Despite the important role and highly frequent appearance of the helicopter in modern ship operations, the flight mission with take-off and landing of helicopters to ships, especially ships with small-sized decks, could be very challenging and potentially hazardous. Many researches on ship-helicopter dynamic interface (DI) have been conducted, and significant progress has been made. In this paper, a comprehensive and systematical review of the factors affecting the flying qualities of ship-borne helicopter and pilot workload during taking off and landing is derived from these efforts to date. The factors from two aspects, including the ship environment and the pilot-helicopter interface, are covered to address how these factors affect the helicopter handling qualities and pilot workload, primarily focusing on aerodynamic issues. The insight into these factors is not only of great significance for conducting take-off and landing tasks safely but also helpful to establish suitable fidelity criteria and guidelines for the modelling and simulation of the ship-helicopter DI environment.
KääriäCHWangYWhiteMD, et al.An experimental technique for evaluating the aerodynamic impact of ship superstructures on helicopter operations. Ocean Eng2013; 61: 97–108.
2.
ForrestJSOwenI. An investigation of ship airwakes using Detached-Eddy Simulation. Comput Fluids2010; 39(4): 656–673.
3.
ZanSJ. On aerodynamic modelling and simulation of the dynamic interface. Proc Imeche G J Aerosp Eng, 2005; 219, 393–410.
4.
CaricoGDFangRFinchWP, et al.Helicopter/ship qualification testing. Report no. RTO-AG-300-V22, 2003.
5.
SnyderMRKangHSBurksJS. Comparison of experimental and computational ship air wakes for a naval research vessel. In: 30th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, USA: 2012: AIAA 2012-2897.
6.
TuttleRM. A study of helicopter landing behavior on small ships. J Am Helicopter Soc1976; 21(2): 2–11.
7.
ColwellJL. Real time ship motion criteria for maritime helicopter operations. In: ICAS 2002 Congress, Toronto, Canada, 8-13 Sept 2002.
8.
ColwellJL. Effects of flight deck motion in high seas on the hovering maritime helicopter. In: AHS 58th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, 11–13 Jun 2002.
9.
ColwellJL. Maritime helicopter ship motion criteria - challenges for operational guidance. In: Challenges for Operational Guidance - NATO RTO Systems Concepts and Integration Panel SCI-120, Berlin, Germany: 2002.
10.
HealeyJV. Simulating the helicopter-ship interface as an alternative to current methods of determining the safe operating envelopes. Report no. NPS 67-86-003, 1986.
11.
MemonWAWhiteMDOwenI. Visual-vestibular motion cueing assessment in maritime rotorcraft flight simulators. In: 45th European Rotorcraft Forum, Warsaw, Poland, 17–20 September 2019.
12.
HoencampAHoltenTPrasadJVR. Relevant aspects of helicopter-ship operations. In: 34th European Rotorcraft Forum, Liverpool, UK, 16–18 September 2008.
13.
WeiFBaitisEMyersW. Analytical Modeling of SH-2F Helicopter Shipboard Operation. In: NATO Symposium on Flight Mechanics symposium on “Aircraft Ship Operation”, Seville, Spain, 20–23 May 1991.
14.
BiskadurosJL. Flow visualization of the airwake of an oscillating generic ship model. MS thesis, USA: Naval Postgraduate School, 1987.
15.
JohnsMKHealeyJV. The airwake of a DD-963 class destroyer. Nav Eng J1989; 101(3): 36–42.
16.
SydneyAJRamseyJPMilluzzoJI. Time-Resolved PIV Measurements of Ship Motion and Orientation Effects on Airwake Development. In: 35th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Denver, USA, 5-9 June 2017: AIAA 2017-4230.
17.
YuanWWallALeeR. Simulations of unsteady airwakes behind ships in motion. In: 31st Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 9–14 September 2018.
18.
DooleyGMartinJEBuchholzJHJ, et al.Ship airwakes in waves and motions and effects on helicopter operation. Comput Fluids2020; 208: 104627.
19.
HanDWangHGaoZ. Aeroelastic analysis of a shipboard helicopter rotor with ship motions during engagement and disengagement operations. Aerosp Sci Technol2012; 16: 1–9.
20.
HealeyJV. The Aerodynamics of Ship Superstructures. In: NATO Symposium on Flight Mechanics symposium on “Aircraft Ship Operation”, Seville, Spain, 20–23 May 1991.
21.
HealeyJV. Establishing a database for flight in the wakes of structures. J Aircraft1992; 29(4): 559–564.
