AERSP 420 Principles of Flight Test Final Report - #2 Brian Harrell Linda John 13 December 2013

ABSTRACT The Piper Archer II-PA-28-181 belongs to a family of light aircraft design for flight training, air taxi, and personal use. This report analyzes the performance of the Arrow II in a series of flight tests. First, data on the performance of the aircraft during a stall simulation based on atmospheric conditions will be analyses to determine the max lift coefficient and consequential stall speed. Data from the climb rate test will be used to determine max climb rates and climb rate speeds. Furthermore, this report compares experimental data results to manufacturer provided data in the Pilot's Operating Manuel. The experimental data is used in a stall simulation in MATLAB done using a code that is attached at the end of this report. From this code, plots of lift coefficient versus angle of attack are generated. The code also determines a stall angle of attack and a stall velocity for each of the four stalls tests preformed. In comparison to the stall velocity given in the Pilots Operating Handbook, the simulation results were within 3% of the provided values. The experimental data for the climb test is used to determine a measured rate of climb for each test. This measured rate of climb was then converted to an actual normalized rate of climb based on the air temperature at altitude. MATLAB is once again used to plot these climb rates against velocity and compared with the maximum climb rate and the maximum climb rate speed found in the Pilots Operating Handbook. The results of the climb test experiment yielded a maximum climb rate of 749.3 feet per minute compared to the given 700 feet per minute value, which is only 7% off. Finally, the maximum climb rate speed provided is 76 knots. The experimental speed was found to be 75 knots, which is extremely close. Potential sources of error in the experiment results could be due to inconsistencies in maintaining constant speeds or altitudes, or human error in data collection. These errors could be rectified by repeating the tests multiple times to reduce the severity of inconsistencies and by running practice flight test prior to actual takeoff to ensure the team's preparedness.

1.0

INTRODUCTION The following describes the purpose of the flight test experiments, a breakdown of the

test aircraft, and the scope and methodology of the tests performed for analysis. 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the combined analysis-flight test program is to: Analytically determine the performance of a Piper Archer II-PA-28-181 and compare it to experimental data gathered in flight for determining the maximum life coefficient and resulting stall speed. Collect and reduce flight test data for determining the maximum climb rate and maximum climb rate speed for the Piper Archer II-PA-28-181 and compare the experimental data results to values provided by the Pilot's Operating Handbook. 1.2 Description of Test Airplane The Archer II is a single engine, retractable landing gear, all metal airplane frequently used for air taxi, flight training and personal use. It has seating for up to four people, 24 cubic feet of baggage space, and a maximum takeoff weight of 2550 pounds. The aircraft is not configured for stunt maneuvers since its structure is not designed for aerobatic loads. The fuselage is a semi-monologue structure with a conventionally designed, semi-tapered wing, which employs a NACA 652-415 laminar flow type airfoil section. The four-positioning wing flaps are mechanically controlled by a handle located between the front seats. When fully retracted, the right flap locks into place to provide a step for cabin entry. A vertical stabilizer, all-movable horizontal stabilator and a rudder make up the empennage. The Archer II incorporates a Lycoming O-360-A4A four-cylinder engine rated at 180 horsepower at 2700 rpm. The aircraft is equipped with a Sensenich 76EM8S5-0-60 propeller, which is a fixed pitch propeller with a maximum diameter of 76 inches.. The horizontal stabilizer features a trim tab mounted on the trailing edge that provides trim control and pitch control forces. This tab is actuated by a control wheel on the floor between the front seats. The rudder is of conventional design and includes a rudder trim as well. The flaps are manually operated and spring-loaded to return to the up position.They have three extended positions, 10, 25, and 40 degrees. Fuel is contained in a single tank and of the total 50 gallon capacity, only 48

gallons are usable. The aircraft also has a calibrated system that supplies both pitot and static pressure for the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Pitot static pressure is picked up by the probe on the bottom of the left wing. The Archer II uses a traditional flight control configuration. A three-view drawing of the Archer II is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Three view drawing of the Piper Archer II

1.3

Scope of Test

The flight test consists of two separate tests Stall Test Climb Rate Test An actual takeoff weight was determined to be 2363 pounds and the altimeter was set at 29.92. This weight includes the empty weight of the aircraft, the combined weight of the passengers and pilot, and the weight of the fuel. At the time of takeoff the fuel level in the aircraft was at 25 gallons. Completing the two tests had a combined duration of approximately one hour and were filmed for later analysis. The stall test occurred at altitude around 4300 feet. The climb test was performed at altitude around 3800, 2400, and 4500 ft at the 0, 30 and 60 second time marks, respectively. The outside air temperature during the time of the flight test was 20 degrees Fahrenheit. All tests were completed with the both the gear down and flaps up and within the limitations of the Pilots Operating Handbook. Tables 1 and 2 below list several important parameters relating to the Piper Archer II.
Table 1. Operating Limitations and Weights for the Archer II

Max Power Max Takeoff Weight

2700 RPM 180 hp. 2550 lbs.

Table 2. Important Physical Parameters of the Piper Arrow II

Name Wing Planform Area Wing Span Aspect Ratio Oswalds Efficiency Factor NACA 652-415 Lift Curve Slope

