MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210396534 · doi:10.1115/imece2021-71173

Bell 412 Full Flight Envelope Aircraft Simulation Model Development and Evaluation With Nonlinear Equations of Motion

2021· article· en· W4210396534 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Crain, Joseph Ricciardi, Terrin Stachiw

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemFlight envelopeTrimEquations of motionEnvelope (radar)Control theory (sociology)Stability derivativesFlight simulatorFlight dynamicsAircraft flight mechanicsPerturbation (astronomy)Aerospace engineeringSystem identificationEngineeringComputer scienceAerodynamicsData modelingPhysicsClassical mechanicsControl (management)Structural engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flight models are used to accurately predict the aircraft performance and response and are used for aircraft development, engineering analysis, and pilot training. It is common practice to use linearized small perturbation equations of motion for the identification of the stability and control derivatives that form the basis of flight models using system identification. Due in large part to advances in computer technology and optimization techniques, it is feasible to use nonlinear equations of motion for time-domain system identification. This report compares two full flight envelope aircraft models that were developed with identical data: one developed using linearized equations of motion in a state space form, and the other with nonlinear equations. The global flight models were developed for the NRC Bell 412 helicopter in forward flight across its range of speeds, altitudes, and configurations. Use of the nonlinear equations of motion produced a model with less parameter variance and its corresponding global model had improved trim characteristics.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207