http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/testAndEvaluation.

pdf
MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS
ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS

Virginia T. Mitchell William P. Geyer

[email protected] [email protected]
V-22 Ship Suitability Engineer
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division
Patuxent River, Maryland

ABSTRACT
This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS
IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a
new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond
Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW). The objectives included: initial development of the
MROL technique in the shipboard environment; expansion of STO and MROL GW envelopes to 58,000 lb (lb),
10% above the maximum VTOL GW; development of day and night vision goggle STO and MROL wind
envelopes to 45 kt headwind and up to 10 kt crosswind; and gathering sufficient data to support analytical tool
validation including but not limited to Short Takeoff and Landing Computation (STOLCOMP) software,
developed by the Boeing Company, and Generic Tiltrotor software in order to grant day and night vision goggle
STO envelopes beyond tested ambient conditions. A total of 3.6 flight hours were flown resulting in eleven
STOs and eleven MROLs being conducted. A limited data set was collected due to insufficient time at-sea
during this period of shipboard testing. Further testing is planned in order to continue to develop MROL wind
and GW envelopes, to expand the current day and night vision goggle STO wind and GW envelope, and to
gather additional data in support of STOLCOMP model validation. Although limited data was collected, the
V-22 successfully demonstrated shipboard STOs at heavy GWs above VTOL capability aboard LHD 1 class
ships. The V-22 also demonstrated that MROLs are a new and safe technique for landing on LHD 1 class ships
at an appreciable ground speed across the spectrum of GWs bands.

NOTATION During the Engineering and Manufacturing

Development (EMD) phase of the V-22 program in
σ Ratio of test day density to standard
the late 1990’s, landbased STO nacelle angles had
day density
been established at 60 deg and 75 deg. An extensive
Spot Landing spot designation
simulation effort was conducted to determine the
on flight deck
optimal nacelle angle for the shipboard STO. Pilots
WOD Relative Wind Over Deck, defined in
noted that takeoff distance was heavily influenced by
direction in azimuth (0 deg is down
pilot technique. Changes in TCL application rate
the bow) and speed in kt
INTRODUCTION
The tilting-rotor configuration of the V-22 lends
itself to the unique capability of rolling takeoffs in a
short distance termed “Short Takeoff,” enabling the
V-22 to takeoff at GWs above maximum vertical
takeoff GWs which is limited to 52,600 lb at sea level.
Figure 1 shows a STO being conducted aboard a ship.
A STO is conducted by tilting the nacelles forward
between 15 and 30 deg, releasing the brakes, and
applying full power between 3 and 6 seconds. The
longitudinal cyclic is adjusted to keep the main
landing gear from lifting off before the nose landing
gear. At liftoff, a pitch attitude is captured to establish Figure 1
the desired climb out profile. V-22 conducting STO from the ship

Presented at the American Helicopter Society 65th

Annual Forum,Grapevine, TX, May 27-29, 2009.
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not
subject to copyright protection in the U.S.
could result in an order of magnitude difference in intended vertical launch to be the method for taking
takeoff distance. From this simulator study, a TCL off from the ship. However, there was an interest in
application rate of 4 inches in 3 seconds and nacelle the STO technique because it was safer due to the
angle of 70 deg was chosen. The nacelle angle was aircraft spending less time in the single engine
chosen because it provided a good compromise inoperative height-velocity avoid region. Thus, during
between altitude and airspeed gain after takeoff. the second sea trials in August 1999, the V-22 Multi-
service Operational Test Team (MOTT) requested an
During the first EMD sea trials aboard USS envelope be developed to investigate the benefits of
SAIPAN (LHA 2) in 1999, STOs were planned and the STO technique. Shipboard STO testing was
tested for the aircraft launching from the AV-8 TRAM conducted up to 47,300 lb and supplemented with
line, shown in Figure 2. Conducting STOs from the landbased testing to expand the GW envelope to
TRAM line was determined to be unacceptable for 50,000 lb. This limited day envelope is shown in
fleet operations because the forward parking area of Figure 3.

V-22
STO
Line

Longitudinal
Lineup Line

Forward
Parking
Area

AV-8
TRAM
Line

Forward
End of
Island
Figure 3
LHD Class Ship LHA Class Ship Short Takeoff Wind Limits
Figure 2 for LHD/LHA Class Ships
Deck Layout for STO Since 1999, the majority of V-22 shipboard
the ship had to be cleared in order to provide sufficient testing has been focused on vertical launch and
clearance for the V-22 proprotors. Prior to the second recovery envelope development and expansion. In
shipboard test aboard USS SAIPAN in 1999, a new November 2004, the day STO envelope was evaluated
V-22 STO line was developed that provided sufficient for night vision goggle operations. No issues were
clearance of the left mainmount with the deck edge found and the day envelope was approved for night
and proprotor tips with aircraft in the forward parking vision goggle operations. Modifications to the flight
area. Similarly on LHD class ships, the longitudinal control laws enabled interim power (109% mast
lineup line of the port side spots was used because it torque available) available down to 70 deg nacelle. A
provided greater clearance of the left mainmount to nacelle angle of 71 deg was chosen to ensure interim
the deck edge than the longitudinal lineup line of the power was enabled during a shipboard STO.
port spots on LHA class ships. Additional analysis using landbased data was
conducted to expand the envelope to include calm
The Operational Requirements Document winds, as shown in Figure 4.
required shipboard STOs to be conducted up to 57,000
lb in a 15 kt headwind and liftoff within 300 feet. As V-22 aircraft begin deploying on LHD class
This requirement was an Air Force Special Operations ships, V-22 squadrons continue to show interest in the
Command requirement to support the self deployment capability to conduct shipboard STOs that at a
mission. Although it is not specifically stated in any minimum meet the vertical launch capability in GW.
document, it is believed that the Marine Corps
 speed of less than 20 kt on touchdown and be fully
stopped in a minimal amount of distance on the flight
deck. Figure 5 shows a MROL being conducted
aboard a ship.

