Euler-Equation-Based Drag Minimization of Unconventional Aircraft Configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the potential of unconventional aircraft transports through numerical optimization. Three distinct configurations are investigated: a box wing, a C-tip blended wing–body, and a braced wing. Each transport is sized for the same regional mission and is subjected to the same optimization strategy based on the Euler equations. The figure of merit is inviscid pressure drag at transonic speed; the nonlinear constraints are lift, pitching moment, and internal volume. The design variables include the section shape and twist distribution of the main lifting surfaces. It is found that the box-wing, C-tip blended-wing–body, and braced-wing configurations investigated here are, respectively, 34.1, 36.2, and 40.3% more efficient than a similarly optimized conventional tube-and-wing configuration. Each optimization revealed, in one way or another, the importance of accounting for flow nonlinearity during the early stages of unconventional aircraft design. For the blended wing–body, the C tip does not appear to provide a drag benefit over a purely vertical winglet, presumably as a result of the compressibility effects prevalent in the C opening. For the braced wing, compressibility effects also lead to a curious result, where the supporting strut finds itself carrying negative lift at the optimum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".