Flapping Wings And The Science Of How Bees Can Fly

Jerry Seinfeld launched his career with Bee Movie, an insect-themed animated feature that took the world by storm in 2007. It posed the quandary – that supposedly, according to all known laws of aviation, bees should not be able to fly. Despite this, the bee flies anyway, because bees don’t care what humans think is impossible.

The quote isn’t easily attributed to anyone in particular, but is a cautionary tale about making the wrong assumptions in an engineering context. Yes, if you model a bee using the same maths as an airliner, of course you’ll find that it shouldn’t be able to fly. Its tiny wings can’t possibly generate enough lift to get its body off the ground. But that’s because the assumption is an erroneous one – because bees don’t fly in the same way planes do. Bees flap their wings. But that’s just the beginning. The truth is altogether more complex and interesting!

Flapping Wings and Dynamic Stall

Smoke visualization of a hawk moth. Peeling apart the mysteries of flapping wing flight has required intensely difficult work to visualise complex three-dimensional flow regimes around tiny, uncooperative insects. ((Willmott, Ellington & Thomas, 1997)

Regular planes have fixed wings that are, for all intents and purposes, relatively rigid. There is some structural flexibility, but from an aerodynamic standpoint, it doesn’t have a significant effect. These wings generate lift when moving through the air at speed, thanks to their airfoil shape. Increase the angle of the wing relative to the airflow, for example, by pitching up the aircraft, and the wing will generate more lift. This angle is called the angle of attackIncrease it too far, and the flow will separate from the wing, and it will stop producing lift entirely. This is called a stall. Without lift, planes fall out of the sky.

Bees, like birds, and many insects, don’t have fixed wings – instead, they flap their wings to generate both propulsion and lift. The wings are flapped in an incredibly complex motion, with the wing rotating throughout the downstroke and upstroke in order to maximise efficiency. The key to creating high lift with a flapping wing is down to a variety of complex fluid mechanisms.

The leading edge vortex, as visualised on a model of a hovering hawkmoth. Note how the leading edge vortex stays attached to the wing on the downstroke from (a) to (b). (van den Berg, Ellington 1997)

The first is the generation of a strong leading edge vortex through a phenomenon known as dynamic stall, or absence of stall. This is where the wing is at an incredibly high angle of attack on the downstroke and upstroke, which causes the airflow over the wing to seperate, generating a large vortex attached to the leading edge of the wing. This vortex remains attached to the wing, thanks to flow features generated along the span of the wing, in much the same way as delta wings work on aircraft. By keeping this vortex attached, the wing is able to generate high lift thanks to the pressure difference across the wing that would otherwise be absent if the vortex were allowed to dissipate.

The second is down to rotational effects. It’s possible to rotate the wing either before changing stroke direction, during change of stroke direction, or after changing stroke direction. When the wing rotates, this motion adds to the circulation in the existing vortexes around the wing. Doing this in advance of a stroke change, the added circulation in the air creates a boost to the lift generated by the wing; doing it after creates a negative lift force. Doing it symmetrically creates both positive and negative lift peaks throughout the full wingbeat. By varying the point of rotation, it’s possible to vary the lift generation on each flap of the wings.

A diagram showing the difference in aerodynamic performance of wings during advanced, symmetrical, and delayed rotation regimes. The black lines represent the wing, with the dot showing the leading edge. The red arrows show the magnitude and direction of the instantaneous forces on the wing. This data was collected with a robotic flapping wing model. (Dickinson, Lehmann & Sane, 1999)

Other complex mechanisms have also been observed in various types of insects and birds, with many species displaying unique and varied flapping techniques. One technique observed in butterflies is that of wing-wake interaction. A wake is a flow regime seen in a fluid behind a moving object; most commonly observed by humans as the changing flow behind a boat travelling through water. This exists for wings in air as well. In wing-wake interaction, the motion of the wing during flapping creates an interaction between the wing’s flow and the wake shed by the previous flapping motion. As the wake in the air consists of fluid moving because of the flapping wings, interacting with this wake to generate more lift allows the insect to recapture some of the energy already expended to improve its efficiency.

Another commonly cited mechanism is the “clap and fling”, where the wings on either side of an insect are clapped together at the top of the upstroke, squeezing out air between them that helps generate thrust, before flinging apart to begin the downstroke. As the wings peel apart, they create a low-pressure zone between them that sucks in air and helps build circulation during the downstroke. However, this method is not used by all species, and only used in certain flight regimes, so is not a critical component of regular flapping wing flight.

Overall, the fluid mechanics behind flapping wing flight is incredibly complex. A basic understanding of fluid mechanics is required even to parse this very simple explainer, let alone truly dive into the topic. Flapping wing flight is still not completely understood, and is an area of ongoing research around the world. One of the reasons for this is the high level of difficulty involved in studying these phenomena.

Particularly with regard to insect flight, the flow regimes are tiny and difficult to visualise. This has led to techniques such as building robotic analogues of insect wing systems at larger scales and moving the wing surfaces through tanks of mineral oil to better see and understand the mechanisms at play. This allows techniques such as dye visualization to be used, giving insights into the complex three-dimensional flow regimes. Other work involves studying birds, which are larger and easier to observe, and running computer models. However, it’s always necessary to directly study the real thing to confirm any theory.

Regardless of the complexity, the old adage that “bees can’t fly” is provably false, and rooted more in making inappropriate engineering assumptions than any major physical paradox. As always, when running simulations, it pays to make sure you’re modelling the right thing at the get-go.