Figure 5
V-22 conducting MROL to stern of the ship
This paper will provide an overview of test
equipment, test planning and execution, post-test
analysis, and test results for the shipboard STO and
Figure 4 MROL tests aboard USS IWO JIMA in March 2008.
Expanded Short Takeoff Wind Limits for
LHD/LHA Class Ships TEST OVERVIEW
The necessity for landing shipboard at GWs V-22 ship suitability testing was conducted
above maximum vertical landing GWs was desired by aboard USS IWO JIMA from 4-11 March 2008. The
the V-22 test team to increase testing efficiency during scope of planned STO tests consisted of GW
STO tests. Without this ability, the aircraft would expansion up to 58,000 lb (10% above the maximum
have to burn fuel or dump water ballast to reduce GW VTOL GW), headwind expansion from 0 to 45 kt,
in order to conduct a vertical landing, wasting crosswind expansion up to +/- 10 kt, and night vision
precious shipboard test time. In June 2005, the No- goggle envelope expansion. The scope of planned
Hover Landing (NHL) technique was introduced to MROL tests was the same as planned STO tests with
recover the aircraft to the ship after performing STOs the addition of touchdown predictability. Touchdown
near maximum vertical takeoff GWs for present day predictability tests were required prior to conducting
conditions. The NHL technique involved using a pre- other MROL tests to determine the pilot’s ability to
touchdown flare to arrest forward airspeed while touchdown within the defined touchdown zone and
adjusting TCL to maintain glideslope and descent rate. determine touchdown speeds for safely stopping
The flare was timed so that forward airspeed was within the braking zone. A total of 3 flights and 3.6
minimized at the point of touchdown. Power was flight hours were flown during the day. Tests
required just before touchdown to help arrest descent completed included MROL touchdown predictability
rate; however, it was less than what would be required and STO/MROL GW expansion to 52,000 lb, with
to stabilize in a hover prior to landing. Although partial expansion to 54,000 lb. The limited
pilots liked this technique due to the low workload in STO/MROL test productivity was attributed to the
the lateral axis, the NHL technique would have sharing of shipboard test time with other ship
limited utility to test above maximum vertical landing suitability test priorities, weather delays, and
GWs due to lack of excess power to arrest descent rate unscheduled maintenance.
on landing. This testing revealed that the aircraft
would have to land with some appreciable ground
speed similar to recovery of fixed wing aircraft on
aircraft carriers, however, without assistance from
ship arresting gear. Neither this class of ship nor the
V-22 is outfitted with the equipment necessary for
arrested landings. The MROL technique was
therefore developed to allow an appreciable ground
 TEST EQUIPMENT
Ship: USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7)

FWD
1
USS IWO JIMA belonged to the USS WASP
(LHD 1) class and was the follow-on design to the Spot 2
LHA 1 class. This class of amphibious assault ships
was 844 feet long, 140 feet wide, had a 26 feet draft,

114’8”
and displaced approximately 40,500 tons fully loaded.
Two Combustion Engineering boilers, driving two 3
Westinghouse geared turbine engines, produced nearly
Spot 4
70,000 shaft horse power installed, and propelled each
LHD 1 class ship via twin screws to speeds in excess

114’5”
of 22 kt. The flight deck was 819 feet long and 118
feet wide running the length of the ship,
approximately 60 feet above the ship's waterline.
Aircraft were lowered to and raised from the hangar Spot 5
deck via two elevators, one located on the starboard side

114’4”
aft of the island, and the other located port amidships.
The flight deck had nine landing spots with three to

ISLAND
starboard and six to port and night vision device
compatible lighting. A picture of the ship and the Spot 6
flight deck planform and are provided in Figure 6 and
Figure 7.

167’8”

Spot 7

8
126’2”

Spot 9

Figure 6
USS WASP (LHD 1)

Aircraft: MV-22B Osprey Figure 7

USS WASP (LHD 1) Flight Deck Planform
The MV-22B Osprey, built by Bell Helicopter
shaft-horsepower and employed Full Authority Digital
Textron and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,
Engine Control (FADEC) technology. The nacelle,
Rotorcraft System, was a tiltrotor aircraft. The
located at each end of the wing, housed an engine, a
advantage of a tiltrotor design was that the flight
proprotor gearbox, and a tilt axis gearbox. The
envelope encompassed the envelopes of the helicopter
nacelles were designed to rotate about the wing from 0
and turboprop airplane. The aircraft design consisted
to 95 deg relative to the aircraft longitudinal axis in
of a fuselage with a high wing and twin vertical
order for the proprotors to provide thrust in airplane
stabilizers. The fuselage was designed to seat two
mode and lift in helicopter mode. In the event of a
pilots, two crewmembers, and 24 troops. Twin three-
single engine failure, the proprotors were
bladed proprotors were located at each end of the
interconnected via the tilt axis gearbox and the
wing and were 38.08 feet in diameter. The proprotors
interconnecting drive shaft located in the wing,
were mounted on a gimbaled hub, and powered by
enabling the transfer of power from the operating
two Rolls Royce Corporation AE1107C turboshaft
engine to the opposite proprotor. The pilots controlled
engines. Each engine was capable of producing 6150
the aircraft via a “fly-by-wire” flight control system.
The flight control system was triple redundant and
consisted of the Primary Flight Control System (PFCS)
and the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS).
The PFCS provided basic aircraft control,
thrust/power management, force feel, and trim control.
The AFCS provided full time rate stabilization and
selectable attitude stabilization. The Vehicle
Management System (VMS) integrated the flight
control system with the hydraulic system and enabled
the crew to control the aircraft in all modes of flight.
The mission computer software controlled avionics
and non-avionics subsystems. The aircraft employed
a retractable tricycle landing gear. The maximum
VTOL GW was 52,600 lb at sea level and maximum
shipboard self-deploy GW was 58,000 lb. A water
ballast tank was installed in the aircraft in order to
achieve the appropriate GW and Center of Gravity
(CG) configurations and to provide weight jettisoning
capabilities. A photograph and principle dimensions Figure 9
of the MV-22B are provided in Figure 8 and Figure 9. MV-22B in Flight Ready Mode
counter, and the Intercommunication System (ICS)
and tagged the data with time. Data were formatted in
a pulse code modulated stream and outputted to the
TM transmitter and solid state recorder. The solid
state recorder recorded data to a removable solid state
memory cartridge. Time was maintained and supplied
by the GPS synchronized time code generator. At the
beginning of each flight, time was synchronized with
GPS satellites and maintained throughout the flight by
the time code generator. Aircraft data were
telemetered back to a ground station. Figure 10 shows
a picture of the PAIS.

