Experimental Aerodynamics validation of a Tiltrotor platform within Next Generation Tiltrotor Technology Demonstrator project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to present the evolution of a comprehensive and lean approach used to validate an aircraft design against given aerodynamics requirements. The architecture is a tiltrotor developed under Clean Sky 2 JU FRC (CS2 FRC) program by Leonardo Helicopters Division (LHD): Next Generation Civil Tiltrotor Technology Demonstrator (NGCTR-TD). Against previous tiltrotors, this configuration encompasses some key aerodynamics differences: a v-shaped tail, partially movable nacelle with fixed engine and an efficient wing with the ability to carry a significant fuel fraction. Undergoing significant modifications, a validation of the aerodynamics phenomena typical of a tiltrotor is necessary. At first, a deep explanation of the phenomena and their 3D interactions is given, then the corresponding experimental campaigns are explained in terms of the critical decisions toward a lean approach and finally the key results are presented together with a global review of the entire campaigns and the value of the validation against reliable experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".