Hysteresis and Bifurcation Analysis of A Fighter and A Delta Wing at High Incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hysteresis and bifurcation analysis has been performed on experimental results of a fighter in steady coning motion and a delta wing in free-to-roll motion. There are bi-stable asymmetric solutions for the fighter at high incidence. Applying certain perturbations or changes in coning rate can switch over the forebody vortices from one stable solution to another and result in corresponding lateral-directional aerodynamic loads. The basins of those two solutions are not equal. Both the angle of attack and coning rate are found to be control variables in the bifurcation behavior of the forebody vortices. When the coning rate is higher than a threshold value, definitive hysteresis characteristics can be observed. The threshold rate increases as the angle of attack increases. In the case of a delta wing model, the solution of the system exhibits different bifurcation structures over the investigated range of angles of attack and release roll angles, reflecting the experimentally obtained multiplicity of roll attractors. These bifurcation and hyteresis characteristics have been physically explained in the domain of asymmetric cross-flow separation and the vortex breakdown movement respectively.
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".