Abbreviation S b A e a

Value 170 ft^2 35 ft 7.2058 0.6 6.88 rad^-1

1.4

Method of Test Stall Test After the completion of the climb test, the team prepares for the start of the stall test. For

duration of this flight test, the indicated air speed should remain constant at around 65 knots and the aircraft should be operating at full power. At this point, outside air temperature is recorded. The pilot then maneuvers the aircraft to fly at a constant heading of 045. At this point the aircraft is slowed down until stall is reached. At the moment of stall, the following values are recorded: Pressure Altitude (feet) Indicated Airspeed (knots) Fuel Level (gallons) GPS Track Indicated Ground Speed (knots)

Once these values are recorded and stable flight is reached, the procedure is repeated for 3 other headings: 135, 225, and 315. Following the collection of this data, the flight test is complete and the aircraft is landed safely. Climb Test Following the completion of all necessary pre-flight checks and procedures, team members board the aircraft and prepare for takeoff. At this point, outside air temperature and initial fuel level are recorded. Once airborne, the aircraft is to climb to a stable cruise altitude (around 4300 feet) in order to preform the climb test. The aircraft is flying at a constant speed of 65 knots with the gear down and the flaps up. Once in the correct configuration, the aircraft was flown down to about 500 feet below the cruise altitude. Once this lower altitude is reached, video taping of the flight test starts and the pilot begins a steady climb maneuver. At around 350 feet below the cruise altitude the timer is started and the following data is recorded: Pressure Altitude (feet) Outside Air Temperature (Fahrenheit) Indicated Ground Speed (knots) Fuel Level (gallons)

After 30 seconds of steady climb have passed on the timer, data for these parameters is taken again, but this time RPM is also recorded. At 60 seconds, values for only pressure altitude and outside air temperature are recorded. Once values were recorded for 0, 30, and 60 second marks, the entire procedure was repeated at speeds increasing by 10 knot increments (75kts, 85kts, 95kts115kts) until wide open throttle was reached at which point the test was completed.

1.5

Instrumentation
Table 3. Important Instruments and the parameters they were used to measure

Parameter Airspeed Altitude RPM Track Ground-Speed Time Fuel Levels Outside Air Temperature

Instrument On-board ASI On-board Altimeter On-board gauge On-board GPS On-board GPS Stopwatch On-board fuel indicator On-board temperature gauge

2.0

ANALYSIS The following describes the theory behind the stall and climb tests as well as the data

reduction method used to analyze the climb test data. The following sections also describe the code used to perform the stall simulation and how that relates to the stall experiment performed during this flight test. Several figures and examples are given validating the code and overall analysis method. 2.1 Theory Stall Test The Primary theories behind the Stall Test and analysis are the Biot-Savart Law and the Kutta Juokowski equation. To begin, the Biot-Savart Law describes the velocity of a fluid at any radial point in a vortex. This is pertinent to predicting the stall of an aircraft because as the aircraft moves through the air, the wing creates voticies originating from the wingtip, which create downwash on the entire wing. This downwash is described by the Biot-Savart law using,

w=

" , 4 #r

(1)

where ! is the circulation of the vortex causing the downwash, and r is the radial disance from the center of the vortex to the ! point being examined ! Additionally, the Kutta Juokowski equation, given by,

L=

"V#,

(2)

describes the relationship between circulation, !, and lift, L. Based on Eq. (2) we can see that a wing must create some circulation order for it to produce lift. As the aircraft begins to stall ! ! in across the various sections of its wing, those sections will cease to produce circulation and likewise, cease to produce lift. Additionally, the lift on each wing segment of the aircraft can be expressed as,

L=

1 "V 2cCl , 2

(3)

!
8

where " is the air density at altitude, V is the velocity of the aircraft in feet per second, c is the section chord length, and Cl is the section lift coefficient. By setting Eq. (2) and (3) equal to each other, an equation for circulation, !, can be determined. Some simple algebra gives, !

"=

$ ' 1 Vca & ) 2 & )* 1 1 ) & 1 + ca ( ) & ) "#y ( % 2

(4)

! #y, is the wing segment width and $ is the angle of attack of the where a is the lift-curve slope,
wing segment. Equation (4) can be! expressed in matrix form as,
! "= ! ! A" + X ,

(5)

Some simple matrix algebra yields,

! ! ! "=

! ( I " A) "1 X ,

(6)

where
!

Anm =

1 ac w , 2 n nm

(7)

and

! ! Xn =

1 Va"c n 2

(8)

Additionally, in Eq. (6) the matrix I is an n-by-n identity matrix. In Eq. (8), $ represents the angle of attack of the wing ! section. ! In order to determine this angle of attack, one must consider the effect of the flaps on the angle of attack of the wing. For wing sections where the flaps affect the angle of attack, we must add an additional factor, " f into the angle of attack when calculating the vector described in Eq. (8). The effect of the flaps on the angle of attack is described by,

"f =

"#$ f

(9)

!
9

Once we have determined the circulation matrix, !, we must next determine if any of the wing segments have stalled, and ignore the lift contributions of each stalled segment. The segment lift coefficient is determined for wing segment, i using,

Cli =

2"i Vc i ,

(10)

and if ( Cl > 1.7) then we assume that the wing segment in question is stalled. !calculate the lift on each wing segment using the equation, Additionally, we can !