Figure 8
MV-22B Osprey
The aircraft was outfitted with a Production
Aircraft Instrumentation System (PAIS). PAIS was
designed as a quickly installable data acquisition
system compatible with any V-22 production aircraft.
The system was mounted to the seat backs in the cabin Figure 10
and operated by the crew chief. This onboard system PAIS
consisted of the Common Airborne Instrumentation Real-time Telemetry Processing Station
System (CAIS) Data Acquisition Unit (CDAU), solid
state recorder, event counter/marker, Global The Real-time Telemetry Processing System
Positioning System (GPS) synchronized time code (RTPS) provided TM monitoring and postflight data
generator, telemetry (TM) transmitter, power processing and storage capability during shipboard
distribution unit, uninterruptible power supply, and tests and was located within the island of the ship.
battery. The CDAU acquired data from both avionics The RTPS was made up primarily of a series of
data buses, one Flight Control Computer (FCC), event components manufactured by L3 Communications
and Silicon Graphics Inc. The System 500 (the
compilation of these components) was a networked
system for data acquisition, processing, storage,
distribution (output), and display. It had three major
sections of equipment: the color graphics
workstation(s); the 550 front end data acquisition,
distribution, and storage subsystems; and the local
area network connecting front ends and workstations.
The System 500 was configured uniquely for each
application, with multiple subsystems and color
graphics workstations as needed to meet specific
system requirements. A System 500 network was Figure 11
configured with a variety of other devices such as MINILIR Laser/Infrared Portable Tracking System
external storage units, host computers, and printers.
In addition, 4 eight-pin strip charts were run from a Electro-Optical Tracking System (EOTS)
total of 32 digital analog converters to support real- The Electro-Optical Tracking System was used to
time monitoring of aircraft data. The RTPS included obtain Time Space Position Information (TSPI) data
two TM receivers, a diversity combiner, and a and documentary imaging data of these test events.
tracking antenna capable of receiving S-band and L- The core of optical tracking was imaging and was
band frequencies. Recording and playback of the TM used to determine more accurate aircraft lift-off and
signal was performed with a Multi-Application touchdown points for STO and MROL tests. The data
Recording System II tape recorder. Miniature Laser were used in conjunction with MiniLIR data post-
Infrared (MiniLIR) data, as described in the next event to determine STO and MROL ground roll
section, were acquired by RTPS via a fiber optic cable. distances. Fixed, surveyed camera arrays provided
TSPI data of a particular target and multi-camera
Miniature Laser Infrared (MiniLIR) video systems provided documentation of a test event.
The MiniLIR was used during testing and was a Three forward cameras were mounted to the island of
portable, laser range finding, automatic infrared (IR) the ship above the flight deck, which covered spot 5 to
tracking system built by SAGEM of France. It the bow of the ship. Three aft cameras were mounted
provided precision automatic tracking and time space to the island of the ship above the flight deck, which
position information (TSPI) data from IR sources. covered landings from spot 7 to the aft end of the ship.
The IR source used for these tests was the aircraft’s All cameras were run at 100 frames per second. High-
search light. The basic tracking system consisted of a speed, high-resolution digital imaging systems
tracking head, a tripod, two control units, and the provided time-tagged high-frame-rate imagery of test
interconnecting cables. It was also instrumented with events, for engineering analysis and reporting. Video
a video camera, a high-speed digital imager, a clock, systems provided video routing, display, control,
an eye safe laser ranger, and a GPS antenna. When distribution, recording, and editing of live and
fitted with the laser ranger, the tracking system recorded video sources.
provided azimuth, elevation, and range information
from a single tracking station. The MiniLIR system Ship Motion Package (SMP)
provided elevation and azimuth angular data, laser The SMP was used to record ship motion and
ranging data, time, IR level information, and video to wind condition data during rotary wing ship suitability
a rack mounted computer control system for video tests. The SMP consisted of a laptop computer with a
monitoring, data recording and archiving, and data GPS antenna for time synchronization and was
transfer to portable media for data reduction or connected to the ship’s computer network. The laptop
distribution. The MiniLIR was located on the flight computer was placed in a workspace within the island
deck at the bow of the ship just starboard of the safe and displayed time histories of Wind Over Deck
parking line and its corresponding workstation on the (WOD) speed and direction. In addition, a push
ship was located in a workspace at the front of the button switch was provided to display a 30 second
ship below the flight deck. The MiniLIR was average of WOD speed and direction when it was
connected to the RTPS station within the island via depressed. Recorded parameters consisted of GPS
fiber optic cables. The MiniLIR system is pictured in time, ship course and speed, relative WOD azimuth
Figure 11. and speed, ship pitch and roll angles, ship pitch, roll,
and yaw rates, and ship surge, sway, and heave
accelerations. The SMP is pictured in Figure 12.
 communicated with the bridge engineer located on the
bridge of the ship to coordinate WOD conditions.
During each flight test sequence, the bridge engineer
determined the required ship’s course and speed for
generating target WOD conditions, and requested the
commanding officer or the officer of the deck to
maneuver the ship accordingly. After the desired
WOD was attained, the test aircraft conducted one or
more test evolutions as required. During all V-22
shipboard flight test operations, the test coordinator
and TM lead engineer were in direct radio
communication with the aircraft. Test team personnel
Figure 12 monitored each test sequence and recorded results.
Ship Motion Package For each flight test event (while on deck and
following the launch), the pilots transmitted comments
Dynamic Interface Audiovisual Instrumentation by radio which were recorded by test personnel. Each
System (DAVIS) STO and MROL was evaluated using a qualitative
DAVIS was used to document shipboard flight assessment called the Deck Interface Pilot Effort Scale
test evolutions. The system included four deck or (DIPES), as shown in Figure 14, and could have been
superstructure mounted closed circuit television further quantified with the Cooper-Harper Handling
cameras, of which two were ship’s cameras. The Qualities Rating (HQR) scale. Shipboard flight test
camera signals were fed into a quad-splitter, which communications with the test aircraft were
provided a video output of a selectable single camera coordinated with the Air Boss or his designated
or all four cameras simultaneously. A portable representative. Shipboard communication procedures
scanner unit acquired radio transmissions from both were briefed before every flight.
engineers’ hand-held radios and aircraft radios. The
audio and quad-splitter video outputs were recorded Pre-test Simulation
and displayed by an 8-mm video cassette recorder. Pre-test piloted simulation was conducted to
DAVIS is pictured in Figure 13. familiarize the test team with test conduct, to develop
test predictions, to refine maneuver procedures, and to
practice emergency procedures. Test team
familiarization involved conducting test events to get
members acquainted with test flow, communication
protocol, and knock-it-off criteria and timing. Test
predictions were used to determine expected trends
and to compare to STOLCOMP. The predictions also
aided in determining whether test build-up was
sufficient to ensure safe increments in GW and WOD.
Although roll on landings had been conducted
routinely landbased, the MROL maneuver aboard ship
was new and simulation was used to refine this
Figure 13 technique. The test team learned that a steeper
DAVIS glideslope was required to ensure more accurate and
predictable touchdowns. Also, the pilots developed
SHIPBOARD METHOD OF TESTS altitude and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
General checkpoints that aided in maintaining proper
glideslope. Through reviewing the test matrix in the
Personnel involved in these shipboard tests simulator, it was apparent that on short final for
included ship suitability engineers, Boeing approach airspeeds less than 30 kt, speed stability was
aerodynamics and flying qualities engineers, aircraft a concern. Pilots deemed maintaining airspeed to be
maintainers, aircrew, and instrumentation and too difficult and resulted in limiting approach
telemetry engineers which was approximately 70 airspeeds to no less than 30 kt. Emergency procedures
people. During underway shipboard testing, the were practiced to familiarize the team in handling an
shipboard test coordinator was located in Primary emergency appropriately. In addition, single engine
Flight Control within the island of the ship to failures were investigated to ensure sufficient wave-
coordinate test progression with the Air Boss, and
off capabilities. A minimum altitude of 200 feet
above ground level (AGL) was chosen to invoke the
engine failure. Engine failures at lower altitudes were
not investigated due to the close proximity of the
flight deck and inability to avoid collision with the
ship. At maximum test GW, successful recoveries
with a single engine failure were dependent upon
water ballast dump.

