Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:33:12.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulating the environment at the helicopter-ship dynamic interface: research, development and application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. J. Hodge ,
J. S. Forrest ,
G. D. Padfield  and
I. Owen
S. J. Hodge*
Affiliation:
Simulation Department, BAE Systems, Lancashire, UK
J. S. Forrest
Affiliation:
PRISM Defence, Adelaide, Australia
G. D. Padfield
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
I. Owen
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
*
steve.hodge@baesystems.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper presents highlights from research conducted at the University of Liverpool to determine suitable fidelity criteria and guidelines for the modelling and simulation of the helicopter-ship dynamic interface environment. The paper begins by describing the characteristics of the helicopter-ship dynamic interface, explaining the motivation behind the research and reviewing the state-of-the-art in dynamic interface simulation. The development of a dynamic interface research environment based on an existing research simulator operated by the University of Liverpool is then described, before key results from a number of piloted simulation experiments are presented. These experiments were specifically designed to address fidelity sensitivity issues, such as, are unsteady airwake models necessary, or can a steady airwake model induce appropriate levels of pilot workload? What influence does the modelled ship geometry, or choice of atmospheric wind conditions have on the airwake model and on pilot workload? Finally, the paper concludes by briefly describing the relevance of these research findings to current and future industry programmes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1185 , November 2012 , pp. 1155 - 1184
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

References

1. Woodfield, A.A. and Tomlinson, B.N. Ship Airwakes – A new Generic Model for Piloted Simulation, AGARD-CP-577, AGARD Flight Vehicle Integration Panel Symposium on ‘Flight Simulation Where are the Challenges?’, Braunschweig, Germany, May 1995.Google Scholar
2. Wilkinson, C.H., Zan, S.J. Gilbert, N.E. and Funk, J.D. Modeling and Simulation of Ship Air Wakes for Helicopter Operations – A Collaborative Venture, presented at the RTO AVT Symposium on ‘Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface’, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1998.Google Scholar
3. Polsky, S.A. and Bruner, C.W.S. Time-Accurate Computational Simulation of an LHA Ship Airwake, AIAA Paper No. 2000-4126, 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, August 2000.Google Scholar
4. Hodge, S.J., Zan, S.J., Roper, D.M., Padfield, G.D. and Owen, I. Time-Accurate ship airwake and unsteady aerodynamic loads modeling for maritime helicopter simulation, J the American Helicopter Society, April 2009, 54.Google Scholar
5. Padfield, G.D. The making of helicopter flying qualities; A requirements perspective, Aeronaut J, December 1998, 102, (1018).Google Scholar
6. Tate, S.J. A Dynamic Challenge: Helicopter/Ship Interface Simulation – Development, Integration and Application, AGARD-CP-577, AGARD Flight Vehicle Integration Panel Symposium on ‘Flight Simulation Where are the Challenges?’, Braunschweig, Germany, May 1995.Google Scholar
7. Lumsden, B. and Padfield, G.D. Challenges at the Helicopter-Ship Dynamic Interface, Military Aerospace Technologies – Fitec ’98, IMechE Conference Transactions, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Wiley, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
8. Finlay, B.A. Ship Helicopter Operating Limit Testing – Past, Present and Future, RAeS Rotorcraft Group Conference on ‘Helicopter Operations in the Maritime Environment’, London, UK, March 2001.Google Scholar
9. Hoencamp, A. An Overview of SHOL Testing Within The Royal Netherlands Navy, 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, Hamburg, Germany, 2009.Google Scholar
