Journal Pre-proofs

Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious aircraft based

on digital virtual flight

Lixin Wang, Haipeng Yin, Kun Yang, Hailiang Liu, Jianghui Zhu

PII: S1000-9361(20)30195-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019
Reference: CJA 1566

To appear in: Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

Received Date: 19 September 2019

Revised Date: 24 March 2020
Accepted Date: 24 March 2020

Please cite this article as: L. Wang, H. Yin, K. Yang, H. Liu, J. Zhu, Water takeoff performance calculation
method for amphibious aircraft based on digital virtual flight, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics (2020), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.019

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cja

Water takeoff performance calculation method for amphibious

aircraft based on digital virtual flight
Lixin WANG a, Haipeng YIN a, Kun YANG a, Hailiang LIU a,*, Jianghui ZHU b
a School of Aeronautics Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b Chinese Flight Test Establishment, Xi’ an 710089, China

Received 23 September 2019; revised 10 February 2020; accepted 8 March 2020

Abstract

Owing to the strong coupling among the hydrodynamic forces, aerodynamic forces and motion of amphibious
aircraft during the water takeoff process, the water takeoff performance is difficult to calculate accurately and quickly.
Based on an analysis of the dynamics and kinematics characteristics of amphibious aircraft and the hydrodynamic
theory of high-speed planing hulls, a suitable mathematical model is established for calculating the hydrodynamics of
aircraft during 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 aircraft during water takeoff, and a calculation method for the water
takeoff performance of amphibious 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 formulation of flight test plans for airworthiness certification.
Keywords: Amphibious aircraft; Water takeoff performance; Digital virtual flight; Hydrodynamic; Pilot model
*Corresponding author. E-mail address: liuhailiangbl@126.com

