pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23074 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 💻 cs.RO

A Lightweight Toggleable Adhesion Prototype for Multirotor UAV Landing on Tilting Platforms

Teighin Nordholt , Melissa Greeff This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords UAV landingadhesion mechanismtilting platformsmultirotorhook-and-loopcorkscrewUSVPID controller
0
0 comments X

The pith

A motor-driven corkscrew with hook-and-loop material raises multirotor UAV landing success from 40 percent to 80 percent on platforms tilted up to 43 degrees using only a basic vertical PID controller.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a lightweight toggleable adhesion prototype designed to help multirotor UAVs land reliably on tilting platforms such as those found on uncrewed surface vessels. The mechanism employs a motor to rotate a corkscrew that engages hook-and-loop material fixed to the landing surface, creating active adhesion during touchdown and allowing controlled release for takeoff. Experiments performed with a modified Crazyflie 2.0 on a custom rig that holds fixed tilt angles demonstrate that the approach lifts average landing success from a 40 percent baseline to 80 percent across tilts reaching 43 degrees. These gains occur without any advanced pose or attitude control, relying instead on a simple vertical PID controller together with suitably chosen actuation parameters. The work targets persistent maritime operations where wave-induced tilts, wind, and limited landing space make conventional landings unreliable.

Core claim

The central claim is that a motor-actuated corkscrew adhesion device mounted on the UAV can actively engage hook-and-loop material on a tilted platform to provide reliable attachment, yielding an 80 percent landing success rate across angles up to 43 degrees when the UAV is controlled solely by a vertical PID loop and appropriate actuation settings are selected, compared with 40 percent success in the non-adhesive baseline case.

What carries the argument

The motor-driven corkscrew that engages hook-and-loop material on the landing surface to deliver active, toggleable adhesion.

If this is right

  • A simple vertical position controller becomes sufficient for reliable landing once the adhesion mechanism is engaged.
  • The toggleable corkscrew allows both secure attachment on touchdown and clean detachment for takeoff.
  • Appropriate motor actuation settings produce the reported success rates across tilt angles up to 43 degrees.
  • The prototype directly addresses landing challenges on uncrewed surface vessels without requiring complex pose tolerance in the flight controller.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the static-tilt results hold under dynamic wave motion, the mechanism could enable persistent UAV operations on USVs without vision-based pose estimation or adaptive landing controllers.
  • The approach would require hook-and-loop material to be installed and maintained on actual vessel decks to achieve the reported gains.
  • Adjusting corkscrew length, motor torque, or hook-and-loop patch size could extend the method to larger UAVs or different surface textures.

Load-bearing premise

That performance measured on a static platform held at fixed tilt angles will translate to the dynamic, wave-induced motion of actual uncrewed surface vessels and that hook-and-loop material will remain effective under real marine conditions including wind and repeated use.

What would settle it

Landing trials conducted on a platform driven with continuous wave-like oscillations rather than held at fixed angles, checking whether the success rate remains near 80 percent across the same tilt range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23074 by Melissa Greeff, Teighin Nordholt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Operational sequence of the proposed toggleable view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Experimental setup used to evaluate landing and takeoff robustness under fixed platform tilt. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Landing success rate (five trials per condition) as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous multirotor landings on uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) are critical for persistent maritime operations but remain challenging due to wave-induced tilt, wind disturbances, and limited landing area. Many existing approaches exhibit small pose tolerance for reliable landing. This paper presents a lightweight toggleable adhesion mechanism to improve landing reliability. The system uses a motor-driven corkscrew that engages hook-and-loop material on the landing surface, enabling active adhesion during landing and controlled release during takeoff. We evaluate a prototype using a modified Crazyflie 2.0 and a custom tilting platform at fixed angles representative of extreme wave conditions. Using only a simple vertical PID controller, the proposed approach increases landing success from an average of 40% (baseline) to 80% across platform tilts up to 43 degrees using appropriately selected actuation settings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a lightweight toggleable adhesion prototype for multirotor UAVs landing on tilting platforms such as USVs. It describes a motor-driven corkscrew mechanism that engages hook-and-loop material on the landing surface for active adhesion and controlled release. Using a modified Crazyflie 2.0 and a custom tilting platform at fixed angles, the evaluation claims that a simple vertical PID controller improves landing success from an average of 40% (baseline) to 80% across tilts up to 43 degrees with appropriately selected actuation settings.

