Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 50, Issue 9, pp 1335–1348

Effects of Body Cross-sectional Shape on Flying Snake Aerodynamics

Article

Abstract

Despite their lack of appendages, flying snakes (genus Chrysopelea) exhibit aerodynamic performance that compares favorably to other animal gliders. We wished to determine which aspects of Chrysopelea’s unique shape contributed to its aerodynamic performance by testing physical models of Chrysopelea in a wind tunnel. We varied the relative body volume, edge sharpness, and backbone protrusion of the models. Chrysopelea’s gliding performance was surprisingly robust to most shape changes; the presence of a trailing-edge lip was the most significant factor in producing high lift forces. Lift to drag ratios of 2.7–2.9 were seen at angles of attack (α) from 10–30°. Stall did not occur until α > 30° and was gradual, with lift falling off slowly as drag increased. Chrysopelea actively undulates in an S-shape when gliding, such that posterior portions of the snake’s body lie in the wake of the more anterior portions. When two Chrysopelea body segment models were tested in tandem to produce a two dimensional approximation to this situation, the downstream model exhibited an increased lift-to-drag ratio (as much as 50% increase over a solitary model) at all horizontal gaps tested (3–7 chords) when located slightly below the upstream model and at all vertical staggers tested (±2 chords) at a gap of 7 chords.

Keywords

Gliding Flight Animal locomotion Snake Aerodynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    McGuire JA, Dudley R (2005) The cost of living large: comparative gliding performance in flying lizards (Agamidae: Draco). Am Nat 166(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson SM (1999) Glide angle in the genus Petaurus and a review of gliding in mammals. Mamm Rev 30(1):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ando M, Shiraishi S (1993) Gliding flight in the Japanese giant flying squirrel Petaurista leucogenys. J Mammal Soc Jpn 18(1):19–32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheibe JS, Robins JH (1998) Morphological and performance attributes of gliding mammals. In: Merritt JF, Zegers DA (eds) Ecology and evolutionary biology of tree squirrels. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, pp 131–144Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vernes K (2001) Gliding performance of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in mature mixed forest of Eastern Canada. J Mammal 82(4):1026–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stafford BJ, Thorington RW, Kawamichi T (2002) Gliding behavior of Japanese giant flying squirrels (Petaurista leucogenys). J Mammal 83(2):553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bishop KL (2006) The relationship between 3-D kinematics and gliding performance in the southern flying squirrel, Glaucomys volans. J Exp Biol 209(4):689–701CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yanoviak SP, Dudley R, Kaspari M (2005) Directed aerial descent in canopy ants. Nature 433(7026):624–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Socha JJ (2002) Gliding flight in the paradise tree snake. Nature 418:603–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Socha JJ, LaBarbera M (2005) Effects of size and behavior on aerial performance of two species of flying snakes (Chrysopelea). J Exp Biol 208(10):1835–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Socha JJ, O’Dempsey T, LaBarbera M (2005) A 3-D kinematic analysis of gliding in a flying snake, Chrysopelea paradisi. J Exp Biol 208(10):1817–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoerner SF (1965) Fluid-dynamic drag. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick TownGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1992) A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Conference Paper 1992–439, Reno, NV, pp. 1–22. (Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 30th, Reno, NV, Jan 6–9)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoerner SF, Borst HV (1975) Fluid-dynamic lift. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick TownGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spedding GR, Hedenstrom AH, McArthur J, Rosen M (2008) The implications of low-speed fixed-wing aerofoil measurements on the analysis and performance of flapping bird wings. J Exp Biol 211(2):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mueller TJ, DeLaurier JD (2003) Aerodynamics of small vehicles. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Torres GE, Mueller TJ (2001) Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings at low Reynolds numbers, in fixed and flapping wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicle applications. Reston, AIAA, pp 115–141Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scharpf DF, Mueller TJ (1992) Experimental study of a low Reynolds number tandem airfoil configuration. J Aircraft 29(2):231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michelsen WD, Mueller TJ (1987) Low Reynolds number airfoil performance subjected to wake interference from an upstream airfoil. AIAA Conference Paper 87–2351, Monterey, CA, pp 196–206. (AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Monterey, California, August 17–19, 1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Husain Z, Abdullah MZ (2005) Two-dimensional analysis of tandem/staggered airfoils using computational fluid dynamics. Int J Mech Eng Educ 33(3):195–207Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Byrnes G, Lim NTL, Spence AJ (2008) Take-off and landing kinetics of a free-ranging gliding mammal, the Malayan colugo (Galeopterus variegatus). Proc R Soc, B Biol Sci 275(1638):1007–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moon BR (1999) Testing an inference of function from structure: snake vertebrae do the twist. J Morphol 241(3):217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Miklasz
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. LaBarbera
    • 1
  • X. Chen
    • 2
  • J. J. Socha
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Organismal Biology and AnatomyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Engineering Science and MechanicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Hopkins Marine StationStanford UniversityPacific GroveUSA

Personalised recommendations