1. Introduction1 motion. Complicated dynamics and kinematics

Amphibious aircraft are affected not only by
aerodynamic forces, engine thrust and gravity but also
by hydrodynamic forces during the water takeoff
process. The motion parameters of aircraft, such as the
pitch angle, draft and flight velocity, vary rapidly with
time, and the variation of these parameters has a great
influence on hydrodynamic and aerodynamic forces. 1
Obviously, there is a strong coupling among
hydrodynamic forces, aerodynamic forces and aircraft
characteristics make it difficult to accurately calculate
hydrodynamic forces. 2 A landplane can usually be
treated as a particle, without considering the attitude
change of the aircraft, when the ground takeoff
performance is calculated. 3,4 However, the fuselage of
an amphibious aircraft transitions from submergence
in water to separation from water during water takeoff,
and the pitch angle of the aircraft will change greatly.
The hydrodynamic and aerodynamic forces of
amphibious aircraft are all related to flight attitude.
Obviously, the particle flight performance calculation
method of landplanes cannot represent the real
·2 · Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
dynamics and kinematics characteristics of
amphibious aircraft during water takeoff process.
Hence, this method is not suitable for calculating
water takeoff performance. Moreover, pilots lack
visual reference while taking off from water, and the
interference of waves reduces a pilot’s ability to
identify aircraft motion parameters. 5,6 According to
the requirements of airworthiness, pilots also need to
control the pitch angle, flight velocity and other
parameters in real time. 7 Obviously, the operation of a
pilot during water takeoff is quite different from that
during ground takeoff, and these differences have a
great influence on the takeoff performance. The above
problems bring great difficulties to the calculation of
the water takeoff performance of amphibious aircraft,
and no systematic theoretical method for this
calculation has been developed to date. 8,9
Consequently, a new calculation method of water
takeoff performance needs to be proposed for
amphibious aircraft, which can be used for
airworthiness compliance pre-evaluation of the overall
scheme at the conceptual design stage to avoid defects
in flight performance and flight safety and can also be
used to provide data support for the formulation of
flight test plans for airworthiness certification. 10,11
Very little published research has discussed the
calculation method for the water takeoff performance
of amphibious aircraft in recent years. Related works
have mainly focused on the hydrodynamic estimation
of seaplanes 12,13 and the stability evaluation of
planing hulls 14,15 through towing tank experiments
and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods.
16-19 Although the experimental approach provides
more accurate data, it also requires longer cycles and
more funds. The CFD method involves dynamic mesh
technology and two-phase flow solution, which
increases the computing time and computational
complexity needed. 8,20 Owing to the disadvantages
above, an empirical method based on the test data of
planing hulls can therefore be used for estimating
takeoff performance, which is more suitable for the
conceptual design stage. 21 Sun and Ma8 proposed a
resistance evaluation method for flying boats,
including the effect of aerodynamic distribution, and
they calculated the takeoff running distance of a small
flying boat with the proposed method. Zhu 22 and Wu
et al. 23 developed prediction methods for the water
takeoff motion performance of a seaplane,
respectively, based on different hydrodynamic
estimation formulas of high-speed planing hulls.
However, semi-theoretical and semi-empirical
formulas of high-speed planing hulls were used in the
above studies for hydrodynamic calculation. In these
approaches, the buoyancy and hydrodynamic lift are
estimated as a quantity that cannot accurately calculate
the buoyancy and buoyancy center position of aircraft.
Unlike high-speed planing hulls, amphibious aircraft
have wings, horizontal tails and vertical tails; hence,
these aircraft have a large mass, a deep draft and a
complex bottom shape. During the whole process of
water takeoff, both the buoyancy and buoyancy center
position vary greatly. Therefore, it is necessary to treat
hydrodynamic lift and buoyancy as two independent
variables to accurately calculate the changes in the
buoyancy, buoyancy center, hydrodynamic lift and
hydrodynamic pressure center of an aircraft. Then, the
abovementioned studies assume that the aircraft is
always in a stable planing state, ignoring the damping
effect of water on the fuselage when hydrodynamic
forces are calculated. 22 Consequently, the existing
calculation methods are difficult to precisely describe
the motion characteristics of amphibious aircraft
during water takeoff. In addition, the influence of pilot
operations on the takeoff performance of aircraft is not
considered in the abovementioned methods.
This paper proposes a calculation method for the
water takeoff performance of amphibious aircraft
based on digital virtual flight. 24,25 First, mathematical
models of buoyancy and hydrodynamic lift are
established. The calculation method of the
longitudinal hydrodynamic damping moment is
proposed. Combined with the calculation method of
hydrodynamic resistance and hydrodynamic pressure
center, a mathematical model suitable for calculating
the hydrodynamic forces of the amphibious aircraft is
formed. Second, the amphibious aircraft water takeoff
motion model is built by establishing a mathematical
model of aerodynamic forces and engine thrust. Third,
aimed at the problem that the pilot needs to control the
pitch angle, flight velocity and other targets
simultaneously and that the wave interference can
reduce the pilot's ability to identify the motion
parameters of the aircraft, a pilot model suited for
water takeoff is developed. Finally, a digital virtual
flight simulation calculation model for the water
takeoff is formed. The time-domain response of each
motion parameter during the water takeoff process is
obtained through the calculation for an amphibious
aircraft, and typical takeoff performance indicators,
such as the liftoff velocity and liftoff distance, can be
determined. The calculation results are compared with
flight test data, and the accuracy and reliability of the
proposed method are verified.
2. Hydrodynamic model for water takeoff
The hydrodynamic forces acting on amphibious
aircraft during water takeoff include buoyancy,
hydrodynamic lift and hydrodynamic resistance. Based
on the mechanics characteristics of the amphibious
aircraft mentioned in the introduction, in this section,
the mathematical models of the buoyancy, buoyancy
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
center, hydrodynamic lift, hydrodynamic resistance,
hydrodynamic pressure center and hydrodynamic
damping moment of the aircraft are established by
adaptively modifying the existing mechanics models
from planing hulls, ships, and conventional
landplanes.
2.1. Buoyancy and buoyancy center
During the water takeoff process of amphibious
aircraft, the buoyancy decreases gradually with
decreasing waterline height. Buoyancy Fbu can be
calculated by Archimedes law as follows:
Fbu   w gV p (1)
where w is the density of water, g is the acceleration
of gravity, and Vp is the submerged volume of the
aircraft fuselage. Assume that w and g are unchanged
during takeoff, and the calculation of buoyancy can be
converted to the calculation of the submerged volume
of the aircraft fuselage Vp. The segmentation volume
method is used to obtain Vp to guarantee the speed and
accuracy of the calculation. 26 First, the fuselage is
divided into 21 longitudinal sections with a spacing of
x along the length direction of the fuselage, as shown
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Longitudinal sections of an amphibious aircraft
fuselage.
Second, the immersion area Ai of the ith
longitudinal section is calculated based on the flight
altitude, attitude angle and configuration data of the
fuselage, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Immersion area of a longitudinal section.
Finally, the submerged volume Ai x of each
