Design and performance quantification of VTOL systems for a canard aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The design and performance quantification of four Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) architectures for a canard-type aircraft configuration are presented. The aero-structural sizing of the canard configuration and the sizing procedure for the proposed VTOL configurations are described and discussed. The proposed VTOL architectures are based on a range of rotor distances to the centre of gravity, quad- and tri-rotor configurations, retractable front rotors and tilt rear rotors. The aerodynamic performance, total installed power and VTOL system mass were modelled and experimentally validated. The results show that a fully exposed VTOL system penalises the Lift-over-Drag (L/D) ratio significantly relative to a clean configuration. The VTOL system mass can be reduced by up to 32% by using a tilt tri-rotor configuration when compared with an equidistant quad-rotor+pusher configuration. The fraction of installed power usable for forward flight can be increased by up to 80% with a tilt configuration. For the proposed mission, the range can be significantly increased if a tri-rotor tilt configuration is adopted in place of an equidistant quad-rotor+pusher configuration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".