CJA 1566 No.

of Pages 10
23 June 2020
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2020), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx
1

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

3 Water takeoff performance calculation method for

4 amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight
5 Lixin WANG a, Haipeng YIN a, Kun YANG a, Hailiang LIU a,*, Jianghui ZHU b

a
6 School of Aeronautics Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b
7 Chinese Flight Test Establishment, Xi’ an 710089, China

8 Received 19 September 2019; revised 24 March 2020; accepted 24 March 2020

9

11 KEYWORDS Abstract Owing to the strong coupling among the hydrodynamic forces, aerodynamic forces and
12
13 Amphibious aircraft; motion of amphibious aircraft during the water takeoff process, the water takeoff performance is
14 Digital virtual flight; difficult to calculate accurately and quickly. Based on an analysis of the dynamics and kinematics
15 Hydrodynamic; characteristics of amphibious aircraft and the hydrodynamic theory of high-speed planing hulls, a
16 Pilot model; suitable mathematical model is established for calculating the hydrodynamics of aircraft during
17 Water takeoff performance water takeoff. A pilot model is designed to illustrate how pilots are affected by the lack of visual
reference and the necessity to simultaneously control the pitch angle, flight velocity and other
parameters during water takeoff. Combined with the aerodynamic model, engine thrust model
and aircraft motion model, a digital virtual flight simulation model is developed for amphibious air-
craft during water takeoff, and a calculation method for the water takeoff performance of amphibi-
ous aircraft is proposed based on digital virtual flight. Typical performance indicators, such as the
liftoff time and liftoff distance, can be obtained via digital virtual flight calculations. A comparison
of the measured flight test data and the calculation results shows that the calculation error is less
than 10%, which verifies the correctness and accuracy of the proposed method. This method can
be used for the preliminary evaluation of airworthiness compliance of amphibious aircraft design
schemes, and the relevant calculation results can also provide a theoretical reference for the formu-
lation of flight test plans for airworthiness certification.
18 Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 19

* Corresponding author. Amphibious aircraft are affected not only by aerodynamic 20

E-mail address: liuhailiangbl@126.com (H. LIU). forces, engine thrust and gravity but also by hydrodynamic 21
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. forces during the water takeoff process. The motion parame- 22
ters of aircraft, such as the pitch angle, draft and flight veloc- 23
ity, vary rapidly with time, and the variation of these 24
parameters has a great influence on hydrodynamic and aerody- 25
Production and hosting by Elsevier namic forces.1 Obviously, there is a strong coupling among 26

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
1000-9361 Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
2 L. WANG et al.

27 hydrodynamic forces, aerodynamic forces and aircraft motion. these aircraft have a large mass, a deep draft and a complex 89
28 Complicated dynamics and kinematics characteristics make it bottom shape. During the whole process of water takeoff, both 90
29 difficult to accurately calculate hydrodynamic forces.2 A land- the buoyancy and buoyancy center position vary greatly. 91
30 plane can usually be treated as a particle, without considering Therefore, it is necessary to treat hydrodynamic lift and buoy- 92
31 the attitude change of the aircraft, when the ground takeoff ancy as two independent variables to accurately calculate the 93
32 performance is calculated.3,4 However, the fuselage of an changes in the buoyancy, buoyancy center, hydrodynamic lift 94
33 amphibious aircraft transitions from submergence in water and hydrodynamic pressure center of an aircraft. Then, the 95
34 to separation from water during water takeoff, and the pitch abovementioned studies assume that the aircraft is always in 96
35 angle of the aircraft will change greatly. The hydrodynamic a stable planing state, ignoring the damping effect of water 97
36 and aerodynamic forces of amphibious aircraft are all related on the fuselage when hydrodynamic forces are calculated.22 98
37 to flight attitude. Obviously, the particle flight performance Consequently, the existing calculation methods are difficult 99
38 calculation method of landplanes cannot represent the real to precisely describe the motion characteristics of amphibious 100
39 dynamics and kinematics characteristics of amphibious air- aircraft during water takeoff. In addition, the influence of pilot 101
40 craft during water takeoff process. Hence, this method is not operations on the takeoff performance of aircraft is not con- 102
41 suitable for calculating water takeoff performance. Moreover, sidered in the abovementioned methods. 103
42 pilots lack visual reference while taking off from water, and the This paper proposes a calculation method for the water 104
43 interference of waves reduces a pilot’s ability to identify air- takeoff performance of amphibious aircraft based on digital 105
44 craft motion parameters.5,6 According to the requirements of virtual flight.24,25 First, mathematical models of buoyancy 106
45 airworthiness, pilots also need to control the pitch angle, flight and hydrodynamic lift are established. The calculation method 107
46 velocity and other parameters in real time.7 Obviously, the of the longitudinal hydrodynamic damping moment is pro- 108
47 operation of a pilot during water takeoff is quite different from posed. Combined with the calculation method of hydrody- 109
48 that during ground takeoff, and these differences have a great namic resistance and hydrodynamic pressure center, a 110
49 influence on the takeoff performance. The above problems mathematical model suitable for calculating the hydrodynamic 111
50 bring great difficulties to the calculation of the water takeoff forces of the amphibious aircraft is formed. Second, the 112
51 performance of amphibious aircraft, and no systematic theo- amphibious aircraft water takeoff motion model is built by 113
52 retical method for this calculation has been developed to establishing a mathematical model of aerodynamic forces 114
53 date.8,9 Consequently, a new calculation method of water take- and engine thrust. Third, aimed at the problem that the pilot 115
54 off performance needs to be proposed for amphibious aircraft, needs to control the pitch angle, flight velocity and other tar- 116
55 which can be used for airworthiness compliance pre-evaluation gets simultaneously and that the wave interference can reduce 117
56 of the overall scheme at the conceptual design stage to avoid the pilot’s ability to identify the motion parameters of the air- 118
57 defects in flight performance and flight safety and can also craft, a pilot model suited for water takeoff is developed. 119
58 be used to provide data support for the formulation of flight Finally, a digital virtual flight simulation calculation model 120
59 test plans for airworthiness certification.10,11 for the water takeoff is formed. The time-domain response 121
60 Very little published research has discussed the calculation of each motion parameter during the water takeoff process is 122
61 method for the water takeoff performance of amphibious air- obtained through the calculation for an amphibious aircraft, 123
62 craft in recent years. Related works have mainly focused on and typical takeoff performance indicators, such as the liftoff 124
63 the hydrodynamic estimation of seaplanes12,13 and the stability velocity and liftoff distance, can be determined. The calcula- 125
64 evaluation of planing hulls14,15 through towing tank experi- tion results are compared with flight test data, and the accu- 126
65 ments and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) meth- racy and reliability of the proposed method are verified. 127
66 ods.16–19 Although the experimental approach provides more
67 accurate data, it also requires longer cycles and more funds. 2. Hydrodynamic model for water takeoff 128
68 The CFD method involves dynamic mesh technology and
69 two-phase flow solution, which increases the computing time The hydrodynamic forces acting on amphibious aircraft dur- 129
70 and computational complexity needed.8,20 Owing to the disad- ing water takeoff include buoyancy, hydrodynamic lift and 130
71 vantages above, an empirical method based on the test data of hydrodynamic resistance. Based on the mechanics characteris- 131
72 planing hulls can therefore be used for estimating takeoff per- tics of the amphibious aircraft mentioned in the introduction, 132
73 formance, which is more suitable for the conceptual design in this section, the mathematical models of the buoyancy, 133
74 stage.21 Sun and Ma8 proposed a resistance evaluation method buoyancy center, hydrodynamic lift, hydrodynamic resistance, 134
75 for flying boats, including the effect of aerodynamic distribu- hydrodynamic pressure center and hydrodynamic damping 135
76 tion, and they calculated the takeoff running distance of a moment of the aircraft are established by adaptively modifying 136
77 small flying boat with the proposed method. Zhu22 and Wu the existing mechanics models from planing hulls, ships, and 137
78 et al.23 developed prediction methods for the water takeoff conventional landplanes. 138
79 motion performance of a seaplane, respectively, based on dif-
80 ferent hydrodynamic estimation formulas of high-speed plan- 2.1. Buoyancy and buoyancy center 139
81 ing hulls.
82 However, semi-theoretical and semi-empirical formulas of
83 high-speed planing hulls were used in the above studies for During the water takeoff process of amphibious aircraft, the 140