longitudinal section is calculated, and the submerged
·3·
volume of the fuselage Vp can be obtained by
accumulating the submerged volume of all sections
along the length direction of the fuselage by using the
idea of numerical integration. The mathematical
model of Vp can be expressed as
21
V p   Ai x (2)
i 1
According to the definition of the buoyancy center,
the mathematical model of the longitudinal position of
the buoyancy center xB can be written as
21 21
xB  M YOZ / V p  ( xi Ai x) / ( Ai x) (3)
i 1 i 1
where MYOZ is the static moment of the submerged
volume to the YOZ plane and xi is the x coordinate of
the ith longitudinal section.
2.2. Hydrodynamic lift
Generally, the bottom of the fuselage is usually
abstracted as a planing surface for force analysis when
the amphibious aircraft is taxiing on the water. 26
Based on the studies of hydrodynamic loads on
flat-bottom planing surfaces with high aspect ratio, the
wetted length-beam ratio and the pitch angle are
modified by combining the configuration features of
the amphibious aircraft and the kinematic
characteristics of the water takeoff process. The
hydrodynamic lift mathematical model is obtained in
this subsection.
According to Ref. 27, the hydrodynamic lift of the
planing surface with high aspect ratio Lps can be
estimated by
0.7π
Lps  0.5 wVps2 S (4)
1  1.4
where Vps is the velocity of the planing surface, S is the
wetted area,  is the wetted length-beam ratio, and  is
the pitch angle.
2.2.1. Modification of wetted length-beam ratio
When the planing surface is taxiing on water, waves
rise in front of the surface, thereby causing the
running wetted length-beam ratio 1 to be larger than
the calm-water length-beam ratio , as shown in Fig.
3.
·4 · Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Fig. 3. Wave rise on a flat planing surface.
Based on Ref. 28, 1 can be calculated with the
following empirical equations:
1  1.6  0.3 2 0   1
 (5)
1    0.3 1   4
Furthermore, due to the deadrise angle at the bottom
of the amphibious aircraft fuselage shown in Fig. 2,
the configuration of the amphibious aircraft is
different from a planing surface. Consequently, the
wetted length-beam ratio needs to be modified
according to the deadrise angle with the following
equation:
10.8
 = [1  0.29(sin  )0.28 ][1  1.35(sin  )0.44
cos  B FrB
(6)
where  is the distance from the center of gravity to
the step, B is the beam of the planning surface, and
FrB is the width Froude number. 27
After the modification of the wetted length-beam
ratio, the wetted area of the amphibious aircraft can be
obtained by
S w   B 2 (7)
2.2.2. Modification of pitch angle
Unlike a planing surface, the bow of an amphibious
aircraft bends upward, and the lift surface corresponds
to a curved planing surface, as shown in Fig. 1. The
actual angle of attack of the bow is larger when the
front intersection of the waterline and keel is in the
curved section of the keel line. 29 Hence, the pitch
angle needs to be modified as
 b   Ls  Lb
 (8)
 b    kb  ( Ls  Lb ) Ls  Lb
where b is the modified pitch angle, Ls is the wetted
length of the forebody keel, Lb is the length of the
straight line segment of the forebody keel, and kb is the
modification coefficient, which is related to the form
of the bow.
Moreover, the influence of the deadrise angle of the
amphibious aircraft also needs to be considered when
the pitch angle is modified. Through towing tank
experiments of a scaled ship model, the modification
approach can be expressed by the following empirical
formula: 27
0.15(sin  )0.8 (1  0.17  cos  )
   b  (9)
FrB0.3  cos 
Combining Eqs. (4), (6), (7) and (9), the
mathematical model of hydrodynamic lift for
amphibious aircraft during the water takeoff process is
obtained as
0.35π 
Lw   wV 2  B 2 (10)
1  1.4
where V is the flight velocity.
2.3. Hydrodynamic resistance
Based on Froude’s theory, the hydrodynamic
resistance of ships can be divided into three parts:
frictional resistance, viscous pressure resistance and
wave resistance. 20 Compared to general ships,
 amphibious aircraft can produce heavy spray on both
]
sides of the fuselage during the water takeoff process.
Spray resistance is also an important component of
hydrodynamic resistance. Therefore, the
hydrodynamic resistance of amphibious aircraft is the
sum of frictional resistance, viscous pressure
resistance, wave resistance and spray resistance, 26
which is expressed as
Rw  Rf  Rvp  Rwa  Rs (11)
In this formula, Rf, Rvp and Rwa can be converted to
calculate the corresponding resistance coefficients Cf,
Cvp and Cwa.
For the frictional resistance coefficient Cf, the
1957-ITTC equation 30 is used, which is given as
0.075
Cf  (12)
(lg( Re)  2) 2
where Re is the Reynolds number.
For the viscous pressure resistance coefficient Cvp,
the experimental results show that the ratio of the
viscous pressure resistance coefficient Cvp to the
friction resistance coefficient Cf is a constant k:
Cvp  kC f (13)
where k is called the shape coefficient, which is related
to the shape of the fuselage. 20
For a given amphibious aircraft, the wave resistance
coefficient Cwa under different Froude numbers can be
calculated by the Michell integration method: 31
Cwa  f ( Fr ) (14)
For the calculation method of the spray resistance of
amphibious aircraft, one can refer to the empirical
formulas of planing hulls. Based on the calculation
formula of the area wetted by spray Aas obtained from
relevant experiments, the mathematical model of the
spray resistance Rs can be established as
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Rs  0.5  wV 2 Aas C f s (15)
where Cfs is the friction coefficient, which is calculated
according to the Reynolds number of the spray areas.
32
2.4. Hydrodynamic pressure center
Experimental studies of the hydrodynamic pressure
center of the planing surface demonstrated that the
distance from the pressure center to the stern is related
to the wetted length, which is expressed as 27
0.865
3 
lp  l  0.08 1 l (16)
4 FrB
where lp is the distance from the pressure center to the
stern and l is the wetted length of the planing surface.
For the amphibious aircraft, the hydrodynamic
forces are mainly generated by the forebody of the
fuselage. 22 Therefore, while Eq. (16) is used to
calculate the position of the hydrodynamic pressure
center, l is taken as the mean wetted length of the
fuselage, 29 and lp is calculated as the distance from
the hydrodynamic pressure center to the step.
Combined with the data of the keel, the longitudinal
and vertical positions of the hydrodynamic pressure
center can be calculated.
2.5. Hydrodynamic damping moment
The parameters of planing hulls, such as the draft and
wetted area, change slightly during planing. The
hydrodynamic damping moment is not considered in
the existing hydrodynamic calculation methods.
However, these parameters change rapidly during
water takeoff, and the damping effect of water on
aircraft motion cannot be ignored. 22 Therefore, a
formula for quantifying the longitudinal hydrodynamic
damping moment is developed in this subsection based
on the approach of calculating the aerodynamic
damping moment of aircraft, thereby filling the void in
traditional hydrodynamic analysis methods.
The longitudinal aerodynamic damping moment of
a general aircraft Mq can be expressed as
M q  0.5Cmq VSa c 2 q (17)
where Cmq is the longitudinal aerodynamic damping
coefficient,  is the air density, Sa is the wing area, c is
the length of the mean aerodynamic chord, and q is
the pitch rate. 33
The mechanism of the hydrodynamic damping
moment is similar to that of the aerodynamic damping
moment. Therefore, the mathematical model of the
hydrodynamic pitch damping moment Mqw is obtained
by replacing  with w, Sa with Sw and c with l in Eq.
·5·
(17):
M qw  Cmqw  wVS w l 2 q (18)
where Cmqw is the longitudinal hydrodynamic damping
coefficient.
3. Amphibious aircraft motion model
The motion of amphibious aircraft is affected by
hydrodynamic forces, aerodynamic forces, engine
thrust and gravity during the water takeoff process.
Therefore, the motion model of amphibious aircraft
can be obtained by adding buoyancy Fbu,
hydrodynamic lift Lw, hydrodynamic resistance Rw,
hydrodynamic moment Mw and hydrodynamic
damping moment Mqw to the general longitudinal
dynamic equation: 33
mu  m(rv  qw)  mg sin   D +F sin   R  F
 b bu w Tx
mw  m(qu  pv)+mg cos   Lb  Fbu cos   Lw  FTz

