A History of Ice Protection System Development at Sikorsky Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Modern rotorcraft must have the capability to operate in all-weather conditions. Sikorsky Aircraft has conducted icing research and ice protection system development for helicopters over the past 58 years and the pace of that work has accelerated during the past two decades. Sikorsky participated in several helicopter icing flight tests, conducted wind tunnel tests of scale models and full-scale components, tested simulated ice shapes, and developed analytical tools for use in the design, certification, and qualification for flight in icing conditions. Engine inlets, airspeed systems, main rotor droop stops, and windshields are generally protected by thermal anti-icing systems. When rotor ice protection is required, rotors are protected with electrothermal deice systems. The UH-60A BLACK HAWK electrothermal rotor ice protection system, developed in the late 1970s, has been installed in 2400 H-60 helicopters and it remains one of the most effective rotor ice protection systems. This paper traces the history of Sikorsky icing tests, presents information on the development of the BLACK HAWK rotor ice protection system, discusses data acquired during model-scale and full-scale airfoil and rotor icing tests, describes methods used to support ice protection system development and qualification/certification, and includes the status of BLACK HAWK Growth Rotor Blade icing qualification and S-92 icing certification.</div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".