Lift/Drag Ratios of Aircraft with Outboard Horizontal Stabilizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictions are presented of the performances, in terms of lift/drag (L/D) ratios, of aircraft with outboard horizontal stabilizers. The predicted performances show significant increases in L/D ratios ranging from approximately 30% to more than 50% when compared with otherwise comparable conventional configurations. The performance prediction range covered wing aspect ratios from 4 to 10. A prime reason for the L/D improvements included profiting from a lift contribution from the horizontal stabilizer the two sections of which lie in the wing-tip upwash flows thereby offsetting, for a prescribed aircraft gross weight, some of the lift otherwise required from the wing and yet leaving a sufficient lift coefficient margin available for pitch control. Also the position of the vertical stabilizers, downwind of the wing, attached to the horizontal stabilizer support booms involved the generation of an aerodynamic lift type force, acting in the horizontal plane, which helps to offset the skin friction and induced drag of the twin vertical surfaces. The force acting on the vertical stabilizers is a consequence of these surfaces lying, when mounted above the booms, in an inwash flow generated by the combined action of the wing-tip flow field and the mainplane downwash. Lastly, due to the directions of the flows impinging upon their surfaces, the stabilizers also generate a thrust component helping to further cancel their drags.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".