 280-mm span—generating
frictional power loss was comparable. nearly the same mean thrust (see Fig. 5E). Axle whirl induced radial
forces in addition to vertical thrust. The Lissajous curve of the radial
Wing kinematics, thrust, and power expenditure force induced was found to be skewed rather than circular because
We conducted a static thrust test of flapping wings, under indirect of the complex interaction between bearing, spinning propeller, and
drive by a small brushless motor (AP-03 7000 kV, 3.1 g). Figure 3 axle (62). Then, full-throttle drive of Prop 3020 had an amplitude of
and movies S1 and S2 show the wing kinematics, whereas Fig. 4 radial force 3.9 times that of vertical thrust. Figure 5 (C and D)
shows the mean thrust generation with respect to drive parameters. shows that there is a large-amplitude variation in the vertical thrust

A 15Hz Opening of wings on nylon hinges

Start End
t/T=0 t/T=0.28 t/T=0.53
Front view Side view Stroke
angle
Wing Pitch angle

B(Nylon-hinged
B or Ampl. ofwing) B or Ampl. wings)
B (Pin-jointed of
(Nylon-hinged wing) (Pinned wing) Nylon hinged wings, 15.0Hz Pin-jointed wings, 14.2 Hz
2 or Ampl. of 2 or Ampl. of 50 30
Nylon-hinged wing) Pin-jointed wings)
(Nylon-hinged wing) (Pinned wing)
D E
Pitch Angle (deg)

Stroke Angle ( )
60 60 40
B 10
30 2
(°)

50 50
Pitch. Ampl. B (°)

20 2
40 40 -10 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Wing Stroke 2
30 30 10
20 20 0 -30
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Cycle, t/T
10 10
Cycle, t/T
0 0 Open Close Open Close
70 70
C 60 60
Stroke Speed (rad/s)
Pitch Speed (rad/s)
60 60 F G
Pitch Velocity (rad/s)

Stroke Velocity (rad/s)
50 50 40 40
40 40 20 20
30 30 0
0
20 20
10 10 -20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 -20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0 -40 -40
0 5 10 15 20 -60 -60
Wingbeat frequency (Hz) Cycle, t/T Cycle, t/T
Fig. 3. Wing kinematics of flapping X wings under indirect drive via anti-whirl mechanism. (A) Snapshots of the nylon hinged X wings moving from closed to open
at 15 Hz (maximum throttle) (see movies S1 and S2 for top and side views, respectively). (B and C) Frequency dependence of wing stroke 2 and pitch amplitude B, the
rates of wing stroke angle and pitch angle, respectively ( ̇ and ) ̇ , (D to G) and their time profiles for 1 cycle of wingbeat at 14 to 15 Hz.
Disk area, A
Prop 3020 Prop 6030 1 1
Prop 4045 Complete
(N/W)
T/4 T/4
comparison Prop 7035 PROPELLER T/K I
Prop 5030
C
Prop 3020 Prop 4045 T/4 T/4
Prop 5030 Prop 6030
T/K I
Prop 7035 24cm span with 20mm Hinges
Pin jointed wings Nylon-hinged wings
60 X-WING T/K I
5 0.1 0.1
Steepest A B
Mean Thrust (g)
(W)
50 4
gradient X-WING T/IV
T/IV (N/W)
40
3
Mean K I
30
2
20 T
PROPELLER T/IV
1 Disk
10
area, A
0 0 0.01 0.01
0 10 0 5 10 15 0.5 5 50
Mean IV (W) Mean IV (W) Disk Loading T/A (N/m²)
0.8 8
Nylon hinged wings Pin jointed wings Prop 3020
D E
(%)
0.6 6
T/ IV(g/W)
Radial
Nylon hinge Pin joint stop
m/IV
4 0.4 4
4 Prop 3020
0.2 2
KtI
Wing 4
Wing 4 0
0
(see Figure S2e) 0 100 200 300 400 0 10 20 30 40 50
Motor frequency fm (Hz) Mean thrust (g)
Fig. 4. Performance comparison between flapping wing and rotary propulsions. (A) Comparison by thrust generated (T) as a function of input electrical power (IV).
(B) Comparison by output shaft power (Kt I ) as a function of input electrical power (IV). (C) Comparison by effect of disk loading (T/A) on either electrical power loading
(T/IV) or mechanical power loading [T/(Kt I )]. (D and E) Comparison by effect of elastic storage on indirect drive of flapping wings in terms of motor conversion efficiency
(Kt I /IV) and electrical power loading.

component despite nearly constant power expenditure. The indirect maneuver requires tail elevation to initiate a rapid body pitch and to
drive of flapping X wings also shows radial forces due to the out-of- dynamically stall the wings at high dart speed. Like the soaring
phase interaction between rocking fuselage and flapping wings, maneuver, the process was accompanied by a height gain at the ex-
whereas the drag and inertial forces in the symmetrically configured pense of speed loss because of conversion of kinetic energy to grav-
flapping X wings should cancel out each other. Estimates of axle itational potential energy, following the displacement integral of Eq. 1.
eccentricity from the radial force amplitudes (see table S2) showed While the ornithopter was rising to the peak of height, the throttle
that the indirect drive of flapping wings was subject to the least whirl was reduced as indicated by a dip in wingbeat sound intensity am-
although the drive motor spun faster than direct drive of the propeller. plitude (see Fig. 6C). Following a back turn, a pull up from the dive
Our experimental results showed that drive efficiency for flapping was demonstrated by throttling up the flapping wings and elevating
propulsion was higher than that for rotor propulsion with the small the tail.
motor tested. By exploiting the lower disk loading of large wing sweep The dart speed determines how fast the subsequent soar and
area (see Fig. 4C and table S2), flapping X wings can beat 21.3 times how sharp the subsequent flip can be. However, it is the glide stability

