MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185197892 · doi:10.4050/jahs.66.042009

Rotorcraft Lateral-Directional Oscillations: The Anatomy of a Nuisance Mode

2021· article· en· W3185197892 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dheeraj Agarwal, Linghai Lu, Gareth D. Padfield, Mark White, Neil Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Helicopter Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsAirframeFidelityMode (computer interface)Flight simulatorComputer scienceEngineeringAerodynamicsSimulationStability (learning theory)Oscillation (cell signaling)Control theory (sociology)Aerospace engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-fidelity rotorcraft flight simulation relies on the availability of a quality flight model that further demands a good level of understanding of the complexities arising from aerodynamic couplings and interference effects. One such example is the difficulty in the prediction of the characteristics of the rotorcraft lateral-directional oscillation (LDO) mode in simulation. Achieving an acceptable level of the damping of this mode is a design challenge requiring simulation models with sufficient fidelity that reveal sources of destabilizing effects. This paper is focused on using System Identification to highlight such fidelity issues using Liverpool's FLIGHTLAB Bell 412 simulation model and in-flight LDO measurements from the bare airframe National Research Council's (Canada) Advanced Systems Research Aircraft. The simulation model was renovated to improve the fidelity of the model. The results show a close match between the identified models and flight test for the LDO mode frequency and damping. Comparison of identified stability and control derivatives with those predicted by the simulation model highlight areas of good and poor fidelity.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Helicopter SocietySame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207