MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407858754 · doi:10.1115/1.4067960

Investigation of the Surface Pressure and Thrust Generated by a Tilt Distributed Electric Propulsion Wing

2025· article· en· W4407858754 on OpenAlexaff
James C. Ni, Timothy J. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropulsionThrustWingTilt (camera)Aerospace engineeringElectrically powered spacecraft propulsionAeronauticsGeologyMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study is a continuation of the work of Lee et al. (2024, “Aerodynamics and Flowfield of Distributed Electric Propulsion Tiltwing During Transition With Deflected Trailing-Edge Flap,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 146(5), p. 051202) in which a large increase in lift and decrease in drag of a semiwing equipped with four four-bladed propellers at Re = 2.26 × 105 were reported. The force-balance measurements however contained both the thrust generated by the distributed electric propulsion (DEP) wing and the propeller slipstream-produced lift and drag forces. In the present experiment, the propeller slipstream-produced lift and drag were calculated through the surface pressures developed on the tilt DEP wing at multiple spanwise locations. By subtracting the propeller slipstream-produced lift and drag from the direct force-balance data, the thrust force generated by the DEP wing at each tilt angle and propeller rotation was obtained. The DEP wing-produced thrust was found to agree well with the surface pressure and force-balance measurements. The behavior of the boundary-layer flow developed on the DEP wing was also analyzed through the surface pressure measurements. It is anticipated that the present study will further advance our understanding of the aerodynamics of tiltwing electrical vertical take-off and landing(eVTOL) during transition maneuvering and its 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid DynamicsFrench-language works237,207