67 thoughts on “Flapping Wings And The Science Of How Bees Can Fly

  1. “Jerry Seinfeld launched his career with Bee Movie” err, nope; that movie was released almost a decade after the TV show ended. And the BS inspirational “quandary” has been around longer than Jerry Seinfeld.

    Now I can continue reading the fine article.

        1. No,
          Dual or multi-part measurement systems should not exist, and no one can be blamed for the issues involved except for those who introduced the second and later measurement systems, which are clearly not needed on account of their not being accepted.

    1. The guy who launched an entire new holiday celebration in December 1997 then launched his career in a 2007 movie that nobody saw? :-) Oh well, HaD lead-in paragraphs. At least it doesn’t have the “We all saw Seinfeld launch his career….”

          1. I think the implication is that since the joke about the Bee movie that you started with got more comments than the actual substance of the article you must have done it deliberately to get more comments and engagement. And if you did it deliberately it suggests you have some incentive like a better ranking or compensation pegged to comment count. I doubt that’s the case. No offense but doing it by accident is a lot easier and as the Coca Cola executive famously said “we’re not that smart or that stupid”.

            I don’t really think the joke is that obtuse but it does seem to have derailed the conversation which is a shame. So maybe Steven13 has a point. Sarcasm is always a tricky thing to convey in text. Maybe don’t do that?

          2. I see. Lewin’s joke fell flat. Sorry about that.

            FWIW: Jerry Seinfeld was in a show with Julia Luis-Dreyfus for a couple seasons before the bee movie in question. I’m trying to remember what it was about, but I come up with nothing.

        1. hmmm, probably api-opter is more correct, I’m thinking the c in helicopter comes from helices. Then if the pter in that is the same pter as in pterodactyl, then we’ve been pronouncing helicopter and ornithopter very wrong for years.

          1. You can get a decent orinthopter for about 30 bucks on Amazon/ebay. I got one just to see if it could fly. I’ve had birds fly in formation with it, they must think it’s circling some yummy food. When it don’t land they fly away! My dog ended up taking it down too many times, he was really proud of himself though!

      1. I just assumed it was a meme or sarcasm…

        You just have to learn how to skip the fluff and get right to the useful information.

        Space news sites are good for training:
        You eventually know where they hide the useful info like the one maintenance issue that Crew Dragon suffered, after its record number of days in space… was that they needed to clean some lint out of a seal.

        They somehow build an entire article out if this one statement. ;)

        1. Yep, it was obvious they’d misspelled “sank”.

          I saw a trailer for it where they had been pretending they were doing a cheesy live action version that turned out to be a disaster before switching to CGI. I’d much rather have seen the live action one; it had some potential for “so bad, it’s good.”

        2. You do realize the whole concept of outer space travel that we have been shown on tv is completely phony. It’s basically a giant television production that we have been tricked into believing is real.

  2. ” Increase it too far, and the flow will separate from the wing, and it will stop producing lift entirely. This is called a stall.”

    This is an area that is still under discussion involving aircraft.
    You can model lift as circulation, or as vacuum formed above the wing through acceleration of the air, or possibly some other models.
    However, one component of lift is acceleration of air mass downwards by the bottom of the wing. This is relatively independent of wing shape: all you need is a flat plate with a lot of thrust to get this.
    That component of lift is still present at high angles of attack, after flow separation from the upwards surface (aka stall). Depending on your flight conditions, it may account for 0-50% of your lift.
    The issue is the stepwise reduction in overall lift when stall occurs, from enough to balance the aircraft weight to definitely not enough to do so. But if you’re at a high angle of attack, there will still be lift post-stall, just not enough. (and once you’ve stalled you’re likely to see big changes in angle of attack that may reduce what lift remains.)

    1. There are a lot of model aircraft that fly quite well with nothing for wings but flat pieces of foamcore board. Thanks to powerful and lightweight LiIon batteries and brushless electric motors to essentially make Anime aerodynamics real. Put enough thrust on and you can make anything fly.

      1. Thrust (+ change in potential energy) = Lift + Drag. Plane stays in the air if Lift > Weight.

        You can either work on improving the lift/drag ratio, or just pump more power in the front end.

        Models with flat wings fly well b/c a good percentage of “real airfoil” lift, at slow model speeds, comes from just pushing the air downwards The flat-wing planes are worse, but not really that much worse, and a bigger engine is often the path of least resistance.

  3. Man, for all the intelligent people that frequent this site there sure are a lot idiots.
    Interesting article, I always hated that “Bees shouldn’t be able to fly” comment.

  4. Dear god, I thought I was going to come into the comments to find complaints about the description of aircraft lift being rather bogus… only to find everyone here being completely incapable of understanding a pretty straightforward joke.

    I really shouldn’t be surprised.

    1. The titel says something about science, so i expected to read something including science.
      Except it wasn’t straight forward nor funny.
      Otherwise people wouldn’t make such a big thing of it.

      1. It was incredibly straightforward and I actually laughed out loud.

        I think a few people here are hurt that the comments they made after missing the joke were met with laughter. Embarrassment hurts but jeez get over yourselves, I laugh my ass off at myself when I fall for something silly like that. It’s a better way to live a life haha

  5. I absolutely hated the Bee Movie. Bees can speak human? Some how all zillions of their population except one decided to kept quiet about it? And not only they can speak, they have lawyers too? And somehow all plants need insects to pollinate? And bees are the only insect which can pollinate? And somehow pollination will turn witted plants into healthy plant?

    I’d say the Bee Movie is poisoning our young’s mind.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.