Impact of Gurney Flaplike Strips on the Aerodynamic and Vortex Flow Characteristic of a Reverse Delta Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of Gurney flaplike strips, of different geometric configurations and heights, on the aerodynamic characteristics and the tip vortices generated by a reverse delta wing (RDW) was investigated via force-balance measurement and particle image velocimetry (PIV). The addition of side-edge strips (SESs) caused a leftward shift of the lift curve, resembling a conventional trailing-edge flap. The large lift increment overwhelmed the corresponding drag increase, thereby leading to an improved lift-to-drag ratio compared to the baseline wing. The lift and drag coefficients were also found to increase with the strip height. The SES-equipped wing also produced a strengthened vortex compared to its baseline wing counterpart. The leading-edge strips (LESs) were, however, found to persistently produce a greatly diffused vortex flow as well as a small-than-baseline-wing lift in the prestall α regime. The downward LES delivered a delayed stall and an increased maximum lift coefficient compared to the baseline wing. The LESs provide a potential wingtip vortex control alternative, while the SESs can enhance the aerodynamic performance of the RDW.
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".