Aerodynamic Optimization of a Flying V Aircraft Based on the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-fidelity aerodynamic optimization based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations is used to investigate the aerodynamic performance of the Flying V aircraft configuration. The Flying V aircraft’s performance is assessed in the wide-body and single-aisle classes, sized to match the capabilities of the Airbus A350-900 and A320neo, respectively. The initial aircraft geometry is chosen to match the planform in Faggiano, F., Vos, R., Baan, M., and Dijk, R., AIAA Paper 2017-3589, and a cabin constraint models the required number of passengers, cargo pallets, and overall shape. Lift-constrained drag minimization is performed with freedom in section shape and twist, while the planform is also allowed to vary, particularly at the single-aisle size. Optimizations are also performed at various center-of-gravity positions to evaluate performance sensitivity to static margin at the wide-body size, while sensitivity to cruise altitude is investigated for the single-aisle Flying V aircraft. At a static margin of 6%, exclusive of nacelles, pylons, and excrescences, the optimized fixed-planform wide-body Flying V aircraft produces a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of about 25.5, while planform optimization enables a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of 27, both at an altitude of 13,000 m. The optimized single-aisle Flying V aircraft produces a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of 23.2 at an altitude of 13,711 m.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it