2-Stroke Diesel Engine for Light Aircraft: IDI vs. DI Combustion Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a numerical study aimed at converting a commercial lightweight 2-Stroke Indirect Injection (IDI) Diesel aircraft engine to Direct Injection(DI). First, a CFD-1D model of the IDI engine was built and calibrated against experiments at the dynamometer bench. This model is the baseline for the comparison between the IDI and the DI combustion systems. The DI chamber design was supported by extensive 3D-CFD simulations, using a customized version of the KIVA-3V code. Once a satisfactory combustion system was identified, its heat release and wall transfer patterns were entered in the CFD-1D model, and a comparison between the IDI and the DI engine was performed, considering the same Air-Fuel Ratio limit. It was found that the DI combustion system yields several advantages: better take-off performance (higher power output), lower fuel consumption at cruise conditions, improved altitude performance, reduced cooling requirements. Furthermore, the injection system requirements for DI combustion can be met also by mechanical pump and injectors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".