Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:19:01.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamics modelling for training on the edge of the flight envelope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

D. R. Gingras  and
J. N. Ralston
D. R. Gingras*
Affiliation:
Bihrle Applied Research, Hampton, Virginia, USA
J. N. Ralston*
Affiliation:
Bihrle Applied Research, Hampton, Virginia, USA
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aircraft upset and Loss of Control (LOC) is a leading cause of accidents in commercial and general aviation aircraft operations. A number of measures have been taken in the commercial segment to improve training and awareness of this problem and several organisations offer in-flight training to enhance awareness. In relative terms, in both commercial and general aviation sectors, the use of Full Flight Simulators (FFS) and Flight Training Devices (FTD) for this purpose is minimal. A key reason for this is the limited capability and coverage of flight models used in these devices. This paper provides examples of the limitations in civilian simulators in contrast to military efforts that have been using full envelope modelling for decades to enhance pilot training. The paper also presents techniques used in full-envelope modelling, their validity, and a regulatory vehicle that is in-line with current international guidelines for application to civilian trainer development.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1175 , January 2012 , pp. 67 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

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.)

References

1. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, World Wide Operations, 1956-2006, The Boeing Company, Commercial Airplanes, Statistical Summary, July 2007.Google Scholar
2. Annual Review of Accident Data, USA General Aviation, 2003, National Transportation Saftey Board, PB2007-105-105388, NTSB/ARG-07/01.Google Scholar
3. Eclipse 500: implications of integration for VLJs. Aviation international news/industry make progress on VLJ training standards, Avionic Magazine, 1 May 2005, July 2007.Google Scholar
4. Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid Revision 1, Upset Recovery Industry Team, August 2004.Google Scholar
5. Foster, J.V. et al Dynamics Modelling and Simulation of Large Transport Airplanes in Upset Conditions, AIAA-2005-5933.Google Scholar
6. Murch, A.M and Foster, J.V. Recent NASA Research on Aerodynamic Modelling of Post-Stall and Spin Dynamics of Large Transport Airplanes, AIAA-2007-463-253, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno NV, USA, 8-11 January 2007.Google Scholar
7. Ralston, J.N. A Low-Speed Aerodynamic Model of the EA-6B Airplane Through 90° Angle-of-Attack. Bihrle Applied Research 85-3, January 1985.Google Scholar
8. Ralston, J.N. Analysis of F-18A/B Low-Speed, High Angle-of-Attack Aerodynamic Data Base, Including: I. Selected Erect Characteristics, II. Two-Place Canopy Effect, III. Store Loading Effect, Bihrle Applied Research 88-7, September 1988.Google Scholar
9. Ralston, J.N. Analysis of High Angle of Attack Data and Simulation Results for the F-16 MCID Configuration, Including the Effects of Selected Stores, Bihrle 89-12, September 1989.Google Scholar
10. Dickes, E, Ralston, J.N. and Lawson, K. Application of Large-Angle Data for Flight Simulation, AIAA 2000-4584, AIAA Modelling and Simulation Conference and Exhibit, 14-17 August 2000, Denver, CO, USA.Google Scholar
11. Ralston, J.N. and Kay, J. The Utilization of High Fidelity Simulation in the Support of High-Angle-of-Attack Flight Testing, NASA High Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference, 17-19 September, 1996, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA.Google Scholar
12. Ralston, J.N. and Barnhart, B.P. Application of Rotary Balance Data in the Analysis of High Angle-of-Attack Characteristics, NASA High Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference, 30 October – 1 November 1990, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA.Google Scholar
13. Hultberg, R. Acquisition Technique and Analysis Format for Forced Oscillation Dynamic Data, NASA High Angle-of-Attack Technology Conference, 17-19 September 1996, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA.Google Scholar
14. Hultberg, R. and Player, J.L. An Improved Wind Tunnel Test Technique for Dynamic Data. BAR 00-01.Google Scholar
15. Kay, J. Acquiring and Modelling Unsteady Aerodynamic Characteristics, AIAA 2000-3907, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 14-17 August 2000, Denver, CO, USA.Google Scholar
16. Brandon, J.M. and Foster, J. Recent dynamic measurements and considerations for aerodynamic modelling of fighter airplane configurations, AIAA-1998-4447.Google Scholar
17. O’Rourke, M., Ralston, J.N., Bell, J.W. and Lash, S. PC-Based Simulation of the F-16/MATV, AIAA 97-3728, AIAA Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 11-13 August 1997, New Orleans, LA, UK.Google Scholar
18. Kay, J., Ralston, J.N. and Lash, S. Development of Non-Linear, Low-Speed Aerodynamic Model for the F-16/VISTA, AIAA 97-3576, AIAA Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 11-13 August 1997, New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
19. Ralston, J.N. and O’Connor, C. F-18A/B Low-Speed Aerodynamic Math Model for Simulation of Aircraft Motions Between −90° and +90° Angles of Attack, Including: I. Rotational Terms, II. Inverted Static & Oscillatory Terms, III. Incremental Store Loading Effects, IV. Two-Place F-18B Canopy Effect, Bihrle Applied Research 88-5, May 1988.Google Scholar
20. O’Connor, C, Ralston, J. and Fitzgerald, T. Evaluation of the NAWC/AD F/A-18C/D Simulation Including Database Coverage and Dynamic Data Implementation Techniques, AIAA 96-3365, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 29-31 July, 1996, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
21. Jaramillo, P. Flight Test Analysis and Simulation of the F-18D Falling Leaf Motion, AIAA 96-3371, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 29-31 July, 1996, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
22. Jaramillo, P. An Analysis of Falling Leaf Suppression Strategies for the F/A-18D, AIAA 96-3370, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 29-31 July, 1996, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
23. Bihrle, W. and Barnhart, B.P. Spin prediction techniques, J Aircraft, 20, (2), February 1983.Google Scholar
24. Barnhart, B.P., Dickes, E.G., Gingras, D.R. and Ratvasky, T.P. Simulation Model Development for Icing Effects Flight Training, SAE Paper 2002-01-1527.Google Scholar
25. Gingras, D.R., Dickes, D.G., Ratvasky, T.P. and Barnhart, B.P. Modelling of In-Flight Icing Effects for Flight Training, AIAA paper 2002-4605, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 2002.Google Scholar
26. Ratvasky, T.P., Ranaudo, R.J., Barnhart, B.P., Dickes, E.G. and Gingras, D.R. Development and Utility of a Piloted Flight Simulator for Icing Effects Training, NASA TM-2003-212116. April 2003.Google Scholar
27. Barnhart, B.P. and Ratvasky, T.P. Effective Training for Flight in Icing Conditions, NASA TM 2007-214693, March 2007.Google Scholar
28. Cunningham, K. et al Simulation Study of a Commercial Transport Airplane During Stall and Post-Stall Flight, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2004-01-3100.Google Scholar
29. Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 60 Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use; Final Rule, 9 May 2008.Google Scholar
30. JAR-STD-1A Aeroplane Flight Simulators, Amendment 3, Joint Aviation Authorities Committee, 01 July 2003.Google Scholar
31. Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices. Volume I Aeroplanes, ICAO 9625 Edition 3, December 2009.Google Scholar
32. Wilborn, J. and Foster, J. Defining Commercial Transport Loss-of-Control: A Quantitative Approach, AIAA 2004-4811, August 2004.Google Scholar