Aircraft Cruise Drag Reduction Through Variable Camber Using Existing Control Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to morph the shape of an aircraft wing to optimize performance is widely accepted as a path to improved aircraft efficiency. A simpler approach is to change the wing camber using existing control surfaces. In this work, a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes-based aerodynamic shape optimization methodology is applied to the design of a business jet with variable camber. Variable camber is achieved using the three existing control surfaces on each wing. Multipoint optimization is performed over a range of cruise operating conditions with and without variable camber. Variable camber is found to yield a reduction in drag of approximately 3–11 counts, or 1–5%, over a range of cruise conditions, with the largest reductions seen at lower lift coefficients. The control surface deflections are used to reduce the wing camber at lower lift cruise conditions, leading to an increase in the aircraft angle of attack across most operating points. The increased angles of attack transfer lift to the fuselage, which enables reductions in induced, wave, and trim drag. This additional drag reduction mechanism has not been identified in previous studies and cannot be seen in optimizations that do not include the fuselage and a trim constraint.
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".