84 hydrodynamic calculation. In these approaches, the buoyancy buoyancy decreases gradually with decreasing waterline 141

85 and hydrodynamic lift are estimated as a quantity that cannot height. Buoyancy Fbu can be calculated by Archimedes law 142

86 accurately calculate the buoyancy and buoyancy center posi- as follows: 143
144
87 tion of aircraft. Unlike high-speed planing hulls, amphibious Fbu ¼ qw gVp ð1Þ 146
88 aircraft have wings, horizontal tails and vertical tails; hence,

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight 3

147 where qw is the density of water, g is the acceleration of grav-

148 ity, and Vp is the submerged volume of the aircraft fuselage.
149 Assume that qw and g are unchanged during takeoff, and the
150 calculation of buoyancy can be converted to the calculation
151 of the submerged volume of the aircraft fuselage Vp. The seg-
152 mentation volume method is used to obtain Vp to guarantee
153 the speed and accuracy of the calculation.26 First, the fuselage
154 is divided into 21 longitudinal sections with a spacing of Dx
155 along the length direction of the fuselage, as shown in Fig. 1.
156 Second, the immersion area Ai of the ith longitudinal sec-
157 tion is calculated based on the flight altitude, attitude angle
Fig. 2 Immersion area of a longitudinal section.
158 and configuration data of the fuselage, as shown in Fig. 2.
159 Finally, the submerged volume Ai Dx of each longitudinal
160 section is calculated, and the submerged volume of the fuselage 2.2.1. Modification of wetted length-beam ratio 194
161 Vp can be obtained by accumulating the submerged volume of
When the planing surface is taxiing on water, waves rise in 195
162 all sections along the length direction of the fuselage by using
front of the surface, thereby causing the running wetted 196
163 the idea of numerical integration. The mathematical model of
length-beam ratio k1 to be larger than the calm-water length- 197
164 Vp can be expressed as
beam ratio k, as shown in Fig. 3. 198
165
X
21 Based on Ref. 28, k1 can be calculated with the following 199
Vp ¼ Ai Dx ð2Þ empirical equations: 200
167 i¼1 ( 201
k1 ¼ 1:6k  0:3k2 06k61
168 According to the definition of the buoyancy center, the ð5Þ
k1 ¼ k þ 0:3 16k64 203
169 mathematical model of the longitudinal position of the buoy-
170 ancy center xB can be written as Furthermore, due to the deadrise angle at the bottom of the 204
171
amphibious aircraft fuselage shown in Fig. 2, the configuration 205
X
21 X
21
xB ¼ MYOZ =Vp ¼ ð xi Ai DxÞ=ð Ai DxÞ ð3Þ of the amphibious aircraft is different from a planing surface. 206
173 i¼1 i¼1 Consequently, the wetted length-beam ratio needs to be mod- 207
ified according to the deadrise angle with the following 208
174 where MYOZ is the static moment of the submerged volume to equation: 209
210
175 the YOZ plane and xi is the x coordinate of the ith longitudinal 0:8
section. k1 n
176 kb ¼ ½1  0:29ðsinbÞ0:28 ½1 þ 1:35ðsinbÞ0:44 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
cosb B FrB 212

