Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Design of Light Aircraft

    Uploaded by

    James Edward
    2K views216 pages
    information about designing light aircraft

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    information about designing light aircraft

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2K views216 pages

    Design of Light Aircraft

    Uploaded by

    James Edward
    information about designing light aircraft

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 216
    TL OTS . 15 Y FEB 2 y togg Design of Light Aircraft R. D. Hiscocks Contents 1 Loads, General 12 1.2 13 14 15 16 LT? 2 Wing Section Properties Coefficients, General... 2.2 Lift Coefficient, 0, ... . 2.3 Lift Curve Slope. a = Ci/a 24 Zero Lift Angle a 2.5 Drag Coefficient, Cp 2.6 Pitching Moment Coefficient, Cy . . 2.7 Wing Flap Effects... . 2.8 Boundary Layer and Scale Effects 21 31 3.2 3.3 34 35 Introduction . Symmetrical Manoeuvres . . Load Factors Dynamic Pressure . Airspeed... Flight Envelope bec eee Ultimate and Limit Loads... . Introduction . Slope of the Lift Curve . Induced Drag The Drag Polar... .. Parasite Drag The Wing in Three Dimensions CoOyrnwenee 10 10 i 14 15 17 20 25 28 33 33 34 36 38 40 a CONTENTS f 4 Performance Considerations 45 f 40: Gena 6. es ee De Pode. os 45 | 4.1 Aircraft Drag Estimate, - Example DOX ee | | 4.2. Selecting a Powerplant . oa 52 i 43° Climb Performance . . 53 E 4.3.1. Performance at Sea Level 54 | 4.3.2 Climbat Altitude... . ao 4.3.3 Power vs Speed . 55 ' 4.3.4 Reduction Gear... .. 55 k 4.4 Wing Characteristics, DOX . . . . ee 55 t 4.5 Weight and Balance........-..------5- 57 i 5 Manoeuvring Flight Loads 61 5.1 Symmetrical Manoeuvres... . 61 5.2 Baaione Brod rscaiingy vaist 2 63 Principal external Loads . . 63 Angle of Attack... .... 64 Thrust... . cae 65 Inertia Factor . 66 Total Drag . 7 66 Pitching Moment M.. . 67 General Observations . . 67 5.3 Application to Aircraft DOX . 69 5.3.1 Balance Calculations, Aircraft DOX 70 54 Balance Loadsn=1 ........... 72 5.5 Balance Loads at the Envelope Boundaries Pa 4 5.5.1 Loads at Boundaries of the Fight Envelope 3 4 5.5.2 Points D, B,G . ; 76 5.6 High Lift Devices... . 17 5.7 Simplified Criteria 7 6 Wing Loads, Forces at Aero-Centre 78 6.1 Distribution of Forces, Symmetrical Loader ‘cena soradipubovgl, £8 6.2 Wing Panel Loads ieee v2 mi £078 6.3 Inertia Relief 79 80 64 Normal and Chordwise Components a. sale grill 9 ! G5, Observations: 5. co ccc es ect yas says qembetinnn’. 24 81 RYERSON POL anh 360 eae ONVERSITY CONTENTS iii 6.6 Unsymmetrical Loads, Wing Torsion... .. 82 6.6.1 Centre Section Shear Loads ....... oe 82 6.6.2 Wing Pitching Moment due to Ailerons..... . . 82 6.7 Simplified Design Requirements : 86 6.7.1 Flight Envelope 86 6.7.2 Arbitrary Loads . 87 7 Gust Loads 89 7.1 Sharp Edged Gust 89 72 Gradient Gusts... .. 91 7.3 Gust Envelope 92 74 Flaps... .. 96 8 Spanwise Distribution of Wing Loads 97 8.1 Spanwise Load Distribution ny 8.2 Wing Shear Load . . . 8.3 Wing Bending Moment . . . . 84 Twisted Wing ..... 8.5 Wing with Flap... .. 86 Wing with Aileron .. . 8.7 Wing with Continuous Twist 9 Tail Design 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Longitudinal Stability Horizontal Tail Loads . 9.1.1 Balance Load P, 0,2 Manoedsting Loads Pu: ae 9.1.3 Combined Loads, Horizontal Tail 9.1.4 Gust Loads P, wale a Eid, Tollplens Setting. ; 9.1.6 Spanwise Distribution eo Tail Load .. Directional Stability ............. 9.2.1 Vertical Tail Balancing Loads ... . 9.2.2. Manoeuvring Loads. ......... 9.2.3 Arbitrary Loads, Vertical Tail... . 9.2.4 Gust Loads, Vertical Tail... .... Combined Loads, Horizontal and Vertical Tail Surfaces .........