MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W203712501 · doi:10.21236/ada401264

Drag Reduction from Formation Flight. Flying Aircraft in Bird-Like Formations Could Significantly Increase Range

2002· report· en· W203712501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Blake

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragAeronauticsRange (aeronautics)Aerospace engineeringReduction (mathematics)Environmental scienceMarine engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Air Vehicles Directorate is currently studying a novel form of formation flight. For centuries, flocks of migratory birds have flown in large formations. One reason for this is the drag reduction that is obtained by flying in close proximity to wakes generated by other birds. Photographic studies of Canadian Geese indicate the average spacing between adjacent birds is very close to the optimum predicted by simple aerodynamic theory. Small heart monitors implanted in White Pelicans show reduced heart rates while flying in formation compared to individual flight. Recent advances in automatic control theory combined with the ability to accurately determine the location of aircraft may now make this practical for aircraft. Aircraft wings generate strong tip vortices (like horizontal tornadoes) that generate large downward velocities ('downwash') between the wing tips and upward velocities ('upwash') outboard of the tips. For some aircraft, the velocities at the edge of these vortices can exceed 100 miles per hour. By properly positioning the wing of another aircraft within this upwash, the effective velocity vector of the aircraft is rotated downward. This rotates the lift vector forward and the drag vector upward, giving the impression of flying downhill. The net effect is a decrease in drag as measured with respect to the flight path. The phenomenon is not 'drafting', which bicycle and automobile racers use to reduce wind resistance. The upper limit on the theoretical benefit in range increases with the square root of the number of aircraft in the formation. For example, the range of nine aircraft in formation would by three times the range of a single aircraft. Introducing only a single constraint, that the formation cruises at the same altitude that single aircraft currently use, reduces the benefit for a nine aircraft formation to an 80% increase. Other considerations like engine performance and atmospheric turbulence reduce the value even further.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace Engineering and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207