177 2.2. Hydrodynamic lift where n is the distance from the center of gravity to the step, B 213
is the beam of the planning surface, and FrB is the width 214
Froude number.27 215
178 Generally, the bottom of the fuselage is usually abstracted as a
After the modification of the wetted length-beam ratio, the 216
179 planing surface for force analysis when the amphibious aircraft
wetted area of the amphibious aircraft can be obtained by 217
180 is taxiing on the water.26 Based on the studies of hydrody- 218
181 namic loads on flat-bottom planing surfaces with high aspect Sw ¼ kb B2 ð7Þ 220
182 ratio, the wetted length-beam ratio and the pitch angle are
183 modified by combining the configuration features of the
2.2.2. Modification of pitch angle 221
184 amphibious aircraft and the kinematic characteristics of the
185 water takeoff process. The hydrodynamic lift mathematical Unlike a planing surface, the bow of an amphibious aircraft 222
186 model is obtained in this subsection. bends upward, and the lift surface corresponds to a curved 223

187 According to Ref. 27, the hydrodynamic lift of the planing planing surface, as shown in Fig. 1. The actual angle of attack 224

188 surface with high aspect ratio Lps can be estimated by of the bow is larger when the front intersection of the waterline 225
189 and keel is in the curved section of the keel line.29 Hence, the 226
0:7ph pitch angle needs to be modified as 227
Lps ¼ 0:5qw V2ps S ð4Þ
191 1 þ 1:4k  228
hb ¼ h Ls 6 Lb
ð8Þ
192 where Vps is the velocity of the planing surface, S is the wetted hb ¼ h þ kb  ðLs  Lb Þ Ls > Lb 230
193 area, k is the wetted length-beam ratio, and h is the pitch angle.

Fig. 1 Longitudinal sections of an amphibious aircraft fuselage. Fig. 3 Wave rise on a flat planing surface.

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
4 L. WANG et al.
293
231 where hb is the modified pitch angle, Ls is the wetted length of Rs ¼ 0:5qw V2 Aas Cf s ð15Þ 295
232 the forebody keel, Lb is the length of the straight line segment
where Cfs is the friction coefficient, which is calculated accord- 296
233 of the forebody keel, and kb is the modification coefficient,
ing to the Reynolds number of the spray areas.32 297
234 which is related to the form of the bow.
235 Moreover, the influence of the deadrise angle of the
2.4. Hydrodynamic pressure center 298
236 amphibious aircraft also needs to be considered when the pitch
237 angle is modified. Through towing tank experiments of a
238 scaled ship model, the modification approach can be expressed Experimental studies of the hydrodynamic pressure center of 299
239 by the following empirical formula:27 the planing surface demonstrated that the distance from the 300
240
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pressure center to the stern is related to the wetted length, 301
0:15ðsinbÞ0:8 ð1  0:17 kb cosbÞ which is expressed as27
hb ¼ hb þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð9Þ 302
303
242 Fr0:3
B kb cosb
3 k0:865
lp ¼ l þ 0:08 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi l
1
ð16Þ
243 Combining Eqs. (4), (6), (7) and (9), the mathematical 4 FrB 305
244 model of hydrodynamic lift for amphibious aircraft during
245 the water takeoff process is obtained as where lp is the distance from the pressure center to the stern 306
246 and l is the wetted length of the planing surface. 307
0:35phb For the amphibious aircraft, the hydrodynamic forces are
Lw ¼ qw V2 kb B2 ð10Þ 308
248 1 þ 1:4kb mainly generated by the forebody of the fuselage.22 Therefore, 309

249 where V is the flight velocity. while Eq. (16) is used to calculate the position of the hydrody- 310
namic pressure center, l is taken as the mean wetted length of 311

250 2.3. Hydrodynamic resistance the fuselage,29 and lp is calculated as the distance from the 312
hydrodynamic pressure center to the step. Combined with 313
the data of the keel, the longitudinal and vertical positions 314
251 Based on Froude’s theory, the hydrodynamic resistance of of the hydrodynamic pressure center can be calculated. 315
252 ships can be divided into three parts: frictional resistance, vis-
253 cous pressure resistance and wave resistance.20 Compared to 2.5. Hydrodynamic damping moment 316
254 general ships, amphibious aircraft can produce heavy spray
255 on both sides of the fuselage during the water takeoff process.
256 Spray resistance is also an important component of hydrody- The parameters of planing hulls, such as the draft and wetted 317

257 namic resistance. Therefore, the hydrodynamic resistance of area, change slightly during planing. The hydrodynamic damp- 318

258 amphibious aircraft is the sum of frictional resistance, viscous ing moment is not considered in the existing hydrodynamic 319

259 pressure resistance, wave resistance and spray resistance,26 calculation methods. However, these parameters change 320

260 which is expressed as rapidly during water takeoff, and the damping effect of water 321
261 on aircraft motion cannot be ignored.22 Therefore, a formula 322
263 Rw ¼ Rf þ Rvp þ Rwa þ Rs ð11Þ for quantifying the longitudinal hydrodynamic damping 323

264 In this formula, Rf, Rvp and Rwa can be converted to calcu- moment is developed in this subsection based on the approach 324

265 late the corresponding resistance coefficients Cf, Cvp and Cwa. of calculating the aerodynamic damping moment of aircraft, 325

266 For the frictional resistance coefficient Cf, the 1957-ITTC thereby filling the void in traditional hydrodynamic analysis 326

267 equation30 is used, which is given as methods. 327

268 The longitudinal aerodynamic damping moment of a gen- 328
0:075 eral aircraft Mq can be expressed as
Cf ¼ ð12Þ 329
330
270 ðlgðReÞ  2Þ2
Mq ¼ 0:5Cmq qVSa c2 q ð17Þ 332
271 where Re is the Reynolds number.
272 For the viscous pressure resistance coefficient Cvp, the where Cmq is the longitudinal aerodynamic damping coeffi- 333

273 experimental results show that the ratio of the viscous pressure cient, q is the air density, Sa is the wing area, c is the length 334

274 resistance coefficient Cvp to the friction resistance coefficient Cf of the mean aerodynamic chord, and q is the pitch rate.33 335

