Counteracting Extremes Enabling Normal Flying (Part #4)
[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]
Etienne Oehmichen derived his most important insights from the study of insects and birds (Nos maîtres les oiseaux: étude sur le vol animal et la récupération de l'énergie dans les fluides, 1920). His work is now being applied to the development of drones. There is some irony to the fact that aircraft, especially military aircraft and drones, are commonly termed "birds".
The argument is reinforced by recent announcements (Feathers in flight inspire anti-turbulence technology, RMIT University, 23 March 2015; American Institute of Physics, Industrial pump inspired by flapping bird wings, ScienceDaily, 3 February 2015). The design of miicro air vehicles takes inspiration from flying insects or birds to achieve unprecedented flight capabilities (G.C.H.E. de Croon, The DelFly: Design, aerodynamics, and artificial intelligence of a flapping wing MAV, 2015). Biological systems are not only interesting to MAV engineers for their use of unsteady aerodynamics with flapping wings; they are increasingly inspiring engineers for other aspects such as distributed sensing and acting, sensor fusion and information processing.
Technomimicry: The argument for biomimicry can be extended to technomimicry in the light of the work of Arthur M. Young. He was the designer of Bell Helicopter's first helicopter, the Model 30, and inventor of the stabilizer bar used on many of Bell's early helicopter designs. The approach is inspired by his subsequent aspiration, through generalizing from those technical challenges, to envisage the design of a "psychopter" (The Bell Notes: A Journey from Metaphysics to Physics, 1979). The process has been discussed separately in the light of his efforts elucidate from it the principles of operation of such a "psychopter" (Engendering a Psychopter through Biomimicry and Technomimicry: insights from the process of helicopter development, 2011)
For Young, the process of achieving a degree of identification can be considered by contrasting learning to control a known vehicle (a bicycle, an automobile) with learning to control a vehicle which has never been controlled before. The latter process has been significant in the decades of development of the vehicle which eventually took the current form of a helicopter. Its invention implied an iterative process -- for the inventor -- of testing the possibility of ensuring its stability.
The irony of the use of "model" -- as descriptor of both tangible vehicles under development, and of intangible theoretical constructs -- merits consideration. This is especially the case with respect to "models" employed for collective initiatives -- as with "conceptual models", "business models" and "strategic models" -- namely the vehicles with which psychological, social and economic "space" is navigated. This indicates the possibility of understanding models, whether tangible or intangible -- without or within -- as both philosophical constructs and as the preoccupation of social constructionism and personal construct theory. The challenge of how to embody them remains.
Whole-system governance: It cannot be too heavily emphasized that birds, through their capacity to fly, merit the most careful consideration as exemplifying the viable system model of cybernetics. As indicated by John J. Videler: Birds are pilot and aircraft in one (Bird flight modes, 2006). It is in this sense that the challenges of global governance merit some reflection from a "bird's eye" perspective. How do they manage to take off and fly sustainably -- even between continents of the globe (as only recently emulated by airplanes)?
The following schematic suggests a way of thinking which encompasses both the earlier whole-system schematic and the later animation of a bewinged world.
| Animation of whole-system schematic in the light of that of a bewinged world |
![]() |
[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]