22.
RhoadesMMHealeyJV. Flight deck aerodynamics of a non-aviation ship. J Aircraft1992; 29(4): 619–626.
23.
ZanSJ. Surface flow topology for a simple frigate shape. Can Aeronaut Space J2001; 47(1): 33–43.
24.
MoraRB. Experimental investigation of the flow on a simple frigate shape (SFS). Sci World J2014; 2014:818132.
25.
ZanSJSymsGCheneyBT. Analysis of patrol frigate airwakes. In: NATO/RTO/AVT Symposium on “Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating Near or in the Air-Sea Interface”, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 5–8 October 1998.
26.
HealeyJV. A data base for flight in the wake of a ship. In: 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, USA, 6-9 January 1992: AIAA-92-0295.
27.
RahimpourMOshkaiP. The effects of unsteady change in wind direction on the airflow over the helicopter platform of a polar icebreaker. Ocean Eng2019; 172: 22–30.
28.
PolskySABrunerCW. Time-accurate Computational Simulations of an LHA Ship Airwake. In: 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit, Denver, USA, 14-17 August 2000: AIAA-2000-4126.
29.
WatsonNAKellyMFOwenI, et al.Computational and experimental modelling study of the unsteady airflow over the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Ocean Eng2019; 172: 562–574.
30.
SymsGF. Numerical Simulation of Frigate Airwakes. Int J Comput Fluid D2004; 18(2): 199–207.
31.
Sezer-UzolNSharmaALongLN. Computational fluid dynamics simulations of ship airwake. Proc Imeche G J Aerosp Eng2005; 219(5): 369–392.
32.
KangHSSnyderMRMiklosovicDS, et al.Comparisons of in situ ship air wakes with wind tunnel measurements and computational fluid dynamics simulations. J Am Helicopter Soc2016; 61(2): 1–16.
DriverDMSeegmillerHLMarvinJG. Time-dependent behavior of a reattaching shear layer. AIAA J1987; 25(7): 914–919.
35.
TinneyCEUkeileyLS. A study of a 3-D double backward-facing step. Exp Fluids2009; 47(3): 427–438.
36.
CAA paper No. 97009. A questionnaire survey of workload and safety hazards associated with North Sea and Irish Sea helicopter operations. 1997.
37.
ZanSJGarryEA. Wind tunnel measurements of the airwake behind a model of a generic frigate. Report NRC-IAR-LTR-AA-13, 1994.
38.
McRuerDT. Interdisciplinary interactions and dynamic systems integration. Int J Control, 1994; 59(1): 3–12.
39.
MiklosovicDSKangHSSnyderMR. Ship air wake wind tunnel test results. In: 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, HI, USA, 27–30 Jun 2011: 2011: AIAA 2011-3155.
40.
HoencampAMarilenaDP. Helicopter-ship qualification testing for the NH90 NFH Helicopter. In: 38th European Rotorcraft Forum, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4–7 September 2012.
41.
KellerJA. Analysis and control of the transient aeroelastic response of rotors during shipboard engagement and disengagement operations. PhD thesis, USA: Pennsylvania State University, 2001.
42.
ZanSJSymsGCheneyBT. Analysis of patrol frigate airwakes. In: NATO/RTO/AVT Symposium on “Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating Near or in the Air-Sea Interface”, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 5–8 October 1998.
43.
FangRBooyPJA. First of Class Trials on Board the Royal Netherlands Navy Landing Platform dock (LPD) "Hr. Ms. Rotterdam" with the Westland Lynx SH-14D Helicopter. Report NLRCR-2000-610. 2000.
44.
CAP 437. Offshore helicopter landing areas-guidance on standards. 2013.
45.
LumsdenRBWilkinsonCHPadfieldGD. Challenges at the helicopter-ship dynamic interface. In: 24th European Rotorcraft Forum, France, 15–17 September 1998.
46.
ZhaoRRongJLiH, et al.Entropy-based detached-eddy simulation of the airwake over a simple frigate shape. Adv Mech Eng2015; 7 (11): 1–13.
47.
LandsbergAMBorisJPSandbergW, et al.Analysis of the nonlinear coupling effects of a helicopter downwash with an unsteady ship airwake. In: 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, USA, 9-12 January 1995: AIAA 1995-0047.
48.
LandsbergAMSandbergWCYoungTR, et al.DDG-51 Flt-IIA airwake study part 2: hangar interior flow. Report NRL/MR/6410-96-7898, 1996.
49.
