Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39319010›Full record

ArticlePhysics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994)2024

Investigation of models to estimate flight performance of gliding birds from wakes.

Jialei Song, Changyao Chen, Jorn A Cheney, James R Usherwood, Richard J Bomphrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Changyao ChenSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Dongguan University of Technology, Dongguan, Guangdong, China.
Jorn A CheneySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9952-2612
James R UsherwoodStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8794-4677
Richard J BomphreyStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4748-0510

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical models based on inviscid flow theory are effective at predicting the aerodynamic forces on large-scale aircraft. Avian flight, however, is characterized by smaller sizes, slower speeds, and increased influence of viscous effects associated with lower Reynolds numbers. Therefore, inviscid mathematical models of avian flight should be used with caution. The assumptions used in such models, such as thin wings and streamlined bodies, may be violated by birds, potentially introducing additional error. To investigate the applicability of the existing models to calculate the aerodynamic performance of bird flight, we compared predictions using simulated wakes with those calculated directly from forces on the bird surface, both derived from computational fluid dynamics of a high-fidelity barn owl geometry in free gliding flight. Two lift models and two drag models are assessed. We show that the generalized Kutta-Joukowski model, corrected by the streamwise velocity, can predict not only the lift but also span loading well. Drag was predicted best by a drag model based on the conservation of fluid momentum in a control volume. Finally, we estimated force production for three raptor species across nine gliding flights by applying the best lift model to wake flow fields measured with particle tracking velocimetry.

Identifiers

PMID39319010
PMCPMC11417957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.