Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-c4bhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-09T00:12:56.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating CFD and piloted simulation to quantify ship-helicopter operating limits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

D. M. Roper ,
I. Owen ,
G. D. Padfield  and
S. J. Hodge
D. M. Roper
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
I. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G. D. Padfield
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
S. J. Hodge
Affiliation:
Flight Simulation Department, BAE Systems, Warton Aerodrome, Preston, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes a study which has been concerned with numerical predictions of the airwakes resulting from two simplified ship geometries: the internationally agreed Simple Frigate Shape, SFS1, and its successor, SFS2. Extensive steady-state simulations have been carried out for a wide range of wind conditions using Fluent, a commercially available Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. The CFD predictions have been partially validated against wind tunnel data produced by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and have shown good agreement. The resulting airwake velocity components have been exported from Fluent, interpolated onto suitable grids and attached to the FLIGHTLAB flight-simulation environment as look-up tables; piloted flight trials were then carried out using the Liverpool full-motion simulator. The pilot workload and helicopter control margins resulting from a range of wind-over-deck conditions have been used to develop the Ship-Helicopter Operating Limits (SHOL) for a Lynx-like helicopter and the SFS2. The workload was compared to the pilot’s experiences on a similar aircraft and a Type 23 Frigate and the simulated SHOL compared with SHOLs derived from sea trials. The results are very encouraging and open up further the long awaited prospect of such simulations being used in the future to reduce at-sea trials, and to provide a safe environment for pilot training.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1109 , July 2006 , pp. 419 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Healey, J.V., Establishing a database for flight in the wakes of structures, J Aircr, 1992, 29, (4), pp 559–564.Google Scholar
2. Zan, S.J. and Syms, G.F., Numerical prediction of rotor loads in an experimentally-determined ship airwake, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, April 1995, (Report No LTR-AA-15).Google Scholar
3. Lumsden, B. and Padfield, G.D., Challenges at the helicopter-ship dynamic interface, Military Aerospace Technologies — Fitec ‘98, Bury St Edmunds, England. 1998, pp 89–122, (IMechE Conference Transactions).Google Scholar
4. Reddy, K.R., Toffoletto, R. and Jones, K.R.W., Numerical simulation of ship airwake, Computers & Fluids, 2000, 29, (4), pp 451–465.Google Scholar
5. Polsky, S.A. and Bruner, C.W.S., Time-accurate computational simulations of an LHA ship airwake, 18th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 14-17 August 2000, (AIAA-2000-4126).Google Scholar
6. Sharma, A. and Long, L.N., Airwake simulations on an LPD 17 ship, 15th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11-14 June 2001, (AIAA-2001-2589).Google Scholar
7. Zan, S.J., Surface flow topology for a simple frigate shape, Canadian Aero and Space J, 2001, 47, (1), pp 33–43.Google Scholar
8. Bogstad, M.C., Habashi, W.G., Akel, I. and Ait-Ali-Yabia, D., Computational-fluid-dynamics based advanced ship-airwake database for helicopter flight Simulators, J Aircr, 2002, 39, (5), pp 830–838.Google Scholar
9. Polsky, S.A., A computational study of unsteady ship airwake, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 14-17 January 2002, (AIAA-2002-1022).Google Scholar
10. Zan, S.J., Experimental determination of rotor thrust in a ship airwake, J American Heli Soc, 2002, 47, (2), pp 100–108.Google Scholar
11. Syms, G.F., Numerical simulation of frigate airwakes, Int J Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2004, 18, (2), pp 199–207.Google Scholar
12. Lee, R.G. and Zan, S., Wind tunnel testing of a helicopter fuselage and rotor in a ship airwake, J American Heli Soc, 2005, 50, (4), pp 326–337.Google Scholar
13. Healey, J.V., The prospects for simulating the helicopter-ship interface, Naval Engineers J, 1987, 99, (2), pp 45–63.Google Scholar
14. O’Reilly, P.J.F., Aircraft/deck interface dynamics for destroyers, Marine Technology, 1987, 24, (1), pp 15–25.Google Scholar
15. Arney, A.M., Blackwell, J. and Feik, R.A., Modelling the helicopter/ship dynamic interface, National Conference Publication — Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1989, 89, (pt 14), p 23.Google Scholar
16. Blackwell, J., Arney, A.M., Gilbert, N.E. and Truong, T.T., Modelling the helicopter/ship dynamic Interface for the Seahawk/FFG-7. Proceedings of the 5th Australian Aeronautical Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 13-15 September 1993, 2, (2), pp 277–284. (National Conference Publication — Institution of Engineers, Australia).Google Scholar
