

How bees perform perfect landing - RiderOfGiraffes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8428060.stm

======
Groxx
The more I see the video, the less of _any_ kind of difference I see in the
bee's behavior as it attempts to land. And the "hover mode" (remember, only
lasts a few thousandths of a second) is definitely no more stable than its
normal flight prior to landing.

It stops moving forward, reaches down and flails around, and lowers itself in
stages until it touches the surface. It's still bucking around like it was at
the beginning of the video (the body looks more stable, but look at the legs.
They move to stabilize the body). The wings don't appear to be tracing any
different pattern to imply a change in flight mechanics. And, it would be a
huge stretch to call that a "perfect landing", as it's basically mimicing what
helicopters already do (approach, lower gently until touching, and slowly
throttle back instead of cutting power instantly).

Is it because it isn't a bird-like semi-crash (which make perfect sense, as
they have more mass and kinetic energy)? We do that with our airplanes, though
admittedly more smoothly (which also makes sense, as they have even more
mass).

The optical trick makes a huge amount more sense, and plays in with landing
being a genetic, purely evolved trait, instead of some intelligently-reasoned
landing habit. Bugs don't have much for brains.

------
motters
Also I think that the rate of descent is controlled by equalising the optical
flow over the convex surface of the eyes so that it appears constant. This
produces a gradually decreasing velocity profile as the insect comes in to
land.

~~~
andrewcooke
your comment doesn't make any sense.

~~~
davi
Maybe just too terse. Try this:

"First discovery that flying insects use an unexpectedly simple and elegant
strategy for landing on flat surfaces (Biological Cybernetics 2000). Image
velocity is held constant as the surface is approached, thus automatically
ensuring that flight speed is close to zero at touchdown. No explicit
knowledge of flight speed or height above the ground is necessary. The
feasibility of this landing strategy has been successfully tested by
implementation on a robotic gantry, and is presently being implemented for
testing on airborne vehicles."
(<http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au//index.html?page=52793#novel%20low>)

~~~
andrewcooke
ah! thanks - that's really interesting (the whole page).

------
jacquesm
When looking at birds and insects vs the way airplanes take off and land
nature certainly has something to teach us.

Hummingbirds in slow-motion are amazing to watch too (and in real life of
course!).

~~~
andrewcooke
you realise that airplanes don't flap their wings, right? (i'm just wondering
exactly what those lessons might be).

~~~
TriinT
The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will
always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. If humming birds had
nothing to teach us, papers such as the following one would not be published:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/nature0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/nature03647.html)

~~~
DannoHung
> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will
> always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines.

Perhaps for aesthetics or mechanical and aerodynamic elegance, but never for
practicality for human means.

~~~
TriinT
Quoting Wilbur Wright:

 _"I confess that, in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that men would not
fly for 50 years. Two years later, we ourselves were making flights. This
demonstration of my inability as a prophet gave me such a shock that I have
ever since distrusted myself and have refrained from all prediction."_

No one has ever been able to predict where technology is going. This one is
for you to tame your forecasting proclivities and for the moron who's
downvoting my comments without explaining where my argument is weak. Cheers.

~~~
DannoHung
Oh, so it's perfectly fine for you to make a universal statement about
aeronautics:

> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will
> _always_ pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines.

But when I make one, it's wrong?

Fuck you.

~~~
TriinT
You need to get laid, buddy. Chill. Chill...

~~~
pg
Will you two please stop it?

~~~
TriinT
I have stopped, and I am sorry that things became un-civil. However, do note
that I did _not_ throw the first stone. Cheers.

------
davi
More:

[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/tcob-
fmo12170...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/tcob-
fmo121709.php)

<http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au//index.html?page=52793#novel%20low>

(article not published yet, but this stuff is pretty good)

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Related: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013754>

------
pbnaidu
I am not sure studying things in nature and creating exact models would be a
good idea. Imagine trying to model a motor bike or a car by studying
Cheetah(Fastest animal on ground). Nature may inspire to model/create useful
things.

~~~
adam_feldman
We create exact models to try to fully understand what is happening in nature,
and then we mix the concepts into hybrid designs. This has been done for a
number of MEMS insects, and has made them so much more efficient.

