An AI skill is a structured system prompt or set of custom instructions that gives AI assistants like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini specialized capabilities. It includes a clear role definition, specific knowledge areas, step-by-step processes, and quality criteria that help AI perform specific professional tasks.

How does Skill This work?

Simply describe your professional expertise in plain text. Our free AI skill generator analyzes your input and transforms it into a structured system prompt. The skill is then graded on clarity, specificity, and usefulness. You can share your skill via a unique URL or copy it to use as custom instructions with any AI assistant like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini.

Is Skill This free to use?

Yes, Skill This is completely free. No account or payment is required. You can create unlimited skills and share them with anyone.

How is my skill graded?

Skills are graded on a scale from A+ to F (0-100 points). The grade reflects how clear, specific, and actionable your skill is. Higher grades indicate skills that AI assistants can use more effectively.

How do I use my skill with an AI assistant?

Copy your generated skill and paste it into the system prompt or custom instructions of any AI assistant. For ChatGPT, use Personalization > Custom Instructions. For Claude, add it to a Project's instructions. For Cursor or other IDEs, save it as a .cursorrules or CLAUDE.md file. The AI will then adopt that skill and perform tasks according to your expertise.

AI Skill Report Card

Determining Aircraft Polar Diagrams

A87·Nov 8, 2026·Source: Web

Quick Start15 / 15

The drag polar relates lift coefficient (CL) to drag coefficient (CD):

CD = CD0 + K·CL²

where:
  CD0 = zero-lift (parasite) drag coefficient
  K   = induced drag factor = 1 / (π · e · AR)
  e   = Oswald efficiency factor (typically 0.7–0.9)
  AR  = wing aspect ratio = b² / S

Minimal worked example:

Given: S = 16 m², b = 10 m, CD0 = 0.025, e = 0.80

AR = b²/S = 100/16 = 6.25
K  = 1/(π·0.80·6.25) = 0.0637

CL = 0.0 → CD = 0.0250
CL = 0.4 → CD = 0.0250 + 0.0637·0.16 = 0.0352
CL = 0.8 → CD = 0.0250 + 0.0637·0.64 = 0.0658
CL = 1.2 → CD = 0.0250 + 0.0637·1.44 = 0.1167

L/D_max = 1 / (2·sqrt(K·CD0)) = 1 / (2·sqrt(0.0637·0.025)) ≈ 12.6
CL at L/D_max = sqrt(CD0/K) = sqrt(0.025/0.0637) ≈ 0.627

Plot CD (x-axis) vs CL (y-axis) — this is the classic "polar" curve; or plot L/D vs CL/angle of attack for efficiency analysis.

Recommendation▾

Add a brief note on units/assumptions (e.g., incompressible flow, subsonic regime) since drag polar formulas break down transonically.

Workflow14 / 15

Progress:

Step 1: Define geometry parameters (S, b, fuselage wetted area, airfoil, sweep, taper)
Step 2: Estimate CD0 (parasite drag) via component buildup
Step 3: Estimate Oswald efficiency factor e
Step 4: Compute AR and induced drag factor K
Step 5: Generate CD(CL) polar across operating CL range
Step 6: Derive L/D vs CL and locate (L/D)max
Step 7: Compare polars across geometry variants
Step 8: Interpret efficiency implications and report findings

Step 2 — Estimating CD0 (component buildup)

CD0 = (1/S) · Σ [ Cf_i · FF_i · Q_i · Swet_i ]

Cf_i  = flat-plate skin friction coefficient (function of Reynolds number, laminar/turbulent)
FF_i  = form factor (accounts for pressure drag from thickness/shape)
Q_i   = interference factor (component-to-airframe interaction, ~1.0–1.5)
Swet_i = wetted area of component i (fuselage, wing, tail, nacelles)

Typical FF values:

Wing/tail (airfoil): FF = 1 + 2(t/c) + 100(t/c)^4, scaled by sweep
Fuselage (streamlined body): FF = 1 + 60/(l/d)^3 + (l/d)/400
- l/d = fuselage fineness ratio (length/diameter)

Step 3 — Estimating Oswald efficiency e

e ≈ 1.78·(1 − 0.045·AR^0.68) − 0.64    (straight wing, Raymer approximation)

Reduce e for: high taper ratio deviation from ideal (~0.4–0.45), fuselage interference, nacelles, low AR, non-elliptical lift distribution. Typical ranges: 0.7–0.85 for conventional aircraft, up to 0.9+ for optimized high-AR gliders.