Figure 15
Deck Layout for Short Takeoff
inches in 2-3 seconds vice the landbased ramp time of
6 seconds. STO procedures are described as follows:
• Commence STO on or abeam spot 4
• Nose wheel power steering — OFF
• Nacelles — 71 °
• Interim power ON and 104% Nr
• Set initial longitudinal stick
• Brakes — Release
• TCL — Smoothly apply maximum power
(target full application in 2 to 3 seconds)
• At liftoff: capture attitude — 3 to 5 deg nose
up
The MROL technique involved the aircraft
performing a stern approach to the ship targeting
touchdown on spot 9, rolling along the longitudinal
“crow’s foot” lineup lines, and fully stopping just
prior to the aft end of the island. The touchdown and
braking zone is shown in Figure 16. Prior to sea trials,
stopping distances were predicted for 15 to 20 kt
ground speeds based on STOLCOMP which was
validated by landbased test data. Based on these

Figure 14
Deck Interface Pilot Effort Scale (DIPES)
Maneuver Procedures
All STOs began with the aircraft positioned on
spot 4, and the aircraft rolling along the longitudinal
“crow’s foot” lineup line, which provided
approximately 208 feet of deck run. An illustration of
the deck layout during a STO is provided in Figure 15.

As mentioned previously, the shipboard STO

procedures differed from landbased STO procedures. Figure 16
The nacelle angle for shipboard STO was 71 deg and Deck Layout for Minimum Run-on Landing
the Thrust Control Lever (TCL) ramp time was 4 Technique
predictions, there was sufficient deck space available increments, starting at lighter GWs and building down
to stop the aircraft from a 20 kt Touchdown Speed in winds due to increased power required with wind
Relative to the Ship (TSRTS). TSRTS is defined as speed reduction. STO GW expansion tests
the difference between aircraft ground speed and ship encompassed four GW bands: 48,000 ± 1,000 lb,
ground speed. 51,000 ± 1,000 lb, 54,000 ± 1,000 lb, and 57000 ±
1,000 lb. The build-up method involved conducting a
The MROL procedures develop as follows:
test point at a wind condition at a lower GW before
• Turn base at 2 nautical miles and 800 feet conducting the same wind speed condition at the next
and begin to slow to 60 nacelle/120 kt higher GW band. GWs were not greater than 3,000 lb
indicated airspeed from previously tested conditions. Each test point was
• Landing checks complete repeated once before proceeding to the next test point
• Turn final and slow to 50-60 kt indicated air to gain confidence that results were repeatable for
speed at 83-85 deg nacelle STOLCOMP validation.
• Intercept glideslope at 1.1 nautical miles
• Maintain a 7 deg glideslope and establish During testing, telemetry engineers were on board
recommended airspeed the ship monitoring takeoff distance and rate of climb
• Confirm WOD and Ship’s speed over ground (ROC) so that if trending suggested excessively long
to determine landing touchdown speed deck runs or shallow climbout for the targeted heavier
GWs, testing could have been moved aft to spot 5;
• At 0.2 nautical miles rotate nacelles aft 2-3
however, trending showed that all STOs were safe to
deg, use longitudinal stick as required to
begin at spot 4.
capture touchdown speed
• Prior to crossing the deck edge, transition
MROL Envelope Development Tests
from indicated airspeed to groundspeed.
Target aircraft ground speed was ship’s The planned shipboard MROL test points
ground speed plus TSRTS as determined included day touchdown predictability; day GW,
from touchdown predictability tests headwind, and crosswind expansion; and night
• Target spot 9 mainmount markings for envelope expansion. Only day touchdown
touchdown predictability and GW expansion tests were conducted
• Maintain 0-5 deg nose up until MLG and will be the only method of test discussed below.
touchdown
• Reduce TCL to aft stop at touchdown MROL testing began with touchdown
• Smoothly lower nose wheel to ground predictability at a GW band of 48,000 ± 1,000 lb with
• Apply hard braking WOD within the initial envelope and was repeated as
• Adjust nacelle angle to full aft at maximum required for pilot and test team comfort. The build-up
rate method for MROL touchdown predictability was
increasing speeds relative to the ship in 5 kt
• Select nose wheel steering when the gear is
increments, starting with a target of a 5 kt TSRTS up
firmly on the ground if desired
to the maximum target TSRTS of 20 kt. Results from
• Terminate maneuver by adjusting nacelles
this test, including touchdown predictability and
forward to prevent aircraft from rolling aft
braking distance, were used to determine a TSRTS
that was used for the remaining tests.
STO Envelope Expansion Tests
The planned shipboard STO test points included Once touchdown predictability tests were
