Systematic Methodology for Aircraft Concept Development with Application to Transitional Aircraft
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aircraft concept development is the process of generating feasible concepts/configurations and selecting the one that best fulfills the requirements. It is a decisive step as it significantly affects the entire design process and ultimately the aircraft performance. Ideally, all possible configurations are considered during the concept development process. However, due to the enormous varieties of aircraft concepts, the method that considers all concepts and selects the best one is yet a challenge. Therefore, employing designers’ experience/intuition and/or replicating/evolving existing similar configurations remain the predominant methods used. Despite their advantages, such approaches may result in selecting poor configurations or overlooking valuable ones, especially when designing unconventional aircraft. Poor configurations significantly increase the design and manufacturing costs and time, as they typically require rework in the later design phases. This paper presents a systematic concept development methodology to efficiently generate and select the best aircraft configuration, during the conceptual design phase, using structured design methods. The methodology considers the identification and prioritization of all possible alternatives for the aircraft components, an effective generation of the candidate configurations, and selection of the best configuration. The methodology is exemplified via a case study where the best configuration for a highly maneuverable transitional unmanned aerial vehicle is selected.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it