Eddy-covariance flux measurements with a weight-shift microlight aircraft

Abstract

Abstract. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility and quality of eddy-covariance flux measurements from a weight-shift microlight aircraft (WSMA). Firstly, we investigate the precision of the wind measurement (σ u,v ≤ 0.09 m s −1 , σ w = 0.04 m s −1 ), the lynchpin of flux calculations from aircraft. From here, the smallest resolvable changes in friction velocity (0.02 m s −1 ), and sensible-(5 W m −2 ) and latent (3 W m −2 ) heat flux are estimated. Secondly, a seven-day flight campaign was performed near Lindenberg (Germany). Here we compare measurements of wind, temperature, humidity and respective fluxes between a tall tower and the WSMA. The maximum likelihood functional relationship (MLFR) between tower and WSMA measurements considers the random error in the data, and shows very good agreement of the scalar averages. The MLFRs for standard deviations (SDs, 2-34 %) and fluxes (17-21 %) indicate higher estimates of the airborne measurements compared to the tower. Considering the 99.5 % confidence intervals, the observed differences are not significant, with exception of the temperature SD. The comparison with a largeaperture scintillometer reveals lower sensible heat flux estimates at both tower (−40 to −25 %) and WSMA (−25-0 %). We relate the observed differences to (i) inconsistencies in the temperature and wind measurement at the tower and (ii) the measurement platforms' differing abilities to capture contributions from non-propagating eddies. These findings encourage the use of WSMA as a low cost and highly versatile flux measurement platform.

The NASA Carbon Airborne Flux Experiment (CARAFE): instrumentation and methodology

“…For example, Misztal et al (2016) define a series of circles with radii equal to dx 0.5 and used these areas to integrate model-derived surface fluxes (with equal weighting within the circle). Sayres et al (2017) utilize the 1-D parameterization of Kljun et al (2004), while others have augmented the latter with a cross-wind distribution function (Metzger et al, 2012(Metzger et al, , 2013Vaughan et al, 2016). The recent 2-D parameterization of Kljun et al (2015;hereafter K15) is an attractive next step, both because it is based on the same Lagrangian framework as its 1-D predecessor and because the MATLAB code is freely available.…”

Optimization of an enclosed gas analyzer sampling system for measuring eddy covariance fluxes of H<sub>2</sub>O and CO<sub>2</sub>

“…This package, described in detail in Metzger et al (2012Metzger et al ( , 2013a, has been verified against other turbulence processors (e.g., Mauder and Foken, 2011). All data were prepared by first regularizing to evenly spaced time increments, which are exactly 1 s for HMP35, 0.1 s for CSAT3 and LI-7500 and 0.05 s for LI-7200, respectively.…”

Ultrafine particles over Germany – an aerial survey

“…The aerosol package contains a single wavelength nephelometer (AVMIII, HSS Inc. Bedford, MA, USA) for measurement of the extinction coefficient and for several flight sections in 2014 a 7 wavelength aethalometer, Model AE33 AVIO (Drinovec et al, 2015). The total instrument setup (Table 1) contains also two sets of gimbaled radiation instruments from actinic flux in the UVB (280-315 nm) (Junkermann et al, 1989) to total shortwave (model 210 Pyranometer, LICOR) and longwave (CGR4 pyrgeometer, Kipp & Zonen, NL) radiation, both for upwelling and downwelling radiation, surface and sky temperature sensors, a wind and turbulence probe (Metzger et al, 2012) and an ozone sensor. It thus allows not only to measure the spatial distribution of aerosols but also to characterise the state of the ambient PBL concerning boundary layer dynamics and air chemistry.…”

“…The fast CPC signal, smoothed with a running average, along the flight path gives the total number of particles within a plane perpendicular to the plume transport vector and is multiplied with the wind speed to obtain a particle flux, the emission source strength after subtraction of the background measured at both sides of the plume. Wind direction and wind speed are thus measured additionally in situ with an accuracy of Â108 and 930 cm s (1 (Metzger et al, 2012).…”