Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of laser measurement method for air motion parameters
Fig. 2. Inversion coordinate system with multi-laser beam for air speed measurement
Fig. 3. The schematic of direct detection
Fig. 4. The schematic of coherent detection
Fig. 5. Actual drawing of pitot tube icing
Fig. 6. Airspeed measurement system on CV990
Fig. 7. WindSceptor product of OADS Corporation
Fig. 8. Laser measurement system for air motion parameters
Fig. 9. Prototype II of Michigan Aerospace Corporation
Fig. 10. Experimental prototype of AVIC CAIC
Fig. 11. Airspeed measurement prototype of AVIC CAIC
Fig. 12. Experimental prototype of AVIC FACRI
Fig. 13. Airspeed measurement prototype of AVIC FACRI
Fig. 14. Drag cone method for airspeed calibration
Fig. 15. DC-8 aircraft and its pod
Fig. 16. Apparatus for flight test of Thales
Fig. 17. Apparatus for flight test of ONERA
Fig. 18. Diagram of wind shear
Fig. 19. The experimental prototype of NCAR
Fig. 20. Ultraviolet turbulence sensor prototype of EADS
Fig. 21. Ultraviolet anemometer of DLR
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|
Direct detection | 1)Strong echo signal at high altitude 2)Simple signal processing 3)Ability of all air parameters measurement | 1)Complex optical frequency discrimination 2)Low sensitivity and accuracy 3)Susceptible to disturbance from background light 4)Big size,weight and power,high cost 5)Low level of human eye security | Coherent detection | 1)High sensitivity and accuracy 2)Small size,weight and power、low cost 3)High level of human eye security 4)Flexible connection and high reliability due to all fiber framework | 1)Weak echo signal at high altitude 2)Can not measure temperature and air density 3)Complex circuits and algorithms |
|
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages comparison of direct and coherent detection schemes
| Reporting year | Work wavelength | Velocity accuracy | Angle accuracy | Flight test vehicle | Scheme | Typical application |
---|
Honeywell | 1971 | 0.6 μm | Unknown | Unknown | CV990 aircraft | Coherent | Accurate measurement of air motion parameters | NASA | 1993 | 10.59 μm | 1 m/s | 0.6° | F-16 aircraft | Coherent | OADS | 2014 | 1.5 μm | 0.5 m/s | 0.5° | Dauphin 6542 helicopter | Coherent | Ophir | 2005 | 253.7 nm | Unknown | Unknown | —— | Direct | M.A.Corp. | 2003 | 266 nm | 2 m/s | —— | King Air 300 | Direct | AVIC CAIC | 2018 | 1.5 μm | 0.5 m/s | 2° | —— | Coherent | AVIC FACRI | 2020 | 1.5 μm | 0.5 m/s | 1° | —— | Coherent | Boeing | 1995 | 1.064 μm | 1 m/s | Unknown | DC-8 aircraft | Coherent | Flight calibration of conventional air data system | Crouzet | 1979 | 10.6 μm | Unknown | Unknown | A340 aircraft | Coherent | Thales | 1991 | 10.6 μm | 0.25 m/s | Unknown | A340 aircraft | Coherent | Thales | 2011 | 1.5 μm | Unknown | Unknown | —— | Coherent | ONERA | 2016 | 1.5 μm | 1 m/s | 1° | Piaggio P180 aircraft | Coherent | NCAR | 2011 | 1.5 μm | 1 m/s | —— | Gulfstream V aircraft | Coherent | Detection of wind shear and turbulence | EADS | 2007 | 355 nm | 1.6 m/s | —— | ATTAS aircraft | Direct | DLR | 2016 | 355 nm | —— | —— | Cessna Citation2 aircraft | Direct |
|
Table 2. Partial performance of reported laser systems for air motion parameters