Heavier-than-air flight at any scale is energetically expensive. This is greatly exacerbated at small scales and has so far presented an insurmountable obstacle for untethered flight in insect-sized (mass less than 500 milligrams and wingspan less than 5 centimetres) robots. These vehicles1,2,3,4 thus need to fly tethered to an offboard power supply and signal generator owing to the challenges associated with integrating onboard electronics within a limited payload capacity. Here we address these challenges to demonstrate sustained untethered flight of an insect-sized flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle. The 90-milligram vehicle uses four wings driven by two alumina-reinforced piezoelectric actuators to increase aerodynamic efficiency (by up to 29 per cent relative to similar two-wing vehicles5) and achieve a peak lift-to-weight ratio of 4.1 to 1, demonstrating greater thrust per muscle mass than typical biological counterparts6. The integrated system of the vehicle together with the electronics required for untethered flight (a photovoltaic array and a signal generator) weighs 259 milligrams, with an additional payload capacity allowing for additional onboard devices. Consuming only 110–120 milliwatts of power, the system matches the thrust efficiency of similarly sized insects such as bees7. This insect-scale aerial vehicle is the lightest thus far to achieve sustained untethered flight (as opposed to impulsive jumping8 or liftoff9).
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ma, K. Y., Felton, S. M. & Wood, R. J. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 1133–1140 (IEEE/RSJ, 2012).
Zou, Y., Zhang, W. & Zhang, Z. Liftoff of an electromagnetically driven insect-inspired flapping-wing robot. IEEE Trans. Robot. 32, 1285–1289 (2016).
Balasubramanian, S., Chukewad, Y. M., James, J. M., Barrows, G. L. & Fuller, S. B. An insect-sized robot that uses a custom-built onboard camera and a neural network to classify and respond to visual input. In 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob) 1297–1302 (IEEE, 2018).
Drew, D. S. & Pister, K. S. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Manipulation, Automation and Robotics at Small Scales (MARSS) 1–5 (IEEE, 2017).
Jafferis, N. T., Graule, M. A. & Wood, R. J. In 2016 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 3234–3241 (IEEE, 2016).
Marden, J. H. Maximum lift production during takeoff in flying animals. J. Exp. Biol. 130, 235–258 (1987).
Nachtigall, W., Hanauer-Thieser, U. & Mörz, M. Flight of the honey bee. VII: Metabolic power versus flight speed relation. J. Comp. Physiol. B 165, 484–489 (1995).
Churaman, W. A., Currano, L. J., Morris, C. J., Rajkowski, J. E. & Bergbreiter, S. The first launch of an autonomous thrust-driven microrobot using nanoporous energetic silicon. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 21, 198–205 (2012).
James, J., Iyer, V., Chukewad, Y., Gollakota, S. & Fuller, S. B. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 1–8 (IEEE, 2018).
Keennon, M., Klingebiel, K. & Won, H. In 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 588 (AIAA, 2012).
Rosen, M. H., le Pivain, G., Sahai, R., Jafferis, N. T. & Wood, R. J. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 3227–3233 (IEEE, 2016).
de Croon, G., de Clercq, K., Ruijsink, R., Remes, B. & de Wagter, C. Design, aerodynamics, and vision-based control of the delfly. Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 1, 71–97 (2009).
Karásek, M., Muijres, F. T., de Wagter, C., Remes, B. D. & de Croon, G. C. A tailless aerial robotic flapper reveals that flies use torque coupling in rapid banked turns. Science 361, 1089–1094 (2018).
Hines, L. Design and Control of a Flapping Flight Micro Aerial Vehicle. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon Univ. (2014); https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/design-and-control-of-a-flapping-flight-micro-aerial-vehicle/.
Steltz, E., Avadhanula, S. & Fearing, R. S. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 3987–3992 (IEEE/RSJ, 2007).
Anderson, M. L. Design and Control of Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicles. PhD thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB OH School of Engineering and Management (2011); https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA549053.
Smith, G. L. et al. PZT-based piezoelectric MEMS technology. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 95, 1777–1792 (2012).
Jafferis, N. T., Smith, M. J. & Wood, R. J. Design and manufacturing rules for maximizing the performance of polycrystalline piezoelectric bending actuators. Smart Mater. Struct. 24, 065023 (2015).
Karpelson, M., Wei, G.-Y. & Wood, R. J. Driving high voltage piezoelectric actuators in microrobotic applications. Sens. Actuators A 176, 78–89 (2012).
Steltz, E., Seeman, M., Avadhanula, S. & Fearing, R. S. In Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems 1322–1328 (IEEE/RSJ, 2006).
Goldberg, B. et al. Power and control autonomy for high-speed locomotion with an insect-scale legged robot. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3, 987–993 (2018).
Duduta, M., de Rivaz, S., Clarke, D. R. & Wood, R. J. Ultralightweight, high power density lithium-ion batteries. Batteries Supercaps 1, 131–134 (2018).
Brühwiler, R. et al. In Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems 5727–5733 (IEEE/RSJ, 2015).
Hollar, S., Flynn, A., Bellew, C. & Pister, K. In 16th Ann. Int. Conf. on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS-03) 706–711 (IEEE, 2003).