Li =

"V#i ,

(11)

as well as the lift on the entire wing using the equation,

L=

$ "V# %y ,
i i =1

(12)

where "i is the circulation on wing segment i, and N is the number of segments that the wing has been separated into.

After the lift on the wing has been determined, it can be used to find the lift coefficient,

CL for the entire wing using the equation,

L=

1 "V 2 SCL , 2

(13)

where S, is the planform area of the wing. This entire process can be repeated to generate a relationship between C and ! $. From can be determined and used to ! this relationship, C
L L max

calculate a theoretical VStall which will be used to compare our experimental results to the Pilots Operating Handbook. !

!
Climb Test

The primary theory behind the climb test has to do with rate of climb derived from static equilibrium equations. If in fact the forces on the aircraft are in equilibrium then we can assume,
T " D " W sin # = 0

(14)

10

where, T is thrust, D is drag, W is the weight of the aircraft and % is the angle of climb. Additionally, if we are in equilibrium, then any forces normal to the direction of flight will cancel out, leaving us with,

L = W cos "
and because (R/C) = Vsin%, we know that,

(15)

! R /C =

T "D V W

(16)

Once we have determined the rate of climb, we must adjust it to account for the ! which ! atmospheric properties with we are flying in. This conversion is done using,

(R / C ) actual = (R / C ) measured

Tactual Ts

(17)

where Ts =519 degrees Rankine, which is the standard temperature of the atmosphere. Next we must find the rate of! increase of (R/C) ! with respect to gross weight given by,

#" ( R / C ) & = % $ "W ( 'W = actual

"( R / C ) V 2CL " W W W#Ae

(18)

where A is the aspect ratio of the aircraft and e is Oswalds efficiency factor for the aircraft. Finally, we must the experimental climb rates for weight according to, ! ! use this rate to normalize

[R / C ]Ws =

( R / C ) actual +

"( R / C) (W actual # W s ) "W

(19)

11

2.2

Implementation Stall Test The stall test simulation was done using a custom code implemented in MATLAB. The

code took user input for several parameters including: Pressure Altitude (feet) Outside Air Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Aircraft Weight (pounds) Indicated Airspeed at the time of stall (knots) Number of Wing Segments Flap Deflection (degrees)

The code takes the pressure altitude and temperature inputs and converts them to an air density to be used throughout the simulation. Next, the indicated airspeed is converted from knots to feet per second using,

V fps =

Vknots " 1.6878 ,

(20)

and wing segment width, #y is calculated by dividing the wingspan by the number of segments used in the simulation. Next, ! is created containing the y-locations of the centers of each ! an array wing segment along the wingspan. This is done using,

Yi =

(i " 1) #y +

#y , 2

(21)

for wing segment i, across the entire wingspan. ! lengths Next, an array of chord ! was created according to the geometry of the aircrafts wing. This array was filled using a for loop and a series of nested if statements which can be seen in further detail in the Stall Test Code in appendix B. After the chord length array had been completed, an angle of attack range was declared in degrees,

" = [0 : 25] (degrees)

12

and converted from degrees to radians. The contribution of the flaps to the angle of attack was also accounted for in this section of the code. First, the user was be prompted to enter the flap deflection ( " f ) in degrees. This flap deflection was then used to calculate the correction factor, & based on the equation,

" = (4.8(10 "6 ))(# f 3 ) " (0.00061)(# f 2 ) + (0.014)(# f ) + 0.72

(22)

which was derived by digitizing the plot in (typeFlapAdjust.pdf) and performing a third degree polynomial ! curve ! fit. The custom code used to derive this equation is shown in the Correction Factor Calculation code in appendix C. Next, the flap effectiveness factor, ' was determined for wing segment, i, using the equation,

% # " sin(# f ) ( "i = 1 "' f *, $ & )

i i

(23)

where,

" fi =

## 2c f & & cos"1%% ( " 1( , $$ c i ' '

(24)

and the flap chord length, c f = 0.9 feet. At this point, the effect of the tail on angle of attack can ! ! be determined according to the equation,

" fi =

" # $i # % f ,

(25)

and was then converted from degrees to radians for use in future calculations. Next the custom code ! the downwash velocity contributions of each separate !computed wing segment on the other wing segments. This computation was done using two nested for loops, which increment from 1 to N, and the equation,

w( i, j ) =

$ ' ) $ "1 '& 1 1 " & )& (26) *y *y ) % 4 # (& (Yi " Y j + ) (Yi " Y j " ) ) % 2 2 (

!
!
13

Another set of nested for loops was used to create the A matrix described in Eq. (7). Both for loops increment from 1 to N in order to create an N by N matrix. In the next step of the simulation, a large for loop was used containing several other important sub-algorithms, described in figure 2. FOR loop, accounting for all angles of attack used in the simulation o FOR loop, accounting for all wing segments ! IF statement, used to determine the y-location along the wingspan If we are examining the inner wing section, include the contribution of the flaps in $ If we are examining the outer wing section, do not include the contribution of the flaps in $ ! Calculate the X vector according to Eq. (8) o Calculate the circulation vector, ! based on Eq. (6) o FOR loop, accounting for all wing segments ! Calculate the section lift coefficient, Cl according to Eq.(10) ! IF statement, used to determine if Cl is above 1.7 If the above statement is true, set "i = 0 for the wing segment in question ! o Calculate the lift on each wing segment using Eq. (11) ! by summing the elements of the o Calculate the total lift on the wing ! step segment lift vector created in the previous o Calculate CL from the total lift using Eq. (13) END
Figure 2. Describes the series of nested for loops used in the stall test code

!
After the loop described in figure (2) was completed, a plot of CL versus $ was generated and analyzed to determine the maximum lift coefficient reached during the simulation. The maximum lift coefficient was then used with the wing planform area, S, the air density, the ! aircraft weight, W, and Eq. (13) to determine the theoretical stall velocity of the aircraft.