slower than a propeller spins to produce the same amount of thrust that matters to the recovery from 90° flip without tumbling at a slow
(see Fig. 5E). Furthermore, according to Eq. 7, the gear train helps speed. To prove this, we piloted another aerobatic flip immediately
to greatly reduce reactive load such that the drive motor can spin followed by an unpowered glide. Before the flip, the demonstrated
faster (see Fig. 4D). This leads to higher motor efficiency for dart speed was 4.2 m/s after a 1.5-m dart. Figure 7 and movie S5
full-throttle indirect drive of flapping X wings, for example, up to show that this ornithopter quickly recovered its glide stability, de-
66% (at 319-Hz spin) for driving nylon-hinged wings and up to 60% scending stably at level body attitude (b = −180°) without tumbling
for driving pin-hinged wings. According to Eq. 8 and Fig. 4C, a right after the execution of a 90° flip in a 75.0-mm radius. To execute
higher reactive load of a larger propeller also explains its poorer drive a successful flip, the response time of pilot and space must be suitable.
efficiency despite its better aerodynamic efficiency as compared to Movie S6 and fig. S4 show that the ornithopter continued a high-
smaller propeller. speed dart of 8 m/s when not pitched up in time given the limited
flight arena.
Aerobatic flight Next, we tested whether this ornithopter can slow down and de-
With nearly 40% excess maximum thrust (see Fig. 2C and table S3), flect a nose-down dive by a stick-free tail pre-elevation (see Figure 8).
this ornithopter can hover and ascend (see movie S3). Figure 6 and In the tests [see Fig. 8 (A and B) and movies S7 and S8], the ornithopter
movie S4 show a complete execution of various flight modes with was released from a height nose down; the flight path and body pitch
smooth transitions. These flight modes started from a vertical takeoff attitude were recorded (see fig. S5). Movie S7 shows the nose-down
and climb, hover, transit to a level forward dart, air brake, and soar dive of the ornithopter with neutral tail elevation (e = 0°). Its sink
to a height before reversing the flight path, diving, and finally landing was fast (taking less than 0.5 s to lose 2.3 m of altitude), but it did
with upright body attitude. A transition from hover to forward flight not manage to nose up given its small inherent longitudinal dihedral
risked a dip due to reduced vertical component of thrust, but once it at the neutral tail position. Movie S8 shows that full tail elevation
flew forward, extra lift was gained because of increasing free stream (e = 40°) helped quickly turn the body attitude once the ornithopter
speed (see figs. S3 and S4 and movie S6). gained enough speed. The maximum sink speed was 11 m/s (after
Next, we considered the flight conditions to execute an aerobatic 1-m sink). Subsequently, the nose-up glide (up to b = 55°) continued
turn. Before post-stall arrest, Fig. 6 (A and B) shows that the orni- at nearly constant sinking rate of half the maximum value. In a sep-
thopter darted for 3 to 4 m and reached a maximum speed of 6.1 m/s arate dive from an 8.3-m height (see Fig. 8E and movie S9), the
at b = 40° to 45°. Subsequently, the post-stall arrest achieved a max- ornithopter was pulled up from an unpowered nose dive. At the end
imum deceleration of 31.4 m/s2, followed by a tight corner flip of of the dive, the X wings were throttled up to recover from the dive
31.6-mm radius from upward body attitude to backward level. This to avoid a hard landing.
300 150 12 Prop 6030

C
(g)
Prop 3020
A B
Thrust, Fz (g)
10 Prop 3020
200 100 8
X wings
IV (W)
50 6
Prop 3020
100
0 Prop 6030
4 D X wings
Total 2
force @ 233Hz 0 0
-50
vector Prop 6030 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Fz @ 95Hz Cycle, t/T Cycle t/T
Cycle, t/T
(g)
X wings
@ 15Hz Nylon-hinged X wing 3020 Prop 6030 Prop
Radial force 60 200
Mean Thrsut, Fz (g)
(g)
E 150 F
40
100
20 50
0
Mean
0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Fy (g) Frequency (Hz)
Fx (g) Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 5. Axle whirl observed in the drive of flapping X wings and spinning propellers. (A) Vector plot of total force generation over a cycle together with Lissajous
curve of radial force projected on the x-y plane. (B to D) Time profiles of radial force generation, thrust generation, and electric power expenditure during a cycle of spin
or flap. (E and F) Frequency dependency of vertical force component (thrust) and radial force component of propulsion.

A Multimodal flight with Nylon Hinged X-wing D Backward turn with small radius
t=7.97s,
2.5
=2.24m/s, R
=14.55m/s² (d)
2
1.5
R
z (m)
t=7.62s, t=7.77s,
1
=6.12m/s, =3.53m/s,
t=8.43s,
=0.87m/s² =-31.43m/s²
=5.95m/s,
0.5 =2.18m/s²
v(velocity)
t=7.89s, Flight back

v
0 =1.32m/s,
(Body Pitch Angle) =-1.53m/s² 10
b
R=0.0316m
R (m)
1
-0.5
0.1 R
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x (m) 0.01
B 270
Climb Forward Backward Descent
1 z
180 180 tan
(degree)
v
135 x
(°)
b
90 90
b
45 0 b v
0
6 -90
Speed (m/s)
3 10
(rad/s)
d b/dt
0
-3 0
-6 -10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 3
vmax
z (m)
Reduced Times (s) 6
Speed, v
C z 2
(m/s)
throttle 4
Relative Acoustic Amplitude 2 v 1
0 0
7 8 9
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 6. Aerobatics performed by the nylon-hinged X-winged ornithopter. See movie S4. (A) Trajectories (in x and z coordinates) of multimodal flight, which includes
hover (black line), transition to fast forward flight (green line), short turn (blue box), backward dive (red line), and descent and landing (yellow line), with velocity (v) and
_
acceleration (a) indicated at particular times (t). (B) Time profiles of body pitch angle (b) and speed (v = √ x ̇ 2  + z
 ̇2  
) during the multimodal flight. (C) Time profile of wing-
beat sound intensity (in relative arbitrary unit) during the multimodal flight. (D) Zoomed-in view of the backward turn performed and the time profiles of the turn radius
(R), attitudes of velocity and body (y, b), rate of body attitude change db /dt, and speed v.
These observations of changing body pitch attitude during the DISCUSSION

