Dick Friesen, HPO Engineering Manager

1. Responding to the Engineering and Technical Challenges of HIAPER: A Look at the Infrastructure Subgroups and the Engineering Process Dick Friesen, HPO Engineering Manager

2. The Role of the HIAPER Engineering Manager • To serve as the primary point of contact for all engineering activities • Coordinate communications and technical interactions between NCAR/EOL staff and GAC/LMAC engineers • Act as system engineer for integration of subsystems over the life cycle of the project • Develop proposals and SOWs for subcontract work in addition to the primary contract (e.g. airflow analyses, ICS, SATCOM) • Review, coordinate and/or establish schedules for A/C mods and IPT subgroups • Establish acceptance criteria for engineering modifications • Conduct test flights out of Jeffco

3. Gulfstream/Lockheed Martin Organizational Chart GARRETT/SAC

4. Assembling the HIAPER Team: the Integrated Project Team (IPT) Subgroups Infrastructure Instrumentation IPT subgroup charges detailed in debrief folder handout.

5. IPT Subgroup Function Function of IPT Subgroups IPT Subgroups were established from EOL and HPO staff to provide expertise and engineering/technical support in specific critical areas of infrastructure. Major areas of effort were Electrical Systems (including the ICS), Engineering Design and Support (including certification), Data Acquisition and Display (including Satcom). Subgroups had responsibility for designing infrastructure systems, conducting PDRs and CDRs, maintaining schedules, purchasing or fabricating hardware, installation and checkout, and providing documentation for FAA certification. Coordination and tracking of progress by IPT Subgroups was accomplished through weekly activities update meetings at Jeffco, Microsoft Project, and quarterly EVMS reporting monitored by NCAR DO and NSF. Established to assign responsibility for critical, specific infrastructure tasks for which NCAR/HPO/EOL has expertise. Major effort was expended in the areas of Data Acquisition and Display (including satcom), Research Electrical Systems (including ICS), and Engineering and Design Support. CFD airflow analysis was performed (and interpreted) by a combination of GAC, EOL and Subgroup members to determine locations of sampling ports on the ports on the fuselage, wings and radome. Critical Subgroup leaders participated in on-site TIMS, PDRs, CDRs Progress was tracked through weekly meetings at Jeffco, Microsoft Project and quarterly EVMS reporting to NSF.

6. IPT Subgroup Function Function of IPT Subgroups (con’t.) Established to assign responsibility for critical, specific infrastructure tasks for which NCAR/HPO/EOL has expertise. Major effort was expended in the areas of Data Acquisition and Display (including satcom), Research Electrical Systems (including ICS), and Engineering and Design Support. CFD airflow analysis was performed (and interpreted) by a combination of GAC, EOL and Subgroup members to determine locations of sampling ports on the ports on the fuselage, wings and radome. Critical Subgroup leaders participated in on-site TIMS, PDRs, CDRs Progress was tracked through weekly meetings at Jeffco, Microsoft Project and quarterly EVMS reporting to NSF. Subgroup leaders and team members of critical infrastructure (except software) participated in GAC/LMAC PDRs and CDRs and participated in on-site visits to Savannah and Greenville to monitor the progress. State Parameter and Air Motion Sensing Subgroup was responsible researching, specifying and purchasing basic instrumentation for measuring humidity, temperature, pressure and turbulence (radome gust probe). Inlets and Airflow Subgroup worked closely with GAC Aerodynamics group to interpret CFD data for determining locations for mounting external probes on the fuselage and radome. Additionally team members performed in- house CFD analyzes for inlet design and gust probe optimization.

7. Tracking Engineering Progress to Completion Seller Engineering Memorandum (SEM) system was put in place for the purpose of exchanging information between UCAR, Gulfstream, Lockheed, and Garrett. A total 5 of design reviews (preliminary design reviews [PDRs], critical design reviews [CDRs], and technical interchange meetings [TIMs]) were conducted. NCAR/HPO/EOL personnel performed frequent site visits (2 times a month) to Lockheed Martin and the Savannah Air Center during the modification to monitor progress and resolve issues in real-time. Would we have benefited from more on site coverage?

