Interactional Aerodynamic Insight Obtained from Wind Tunnel Testing and Computational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactional aerodynamic interactions between various rotorcraft components can make a large contribution to steady and unsteady loads, performance, and vibration. Wind tunnel results from a powered model test have been analyzed to identify trends in the unsteady aerodynamic pressures on the horizontal stabilizer. Flow velocity measurements were also made behind the fuselage, rotor hub, and blades. Velocity components in all three directions were separated into time-averaged, periodic, and broadband components to identify factors contributing to unsteady tail loads and provide validation data for analysis. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been applied to four configurations of the wind tunnel model. The calculated steady rotor and fuselage forces and the unsteady tail pressures have been compared to experiment. CFD has also been applied to a flight test configuration and the results compared to measured stabilizer accelerations. When all relevant components are included, the CFD analysis captures many key features, but there remains room for improvement in resolving the quantitative details.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".