Design and testing of foam-inflated wings for small unmanned aerial vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflatable wings can greatly improve the portability of small UAVs. The foam-inflated wing concept consists of a hybrid structure of rigid and flexible elements. This approach potentially reduces the packaging and logistical needs before deployment of a small UAV. The small packaging volume of the wing is achieved using spars and wing skin that are made out of flexible polyester-film material. For deployment, the cylindrical spars are rigidized using expanding foam that increases the buckling stiffness of the spars. Solid ribs that were previously attached to those spars provide high shape compliance for the external skin. Due to the solid rib structure, the chord length of the wing defines the maximum packing dimension before inflation. As demonstrated in tests, the inflation process of the hybrid wing is uncomplicated and swift. The subsequent foam-inflated structure is lightweight and can be tailored to the expected loads. In addition, the underlying ribs ensure a high aerodynamic quality, despite the inflatable nature of the hybrid wing structure. The feasibility of the concept of the hybrid wing structure has been demonstrated in flight tests.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".