This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study examines how the rotational stiffness of two wingtip interfaces changes the low-frequency aeroelastic response of a free–free, three-module unmanned aerial vehicle. A finite-element model coupled with doublet-lattice aerodynamics is analyzed using the p–k method. The response associated with the lowest retained oscillatory crossing of the locked reference is followed along single-channel and prescribed multi-channel stiffness paths using complex-eigenvector modal assurance criteria. Competing crossings and discrete unequal-interface cases are reported separately. Rotation about the spanwise joint axis (DOF 5) produces the largest target migration, from approximately 11.7 to 31.7 m/s; the other two channels affect this target less, although DOF 4 can introduce a lower-speed competing response. Unequal-interface cases change candidate ordering without establishing a universal asymmetry law. A five-case Nastran–ZAERO comparison reproduces the selected stiffness trends, with an approximately 10.2% difference in low-frequency crossing speeds. The contribution is a comparison of channel-dependent target migration and candidate competition under common modeling assumptions. The results constitute a branch-specific numerical sensitivity analysis under linear, zero-structural-damping assumptions; they do not establish a global or experimentally validated flutter boundary.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zijian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: