Comparison and analyses of a variable span-morphing of the tapered wing with a varying sweep angle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This work presents a comparative study of design and development, in addition, of analyses of variable span morphing of the tapered wing (VSMTW) for the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The proposed concept consists in the sliding of the inner section into the fixed part along the wing with varying the angle of the inner section inside the fixed part (parallel with the leading edge and the moving-wing axis is coincident to the fixed-wing axis) within two configurations. The wing design is based on a NACA 4412 aerofoil with the root chord of 0.675m and the tip chord of 0.367m for the fixed segment and 0.320m for the moving segment. Morphing wing analysis occurs at three selected locations that have been specified for extending and modifying span length by (25%, 50%, and 75%) of its original length to fulfill various flight mission requirements. The main objective of this paper is to compare the aerodynamic characteristics for several span lengths and sweep angles and to find their most efficient combinations. The wing is optimised for different velocities during all phases of flight (min speed, loiter, cruise, and max speed) which are 17, 34, 51, and 68m/s, respectively. The analyses are performed by computing forces (drag and lift) and moments at various altitudes, such as at the sea level, at 5,000 and 10,000ft. Two-dimensional aerodynamic analyses are carried out using XFLR5 code, and the ANSYS Fluent solver is used for investigating the flow field on the three-dimensional wing structure. It has been observed that a variable span morphing of tapered wing technology with a variable sweep angle can deliver up to 32.93% improved aerodynamic efficiency. This concept design can also be used for the aircraft roll motion technique instead of conventional control devices. Furthermore, the range flight mission increases up to 46.89% when the wing is placed at its full length compared to an original position. Finally, it has been concluded from this study that the wing design is more sensitive to the changing angle of the inner section and more efficient in terms of aerodynamic characteristics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".