Wind Tunnel Testing of X2 Technology Spinning Coaxial Hubs with Aspirated Inlets – Comparison Between Two Wind Tunnel Models and with CFD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-phase wind tunnel test was conducted to evaluate aerodynamic performance on a 1/5th scale model of the Sikorsky/Boeing X2™ technology representative aircraft for Future Vertical Lift (FVL). The test program provided valuable aerodynamic data for two important elements of the design: the faired coaxial hub system and the main inlet flow leading to the engine interface. Studies from previous X2™ technology aircraft have shown that hubs, pylons and sail fairings have strong interactions, and if well integrated can lead to low drag aircraft designs. Rotorcraft main inlets generally have aggressive turns; therefore, this inlet design was investigated for distortion and total pressure loss. Accuracy of modeling these aerodynamic interactions using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and other forms of computational aerodynamic assessment requires supporting empirical testing for validation. The two wind tunnel facilities used in Phase 1 and 2 offered different and unique advantages compared to each other, which allowed the Sikorsky/Boeing team to generate a large, complementary aerodynamic and propulsion database for comprehension as well as simulation validation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".