day GW, headwind, and crosswind expansion, and completed, MROL GW expansion test points were
night envelope expansion. Only day GW expansion conducted at the same GW bands as STO tests which
tests were conducted and will be the only method of were 48,000 ± 1,000 lb, 51,000 ± 1,000 lb, 54,000 ±
test discussed below. 1,000 lb, and 57000 ± 1,000 lb. For each GW band,
buildup method included decreasing landing airspeed
The first STO test point began within the limits of in 5 kt increments from 10 kt to 0 kt above the all
the previous STO envelope which granted operations engines operating flyaway airspeed. The all engines
up to 50,000 lb GW. Subsequent test points expanded operating flyaway airspeed was chosen so that a 400
in GW/WOD azimuth/WOD speed relative to either fpm (fpm) ROC at 85 deg nacelle was achievable.
the existing STO envelope or to previously tested The landing airspeed was limited to no less than 30 kt
conditions. The build-up sequence for STO GW based on simulation results. The difference in aircraft
expansion involved increasing GW in 3,000 lb and ship ground speed was mathematically equivalent
 330º 345º 000º 015º 030º Table 1. STO Test Conditions
35 kts
Minimum Maximum
30 GW (lb) 47,224 54,982
Center of Gravity (in) 394.1 396.2
315º 045º
25 Pressure Altitude (ft) -441 -92
Outside Air
20 4.3 17.9
Temperature (deg C)
Black Line: a
300º 15 Approved envelope 060º Ship Pitch (deg) - 0.3
DATA KEY
to for up to 50,000 lb Ship Roll (deg) a - 1.0
10 a
Gross Weight
DIPES 1
DIPES 2 Color Key:
Value is oscillatory maximum.
285º 075º
DIPES 3 5 48 klb - Blue
DIPES 4
51 klb - Green
DIPES 5
54 klb - Orange
STOs targeting a WOD condition of 000 deg at 0
kt were conducted up to a GW of 52,119 lb. STOs
Figure 17
targeting a WOD condition of 000 deg at 20 kt were
MV-22/LHD 1 STO Data Fairing
conducted up to a GW of 54,982 lb. A data fairing
to the difference in aircraft and ship wind speed. plot of the tested conditions showing the WOD
Thus, ship WOD was determined by subtracting the conditions, along with the assigned DIPES ratings and
TSRTS from the aircraft landing airspeed. As an GWs is presented in Figure 17.
example, if the aircraft landing airspeed was 35 kt and
the TSRTS was 15 kt, the WOD would be 20 kt. Each Performance
test point was repeated once before proceeding to the
next test point to gain confidence that results were STO test points were evaluated in terms of
repeatable. performance in order to expand the GW STO
envelope. Ground roll distances were calculated for
All engines operating wave-offs were conducted each STO. Ground roll distance was considered to be
for each test day prior to the first MROL and any time the point where power was first applied to the point
a heavier GW band was tested to ensure a 400 fpm where all wheels of the aircraft were off the deck. All
ROC could be achieved at 85 deg nacelle. All engines ground roll distances were less than 30 feet and
operating wave-offs were conducted to provide ranged from 6.6 feet at WOD conditions of 359 deg at
knowledge of and trending for altitude loss and torque 22 kt to 28.9 feet at WOD conditions of 356 deg at 3
required on trim descent. It also provided pilot
220 End of Deck (208 ft)
proficiency in conducting all engines operating wave- 200
offs. The wave-off was conducted above 500 feet 180 WOD Speed < 5 kt
Groundroll Distance (ft)

AGL and at an airspeed that was 5 kt greater than the 160 WOD Speed = 20 kt
lowest landing airspeed to be tested which ensured the 140
wave-off could be achieved successfully. An altitude 120
to conduct the wave-off of 500 feet AGL was chosen 100

to ensure a safe recovery. 80

60

RESULTS 40
20
STO Envelope Expansion 0
46000 48000 50000 52000 54000 56000 58000
A total of 11 STOs were conducted, completing 3 Referred Gross Weight (lb)

of the 43 planned STO test points including required Figure 18

repeats. Due to limited test time at sea, only STO GW V-22 STO Deck Groundroll Distance
expansion tests were conducted. Table 1 provides a 71 deg Nacelle, Fwd CG
summary of conditions under which tests were kt. A plot of ground roll distances versus referred GW
completed. (GW/σ) for each wind condition can be found in
Figure 18. The largest ground roll of 28.9 feet
accounted for less than 14% of the total available STO
ground roll distance. Note that the shortest ground
roll distances were WOD speeds of 20 kt at the
heaviest GWs. Liftoff speed relative to the ship as a
function of referred GW is shown in Figure 19 below.
Liftoff speeds relative to the ship varied from 6 to 13
 50
1400
WOD Speed < 5 kt
Liftoff Speed relative to the Ship (kt) WOD Speed < 5 kt
40 1200 WOD Speed = 20 kt
WOD Speed = 20 kt Linear (WOD Speed < 5 kt)
1000 Linear (WOD Speed = 20 kt)
30

