MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135550419 · doi:10.2514/6.2012-2858

Airfield Performance Evaluation of an Advanced Propeller on the C-130H

2012· article· en· W2135550419 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin E. Halpin, Lance V. Bays, James Armor, Kevin Wagahoff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersU.S. Air Force
KeywordsPropellerAeronauticsComputer scienceMarine engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NP2000 is an advanced, eight-blade propeller with a more modern aerodynamic design than the four-blade 54H60 propeller currently used on the C-130H. Flight tests performed on a U.S. Air Force C-130H with NP2000 propellers installed in place of the original fourblade propellers were conducted using modern flight-test instrumentation and techniques to determine the effect of the new propellers on aircraft performance. The testing demonstrated greater net thrust at equivalent power settings. The increase in takeoff thrust resulted in greater low-speed acceleration and reduced four-engine takeoff distances. The new propellers exhibited different power transition characteristics and increased residual thrust at low power settings. Furthermore, the altered propeller slipstream effects changed the lift and drag characteristics of the airplane. The flight test results also revealed that greater takeoff thrust caused corresponding increases in minimum control speeds which negatively impacted critical field length in some cases. Landing speeds and distances were adversely affected by increased residual thrust at low power settings. The cumulative effect of the changes to airfield performance required a comprehensive update to the C-130H performance model.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207