Boucher, R. J. Sunrise, the world’s first solar-powered airplane. J. Aircr. 22, 840–846 (1985).
Fuller, S. B. Four wings: an insect-sized aerial robot with steering ability and payload capacity for autonomy. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 4, 570–577 (2019).
van Breugel, F., Regan, W. & Lipson, H. From insects to machines. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 15, 68–74 (2008).
Teoh, Z. E. et al. In Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems 3209–3216 (IEEE/RSJ, 2012).
Graule, M., et al. Perching and takeoff of a robotic insect on overhangs using switchable electrostatic adhesion. Science 352, 978–982 (2016).
Fuller, S. B., Helbling, E. F., Chirarattananon, P. & Wood, R. J. Using a MEMS gyroscope to stabilize the attitude of a fly-sized hovering robot. In International Micro Air Vehicle (IMAV) Conference and Competition (Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), 2014).
Helbling, E. F., Fuller, S. B. & Wood, R. J. In Robotics Research 57–69 (Springer, 2018).
Zhang, X. et al. In IEEE Symp. on VLSI Circuits C152–C153 (IEEE, 2015).
Jafferis, N. T., Lok, M., Winey, N., Wei, G.-Y. & Wood, R. J. Multilayer laminated piezoelectric bending actuators: design and manufacturing for optimum power density and efficiency. Smart Mater. Struct. 25, 055033 (2016).
Fuller, S. B. et al. Stabilizing air dampers for hovering aerial robotics: design, insect-scale flight tests, and scaling. Auton. Robots 41, 1555–1573 (2017).
Jayaram, K., Jafferis, N. T., Doshi, N., Goldberg, B. & Wood, R. J. Concomitant sensing and actuation for piezoelectric microrobots. Smart Mater. Struct. 27, 065028 (2018).
We thank R. Peña Velasco for assistance in PCB fabrication. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (award numbers 1514306 and 1724197), the Office of Naval Research (award number N000141712614), and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Nature thanks Kenny Breuer, Kristofer Pister and Franck Ruffier for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a, The actuators developed in ref. 18. b, The alumina-reinforced actuators used in this work. The blue arrows indicate the bending direction of the actuators.
The vehicle’s altitude versus time when operated at 210 V, 165 Hz, and carrying a payload of 245 mg (for a total mass of 335 mg). The voltage is increased from zero to 210 V from t = −0.1 s to t = 0 s, and remains at 210 V for the remainder of the trial. The curvature of this trajectory shows that the lift is 370 mg for this operating condition. The lift is calculated from a least-squares fit to the circled data points, which occur while the vehicle’s deviation from vertical (labelled ‘angle’ in the plot) is small enough to cause errors <1%; correcting for the angle error gives the same lift value over the entire flight time.
a–c, Pitch torque (a), roll torque (b) and yaw torque (c) (all depicted with ‘top-down’ views of the wing strokes), in the X-Wing versus the previous two-wing design. The red and green squares in the X-Wing design indicate that each pair of wings is fixed at 90 degrees apart. Although the four-wing design brings the mean centre of pressure of each wing pair closer to the body for pitch and roll (indicated by the length of the dashed lines), it also produces greater forces for the same flapping motion, allowing for similar control authority.
a, Six-cell photovoltaic array. b, Plot of the power obtained from this solar array at varying distances from our light source (the measurement precision is approximately ±5 mW). The power at 1 Sun is approximately 46 mW.
Drive waveform switching control diagram.
Z is altitude, X and Y are lateral displacements, and ‘Angle’ is the projection of the vehicle’s orientation onto the X–Z plane (that is, the camera view), with vertical being zero. The light turns on at t = 0, and the vertical dashed line indicates when it has reached full intensity. a, The flight shown in Supplementary Video 9 (the lowest-power flight). b, The flight shown in Supplementary Video 4. Depth (Y) is estimated by measuring the fractional change in the peak width of the flexboard as our integrated vehicle spins about the yaw axis (that is, twice every yaw period, we measure the width of the flexboard), along with the starting distance from the vehicle to the camera (approximately 90 cm). The error bars on Y are due to the pixel resolution error (±0.2 mm) amplified by the ratio of the camera distance to the flexboard width. The lift force is estimated from the vertical acceleration (z″) of the vehicle during the first 3 cm of vertical flight (indicated by the circled data points), before the vehicle has noticeably tilted or moved laterally (note that for the flight in b, our lift estimate is based on data before the light has reached full intensity, because the vehicle has already moved and tilted noticeably by then).
This series of plots compares predictions for the required power (Pn) and the power available at 1 Sun (Pa) (power density 0.76 W g−1) (top row); the mean light intensity required to fly (in number of Suns) (middle row); and the area of solar cells that can be carried (As) divided by the area ‘swept’ by the wings (π(0.5S)2) (bottom row). These quantities are plotted as functions of overall vehicle scaling for vehicles with two or four wings and two different transmission ratios. Plots are shown for three actuator widths: 1× = 1.125 mm (black), 2× = 2.250 mm (red) and 3× = 3.375 mm (blue). The circled and squared dots correspond to predictions for SDAB15 and the vehicle described in this work, respectively. The steps in the plots are due to the discrete size of available solar cells.