Aircraft Performance

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 171 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Antonio Concilio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Steven L Morris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Rosario Pecora - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • exploitation of a multifunctional twistable wing trailing edge for Performance improvement of a turboprop 90 seats regional Aircraft
    Aerospace, 2018
    Co-Authors: Francesco Amoroso, Rosario Pecora, Frederic Moens
    Abstract:

    Modern transport Aircraft wings have reached near-peak levels of energy-efficiency and there is still margin for further relevant improvements. A promising strategy for improving Aircraft efficiency is to change the shape of the Aircraft wing in flight in order to maximize its aerodynamic Performance under all operative conditions. In the present work, this has been developed in the framework of the Clean Sky 2 (REG-IADP) European research project, where the authors focused on the design of a multifunctional twistable trailing-edge for a Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) wing. A multifunctional wing trailing-edge is used to improve Aircraft Performance during climb and off-design cruise conditions in response to variations in speed, altitude and other flight parameters. The investigation domain of the novel full-scale device covers 5.15 m along the wing span and the 10% of the local wing chord. Concerning the wing trailing-edge, the preliminary structural and kinematic design process of the actuation system is completely addressed: three rotary brushless motors (placed in root, central and tip sections) are required to activate the inner mechanisms enabling different trailing-edge morphing modes. The structural layout of the thin-walled closed-section composite trailing-edge represents a promising concept, meeting both the conflicting requirements of load-carrying capability and shape adaptivity. Actuation system Performances and aeroelastic deformations, considering both operative aerodynamic and limit load conditions, prove the potential of the proposed structural concept to be energy efficient and lightweight for real Aircraft implementation. Finally, the Performance assessment of the outer natural laminar flow (NLF) wing retrofitted with the multifunctional trailing-edge is performed by high-fidelity aerodynamic analyses. For such an NLF wing, this device can improve airplane aerodynamic efficiency during high speed climb conditions.

  • design and integration sensitivity of a morphing trailing edge on a reference airfoil the effect on high altitude long endurance Aircraft Performance
    Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2017
    Co-Authors: Pierluigi Della Vecchia, Salvatore Corcione, Rosario Pecora, Fabrizio Nicolosi, Ignazio Dimino, Antonio Concilio
    Abstract:

    Trailing edge modification is one of the most effective ways to achieve camber variations. Usual flaps and aileron implement this concept and allow facing the different needs related to take-off, l...

Albert Herndon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • analysis of advanced flight management systems fmss flight management computer fmc field observations trials standard instrument departure with radius to fix rf path terminators
    IEEE AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2012
    Co-Authors: Albert Herndon, Michael Cramer, Tommy Nicholson, Sam Miller, Laura Rodriguez
    Abstract:

    At the request of The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the differences in Performance of various manufacturers' Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and their associated Flight Management Computers (FMCs) have been a focus of research by these authors at The MITRE Corporation since 2004. While published Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are designed according to criteria contained in FAA orders, FMC manufacturers design their systems in accordance with Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) and Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for area navigation systems, Technical Standards Orders (TSOs), Advisory Circulars (AC's), and industry characteristics. Because procedure designers may not consider FMS functional characteristics, differences may occur between the intent of a procedure design in accordance with FAA orders and the actual path produced and flown by an Aircraft's FMC. Exposing such differences is a derivative of MITRE's research. However, the primary purpose is to research and demonstrate variations in Performance of individual FMS products. Another goal of this work is to provide supporting data for the development of instrument procedures where Aircraft operations meet expectations for repeatability and predictability to levels of Performance sufficient to support Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) worldwide and specifically in the National Airspace System (NAS) and the Next Generation (NextGen) environment. Sometimes, due to the nearly independent development of procedure design criteria and Aircraft Performance standards, the paths of various Aircraft on the same procedure do not coincide and may not match the intent of the procedure designer. This paper explores those paths and complements six previous studies, the first conducted in 2006, (all presented at previous Digital Avionics System Conferences) with the basic title of Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials. The previous studies have shown that the flight path differences may result from any or all of the following: variations in FMC equipment installed on the Aircraft; variations and errors in procedure coding in the FMC navigation database; variations in Aircraft to FMC interface and associated Aircraft Performance capabilities; and variations in flight crew training and procedures. The hypothesis common to all of these papers has been that the FMCs built by the major avionics manufacturers and installed as the core of the FMC/FMS combinations in various airframe platforms will perform differently and each paper has attempted to quantify those differences. This paper explores path adherence of radius-to-fix (RF) leg types (path terminators) in a Standard Instrument Departure (SID). At the time of the trial development in December 2011, the RNAV departure from Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport (EHAM) titled SPIJKERBOOR SPY2KZ Runway 24 Departure was the only public SID that incorporated RF leg types in the design. Subsequent to the initiation of this study, another public SID with RF legs was published in February 2012 at Hong Kong International (VHHH). As airspace becomes more complex, the use of RF legs in other than RNP Authorization Required (AR) procedures such as SID's, Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR) and non-AR approaches will become increasingly more important as a tool to navigate obstacle rich and environmentally sensitive areas. The FAA has not approved operators to fly procedure designs with RF legs without RNP AR. However, consideration is being given to implementing an "Advanced RNP" concept which would allow RF leg types under certain restrictions. Criteria exists for RF legs in SID's and FAA AC 90–105, [1] addresses RF leg types in non-AR RNP approach procedures. Additionally, the use of RF leg types is encouraged as a key enabler of Performance-based Navigation (PBN) in the FAA [2]. This paper investigates the use of RF legs in departures by testing how FMCs process curved paths with small arc radii close to the departure end of the runway (DER) while accelerating and ascending in various wind conditions. Controlled field observations trials were made using seventeen FMC avionics test benches at seven major FMC manufacturers and four high fidelity flight simulators at three major airlines. The focus on the subject presented follows The MITRE Corporation's previous analysis of manufacturers' FMC lateral navigation (LNAV), vertical navigation (VNAV), radius-to-fix (RF) path conformance on instrument approaches, lateral and vertical path integration, RNAV off the ground SID's, and RNAV holding. This report contributes data, analysis, conclusions and recommendations to industry and the FAA that may influence criteria development to enhance Performance-based RNAV and RNP operations. It has been confirmed in previous papers and reconfirmed here that despite FMS differences, the resulting Aircraft path Performance is generally within the tolerances of the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria.

