1 / 27

Enhancing Aircraft Ship Interface Safety | Simulation & Motion Monitoring Study

Explore the use of manned flight simulation & ship motion monitoring to define NATOPS/SHOL deck limits. Discover how DI experimentation and computational analysis streamline air-ship dynamics. Develop tools for safer aircraft landings on moving ships.

keishawood
Download Presentation

Enhancing Aircraft Ship Interface Safety | Simulation & Motion Monitoring Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Use of Manned Flight Simulation and an Active Quiescent Ship Motion Monitor to Better Define NATOPS/SHOL Deck Limits Dr. Bernard Ferrier, Anteon Dynamic Interface Office Dr. John Duncan UK MOD DPA STG LCDR. G. A. Ouellette, USN COMNAVAIRLANT 3.03.150

  2. Agenda • Project Objectives • Background/Dynamic Interface • Simulated DLQ Outline & Methodology • Selected Results • Summary Jamestown 1607 - 2007 3.03.151

  3. Problems to Resolve LSO Woops - Flight Test with LPD Reading the deck is essential

  4. Aircraft/Ship Matrix is Large and Varied 3.1101.6

  5. Dynamic Interface (DI)Mission and Approachthe basics • Aircraft Ship Dynamic Interface (DI) is the study of the interactions between air vehicles and moving ships. • Determine the Maximum Safe Air Vehicle/ Platform (Ship) Operational Limits (Physics, Math, Pilot-in-Loop) • Increase System Tactical Flexibility (Same as Above, Add Trade-Off Analysis, Cleverness, Shrewdness, Inventiveness) • Make Pilots’ Lives Easier • Make Pilots’ Lives Safer Approach: Experimental and/or Computational 3.501.10

  6. DI Experimentation, the norm • (interminable) Flight Test forms the bulk of Experimental DI. Must optimize the combination of test time, resources and environmental conditions. • The elegance of DI Testing is in its simplicity (the airwake bubble test)…12.50$ USD + tax • Computational DI objective is to off-load the need for excessive flight testing. • It will reduce but never replace experimentation.

  7. Simulated DLQ-Dynamic Interface Challenge REAL WORLD Module Development Air Vehicle Recovery Components Superstructure Air Wake Coupling Threshold Aft landing deck M0 M1 H Approach position may be beside (as depicted) or behind the ship. Ship Air Wake Downwash Landing Grid Point Ship Motion FEDERATED SIMULATION 3.03.153

  8. Typical Simulator Components

  9. 0 16 345 15 330 30 14 12 315 45 10 300 60 8 6 285 75 4 2 270 0 90 255 105 240 120 225 135 150 210 165 195 180 Aircraft and Ship Module Interaction Simulated areas [1996, (U) Étude analytique d’interface dynamique aéronef-navire. La conception de l’Indicateur des périodes d’appontage, Thèse de doctorat, Presses de l’Université de Montréal (École Polytechnique de Montréal), Montréal (QC) Canada]

  10. C K1 Fy y Dampener Gear ∞ B A Unsuspended Mass K1 K2 Fz Rigidity Matrix ∞ m y z x Time (S) W LATDF VERDF LONGDF PHI PSI THETA Max of Max Force = 23266.59 (lbs) 0.50 8362.93 387.40 8358.92 1052.78 0.21 -0.20 -0.15 DYN (1) = 32.08 1.00 9308.05 169.79 9258.37 3005.11 0.51 -0.22 -0.95 DYN (1) = 26.46 1.50 12233.97 129.35 12117.22 4448.96 0.72 -0.19 -1.55 2.00 13416.78 442.54 13261.68 5097.96 0.79 -0.12 -1.76 2.50 10913.47 836.13 10783.78 4769.54 0.67 -0.01 -1.49 3.00 7548.42 883.25 7495.91 3257.16 0.36 0.11 -0.84 Caution: Acceleration Exceeds Maximum Dynamic Limits TEM = 139.0 AZB (K) = 0.32 AYB (K) = 0.07 AXB (K) = 0.01 139.00 17642.87 -1222.39 16620.74 -12423.72 -2.58 0.22 4.81 7.01 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X 1 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X Caution: Landing Gear are Overloaded TEM = 7.0 IVERTF = 990.88 ILAFT = -154.62 ILONGF = -2236.80 TEM = 7.0 IVERTF = 15264.64 ILAFT = -553.80 ILONGF = -2253.91 3.1100.15

  11. 0 16 345 15 330 30 14 12 315 45 10 300 60 8 6 285 75 4 Ship Speed 2 5knots 270 0 90 10knots 15knots 255 105 240 120 225 135 210 150 195 165 180 Typical Proposed SHOL/Deck LimitDetermined by Sim, Validated at Sea Relative Wave Heading Probable Aircraft Incident zone Significant Wave Height In Limit (no probable aircraft incident zone) 3.103.30

  12. Motion Monitor Module - Purpose • Operator Lacks Sufficient Information on Ship Motion particularly concerning its inertial content. • Poorly Defined Motion Limits: Static (doesn’t prevent an incident occurring within these limits) • Operator needs a tool to Help Identify Quiescent Period 3.03.154

  13. Physical Significance of the Energy Index Matrix of DOF equate to a value of Energy Index which corresponds to force components encountered on the deck.

  14. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Danger Energy Index Caution Safe Very Safe 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (Seconds) Motion Monitor in action: Case of Hurricane Lili EI Time Trace LYNX x TYPE 23 (UK) at Wave Ht. 5 Meters 3.103.36

  15. The Point ! (HMS Marlborough LPD Flight Trial) • Manned or Unmanned, The Objective is to Land or Board and secure on a Horizontal and Quiescent Deck REGARDLESS of the Sea Condition.

  16. Case EH101 x Type45:Deck Turbulence Module • Type 45 Turbulence/Vortex Deck Problem: The Objective is to Develop a Real-Time Solution (not CFD) to Land on a Horizontal and Quiescent Deck which is coupled with a minimum confused air wake REGARDLESS of the Sea Condition.

  17. Light Indicator Pilot’s DisplayDeck Monitor Module (LPD) Day Night/NVG Green Deck Deck Stable Green-Amber Deck Available Energy in Deck Amber Deck Available Considerable Energy in Deck Red Deck Deck Out-of -Limits Wave-Off 3.701.197

  18. Sample Day & Night View

  19. Test Evaluation Matrix

  20. Sortie 19 Launch and Recovery Deck Motion (nose wheel)

  21. Aircraft Boarding Times

  22. Dynamic SHOL ApproachLand when the Deck is Quiescent Significant Periods in which Recovery and securing may be possible outside Static Limits Forecasted deck limit

  23. Using a Full Motion Simulator other applications: case UAV

  24. UAV AutorecoveryNATO-NIREUS (Toulon) UAV x FLF710 (France) avec l’IPA

  25. No to Chaos! The boundary layer can be described, if not computationally then empirically. Elegance is in simplicity. The Equations of State are completely and precisely solved by the ship. Learn how to read the solution signatures. HLA based Simulated Dynamic Interface has the potential to quickly and efficiently develop SHOL/NATOPSlimts saving the fleet time, resources and without increasing operational risk. The take away: As each module of the dynamic interface process is verified, simulated DLQs will become a valid method by which the operational environment may be evaluated reducing, but not replacing, the need to conduct flight testing. So What did we Learn?

  26. Practical Summary • Interoperability: DI analytics and simulation are designed to Support Several Motion Sensitive Operations Simultaneously (Helicopters, UAV, Small Craft from Well Deck)

  27. Motion of the Ocean So who did discover America? Virginia

More Related