RenirieLTHoekstraT. Helicopter-ship qualification testing. J Am Helicopter Soc1981; 26(1): 26–45.
50.
ScottPKellyMFWhiteMD, et al.Using piloted simulation to measure pilot workload of landing a helicopter on a small ship. In: 43rd European Rotorcraft Forum, Milan, Italy, 12-15 September 2017.
51.
WatsonNAMemonWAOwenI, et al.Dynamic interface modelling and simulation. Part I: preparation and analysis for high-fidelity helicopter-ship flight simulations. In: 8th Asian/Australian Rotorcraft Forum, Ankara, Turkey, 30 October-2 November 2019.
52.
FletcherTMBrownRE. Helicopter main-rotor/tail-rotor interaction and its implications for helicopter directional control. J Am Helicopter Soc2008; 53(2): 125–138.
53.
CaoYZhaoMHuL. Numerical simulation of rotor-fuselage-cylinders interaction in forward flight. J Aircraft2010; 47(4): 1426–1430.
54.
CaoYWuZHuangJ. Numerical simulation of aerodynamic interaction among helicopter rotor, fuselage, engine and body of revolution. Sci China Technol Sc, 2014; 57(6), 1206–1218.
55.
KääriäCH. Investigating the impact of ship superstructure aerodynamics on maritime helicopter operations. PhD thesis, UK: University of Liverpool, 2012.
56.
KääriäCHWangYPadfieldGD, et al.Aerodynamic loading characteristics of a model-scale helicopter in a ship’s airwake. J Aircraft2012; 49(5): 1271–1278.
57.
KääriäCHForrestJSOwenI, et al.Simulated aerodynamic loading of an SH-60B helicopter in a ship’s airwake. In: 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, Hamburg, Germany, 22–25 September 2009.
58.
ZanSJ. Experimental determination of rotor thrust in a ship airwake. J Am Helicopter Soc2002; 47(2): 100–114.
59.
WakefieldNHNewmanSJWilsonPA. Helicopter flight around a ship’s superstructure. Proc Imeche Part G: J Aerospace Eng2002; 216: 13–28.
60.
ForrestJF. Predicting ship-helicopter operating limits using time-accurate cfd ship airwakes and piloted flight simulation. PhD thesis, UK: The University of Liverpool, 2009.
61.
LeeRGZanSJ. Wind tunnel testing of a helicopter fuselage and rotor in a ship airwake. In: 29th European Rotorcraft Forum, Friedrichshafen, Germany, 16–18 September 2003: 2005.
62.
NacakliYLandmanD. Helicopter downwash/frigate airwake interaction flowfield PIV surveys in a low speed wind tunnel. In: AHS 67th Annual Forum & Technology Display, Virginia Beach, USA, 3–5 May 2011.
63.
WangYCurranJPadfieldGD, et al.AirDyn: an instrumented model-scale helicopter for measuring unsteady aerodynamic loading in airwakes. Meas Sci Technol2011; 22: 045901.
64.
ShaferDMGheeTA. Active and passive flow control over the flight deck of small naval vessels. In: 35th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Toronto, Canada, 6-9 June 2005: AIAA 2005-5265.
65.
ForrestJSKääriäCHOwenI. Determining the impact of hangar-edge modifications on ship-helicopter operations using offline and piloted helicopter flight simulation. In: AHS 66th Annual Forum & Technology Display, Phoenix, USA, 11–13 May 2010.
66.
ForrestJSKääriäCHOwenI. Evaluating ship superstructure aerodynamics for maritime helicopter operations through CFD and flight simulation. Aeronaut J2016; 120 (1232): 1578–1603.
67.
CzerwiecRMPolskySA. LHA airwake wind tunnel and CFD comparison with and without bow flap. In: 22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit, Providence, USA, 16-19 August 2004: AIAA 2004-4832.
68.
LandmanDLamarJESwiftR. Particle image velocimetry measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of deck-edge columnar vortex generators on aircraft carriers. Report no. RTO-MP-AVT-124, 2005.
69.
FindlayDBGheeT. Experimental investigation of ship airwake flow control for a us navy flight II-A class Destroyer (DDG). In: 3rd AIAA Flow Control Conference, San Francisco, USA, 5-8 June 2006: AIAA 2006-3501.
70.
GreenwellDIBarrettRV. Inclined surface for control of ship airwakes. In: 3rd AIAA Flow Control Conference, San Francisco, California, 5-8 June 2006: AIAA 2006-6502.
71.
