Lift and Tip Vortices Generated by Tapered Backward-Swept and Forward-Swept Wings under Stationary Ground Proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation of the aerodynamics and near-field tip-vortex flow field behind tapered backward- and forward-swept wings with a stationary ground effect was conducted at Reynolds number (Re)=1.81×105. The results showed a large lift increase of 26.7% and 12.3% for the backward-swept wing (BSW) and forward-swept wing (FSW), respectively, with reduced ground clearance, along with a significant drag reduction of 45% and 30% for the BSW and FSW. For the BSW, a multiple-vortex system appeared in close ground proximity, consisting of a tip vortex, a corotating ground vortex, and a counterrotating secondary vortex. The ground vortex strengthens the tip vortex, whereas the secondary vortex negates its vorticity. For the FSW, the multiple-vortex system was not readily identifiable due to its unique geometry, which always keeps the inboard region of the wing at a close ground effect while leaving the tip region less affected by the ground effect. The root stall of the FSW also produced a continuously strengthening tip vortex with the increasing angle of attack. In contrast, the tip stall of the BSW led to a monotonically increasing vortex strength only up to the static-stall angle. Regardless of the wing model, the weak tip vortex also translates into a small lift-induced drag compared with the total drag. Finally, the lift force computed through the integration of the spanwise circulation distribution, inferred from the cross-flow measurements, at selected ground distances was also found to be in good agreement with the direct wind-tunnel force-balance data, with 101% and 98% consistency for BSW and FSW, respectively. The aerodynamics and tip-vortex measurements of both wing models outside the ground effect were also acquired to serve as a comparison.
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".