Aerodynamic performance improvement of the UAS-S4 Éhecatl morphing airfoil using novel optimization techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a morphing wing concept of the airfoil of the S4 unmanned aerial system, the new optimization methodology and the results obtained for multiple flight conditions. The reduction of the airfoil drag coefficient has been achieved using an in-house optimization tool based on the relatively new Artificial Bee Colony algorithm, coupled with the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm to provide a final refinement of the solution. A broad range of speeds and angles of attack have been studied. An advanced, multi-objective, commercially available optimizing tool was used to validate the proposed optimization strategy and the obtained results. The aerodynamic calculations were performed using the XFOIL solver, a two-dimensional linear panel method, coupled with an incompressible boundary layer model and a transition estimation criterion, to provide accurate estimations of the airfoil drag coefficient. Drag reductions of up to 14% have been achieved for a wide range of different flight conditions, using very small displacements of the airfoil surface, of only 2.5 mm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".