MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105380751 · doi:10.2514/6.2006-263

Aerodynamic Effects of Freezing Drizzle in the Landing Pattern: A Case Study

2006· article· en· W2105380751 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Brown, John Aitken, George A. Isaac, Stewart G. Cober, Monika Bailey, Alexei Korolev

Bibliographic record

Venue44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrizzleAerodynamicsAerospace engineeringEnvironmental scienceAeronauticsMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the course of the Alliance Icing Research Study (AIRS) II inflight icing research flight programme, a freezing drizzle (FZL) icing accretion encounter occurred whilst on the base and final approach track legs in the radar-vectored Instrument Landing System (ILS) pattern, and configuring progressively into the landing configuration. Aerodynamic performance data has been derived from recorded inertial and air data, sliced into time intervals of varying length from 4 to 20 second duration. In particular, the changes in profile and induced drag coefficients ∆CDo and ∆k, respectively, and in lift-curve slope, ∆a, have been derived for each time slice, and examined in the time-domain. Useful drag component data has been extracted from the time-slices, indicating that non-substantial changes to ∂CD/∂CL2 occurred, but approximately 380 % rise in CDo occurred. The CDo rise correlated reasonably with 80VD, but not with the MVD, when the droplet size parameters were derived for the combined small (FSSP probes) and large droplet (2DC probe) spectra. The drag rise was much larger than that measured in FZL, with wing flaps UP. It would equate to an approximate loss of climb gradient of 8.7%, very substantial when compared with landing-climb gradient and go-around obstacle-clearance climb-out path airworthiness and operational requirements, respectively. Icing accretion completely obscured the front windscreen panels. Post-flight, a runback icing accretion band was observed well aft of the heated leading edge sections, on the left wing upper surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207