 I y q  ( I z  I x )rp  I zx ( p  r )  M a  M w  M q w  M T
2 2
(19)
where m is the mass of the aircraft; Ix, Iy and Iz are the
moments of inertia; Izx is the product of inertia; u, v
and w are the scalar components of the airspeed; p and
r are the roll rate and yaw rate, respectively; Db and Lb
are the scalar components of the aerodynamic force in
the body axes; Ma is the aerodynamic pitching
moment; FTx and FTz are the scalar components of the
engine thrust in the body axes; MT is the pitching
moment of the engine. This model accurately describes
the force condition of an amphibious aircraft during
water takeoff and can be used in many fields, such as
the calculation of flight performance, the calculation
of stability and maneuverability, and the evaluation of
airworthiness compliance.
When the aircraft leaves the water, the
hydrodynamic terms in Eq. (19), including buoyancy,
hydrodynamic lift, hydrodynamic resistance,
hydrodynamic moment and hydrodynamic damping
moment, are all reduced to 0, and the model will be
simplified as the longitudinal motion model of aerial
flight.
3.1. Aerodynamic model
The formulas for calculating the aerodynamic forces
and moments of amphibious aircraft during the water
takeoff process are
 L  0.5 V 2 SCL

 D  0.5 V SCD
2
(20)
 M  0.5 V 2 ScC
 a m
·6 ·
where L and D are the aerodynamic lift and resistance,
respectively, CL and CD are the aerodynamic
coefficients, and Cm is the aerodynamic moment
coefficient. The aerodynamic coefficients and
CL  CL.basic ( ,  , CT )  CL.ctr ( ,  , CT ,  e ,  f )  CL   CLq q  CL.ground ( ,  , CT , H )

CD  CD.basic ( ,  , CT )  CD.ctr ( ,  , CT ,  e ,  f )  CD.ground ( ,  , CT ,  f , H )
C  C
 m m.basic ( ,  , CT )  Cm.ctr ( ,  , CT ,  e ,  f )  Cm   Cmq q  Cm.ground ( ,  , CT , H )
Since the amphibious aircraft taxis at the interface
of air and water, the calculation of aerodynamic and
hydrodynamic forces is a transient two-phase flow
problem. However, it is difficult to accurately estimate
the influence between aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
forces. The aerodynamic and hydrodynamic models
are established separately in current research.
According to Ref. 2, this approach can obtain
sufficient calculation accuracy.
In the water takeoff process, the aerodynamic force
of the amphibious aircraft is smaller than the
hydrodynamic force when the flight velocity is low. As
the flight velocity increases, the hydrodynamic force
decreases, and the aerodynamic force increases rapidly
with the decrease of the draft of aircraft. After leaving
the water, the aircraft flies according to the
aerodynamic force, engine thrust and gravity.
3.2. Hydrodynamic model
The hydrodynamic forces in the motion model include
buoyancy Fbu, hydrodynamic lift Lw and hydrodynamic
resistance Rw, which are calculated using Eqs. (1),
(10) and (11), respectively.
The hydrodynamic moment in the motion model
includes the hydrodynamic moment Mw and the
hydrodynamic damping moment Mqw. The
hydrodynamic moment Mw is obtained by adding the
moment generated by the buoyancy Fbu, the
hydrodynamic lift Lw and the hydrodynamic drag Rw,
and the corresponding mathematical model is
expressed as
M w  Fbu  xB  Lw  xp  Rw  zp
where xB is the position of the buoyancy center, which
is calculated with Eq. (3), and xp and zp are the
longitudinal and vertical distances from the
hydrodynamic pressure center to the center of gravity,
respectively, which are calculated according to the
hydrodynamic pressure center model and the position
of the center of gravity. The hydrodynamic pitch
damping moment Mqw is calculated by Eq. (18).
When the flight velocity is low, the gravity of the
aircraft is mainly balanced by buoyancy. As the flight
velocity gradually increases, the hydrodynamic lift and
hydrodynamic resistance acting on the fuselage
gradually increase, the draft of the aircraft gradually
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
aerodynamic moment coefficient are obtained from
wind tunnel tests, which are composed of basic terms,
control surface increment terms, dynamic derivative
terms and ground effect modification terms:
(21)
decreases, the buoyancy decreases, and the gravity of
the aircraft is mainly balanced by the hydrodynamic
lift. With the further increase of the flight velocity, the
hydrodynamic components are reduced due to the
reduction of the wetted area. The hydrodynamic forces
are reduced to 0 after the aircraft leaves the water.
3.3. Engine thrust model
During the water takeoff process, the pilot gradual
ly increases the throttle until the engine reaches t
he peak conditions. The aircraft remains in this st
ate until it leaves the water. The formulas for calc
ulating the thrust and moment generated by the e
ngines are
 FTx  nT T ( p , H , Ma ) cos T