ROC (fpm)
800
20
600

10 400

200
0
46000 48000 50000 52000 54000 56000 58000 0
Referred Gross Weight (lb) 46000 48000 50000 52000 54000 56000 58000
Referred Gross Weight (lb)
Figure 19
STO Liftoff Speed relative to the Ship Figure 21
71 deg Nacelle, Fwd CG Rate of Climb at Deck Edge
71 deg Nacelle, Fwd CG
kt. Ship headwind conditions did not seem to affect
the liftoff speed relative to the ship which indicates regardless of WOD speeds, had a ROC near or greater
that ship airwake effects are minimal. Similar to than 1,000 fpm at the deck edge. Note that a linear
ground roll distance data, there was no noticeable trend existed between ROC at deck edge and referred
trend between liftoff speed and GW / WOD. It is GW for each WOD speed. ROC decreased with
believed that pilot technique had a significant effect increasing GW. The data showed a much steeper drop
on the repeatability of liftoff data. The largest off in ROC at deck edge for the less than 5 kt WOD
contributors to variability could have been TCL ramp speed. For WOD speeds of less than 5 kt, the data
time and aircraft pitch attitude on liftoff as these indicated that a ROC of greater than 100 fpm at deck
inputs could not be precisely controlled. Due to the edge may not be achievable for referred GWs greater
small amount of data gathered, trends can not be than 52,000 lb. Aircraft pitch angles at the deck edge
realized until further testing can be accomplished. ranged from -0.4 deg to 3.4 deg, with an average pitch
angle closer to approximately one deg. If the pilots
Ground roll distances increased with increasing were to capture pitch angles closer to 5 deg at deck
liftoff ground speed and this trend can be seen in edge, the ROC would substantially increase and the
potential would exist to expand the envelope to
220
referred GWs greater than 52,000 lb.
200
180 WOD Speed < 5 kt
Groundroll Distance (ft)

160
WOD Speed = 20 kt Due to the limited amount of test data collected,
140
generating an envelope based on what was tested
120 would have limited STO operations to 4 deg C with
100 less than 3 kt of headwind and 27 deg C with 22 to 25
80 kt of headwind with a linear variation of temperature
60 with headwind between 3 and 22 kt, as seen in Figure
40 22. STOLCOMP was therefore used to predict results
20 beyond the ambient conditions tested in order to
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
provide an expanded GW STO envelope. There were
Liftoff Speed relative to the Ship (kt) certain limitations of STOLCOMP including: no
Figure 20 presence of a ship airwake model, a two-dimensional
Liftoff Speed Relative to Ship flight path, and the inability to model independent
71 deg Nacelle, Fwd CG longitudinal rotor controls which reduced confidence
in predictions and played a role in how much of an
Figure 20. Again, it was difficult to determine the expanded envelope could be recommended. In an
effects that ship WOD had on aircraft acceleration
effort to provide an interim capability for fleet training
based on the limited amount of data gathered to date.
and preparation for shipboard deployment, flight test
data were reevaluated to determine if expansion was
ROC was monitored throughout the course of the
possible for 10 to 30 kt of headwind up to 30 deg C up
STO but the ROC at the deck edge was of particular
to a GW of 52,000 lb. These headwind and
interest. As shown in Figure 21 below, all test points
temperature limits were chosen based on the amount
with referred GWs between 47,000 and 49,000 lb,
of landbased data present, as shown in Figure 22.
 60
Shipboard Data
50 Landbased
Outside Air Temperature (deg C) Envelope of Ship Data
40 Desired Envelope
30
20
10
0
-10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-20
-30
Headwind (kt)
Figure 22
STO Envelope Based on Shipboard and Landbased
Data
Shipboard test data were not gathered at 52,000 lb for
headwinds below 20 kt up to 30 deg C. Landbased
data were gathered beyond GW/σ of 54,700 lb at low
headwinds which is equivalent to a GW of 52,000 lb
at sea level and 30 deg C. In addition to headwind
and outside air temperature (OAT) constraints in
making a recommended envelope, ground roll