Significance. If the performance gains hold under more representative conditions, the approach provides a practical, low-complexity hardware aid that could enhance reliability for maritime UAV operations without requiring advanced pose estimation or aggressive control. The direct hardware prototype comparison offers concrete evidence of feasibility for adhesion-based landing aids.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The reported improvement from 40% to 80% success rate lacks any mention of trial counts, number of repetitions per tilt angle, statistical measures, error bars, or full experimental protocol details, leaving the central empirical claim only partially supported and difficult to reproduce or assess for robustness.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The custom platform is tested only at static fixed angles up to 43 degrees described as 'representative of extreme wave conditions,' but no experiments with time-varying oscillatory tilt, roll rate, or vertical acceleration are reported; this directly limits the applicability of the headline performance gain to the dynamic wave-induced motion on actual USVs.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'appropriately selected actuation settings' without detailing the selection process, parameter ranges, or sensitivity analysis, which would help clarify generalizability.
  2. Consider discussing potential limitations of hook-and-loop material under wind, repeated engagements, or wet conditions, as these are relevant to the target USV application.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The reported improvement from 40% to 80% success rate lacks any mention of trial counts, number of repetitions per tilt angle, statistical measures, error bars, or full experimental protocol details, leaving the central empirical claim only partially supported and difficult to reproduce or assess for robustness.

    Authors: We agree that additional experimental details are required. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Evaluation section to specify that 10 independent trials were performed for each tilt angle and actuation setting (both baseline and proposed method), along with the full landing protocol, success criteria, and statistical measures including standard deviations and 95% confidence intervals. Error bars have been added to the success rate plots. These revisions directly address the concerns about reproducibility and robustness assessment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The custom platform is tested only at static fixed angles up to 43 degrees described as 'representative of extreme wave conditions,' but no experiments with time-varying oscillatory tilt, roll rate, or vertical acceleration are reported; this directly limits the applicability of the headline performance gain to the dynamic wave-induced motion on actual USVs.

    Authors: We acknowledge this limitation. The experiments were intentionally limited to static fixed tilts to isolate the contribution of the adhesion mechanism under a basic vertical PID controller. In the revision, we have removed the phrasing 'representative of extreme wave conditions' and replaced it with a description of the angles as maximum static tilts. We have also added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly notes the absence of dynamic testing and discusses implications for real USV conditions, while outlining future work on oscillatory platforms. New dynamic experiments are not included in this revision as they fall outside the scope of the current prototype study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical hardware comparison with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper reports experimental landing success rates (40% baseline to 80% with adhesion) on a physical prototype using a fixed-angle tilting platform and a simple vertical PID controller. No equations, models, parameter fits, or mathematical derivations are present in the provided text or abstract. Results are direct hardware measurements against a baseline, with no self-citations, ansatzes, or predictions that reduce to inputs by construction. The evaluation protocol is self-contained as a comparative test; concerns about static vs. dynamic motion pertain to external validity, not internal circularity in any claimed derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical hardware performance rather than theory. Actuation settings are chosen to achieve the reported result but not derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • actuation settings
    Selected to achieve the 80% success rate in the reported tests; exact values and selection process not detailed in abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • motor-driven corkscrew adhesion mechanism no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide active, toggleable adhesion on tilting landing surfaces for multirotor UAVs
    New hardware prototype introduced to solve the landing reliability problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5441 in / 1127 out tokens · 53077 ms · 2026-05-08T11:12:47.425660+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Model predictive control for autonomous uav landings: A comprehensive review of strategies, applications and challenges,

    K. Panjavarnam, Z. H. Ismail, C. H. H. Tang, K. Sekiguchi, and G. G. Casas, “Model predictive control for autonomous uav landings: A comprehensive review of strategies, applications and challenges,”The Journal of Engineering, vol. 2025, no. 1, p. e70085, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Vision-based autonomous quadrotor landing on a moving platform,

    D. Falanga, A. Zanchettin, A. Simovic, J. Delmerico, and D. Scara- muzza, “Vision-based autonomous quadrotor landing on a moving platform,” in2017 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2017, pp. 200–207

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Landing a quadrotor uav on a moving platform with sway motion using robust control,

    K. Xia, M. Shin, W. Chung, M. Kim, S. Lee, and H. Son, “Landing a quadrotor uav on a moving platform with sway motion using robust control,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 128, p. 105288, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Visual servoing approach to autonomous uav landing on a moving vehicle,