14

Climb Test The climb test was implemented using a custom code in MATLAB. Several important physical parameters were hardcoded into the program including: Wing Span (feet) Planform Area (feet^2) Oswalds Efficiency Factor Aspect Ratio Standard Weight (lbs)

The experimental data for indicated airspeed, pressure altitude and weight were then hardcoded into the program. The code then takes the atmospheric data and calculates the density of the air for each of the climb tests. Next, a measured climb rate is determined by simply taking the difference between the pressure altitude data points at 0 seconds and the pressure altitude data points at 60 seconds. Using the previously stated assumption that the forces during the climb are in equilibrium, we can assume that L = W and that Eq. (13) holds true throughout this test. Eq. (13) is then used to determine the lift coefficients for each of the climb tests. At this point, Eq. (18) and (19) are used inside of for loops to determine the normalized R/C for each climb test. The results were then plotted along with the raw experimental rate of climb data and the rate of climb data from the Pilots Operating Handbook for the maximum climb rate and maximum climb rate speed. The custom code used to process the data can be seen in further detail in the Climb Test Code in appendix D.

15

2.2.1 Verification Approach Stall Test The stall test simulation was verified via several plots used to check that the code was in fact following its intended algorithm. In addition, a pause command was used in order to step through the loops used in the code at the users convenience. The different plots used to verify that the stall test simulation code worked properly are described in table 4.
Table 4. Shows the 5 figures produced during the stall test code and what those figures represent

Figure # MATLAB Figure (1) MATLAB Figure (2) MATLAB Figure (3) MATLAB Figure (4) MATLAB Figure (5)

Description of Plot Chord Length vs. Y-location Circulation, ! vs. Y-location Section Lift Coefficient vs. Y-location Lift vs. Y-location (Lift Distribution) Lift Coefficient, CL vs. Angle of Attack, "

Climb Test ! Looking at the climb rates determined from the code and comparing them to the maximum climb rate found in the Pilots Operating Handbook, verified the climb test. All of our experimental results were fairly close to this maximum climb rate except for our first data point, which was the result of an error in data recording. 2.3 Example Results Stall Test For the stall test we expect to see a chord length plot that resembles the wing geometry of the Piper Archer II. In addition, we expect to see plots of both circulation and lift across the wing that have an elliptical shape at low angles of attack and begin to go to zero near the center of the wing as the angle of attack is increased. 2.3.1 Verification Results The stall test code was verified by generating several process plots and observing them as the code worked through the angle of attack range. The process plots are shown at an angle of attack of 0 and 18 degrees in figures 3 and 4. Note that in figure 3 you can see that the wing has

16

an elliptical lift distribution and in figure 4 the wing begins to lose lift in the center sections of the wing due to an increased angle of attack.

Figure 3. Four process plots showing the chord length, circulation, section lift coefficient and lift distribution across the wing. This process plot was taken at an angle of attack of 0 degrees. Note the elliptical shape of the circulation and lift distribution plots.

17

Figure 4. Four process plots showing the chord length, circulation, section lift coefficient and lift distribution across the wing. This process plot was taken at an angle of attack of 18 degrees. Note the gaps in the lift distribution plot where the sig sections are stalled.

18

3.0

RESULTS & DISCUSSION In the following section, the results of our two flight test experiments, the stall test and

the climb test will be analyzed and discussed. Figures and tables of our experimental data will be presented and discussed as well, along with comparisons between our experimental results and the theoretical results given by our stall test simulation and the Pilots Operating Handbook. Stall Test The stall test simulation was run four times using the atmospheric data from each of the four stalls performed during the stall test experiment. A table of the experimental data for each of the four stalls is shown in table 5.
Table 5. The pertinent experimental data for each of the four stalls.

Stall # 1 2 3 4

PA (feet) 4380 4340 4280 4300

OAT (degrees F) 20 20 20 20

Weight (lbs) 2363 2363 2363 2363

IAS (kts) 62 62 62 65

Number of Segments 100 100 100 ! 100

Flap Deflection, " f (degrees) 0 0 0 0

The resulting CL vs. $ plots generated by the stall test simulation are shown in figures 5, 6, 7 and 8. Each plot shows a linear relationship between CL and $ until the aircraft reaches its maximum lift coefficient at which point, we see the plots drop off sharply. The maximum lift ! coefficient values are illustrated on each of the plots using a pointer and a text box containing the ! data for that specific data point.