10. Barnes, A. Compromise between Accuracy and Realism in Flight Simulation, AIAA Paper No. 1991-2920, August 1991.Google Scholar
11. Rehmann, A.J. A Handbook of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements for Human Factors Research, DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, December 1995.Google Scholar
12. Hess, R.A. and Siwakosit, W. Assessment of simulation fidelity in multiaxis tasks including visual cue quality, J Aircr, July-August 2000, 38, (4).Google Scholar
13. Bray, R.S. Visual and Motion Cueing in Helicopter Simulation, AGARD-CP-408, AGARD Flight Mechanics Symposium on ‘Flight Simulation’, Cambridge, UK, October 1985.Google Scholar
14. Anon, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulator Training Devices, Doc 9625, International Civil Aviation Organization, Third Edition, 2009.Google Scholar
15. Wilkinson, C.H. Roscoe, M.F. and VanderVliet, G.M. Determining Fidelity Standards for the Shipboard Launch and Recovery Task, AIAA Paper No. 2001-4062, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2001.Google Scholar
16. Reddy, W. V-22 Simulator Evaluation for Shipboard Operations, RAeS Rotorcraft Group Conference on ‘Rotorcraft Simulation’, London, UK, May 1994.Google Scholar
17. Advani, S.K. and Wilkinson, C.H. Dynamic Interface Modelling and Simulation – A Unique Challenge, RAeS Flight Simulation Group Conference on ‘The Challenge in Achieving Realistic Training in Advanced Rotorcraft Simulators’, London, UK, November 2001.Google Scholar
18. Bunnell, J.W. An Integrated Time-Varying Airwake in a UH-60 Black Hawk Shipboard Landing Simulation, AIAA Paper No. 2001-4056, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2001.Google Scholar
19. Howlett, J.J. UH-60A Black Hawk Engineering Simulation Program: Volume I – Mathematical Model, NASA-CR-166309, December 1981.Google Scholar
20. Cox, I. Turner, G. and Duncan, J. Applying a Networked Architecture to the Merlin Helicopter Simulator, RAeS Flight Simulation Group Conference on ‘Multi Role and Networked Simulation: Networking of Simulators – For Better or Worse?’, London, UK, May 2005.Google Scholar
21. Bridges, D.O., Horn, J. F., Alpman, E. and Long, L.N. Coupled Flight Dynamics and CFD Analysis of Pilot Workload in Ship Airwakes, AIAA Paper No. 2007-6485, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, August 2007.Google Scholar
22. White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A. Acceptance Testing of a Rotorcraft Flight Simulator for Research and Teaching: The Importance of Unified Metrics, 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, Hamburg, Germany, September 2009.Google Scholar
23. Hodge, S.J. Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D. Optimising the Vestibular Cues Available from a Short Stroke Hexapod Motion Platform, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA, May 2011.Google Scholar
24. DuVal, R.W. A Real-Time Multi-Body Dynamics Architecture for Rotorcraft Simulation, RAeS Flight Simulation Group Conference on ‘The Challenge in Achieving Realistic Training in Advanced Rotorcraft Simulators’, London, UK, November 2001.Google Scholar
25. Manimala, B.J. Walker, D.J. Padfield, G.D. Voskuijl, M. and Gubbels, A.W. Rotorcraft Simulation modelling and validation for control law design, Aeronaut J, February 2007, 111, (1116).Google Scholar
26. Beck, C.P. and Funk, J.D. Development and Validation of a Seahawk Blade Element Helicopter Model in Support of Rotorcraft Shipboard Operations, RAeS Rotorcraft Group Conference on ‘Rotorcraft Simulation’, London, UK, May 1994.Google Scholar
27. Padfield, G.D. Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling, 2nd ed, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2007.Google Scholar
28. Bogstad, M.C., Habashi, W.G., Akel, I., Ait-Ali-Yahia, D., Giammoas, N. and Longo, V. Computational-Fluid-Dynamics based advanced ship-airwake database for helicopter flight simulators, J Aircr, 39, (5), September-October 2002.Google Scholar