 FTz  nT T ( p , H , Ma ) sin T (23)
 M  n T ( , H , Ma )l
 T T p T
where nT is the number of working engines; T is the
thrust of a single engine, which is a function of the
throttle p, flight attitude H, and Mach number Ma; T
is the mounting angle of the engine; lT is the distance
between the center of gravity and the thrust line.
To simulate the response characteristics of the
engine, the relationship between the actual throttle p
and the command of throttle pc is shown as
1
p   (24)
 p s  1 pc
where p is the time constant of the engine, which
(22) affects the response characteristics of the engine, and s
is the complex variable in the transfer function.
4. Pilot model for water takeoff
The pilot model is a mathematical model describing
the human pilot's operational behavior to the aircraft,
which gives specific control input according to the
current flight mission requirements and the flight state
of the aircraft. Unlike ground takeoff, the pilot lacks
visual references during water takeoff, and the waves
can interfere with the motion of the aircraft and the
pilot's vision, which makes it more difficult for pilots
to identify the motion parameters of the aircraft and
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
reduces their perception of the motion state. Moreover,
the pilot needs to control multiple targets
simultaneously: the pilot not only needs to adjust the
elevator in real time to ensure that the pitch angle is
within the stable boundary and avoid causing
longitudinal unstable motion but also needs to control
the flight velocity and roll angle to avoid the heavy
spray or the contact between the float and the water.
These differences affect the pilot's operational
behavior and subsequently affect the water takeoff
performance of the aircraft.
Aimed at the abovementioned features, a pilot
model suitable for amphibious aircraft during water
takeoff is established to complete the closed-loop
simulation based on the multi-axis tasks pilot model
theory proposed by Hess and Marchesi. 34 The
interference of the above factors on pilot operations is
characterized by the design of a visual cue model and
gain reduction factor. The structure of the pilot model
is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Structure of pilot model for water takeoff.
In Fig.4, r is the pitch angle reference command,
which is designed according to the porpoising stability
limit of the aircraft; Vr is the velocity reference
command, which is designed based on the velocity
characteristics needed to be simulated during the water
takeoff process; V(), V(q) and V(V) are the visual cue
models of the pitch angle, pitch rate and flight
velocity, respectively, which are used to characterize
the reduction in pilot's perception of flight state
parameters; K , Kq and KV are the control gains, and
the selection approach of the pilot model gains can be
found in Ref. 35; f is the gain reduction factor, which
represents the decline in a pilot's control gain caused
by multi-axis control tasks and environmental
interference; Gn represents a simplified model of the
pilot’s neuromotor dynamics in the limb, which can be
expressed as a second-order system with a natural
frequency of 10 rad/s and a damping ratio of 0.707.
102
Gn  (25)
s 2  2  0.707  10 s  102
4.1. Visual cue model
Under different wave conditions, a pilot’s ability to
identify aircraft motion parameters will change
·7·
accordingly. The higher the wave level, the greater the
error in the visual information acquired by the pilot.
Therefore, a visual cue model needs to be applied to
the pilot model, and the structure of this model is
shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Structure of visual cue model.
The visual cue model is intended to simulate the
errors caused by the human pilot in acquiring visual
signals by introducing random numbers. The random
number generated in Fig. 5 is subject to a zero-mean
Gaussian distribution with a variance of the parameter
dvarv. The quality of the visual cues is quantified by
the value of dvarv. The larger the value, the worse the
visual cue. For amphibious aircraft, the value of dvarv
is mainly affected by sea waves, which need to be
selected according to the sea wave conditions. The
saturation limits in the visual cue model are set to
twice the variance of the zero mean, which can filter
out unreasonable random numbers. A low-pass filter is
used to filter the high-frequency component of the
signal to avoid unreasonable high-frequency pilot
control input.
4.2. Gain reduction factor
During water takeoff, pilots need to simultaneously
control multiple targets, such as the pitch angle, flight
velocity and roll angle, which distracts the pilot’s
attention and decreases the pilot’s control gains. In
addition, this simultaneous control also affects a pilot's
perception of flight states and eventually leads to poor
control effects.
Research done by Hess indicates that multi-axis
tracking induces increased human pilot remnant and
decreased pilot control gain. 35 Therefore, the gain
reduction factor f is defined as
f  1  10  dvarv  0.01n  (26)
where n is the number of channels being controlled.
For the water takeoff process, the longitudinal
control is the main control objective; however, the
slipstream of the engine induces a wash flow on the
wing. Moreover, wind and waves usually occur in
actual flight. Therefore, the lateral axes of the
amphibious aircraft need to be controlled
simultaneously to guarantee lateral stability, and the
independent control channels include throttle, pitch,
roll and yaw; n is taken as 4 in Eq. (26).
The establishment of a visual cue model and a gain
reduction factor affects the pilot's operator dynamics in
·8 · Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