19

Figure 5. Plot of Lift Coefficient vs Angle of Attack for the first set of stall data. Note the marker denoting a maximum lift coefficient of 1. 551

Figure 6. Plot of Lift Coefficient vs Angle of Attack for the second set of stall data. Note the marker denoting a maximum lift coefficient of 1. 551

20

Figure 7. Plot of Lift Coefficient vs Angle of Attack for the third set of stall data. Note the marker denoting a maximum lift coefficient of 1. 551

Figure 8. Plot of Lift Coefficient vs Angle of Attack for the fourth set of stall data. Note the marker denoting a maximum lift coefficient of 1. 551

21

Additionally, figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show the results of each of the four stall test simulations. We can see from these results that the aircraft reaches a maximum lift coefficient of

CL max = 1.551
for each of the simulations. This result follows very closely with the data given in the Pilots Operating Handbook.

Figure 9. MATLAB Command window for the first set of stall data, showing a max lift coefficient of 1.551 and a stall velocity of 53.558 knots

Figure 10. MATLAB Command window for the second set of stall data, showing a max lift coefficient of 1.551 and a stall velocity of 53.516 knots

22

Figure 11. MATLAB Command window for the second set of stall data, showing a max lift coefficient of 1.551 and a stall velocity of 53.453 knots

Figure 12. MATLAB Command window for the fourth set of stall data, showing a max lift coefficient of 1.551 and a stall velocity of 53.474 knots

Overall, we have a high confidence in the accuracy of our stall test simulation because our final results follow closely with the data given in the Pilots Operating Handbook. Tables 6 and 7 show the final results of our stall test simulations as well as the actual values given in the Pilots Operating Handbook. The lift coefficient values were derived using the parameters from our flight tests, the stall velocity given in the Pilots Operating Handbook and Eq. (13).

23

Table 6. Experimental and Actual lift coefficients for stall in the Piper Archer II Experimental CL POH CL Test # % Error 1 2 3 4 1.551 1.551 1.551 !1.551 1.4688 1.4688 1.4688 1.4688 5.60% 5.60% 5.60% 5.60%

Test # 1 2 3 4

Table 7. Experimental and Actual stall velocities for the Piper Archer II Experimental VStall POH VStall % Error 53.558 53.516 53.454 !53.474 55 55 55 55 2.62% 2.70% 2.81% 2.77%

Climb Test After analyzing our climb test experimental data, we found that our results lined up well with the parameters given in the Pilots Operating Handbook. Our raw experimental data, along with our normalized results are plotted in figure 13. The maximum rate of climb is also plotted at the maximum rate of climb speed per the Pilots Operating Handbook. While much of our data lines up with what we expected based on the Pilots Operating Handbook, our first data point is an outlier, leading us to believe that it is incorrect due to human error when recording the data during the experiment.

Figure 13. Plot of (R/C) vs KIAS. Note the outlier at 65 knots and the POH value at 76 knots.

24

Additionally, we found that, disregarding our first data point, our maximum (R/C) occurred at an indicated airspeed of 75 knots. This lines up with the Pilots Operating Handbook considering that the given maximum rate of climb speed with flaps up is 76 knots. Table 8 shows the results of our rate of climb analysis, with a percent error calculated at 75 knots, where we experienced our maximum rate of climb.
Table 8. Experimental and Actual maximum climb rates and maximum climb rate velocities for the Piper Archer II IAS (knots) 65 75 85 95 ! 105

( R / C )Ws
1269.7 749.3 565.8 723.7 469.5

(R/C) max (POH) n/a 700 n/a n/a n/a

% Error 7.04%

25

4.0

CONCLUSIONS Throughout the course of this flight test, two experiments were performed. The first was

a stall test experiment in which the pilot flew four consecutive legs of a square flight pattern. On each leg, the pilot attained steady, level flight and then slowed the aircraft down until it reached stall. At the moment of stall, data was taken, including: Indicated Airspeed (knots) Pressure Altitude (feet) Fuel Level (gallons) GPS Track Indicated Ground Speed (knots) Outside Air Temperature (degrees F)

This experimental data was then used in a stall simulation done using a custom code, implemented in MATLAB. The results from this simulation included plots of lift coefficient versus angle of attack, as well as a stall angle of attack, maximum lift coefficient and a stall velocity computed for each of the four stalls. These results were then compared to the stall velocity given in the Pilots Operating Handbook and were within 3% of the values stated by the POH. Some problems encountered during the stall test include: Inconsistent pressure altitude due to pilot error Poor timing of the data gathering, resulting in data that does not represent the exact moment of stall. A slightly higher value of Lift because we did not account for the downward lift created by the tail of the aircraft. These problems could be eliminated by: Running more tests in order to minimize error due to inconsistent pressure altitude Keeping coordinated video recordings of the airspeed indicator as well as the altimeter. This would counteract some of the human error involved in calling out and recording the data during the flight test Using more in depth analysis to account for the downward lift caused by the tail

26

The second of the two flight tests was a climb test. The climb test was performed at 10 knot increments from 65 knots up to wide open throttle. To execute the climb test, the pilot would achieve steady level flight approximately 300 feet below the target altitude. The pilot would then allow the aircraft to climb for one minute. At the 0 second, 30 second, and 60 second marks, data was taken including: Indicated Airspeed (knots) Pressure Altitude (feet) Fuel Level (gallons) Outside Air Temperature (degrees F)