8. IPT Subgroup Function The SEM: key to the documentation of information exchange Established to assign responsibility for critical, specific infrastructure tasks for which NCAR/HPO/EOL has expertise. Major effort was expended in the areas of Data Acquisition and Display (including satcom), Research Electrical Systems (including ICS), and Engineering and Design Support. CFD airflow analysis was performed (and interpreted) by a combination of GAC, EOL and Subgroup members to determine locations of sampling ports on the ports on the fuselage, wings and radome. Critical Subgroup leaders participated in on-site TIMS, PDRs, CDRs Progress was tracked through weekly meetings at Jeffco, Microsoft Project and quarterly EVMS reporting to NSF.

9. IPT Subgroup Function FAA Certification The GV was to be delivered with a Standard Airworthiness Certificate by the contract with GAC. Three STCs (Supplemental Type Certificate) were generated as part of the contract for the structural modifications (LMAC), the interior (Garrett/SAC) and the ICS (Garrett). The GV was ferried to Jeffco in the Experimental category. The Satcom installation took place in July 2005 by subcontractor Atlas Telecom and this was approved with a FAA 337 Field Approval form. NCAR/EOL Structures DER (with support from consulting Electrical Systems DERs) obtained 2 STCs for the “Basic Research Systems Installation” and the “Quick Change Cabin Configuration w/ Equipment Racks”. Final Standard Airworthiness Certificate issued in October 2005. A significant milestone and a great team effort! Established to assign responsibility for critical, specific infrastructure tasks for which NCAR/HPO/EOL has expertise. Major effort was expended in the areas of Data Acquisition and Display (including satcom), Research Electrical Systems (including ICS), and Engineering and Design Support. CFD airflow analysis was performed (and interpreted) by a combination of GAC, EOL and Subgroup members to determine locations of sampling ports on the ports on the fuselage, wings and radome. Critical Subgroup leaders participated in on-site TIMS, PDRs, CDRs Progress was tracked through weekly meetings at Jeffco, Microsoft Project and quarterly EVMS reporting to NSF.

10. Observations and Recommendations (The good, the bad and the ugly) • Dedicated and effective Contracts support is essential. • More detail could have been put into the GAC Contract (contrary to CAIPT recommendations). This would have saved time, effort and frustration negotiating a SOW contract mod. • Overall, communications between GAC, NCAR/HPO/EOL were effective and contributed strongly to success. • Strongly recommend the use of project tracking tools – EVMS, Microsoft Project, Action Item lists, SEMS, for a of project this size. • Lack of management continuity on the part of the subcontractor led to delays and revisiting engineering designs and schedules. LMAC changed Program Managers and Project Engineers at least 6 times.

11. Observations, etc., cont’d • GAC could have provided better oversight of modifications at Greenville.More on-site presence by GAC? Should HPO/EOL have provided more on-site coverage? Yes, in theory, but resources were limited. • LMAC was not accustomed to firm fixed price contracts. This was good for NSF/UCAR, but led to extended, difficult negotiations to obtain the desired modifications. • EOL IPT team members were obligated to other committed projects (primarily field projects) and this caused some interruptions in ongoing developments with subsequent delays. Recommend dedicated full-time staff for large development projects if feasible. • Contractor’s (GAC) lack of experience modifying aircraft for research led to some misunderstandings and many iterations between HPO/EOL engineering and GAC to define technical requirements.

12. Observations, etc., cont’d • Many engineering challenges remain. Some are: • Wing stores • Optical view ports & covers • Liquid cooling system (LCS) • Trailing cone Was the overall schedule too tight and inflexible? Should more time have been allowed to accomplish some of the remaining tasks listed above? Could GAC, HPO and EOL have done a better job of estimating personnel resources and the amount of time required?