MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969823375 · doi:10.4050/f-0075-2019-14482

Experimental Validation of Vertical Lifting Capabilities of Circling Tethered Fixed Wing UAVs

2019· article· en· W2969823375 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Chapdelaine, David Rancourt, Guillaume Ledoux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)AirframeLift (data mining)Aerospace engineeringAirplaneFixed wingWingEngineeringElevatorMarine engineeringControl theory (sociology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Electric-Powered Reconfigurable Rotor VTOL Concept (EPR2 ) is a novel type of VTOL aircraft that uses tethered airplanes flying collaboratively along a near circular flight path to lift a payload. The objective of this paper is to experimentally assess the vertical lifting capabilities of a single tethered fixed wing aircraft flying along a circular flight path anchored to the ground using a small-scale testing platform. Results show that the airplane has the ability to lift up to 4 times its empty weight with off-the-shelf components along an unoptimized flight path. This new concept also requires considerably less power than other conventional VTOL aircraft to lift the same payload, reaching a payload-to-power ratio of 13 grams per Watt. The maximum lifting capability and efficiency are then evaluated using a numerical model of the system in a constrained nonlinear multi-objective optimization function. It is shown that the same airframe with minimal modifications could lift up to 8 times its empty weight at a payload-to-power ratio of 26 grams per Watt.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207