unpowered dive provide a simple basis for analyzing stick-free glide The dual stability to hover and glide is desired for an ornithopter,
stability. According to stability theory (30, 31, 66, 67, 74), an aircraft enabling manual flight control by the pilot. However, the means of
is passively stable when the total induced moment M about its hover stability differs from that of glide stability. The flexible flap-
center of gravity tends to counter the angular perturbation ∆b ping wings behave differently from canard fixed wings and thus end
following with a different stability outcome, although they are placed ahead of
the center of gravity (30, 31, 74). Furthermore, the drag on the flapping
 ─ M    = negative (9) wings of birds and ornithopters cannot be neglected (66, 67), unlike
   b the assumption of negligible drag on fixed wings for conventional
During the dive, the ornithopter of body pitch attitude (b) was analysis. Here, we proposed the thrust-based stabilization by fin-like
subject to pitching moment as induced by the free stream, which tail to explain the hover stability; second, we explain the neutral glide
varies in speed v and direction (v). The induced moment can be stability at neutral tail elevation by the fact that the tail leads the
estimated as M = J G θ¨   b, where JG is the ornithopter’s moment of in- flexible wings to respond to rigid-body perturbation.
ertia about its center of gravity and   ¨   bis the angular acceleration Let us first analyze the static hover stability (see Fig. 7B). During
calculated as the second-order time derivative of the measured body the normal hover in still air, four X wings beat to counter gravity
pitch attitude. To rule out the effects of varying flight parameters, (m = 26g), moving the air downward. As a reaction to the 26g thrust
we plotted the coefficient of moment CM = 2 M/(V2Ac) instead of force, the downwash gains___________
speed w of 1.23 m/s according to disk
the moment with respect to the angle of attack ( = b − v), where actuator theory (i): w = √ mg / (2 R  2 )  
, where the corresponding
A is the total plane area and c is the wing chord width. The plot disk has a total swept angle  = 200°, radius R = 0.14 m, and air
(Fig. 8D) shows that the ornithopter with full tail elevation is passively density  = 1.225 kg/m3. When the ornithopter body was perturbed
stable in glide but, with neutral tail positioned, becomes neutrally by a small angle b, the downwash momentarily stays its course
stable. because of fluid inertia. Then, the rigid tail follows the rigid-body

A Climb, Hover, forward flight and dart Glide at level body attitude Time monitors
Sound
amplitude
Glide
4 5
v (m/s)
v
z (m)
2 v
z z
0 0
0 2 Time (s) 4 6
210
(degree)
150
Angles
90
z t=0s until 4s 30
x t=4s until 5.5s -30
2Time (s) 4 6

B Hover stability (static analysis) C Glide stability at level body pitch
T=mg
D w Lw Mt Lw
w Lt Dw
Dt
D t Lt
b
= v h Mw
b
mg = 0 v
v=0 b v
v b
mg v v v
Downwash w b
v
w b
b
=90 Mt b a b a
b b =90 + b
v
v
Lt=0 Lt 0
Fig. 7. Flight stability analysis. (A) Recovery of flight stability right after a flip (see movie S5) and time monitors of wingbeat sound amplitude, height (z), speed (v), angles
of velocity v and body pitch b, and angle of attack  = v – b. (B) Free-body force diagram for hover stability analysis shows as the reaction of thrust generation T at still
air v = 0, downwash of nonzero speed w induces tail lift Lt and, thus, tail moment Mt (about the center of body mass at a distance b) that stabilizes the hovering against
body perturbation b. (C) Free-body force diagram for glide stability analysis shows that free stream of constant speed v induces lifts and drags Lw, Lt, Dw, and Dt at the
wings and tail, respectively. These aerodynamic forces on wings and tails, in turn, induce the wing moments Mw and tail moments Mt about the center of body mass. Then,
the ornithopters were trimmed to glide at neutral stability against perturbation with the help by wing flexibility.
A Dive with neutral elevator B Dive with right elevator

E Pulling up from a dive
0 0.1
t=0.116s; z= 3.2 m
-0.4 -0.4
t=0s, Altitude = 8.27m
-0.9
-0.8
-1.4
Altitude, z (m)
-1.2
Altitude, z (m)
-1.9
-1.6
-2.4 t=0.593s
-2
-2.9
t=1.42s
-2.4 -3.4
0 1 Travel x (m) 2 0 1 Travel x (m) 2
C Speed monitor D Stability Analysis

15 0.03
CM=2Mcg/ V2Ac
t=0.983s
Speed, v (m/s)
10 1.71m
0
t=1.186s
5
0 -0.03
0 0.5 Time (s)1 1.5 -30 0 ( ) 30 60
Fig. 8. Ornithopter capable of pulling up from a nose-down dive. (A and B) The effect of elevator position on the flight path of unpowered nose-down dive (see movie S7)
with tail neutral and (movie S8) with tail pre-elevated. The stability analysis by (C) monitor of speed and (D) plot of moment coefficient with respect to the angle of attack.
It was shown that the pre-elevated tail helped stabilize the flight further. Subsequent demonstration in (E) further showed a successful pull up from a dive, which was
followed by a powered climb to hover (see movie S9).

