Comparison of Experimental and CFD Results for RAIDER X® Competitive Prototype 1/9th Scale Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses are compared with 1/9th model-scale wind-tunnel test measurements for the RAIDER X® Competitive Prototype (CP). A multitude of comparisons with experiment are made, including measured airframe aerodynamic forces and moments, surface pressures, propulsor performance and propulsor-airframe interactions, surface flow visualization, and flow field velocimetry. The CFD tools STAR-CCM+ and CREATE-AVTM Helios were both utilized to simulate the test conditions. The CFD analyses, both using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, yielded results which showed good trending with the experimental data. Overall, the CFD tools demonstrated their ability to accurately analyze the behavior of flow over a complex geometry at a variety of orientations. At the same time, a few areas of improvement were identified, such as in regimes of flow separation and complex airflow interactions (such as the hubs' wake impacting the tail). In these areas, trends are often captured, but further investigation and refinements in the CFD analyses are warranted to improve correlations with the experimental data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".