MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967734124 · doi:10.2514/1.c035114

Generalized Sizing Methodology for Hybrid Aircraft Using Integrated Performance Constraints

2019· article· en· W2967734124 on OpenAlexaff
Ashraf Kamal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingWingEngineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineeringPropellerFixed wingPower (physics)Takeoff and landingProcess (computing)AirworthinessComputer scienceMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid aircraft are systems capable of flying as either fixed-wing aircraft or rotorcraft, as well as transition between these modes. Nowadays, hybrid aircraft have many potential applications as they consolidate some of the advantages of fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. Despite the abundant knowledge on designing fixed-wing aircraft, designing hybrid aircraft is a challenging process and considerable design work yet needs to be developed. Diverse hybrid aircraft preliminary design studies have focused on presenting new configurations using traditional design methods for fixed-wing aircraft and/or historical data. Although such approach is practically possible, it may lead to having either insufficient or unneeded excess engine power. Insufficient power prevents aircraft from achieving the desired performance requirements and increases transition flight time. On the other hand, excess power penalizes the design by increasing the aircraft cost and weight, resulting in diverse performance deficiencies. Thus, to obtain adequate power, wing, and rotor disc loadings, this paper presents a formal sizing methodology for hybrid propeller-driven aircraft with the necessary mathematical formulations based on integrating the performance requirements in the fixed-wing, rotorcraft, and transition flight modes. The methodology is verified by estimating the XV-15 tiltrotor sizing parameters with errors less than 3% compared with the real aircraft parameters.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207