KääriäCHWangYCurranJ, et al.AirDyn: an airwake dynamometer for measuring the impact of ship geometry on helicopter operations. In: 36th European Rotorcraft Forum, Paris, France, 7-9 September 2010.
72.
KääriäCHForrestJSOwenI. Assessing the suitability of ship designs for helicopter operations using piloted flight simulation. In: 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, Milano, Italy, 13–15 September 2011.
73.
MoraRBMeseguerJ. Flow in the near airwake of a modified frigate. Proc Imeche Part G: J Aerosp Eng2015; 229(6): 1003–1012.
74.
MoraRBConesaALozanoI. Simple frigate shape plasma flow control. Proc Imeche Part G J Aerosp Eng2016; 230(14): 2693–2699.
75.
Bardera-MoraRBarcala-MontejanoMARodríguez-SevillanoA, et al.Passive flow control over the ski-jump of aircraft carriers. Ocean Eng2016; 144: 134–141.
76.
BarderaRRodríguez-SevillanoALeón-CaleroM, et al.Three-dimensional characterization of passive flow control devices over an aircraft carrier ski-jump ramp. Proc Imeche Part G J Aerosp Eng2018; 232(15): 2737–2744.
77.
BarderaRLeón-CaleroMNova-TriguerosJ. Columnar vortex generator for flow control over a ski-jump ramp. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow2018; 28(5): 1156–1168.
78.
Matías-GarcíaJGFranchini-LonghiSGBarderaR. Vortex generators and active flow control in the aft-deck of a Frigate. In: 8th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences, Madrid, Spain, 1–4 July 2019.
79.
BarderaR. Optimization of a columnar vortex generator installed over an aircraft carrier ski-jump ramp. Proc Imeche M J Eng Maritime Environ2020; 234(1): 223–230.
80.
LandsbergASandbergWC. DDG-51 Flt-IIA airwake study part 3: Temperature field analysis for baseline and upgrade configurations. Report NRL/MR/6401-00-8432, 2000.
81.
CAA Paper 99004. Research on offshore helideck environmental issues. 2000.
82.
ScottPWhiteMDOwenI. Unsteady CFD modelling of ship engine exhaust gases and over-deck air temperatures, and the implications for maritime helicopter operations. In: AHS 71st Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, USA, 5–7 May 2015.
83.
NORSOK Standard C-004. Helicopter deck on offshore installation. 2013.
84.
WuZCaoYIsmailM. Gust loads on aircraft. Aeronaut J2019; 123(1266): 1216–1274.
85.
CaoYLiGSheridanJ. Airflow hazard prediction for helicopter flight in icing condition. Proc Imeche Part G J Aerosp Eng2014; 228: 147–154.
86.
WuZCaoY. Aerodynamic study of aerofoil and wing in simulated rain environment via a two-way coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. Aeronaut J2014; 118(1204): 643–668.
87.
ForrestJSOwenIPadfieldGD, et al.Ship-helicopter operating limits prediction using piloted flight simulation and time-accurate airwakes. J Aircraft2012; 49(4): 1020–1031.
88.
ForrestJSHodgeSJOwenI, et al.Towards fully simulated ship-helicopter operating limits: the importance of ship airwake fidelity. In: AHS 64th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada, 29 April-1 May 2008.
89.
PadfieldGDWilkinsonCH. Handling qualities criteria for maritime helicopter operations. In: AHS 53rd Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, USA, 29 April-1 May 1997.
90.
ADS-33E-PRF. Aeronautical design standard performance specification handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft. 2000.
91.
HohRH. ACAH Augmentation as a means to Alleviate Spatial Disorientation for Low Speed and Hover in Helicopters. In: AHS International Meeting on Advanced Rotorcraft Technology and Disaster Relief, Gifu, Japan, 21–23 April 1998.
92.
PadfieldGD. Controlling tension between performance and safety in helicopter operations a perspective on flying qualities. In: 24th European Rotorcraft Forum, Marseilles, France, 15-17 September 1998.
93.
HallJR. The need for platform motion in modern piloted flight training simulators. Report no. Tech Memo FM35, 1989.
HodgeSJPerfectPPadfieldGD, et al.Optimising the vestibular cues available from a short stroke Hexapod motion platform. In: AHS 67th Annual Forum, Virginia Beach, USA: 2011.
96.
WangYWhiteMOwenI, et al.Effects of visual and motion cues in flight simulation of ship-borne helicopter operations. CEAS Aeronaut J2013; 4: 385–396.
