This is not a facetious post - really.
Ted's fictitious 0-oz stunter is a useful concept, because what is best lies somewhere between extremes, and the 0-oz weight is one of the extremes. The 0-oz stunter has no mass. Therefore the deceleration from drag - any drag of any amount from any source - would be infinite for this plane (F = MA => a = F/M = F/0). It would take none of the circle to stop and drop, except that it naturally has no weight to pull it earthward. It didn't need any lift either. So its massless engine would have pulled it against drag where directed, except for unpredicted air effects, naturally flown with down-thrust countering lift, and when the massless engine stopped, the plane would have accelerated upward, beyond control, by the air displacing it, air that DOES have mass and weight. That is not a very controllable stunter, and it's "glide" doesn't exist. Best look for your ideal "glide" where lift/drag ratios exist - that is, where a plane has some weight to lift. For each plane, that falls somewhere between planes with infinite and no mass. Where in between - that is, at what wing or span loading - depends on the particular effects of drag and lift. These can be found, but it is often easier just to use one's math comparatively to judge between already understood standards based on (measured) experience.
(Edit: I probably should have emphasized that any unbalanced force would accelerate thie zero-ounce stunter infinitely, requiring reaction times of 0.000000000... seconds. Not controlable at all.)
As for bees, of course "the" math describes and predicts their flight, IF the mechanism of their particular flight means is recognized. It's not just the RN's, but the actual wing motion and interaction and what they do to the air - and by Newton's 3rd law, it to them. Many, perhaps all, people use math wrong sometime along the way. It is troubling so often though for those who use it reasonably well and have the humility to respect and look for their own errors - a basic pillar of scientific method - to so often hear that this basic tool, the language of science, is just a pompous, misleading fiction. Those big airplanes and space vehicles fly so very well, because people understand the physical laws of this universe enough to cause them to do so - and predominantly for that reason. The humble bumble creature obeys the same laws, described by the same mathematics. References to sailplane ballasting and ground effects cited here are certainly relevant to landing glides. Just don't confuse the large and tiny, the slow and the fast. These are indeed understood to differ in their effects. - SK