MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278110103 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511844652.015

Aircraft Performance

2010· book-chapter· en· W2278110103 on OpenAlexaff
Ajoy Kumar Kundu

Bibliographic record

VenueAircraft Design · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAeronauticsEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overview This chapter assesses whether the aircraft being configured, thus far, meets the FAR and customer requirements given in the form of specifications. Coursework follows linearly from the mock market survey (see Chapter 2). Specification requirements addressed in this chapter include aircraft performance to meet the (1) TOFL, (2) LFL, (3) initial rate of climb, (4) maximum speed at initial cruise (especially for civil aircraft design), and (5) payload range. Chapter 16 computes the aircraft DOC, which should follow the aircraft performance estimation. Aircraft performance is a subject that aeronautical schools offer as a separate course. Therefore, to substantiate the FAR and customer requirements, this chapter addresses only what is required – that is, the related governing equations and computational examples associated with the five substantiation parameters listed previously. Substantiation of the payload range requires integrated performances of climb and descent that show fuel consumed, distance covered, and time taken for the flight segments. Integrated climb and descent performances are not specification requirements at this stage; therefore, their detailed computational examples are not provided. Instead, the final results in graphical form carry out the payload-range estimation. It is suggested that readers refer to appropriate textbooks for details on this topic. The turboprop example is not worked out but there is sufficient information to compute it similarly. The remainder of the book after this chapter (except Chapter 16) presents information that aircraft designers should know and apply to their configurations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.039

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAircraft DesignSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207