Effect of Size and Mission Requirements on the Design Optimization of Non-Planar Aircraft Configurations
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
Significant performance improvements can be achieved by aircraft configurations which make use of non–planar lifting surface arrangements to improved aerodynamic efficiency, reduced structural weight, and tailored flight dynamics and control characteristics. Potential improvements come at the price of a larger degree of inter–disciplinary couplings where non–aerodynamic considerations such as structural strength and weight characteristics need to be included in the overall design process. Furthermore, the effect that aircraft size, its mission, and its operational requirements have in these type of configurations need to be assessed. In this paper, we explore the multidisciplinary design and optimization of non–planar configurations, taking into account the coupling between aerodynamics and structures for different aircraft sizes and mission requirements. A very flexible representation of non–planar configurations is allowed and geometric, volumetric, aerodynamic, and structural characteristics are considered. Results show the performace effects and inter– disciplinary trade–offs that size and mission requirements impose on the design of these types of aircraft 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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