275 is a constant k: The mechanism of the hydrodynamic damping moment is 336

276 similar to that of the aerodynamic damping moment. There- 337
278 Cvp ¼ kCf ð13Þ fore, the mathematical model of the hydrodynamic pitch 338

279 where k is called the shape coefficient, which is related to the damping moment Mqw is obtained by replacing q with qw, Sa 339

280 shape of the fuselage.20 with Sw and c with l in Eq. (17): 340
341
281 For a given amphibious aircraft, the wave resistance coeffi- Mqw ¼ Cmqw qw VSw l q 2
ð18Þ 343
282 cient Cwa under different Froude numbers can be calculated by
283 the Michell integration method:31 where Cmqw is the longitudinal hydrodynamic damping 344
284 coefficient. 345
286 Cwa ¼ fðFrÞ ð14Þ
287 For the calculation method of the spray resistance of 3. Amphibious aircraft motion model 346
288 amphibious aircraft, one can refer to the empirical formulas
289 of planing hulls. Based on the calculation formula of the area The motion of amphibious aircraft is affected by hydrody- 347
290 wetted by spray Aas obtained from relevant experiments, the namic forces, aerodynamic forces, engine thrust and gravity 348
291 mathematical model of the spray resistance Rs can be estab- during the water takeoff process. Therefore, the motion model 349
292 lished as of amphibious aircraft can be obtained by adding buoyancy 350

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight 5

351 Fbu, hydrodynamic lift Lw, hydrodynamic resistance Rw, dynamic models are established separately in current research. 397
352 hydrodynamic moment Mw and hydrodynamic damping According to Ref. 2, this approach can obtain sufficient calcu- 398
353 moment Mqw to the general longitudinal dynamic equation:33 lation accuracy. 399
354 8 In the water takeoff process, the aerodynamic force of the 400
< mu_ ¼ mðrv  qwÞ  mg sin h  Db þ Fbu sin h  Rw þ FTx
>
amphibious aircraft is smaller than the hydrodynamic force 401
mw_ ¼ mðqu  pvÞ þ mg cos h  Lb  Fbu cos h  Lw  FTz when the flight velocity is low. As the flight velocity increases,
>
:
402
Iy q_ ¼ ðIz  Ix Þrp þ Izx ðp2  r2 Þ þ Ma þ Mw þ Mq w þ MT the hydrodynamic force decreases, and the aerodynamic force 403

356 ð19Þ increases rapidly with the decrease of the draft of aircraft. 404
After leaving the water, the aircraft flies according to the aero- 405
357 where m is the mass of the aircraft; Ix, Iy and Iz are the dynamic force, engine thrust and gravity. 406
358 moments of inertia; Izx is the product of inertia; u, v and w
359 are the scalar components of the airspeed; p and r are the roll
360 rate and yaw rate, respectively; Db and Lb are the scalar com- 3.2. Hydrodynamic model 407

361 ponents of the aerodynamic force in the body axes; Ma is the

362 aerodynamic pitching moment; FTx and FTz are the scalar The hydrodynamic forces in the motion model include buoy- 408
363 components of the engine thrust in the body axes; MT is the ancy Fbu, hydrodynamic lift Lw and hydrodynamic resistance 409
364 pitching moment of the engine. This model accurately Rw, which are calculated using Eqs. (1), (10) and (11), 410
365 describes the force condition of an amphibious aircraft during respectively. 411
366 water takeoff and can be used in many fields, such as the cal- The hydrodynamic moment in the motion model includes 412
367 culation of flight performance, the calculation of stability and the hydrodynamic moment Mw and the hydrodynamic damp- 413
368 maneuverability, and the evaluation of airworthiness ing moment Mqw. The hydrodynamic moment Mw is obtained 414
369 compliance. by adding the moment generated by the buoyancy Fbu, the 415
370 When the aircraft leaves the water, the hydrodynamic terms hydrodynamic lift Lw and the hydrodynamic drag Rw, and 416
371 in Eq. (19), including buoyancy, hydrodynamic lift, hydrody- the corresponding mathematical model is expressed as 417
372 namic resistance, hydrodynamic moment and hydrodynamic 418

373 damping moment, are all reduced to 0, and the model will be Mw ¼ Fbu  xB þ Lw  xp þ Rw  zp ð22Þ 420

374 simplified as the longitudinal motion model of aerial flight.

where xB is the position of the buoyancy center, which is cal- 421
culated with Eq. (3), and xp and zp are the longitudinal and 422
375 3.1. Aerodynamic model
vertical distances from the hydrodynamic pressure center to 423
the center of gravity, respectively, which are calculated accord- 424
376 The formulas for calculating the aerodynamic forces and ing to the hydrodynamic pressure center model and the posi- 425
377 moments of amphibious aircraft during the water takeoff pro- tion of the center of gravity. The hydrodynamic pitch 426
378 cess are damping moment Mqw is calculated by Eq. (18). 427
379 8
When the flight velocity is low, the gravity of the aircraft is
< L ¼ 0:5qV SCL
> 2 428
mainly balanced by buoyancy. As the flight velocity gradually 429
D ¼ 0:5qV2 SCD ð20Þ
>
: increases, the hydrodynamic lift and hydrodynamic resistance 430
381 Ma ¼ 0:5qV2 ScCm acting on the fuselage gradually increase, the draft of the air- 431

382 where L and D are the aerodynamic lift and resistance, respec- craft gradually decreases, the buoyancy decreases, and the 432

383 tively, CL and CD are the aerodynamic coefficients, and Cm is gravity of the aircraft is mainly balanced by the hydrodynamic 433

384 the aerodynamic moment coefficient. The aerodynamic coeffi- lift. With the further increase of the flight velocity, the hydro- 434

385 cients and aerodynamic moment coefficient are obtained from dynamic components are reduced due to the reduction of the 435

386 wind tunnel tests, which are composed of basic terms, control wetted area. The hydrodynamic forces are reduced to 0 after 436