- 139 10 ll CONTENTS 9.4 Outboard Fins ..... 139 95 VTails... 141 9.6 Comments . 141 Pressures on Wing Sections 143 10.1 Approximate Method... 0.0... eee eee 145 10.1.1 Comparison with Tests, NACA 4415 and 64 Series Sections . 150 10.1.2 Application to DOX . 151 10.1.3 Reversed Flow... . 154 10.2 Flap Loads... . rn 154 10.8 Aileron Loads... .-- 1.2.2 ee 187 10.4 Load Distribution on Horizontal Tail Surfaces 160 104.1 Thin Aerofoil Theory Applied to Control Surfaces 160 10.4.2 Application to DOX .. . 162 10.5 Tailplane Torsion Loads... . . 169 10.6 Comparison with Official Design Standards . 169 10.7 Aerodynamic and Mass Balance 170 10.8 Chordwise Load Distribution on Vertical Tail i72 10.9 Flap and Elevator Interaction 172 Landing Gear Loads 175 11.1 Introduction... . ~~ ~ 175 11.2 Energy Requirements - 178 11.3 Tire Energy Capacity . 179 11.4 Shock-Strut Energy . . 179 11.5 Design Examples . . . 181 11.8.1 Low Wing Cantilever Monoplane, Fig.11.5.1(2). 181 186 11.5.2 High Wing Light Aircraft, Fig. 11.5.2(a) . : 11.5.3 High Wing Monoplane with Cantilever Main Gear, Fi 11.5.4 Cantilever Spring Main Gear . Limit and Ultimate Factors 11.6.1 Drop Tests........- 11.7 Basic Landing Conditions 11.7.1 Level Landing . we 1L7.2 Tail-down Landing .... 11.7.3 One-wheel Landing... 11.7.4 Level Landing with Yaw . il. ao CONTENTS v 11.7.5 Braked Roll condition 1.7.6 Tail Wheels, Supplementary Conditions 1.7.7 Nose Wheels, Supolementary Conditions . 11.8 Emergency Landings . 11.9 Remarks... 0... 12 Biplane Lift 12.1 Introduction . 12.2 Load distribution, Classic Biplane 12.3 Manoeuvring and Gust Loads 12.3.1 Lift Coefficients 12.3.2 Lift Curve Slope 12.3.3 Drag... 0.2... 12.3.4 Pitching Moment ...... . 12.4 Example, Biplane Balance... . . . 124.1 Data required for balance calculations 12.5 Wing Flaps vee a 12.6 Remarks... 2... 13 Engine Mount and Control System 230 13.1 Engine Mount . . 230 13.1.1 Load Conditions on the Flight Envelope 231 13.1.2 Gyroscopic Forces. ........ 13.1.3 Tension Coefficients 13.14 DOX Engine Mount 18.2 Control System... 2... 13.2.1 Aerodynamic Forces 13.2.2 Pilot Forces... 1323 Secondary Control Systems 13.2.4 Control System Stiffness 13.2.5 Ground Gusts... . . - 14 Flutter and Stiffness 14.1 Introduction. 2.2.2... 14.2 Wing Bending Torsion Mode . . 14.3 Wing Tip Torsional Stiffness . . 14.4 Wing Bending - Aileron Mode . vi CONTENTS 14.4.1 Aileron Mass Balance . 249 14.4.2 Aileron Torsional Stiffness. . 251 14.4.3 Aileron Control Circuit Stiffness . 253 14.5 Fuselage Stiffness ........ : 255 14.6 Tail Structural Stiffuess . . . .. 256 14.6.1 Torsion, Horizontal Stabilizer 256 14.6.2 Torsion. Rudder, Elevator... . . 256 14.7 Centre of Gravity, Mass Balance, Rudder, Elevator 256 14.8 Control Tabs bees . 256 14.9 Control Divergence . 287 15 Fatigue 258 15.1 Introduction... 0... ee . 258 15.2 Gust Load Spectrum... . 259 15.3 Manoeuvring Load Spectrum 260 260 15.4 Life Prediction .. 2.2... Lee Lee beeen 15.4.1 Compact DNose Example... . . Lee eee ee 261 15.4.2 Stabilized Thin Skin Cell Example 263 15.5 Discussion and Conclusions ............ 264 Symbols and Abbreviations 266 Specification, Aircraft CF DOX 271 273 References Index 276 List of Figures Force System .......0... 4 Streamline Flow... . 6 Flight Envelope 8 Minimum Flight Speed, Vigigs 2 = 13 Lift Curve Slope 4 Cambered Airfoil . . 15 Zero Lift Angles . 16 Profile Drag Comparison... . 19 Chordwise Lift Distribution ne at Section Pitching Moment..............-.. ey) Lift and Moment Coefficients with 0.2C Flap ............ 26 Flap Effectiveness K 0. eee 27 Flat Plate Drag... 02.2.2... 