29. Roper, D., Owen, I., Padfield, G.D. and Hodge, S. J. Integrating CFD and piloted simulation to quantify ship-helicopter operating limits, Aeronaut J, July 2006, 110, (1109).Google Scholar
30. Forrest, J.S., Owen, I., Padfield, G.D. and Hodge, S.J. Detached-Eddy Simulation of Ship Airwake for Piloted Helicopter Flight Simulation, 1st International Aerospace CFD Conference, Paris, France, June 2007.Google Scholar
31. Forrest, J.S. and Owen, I. An investigation of ship airwakes using detached-eddy simulation, Computers & Fluids, April 2010, 39, (4).Google Scholar
32. Carico, D. Rotorcraft Shipboard Flight Testing Analytic Options, IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 5, March 2004.Google Scholar
33. Padfield, G.D. Handling Qualities for Maritime Helicopter Operations, American Helicopter Society 53rd Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, May 1997.Google Scholar
34. Hodge, S.J. Validation of Shipborne Visual Landing Aids Through Piloted Simulation, RAeS Flight Simulation Group conference on ‘Simulation of On-board Systems’, November 2004, London, UK.Google Scholar
35. Csanady, G.T. Air-sea Interaction: Laws and Mechanisms, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.Google Scholar
36. Lachman, L.M. An Open Programming Architecture for Modelling Ocean Waves, IMAGE 2007 Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, July 2007.Google Scholar
37. Bickerstaff, I.H. Portrait of Landscape: A Visualisation Solution for Military Aircraft Development, IMAGE 1998 Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, August 1998.Google Scholar
38. Spence, G.T., Le Moigne, A., Allerton, D.J. and Qin, N. Wake Vortex model for real-time flight simulation based on large eddy simulation, J Aircr, 44, 2 March 2007.Google Scholar
39. Anon, Aeronautical Design Standard, Performance, Specification, Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, ADS-33E-PRF, U.S Army Aviation and Missile Command, March 2000.Google Scholar
40. Smith, J.R. and Mitchell, W.S. Aircraft/Ship Interface Problems – The U.S. Navy’s Program, AIAA Paper No. 74-305, AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference, San Diego, California, USA, February 1974.Google Scholar
41. Roscoe, A.H. and Ellis, G.A. A Subjective Ratings Scale for Assessing Pilot Workload in Flight: A Decade of Practical Use, RAE Technical Report, RAE-TR-90019, 1990.Google Scholar
42. Zan, S.J. On Aerodynamic Modelling and Simulation of the Dynamic Interface, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2005, 219, (5).Google Scholar
43. Zan, S.J., Syms, G.F. and Cheney, B.T. Analysis of Patrol Frigate Air Wake, presented at the RTO AVT Symposium on ‘Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface’, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1998.Google Scholar
44. Makin, V.K., Kudryavtsev, V.N. and Mastenbroek, C. Drag of the sea surface, Boundary Layer Meteorology, 73, 1995.Google Scholar
45. Polsky, S. and Naylor, S. CVN Airwake Modelling and Integration: Initial Steps in Creation and Implementation of a Virtual Burble Model for F-18 Carrier Landing Simulation, AIAA Paper 2005-6298, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, San Francisco, California, August 2005.Google Scholar
46. Polsky, S. Progress Towards Modeling Ship/Aircraft Dynamic Interface, IEEE HPCMP Users Group Conference Proceedings, 2006.Google Scholar
47. Hodge, S.J., Padfield, G.D. and Southworth, M.R. Helicopter-Ship Dynamic Interface Simulation: Fidelity at Low-Cost, RAeS Flight Simulation Group Conference on ‘Cutting Costs in Flight Simulation – Balancing Quality and Capability’, London, UK, November 2006.Google Scholar
48. Hodge, S.J., Forrest, J.S., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D. Determining Fidelity Standards for Maritime Rotorcraft Simulation, RAeS Rotorcraft Group Conference on ‘Maritime Operations of Rotorcraft’, London, UK, June 2008.Google Scholar
49. Hodge, S.J. and Wilson, P.N. Operating JSF from CVF: The Reality of Simulation, Biennial International Powered Lift Conference, London, UK, June 2009.Google Scholar