Re: Great in the air, not so good underwater

[MICHAEL HABIB <habib@jhmi.edu>]

>  I remember that too - wasn't some East German guy
>  working on this back from the late 80s onwards? Lowest
>  drag coefficient; some military researchers for a time
>  (mid-90s) pondered whether it would be feasible to put
>  "bills" on their submarines to reduce noise (and in
>  diesel subs, fuel consumption)

I had not heard about the bills on subs bit; that's quite interesting.  The 
paper I had in mind was:

Baudinette, R. V. and Gill, P. (1985). The energetics of 'flying' and 
'paddling' in water: locomotion in penguins and ducks.  Journal of Comparative 
Physiology B: Biochemical, Systematic, and Environmental Physiology. 155(3): 
373-380

In their summary it states that "Sub-surface swimming in penguins shows energy 
demands lower than for any other swimming endotherm."

I also found a partial citation for the hatchetfish study.  It is:

Weist, E. C. (1995) Journal of Zoology 236(4)

I don't have the full paper (obviously), but David Alexander references and 
summarizes it in his "Nature's Flyers" book.  Alexander remarks that: 

"Unfortunately for lovers of odd natural history, hatchetfish are not capable 
of powered flight in air.  F. C. Weist showed that hatchetfish do make 
spectacular leaps out of water.  They do not, however, achieve a significant 
increase in distance by flapping.  Wiest found that they follow ballistic paths 
when they leap."

Cheers,

--Mike