Plasma Gurney Flap Flight Control at Low Angle of Attack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A flight control concept without movable surfaces using electrofluidic actuators is assessed from low-speed scaled two-dimensional (2-D) rectangular wings up to three-dimensional (3-D) full-scale tapered swept wings at realistic aircraft operating conditions. The plasma Gurney flap concept consists of placing spanwise dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma actuators on both sides of a wing or empennage near the trailing edge, and pointing in opposite directions, to change the flow curvature in this region, thus altering lift. Low-speed wind-tunnel tests and corresponding computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are first carried out for this concept on scaled 2-D rectangular wings. Measured lift moment and flow streamlines are used to validate the simulation (CFD) tool. Simulations with this tool are then performed to assess the effect of wing taper and sweep on the effectiveness of the concept at low speed and to evaluate the concept for full-scale 3-D tapered swept-wing geometries for a single-aisle airliner. The results indicate that the plasma Gurney flap has better performance on tapered and swept wings relative to rectangular wings because of the reduction in the velocity component normal to the plasma actuator. Moreover, the presence of shocks at cruise flight conditions improves the effectiveness of the plasma Gurney flap concept.
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".