Bees autoland technique

[cooperplace]

they've been doing this longer than us, so it's not surprising they've worked out a better way:

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/bees-no-drones-when-it-comes-to-landing/story-e6frgcjx-1226748457359

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

As most bees only live a few weeks to a few months they are fast learners? Amazing design there.

 

 

[facthunter]

Only works in miniature. IF they were Boeing sized they would not get off the ground. Reynolds number (scale effect) Bees can fly backwards, stationary, up, down, sideways. Apart from the optical illusion, I can't imagine the relationship to autoland in a plane which makes a constant airspeed approach and a fixed angle of descent to a flare height. Nowhere near the manoeuverability. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

fascinating...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As most bees only live a few weeks to a few months they are fast learners? Amazing design there.

No learning required; they are tuned into the Morphic Resonance built up by previous members of their kind. (Google Rupert Sheldrake).

 

 

[facthunter]

You mean it's all in their genetic microprocessors? Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Only works in miniature. IF they were Boeing sized they would not get off the ground. Reynolds number (scale effect) Bees can fly backwards, stationary, up, down, sideways. Apart from the optical illusion, I can't imagine the relationship to autoland in a plane which makes a constant airspeed approach and a fixed angle of descent to a flare height. Nowhere near the manoeuverability. Nev

I have to agree Nev. . .

 

I don't really hold with the "Constant Image Expansion landing" theory either,. . . to put it into some sort of perspective, have you seen what happens to a swarm of ants when the leader ant loses the plot, and the rest of the swarm follow him ( Her ?? ) around in circles until they die. .for hours / days / months . .? one wonders what might happen to a large bunch of bees should the flight leader lose it,. . . . would they all pile into the target at the same, possibly erroneous and probably fatal velocity I wonder ? ? ? Another question has to be ( Bee ? ) what is the average stalling speed of a type of creature which theorists tell us really shouldn't be capable of flight ( "IT'S FLIGHT JIM,. . .BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT. . . ) in the first place . . . ? and as for it attempting a landing on an orbital rock somewhere like the Andromeda galaxy. . . , what about planetary dynamics, - atmospheric density, gravity, etc. . . .? too many imponderables. . . . . . methinks the theorists need to look a little deeper into this. . . . and as for the "constant aspect" runway approach pilot tuition theory WELL. . . . .I never understood that one either . . .this is possibly why I keep bouncing off the barbed wire boundary fence on 34 left I guess. . . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[ayavner]

I have to agree Nev. . .I don't really hold with the "Constant Image Expansion landing" theory either,. . . to put it into some sort of perspective, have you seen what happens to a swarm of ants when the leader ant loses the plot, and the rest of the swarm follow him ( Her ?? ) around in circles until they die. .for hours / days / months . .? one wonders what might happen to a large bunch of bees should the flight leader lose it,. . . . would they all pile into the target at the same, possibly erroneous and probably fatal velocity I wonder ? ? ? Another question has to be ( Bee ? ) what is the average stalling speed of a type of creature which theorists tell us really shouldn't be capable of flight ( "IT'S FLIGHT JIM,. . .BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT. . . ) in the first place . . . ? and as for it attempting a landing on an orbital rock somewhere like the Andromeda galaxy. . . , what about planetary dynamics, - atmospheric density, gravity, etc. . . .? too many imponderables. . . . . . methinks the theorists need to look a little deeper into this. . . . and as for the "constant aspect" runway approach pilot tuition theory WELL. . . . .I never understood that one either . . .this is possibly why I keep bouncing off the barbed wire boundary fence on 34 left I guess. . . . .

 

Phil

What, African or European?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

What, African or European?

PAN - GALACTIC.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You mean it's all in their genetic microprocessors? Nev

Probably beyond genetics. Morphic Fields, if they exist, could explain a lot of phenomena that genetics can't.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well they certainly start with a lot of prior knowledge. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Only works in miniature. IF they were Boeing sized they would not get off the ground. Reynolds number (scale effect) Bees can fly backwards, stationary, up, down, sideways. Apart from the optical illusion, I can't imagine the relationship to autoland in a plane which makes a constant airspeed approach and a fixed angle of descent to a flare height. Nowhere near the manoeuverability. Nev

I imagine it's use will be for UAV's that can hover, rather than fixed wing, but with the right programming, maybe they could get it to work for fixed wing. Reynold's effect has no effect on this concept. It's all about controlling the rate of descent, not approach speed . I suspect that helicopter pilots may already subconsciously do something similar, 1200fpm descent in autorotation doesn't seem fast until you get close the ground, so you reduce you rate of descent at a rate that has your touchdown almost at zero vertical speed.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I have to agree Nev. . ....have you seen what happens to a swarm of ants when the leader ant loses the plot, and the rest of the swarm follow him ( Her ?? ) around in circles until they die. .for hours / days / months . ..

 

Phil

You mean they're like people?

 

 

[cooperplace]

I have to agree Nev. . .a type of creature which theorists tell us really shouldn't be capable of flight

 

Phil

if memory serves me, in about 1991 Nature, the scientific journal, ran a front cover and article about bumble bees, and in particular about the "they shouldn't be able to fly" thing, and their writer said it was urban myth, that they couldn't find any report in any credible journal stating this factoid. The paper did report that they used less fuel in hover mode than in level flight, which is a neat trick. Actually, just measuring fuel burn for a bee is tricky.

 

 

[facthunter]

The article I refer too didn't make that claim. It's just that things that work when small can't just be scaled up. Also the bigger it gets the more efficient it can get. Fairly big simplification but that's the general gist. Nev

 

 

[Tex]

I imagine it's use will be for UAV's that can hover, rather than fixed wing, but with the right programming, maybe they could get it to work for fixed wing. Reynold's effect has no effect on this concept. It's all about controlling the rate of descent, not approach speed . I suspect that helicopter pilots may already subconsciously do something similar, 1200fpm descent in autorotation doesn't seem fast until you get close the ground, so you reduce you rate of descent at a rate that has your touchdown almost at zero vertical speed.

It works in all sizes.... SPOT ON M61A1! You are taught this when you fly helicopters (so I do not know why they did not speak to pilots in this study?) but it is highly relevant to glide (as well as motorized approach) .

 

If you pick an aiming point and it grows at a constant level but the point of focus remains the same just getting bigger in your vision that is what you will hit. What goes up in your vision you will not make (without power) and what goes down you will, with room to move.