Structural and CFD analyses of a reciprocating-airfoil (RA) driven UAV wing under maximum lift and inertia forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reciprocating-airfoil (RA) driven vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft is a new aircraft concept that utilizes the reciprocating motion of the wings to provide lift for take-off and landing. The RA wings are shaped like the wings of a fixed-wing airplane and work as fixed wings while cruising. The wing undergoes substantial linear motion during take-off and may generate lift similar to a fixed-wing aircraft. The unique structural characteristics of reciprocating wings are their high inertia and lifting force loadings. This study aims to conduct an internal structural analysis of the wing under the maximum lift and inertia force to validate the wing’s performance. The reciprocating motion of the wing in a stroke was analyzed to determine its maximum speed in the stroke and its inertia force loading in conjunction with a reciprocating driver. A 3D computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis was conducted at the highest angle of attack (AoA) and the determined maximum speed to obtain maximum lift and drag. The results of a finite element analysis (FEA) revealed acceptable stresses, demonstrating a safe load-carrying capacity of the wing structure, which may ensure the suitability of the wing for integration with the RA UAV module.
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".