ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2017
The role of the leading edge vortex in lift augmentation of steadily revolving wings: a change in perspective.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Swimming in the Air: The Power of Drag at Miniature Scales.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Article
- Bioinspired Morphing in Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics: Engineering Innovations for Aerospace and Renewable Energy.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Experimental study into the effects of pitch and coning angles on the flight performance of the natural samara.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Biodegradable, three-dimensional colorimetric fliers for environmental monitoring.Science advances · 2022Article
- Dynamic experimental rigs for investigation of insect wing aerodynamics.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Review
- Article
- Scalability of resonant motor-driven flapping wing propulsion systems.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- A semi-empirical model of the aerodynamics of manoeuvring insect flight.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- A contralateral wing stabilizes a hovering hawkmoth under a lateral gust.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Insect and insect-inspired aerodynamics: unsteadiness, structural mechanics and flight control.Current opinion in insect science · 2018Article
- The leading-edge vortex on a rotating wing changes markedly beyond a certain central body size.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Flying in reverse: kinematics and aerodynamics of a dragonfly in backward free flight.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of a stable leading edge vortex (LEV) on steadily revolving wings increases the maximum lift coefficient that can be generated from the wing and its role is important to understanding natural flyers and flapping wing vehicles. In this paper, the role of LEV in lift augmentation is discussed under two hypotheses referred to as 'additional lift' and 'absence of stall'. The 'additional lift' hypothesis represents the traditional view. It presumes that an additional suction/circulation from the LEV increases the lift above that of a potential flow solution. This behaviour may be represented through either the 'Polhamus leading edge suction' model or the so-called 'trapped vortex' model. The 'absence of stall' hypothesis is a more recent contender that presumes that the LEV prevents stall at high angles of attack where flow separation would normally occur. This behaviour is represented through the so-called 'normal force' model. We show that all three models can be written in the form of the same potential flow kernel with modifiers to account for the presence of a LEV. The modelling is built on previous work on quasi-steady models for hovering wings such that model parameters are determined from first principles, which allows a fair comparison between the models themselves, and the models and experimental data. We show that the two models which directly include the LEV as a lift generating component are built on a physical picture that does not represent the available experimental data. The simpler 'normal force' model, which does not explicitly model the LEV, performs best against data in the literature. We conclude that under steady conditions the LEV as an 'absence of stall' model/mechanism is the most satisfying explanation for observed aerodynamic behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.