IRC-SET 2018 pp 289-307 | Cite as

Investigating the Aerodynamic Performance of Biomimetic Gliders for Use in Future Transportation

  • Jiwei WangEmail author
  • Yiyang Wang
Conference paper


This study focuses on the concept of biomimicry, looking to nature’s best flyers and gliders and comparing the flight performances of the structures of eight chosen species. The species were 3D modelled then analysed by the Xfoil method. Generated results were verified by the Computational Fluid Dynamics method (CFD) in ANSYS Fluent. The top-two models in terms of aerodynamic performance were 3D printed and tested in an open return wind tunnel. Javan Cucumber performs the best among the chosen species. This model also outperforms a reputable current commercial model, XT912, in terms of lift. In addition, the successful test of such wing design manufactured through Computer Numerical Control (CNC) on a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) platform also highlights its flying capability.


Biomimicry Aerodynamics Glider Xfoil CFD ANSYS Fluent Javan Cucumber CNC MAV 



We would like to thank Mr. Khoh Rong Lun of Temasek Junior College for his unwavering support and invaluable guidance through this year-long research. We would also like to thank Ms. Koh Poh Lee of Temasek Polytechnic for the use of the wind Tunnel and the lab technicians for their kind support.


  1. 1.
    Uber Elevate. Uber Elevate | The future of urban air transport.
  2. 2.
    EHANG184. EHANG | Official Site-EHANG 184 autonomous aerial vehicle.
  3. 3.
    Powered hang glider. Powered hang glider—Wikipedia.
  4. 4.
    McMasters, J. A legacy of sustaining innovations in biomimetic aircraft design and engineering education. PPT.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mueller, T. J. (2001). Fixed and flapping wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicle applications. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrett, R. M., & Barrett, C. M. (2014). Biomimetic FAA-certifiable, artificial muscle structures for commercial aircraft wings. Smart Materials and Structures, 23(7), 074011. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marks, C. R., James J. J., & Gregory, W. R. (2013). A reconfigurable wing for biomimetic aircraft. In 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference.
  8. 8.
    Simons, M. (2000). Model aircraft aerodynamics. Chris Lloyd Sales & Marketing.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Socha, J. J., & Michael, L. (2005). Effects of size and behavior on aerial performance of two species of flying snakes (Chrysopelea). Journal of Experimental Biology, 208(10), 1835–1847.
  10. 10.
    Drela, M., & Youngren, H. (2013). XFLR5 v6.02 guidelines: Analysis of foils and wings operating at low Reynolds numbers. PDF. February 28, 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Similitude requirements and scaling relationships as applied to model testing. NASA.
  12. 12.
    Bertagnolio, F. NACA0015 measurements in LM wind tunnel and turbulence generated noise. Report. Aeroelastic Design, Wind Energy Division, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark. Denmark.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaufmann, W., & Wohlfahrt, M. Airfoils for fly wings. Airfoils for flying wings and tailless airplanes.
  14. 14. UrbanRail.Net > Asia > Singapore > Singapore MRT (Metro).
  15. 15.
    U.S. Standard Atmosphere. (1976). PDF. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United States Air Force, October 1976.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgado, J., Vizinho, R., Silvestre, M. A. R., & Páscoa, J. C. (2016). XFOIL vs CFD performance predictions for high lift low Reynolds number airfoils. Aerospace Science and Technology, 52, 207–214.
  17. 17.
    MICROLIGHT WING GUIDE. PDF. Airborne Australia Pty Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Temasek Junior CollegeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations