NATO AVT-350 Task Group: Comparison of the Lateral-Directional Stability Provided by Conventional and Active Flow Control Effectors on Tailless Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ������������ and an augmented version of the lateral control departure parameter (LCDP) are used to compare the relative lateral-directional stability provided by conventional elevon control effectors and active flow control effectors. Three tailless delta wing aircraft are examined, namely, the Lockheed Martin ICE-101, a BAE Systems version of ICE-101, and the ONR D-90. The LM ICE-101 uses elevons and all-moving wing tips for conventional control, while the BAE ICE-101 and the D-90 have active flow control systems that use trailing-edge circulation control effectors and apex slot jets for flight control. Both the ICE and D-90 aircraft have weak negative static directional stability, ����,�� < 0, and a stable static lateral stability, ������,�� < 0. The dynamic stability of these designs is examined using the ������������ and LCDP criteria which account for inertia effects and the yaw-to-roll control authority of the control effectors. In the LCDP parameter the conventional control effector’s contribution to aircraft stability appears in the ratio of the yaw control power to the roll control power ����,����/������,����. A similar term can be written for the aircraft that use active flow control effectors, ����,������/������,������. The results of an augmented LCDP parameter that accounts for multiple control effectors indicate that the active flow control system on the ICE-101 can be more stabilizing than the conventional control effectors, if the correct combination of AFC control effectors is selected.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".