Experimental Evaluation of an Advanced Buffet Suppression System on Full Scale F/A-18 Fin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buffeting is an aeroelastic phenomenon that plagues high-performance aircraft, especially with those with twin vertical tails such as the F/A-18. At high angles of attack, unsteady vortices that emanate from wing leading-edge extensions interact with the vertical fin, resulting in premature fatigue failure. An advanced hybrid buffet suppression system was experimentally evaluated on a full-scale F/A-18 empennage as an international technical collaboration activity among Australia, Canada, and the United States under the auspices of The Technical Cooperative Program. The advanced hybrid buffet suppression system incorporated two distinct actuation systems to control the bending and torsion modes independently. The vertical fin bending mode was counteracted using the inertial loading from the rudder structure while the first torsion model was controlled using surface-mounted macrofiber composite conformable actuators optimally located on the fin. The buffet excitation input generated by the shakers matched the buffet modes and magnitude expected under aerodynamic loading, but it was difficult to match the aerodynamic damping. Therefore, closed-loop tests were conducted under two damping conditions that were lower and higher than the expected aerodynamic damping level. The lower damping condition was produced by imposing free vibration condition on the active fin, and the higher damping condition was tested using forced vibration. The real-time adaptive controllers were able to effectively suppress both the bending and torsion vibration modes under representative buffet load spectra. The performance of the hybrid actuation system was significantly greater at the low damping condition, which led to higher reduction in vibration. Results showed that the conventional rudder and macrofiber composite actuator systems were capable of simultaneously reducing both the bending and torsion modes sufficiently to double the fatigue life of the fin. The full-scale closed-loop tests demonstrated that the advanced hybrid buffet suppression system is a feasible solution to alleviate vertical tail fatigue due to buffeting in fighter aircraft.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".