  • analysis of advanced flight management systems fms flight management computer fmc field observations trials lateral and vertical path integration
    IEEE AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2009
    Co-Authors: Albert Herndon, Michael Cramer, Tommy Nicholson
    Abstract:

    The differences in Performance of various manufacturers' Flight Management Systems (FMSs) and their associated Flight Management Computers (FMCs) have the potential for significant impact on the air traffic control system and as such need to be examined and reexamined. While Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are designed according to criteria contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) orders, FMC manufacturers build their systems in accordance with Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) [1] and Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) [2] for area navigation systems, Technical Service Orders and Advisory Circulars. It is anticipated that the resulting Performance of the Aircraft FMC will meet the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria. Airlines and air traffic controllers have as their goal flight procedures where Aircraft operations meet expectations for repeatability and predictability to levels of Performance sufficient to support Performance based operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). Sometimes, due to the nearly independent development of procedure design criteria and Aircraft Performance standards, the paths of various Aircraft on the same procedure do not overlap and do not match the expectancy of the procedure designer. These differences may result from any or all of the following: variations in FMC equipment installed on the Aircraft; variations and errors in procedure coding in the FMC navigation database; variations in Aircraft-to-FMC interface and associated Aircraft Performance capabilities; and variations in flight crew training and procedures. The hypothesis of this paper is that the basic FMCs built by avionics manufacturers and installed as the core of the FMC/FMS combinations in various airframe platforms perform differently and we will attempt to quantify those differences. This paper focuses on aspects of lateral and vertical flight FMC Performance when processing mandatory block altitudes, Aircraft bank angle on turns above flight level nineteen thousand five hundred feet (FL195), determining the vertical transition point at fly-by waypoints, and execution of Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs). Public instrument procedures flown using RNAV are used as the baseline for measuring Performance variations. Controlled field observations trials were made using thirteen test benches and four simulators at seven major FMC manufacturers and three airlines. The intent of this report is to contribute technical data as a foundation for the acceptance of mandatory block altitude usage in RNAV and Basic RNP procedures; allow Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Arrival (STAR) procedure design criteria to utilize bank angles in excess of five degrees above FL195; satisfy an open FAA/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum issue concerning the vertical transition point at fly-by waypoints; and assess FMC processing of an Optimized Profile Descent.

  • analysis of advanced flight management systems fms flight management computer fmc field observations trials radius to fix path terminators
    IEEE AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2008
    Co-Authors: Albert Herndon, Michael Cramer, Kevin Sprong
    Abstract:

    The differences in Performance of various manufacturers' flight management systems (FMSs) and their associated flight management computers (FMCs) have the potential for significant impact on the air traffic control system and as such need to be examined and reexamined. While area navigation (RNAV) and required navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and routes are designed according to criteria contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) orders, FMC manufacturers build their systems in accordance with Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) and Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for area navigation systems, Technical Service Orders and Advisory Circulars. Despite the disconnect it is anticipated that the resulting Performance of the Aircraft FMC will meet the procedure design requirements identified in the FAA criteria. The goal is procedures where Aircraft operations meet expectations for repeatability and predictability to levels of Performance sufficient to support Performance based operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). Sometimes, due to the nearly independent development of procedure design criteria and Aircraft Performance standards, the paths of various Aircraft on the same procedure do not overlap and do not match the expectancy of the procedure designer. Studies referenced in this paper such as Assessment of Operational Differences Among Flight Management Systems, Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials, Lateral Path, and Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials, Vertical Path have shown that these differences may result from any or all of the following: variations in FMC equipment installed on the Aircraft; variations and errors in procedure coding in the FMC navigation database; variations in Aircraft to FMC interface and associated Aircraft Performance capabilities; and variations in flight crew training and procedures. The basic FMCs built by the major manufacturers and installed as the core of the FMC/FMS combinations in various airframe platforms will perform differently and this paper attempts to quantify those differences. It focuses on standard Performance-based public RNAV (RNP) instrument approach procedures with coded ARINC Navigation Systems Database Specification 424, Radius-to-Fix path terminators (RF), also labeled as RF leg types, and their variations in Performance. Criteria currently allows the use of RF leg types only in RNP Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR) procedures. A Trial Plan was developed and controlled field observations trials were made using eleven test benches at seven major FMC manufacturers. The focus is on RF path terminators used in public procedures at Long Beach Daugherty Airport, California, and follows previous analysis of manufacturers' FMC lateral navigation (LNAV) path conformance described in Analysis of Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials, Lateral Path and analysis of vertical navigation (VNAV) path conformance described in Analysis of Advanced Flight Managements Systems (FMSs), FMC Field Observations Trials, Vertical Path. It is hoped that the results of this research will contribute to the eventual acceptance of RF usage in Basic RNP and RNAV criteria.

Pierluigi Della Vecchia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.