    A. Keipour, G. A. S. Pereira, R. Bonatti, R. Garg, P. Rastogi, G. Dubey, and S. Scherer, “Visual servoing approach to autonomous uav landing on a moving vehicle,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 17, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Vision-based algorithm for autonomous aerial landing,

    A. E. Morando, M. F. Santos, P. Castillo, and A. Correa-Victorino, “Vision-based algorithm for autonomous aerial landing,” in2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2024, pp. 652–657

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Landing a uav in harsh winds and turbulent open waters,

    P. M. Gupta, E. Pairet, T. Nascimento, and M. Saska, “Landing a uav in harsh winds and turbulent open waters,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 744–751, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Towards uav-usv collaboration in harsh maritime conditions including large waves,

    F. Nov ´ak, T. B ´aˇca, O. Proch ´azka, and M. Saska, “Towards uav-usv collaboration in harsh maritime conditions including large waves,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, 2024, p. 545–554

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Distributed model predictive control for cooperative landing,

    R. Bereza, L. Persson, and B. Wahlberg, “Distributed model predictive control for cooperative landing,”IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 15 180–15 185, 2020, 21st IFAC World Congress

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    A time and place to land: Online learning-based distributed mpc for multirotor landing on surface vessel in waves,

    J. Stephenson, W. S. Stewart, and M. Greeff, “A time and place to land: Online learning-based distributed mpc for multirotor landing on surface vessel in waves,” in2025 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Vision-based autonomous landing for unmanned aerial and ground vehicles cooperative systems,

    G. Niu, Q. Yang, Y . Gao, and M.-O. Pun, “Vision-based autonomous landing for unmanned aerial and ground vehicles cooperative systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6234–6241, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Positioning and locking system and method for unmanned vehicles,

    Y . Fox, M. Kliner, and R. Krauss, “Positioning and locking system and method for unmanned vehicles,” Patent Application US20 190 202 578A1, July 4, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Intelligent self- leveling docking system,

    R. Godzdanker, M. Valavanis, and M. Rutherford, “Intelligent self- leveling docking system,” Granted Patent US9 387 940B2, July 12, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Systems and methods for uav docking and recharging,

    D. J. Minnick, J. Goldey, K. Michel, S. DeWhitt, K. Jones, and J. Mann, “Systems and methods for uav docking and recharging,” Patent Application US20 180 237 161A1, August 16, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Autonomous overhead powerline recharging for uninterrupted drone operations,

    V . D. Hoang, F. Falk Nyboe, N. H. Malle, and E. Ebeid, “Autonomous overhead powerline recharging for uninterrupted drone operations,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 13 551–13 557

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Autocharge: Autonomous charging for perpetual quadrotor missions,

    A. Saviolo, J. Mao, R. B. T. M. B, V . Radhakrishnan, and G. Loianno, “Autocharge: Autonomous charging for perpetual quadrotor missions,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 5400–5406

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Efficient wireless drone charging pad for any landing position and orientation,

    T. Campi, S. Cruciani, F. Maradei, and M. Feliziani, “Efficient wireless drone charging pad for any landing position and orientation,”Energies, vol. 14, no. 23, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Autonomous landing of a quadrotor with wireless charging,

    A. Aljasmi, A. Yaghmour, O. Almatrooshi, R. Dhaouadi, S. Mukhopadhyay, and N. Qaddoumi, “Autonomous landing of a quadrotor with wireless charging,” inProceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2020, V olume 2, K. Arai, S. Kapoor, and R. Bhatia, Eds., 2021, pp. 830–846

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Vision- based uav landing with guaranteed reliability in adverse environment,

    Z. Ge, J. Jiang, E. Pugh, B. Marshall, Y . Yan, and L. Sun, “Vision- based uav landing with guaranteed reliability in adverse environment,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Design and validation of a wireless drone docking station,

    D. Stuhne, G. Vasiljevi ´c, S. Bogdan, and Z. Kova ˇci´c, “Design and validation of a wireless drone docking station,” in2023 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Jun. 2023, p. 652–657

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    An autonomous docking mechanism for vertical lift unmanned aircraft,

    J. Papayanopoulos, K. Webb, and J. Rogers, “An autonomous docking mechanism for vertical lift unmanned aircraft,”Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 061009, 10 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Autonomous vtol-uav docking system for heterogeneous multirobot team,

