Simulating Evolution to Determine the Fastest Wing

Researchers combined laboratory and simulated experiments on 3-D-printed wings to find the ideal wing shape

Nonideal wing shape generates vortices (visualized here with red dye) at its leading edge that interfere with trailing-edge vortices (green dye).

Leif Ristroph Applied Mathematics Laboratory, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and New York University

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Humans have long drawn inspiration from bird wings to design mechanical ones—and now a team of mathematicians has taken this biomimicry to a new level. By 3-D-printing a variety of wing shapes, racing them in a laboratory and feeding the data into an algorithm that simulates evolution, the researchers found that a teardrop-shaped wing is fastest for both flapping flight and swimming.

This is the first time such a combined process has been used to find an optimal wing shape for fast flight, says Leif Ristroph, a mathematician at New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and senior author of the new study.

Specific aspects of the teardrop shape help to make the optimal wing faster than its competitors, Ristroph says. These include its front-to-back asymmetry (when viewed from the side), characterized by a rounded front, forward placement of its thickest point and a slender, trailing tail. The razor-thin back edge resembles that of a bird wing, which typically narrows to a single feather. The finding suggests birds’ wings have evolved to be as thin as possible, the researchers write in the study, which was published in January in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ristroph and his collaborators 3-D-printed a first “generation” of 10 plastic wings. They attached each wing to a motor-driven horizontal rod that caused it to flap up and down in water. They measured its swimming speed and extrapolated its flying speed. They tested a variety of shapes, including ones based on conventional airplane wings, flattened spheres and a peanutlike structure, Ristroph says.

The researchers fed the wing speed data into the evolutionary algorithm, which produced a second generation of eight “daughter” wings. Faster wing shapes were more likely to be passed on to the next generation, but the algorithm also allowed “mutations” that could yield new shapes. The two fastest wings from the first generation were also added to the second. The process of 3-D printing and laboratory racing was then repeated with the second generation of 10 wings. Altogether the researchers created 15 generations of wings. The fastest wing—the teardrop shape—evolved in the 11th generation and persisted in the following ones. The algorithm’s attempts to improve this shape in subsequent generations yielded ones that were too slender to 3-D-print.

The study “is tremendously interesting,” says Geoffrey Spedding, an aerospace engineer at the University of Southern California, who was not involved with the work. He notes that the optimal wing is “more like a fish fin,” which makes it better suited for swimming or propelling objects forward than for generating lift, as in airplane flight.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe