Landing Gear Location
Landing Gear Location
Landing Gear Location
NaCoMM-2009-TKAj2
Abstract
Aircraft landing gear mechanism serves several design purpose such as supporting the weight of aircraft, providing rolling chassis/taxiing and shock absorption function especially during takeoff and landing etc. The present study carried out to layout design of landing gear system for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at conceptual design stage. The nose wheel tricycle landing gear has been the preferred configuration for UAV. The most attractive feature of this type of undercarriages is the improved stability during braking and ground maneuvers. The results of present study indicated that landing gear stability could be improved by longer wheel axle, stiffer damping mechanism and smaller wheel mass and lower aircraft sinking velocity. The present approach has been following the recommendations of the previous design of landing gear layout of other aircraft and international standard federal aviation regulations (FAR). More work to be done to prove the viability of this conceptual layout design. Detailed results needed further simulation study for validations. Keywords: UAV, Landing gear stability, Shock absorber, Tip back angle, Landing gear load factor.
Introduction
This section contains the basic definition, classification and function of unmanned aerial vehicle and landing gear systems.
471
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09), NIT, Durgapur, India, December 17-18, 2009 c.g positions, forward c.g. corresponding to full fuel mass at the time of take-off and the aft c.g. when fuel has been used or at the time of landing.
NaCoMM-2009-TKAj2
gear so that the appropriate level friction forces needed for steering can be generated. Nose gear loads in the static condition generally vary about 6-20%, but these should be considered as extremes. A preferable range would be 8% with the c.g aft, increasing to 15% with the c.g. forward has been considering in present design calculations.
Max static main gear load (per strut)
F-M = W (0.42-0.46)W 2F Max static nose gear load (3)
Fig. 1: Aerial vehicle with two c.g. positions. The position of aircraft c.g. can be obtained by knowing the component weight and their positions. Mean aerodynamic chord calculation (MAC) calculation based in Fig. (2) and Eqs. (1-2).
F-L = W (0.08-0.15)W F
(4)
S (CR - M) H= (2) C R - CT The following steps are needed to position the main landing gear. 1a: Determination of mean aerodynamic chord of aircraft by using above Eqs. (1-2). 1b: Locate the forward and aft c.g. limit on the mean aerodynamic chord . 1c: Lines are drawn vertically from these forward and aft c.g. limits to locate the vertical position of the c.g. along these lines. 1d: Involves a recheck of the ensuing location of the main landing gear. It should be between about 50-55% of the MAC [2].
W = Max static load+ 10J (6) 32.2F Where W is the Take-off weight of aerial vehicle and other quantities are defined in Fig. (3). The equation (6) determines nose gear dynamic load, this is important for tire selection of landing gear [4].
472
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09), NIT, Durgapur, India, December 17-18, 2009 design in which the wheel and strut travel the same distance. The first step is to determine the maximum loads accept able in the shock strut. This load comprises the static load plus the dynamic reaction load. When that load divided by the static load, the reaction factor N obtained. This is some time called to landing gear load factor or merely landing load factor. Its valued ranges from 2.03.0 for small utility aircraft or UAVs. Its permissible magnitude is determined by the airframe to accommodate those factors during landing impact. Initially, the aircraft is assumed a rigid body with no relative acceleration between the c.g. and gear attachment point. Thus, the load factor at the c.g. is the same as the attachment. To understand fully the relationship between the load factor at the center of gravity Nc.g and the landing gear load factor N, consider a free body being acted upon by shock strut forces and lift, as Shown in Fig. (4), Where Fs is the shock strut force and L, the lift. Thus Sum of all external forces Fs +L Nc.g = = (7) Mass M
NaCoMM-2009-TKAj2
Thus, for a given aircraft load factor, N will be higher for FAR Part23 aircraft than for FAR Part 25 aircraft. When the aircraft comes to rest on the ground, the lift is zero and the shock strut force is equal to the aircraft weight i.e. Fs =W Therefore
Nc.g =1+N for FAR part 23 Aircraft
The shock absorbers and tire act together to decelerate the UAVs from landing vertical velocity to zero vertical velocity. Therefore shock absorber and tire must also absorb the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy of the aircraft; thus, Tire Strut Kinetic Potential Energy Energy Energy Energy
St n t NW + St n s NW = W V2 + 2g
( W-L ) (S+St )
(9) Where St = Tire deflection under N times static load, ft S = Vertical wheel travel, ft nt = Tire efficiency ns = Shock strut efficiency N = Reaction W = Aircraft weight L = Lift V = Sink speed
Fig. 4 Shock strut dynamics When lift = weight W ( as specified in FAR part25 for transport- type aircraft*)
Fs L F + = s +g W M M g
If, for convenience, the landing gear load factor N is defined as being equal to Fs/Mass, the gear load factor determine how much load ,the gear passes to the airframe, which affects the airframe structural weight as well as strength. Then
Nc.g =1+N for FAR part 25 Aircraft
On utility and aerobatic aircraft, the rules of FAR part 23* apply and lift = 0.67w; i.e, W=l/0.67, as F 0.67 g Nc.g = s + L (8) M L
473
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09), NIT, Durgapur, India, December 17-18, 2009 (3) Establish line A-B Extend the line to a point C. (4)Through point, C draws a perpendicular to line A-B. (5) Through the c.g. (in the plane view draw a line parallel to A-B and obtain point D. (6)From point D measure height of the c.g. (H) obtained from the side view and obtain point E. = 63deg for aircraft that are restricted to operate on smooth, hard surfaced runways. This values is based on a side friction coefficient of = 0.55 and the assumption that the aircraft will slide sideways instead of tipping over. 11 12 13
1. 2. 3.