three aspects: it increases the time delay of the pilot's aircraft. Fig. 6 illustrates the overall structure of the
input, reduces the open-loop crossover frequency of simulation model. The elevator actuator is represented
the pilot-aircraft system, and increases the by a first-order inertia link with a time constant e.
error-injected remnant. 35 Compared with the other Because the flight control system was not installed
kinds of pilot models, such as the McRuer model and during the test flight, the mathematical model of the
the optimal control model, the established pilot model flight control system was not established in this paper.
can reflect the characteristics of multi-objective pursuit
control, and the parameters of the model can be
adjusted according to wave condition, which is
suitable for simulating a pilot's operational behavior of
an amphibious aircraft during water takeoff.
In the water takeoff process, the dynamic pressure is
small when the flight velocity is low, and the moment
generated by the control surface is limited. Hence, the
pilot's ability to control the aircraft attitude is also
Fig. 6. Structure of digital virtual flight simulation model.
limited; As the flight velocity increases gradually, the
deflection of the control surface will have a greater
The flight test was conducted under glassy water
impact on the aircraft attitude and then affect the
and calm wind conditions. Initially, the aircraft was
flight performance calculation results.
taxiing on the water at a velocity of 8.1 m/s and a
pitch angle of 3.7°. The flaps remained unchanged at
5. Comparison of calculated and experimental r 20° during the whole takeoff process.
esults The calculation results of flight velocity, flight
altitude, taxiing distance, pitch angle, pitch rate, load
Through the proposed method, the hydrodynamic,
factor, elevator and throttle are compared with the
aerodynamic, engine thrust, aircraft motion and pilot
flight test data, as shown in Fig. 7. In the calculation
models are established to form the water takeoff digital
results, the liftoff time is the time when the wetted
virtual flight simulation model by using the data of the
length-beam ratio of the amphibious aircraft is equal
towing tank experiments, wind tunnel test, engine
to 0.
thrust and configuration from a typical amphibious
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
Fig. 7. Comparison of time-domain responses of motion parameters between calculation and experiment.
(1) Flight altitude and flight velocity
The water takeoff process can be divided into two
phases: the planing phase and the climbing phase. In
the planing phase, the velocity of the aircraft increases
rapidly, and the altitude increases slightly. In the
flight test, the aircraft leaves the water at 33.1 s, and
the liftoff velocity is 49.8 m/s. The calculation results
show that the liftoff time is 32.6 s and the liftoff
velocity is 50.7 m/s.
In the climbing phase, the flight altitude increases
rapidly, and the velocity increases slightly. In the
flight test, the flight time to the screen height (15.24
m) is 38.4 s, 3 and the flight velocity is 55.1 m/s at this
time. The calculation results show that the time to the
screen height is 37.6 s, and the flight velocity at this
time is 56.7 m/s.
Obviously, the calculation results of flight altitude
and velocity are in good agreement with the flight test
·9·
data, indicating that the digital virtual flight method
can reproduce the variation characteristics of flight
altitude and velocity during water takeoff.
(2) Liftoff distance
The liftoff distance in the flight test is 709 m, and
the liftoff distance calculated by the digital virtual
flight simulation is 690 m; this 19 m difference
corresponds to a relative error of 2.7% in the
calculation.
(3) Pitch angle and pitch rate
As power is applied, the increasing velocity
generates an increasing hydrodynamic lift, and the
nose-up moment produced by the hydrodynamic lift
increases gradually because the hydrodynamic
pressure center is in front of the center of gravity.
Therefore, the pitch angle of the aircraft increases
until reaching a peak value. In the vicinity of the peak
of the pitch angle, the hydrodynamic resistance
·10 · Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