220 End of Deck on LHD (208 ft)

200 Shipboard, 3 kt
180 Shipboard, 10 kt
Shipboard, 18-25 kt
Groundroll Distance (ft)

160 Shipboard, 27-30 kt

Landbased, 1-4 kt
Ref GW=54.7 klbs

140 Landbased, 6-9 kt Figure 24

120
V-22 STO Envelope Aboard LHD Class Ships
100
80 envelope is shown in Figure 24. Note the 10 kt wind
60 limitation for GWs ranging from 50,000 to 52,000 lb
40 is displayed in the note on the GW/OAT restrictions
20 plot.
0
45000 48000 51000 54000 57000 60000 Handling Qualities
Referred GW (lb)
Day STO handling qualities were also evaluated
Figure 23
to grant a day/night vision goggle WOD envelope for
Landbased and Shipboard STO Performance 71
the expanded GW envelope. Shipboard STO data
deg Nacelle
were analyzed mainly to ensure adequate control
distance data were also considered. Ground roll margins, but also to examine for presence of any
distance as a function of referred GW at different oscillatory behavior. All STOs were rated as DIPES 1
headwind ranges for shipboard and land-based test as shown in Figure 17, indicating minimum effort was
data are plotted in Figure 23. Notice that ground roll required to conduct the maneuver. There was no
distances were less than 45 feet for GW/σ up to adverse oscillatory behavior observed during the
55,200 lb. Even though land-based STO data did not course of STO testing. The largest handling qualities
account for the partial ground effect in the shipboard impact according to the pilots was a slight directional
environment, the expanded STO envelope that was workload on lift-off. Pilots also noted minimal deck
granted to the fleet was limited to no lower than 10 kt rolls and good climb performance and commented,
headwind at GWs greater than 50,000 lb and up to that overall, it was a benign maneuver. Several STOs
52,000 lb. In addition, data showed that ground roll encountered slight wheelbarrowing effects during the
margins of over 300% on LHD class ships existed. ground roll and nose tucking immediately after lift-
Based on these analyses, sufficient deck run was off. Wheelbarrowing is characterized by mainmounts
available to conduct V-22 STO operations aboard lifting off prior to nosewheel lift-off during the ground
LHD 1 class ships with headwinds 10-30 kt for GWs roll and nose tucking is characterized by the aircraft
up to 52,000 lb and 30 deg C. The recommended
pitching down just after lift-off. Two of these STOs handling qualities and it was deemed safe to grant an
were further analyzed for potentially exceeding the aft envelope of +/- 10 deg of the bow out to 30 kt WOD
longitudinal control margin criteria to counter the nose for GWs up to 52,000 lb.
tuck on lift-off; however, it was found later that this
large longitudinal input was transient in nature, did Ship Motion
not actually exceed the criteria, and was not a concern.
Since the most ship pitch/roll experienced during
There were found to be no flying quality limitations to
the day STO testing was 0.3 deg and 1 deg
the STO conditions flown during this test period.
respectively, additional analysis was conducted to be
able to grant the previous STO ship motion limits of
Although night vision goggle STOs were not
+/- 2 deg pitch and +/- 3 deg roll for the recommended
conducted during this shipboard test, giving a night
GW envelope.
vision goggle capability was desired. Thus, previous
STO test results for both day/night vision goggle were A performance analysis was conducted to
reviewed to validate the recommended night vision determine additional ground roll distance required
goggle STO envelope which was the same as the during a STO which occurred at the maximum ship
recommended day STO envelope, as shown in Figure pitch limit of 2 deg. Analysis of land-based
24. Night vision goggle STOs were conducted up to STOLCOMP takeoff and static surface pitch
47,816 lb GW aboard USS WASP in November 2004 calculations showed that at 52,000 lb, 35 deg C day,
and all were rated as DIPES 1, except one which was headwind of 25 kt, takeoff distance increased by
rated as a DIPES 2 [1]. WOD conditions for the approximately 0.5 feet/deg of surface pitch. At these
DIPES 2 night vision goggle STO were 345 deg at 28 conditions, takeoff distances were approximately 30
kt (7 kt crosswind) and pilots commented that there feet. Thus, assuming the 2 deg ship pitch limit, the
was noticeable lateral/directional compensation ground roll distance would increase by approximately
required. The crosswind present in this DIPES 2 night 3%. STOLCOMP analysis showed that for 55,000 lb
vision goggle STO may have contributed to the at 35 deg C and a headwind of 25 kt, takeoff distance
additional lateral/directional compensation and increased by approximately 4 feet/deg of surface
increased workload required by the pilots. Another pitch. At these conditions, takeoff distances were
STO was conducted at WOD conditions of 349 deg at approximately 50 feet. Thus, assuming the 2 deg ship
29 kt (5 kt crosswind) and it was rated as a DIPES 1, pitch limit, the ground roll distance would increase by
but pilots also commented on some lateral approximately 16%. The increase in ground roll due
compensation that was required. The recommended to ship pitch was calculated using the slope correction
expanded envelope only granted up to +/- 5 kt formula from a test pilot school flight test manual for
crosswind, thus the night vision goggle STO envelope land-based takeoff performance with the assumption
which has the same limits as the recommended day that a 2 deg slope remained constant throughout the
STO envelope was granted to the fleet. STO ground roll [2]. Land-based flight test data were
evaluated to determine the effect of ship pitch on
Additionally, the effects of GW on the handling ground roll. A land-based STO was conducted at a
qualities were analyzed. Three STOs, which were all GW of 52,725 lb with a pressure altitude of 23 feet
at headwinds of 20 kt, were evaluated to determine the and OAT of 23.9 deg C and resulted in a ground roll
effects of increased GW on aircraft handling qualities. of 36 feet and takeoff velocity of 14 kt. The ground
The GWs of the three STOs were 47,224 lb, 51,043 lb, roll distance increase due to a 2 deg slope was
and 54,982 lb. The WOD direction for each STO was approximately 6.3 feet, which accounted for a 17.5%
355 deg, 002 deg, and 351 deg, respectively. All three increase in ground roll.
STOs showed low amplitude inputs in the lateral and
From a handling qualities perspective, the
directional axes. Control inputs in the longitudinal
proposed ship motion limits were the same as what
axis were of moderate amplitude. It appeared that
was recommended from previous tests conducted at
there was an initial input aft to counter the
lighter GWs. Previous tests conducted aboard USS
wheelbarrowing tendency and then approximately a
SAIPAN (LHA 2) resulted in recommendations for
2.5 to 3 inches forward stick input to keep the pitch
ship motion limits of pitch +/- 1 deg and roll +/- 3 deg.
attitude less than 5 deg noseup. For the two lighter
Tests conducted aboard USS WASP (LHD 1) resulted
GW STOs, pilots commented on a small wheelbarrow
in recommendations that increased ship pitch motion
tendency and minor control inputs. For the STO at a
limits to +/- 2 deg. For tests conducted aboard USS
GW of 54,982 lb, pilots commented that there was no
SAIPAN (LHA 2), pilot ratings showed that little
wheelbarrowing and it was low workload. All three
effort was required. STO tests aboard USS WASP
STOs were rated as a DIPES 1. Therefore, GW was
(LHD 1) were considered benign. Due to the small
determined to have a negligible effect on STO
ship motion limits being proposed and the benign
handling qualities encountered at light GWs, it was Performance
not expected that unacceptable handling qualities
MROL testing began with touchdown
would be encountered at GWs up to 52,000 lb.
predictability to determine the pilot’s ability to
Based on the previous test data and analysis touchdown within the touchdown zone and determine
provided, safe STO operations could be accomplished what the appropriate touchdown speed relative to the
aboard LHD 1 class ships with ship pitch limits of ship (TSRTS) would be to safely stop within the
+/- 2 deg and ship roll limits of +/- 3 deg. The braking zone. Figure 26 presents stopping distance as
recommended STO envelopes aboard LHD 1 class a function of TSRTS for both touchdown
ships restricted ship pitch limits to +/- 2 deg and ship predictability tests as well as GW expansion. Note
roll limits to +/- 3 deg, as shown in Figure 24. that touchdown predictability test points for TSRTS
from 12 to 15 kt resulted in stopping distances from
MROL Envelope Expansion 89 to 121 feet. Although there is some variability in
the stopping distance based on TSRTS, it was
A total of 11 MROLs were conducted completing
determined that 15 kt was the appropriate TSRTS to
6 of the 52 planned MROL test points with required
repeats. Due to limited test time at sea, only MROL 200
touchdown predictability and GW expansion tests 180
were conducted. Table 2 provides a summary of 160 Full Stop Distance (150 ft)

