Aerodynamic analysis of upper surface wing morphing efficiency for the S4 Éhecatl unmanned aerial system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the aerodynamic performance improvement of the Hydra Technologies S4 Unmanned Aerial System using a morphing wing concept. A part of the wing's upper surface is morphed, as function of the flight condition, in order to increase the S4's lift-to-drag ratio. The wing airfoil shape optimizations are performed using a hybrid Artificial Bee Colony and Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno algorithm, coupled to a two-dimensional viscous flow solver. The wing geometries are reconstructed based on the morphed airfoils, and three-dimensional computations are performed, including the effects of the fuselage and tail, using a panel method. The viscous drag is estimated using strip theory, empirical and experimental approximations. The optimizations and three-dimensional results are obtained for fifteen flight conditions, corresponding to cruise and surveillance flights at various altitudes. Comparisons are made between the original and morphed geometries, and identify the conditions for which significant lift-to-drag ratio improvements are obtained using the upper surface morphing concept.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".