motion with the angle of attack becoming T = b with respect to destabilizing effect of its forward placement. In comparison, for-
the downwash. This induces a tail lift Lt and a stabilizing moment ward placement of canard surfaces (small forewings) of an airplane
following ahead of the main wing tends to destabilize flight if not properly
trimmed (30, 31).
 M T = −  L T b
(10) Forceful propulsion is compulsory to power a hover and a dart
before this aerobatic maneuver and to command flight control at
where b is the distance between the tail’s aerodynamic force center various speeds. Here, we have developed an effective motorized
and the ornithopter’s center of gravity. Flexible wings are subject to drive for flapping wings with a low-loss transmission that incorpo-
a slower stream during normal hover and thus do not contribute rates an anti-whirl feature and elastic storage. We experimentally
much to destabilizing moment. This thrust-induced stabilization by showed that flapping wing propulsion can be as forceful as propeller
tail is high during climb and hover but becomes less during descent. propulsion under the drive of the same motor, with the former be-
This explains the observation (in Fig. 6A) that the ornithopter body ing 40% more energetically efficient than the latter. Also proven was

swung more severely during descent than it did during ascent. a linear relationship between frictional power loss and aerodynamic
Next, we analyzed the glide stability (see Fig. 7C). As shown in power and a linear relationship between output thrust and electrical
the free-body force diagram, this ornithopter was trimmed to glide power input. With this theoretical understanding, a better drive can
with level body pitch attitude, at angle of attack  relative to the wind. be developed in the future to power ornithopters.
Both the wings and tail generate aerodynamic forces (lift and drag)
to support the body weight and counter the tendency to rotate. Then,
the wings are subjected to mean lift Lw and drag Dw at distance a MATERIALS AND METHODS
ahead of the center of gravity and height h above it, and the tailplane Figure 1A and fig. S1 show our 26-g prototype of the tailed ornithopter
is subjected to the mean lift Lt and drag Dt at a distance b behind the with flexible X wings of 280-mm span. The X wings, which are con-
center of gravity. Static equilibrium of the forces follows figured in two crossing diagonal pairs, can clap and fling (open and
close), each at a stroke angle of 50°. To command aerobatic maneuvers,
0 = Mw    + M T = − a(Lw  cosα + Dw  sinα) this ornithopter is equipped with a relatively large tail. The fuselage
    (11) of this ornithopter is 200 mm long. The body pitching inertia of this
− h(Lw  sinα − Dw  cosα ) + b(L T cosα + D T sinα)
ornithopter is 284.8 × 10−6 kg m2 as measured from pendulum
A counterclockwise perturbation of body pitch (above the level) oscillation. As shown in fig. S1, plumb line method found its center
by −b raises the angle of attack  = b to both the wings and of mass behind the wing leading edges by 78 mm and ahead of the
tail. Then, the rigid tail follows the body perturbation instantly, but wing trailing edge by 5.4 mm. The tail leading edge is 98.5 mm
the flexible wings lag behind because of their flexibility. As a result behind the center of gravity.
of the difference in response speed, the tail effectively presents a Design and material selections were important to the realization
small stabilizing moment MT that tends to suppress the perturba- of forceful and efficient propulsion. To improve the drive, we incor-
tion –b following porated the following features to the double crank-rocker mechanism.
First, a highly geared transmission helps maximize the load torque
b(
 ─T   cos +  ─T   sin)
 M   L   D  output and electromechanical conversion efficiency of the brushless
 ─T  = −   (12)
   b    b    b electric motors. Second, a tandem pair of miniature ball bearings

was introduced to each rotating shaft in the gear train. Third, a light-
This stabilizing tail moment at neutral elevation is small at slow weight rigid housing made of carbon-reinforced polymer was used
glide speed, in comparison to that at maximum elevator. This free to hold the gear train. A tandem pair of nylon hinges for the wing
stream–induced moment is clearly not enough to stabilize powered bases was developed for partial elastic storage and as a guide to con-
forward flight, but the thrust-induced tail moment helps stabilize it. strain the reciprocating crank/rocker. Anchoring the tandem wing
With passive stability in dual flight modes, this ornithopter shows pair to the fuselage also helped suppress the rocking motion induced
potential to perform controlled flight. by the wings. Nylon 6 was used to sustain the high crank force acting
The triple roles of wings for propulsion, lift, and drag are a notable directly on the hinges, in replacement of previous polyimide film
advantage of flapping wing aircraft over rotorcraft, airplanes, para- hinges (see fig. S6) (47, 49). Apart from the careful design and con-
glider, or hybrids thereof (75, 76). Our work exploited these advan- struction of the drive, we also toughened the flexible wing construc-
tages of flapping wings and demonstrated aggressive flight maneuvers tion by using tear-resistant polyurethane elastomeric membrane in
simply by tail control. These aggressive modes of flight include hover, addition to bat-like skeletal reinforcement by carbon spars.
high-speed dart, and an aerobatic turn while climbing.
A rapid aerobatic turn can be readily maneuvered by stopping Transmission: Fabrication and characterization
an aerial dart or dive, initiated from high flight speed. Reversing the Figure 2D shows a transmission consisting of a rigid gearbox housing
flight path could help the ornithopter avoid collisions in cluttered made from a carbon-fiber reinforced plate, shaft bearings, and a
indoor spaces. Soaring theory and experiments show that a parachute brass compound gear and two Delrin spur gears for intermediate
effect can help an ornithopter soar to 90° just like gliding animals. A and output coupling, respectively. This indirect drive could magnify
further flip upside down is made possible by tail elevation and wing the motor output torque by 76.8 times using a gear train with a 21.3
dynamic stall at high translation speed in a soaring maneuver. This gear ratio and a crank-rocker mechanism with 3.6 crank ratio (i.e.,
ornithopter recovered to glide stability without tumbling after a 90° 180°/50°). The brass compound spur gear had 32 outer teeth and
body flip. We showed that the tail plays a dominant role in stabilizing 8 pinion teeth. Each of the Delrin spur gears had 48 teeth. Delrin
powered flight and glide, whereas flexibility of wings lessened the was chosen for its self-lubricating properties. Rigid designs of