17. Tate, S.J. and Padfield, G.D., Simulating flying qualities at the helicopter/ship dynamic interface, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington, DC, USA, 11-13 May 1994.Google Scholar
18. Roscoe, M.F. and Thompson, J.H., Jship’s dynamic interface modeling and simulation system: A simulation of the UH-60A Helicopter/LHA shipboard environment task. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 6–8 May 2003.Google Scholar
19. Min, Z., Chang, C., Siang, S.C., Yong, L.N., Jacqueline, S.Z.Q. and Adrian, W.T.B., Analytical approach to helicopter-ship certification, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Baltimore, MD, USA, 7-10 June, 2004, 1, pp 257–268.Google Scholar
20. Carico, D., Mccallum, K.E. and Higman, J., Dynamic interface flight test and simulation limitations, Eleventh European Rotorcraft Forum, London, England. 1985, pp 100–1.Google Scholar
21. Padfield, G.D., Simulating flying qualities at the helicopter/ship dynamic interface. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington, DC, USA, 11-13 May, 1994, 2, (2), pp 883–904. (Annual Forum Proceedings — American Helicopter Society).Google Scholar
22. Reddy, K.R. and Truong, T., Effect of ship airwake interference on helicopter trim and control positions, Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Sydney, Australia, 1995. pp 691–5.Google Scholar
23. Bradley, R. and Turner, G., Simulation of the human pilot applied at the helicopter/ship dynamic interface, Proceedings of the 55th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Montreal, Canada, 1999, 1, pp 677–688.Google Scholar
24. Padfield, G.D. and Turner, G.P., Helicopter encounters with aircraft vortex wakes, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1043), pp 1–8.Google Scholar
25. Turner, G.P., Padfield, G.D. and Harris, M., Encounters with aircraft vortex wakes: the impact on helicopter handling qualities, J Aircr, 2002, 39, (5), pp 839–849.Google Scholar
26. Lee, D., Horn, J.F., Sezer-Uzol, N. and Long, L.N., Simulation of pilot control activity during helicopter shipboard landing, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, USA, 11-14 August 2003, (AIAA-2003-5306).Google Scholar
27. Advani, S.K., Dynamic interface modelling and simulation — A unique challenge, RAeS Conference on Helicopter Flight Simulation, London, UK, November 2001.Google Scholar
28. Flight International article: Apache finds its sea legs, http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2004/07/20/184525/Apache+finds+its+sea+legs.html.Google Scholar
29. Cheney, B.T. and Zan, S.J., CFD code validation and flow topology for the technical co-operation program AER-TP2 simple frigate shape, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Aerospace Research, April, 1999, (Report No NRC-IAR-LTR-A-035).Google Scholar
30. Schewe, G., Investigation of the aerodynamic forces on bluff bodies at high Reynold’s numbers, European Space Agency, June 1985, (Report No ESA-TT-914).Google Scholar
31. Lee, R.G., SFS2 mean flows & intensities, Unpublished data provided by the National Research Council of Canada, 2003.Google Scholar
32. Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D., Flight simulation in academia – HELIFLIGHT in its first year of operation at the University of Liverpool, Aeronaut J, 2003, 107, (1075), pp 529–538.Google Scholar
33. White, M.D. and Padfield, G.D., Flight simulation in academia – progress with HELIFLIGHT at the University of Liverpool, RAeS Conference ‘Flight Simulation 1929-2029: A Centennial Perspective’, London, UK, 26-27 May 2004.Google Scholar
34. Padfield, G.D., Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities and Simulation Modelling, Oxford, Blackwell Science, 1996.Google Scholar
35. McCallum, A.T., Padfield, G.D. and Simpson, A., Current studies in rotorcraft simulation validation at DRA Bedford, The Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Rotorcraft Simulation, London, May 1994.Google Scholar
36. Padfield, G.D., The making of helicopter flying qualities: a requirements perspective, Aeronaut J, 1998, 102, (1018), pp 409–437.Google Scholar
37. Padfield, G.D. and Wilkinson, C.H., Handling qualities criteria for maritime helicopter operations, Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 29 April – 1 May 1997, 2, (2), pp 1425–1440.Google Scholar
38. Roscoe, A.H. and Ellis, G.A., A subjective rating scale for assessing pilot workload in flight, RAE Technical Report, March, 1990, (Report No 90019).Google Scholar
39. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P., The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, NASA Technical Note, Washington, DC, April, 1969, (Report No TN-D-5153).Google Scholar
40. Findlay, B.A., United Kingdom approach to delivering military ship helicopter operating limits, Proceedings of Aircraft/Ship Operations, Seville, Spain, 1991, pp 20–23. (AGARD-CP-509).Google Scholar