Effect of Tip-Mounted Propeller and Trailing-Edge Flap on Wing's Lift and Drag Coefficients and Vortical Wake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The lift and drag forces and vortical wake of a rectangular semiwing equipped with a tip-mounted propeller and a plain trailing-edge flap both outside and in ground effect were investigated experimentally at Re = 2.49 × 105. Outside the ground effect, the slipstream of the inboard-up propeller rotation attenuated the wingtip vortex, significantly decreasing the lift-induced drag. The propeller rotation also led to an increased maximum lift and stall angle. At a fixed lift condition, the propeller rotation led to a reduced drag. The deployment of the flap further increased the lift curve slope and maximum lift but at the expense of an increased drag and earlier stall as compared to the unflapped wing. In ground effect, the lift augmentation of the unflapped wing increased pronouncedly with propeller rotation as the ground was approached. For the flapped wing, the propeller rotation, however, produced a smaller lift increment than the unflapped wing due to the recirculation of the deflected slipstream into the propeller disk. The extent of this recirculation increased with flap deflection and propeller rotation, contributing to the inferior lift production of the flapped wing with a tip-mounted propeller in ground effect.
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".