Step 5 — Building the full polar

Compute CD at an array of CL values spanning from zero-lift to CLmax (stall). Flag the stall boundary — the parabolic polar model is invalid beyond CLmax.

Step 7 — Comparing geometries

To isolate the effect of a change, hold all else constant and vary one parameter:

Wing geometry effect: vary AR/S → changes K, slightly changes CD0 (wetted area)
Fuselage geometry effect: vary fineness ratio/wetted area → changes CD0 primarily, negligible effect on K
Overlay polars on one CL-CD plot and one L/D-CL plot for direct visual comparison

Recommendation▾

Include a short troubleshooting section for when computed e or CD0 values deviate wildly from expected ranges.

Examples18 / 20

Example 1: Comparing two fuselage fineness ratios

Input:

Wing: S=20 m², b=12 m (AR=7.2), e=0.82 (fixed)
Fuselage A: l/d = 6,  CD0 = 0.028
Fuselage B: l/d = 10, CD0 = 0.021 (more streamlined, same wing)

Output:

K = 1/(π·0.82·7.2) = 0.0539

Fuselage A: CD = 0.028 + 0.0539·CL²  → (L/D)max = 1/(2√(0.0539·0.028)) ≈ 12.9
Fuselage B: CD = 0.021 + 0.0539·CL²  → (L/D)max = 1/(2√(0.0539·0.021)) ≈ 14.9

Conclusion: Increasing fuselage fineness ratio from 6 to 10 reduces CD0 by 25%
and improves (L/D)max by ~16%, with CL at best efficiency shifting from
0.72 to 0.62 (B cruises efficiently at slightly lower CL).

Example 2: Comparing wing aspect ratios at fixed fuselage

Input:

Fuselage fixed: contributes CD0_fuse = 0.015
Wing A: S=18 m², b=9 m  (AR=4.5), wing CD0=0.009, e=0.78
Wing B: S=18 m², b=14.7 m (AR=12), wing CD0=0.010, e=0.85

Output:

Total CD0_A = 0.024, K_A = 1/(π·0.78·4.5) = 0.0907
Total CD0_B = 0.025, K_B = 1/(π·0.85·12) = 0.0312

(L/D)max_A = 1/(2√(0.0907·0.024)) ≈ 10.7
(L/D)max_B = 1/(2√(0.0312·0.025)) ≈ 18.0

Conclusion: Nearly doubling AR (via longer, narrower wing at same area)
raises (L/D)max by ~68% despite a marginal CD0 increase from added wetted
area — induced drag reduction dominates. Confirms high-AR wings are
favorable for cruise efficiency at the cost of structural weight/span
constraints (not captured in this aero-only analysis).

Recommendation▾

Consider adding a third example showing a 'bad' analysis (e.g., varying two parameters at once) to reinforce the pitfall about isolating variables.

Best Practices

Always state Reynolds number assumptions when estimating Cf — drag is Re-dependent.
Report CD0 breakdown by component (wing, fuselage, tail, interference) — not just a total — so geometry contributions are traceable.
Validate the parabolic polar model only within the linear CL range (below ~0.8·CLmax); note where it breaks down.
When comparing configurations, change ONE geometric variable at a time and hold others fixed.
Present both the CD-CL polar AND the L/D-CL curve — the polar shows drag character, but L/D reveals practical efficiency and best operating point.
Cross-check e and CD0 estimates against historical data for similar aircraft class (glider, GA, transport, UAV) — empirical formulas have limited applicability ranges.

Common Pitfalls

Don't conflate K (induced drag factor) effects with CD0 effects — wing planform changes affect K, fuselage shaping affects CD0; mixing them obscures the "why" behind efficiency differences.
Don't apply the parabolic polar near/beyond stall — CD rises faster than CL² predicts there.
Don't ignore interference drag (Q factor) at wing-fuselage junction — it's often 5–10% of total CD0 and sensitive to fillet/fairing design.
Don't use a single global Oswald e without justifying it against AR, taper, and sweep — generic e=0.8 assumptions can mask real geometry effects.
Don't forget wetted area increases with fuselage length — an elongated fuselage lowers form drag (via FF) but can raise friction drag (via Swet); report the net effect, not just fineness ratio.