Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1
DME Infrastructure in the Conterminous United States (CONUS)
- FIGURE 2
DME station response based on X channel reply delay & dead time. Depiction based on Kelly and Cusick (1986)
- FIGURE 3
DME (left) and DME PPPM operations (right)
- FIGURE 4
Basic structure of preliminary DME PPPM design
- FIGURE 5
Sync and data DME PPPM blocks used in March 2015 tests
- FIGURE 6
Laboratory test of DME PPPM pseudolite generator with playback computer (left) and receive computer (right)
- FIGURE 7
Integration of DME PPPM pseudolite generator with existing DME transponder
- FIGURE 8
Modified Moog MM-7000 TACAN for enhanced DME tests (Pelgrum et al., 2015)
- FIGURE 9
DME antenna locations under Ohio University Baron aircraft
- FIGURE 10
DME PPPM processing flowchart
- FIGURE 11
Correlation of interrogation with reply pulse pairs to acquire initial range estimate
- FIGURE 12
Percentage of synchronization pulse pairs received (static ground test, March 9, 2015)
- FIGURE 13
Mean reply efficiency (simulated), assuming 250 priority beat pulse pairs per second and Y channel transmission (and 8 usec deadtime)
- FIGURE 14
Percentage of synchronization pulse pairs received (flight test, March 10, 2015, afternoon)
- FIGURE 15
Sync pulse reception rate and total pulse pair reception during period of poor reception
- FIGURE 16
Total pulse pair reception and mean signal strength during period of poor reception
- FIGURE 17
Synchronization pulse pair reception rate for all flights
- FIGURE 18
Synchronization pulse pair reception rate for all flights (zoomed)
- FIGURE 19
Measured sync TOA variation relative to ideal (at different times, in seconds, from start – see legend), March 9, ground test
- FIGURE 20
Types of error and erasures in DME PPPM data (when there is overlap, only the early pulse pair is transmitted)
- FIGURE 21
Percentage of correct data (top) and synchronization pulse pairs received (bottom) (static ground test, March 9, 2015)
- FIGURE 22
Correct sync symbol vs correct data symbol reception rates
- FIGURE 23
Symbol erasure rates from analytical (dashed) and simulation (solid) model for two acceptance tolerances (600 and 1000 ns)
- FIGURE 24
Symbol error rates from analytical (dashed) and simulation (solid) model for two acceptance tolerances (600 and 1000 ns)
Tables
Code Interrogation pulse pair spacing (μs) Reply pulse pair spacing (μs) Reply delay (μs) X 12 12 50 Y 36 30 56 Date/time Cruise altitude (MSL) ft March 10 AM 6000-7000 March 10 PM 4000-5000 March 11 PM 10500 March 12 PM 10300 March 13 AM 3300 - TABLE 3
Mean and standard deviation synchronization reception rate for each test conducted
Date Mean sync Std sync Cruise altitude (MSL) 0309 Ground 75.8% 6.36% N/A 0310 AM 71.1% 12.74% 6000-7000 ft 0310 PM 68.9% 15.22% 4000-5000 ft 0311 PM 74.8% 7.78% 10500 ft 0312 PM 74.8% 7.45% 10300 ft 0313 AM 71.1% 10.87% 3300 ft Test Mean (%) Standard deviation (%) 0309, Ground 67.2% 3.7% 0310 AM, Air 59.2% 13.1% 0310 PM, Air 56.4% 15.3% Test Mean (%) Standard deviation (%) 0309, Ground 60.7% 4.4% 0310 AM, Air 53.9% 10.7% 0310 PM, Air 51.9% 12.5% Test Mean (%) Standard deviation (%) 0309, Ground 600 ns 29.3% 3.4% 0310 AM, Air 600 ns 36.4% 11.7% 0310 PM, Air 600 39.0% 14.0% 0309, Ground 1000 ns 34.1% 3.8% 0310 AM, Air 1000 ns 39.5% 8.7% 0310 PM, Air 1000 ns 41.4% 10.5% Test Mean (%) Standard deviation 0309, Ground, 600 ns 3.5% 1.0% 0310 AM, Air, 600 ns 4.4% 1.9% 0310 PM, Air, 600 ns 4.6% 1.9% 0309, Ground, 1000 ns 5.2% 1.2% 0310 AM, Air, 1000 ns 6.6% 2.6% 0310 PM, Air, 1000 ns 6.8% 2.5%
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.