    E. Narv ´aez, A. A. Ravankar, A. Ravankar, T. Emaru, and Y . Kobayashi, “Autonomous vtol-uav docking system for heterogeneous multirobot team,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, pp. 1–18, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Dronetrap: Drone catch- ing in midair by soft robotic hand with color-based force detection and hand gesture recognition,

    A. Fedoseev, V . Serpiva, E. Karmanova, M. A. Cabrera, V . Shirokun, I. Vasilev, S. Savushkin, and D. Tsetserukou, “Dronetrap: Drone catch- ing in midair by soft robotic hand with color-based force detection and hand gesture recognition,” in2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), 2021, pp. 261–266

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    A uav autonomous landing system integrating locating, tracking, and landing in the wild environment,

    J. Si, B. Li, L. Wang, C. Deng, J. Wang, and S. Wang, “A uav autonomous landing system integrating locating, tracking, and landing in the wild environment,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 110, no. 2, p. 51, Mar 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Watercraft- specific drone landing and stabilization platform: A low-cost design and implementation approach,

    S. K. Alluri, H. Nanabala, T. A. Tutunji, and A. Saleem, “Watercraft- specific drone landing and stabilization platform: A low-cost design and implementation approach,” in2024 22nd International Conference on Research and Education in Mechatronics (REM), 2024, pp. 319– 325

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    A precise and gnss-free landing system on moving platforms for rotary-wing uavs,

    F. Alarc ´on, M. Garc´ıa, I. Maza, A. Viguria, and A. Ollero, “A precise and gnss-free landing system on moving platforms for rotary-wing uavs,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 4, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Ship-helicopter system analysis,

    R. Egen, J. Minor, and H. Cress, “Ship-helicopter system analysis,” Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Tech. Rep., 1973

    work page 1973

  27. [27]

    Helicopter control during landing on a moving confined platform,

    S. Topczewski, J. Narkiewicz, and P. Bibik, “Helicopter control during landing on a moving confined platform,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 107 315–107 325, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Automatic landing of a rotary-wing uav in rough seas,

    X. Yang, “Automatic landing of a rotary-wing uav in rough seas,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, School of Engineering and Information Technology, 2011

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Experimental evaluation of adhesive technologies for robotic grippers on micro- rough surfaces,

    D. Ruffatto, D. Beganovic, A. Parness, and M. Spenko, “Experimental evaluation of adhesive technologies for robotic grippers on micro- rough surfaces,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 6150–6155

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Highly switchable and reversible soft sticky adhesives based on thermo- responsive phase separation,

    Q. Yin, Y . A. Manav, Y . Wan, B. Davaji, and R. Bai, “Highly switchable and reversible soft sticky adhesives based on thermo- responsive phase separation,”Extreme Mechanics Letters, vol. 75, p. 102293, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Mechanically switchable micro-patterned adhesive for soft material applications,

    K. Johannes, K. Calahan, L. Bowen, E. Zuetell, R. Long, and M. Rentschler, “Mechanically switchable micro-patterned adhesive for soft material applications,”Extreme Mechanics Letters, vol. 52, p. 101622, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,

    E. Brown, N. Rodenberg, J. Amend, A. Mozeika, E. Steltz, M. R. Zakin, H. Lipson, and H. M. Jaeger, “Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 44, pp. 18 809–18 814, 2010

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Effect of the granular material on the maximum holding force of a granular gripper,

    J. M. G ´omez–Paccapelo, A. A. Santarossa, H. D. Bustos, and L. A. Pugnaloni, “Effect of the granular material on the maximum holding force of a granular gripper,”Granular Matter, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 4, Nov. 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Flippy: A soft, au- tonomous climber with simple sensing and control,

    M. Malley, M. Rubenstein, and R. Nagpal, “Flippy: A soft, au- tonomous climber with simple sensing and control,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017, pp. 6533–6540

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    A bio-inspired electro- active velcro mechanism using shape memory alloy for wearable and stiffness controllable layers,

    H. Afrisal, S. H. Sadati, and T. Nanayakkara, “A bio-inspired electro- active velcro mechanism using shape memory alloy for wearable and stiffness controllable layers,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAfS), 2016, pp. 1–6

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Landing, perching and taking off from vertical surfaces,

    A. L. Desbiens, A. T. Asbeck, and M. R. Cutkosky, “Landing, perching and taking off from vertical surfaces,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 355–370, 2011

    work page 2011