carbon-fiber plate housing and brass gears helped minimize load- chordwise wing flexibility allowed inertially induced passive wing
induced deformation. When fixed to the rigid housing, bearing rotation (73). Limiting the passive wing rotation was the membrane
supports aligned the rotating shaft, thus reducing friction. Each of tension, root-chord support, and leading edge. There was some slack
the shaft bearings (DDL301 miniaturized ball bearing as supplied in the membrane wing. The mid-span chordwise rib could rotate
by International Bearing Pte. Ltd, Singapore) weighed 0.04 g, with under gravity for 11° about the leading edge. It could further rotate,
a 3-mm outer diameter, 1-mm inner bore diameter, and 1-mm for example, 24° under an extra 3-g load acting on the tip of the
thickness. mid-span chord rib. Each of two diagonal pairs of flexible wings had
Figure S2 (A to C) shows the nylon flexure joints supporting the a 280-mm span and 88-mm root chord width and weighed 1.82 g
flapping wings, thereby helping recover the wing kinetic energy as (with moment of inertia being 13.07 × 10−6 kg m2). Each diagonal
elastic energy. As used for fishing line (77), nylon is well known for wing plane had a total plane area of 25.2 × 10−3 m2.
high toughness, high yield strain, and high ultimate elongation. Each Figure 1A shows a cross-tail control consisting of a static vertical
nylon hinge was 0.5 mm thick, 1.5 mm long, and 3 mm wide; it can stabilizer plane and a movable elevator plane. The horizontal tail

be bent elastically up to 68.8°. Two nylon flexures were staggered at has a total tail plane area of 8.9 × 10−3 m2, whereas the movable part
a distance while pivoting the leading-edge spar of a wing pair. Two has an area of 5.6 × 10−3 m2. This tail area is relatively large, about
tandem nylon flexures arranged in this way avoided twist-induced 35% of the wing plane area. The cross-tail planes were made of carbon-
fatigue caused by flapping loads. Our experiment showed that these spar reinforced 1-mm-thick styrofoam (Depron). Servo motors
nylon joint can sustain repeated bending (over 50° wing stroke) weighing 1.7 g each were rated to a maximum torque of 7.36 mN·m
without failure during the course of a normal flying mission. In at 4.2 V.
comparison, flexure joints of Delrin (a brand of acetal resin, poly- During static thrust testing, the ornithopter was mounted on a
oxymethylene) broke within a minute under the same conditions. six-axis load cell as described above. A high-speed camera (Photron
Elastic properties of the elastic hinge were measured by applying FASTCAM 1024 PCI) was used to study the wing kinematics. Video
a load increment while measuring wing stroke with video or still tracking of the leading-edge spar and the projected length of the
images. Here, a six-axis force/torque sensor (ATI Nano 17) was used mid-chord rib yielded the average wing stroke 2(t) (off the horizontal
to measure the load torque. A digital camera was used to capture the reference where the wings close) and wing pitch amplitude (t).
wing stroke angle (equal to the hinge bending angle) under the
applied load. Figure S2 shows two tandem nylon flexures having a
linear torsional stiffness of 12.9 mN·m/rad. The no-load neutral po- SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
robotics.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/5/44/eaba2386/DC1
sition of the nylon flexures was measured to be 5°. The elastic energy
Text
(2PE) stored in the nylon hinges is calculated as the integral of the Fig. S1. Longitudinal dimensions and weight breakdowns of the X-winged tailed ornithopter.
measured moment required to bend the hinge with respect to the Fig. S2. Elastic properties of hinges for flapping flexible wings.
angular wing stroke. Given a constant wing stroke amplitude of 50°, Fig. S3. Transition between hovering and angled forward flight by elevator control under
the calculated elastic energy storage was about 4.5 mJ, independent of nearly constant throttle.
Fig. S4. Height dip when the ornithopter transited too fast from hover to forward flight,
wingbeat frequency. When the hinged wing pair was released from followed by a continuation of high-speed dart when the ornithopter was not pitched up in time.
loading, its damped free oscillation measured a damped natural fre- Fig. S5. Time histories of flight distance, altitude and angles during stick-free nose-down glide
quency of about 5 Hz. as extracted from data in Fig. 8 and movies S7 and S8.
As a benchmark, fig.S2A shows a rigid-body (double crank-rocker) Fig. S6. Comparison between our previous design (240-mm span) and current design (280-mm span).
Fig. S7. Measurement setup for the propeller.
mechanism with pin joints having little elastic energy storage. The
Fig. S8. Reported electrical power loading (T/IV) with respect to body mass and motor mass,
mechanism is made of elastic linkages of acetal (polyoxymethylene) respectively.
with self-lubrication, and pin joints, assembled in the same housing Fig. S9. Feasibility of other drones to perform flight arrest.
with shaft bearings. In addition, we included a radial stop (i.e., a Table S1. Specifications of propeller designs under test.
protrusion as shown in fig. S2) at the root of the crank link to prevent Table S2. Effects of axle whirling in different propulsion devices.
Table S3. Hovering performance of various reported X-wing ornithopters.
the mechanism from being jammed to a dead toggling position. This Movie S1. Top view showing the low-loss drive of flapping X wings on nylon hinges.
radial stop does not brake the wing when it is not in contact at the Movie S2. Side view showing the low-loss drive of flapping X wings on nylon hinges.
mid-stroke where the wing stroke speed peaks. When the wing stroke Movie S3. Vertical takeoff and ascent (climb).
exceeds 50°, the radial stop collides with the ground body frame. Movie S4. Aerobatics performed by an X-winged ornithopter with nylon hinges for elastic
energy storage.
This pin-joint with the radial stop exhibited nonlinearly increasing
Movie S5. Recovery of glide stability after a flip upside down.
stiffness for a stroke beyond 50° due to elastic deformation in the Movie S6. Height dip during the fast hover-to-forward transition and subsequent high-speed dart.
linkages and ground frame. Movie S7. Unpowered dive with tail at neutral position.
Movie S8. Unpowered dive with tail pre-elevated.
Wings and tails: Fabrication and characterization Movie S9. Pulling up a dive and climb to hover.
Figure S2D shows the flexible wings consisting of elastic membrane

(23-m-thick polyurethane film, ArgoGuard 46510) and veined rein-
REFERENCES AND NOTES
forcement by carbon rods that were adhesively taped onto the mem- 1.
R. M. Alexander, Principles of Animal Locomotion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).
brane like the bat digital skeletal structure in planform. The wing 2.
A. Biewener, Animal Locomotion (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).
membrane had root chord fixed to the body, whereas its recipro- 3.
J. J. Videler, Avian Flight (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).
cating leading edge was reinforced by a D-shaped carbon spar of 4.
W. Shyy, Y. Lian, J. Tang, D. Viieru, H. Liu, Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
1-mm diameter. Chordwise veins attached to the membrane wings 5. P. Henningsson, L. C. Johansson, A. Hedenström, How swift are swifts Apus apus? J. Avian Biol.
were made of 0.5-mm-diameter carbon rods, which were spaced 41, 94–98 (2010).
at gaps from the leading-edge spar with membrane flexures. This 6. M. Marin, On the behavior of the black swift. The Condor 99, 514 (1997).

