MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316904959 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-4907

Propeller Slipstream Model for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

2013· article· en· W2316904959 on OpenAlexaffabout
Waqas Khan, Meyer Nahon, Ryan J. Caverly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellerMarine engineeringRemotely operated underwater vehicleComputer scienceAeronauticsDroneAerospace engineeringEngineeringMobile robotArtificial intelligenceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Propeller slipstream, or propwash, can significantly affect the aerodynamic characteristics of propeller driven aircraft by providing additional airflow over their aerodynamic and control surfaces. It is therefore essential to have a good knowledge of the induced velocity within the propeller slipstream to determine the aerodynamic forces and moments on slipstream-immersed components. Existing slipstream models based on simple momentum and lifting line theory have limited application since they consider only the acceleration of air within the slipstream and do not take into account the diffusion phenomenon. As such, they yield good results near the propeller where acceleration is dominant but fail to predict induced velocity accurately far behind the propeller where diffusion dominates. This paper presents a slipstream model that takes into account both the acceleration and diffusion phenomena via simple analytical and semi-empirical equations to predict induced velocity accurately up to ~ 8 - 10 propeller diameters downstream of the propeller plane.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207