387 surface increment terms, dynamic derivative terms and ground the aircraft leaves the water. 437

388 effect modification terms:

389
8 3.3. Engine thrust model
> CL ¼ CL:basic ða; b; CT Þ þ DCL:ctr ða; b; CT ; de ; df Þ 438
>
>
>
> þCLa_ a_ þ CLq q þ DCL:ground ða; b; CT ; HÞCL
>
>
>
> During the water takeoff process, the pilot gradually increases 439
>
> ¼ CL:basic ða; b; CT Þ þ DCL:ctr ða; b; CT ; de ; df Þ
>
> the throttle until the engine reaches the peak conditions. The 440
< þCLa_ a_ þ CLq q þ DCL:ground ða; b; CT ; HÞ
ð21Þ aircraft remains in this state until it leaves the water. The for- 441
>
> C ¼ CD:basic ða; b; CT Þ þ DCD:ctr ða; b; CT ; de ; df Þ mulas for calculating the thrust and moment generated by the
>
>
D 442
>
> þDCD:ground ða; b; CT ; df ; HÞ engines are
>
>
443
>
> 8 444
>
> C ¼ Cm:basic ða; b; CT Þ þ DCm:ctr ða; b; CT ; de ; df Þ
>
:
m
< FTx ¼ nT Tðdp ; H; MaÞcosuT
>
391 þCma_ a_ þ Cmq q þ DCm:ground ða; b; CT ; HÞ
FTz ¼ nT Tðdp ; H; MaÞsinuT ð23Þ
>
:
392 Since the amphibious aircraft taxis at the interface of air MT ¼ nT Tðdp ; H; MaÞlT 446
393 and water, the calculation of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
394 forces is a transient two-phase flow problem. However, it is where nT is the number of working engines; T is the thrust of a 447
395 difficult to accurately estimate the influence between aerody- single engine, which is a function of the throttle dp, flight atti- 448
396 namic and hydrodynamic forces. The aerodynamic and hydro- tude H, and Mach number Ma; uT is the mounting angle of the 449
engine; lT is the distance between the center of gravity and the 450
thrust line. 451

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
6 L. WANG et al.

452 To simulate the response characteristics of the engine, the a second-order system with a natural frequency of 10 rad/s 501
453 relationship between the actual throttle dp and the command and a damping ratio of 0.707. 502
503
454 of throttle dpc is shown as 2
455 10
1 Gn ¼ ð25Þ
dp ¼ dpc ð24Þ s2 þ 2  0:707  10s þ 102 505
457 sp s þ 1
458 where sp is the time constant of the engine, which affects the 4.1. Visual cue model 506
459 response characteristics of the engine, and s is the complex
460 variable in the transfer function. Under different wave conditions, a pilot’s ability to identify 507
aircraft motion parameters will change accordingly. The 508
461 4. Pilot model for water takeoff higher the wave level, the greater the error in the visual infor- 509
mation acquired by the pilot. Therefore, a visual cue model 510
462 The pilot model is a mathematical model describing the human needs to be applied to the pilot model, and the structure of this 511
463 pilot’s operational behavior to the aircraft, which gives specific model is shown in Fig. 5. 512
464 control input according to the current flight mission require- The visual cue model is intended to simulate the errors 513
465 ments and the flight state of the aircraft. Unlike ground take- caused by the human pilot in acquiring visual signals by intro- 514
466 off, the pilot lacks visual references during water takeoff, and ducing random numbers. The random number generated in 515
467 the waves can interfere with the motion of the aircraft and the Fig. 5 is subject to a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with a 516
468 pilot’s vision, which makes it more difficult for pilots to iden- variance of the parameter dvarv. The quality of the visual cues 517
469 tify the motion parameters of the aircraft and reduces their is quantified by the value of dvarv. The larger the value, the 518
470 perception of the motion state. Moreover, the pilot needs to worse the visual cue. For amphibious aircraft, the value of 519
471 control multiple targets simultaneously: the pilot not only dvarv is mainly affected by sea waves, which need to be 520
472 needs to adjust the elevator in real time to ensure that the pitch selected according to the sea wave conditions. The saturation 521
473 angle is within the stable boundary and avoid causing longitu- limits in the visual cue model are set to twice the variance of 522
474 dinal unstable motion but also needs to control the flight the zero mean, which can filter out unreasonable random num- 523
475 velocity and roll angle to avoid the heavy spray or the contact bers. A low-pass filter is used to filter the high-frequency com- 524
476 between the float and the water. These differences affect the ponent of the signal to avoid unreasonable high-frequency 525
477 pilot’s operational behavior and subsequently affect the water pilot control input. 526
478 takeoff performance of the aircraft.
479 Aimed at the abovementioned features, a pilot model suit- 4.2. Gain reduction factor 527
480 able for amphibious aircraft during water takeoff is established
481 to complete the closed-loop simulation based on the multi-axis During water takeoff, pilots need to simultaneously control 528
482 tasks pilot model theory proposed by Hess and Marchesi.34 multiple targets, such as the pitch angle, flight velocity and roll 529
483 The interference of the above factors on pilot operations is angle, which distracts the pilot’s attention and decreases the 530
484 characterized by the design of a visual cue model and gain pilot’s control gains. In addition, this simultaneous control 531
485 reduction factor. The structure of the pilot model is shown also affects a pilot’s perception of flight states and eventually 532
486 in Fig. 4. leads to poor control effects. 533
487 In Fig. 4, hr is the pitch angle reference command, which is Research done by Hess indicates that multi-axis tracking 534
488 designed according to the porpoising stability limit of the air- induces increased human pilot remnant and decreased pilot 535
489 craft; Vr is the velocity reference command, which is designed control gain.35 Therefore, the gain reduction factor f is defined 536
490 based on the velocity characteristics needed to be simulated as 537
491 during the water takeoff process; V(h), V(q) and V(V) are 538

