A Wind-Tunnel Investigation of an Ultra-Light Wing and Ultra-Light Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wind-tunnel investigation was undertaken on a scaled down rigid model of both an ultra-light wing and an ultra-light aircraft.The results of the ultra-light wing were compared to an existing computation fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation for validation purposes.The comparisons indicated that the results of the simulation did not agree with those from experimentation; it is most notably observed in the drag coefficient results as they are clearly erroneous and further work is required on developing a validated simulation.The basic performance characteristics along with a longitudinal and lateral static stability analysis were completed.It was observed that the aircraft's drag polar does not conform to a classic parabolic shape commonly used to describe conventional fixed-wing aircraft; the suspended fuselage was found to have a dominant effect on the shape of the drag polar when compared to the wing-only experiments.Furthermore, the aircraft was found to be statically stable in pitch and statically unstable in yaw.The pitch stiffness, c Mα , was determined to be -8.33 rad -1 .The weathercock stability derivative, c N β , was determined to be -0.0274rad -1 implying directional instability.
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 | 0.001 | 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".