reaches the maximum value in the whole takeoff simulated responses, the elevator angle increases from
process, which is referred to as the hump.5 In the 2.15° to 10°. In this phase, the pitch angle of the
flight test, the peak time of the pitch angle is 17.9 s, aircraft increases rapidly.
the peak value of the pitch angle is 7.5° and the Between 15 s and 20 s, the peak of the pitch angle
maximum pitch rate is 2.7 (°)/s. Through the digital appears, and the pilot properly pushes forward the
virtual flight simulation calculation, the peak time of control stick to avoid the porpoising caused by
the pitch angle is 18.1 s, the peak value of the pitch excessive pitch angle. After 20 s, the elevator angle is
angle is 7.6°, and the maximum pitch rate is 2.3 (°)/s. adjusted according to the required planing attitude.
After passing over the hump, the planing area of the After the amphibious aircraft leaves the water at 33
aircraft forebody decreases as the draft is further s, the pilot reduces the elevator angle to establish the
reduced. The hydrodynamic pressure center shifts pitch attitude for the best rate of climb. In the flight
back, and the nose-up moment generated by the test, the elevator angle decreases from 9° to 0°, and in
hydrodynamic forces decreases. Meanwhile, the the simulation, the elevator angle decreases from 8° to
hydrodynamic resistance also produces a nose-down 0°.
moment. Hence, the pitch angle decreases gradually In the flight test data and calculation results, the
until the aircraft leaves the water. In the flight test, the throttle response gradually increases from ground
pitch angle is 4.2° when the aircraft becomes airborne, idling to the peak conditions at 25 s and then remains
and the simulation result is 3.8°. unchanged. Afterwards, the throttle decreases to 80%
Figs. 7 (d) and (e) show that the pitch angle and when the aircraft leaves the water at 37 s.
pitch rate responses calculated by the digital virtual Figs. 7 (h) and (i) compare the flight test data and
flight method can accurately reproduce the unique simulation results of the elevator and the throttle
motion characteristics during water takeoff, which are during water takeoff process. Obviously, the
different from those during ground takeoff. calculation results are in good agreement with the
(4) Load factor flight test data, which reproduce the pilot's operational
From 0 s to 18 s, the pilot gradually increases the behavior during the whole takeoff process.
throttle, and the tangential load factor gradually The calculation results of the typical water takeoff
increases from 0.12 to 0.28, which indicates the performance indicators are compared with the flight
acceleration of the amphibious aircraft. The tangential test results, as shown in Table 1.
load factor reaches the maximum value of 0.28 at 18.1 Table 1 Comparison of calculation results and flight test
s in the flight test. The maximum value of the data.
tangential load factor in the simulation is 0.27 at 17.9 Flight test Calculation Error
s. After passing over the hump, the thrust of the Performance indicator
(%)
engine reaches a maximum value and remains Liftoff time (s) 33.1 32.6 1.2
unchanged, and the tangential overload obtained from Liftoff velocity （m/s） 49.8 50.7 1.8
the flight test and calculation is basically unchanged.
Screen height time (s) 38.4 37.6 2.1
After 30 s in the flight test and calculation results, the
Screen height velocity
engine thrust decreases slightly with increasing flight （m/s）
55.1 56.7 2.9
velocity. As a result, the tangential overload decreases
Liftoff distance （m） 709 690 2.7
slowly.
Peak pitch angle () 7.5 7.6 1.3
The normal load factor varies slightly in the first 15
s, and there is a peak at the hump speed. The normal Time of peak (s) 17.9 18.1 1.2
load factor obtained from the flight test decreases to Liftoff pitch angle () 4.2 3.8 9.5
0.86 at 18 s, and the calculated result decreases to 0.89 Obviously, the calculation results are in good
at 18 s. After passing over the hump, the normal load agreement with the flight test data, and the
factor stabilizes to approximately 1. corresponding error is within 10% for all performance
Obviously, the overload obtained by the digital indicators.
virtual flight simulation can reproduce the variation
characteristics of overload during water takeoff. 6. Conclusions
(5) Operations
From 0 s to 10 s in the water takeoff process, the (1) By establishing the buoyancy and hydrodynamic
pilot gradually increases the throttle and slightly lift model separately, the accuracy of the longitudinal
pushes forward the control stick to make the aircraft hydrodynamic calculation is improved. A formula for
accelerate smoothly and avoid the additional resistance calculating the hydrodynamic damping moment is
produced by excessive pitch angle. From 10 s to 15 s, developed, which solves the problem of ignoring the
the pilot pulls aft control stick. In the flight test, the damping effect of water in the traditional methods. A
elevator angle increases from 2.5° to 10.5°. In the pilot model suitable for calculating water takeoff
 Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
performance is built to illustrate the effect of
multi-objective pursuit control, lack of visual reference
and wave interference. A method for calculating the
water takeoff performance based on digital virtual
flight is proposed.
(2) The time-domain calculation results and flight
test data of motion parameters (such as the pitch angle
and flight velocity) during the water takeoff process
are compared and analyzed. The results show that the
calculated results of typical motion characteristics
(such as the peak value of pitch angle and the time of
peak) are in good agreement with the flight test data.
Therefore, the calculated results can accurately
reproduce the motion characteristics of amphibious
aircraft during water takeoff.
(3) A comparison of the calculation results of
