Comparison of CAMRAD II and RCAS Predictions of Tiltrotor Aeroelastic Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tiltrotor whirl flutter in cruise flight is investigated using comprehensive rotorcraft analysis codes CAMRAD II and RCAS. A generic tiltrotor model with a 3-bladed gimballed rotor was systematically developed starting with a simple rigid rotor mounted on a rigid pylon and a more sophisticated model was built up by adding one design variable at a time. The rotor is also coupled with a flexible wing/pylon modeled from NASTRAN for aeroelastic stability analysis. The effects of pitch-flap coupling (δ₃), blade elasticity, precone, undersling, yoke chord and flap stiffness, pitch link stiffness, rotor rotational speed, density, speed of sound, inflow modeling, unsteady aerodynamics, and realistic airfoil tables on whirl flutter speed are thoroughly examined. With careful and thorough modeling/analysis, aeroelastic stability (frequency and damping) calculated by CAMRAD II and RCAS shows consistently excellent agreement with each other for wide variations of design variables and operating conditions. For the configurations investigated in this study, blade pitch-flap coupling, rotor lag frequency, rotor rotational speed, and density play an important influence on whirl flutter speed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".