492 the visual cue models of the pitch angle, pitch rate and flight f ¼ 1 þ 10ðdvarv þ 0:01nÞ ð26Þ 540

493 velocity, respectively, which are used to characterize the reduc- where n is the number of channels being controlled. 541
494 tion in pilot’s perception of flight state parameters; Kh , Kq and For the water takeoff process, the longitudinal control is 542
495 KV are the control gains, and the selection approach of the the main control objective; however, the slipstream of the 543
496 pilot model gains can be found in Ref. 35; f is the gain reduc- engine induces a wash flow on the wing. Moreover, wind 544
497 tion factor, which represents the decline in a pilot’s control and waves usually occur in actual flight. Therefore, the lateral 545
498 gain caused by multi-axis control tasks and environmental axes of the amphibious aircraft need to be controlled simulta- 546
499 interference; Gn represents a simplified model of the pilot’s neously to guarantee lateral stability, and the independent con- 547
500 neuromotor dynamics in the limb, which can be expressed as trol channels include throttle, pitch, roll and yaw; n is taken as 548
4 in Eq. (26). 549

Fig. 4 Structure of pilot model for water takeoff. Fig. 5 Structure of visual cue model.

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight 7

550 The establishment of a visual cue model and a gain reduc- culation results show that the liftoff time is 32.6 s and the lift- 597
551 tion factor affects the pilot’s operator dynamics in three off velocity is 50.7 m/s. 598
552 aspects: it increases the time delay of the pilot’s input, reduces In the climbing phase, the flight altitude increases rapidly, 599
553 the open-loop crossover frequency of the pilot-aircraft system, and the velocity increases slightly. In the flight test, the flight 600
554 and increases the error-injected remnant.35 Compared with the time to the screen height (15.24 m) is 38.4 s, 3 and the flight 601
555 other kinds of pilot models, such as the McRuer model and the velocity is 55.1 m/s at this time. The calculation results show 602
556 optimal control model, the established pilot model can reflect that the time to the screen height is 37.6 s, and the flight veloc- 603
557 the characteristics of multi-objective pursuit control, and the ity at this time is 56.7 m/s. 604
558 parameters of the model can be adjusted according to wave Obviously, the calculation results of flight altitude and 605
559 condition, which is suitable for simulating a pilot’s operational velocity are in good agreement with the flight test data, indicat- 606
560 behavior of an amphibious aircraft during water takeoff. ing that the digital virtual flight method can reproduce the 607
561 In the water takeoff process, the dynamic pressure is small variation characteristics of flight altitude and velocity during 608
562 when the flight velocity is low, and the moment generated by water takeoff. 609
563 the control surface is limited. Hence, the pilot’s ability to con-
564 trol the aircraft attitude is also limited; As the flight velocity (2) Liftoff distance 610
565 increases gradually, the deflection of the control surface will 611
566 have a greater impact on the aircraft attitude and then affect The liftoff distance in the flight test is 709 m, and the liftoff 612
567 the flight performance calculation results. distance calculated by the digital virtual flight simulation is 613
690 m; this 19 m difference corresponds to a relative error of 614
568 5. Comparison of calculated and experimental results 2.7% in the calculation. 615

569 Through the proposed method, the hydrodynamic, aerody- (3) Pitch angle and pitch rate 616
617
570 namic, engine thrust, aircraft motion and pilot models are
571 established to form the water takeoff digital virtual flight sim- As power is applied, the increasing velocity generates an 618

572 ulation model by using the data of the towing tank experi- increasing hydrodynamic lift, and the nose-up moment pro- 619

573 ments, wind tunnel test, engine thrust and configuration duced by the hydrodynamic lift increases gradually because 620

574 from a typical amphibious aircraft. Fig. 6 illustrates the overall the hydrodynamic pressure center is in front of the center of 621

575 structure of the simulation model. The elevator actuator is rep- gravity. Therefore, the pitch angle of the aircraft increases 622

576 resented by a first-order inertia link with a time constant se. until reaching a peak value. In the vicinity of the peak of the 623

577 Because the flight control system was not installed during the pitch angle, the hydrodynamic resistance reaches the maxi- 624

578 test flight, the mathematical model of the flight control system mum value in the whole takeoff process, which is referred to 625

579 was not established in this paper. as the hump.5 In the flight test, the peak time of the pitch angle 626

580 The flight test was conducted under glassy water and calm is 17.9 s, the peak value of the pitch angle is 7.5° and the max- 627

581 wind conditions. Initially, the aircraft was taxiing on the water imum pitch rate is 2.7 (°)/s. Through the digital virtual flight 628

582 at a velocity of 8.1 m/s and a pitch angle of 3.7°. The flaps simulation calculation, the peak time of the pitch angle is 629

583 remained unchanged at 20° during the whole takeoff process. 18.1 s, the peak value of the pitch angle is 7.6°, and the maxi- 630

584 The calculation results of flight velocity, flight altitude, taxi- mum pitch rate is 2.3 (°)/s. 631

585 ing distance, pitch angle, pitch rate, load factor, elevator and After passing over the hump, the planing area of the air- 632

586 throttle are compared with the flight test data, as shown in craft forebody decreases as the draft is further reduced. The 633

587 Fig. 7. In the calculation results, the liftoff time is the time hydrodynamic pressure center shifts back, and the nose-up 634

588 when the wetted length-beam ratio of the amphibious aircraft moment generated by the hydrodynamic forces decreases. 635

589 is equal to 0. Meanwhile, the hydrodynamic resistance also produces a 636

nose-down moment. Hence, the pitch angle decreases gradu- 637

590 (1) Flight altitude and flight velocity ally until the aircraft leaves the water. In the flight test, the 638

591
pitch angle is 4.2° when the aircraft becomes airborne, and 639

592 The water takeoff process can be divided into two phases: the simulation result is 3.8°. 640

593 the planing phase and the climbing phase. In the planing Fig. 7 (d) and (e) show that the pitch angle and pitch rate 641

