Positioning the Angle of Attack Sensor on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two vane type angle of attack sensors, small and large, are tested on the suction surface of a wing of an unmanned aerial vehicle to evaluate the wing interference with angle of attack reading. Tests are performed in the University of Manitoba¢‚¬„¢s wind tunnel with the maximum Reynolds number of 4.5 x 105 to find the optimal location to place sensors on the wing. Each angle of attack sensor is tested at four positions on the wing to investigate the impact of flow deflection caused by the presence of the wing on the sensor readings. Results show that readings are highly sensitive to the normal clearance between the wing and the angle of attack sensor. Accuracy of sensor readings increases by increasing normal clearance. Spanwise placements indicate that the minimum wing interference with angle of attack sensor readings occurs when the sensor is placed beyond the wing tip. To investigate the effect of ailerons on angle of attack sensor readings, sensors are also tested with half, full and with no aileron deflection positions. The effect of aileron deflection is noticeable in large angle of attack sensor readings, while it has a negligible effect on the small sensor readings.
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".