typical takeoff performance indicators in the water
takeoff process and the flight test data shows that the
calculation errors of each parameter are below 10%,
which shows that the method proposed in this paper
can objectively and accurately calculate water takeoff
performance.
References
1. Rocca GL. Seaplanes and amphibians. The Netherlands:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010. p. 5-12.
2. Qiu LJ, Song WB. Efficient decoupled hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic analysis of amphibious aircraft water takeoff
process. J Aircraft 2013;50(5):1369-79.
3. Ojha SK. Flight performance of aircraft. Reston:
AIAA;1998. p. 377-88.
4. Nicolai L, Carichner G. Fundamentals of aircraft and
airship design, Volume 1-aircraft design. Reston: AIAA;
2012. p. 255-67.
5. Administration FA. Seaplane, skiplane, and float/ski
equipped helicopter operations handbook. Washington,
D.C.: FAA; 2011. Report No.: FAA-H-8083-23.
6. Rhea PL. Review of design aspects and challenges of
efficient and quiet amphibious aircraft. 5th international
seminar of aerospace science and technology. 2018.
7. Federal Aviation Administration. Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category Part 25, Subpart B: Ground
and water handling characteristics. Washington, DC: Federal
Aviation Administration; 2003. p. 31-4.
8. Sun JJ, Ma DL. Resistance evaluation for flying boats
sliding at medium and high speed in calm water. Journal of
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2015;41(5):925-9 [Chinese].
9. Wu DW, Wu Z, Zhang LD, et al. Safety and airworthiness
design of ultra-light and very light amphibious air-crafts.
The 2nd international symposium on aircraft airworthiness.
2011.
10. Chicken SH. Conceptual design methodologies for
waterborne and amphibious aircraft [dissertation]. Cranfield:
Cranfield University; 1999.
11. He XF, Ai JL. Taxiing stability verification and
airworthiness certification for amphibious aircraft.
SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences 2019;62(1):010207.
· 11 ·
12. Dala L. Dynamic stability of a seaplane in takeoff. J
Aircraft 2015;52(3):964-71.
13. Ito K, Dhaene T, Hirakawa Y, et al. Longitudinal
stability augmentation of seaplanes in planing. J Aircraft
2016;53(5):1332-42.
14. Svahn D. Performance prediction of hulls with
transverse steps [dissertation]. Sweden: Marina System
Centre for Naval Architecture; 2009.
15. Yousefi R, Shafaghat R, Shakeri M. Hydrodynamic
analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls. Applied
Ocean Research 2013;42(4):105-13.
16. Savitsky D, Brown PW. Procedures for hydrodynamic
evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and rough water.
Marine Technology 1976;23(4):381-400.
17. Qiu LJ, Song WB. Efficient multiobjective optimization
of amphibious aircraft fuselage steps with decoupled
hydrodynamic and aerodynamic analysis models. Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 2016;29(3):04015071.
18. Mousaviraad SM, Wang ZY, Stern F. URANS studies of
hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on
high-speed planing hulls in calm water and waves for deep
and shallow conditions. Applied Ocean Research
2015;51(2015):222-40.
19. Liu XM, Huang YT, Ou ZC, et al. Study on dynamic
characteristics of amphibious aircraft’s water landing.
International conference on mechanics and civil
engineering. 2014.
20. Ma DL, Li Z, Yang MQ, et al. Sea-unammned aerial
vehicle takeoff characteristics analysis method based on
approximate equilibrium hypothesis. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 2019;233(3):916–27.
21. Zheng ST, Ye ZM, Jin J, et al. 6-DOF motion system of
amphibious vehicle driving simulator motion parameter
design research. Key Engineering Materials
2011;460(461):704-9.
22. Zhu YG. Modeling and taking off control design for a
unmanned flying boat [dissertation]. Beijing: University of
Chinese Academy of Sciences; 2013 [Chinese].
23. Wu QW, Gao XP, Wu B. A method to evaluate the
resistance of seaplane sliding in still water. Ship & Ocean
Engineering 2013;42(3):154–7 [Chinese].
24. Liu F, Wang LX, Tan XS. Digital virtual flight testing
and evaluation method for flight characteristics
airworthiness compliance of civil aircraft based on HQRM.
Chin J Aeronaut 2015;28(1):112–20.
25. Liu HL, Wang LX. Assessment of longitudinal ground
stability and control for civil aircraft based on digital virtual
flight testing method. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica
Sinica 2015;36(5):1432–41 [Chinese].
26. Chu LT. Seaplane hydrodynamic design. Beijing:
Aviation Industry Press; 2014. p. 10-9 [Chinese].
27. Zhao LE, Xie YH. Principle and design of high
performance ships. Beijing: National Defense Industry
Press; 2009. p. 236-77 [Chinese].
28. Savisky D. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls.
Marine Technology 1964;1(1):71-95.
29. Zhu YG, Fan GL, Yi JQ. Modeling longitudinal
aerodynamic and hydrodynamic effects of a flying boat in
calm water. International conference on mechatronics &
automation. 2011.
30. Leyva C, Leonel A. Seaplane conceptual design and
·12 · Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

sizing [dissertation]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow; 2012.

31. Michell JH. The wave-resistance of a ship.
Philosophical Magazine 1998;5(45):106-23.
32. Savitsky D, Delorme MF, Datla R. Inclusion of whisker
spray drag in performance prediction method for high-speed
planing hulls. Marine Technology 2017;44(1):35-56.
33. Etkin B, Reid LD. Dynamics of flight stability and
control. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1996.
p. 93-160.
34. Hess RA, Marchesi F. Analytical assessment of flight
simulator fidelity using pilot models. J Guid Control Dyn
2009;32(3):760-70.
35. Hess RA. Obtaining multi-loop pursuit-control pilot
models from computer simulation. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 2007;222(G2):189-200.

Declaration of Interest Statement