Stoping Distance (ft)

conditions under which tests were completed. 140
120
Table 2. MROL Test Conditions 100
Minimum Maximum 80
GW (lb) 47,008 53,959 60
Touchdown Predictability, 48 klb
Center of Gravity 394.2 396.3 40 GW Expansion, 51 klb
(in) 20 GW Expansion, 54 klb
Pressure Altitude (ft) -441 -92 0
Outside Air 0 5 10 15 20 25
4.3 18.0 Touchdown Speed Relative to the Ship (kt)
Temperature (deg C)
Ship Pitch (deg) a
- 0.4 Figure 26
Ship Roll (deg)a - 1.2 MROL Stopping Distance Performance
a
Value is oscillatory maximum. allow a safe stopping distance and provide some
margin of safety for variability in touchdown speed.
A data fairing plot, showing the WOD conditions, Test results demonstrated that MROL ground roll
along with the assigned DIPES ratings and GWs, is distances with TSRTS up to 22 kt could be achieved
shown in Figure 25. Note that all MROLs were rated with the flight deck space available aft of the island.
as DIPES 1 or 2. Both performance and handling The touchdown positions relative to the target
qualities aspects of MROLs were evaluated to touchdown point are presented in Figure 27. Aside
determine suitability of this landing technique for the from the one outlier, pilots were able to accurately
heavy GW shipboard landing. land the aircraft within the touchdown zone. The
average touchdown position was approximately 9.3
330º 345º 000º 015º 030º feet beyond and 0.3 to the left of the target touchdown
35 kts point. Based on this data, the probability of landing
30
longitudinally within +/-25 feet of the spot 9
mainmount markings was greater than 99 %. The
315º 25 045º probability of landing laterally within +/-3 feet of the
spot 9 mainmount markings was greater than 99 %.
20
From this data, there was high confidence that pilots
300º 15 Black Line: Initial 060º
would be able to accurately place the aircraft within
Test Envelope the touchdown zone.
DATA KEY
DIPES 1
10 Gross Weight GW expansion tests continued using the TSRTS
DIPES 2 Color Key:
285º
DIPES 3 5 48 klb - Blue
075º of 15 kt. Note on Figure 26 that the increased GW did
DIPES 4
DIPES 5 51 klb - Green not change the stopping distance required for a given
54 klb - Orange
TSRTS. As stated in the method of test, the torque on
Figure 25 approach was monitored to ensure sufficient excess
MROL Data Fairing power was available to arrest rate of descent and
 the ship on short final. The general pilot sentiment
was that MROLs were a benign maneuver for the
Touchdown Predictability, 48 klb GWs tested. In addition, the pilots commented that
GW Expansion, 51 klb maintaining ground speed relative to the ship during a
GW Expansion, 54 klb MROL actually created an easier approach than
attempting to decelerate to a hover, reducing lateral
50 workload as the aircraft crossed the deck edge. The
MROL technique was validated in the shipboard
environment.
40
Longitudinal Deviation (ft)

CONCLUDING REMARKS
30 End of Touchdown Zone
This paper has provided an overview of the test
methodology used in order to conduct V-22 sea trials
20 in support of increased shipboard STO capabilities for
the fleet [3]. The objectives of this test were partially
Deck Edge

met. The STO GW envelope was expanded, although

10
not to the fullest extent of the aircraft capability due to
insufficient time at-sea. MROL demonstrated to be a
0 revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at
GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue
to be developed and tested. An MROL envelope was
-10
not recommended due to insufficient test data;
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 however when more can be gathered, the possibility of
Lateral Deviation (ft)
granting an envelope to the fleet exists.
Figure 27
MROL Touchdown Positions Relative to Target Further testing has been recommended to
Touchdown Point continue expansion of the day/night vision goggle
waveoff on the approach. The peak torque required STO envelope aboard LHD 1 class ship up to a GW of
on approach was plotted against referred GW as 58,000 lb for headwinds 0-45 kt and crosswinds of up
shown in Figure 28. Even at the highest GW tested, a to +/- 10 kt. It has also been recommended to conduct
33 % torque margin was maintained throughout the further testing to gather required data to validate the
approach. Based on the GWs tested, the minimum STOLCOMP model in order to extrapolate beyond
WOD speed of 20 kt allowed MROL with sufficient tested ambient conditions. Future testing will also
power margin. involve investigating the MROL technique for GWs
up to 58,000 lb along with similar headwind and
Handling Qualities crosswind limitations.
Throughout the touchdown predictability and GW STO and MROL GW and wind envelopes are
expansion tests, pilots evaluated the handling qualities currently still under development for LHD 1 class
of the aircraft using DIPES. Pilots noted the largest ships but have made significant progress in terms of
workload was in the lateral axis, getting lined up with providing additional capabilities to the fleet.
120 Although future testing has been recommended and is
Maximum Torque Available (109%)
desired, the limited number of amphibious assault
100 class ships and numerous operational commitments
poses a challenge to completing these types of
on Approach (%)

80
shipboard tests. Until more accurate modeling and
Peak Torque

60 simulation tools become available to support

shipboard envelope development, full scale sea trials,
40
Touchdown Predictability, 48 klb although costly and time intensive, will continue to be
20 GW Expansion, 51 klb the way forward in granting increased shipboard
GW Expansion, 54 klb capabilities to the fleet.
0
46000 48000 50000 52000 54000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gross Weight/Sigma (lb)

Figure 28 The support from the crew of the USS IWO JIMA
MROL Peak Torque on Approach is greatly appreciated and acknowledged. The efforts
of the V-22 test team, along with Boeing Flying
Qualities and Aerodynamics personnel, were
invaluable in accomplishing this testing.

REFERENCES
1. Geyer, W., “V-22 Ship Suitability Tests Aboard
USS BATAAN and USS WASP”, NAVAIR
Report of Test Results, 27 September 2006.

2. USNTPS-FTM-NO. 108, Fixed Wing

Performance, Chapter 9 Takeoff and Landing
Performance, 30 September 1992.

3. Geyer, W., Mitchell, V., Weinstein, D. “V-22

Shipboard Short Takeoff (STO) / Minimum Run-
on Landing (MROL) Tests,” NAVAIR Report of
Test Results, 14 October 2008.