This experimental data was then used to determine a measured rate of climb for each test. This measured rate of climb was then converted to an actual rate of climb based on the air temperature at altitude. Next, several aircraft parameters and the actual climb rate were used to determine the rate of change of the climb rate with respect to the aircraft gross weight. This rate of change was in turn used to normalize the actual climb rates for weight. Finally, these normalized climb rates were plotted against velocity and compared with the maximum climb rate and the maximum climb rate speed found in the Pilots Operating Handbook. The results of the climb test experiment yielded a maximum climb rate of 749.3 feet per minute, which was only 7.04% off of the given value of 700 feet per minute. Additionally, the maximum climb rate speed found in the climb test experiment was approximately 75 knots as compared to the POH value of 76 knots with flaps up. Some problems encountered in the climb test experiment included: An inconsistent indicated airspeed due to pilot error Poor data gathering methods which resulted in a severe outlier in our data An inconsistent starting point (PA) for each of the climb tests

These problems could be eliminated by: Performing more climb tests to reduce error due to inconsistent indicated airspeed Video recordings of the airspeed indicator as well as the altimeter to ensure that recording errors due not diminish the integrity of the experiment A greater attention to detail on the part of both the pilot and crew to ensure that each test begins at the same pressure altitude as the one before it 27

5.0

REFERENCES

Archer PA-28-181 Pilot's Operating Handbook. The New Piper Aircraft Inc., Publications Department. Rev 24, Oct. 24, 2011. McCormick, Barnes W. AIAA (2011), Introduction to Aeronautics and Flight Testing. 51-55.

28

6.0

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Raw data sheet

29

Appendix B: Stall Test Code

% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell % Stall Test Code % The stall test was performed in a Piper Archer II. Some important % parameters for the Archer II are hard-coded into the program below. b = 35; % Wing Span (in feet) S = 170; % Wing Area (feet^2) %%%%%% LIFT CURVE SLOPE (a) %%%%%% % For the NACA 652-415 airfoil a = 6.88; % C_L per radian (derived in class) % USER INPUT % Calculates density using the Density_Calculator.m code that I wrote % for previous flight tests %%% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%% Density Calculator %input('Please input the pressure altitude in (feet)\n'); Press_alt = 4300; %input("Please input the outside air temperature in (degrees Fahrenheit)\n"); Temp_F = 20; %%% Convert to degrees Rankine Temp_R = Temp_F + 460; R = 1716; %Gas constant for air %%% Find air pressure in (in Hg) P_inHg = 29.92 - (Press_alt/1000); %%% Convert from (in Hg) to (psf) P_psf = P_inHg * 70.7261979206; %%% Use ideal gas law to determine density at altitude density = P_psf / (R*Temp_R); %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Takes user input for the Weight of the aircraft at the time of stall %input("Please input the Weight (in lbs) at the time of stall\n") W = 2363; %pounds % Takes user input for the Indicated Airspeed at the time of stall %input("Please input the Indicated Airspeed (in knots) at the time of stall\n") V_kt = 65; V_fps = V_kt*1.6878; % feet per second % Takes user input for the number of wing segments you wish to use, delta_y % represents the width of each wing segment %input('Please input the number of segments (N) you would like to use\n'); N = 100; delta_y = b/N; %%%%%% Y ARRAY %%%%%% % Creates an empty array for the y-values of each segment. % the for loop below Y = zeros(N,1); % For loop filling the y-array.

To be filled in

The filled y-array will have the

30

% y-coordinate of THE CENTER of each segment across the wing for i=1:N Y(i,1) = ((i-1)*delta_y) + (delta_y/2); end %%%%%% CHORD LENGTH ARRAY %%%%%% % Creates an empty array for the chord length values. % for and if loops below c = zeros(N,1);

To be filled in the

% The for loop below will increment from 1 to the number of wing segments % and the nested if loops will determine the correct chord length depending % on the horizontal (y-location) of the segment across the wing for j=1:N %Left wingtip to end of taper on left wing if Y(j,1)<8.92 c(j,1) = (0.18386*Y(j,1)) + 3.62; %Non-tapered section on left wing else if (8.92<=Y(j,1)) && (Y(j,1)<13.2) c(j,1) = 5.26; %Tapered section near fuselage on left wing else if (13.2<=Y(j,1)) && (Y(j,1)<15.64) c(j,1) = (0.4262*Y(j,1)) - 0.3662; %Center portion of wing (enclosed in fuselage) else if (15.64<=Y(j,1)) && (Y(j,1)<19.36) c(j,1) = 6.30; %Tapered section near fuselage on right wing else if (19.36<=Y(j,1)) && (Y(j,1)<21.8) c(j,1) = (-0.4262*Y(j,1)) + 14.552; %Non-tapered section on right wing else if (21.8<=Y(j,1)) && (Y(j,1)<26.08) c(j,1) = 5.26; %Right wingtip to end of taper on right wing else if (26.08<=Y(j,1)) c(j,1) = (-0.18386*Y(j,1)) + 10.055; end end end end end end end end % Plots the chord length verus the y-distance along the wingapn. The area