7. Nat Geo WILD, Salivating for a new nest: Wild Borneo, 4 January 2017; http://youtube. 40. T. Weis-Fogh, Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals, including novel
com/watch?v=ngPs3kINUXE. mechanisms for lift production. J. Exp. Biol. 59, 169–230 (1973).
8. H. Y. Lim, J. K. I. Ho, Aerodramus fuciphagus—Edible-nest swiftlet, 02 January 2019; 41. G. R. Spedding, T. Maxworthy, The generation of circulation and lift in a rigid two-
https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/TAX/Aerodramus+fuciphagus+-+Edible-nest+Swiftlet. dimensional fling. J. Fluid Mech. 165, 247–272 (1986).
9. S. H. Ibrahim, W. C. Teo, A. Baharun, A study on suitable habitat for swiftlet farming. 42. R. Madangopal, Z. A. Khan, S. K. Agrawal, Biologically inspired design of small flapping
J. Civil Eng. Sci. Technol. 1, 1–7 (2009). wing air vehicles using four-bar mechanisms and quasi-steady aerodynamics. J. Mech. Des.
10. D. Mackenzie, A flapping of wings. Science 335, 1430–1433 (2012). 127, 809–816 (2005).
11. N. Chronister, Full history of ornithopters (2017); https://ornithopter.org/history.full. 43. S. S. Baek, K. Y. Ma, R. S. Fearing, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
shtml [accessed March 2017]. Robots and Systems (IEEE, 2009), pp. 2854–2860.
12. A. Ramezani, S.-J. Chung, S. Hutchinson, A biomimetic robotic platform to study flight 44. R. Sahai, K. C. Galloway, R. J. Wood, Elastic element integration for improved flapping-
specializations of bats. Sci. Robot. 2, eaal2505 (2017). wing micro air vehicle performance. IEEE Trans. Robot. 29, 32–41 (2013).
13. K. Karydis, V. Kumar, Energetics in robotic flight at small scales. Interface Focus 7, 45. L. Hines, D. Campolo, M. Sitti, Liftoff of a motor-driven, flapping-wing microaerial vehicle
20160088 (2017). capable of resonance. IEEE Trans. Robot. 30, 220–232 (2014).
14. D. Lentink, S. R. Jongerius, N. L. Bradshaw, Flying Insects and Robots (Springer, 2009), 46. D. Campolo, M. Azhar, G.-K. Lau, M. Sitti, Can DC motors directly drive flapping wings at

