MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996562341 · doi:10.1108/00022661211194951

Formulas for the fuel of climbing propeller driven airplanes

2012· article· en· W1996562341 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimbConstant (computer programming)Descent (aeronautics)PropellerMach numberDifferential equationEquations of motionFlight dynamicsMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Aerospace engineeringMathematical analysisAerodynamicsComputer scienceEngineeringClassical mechanicsPhysicsMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to derive and solve equations for the fuel required by internal combustion engine airplanes on trajectories with a constant rate of climb or descent. Three modes of flight are considered: constant angle of attack, constant speed, and constant Mach number. Design/methodology/approach Newton's second law of motion is used to derive the equations. These are Riccati equations or reduced to such equations after neglecting a small term. A change of variable transforms them into second order linear differential equations that are solved exactly. Findings Formulas are found for the weight of fuel, speed, altitude, horizontal distance, time to climb, and power required. Practical implications The formulas obtained have direct applications for the analysis of aircraft performances and mission planning. Originality/value The formulas obtained are new and fundamental for the analysis of aircraft dynamics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it