594 phase, the velocity of the aircraft increases rapidly, and the responses calculated by the digital virtual flight method can 642

595 altitude increases slightly. In the flight test, the aircraft leaves accurately reproduce the unique motion characteristics during 643

596 the water at 33.1 s, and the liftoff velocity is 49.8 m/s. The cal- water takeoff, which are different from those during ground 644
takeoff. 645

(4) Load factor 646

647
From 0 s to 18 s, the pilot gradually increases the throttle, 648
and the tangential load factor gradually increases from 0.12 649
to 0.28, which indicates the acceleration of the amphibious air- 650
craft. The tangential load factor reaches the maximum value of 651
0.28 at 18.1 s in the flight test. The maximum value of the tan- 652
gential load factor in the simulation is 0.27 at 17.9 s. After 653
passing over the hump, the thrust of the engine reaches a max- 654
Fig. 6 Structure of digital virtual flight simulation model. imum value and remains unchanged, and the tangential over- 655

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
8 L. WANG et al.

Fig. 7 Comparison of time-domain responses of motion parameters between calculation and experiment.

656 load obtained from the flight test and calculation is basically In the simulated responses, the elevator angle increases from 677
657 unchanged. After 30 s in the flight test and calculation results, 2.15° to 10°. In this phase, the pitch angle of the aircraft 678
658 the engine thrust decreases slightly with increasing flight veloc- increases rapidly. 679
659 ity. As a result, the tangential overload decreases slowly. Between 15 s and 20 s, the peak of the pitch angle appears, 680
660 The normal load factor varies slightly in the first 15 s, and and the pilot properly pushes forward the control stick to 681
661 there is a peak at the hump speed. The normal load factor avoid the porpoising caused by excessive pitch angle. After 682
662 obtained from the flight test decreases to 0.86 at 18 s, and 20 s, the elevator angle is adjusted according to the required 683
663 the calculated result decreases to 0.89 at 18 s. After passing planing attitude. 684
664 over the hump, the normal load factor stabilizes to approxi- After the amphibious aircraft leaves the water at 33 s, the 685
665 mately 1. pilot reduces the elevator angle to establish the pitch attitude 686
666 Obviously, the overload obtained by the digital virtual for the best rate of climb. In the flight test, the elevator angle 687
667 flight simulation can reproduce the variation characteristics decreases from 9° to 0°, and in the simulation, the elevator 688
668 of overload during water takeoff. angle decreases from 8° to 0°. 689
In the flight test data and calculation results, the throttle 690
669 (5) Operations response gradually increases from ground idling to the peak 691
670 conditions at 25 s and then remains unchanged. Afterwards, 692
671 From 0 s to 10 s in the water takeoff process, the pilot grad- the throttle decreases to 80% when the aircraft leaves the water 693
672 ually increases the throttle and slightly pushes forward the at 37 s. 694
673 control stick to make the aircraft accelerate smoothly and Fig. 7 (h) and (i) compare the flight test data and simulation 695
674 avoid the additional resistance produced by excessive pitch results of the elevator and the throttle during water takeoff 696
675 angle. From 10 s to 15 s, the pilot pulls aft control stick. In process. Obviously, the calculation results are in good agree- 697
676 the flight test, the elevator angle increases from 2.5° to 10.5°.

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight 9

3. Ojha SK. Flight performance of aircraft. Reston: AIAA;1998. p. 742

Table 1 Comparison of calculation results and flight test data. 377-88. 743
Performance indicator Flight test Calculation Error (%) 4. Nicolai L, Carichner G. Fundamentals of aircraft and airship 744
design, Volume 1-aircraft design. Reston: AIAA 2012;255–67. 745
Liftoff time (s) 33.1 32.6 1.2
5. Administration FA. Seaplane, skiplane, and float/ski equipped 746
Liftoff velocity (m/s) 49.8 50.7 1.8
helicopter operations handbook. Washington, D.C.: FAA; 2011. 747
Screen height time (s) 38.4 37.6 2.1
Report No.: FAA-H-8083-23. 748
Screen height velocity (m/s) 55.1 56.7 2.9
6. Rhea PL. Review of design aspects and challenges of efficient and 749
Liftoff distance (m) 709 690 2.7
quiet amphibious aircraft. 5th international seminar of aerospace 750
Peak pitch angle (°) 7.5 7.6 1.3
science and technology, 2018. 751
Time of peak (s) 17.9 18.1 1.2
7. Federal Aviation Administration. Airworthiness Standards: 752
Liftoff pitch angle (°) 4.2 3.8 9.5
Transport Category Part 25, Subpart B: Ground and water 753
handling characteristics. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation 754
Administration; 2003. p. 31–4. 755
8. Sun JJ, Ma DL. Resistance evaluation for flying boats sliding at 756
698 ment with the flight test data, which reproduce the pilot’s oper- medium and high speed in calm water. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut 757
699 ational behavior during the whole takeoff process. Astronaut 2015;41(5):925–9 [Chinese]. 758
700 The calculation results of the typical water takeoff perfor- 9. Wu DW, Wu Z, Zhang LD, et al. Safety and airworthiness design 759

