Comparison of Three Airborne Doppler Sampling Techniques with Airborne In Situ Wind Observations in Hurricane Gustav (1990)

John F. Gamache Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by John F. Gamache in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Frank D. Marks Jr. Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Frank D. Marks Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Frank Roux Centre de Recherches en Physique de L'Environment Terrestre et Planetaire (CNET/CNRS), Issy-les-Moutineaux, France

Search for other papers by Frank Roux in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Three different airborne Doppler radar sampling strategies were tested in Hurricane Gustav (1990) on 29 August 1990. The two new strategies were the fore-aft scanning technique (FAST) and airborne dual-platform Doppler sampling. FAST employs radar mans in cones pointing alternately fore and aft of the vertical plane that is perpendicular to the flight track. The airborne dual-platform sampling uses two Doppler radars, each aboard a separate aircraft. The Doppler radars scan strictly in the vertical plant normal to the flight track. The aircraft fly simultaneously along different, preferably perpendicular, tracks. The third strategy tested in Hurricane Gustav was single-platform sampling, which uses one Doppler radar on one aircraft that flies two consecutive, usually orthogonal, flight tracks. The antenna scans in the plane normal to the flight track. The third technique had been used previously in hurricanes and other disturbed weather.

The rms differences between the aircraft in situ winds and the Doppler winds derived near the aircraft by single-platform sampling, dual-platform sampling, and FAST are found to be 7.8, 5.1, and 2.5 m s−1, respectively. These results suggest that in hurricanes dual-platform flat-plane sampling and FAST both enable substantial improvements in the accuracy and temporal resolution of airborne Doppler wind fields over those obtained from single-platform, fiat-plane scanning. The FAST results should be applicable to dual-beam sampling, which began in 1991. The actual rms errors of Doppler winds far from the flight tracks, at levels well above flight level, and in highly sheared environments may be significantly higher than the above differences.

Abstract

Three different airborne Doppler radar sampling strategies were tested in Hurricane Gustav (1990) on 29 August 1990. The two new strategies were the fore-aft scanning technique (FAST) and airborne dual-platform Doppler sampling. FAST employs radar mans in cones pointing alternately fore and aft of the vertical plane that is perpendicular to the flight track. The airborne dual-platform sampling uses two Doppler radars, each aboard a separate aircraft. The Doppler radars scan strictly in the vertical plant normal to the flight track. The aircraft fly simultaneously along different, preferably perpendicular, tracks. The third strategy tested in Hurricane Gustav was single-platform sampling, which uses one Doppler radar on one aircraft that flies two consecutive, usually orthogonal, flight tracks. The antenna scans in the plane normal to the flight track. The third technique had been used previously in hurricanes and other disturbed weather.

The rms differences between the aircraft in situ winds and the Doppler winds derived near the aircraft by single-platform sampling, dual-platform sampling, and FAST are found to be 7.8, 5.1, and 2.5 m s−1, respectively. These results suggest that in hurricanes dual-platform flat-plane sampling and FAST both enable substantial improvements in the accuracy and temporal resolution of airborne Doppler wind fields over those obtained from single-platform, fiat-plane scanning. The FAST results should be applicable to dual-beam sampling, which began in 1991. The actual rms errors of Doppler winds far from the flight tracks, at levels well above flight level, and in highly sheared environments may be significantly higher than the above differences.

Save