pp. 185–205. high frequency and large wing strokes? IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech. 19, 109–120 (2014).
15. F. van Breugel, W. Regan, H. Lipson, From insects to machines. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 47. G.-K. Lau, Y.-W. Chin, J. T.-W. Goh, R. J. Wood, Dipteran-insect-inspired thoracic
15, 68–74 (2008). mechanism with nonlinear stiffness to save inertial power of flapping-wing flight.
16. M. Keennon, K. Klingebiel, H. Won, A. Andriukov, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (AIAA, IEEE Trans. Robot. 30, 1187–1197 (2014).
2012), pp. 1–24. 48. J. M. Kok, G. K. Lau, J. S. Chahl, On the aerodynamic efficiency of insect-inspired micro
17. C. Richter, H. Lipson, Untethered hovering flapping flight of a 3D-printed mechanical aircraft employing asymmetrical flapping. J. Aircr. 53, 800–810 (2016).
insect. Artif. Life 17, 73–86 (2011). 49. Y.-W. Chin, Z. Ang, Y. Luo, W.-L. Chan, J. S. Chahl, G.-K. Lau, Spring-assisted motorized
18. L. Ristroph, S. Childress, Stable hovering of a jellyfish-like flying machine. J. R. Soc. Interface transmission for efficient hover by four flapping wings. J. Mech. Robot. 10, 061014
11, 20130992 (2014). (2018).
19. Q. V. Nguyen, W. L. Chan, M. Debiasi, Experimental investigation of wing flexibility 50. B. Bruggeman, “Improving flight performance of Delfly ii in hover by improving wing
on force generation of a hovering flapping wing micro air vehicle with double wing design and driving mechanism,” thesis, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands (2010).
clap-and-fling effects. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 9, 187–197 (2017). 51. J. H. Marden, Maximum lift production during takeoff in flying animals. J. Exp. Biol. 130,
20. Y. Nan, M. Karásek, M. E. Lalami, A. Preumont, Experimental optimization of wing shape 235–258 (1987).
for a hummingbird-like flapping wing micro air vehicle. Bioinspir. Biomim. 12, 026010 52. D. Floreano, R. J. Wood, Science, technology and the future of small autonomous drones.
(2017). Nature 521, 460–466 (2015).
21. Q.-V. Nguyen, W. L. Chan, Development and flight performance of a biologically-inspired 53. N. Lomas, Is it a bird? Is it a bug? No it a biomimetic microdrone with flapping wings
tailless flapping-wing micro air vehicle with wing stroke plane modulation. (2017); https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/25/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-bug-no-its-a-biomimetic-
Bioinspir. Biomim. 14, 016015 (2018). microdrone-with-flapping [accessed 25 March 2017].
22. J. DeLaurier, An ornithopter wing design. Can. Aeronaut. Space J. 40, 10–18 (1994). 54. J. W. Kruyt, E. M. Quicazán-Rubio, G. F. van Heijst, D. L. Altshuler, D. Lentink, Hummingbird
23. K. D. Jones, C. J. Bradshaw, J. Papadopoulos, M. F. Platzer, Bio-inspired design wing efficacy depends on aspect ratio and compares with helicopter rotors. J. R. Soc.
of flapping-wing micro air vehicles. Aeronaut. J. 109, 385–393 (2005). Interface 11, 20140585 (2014).
24. P. Zdunich, D. Bilyk, M. MacMaster, D. Loewen, J. DeLaurier, R. Kornbluh, T. Low, 55. U. Pesavento, Z. J. Wang, Flapping wing flight can save aerodynamic power compared
S. Stanford, D. Holeman, Development and testing of the mentor flapping-wing micro air to steady flight. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 118102 (2009).
vehicle. J. Aircr. 44, 1701–1711 (2007). 56. S. Sunada, K. Tsuji, Advantages of an ornithopter versus an airplane with a propeller.
25. Y. Kawamura, S. Souda, S. Nishimoto, C. P. Ellington, Bio-Mechanisms of Swimming and Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 56, 277–285 (2013).
Flying (Springer, 2008), pp. 319–330. 57. E. W. Hawkes, D. Lentink, Fruit fly scale robots can hover longer with flapping wings than
26. G. C. H. E. De Croon, K. M. E. De Clercq, R. Ruijsink, B. Remes, C. De Wagter, Design, with spinning wings. J. R. Soc. Interface 13, 20160730 (2016).
aerodynamics, and vision-based control of the DelFly. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 1, 71–97 58. J. Grasmeyer, M. Keennon, 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (2001), 127 p.
(2009). 59. A. M. Harrington, C. Kroninger, Characterization of small DC brushed and brushless
27. T. Nakata, H. Liu, Y. Tanaka, N. Nishihashi, X. Wang, A. Sato, Aerodynamics of a bio- motors, Technical report, Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD Vehicle
inspired flexible flapping-wing micro air vehicle. Bioinspir. Biomim. 6, 045002 (2011). Technology Directorate (2013).
28. H.-K. Jung, J.-S. Choi, C. Wang, G.-J. Park, Analysis and fabrication of unconventional 60. J. Winslow, M. Benedict, V. Hrishikeshavan, I. Chopra, Design, development, and flight testing
flapping wing air vehicles. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 7, 71–88 (2015). of a high endurance micro quadrotor helicopter. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 8, 155–169 (2016).
29. K. D. Jones, M. F. Platzer, Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (2015), pp. 1359–1383. 61. M. Ramasamy, T. E. Lee, J. G. Leishman, Flowfield of a rotating-wing micro air vehicle.
30. A. C. Kermode, Mechanics of Flight (Longman Scientific & Technical, 1987). J. Aircr. 44, 1236–1244 (2007).
31. R. H. Barnard, D. R. Philpott, Aircraft Flight: A Description of the Physical Principles of Aircraft 62. R. R. Van Nimwegen, Critical speed problems encountered in the design of high-speed
Flight (Pearson Education, 2010). turbomachinery. SAE Trans. 73, 524–536 (1965).
32. M. Karásek, F. T. Muijres, C. De Wagter, B. D. Remes, G. C. H. E. de Croon, A tailless aerial 63. W. H. Reed III, Propeller-rotor whirl flutter: A state-of-the-art review. J. Sound Vib. 4,
robotic flapper reveals that flies use torque coupling in rapid banked turns. Science 361, 526–544 (1966).
1089–1094 (2018). 64. J. P. Den Hartog, CHAPTER VI Rotating Machinery: 51 Gyroscopic Effects (Courier
33. N. T. Jafferis, E. F. Helbling, M. Karpelson, R. J. Wood, Untethered flight of an insect-sized Corporation, 1985).
flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle. Nature 570, 491–495 (2019). 65. J. D. DeLaurier, An aerodynamic model for flapping-wing flight. Aeronaut. J. 97, 125–130
34. X. Yang, Y. Chen, L. Chang, A. A. Calderón, N. O. Pérez-Arancibia, Bee+: A 95-mg (1993).
four-winged insect-scale flying robot driven by twinned unimorph actuators. IEEE Robot. 66. A. L. Thomas, G. K. Taylor, Animal flight dynamics I. Stability in gliding flight. J. Theor. Biol.
Autom. Lett. 4, 4270–4277 (2019). 212, 399–424 (2001).
35. Y. Chen, H. Zhao, J. Mao, P. Chirarattananon, E. F. Helbling, N.-S. P. Hyun, D. R. Clarke, 67. G. K. Taylor, A. L. R. Thomas, Animal flight dynamics II. Longitudinal stability in flapping
R. J. Wood, Controlled flight of a microrobot powered by soft artificial muscles. Nature flight. J. Theor. Biol. 214, 351–370 (2002).
575, 324–329 (2019). 68. Z. E. Teoh, S. B. Fuller, P. Chirarattananon, A hovering flapping-wing micro-robot with
36. R. J. Wood, The first takeoff of a biologically inspired at-scale robotic insect. IEEE Trans. altitude control and passive upright stability, in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Robot. 24, 341–347 (2008). Intelligent Robots and Systems (IEEE, 2012), pp. 3209–3216.
37. K. Y. Ma, P. Chirarattananon, S. B. Fuller, R. J. Wood, Controlled flight of a biologically 69. J. A. Koopmans, S. Tijmons, C. De Wagter, G. de Croon, Passively stable flapping flight from
inspired, insect-scale robot. Science 340, 603–607 (2013). hover to fast forward through shift in wing position. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 7, 407–418 (2015).
38. M. H. Dickinson, F.-O. Lehmann, S. P. Sane, Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis 70. J. Moore, R. Cory, R. Tedrake, Robust post-stall perching with a simple fixed-wing glider
of insect flight. Science 284, 1954–1960 (1999). using LQR-Trees. Bioinspir. Biomim. 9, 025013 (2014).
39. F. Leys, D. Reynaerts, D. Vandepitte, Outperforming hummingbirds’ load-lifting capability 71. M. T. Pope, C. W. Kimes, H. Jiang, E. W. Hawkes, M. A. Estrada, C. F. Kerst, W. R. T. Roderick,
with a lightweight hummingbird-like flapping-wing mechanism. Biol. Open 5, 1052–1060 A. K. Han, D. L. Christensen, M. R. Cutkosky, A multimodal robot for perching and climbing
(2016). on vertical outdoor surfaces. IEEE Trans. Robot. 33, 38–48 (2016).