701 mance indicators are compared with the flight test results, as of ultra-light and very light amphibious air-crafts. The interna- 760
tional symposium on aircraft airworthiness. 2nd, 2011. 761
702 shown in Table 1.
10. Chicken SH. Conceptual design methodologies for waterborne 762
703 Obviously, the calculation results are in good agreement
and amphibious aircraft [dissertation]. Cranfield: Cranfield 763
704 with the flight test data, and the corresponding error is within University; 1999. 764
705 10% for all performance indicators. 11. He XF, Ai JL. Taxiing stability verification and airworthiness 765
certification for amphibious aircraft. Sci China Inform Sci 2019;62 766
706 6. Conclusions (1) 010207. 767
12. Dala L. Dynamic stability of a seaplane in takeoff. J Aircraft 768
2015;52(3):964–71. 769
708
707 (1) By establishing the buoyancy and hydrodynamic lift
13. Ito K, Dhaene T, Hirakawa Y, et al. Longitudinal stability 770
709 model separately, the accuracy of the longitudinal augmentation of seaplanes in planing. J Aircraft 2016;53 771
710 hydrodynamic calculation is improved. A formula for (5):1332–42. 772
711 calculating the hydrodynamic damping moment is devel- 14. Svahn D. Performance prediction of hulls with transverse steps 773
712 oped, which solves the problem of ignoring the damping [dissertation]. Sweden: Marina System Centre for Naval Architec- 774
713 effect of water in the traditional methods. A pilot model ture; 2009. 775
714 suitable for calculating water takeoff performance is 15. Yousefi R, Shafaghat R, Shakeri M. Hydrodynamic analysis 776
715 built to illustrate the effect of multi-objective pursuit techniques for high-speed planing hulls. Appl Ocean Res 2013;42 777

716 control, lack of visual reference and wave interference. (4):105–13. 778

717 A method for calculating the water takeoff performance 16. Savitsky D, Brown PW. Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation 779
of planing hulls in smooth and rough water. Mar Technol 1976;23 780
718 based on digital virtual flight is proposed.
(4):381–400. 781
719 (2) The time-domain calculation results and flight test data 17. Qiu LJ, Song WB. Efficient multiobjective optimization of 782
720 of motion parameters (such as the pitch angle and flight amphibious aircraft fuselage steps with decoupled hydrodynamic 783
721 velocity) during the water takeoff process are compared and aerodynamic analysis models. J Aerosp Eng 2016;29 784
722 and analyzed. The results show that the calculated (3):04015071. 785
723 results of typical motion characteristics (such as the 18. Mousaviraad SM, Wang ZY, Stern F. URANS studies of 786
724 peak value of pitch angle and the time of peak) are in hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on high-speed 787
725 good agreement with the flight test data. Therefore, planing hulls in calm water and waves for deep and shallow 788

726 the calculated results can accurately reproduce the conditions. Appl Ocean Res 2015;2015(51):222–40. 789

727 motion characteristics of amphibious aircraft during 19. Liu XM, Huang YT, Ou ZC, et al. Study on dynamic character- 790
istics of amphibious aircraft’s water landing. International confer- 791
728 water takeoff.
ence on mechanics and civil engineering, 2014. 792
729 (3) A comparison of the calculation results of typical take- 20. Ma DL, Li Z, Yang MQ, et al. Sea-unammned aerial vehicle 793
730 off performance indicators in the water takeoff process takeoff characteristics analysis method based on approximate 794
731 and the flight test data shows that the calculation errors equilibrium hypothesis. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace 795
732 of each parameter are below 10%, which shows that the Eng 2019;233(3):916–27. 796
733 method proposed in this paper can objectively and accu- 21. Zheng ST, Ye ZM, Jin J, et al. 6-DOF motion system of 797
734 rately calculate water takeoff performance. amphibious vehicle driving simulator motion parameter design 798
735 research. Key Eng Mater 2011;460(461):704–9. 799
22. Zhu YG. Modeling and taking off control design for a unmanned 800
flying boat [dissertation]. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy 801
736 References of Sciences; 2013 [Chinese]. 802
23. Wu QW, Gao XP, Wu B. A method to evaluate the resistance of 803
737 1. Rocca GL. Seaplanes and amphibians. The Netherlands: John seaplane sliding in still water. Ship Ocean Eng 2013;42(3):154–7 804
738 Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010. p. 5–12. [Chinese]. 805
739 2. Qiu LJ, Song WB. Efficient decoupled hydrodynamic and aero- 24. Liu F, Wang LX, Tan XS. Digital virtual flight testing and 806
740 dynamic analysis of amphibious aircraft water takeoff process. J evaluation method for flight characteristics airworthiness compli- 807
741 Aircraft 2013;50(5):1369–79. ance of civil aircraft based on HQRM. Chin J Aeronaut 2015;28 808
(1):112–20. 809

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
 CJA 1566 No. of Pages 10
23 June 2020
10 L. WANG et al.

810 25. Liu HL, Wang LX. Assessment of longitudinal ground stability 30. Leyva C, Leonel A. Seaplane conceptual design and sizing 824
811 and control for civil aircraft based on digital virtual flight testing [dissertation]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow; 2012. 825
812 method. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 2015;36(5):1432–41 31. Michell JH. The wave-resistance of a ship. Phil Mag 1998;5 826
813 [Chinese]. (45):106–23. 827
814 26. Chu LT. Seaplane hydrodynamic design. Beijing: Aviation Indus- 32. Savitsky D, Delorme MF, Datla R. Inclusion of whisker spray 828
815 try Press; 2014. p. 10-9 [Chinese]. drag in performance prediction method for high-speed planing 829
816 27. Zhao LE, Xie YH. Principle and design of high performance ships. hulls. Mar Technol 2017;44(1):35–56. 830
817 Beijing: National Defense Industry Press; 2009. p. 236-77 33. Etkin B, Reid LD. Dynamics of flight stability and control. 3rd 831
818 [Chinese]. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1996. p. 93–160. 832
819 28. Savisky D. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol 34. Hess RA, Marchesi F. Analytical assessment of flight simulator 833
820 1964;1(1):71–95. fidelity using pilot models. J Guid Control Dyn 2009;32(3):760–70. 834
821 29. Zhu YG, Fan GL, Yi JQ. Modeling longitudinal aerodynamic and 35. Hess RA. Obtaining multi-loop pursuit-control pilot models from 835
822 hydrodynamic effects of a flying boat in calm water. International computer simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng 836
823 conference on mechatronics & automation, 2011. 2008;222(2):189–99. 837
838

Please cite this article in press as: WANG L et al. Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chin J Aero-
naut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019