Correction to ‘Gull-inspired joint-driven wing morphing allows adaptive longitudinal flight control’

J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210132 (Published Online 9 June 2021) (doi:10.1098/rsif.2021.0132)

It has come to our attention that there are minor typos/errors in the wording of the methods and discussion sections as delineated in the following. None of these corrections affect any scientific conclusions or results within the article. The authors sincerely apologize for these errors. The original paper has now been updated.

2.2. Numerical lifting-line solution (MachUpX), Paragraph 4

‘To allow comparison between the experimental and numerical lift and pitching moments, we non-dimensionalized the outputs by the dynamic pressure (1/2ρU²), maximum total wing area (S_max) and maximum wing root chord (c_max) for each specimen to obtain $C_{L_{\mathrm{morph}}}$ and $C_{m_{\mathrm{morph}}}$, respectively’.

This sentence should be revised to:

‘To allow comparison between the experimental and numerical lift and pitching moments, we non-dimensionalized the outputs by the dynamic pressure (1/2ρU²), maximum total wing area (S_max) and maximum wing-body mean chord (c_max) for each specimen across all morphed configurations to obtain $C_{L_{\mathrm{morph}}}$ and $C_{m_{\mathrm{morph}}}$, respectively’.

2.3. Wind tunnel study, Paragraph 2

‘This enforced a constant Reynolds number (Re) between the experimental and numerical tests of approximately 1.4–1.5 × 10⁵ based on the maximum root chord for the wing specimen’.

This sentence should be revised to:

‘This enforced a constant Reynolds number (Re) between the experimental and numerical tests of approximately 1.4–1.5 × 10⁵ based on the maximum mean chord for the wing-body specimen.’

4. Discussion Paragraph 7

‘One great example is a goshawk-inspired drone with a maximum wing span (1.05 m) that is 80% of the scale of our largest wing (1.32 m) [12]’.

This sentence should be revised to:

‘One great example is a goshawk-inspired drone with a maximum wing span (1.05 m) that is 87% of the scale of our largest wing (1.21 m) [12]’.

Note that this number isn't used in any calculations within the study aside from being listed for comparative purposes and thus does not affect any data nor any scientific outcome or conclusions presented within the article.