Aerodynamic Optimization Trade Study of a Box-Wing Aircraft Configuration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the aerodynamic tradeoffs of a box-wing aircraft configuration using high-fidelity aerodynamic optimization. A total of five optimization studies are conducted, where each study extends the previous one by progressively adding a combination of design variables and constraints. Examples of design variables include wing twist and sectional shape; examples of constraints include trim and stability requirements. In all cases, the objective is to minimize inviscid drag at a prescribed lift and a Mach number of 0.78. Aerodynamic functionals are evaluated based on the discrete solution of the Euler equations, which are tightly coupled with an adjoint methodology incorporating a gradient-based optimizer. For each study, an equivalent conventional tube-and-wing baseline is similarly optimized in order to enable direct comparisons. It is found that the transonic box-wing aircraft considered here, for which the height-to-span ratio is about 0.2, produces up to 43% less induced drag than its conventional counterpart. This larger than expected benefit is attributed to the unique capability of the box wing to redistribute its optimal lift distribution, as it enables trim and other constraints to be satisfied with almost no performance degradation. The impact of nonlinear aerodynamics on the box wing is explored further through a series of subsonic optimization studies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it