Off-Design Performance Analysis of a Parallel Hybrid Electric Regional Turboprop Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid electric propulsion is one of the alternative solutions for reducing fuel burn and lower [Formula: see text] emissions while keeping a reasonable battery mass for regional turboprop aircraft operating on short routes. Most studies reporting fuel burn reductions evaluate the aircraft on the design mission, although regional transport aircraft rarely operate under these conditions. Therefore, considering its off-design performance is essential for providing a more complete understanding of aircraft capabilities under various operating conditions. Under these flight conditions, the multi-energy management aspect of hybrid propulsion and the fixed size of the batteries could have a significant impact on the system robustness in off-design operation. In this study, the off-design performance of an existing regional turboprop aircraft retrofitted with a parallel hybrid electric powertrain is assessed. Fuel burn benefits are evaluated on the payload–range diagram for an initial hybrid design and compared to the baseline aircraft. Then, using a novel sizing approach, considering a typical mission operation, this study shows an average improvement of [Formula: see text] percentage point on fuel burn benefits relative to the initial hybrid aircraft, creating a more robust design.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".