MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317568620 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-0213

A Conceptual Sizing Tool for Regional and Commuter Aircraft with Hybrid-Electric Propulsion

2023· article· en· W4317568620 on OpenAlexaff
Gala Licheva, Susan Liscouët-Hanke

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingPropulsionElectrically powered spacecraft propulsionAviationConceptual designAutomotive engineeringSystems engineeringEngineeringCarbon footprintFuel efficiencyComputer scienceAerospace engineeringGreenhouse gasMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-0213.vid The rapidly growing aviation industry aims to reduce its carbon footprint drastically in the upcoming years. Therefore, there is a need for environmentally friendly aircraft that integrate new configurations and technologies, such as hybrid-electric, distributed-electric, and all-electric propulsion. New conceptual design tools need to be put in place to analyze the potential benefits of these new configurations and technologies. The hybrid-electric sizing tool described in this paper is developed with the objective of evaluating a potential reduction of fuel burn by estimating the fuel mass, battery mass, and overall mass for a given mission profile and level of hybridization and is based on a series of top-level requirements, flight segments' constraints, and aircraft characteristics. The proposed method implements performance constraints for Part 23 and Part 25 certified aircraft, as much promise is seen in the hybridization of regional or commuter aircraft. The validation of the tool focuses particularly on this segment of aircraft. In addition, this paper includes a comparison with other hybrid-aircraft sizing tools in the literature. Overall, this tool, integrated into a multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization framework, enables performing system integration studies for hybrid-electric aircraft.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA SCITECH 2023 ForumSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207