AIRS II Flight Determination of Turboprop Transport Aeroplane Lift, Drag, and Propulsive Effiency Effects in Freezing Drizzle Icing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the course of the inflight phase of the Second Alliance Icing Research Study (AIRS II), ‘pitch-up’ and ‘power-step’ manoeuvres were conducted for the characterisation of the effects of icing upon lift, profile drag, ∆CDo, induced drag parameter (for combined viscid and inviscid effects), and propulsive efficiency of the NRC Convair 580 research aeroplane. Preliminary analyses of the manoeuvre combination have been conducted. Results are represented for two cases of icing accretion in conditions of freezing drizzle, -22°C and -13°C air temperature, both midaltitude. In the case of the -22°C encounter, installed propulsive efficiency was reduced approximately 5%, liftcurve slope was reduced 13%, CDo was increased 18-37% (two pitch-up manoeuvres) and the rate of change of CD with CL 2 (∂CD/∂CL 2 ) increased 44-66%. For the -13°C encounter, the initial freezing drizzle lateral extent was approximately 20 nautical miles air distance, and was encountered with airframe ice protection OFF, engine/propellor ice protection functioning normally. Propulsive efficiency reduced markedly (approximately 14%), lift-curve slope was reduced 8%, CDo was increased 15% and ∂CD/∂CL 2 was increased 67%. With airframe ice protection subsequently selected ON, and a further 42 minutes flight within smaller scale areas of freezing drizzle, the propulsive efficiency recovered, CDo increased 44% overall; ∂CD/∂CL 2 recovered and reduced to about 14% below the non-iced value. The large rise and fall in ∂CD/∂CL 2 was likely associated with localised deleterious leading edge flow separation on the one hand and possibly favourable boundary layer turbulation by rivulet icing accretion on the other.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".