72. A. T. Conn, S. C. Burgess, C. S. Ling, Design of a parallel crank-rocker flapping mechanism University. The corresponding author G.-K.L. acknowledges the support by the Higher
for insect-inspired micro air vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Pt. C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 221, Education Sprout Project of the National Chiao Tung University and Ministry of Education
1211–1222 (2007). (MOE), Taiwan. Author contributions: G.-K.L., Y.-W.C., J.S.C., and B.C.K. conceived the ideas
73. A. R. Ennos, The inertial cause of wing rotation in diptera. J. Exp. Biol. 140, 161–169 (1988). and designed the study. Y.-W.C. designed and performed all experiments. Y.-W.C., Y.-Q.Z., and
74. J. D. Anderson Jr., Introduction to Flight (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, ed. 5, 2004). J.M.K. performed flight tests. Y.-W.C., J.M.K., Y.-Q.Z., and W.-L.C. implemented the electronic
75. D. Lentink, M. H. Dickinson, Biofluiddynamic scaling of flapping, spinning and translating instrumentation. Y.-W.C. and G.-K.L. analyzed data. G.-K.L. derived theoretical models with the
fins and wings. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 2691–2704 (2009). help of other co-authors. G.-K.L. and Y.-W.C. wrote the manuscript, whereas J.M.K. and J.S.C.
76. J. Chahl, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Research Opportunities. Aerospace 2, 189–202 wrote the section on aerobatics. All authors discussed the results and revised the manuscript.
(2015). Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and
77. C. S. Haines, M. D. Lima, N. Li, G. M. Spinks, J. Foroughi, J. D. W. Madden, S. H. Kim, S. Fang, materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in
M. Jung de Andrade, F. Göktepe, Ö. Göktepe, S. M. Mirvakili, S. Naficy, X. Lepró, J. Oh, the paper or the Supplementary Materials.
M. E. Kozlov, S. J. Kim, X. Xu, B. J. Swedlove, G. G. Wallace, R. H. Baughman, Artificial
muscles from fishing line and sewing thread. Science 343, 868–872 (2014). Submitted 16 November 2019
Accepted 18 June 2020

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to B. D. Remes, M. Karásek, and G. C. H. E. (Guido) de Published 22 July 2020
Croon of Delft University of Technology for useful comments on the design of clapping X 10.1126/scirobotics.aba2386
wings. Funding: Y.-W.C. acknowledges the Nanyang Technological University for providing a
Nanyang Research Scholarship. J.M.K. acknowledges the Defence Science and Technology Citation: Y.-W. Chin, J. M. Kok, Y.-Q. Zhu, W.-L. Chan, J. S. Chahl, B. C. Khoo, G.-K. Lau, Efficient flapping
Group, Australia for supporting his fellowship in an exchange to Nanyang Technological wing drone arrests high-speed flight using post-stall soaring. Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020).

Efficient flapping wing drone arrests high-speed flight using post-stall soaring
Yao-Wei Chin, Jia Ming Kok, Yong-Qiang Zhu, Woei-Leong Chan, Javaan S. Chahl, Boo Cheong Khoo and Gih-Keong
Lau

Sci. Robotics 5, eaba2386.
DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.aba2386
ARTICLE TOOLS http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/5/44/eaba2386
SUPPLEMENTARY http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2020/07/20/5.44.eaba2386.DC1
MATERIALS
RELATED http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/robotics/5/44/eabd0233.full
CONTENT
http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/robotics/2/3/eaal2505.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6407/1089.full
http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/robotics/5/46/eabb1502.full
http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/robotics/5/47/eabc2897.full
REFERENCES This article cites 56 articles, 10 of which you can access for free
http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/5/44/eaba2386#BIBL
PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions
Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service
Science Robotics (ISSN 2470-9476) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200
New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title Science Robotics is a registered trademark of AAAS.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement
of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works

Efficient Flapping Wing Drone Arrests High-Speed Flight Using Post-Stall Soaring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficient Flapping Wing Drone Arrests High-Speed Flight Using Post-Stall Soaring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficient Flapping Wing Drone Arrests High-Speed Flight Using Post-Stall Soaring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENCE ROBOTICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE

ANIMAL ROBOTS Copyright © 2020

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

INTRODUCTION ornithopter developed by Frank Kieser (22, 23, 29) could fly forward

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 1 of 13

Vertical Take-off or hover Forward flight To evade an obstacle or perch Ceiling

C Brake and Climb

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 2 of 13

Max Thrust, T (g)

D Solution with anti-whirl, low-loss transmission and partial elastic storage

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Fc/2 Crank – Crank Gear Intermediate Brass Gear

Movie 1. Multimodal flight including aerobatic turn by X-winged ornithopter.

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 3 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

or drag-generation surfaces to command airbrake. To arrest forward

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 4 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 5 of 13

A 15Hz Opening of wings on nylon hinges

Wing Pitch angle

Pitch Angle (deg)

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Pitch. Ampl. B (°)

Pitch Speed (rad/s)

Pitch Velocity (rad/s)

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 6 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

300 150 12 Prop 6030

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 7 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

These observations of changing body pitch attitude during the DISCUSSION

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 8 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

A Dive with neutral elevator B Dive with right elevator

C Speed monitor D Stability Analysis

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 9 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 10 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Figure S2D shows the flexible wings consisting of elastic membrane

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 11 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 12 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

Chin et al., Sci. Robot. 5, eaba2386 (2020) 22 July 2020 13 of 13

Downloaded from http://robotics.sciencemag.org/ at NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY on August 2, 2021

ARTICLE TOOLS http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/5/44/eaba2386

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

You might also like