31

% under the curve is flled in to represent the solid wing. figure(1) area(Y, c) title('Chord Length vs Y-Location (along the wingspan)') ylabel('Chord Length (feet)') xlabel('Y-Distance (along the wingspan, in feet)') %%%%%% ANGLE OF ATTACK %%%%%% % Start by choosing a range of angles of attack to analyze alpha_d = 0:25; %degrees alpha_r = (pi/180).*alpha_d; % in radians % Must next calculate the change in angle of attack along the wing for each wing % section due to the flap deflection. % Using the equation alpha_f = nu*tau*theta_flaps %input('Please input the flap deflection in degrees\n'); d_f = 0; % Calculate the correction factor (nu) from the typeFlapAdjust.pdf file % see typeFlapAdjust.m for details on how the equation below was found nu = ((4.8*10^-6)*(d_f*d_f*d_f)) - (0.00061*d_f*d_f) + (0.014*d_f) + 0.72; % the flap chord length was found to be 0.9 feet based on % drawing of the test airplane c_f = 0.9; % calculate flap effectiveness factor (tau) as a function % wing chord ration (c_f/c). Data and equations based on % found on the Angel site theta_f = acos(((2*c_f)./c) - 1); tau = 1 - ((theta_f - sin(theta_f))/pi); for i=1:N alpha_fd(i) = nu*tau(i)*d_f; %degrees end alpha_fr = alpha_fd.*(pi/180); %radians % The flaps will take effect below when determining the X the three view of the flap to TauCalc.pdf,

matrix

%%%%%% DOWNWASH VELOCITY (w) %%%%%% % Computes the downwash velocity to be used in each element of the (A) % matrix. According to the equations derived in class. % First we will create an array of zeros to hold the (w) values w = zeros(N,N); % Calculates downwash velocity for each location span wise across the wing for i=1:N for j=1:N w(i,j) = -(1/(4*pi))*((1/(Y(i)-Y(j)+(0.5*delta_y))) - (1/(Y(i)-Y(j)(0.5*delta_y)))); end end % % % % Next we want to calculate all of the circulation values (expressed as J) across the wing. This will be done using the equation J = (I-A)^(-1) * (X), where J, A and X are vectors and I is an identity matrix. The Matrixes are calculated separately in the steps below.

%%%%%% MATRIX A %%%%%% % First we will create a matrix of zeros to hold the (A) values

32

A = zeros(N,N); % fills the matrix A for k=1:N for l=1:N A(k,l) = 0.5*a*c(k)*w(k,l); end end %%%%%% IDENTITY MATRIX (N by N size) %%%%%% I = eye(N); % The loop below will determine, the X matrix, the circulation matrix, the % section and wing lift coefficients, and the section and wing lift for % each angle of attack and wing section X = zeros(N,1); J = zeros(N,1); L = zeros(length(alpha_r),1); for m=1:length(alpha_r) %%%%%% VECTOR X %%%%%% for m_1=1:N if (Y(m_1,1)>=8.92) && (Y(m_1,1)<=26.08) X(m_1,1) = 0.5*V_fps*a*(alpha_r(m)+alpha_fr(m_1))*c(m_1); else X(m_1,1) = 0.5*V_fps*a*alpha_r(m)*c(m_1); end end %%%%%% CALCULATE THE GAMMA MATRIX (circulation) %%%%%% % J must be calculated for each angle of attack J = (I-A)\X; figure(2) plot(Y, J) title('Circulation vs. Y-Location (along the wingspan)') ylabel('Circulation (ft^2/second)') xlabel('Y-Distance (along the wingspan, in feet)') % Accounting for Wing Section Stall. If a section stalls, the % circulation (and thus the lift) will be set to zero for that section %%%%%% SECTION LIFT COEFFICIENT %%%%%% for m_2=1:N C_l(m_2) = (2*J(m_2))/(V_fps*c(m_2)); if (C_l(m_2) > 1.7) J(m_2)=0; end end figure(3) plot(Y, C_l) title('Section Lift Coefficient vs. Y-Location (along the wingspan)') ylabel('Section Lift Coefficient C_l') xlabel('Y-Distance (along the wingspan, in feet)') % Next I will create a vector of lift values for each segment based on the

33

% circulation values. This will be used to plot a lift distribution across % the span of the aircraft %%%%%% WING SEGMENT LIFT %%%%%% L_s = (density*V_fps*delta_y).*J; % WATCH THIS PLOT AND YOU WILL SEE THE WING SECTIONS STALLING %%%%%% LIFT DISTRIBUTION PLOT %%%%%% figure(4) plot(Y, L_s) title('Lift Distribution Plot (along the wingspan)') ylabel('Cross-Section Lift (lbs/ft') xlabel('Y-Distance (along the wingspan, in feet)') % THROW IN A PAUSE SO YOU CAN SEE PROGRESSION OF STALL IN PLOTS pause() %%%%%%% TOTAL LIFT %%%%%% L(m,1) = sum(L_s); %%%%%% WING LIFT COEFFICIENT %%%%%% % Calculates the C_L for the entire wing for each angle of attack iteration % Must first create an empty array for the C_L values C_L(m,1) = (2*L(m,1))/(density*V_fps*V_fps*S); end %%%%%% LIFT COEFFICIENT versus ALPHA (entire wing) %%%%%% figure(5) plot(alpha_d,C_L) title('C_L versus AoA for the Piper Archer II') legend('Theoretical Model') xlabel('Angle of Attack (degrees)') ylabel('Lift Coefficient (C_L)') %%%%%% EXPERIMENTAL DATA COMPARISON %%%%%% % Assuming steady level flight, we can assume that % L = W = 0.5*density*V^2*S*C_L % Based on this equation, we can determine the aircrafts stall Velocity % based on its physical properties and the C_Lmax determined from the plot % above. C_Lmax = max(C_L); sprintf('\nThe max Lift Coefficient for the wing is, %d \n', C_Lmax) V_stall = sqrt(W/(0.5*density*S*C_Lmax)); %feet per second V_stall_kts = V_stall/1.6878; %knots sprintf('\nThe stall Velocity of the aircraft based on the C_L vs alpha plot is, %d knots\n', V_stall_kts)