15 12 10
For an initial layout, assume that a quarter to a third of the total stroke is used in moving from static to compressed thus for a 11.10inch stroke,3.7 inch is the distance from static to compressed and 7.4 inch that from static to extended.
3.5 m (L.E) from nose of UAV Wing span 21 m Root chord 0.975m Calculated Data MAC position 4.34 m C.G (vertical) 1.5m ( From ground) C.G shift 0. 10 times of MAC length Tip chord 0.5 m Aft C.G location 5.0 m from nose
474
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09), NIT, Durgapur, India, December 17-18, 2009 At conceptual design stage we have taken a range ( 30-80 ) of value alpha (0 0.9 )which are feasible for this solution than corresponding value of thita ( ) in that range is (60 110) With known value of vertical c.g. height (H) from the level ground so corresponding (M) distance between Aft c.g. to main wheel position horizontally as shown previous Fig.6.
NaCoMM-2009-TKAj2
For a given parameters C.G height H = 1.5 approx and value of D = 2.7 m and wheel base = 3 m From given geometry in Fig. 5, we can calculate wheel track as given Tan = H / K, Where CD =K ,Then
Tan50 = 1.5/K => K = 1.3 There fore sin = K / D ( where D = 2.7 m) Now Tan = Z / F => Z = tan 28 X F => = 28 deg
=> Z = 0.53 x3 => Z =1.53 m (F =4.115 m) Fig. 6 Tricycle landing gear geometry Suppose as ideal value 0 0.9 is 6 deg than corresponding value of is 9 deg an nose wheel carry 10% of MTOW than wheelbase can be calculated as So value of M = H tan () => 1.5 tan 90 = 0.237 m (where value of H = 1.5m approx) Load on nose wheel is 200 and corresponding load main wheel 900kg Take moment about nose wheel Max static main gear load (per strut) = W (F-M)/2F, where F is wheel base in meter => 900= 2000 (F-M) /2F F = 10X.0.237 = 2.4m We have calculated the wheel track for the turnover angle range from 45 deg to 55 deg wheel track = 2 Z =2x1.53 = 3.2m For a given wheel base F= 3m, M =2.37m, for different turnover angle wheel track as below Table- 3: Wheel track corresponding given wheelbase
Use log both sides logD = log A+ B log Ww logD = log1.51 + 0.349 log 920
D = 16.40 in
Tire dia range from (14-16.40 in ) Similar way for width (T) calculation of main wheel T = AWBw, By using log both sides, log T = log A +B log Ww Log T = log0.7150 +0.312 log 1000 kg
475
14th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09), NIT, Durgapur, India, December 17-18, 2009
NaCoMM-2009-TKAj2
quirement. While the shock absorber stroke is not a function of the aircraft weight, nevertheless it is vital to increase the size of the stroke to lower the landing load factors and thereby minimizing the structure weight due to landing loads. To accommodate this requirement, larger-section tires can be utilized. However, the penalty for this solution is the increase in aircraft weight and therefore reduced payload that would be too costly for UAVs.
5 Concluding Remark
Based on present study of landing gear layout design of UAVs the following concluding remark are drawn. Nose gear loads in the static position preferable or optimum range would be 8-12%. The wheel track of landing gear is approximately 25-30 % of wing span in UAVs cases. The stroke length of oleo pneumatic shock absorber is approximately equal to touchdown sink speed. The strut length is about 2.5 to 3.0 times the stroke length. Nose wheel diameter is 60-100 % of main wheel dim in nose wheel landing gear. Many more options could be decided to functionally and operationally improve the present conceptual design by using various computer simulation programs. These results needed experimental data to validate it.
Wheel Base
8% MT Ow on Nose wheel 9% MT OW on Nose wheel 10% MT OW on Nose Wheel 11% MT OW on Nose wheel 12% MT OW on Nose wheel
4.5
CL Max Angle
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
30 25
References
L.G.F =2.5g L.G.F =3g L.G.F=2g
Stroke Length
20 15 10 5 0 7.5 10
[1] Roskam(1986), Airplane design part IV: Layout design of landing gear systems, Roskam aviation and engineering corporations [2]Currey (1988). Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices 1st Edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Sinking Velocity
12.5
15
17.5
[3]H.G Conway, Landing gear design, The Royal Aeronautical Society Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1958. [4]Daniel P. Raymer (1992). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 1st Edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, p229-256. [5] Joseph E. Shigley (1977). Mechanical Engineering Design 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., p26, 34, 37-40, 43-45, 60, 94-120, 295-313. [6]Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (1976). Airframe and Power plant Mechanics Airframe Handbook Revised 1st Edition, Aviation Maintenance Publishers, Inc., p341-405. [7].Young ,D,E., Aircraft landing gears-The past, present and future, proceedings of the institute of mechanical engineers,vol 200,noD2,1986,pp. 75-92. [8]S.F.N Jenkins, Landing Gear Design and Development, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs. Vol. 203, pp. 67-73.
19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1
Stroke Length
3.5
Fig. 9: Vertical wheel travel Vs load factor In addition, the braking forces, which act behind the aircraft c,g., have a stabilizing effect and thus enable the external pilot to make full use of the brakes. These factors all contribute to a shorter landing field length re-
476