29 Effect of Rough Surface on Maximum Lift 30 Scale Effect on Maximum Lift... ... . 32 Lift Curve vs Aspect Ratio. . . 34 Lift Curve Slopea .-....- a 35 Effective Aspect Ratio with End Plates oe 36 Induced Drag . 37 Twin Otter Drag Polar . 39 Induced Drag Factors . . a . 40 Flat Plate Skin Friction Coefficient Pe 4 Project CF-DOX . 46 Drag Polar, DOX . 48 Performance, DOX 50 vii vill 44 45 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.24 LIST OF FIGURES Angle of Glide or Climb ....... 51 Aircraft DOX- Balance Diagram. . . 57 Flight Envelope... 2. 62 Principal External Loads 63 Angle of Attack... 5. 65 Geometry... 02.00. 68 Spanwise Location of Aero Centre - 69 Normal and Chordwise Components 80 Differential Ailerons ...... 4... a . 83 Wing Torsion-Aileron Case, Aircraft DOX .........- 86 Flight Envelope, Points Aand Goo... 0. ee eee 87 Column of Air . 90 Upward Gust. 90 Gust Shapes . 92 Gust Factor K 93 Gust Envelope, Airerait DOX - 98 Spanwise Lift Distribution, Schrenk Method . . Ellipse Geometry .... . . Rectangle Geometry . . - Tapered Planform Geometry... . Load and Shear Distributions . . . Bending Moment Distribution, Aircraft DOX DOX Wing - Reactions with Strut... 2... . Wing Geometry with Flap ...... see Wing Zero Lift Direction with Flap - Basic Lift Distribution . . vee Span Loading with Flap Zero Lift Angle, Wing With Continuous Twist - Angles of Attack Span Load Distribution, Tapered Wing with Twist Balance Tail Loads... . C.G. Effect on Balance . . Checked Pitching Manoeuvre LIST OF FIGURES 11.5.2(c) 11.5.2(d) 11.5.3(a} 11.5.3(b) 11.5.3(c) 11.5.4 11.5.4 Checked Manoeuvre Sequence . . . . Downwash Angle at Tail... . . . Downwash Angle vs Wing Angle Tailplane Effectiveness ....... ‘Tailplane Setting, Aircraft DOX . . Unsymmetrical Loads... 2... . Gust Loading on Vertical Tail . . . Loads on Outboard Fins . . Pressure Vectors at High Angle of Attack... ....... Chordwise Pressure Distribution at High Angle of Attack . Chordwise Pressure Distribution at Low Angle of Attack Additional and Basic Lift ....... .- Test Results and Graphic Construction . . . Test Results and Graphic Construction . . . Limit Chordvise Air Load Distribution, Ib., Aircraft DOX Flap Loads sae sae see Control System Schematic . . Tail Surface Load Distribution, Ref 8,10, Appendix B. : Approximate Maximum Flap Deflection for Linear Characteristics . Tail Surface Design, Limit Loads - DOX .. . Controi Surface with Horn Balance ‘Typical Spring Devices... 2.0.2... beeen Typical Tire Deflection Curve... 2.00... 2 2s Low Wing Cantilever Monoptane, General Arrangement . Shock Strut Schematic... 2... ee ee Stress/Strain Curve for Test Block ............ Energy Capacity, Provided and Required . . . Example With Bungee Cord Load/Extension on 20 Strand Bungee... . E Provided vs E Required Cantilever Leg, Compression Pad Example, Schematic Cantilever Leg, Compression Pad, Test Block Cantilever Leg, Compression Pad Example . Cantilever Spring Analysis... 2.20... wae a Cantilever Spring Example (continued)... ...--.0--005 Test Reguirements for Landing Gear . Level Landing . Nosewheel Type . Load Distribution, Maia and Tailwheel Nose Wheel Undercarriage One Wheel Landing Tail Wheels . . . Bipiane Geometry... 000.0 Lift Comparison, Upper and Lower Wings .. . . Lift Comparison, Upper and Lower Wings (consinved) Typical Loads in Wing Spars... . Determination of Lift Coefficients . . . Zero Lift Angle, Biplane Geometry. . Static Thrust .... Tension Coefficients Truss, Engine Mount Model Wing . . Bending Torsion, Symmetric Mode in Bending DOX Wing Torsional Stiffness Wing Bending, Underbalanced Aileron Example: Aileron Mass Balance... . . Aileron Stiffness LIST OF FIGURES Biplane . . Aileron Control Circuit Stiffmess. 