34

Appendix C: Correction Factor Code

% % % % AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell Find correction factor (nu) as a function of flap deflection. gathered from the plot of nu versus flap deflection found on typeFlapAdjust.pdf on the Angel site Data points

% Data points gathered from the plot (done by hand) nu = (10:2:70); d_f = [.82, .81, .80, .79, .78, .77, .76, .75, .74, .72, .70, .69, .67, .65, .64, .62, .59, .56, .53, .50, .47, .44, .41, .39, .38, .37, .36, .35, .35, .34, .34]; plot(nu, d_f, '*') ylabel('Correction Factor (nu) (dimensionless)') xlabel('Flad Deflection (d_f) (degrees)') legend('Visual Data Points')

35

APPENDIX D: Climb Test Code

% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell % Climb Test Code % The climb test was performed in a Piper Archer II. Some important % parameters for the Archer II are hard-coded into the program below. b = 35; % Wing Span (in feet) S = 170; % Wing Area (feet^2) e = 0.6; %Oswald's Efficiency Factor (estimated) AR = 7.3786; %Aspect Ratio % Some standard atmospheric properties that will be needed in the analysis % below T_s = 519; %degrees R R = 1716; %Gas constant for air W_s = 2500; %standard weight, lbs % USER INPUT % Calculates density using the Density_Calculator.m code that I wrote % for previous flight tests %%% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%% Density Calculator %input('Please input the pressure altitude in (feet)\n'); PA_0s = [3240, 3840, 3840, 3860, 3820]; %Initial PA (feet) %input("Please input the outside air temperature in (degrees Fahrenheit)\n"); Temp_F = [24, 21, 21, 21, 21]; %%% Convert to degrees Rankine Temp_R = Temp_F + 460; %%% Find air pressure in (in Hg) for i=1:5 P_inHg(i) = 29.92 - (PA_0s(i)/1000); end %%% Convert from (in Hg) to (psf) P_psf = P_inHg .* 70.7261979206; %%% Use ideal gas law to determine density at altitude for i=1:5 density(i) = P_psf(i) / (R*Temp_R(i)); end %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% IAS = [65, 75, 85, 95, 105]; %Experimental Airspeed (knots) IAS_fps = IAS.*1.6878; PA_60s = [4540, 4610, 4420, 4600, 4300]; %Final PA (feet) W = [2387, 2381, 2375, 2369, 2369]; %lbs % Find the measured Rate of Climb RC_meas = PA_60s - PA_0s; %feet per minute % Find the actual Rate of Climb for i=1:5 RC_actual(i) = RC_meas(i)*(Temp_R(i)/T_s); end % Calculate Lift coefficient for each climb test, using L=W (not sure if % this si the correct way to determine lift coefficient. for i=1:5 CL(i)= (2*W(i))/(density(i)*IAS_fps(i)*IAS_fps(i)*S); end % Calculate the rate of increase of rate of climb with respect to gross

36

% weight for i=1:5 dRC_dW(i) = (-RC_actual(i)/W(i))((IAS_fps(i)*2*CL(i))/(W(i)*W(i)*pi*AR*e)); end % Next we must use this rate of change to normalize the climb rate for % weight for i=1:5 RC_Ws(i) = RC_actual(i) + (dRC_dW(i)*(W(i)-W_s)); end % Data from the pilot's operating handbook regarding the best rate of climb % and the best rate of climb speed RC_max = 700; % feet per minute RC_max_V = 76; %knots figure(1) plot(IAS, RC_Ws, '-*', RC_max_V, RC_max, 'square') title('Rate of Climb vs. Indicated Airspeed') xlabel('Indicated Airspeed (kts)') ylabel('Rate of Climb (feet per minute)') legend('Experimental Results', 'POH Data')

37

APPENDIX E: Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation Team 5 1. Risk: Phone camera battery dies/ doesn't work Probability Rank: 1 Severity Rank: 3 Mitigation: Bring a spare phone or an actual digital camera 2. Risk: Stall Test Video recorder does not capture all of the necessary instruments Probability Rank: 4 Severity Rank: 2 Mitigation: Record Right and Left side of the dashboard with two separate cameras 3. Risk: Stall Test Airplane does not remain in 1 g flight throughout the maneuver, causing stall at a lower or higher speed than in steady, level flight Probability Rank: 2 Severity Rank: 4 Mitigation: Check that the climb rate remains constant and repeat data points if necessary 4. Risk: Climb Test Not hitting target altitude at the 30 second mark because the airplane is not climbing at the prescribed 700ft per minute Probability Rank: 3 Severity Rank: 3 Mitigation: Talk to the pilot about consistency with respect to the climb rate and repeat the step if necessary

38