Aerodynamic evaluation of distributed propulsion for a regional aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3393.vid This study evaluates the viability of distributed propulsion applied to a regional aircraft. Using a state of the art 50 passengers (PAX) regional aircraft as a reference and with the assumption to keep the Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and mission constant, this study demonstrates that distributed propulsion with propellers placed upstream of the wing leading edge does not provide sufficient benefits in energy efficiency to justify its installation purely on the basis of aerodynamics. While it is possible to reduce the wing area because the wing blowing affords fewer constraints in the take-off wing design, the approach point is the limiting factor for the area reduction, and the smaller wing does not provide enough gains in cruise lift to drag ratio to compensate for the impact of the installation of such an architecture. However, some optimization is still possible, in either the position, the orientation or the geometry of the High Lift Propellers (HLP) or with a redesign of the wing. Nevertheless, these results tend to confirm that the more complex a high-lift system of an aircraft is, the fewer benefits are possible from the addition of HLP
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".