Investigation of Aerodynamic Support Interference for Testing a Semispan T Tail Aircraft Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow simulations were carried out to assess the sources of aerodynamic support interference of an aircraft half-model with a T-tail empennage mounted in a wind tunnel in an attempt to improve how well a semispan model can represent the corresponding full-span aircraft. The Bombardier research aircraft configuration (BRAC) model was used, which consists of a fuselage, a fuselage to wing fairing, a cruise wing with flap fairings, an engine nacelle and pylon, a vertical tail, and a horizontal stabilizer (HSTAB). The standard half-model support used at the National Research Council of Canada’s 1.5 m trisonic wind tunnel consists of a wall-mounted splitter plate to remove a sizable portion of the upstream tunnel wall boundary layer and a two-dimensional peniche sandwiched between the model symmetry plane and the splitter plate. CFD simulations of the BRAC model mounted in the wind tunnel were performed using the Menter shear stress transport turbulence model at a Mach number of 0.2. The CFD results for the standard (baseline) mounting arrangement compared favorably well with the half-model experimental data. The BRAC CFD model was then modified to provide reference “full-span” data and to examine several alternate model mounting arrangements. All simulations were compared with the ideal full-span reference simulations. Significant disturbances were found to be induced by the reflection plane boundary layer and primary horseshoe vortex on the flowfield surrounding the HSTAB, which had a direct impact on the measured overall model forces and moments.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".