2... 2.0 ee ee S/N Test Data 201 203 204 205 205 207 210 215 216 217 219 221 226 227 231 233 235 244 245, 248 249 250 252 254 262 List of Tables 4.1 4.2 45.1 4.5.2 9.1.22} 9.1.2(b) 9.13 914 10.1.2 10.2 10.3 10.4.2(a) 10.4.2(b) DOX Characteristics 2... 2. 47 DOX Performance at Sea Level. _ 49 DOX - Maximum Gross Weight. 38 DOX - Minimum Operating Weight . . 59 Summary of Balance Loads in Manoeuvres, Aircraft DOX .... . 76 Sununary, Normal, Chordwise Components, Symmetrical Loads .. 81 Aileron Angles and Loads 20.2... 20 85 Effective Gust Velocities ............ Gust Load Factors... . Ellipse Planform Loading Rectangle Planform Loading . . . ‘Tapered Planform Loading . : Aerodynamic Load Coeficiente... - a Span Loading, 2:1 Tapered Wing, 6° Washout . Checked Manoeuvre... eee eee 128 Radius of Gyration, Different Aircraft Types 123 Combined Loads, Balance + Manoeuvre, Limit 127 Combined Loads, Balance + Gust, Limit 130 Load Constituents, Four Points on Flight Envelope . . 152 Flap Loads 0... 0... - . 156 Aileron Loads... 1.2... 00. wae 158 Horizontal Tail Balance Loads Py... ... 166 Elevator Angles for Maneuvering Loads . . 166 xi xii 10.4.2(c) 10.8 11 11.5.1 11.5.2 11.5.3 11.5.4 11.6 12.2 12.3.1 13.2.2 15,2 15.3 EIST OF TABLES Horizontal Tail Load Summary 2... 0... eee eee 167 Vertical Tail Loads, Aircraft DOX. 2... vee eee 172 Spring Efficiency 2.000... Total Energy Absorption, Tire plus Shock Strut . . . Example With Bungee Cord»... 2. ...0--- Cantilever Leg, Compression Pad Example Cantilever Beam, TaperRatio 2:1... . Comparison, Load Factors... 2... eee Biplane Lift, Totals... ......... Biplane Lift Coefficients, Aspect Ratio R=! Limit Pilot Forces and Torques. ... 22.0202 eee 238 Gust Load Spectrum 260 Manoeuvring Load Spectrum 261 Chapter 1 Loads, General 1,1. Introduction In the early days of aviation there was much guesswork and in their efforts to reduce structural weight designers not infrequently underestimated the loads that might occur, — with disastrous results. The modern designer can draw upon a vast body of information which is documented by records from aircraft instrumented to measure flight loads and accelerations, There is little mystery today about the sources and magnitude of design loads provided that a design does not stray widely outside the bounds of experience. Based upon this experience authorities have specified the kinds of manoeuvres and gusts that an aeroplane will be subjected to in the various types of service, pleasure flying, training, passenger carrying, etc. These are described in official codes of airwor- thiness, The task of the designer is to convert these manoeuvres into a system of forces applied to the structure. The next step is to determine the individual internal reactions to these external forces and to ensure that the total will be brought into equilibrium by the structure For light aircraft, flying at subsonic speeds, the spectrum of the external loads from flight manoeuvres, atmospheric gusts and landings can be presented very simply. To dis- tribute these and determine the internal reactions does not require advanced mathematics or computers. The arithmetic is well within the capacity of a pocket calculator. 1 2 CHAPTER i. LOADS, GENERAL 1.2. Symmetrical Manoeuvres Symmetrical manoeuvres usually dictate the strength requirements of wings. These are defined as manoeuvres which occur in the plane of symmetry of the aircraft, loops, abrupt pull-ups or bunts for example. Newton's Laws state that every action is balanced by an equal and opposite reaction. If a body of weight W, in free flight, is subjected to an external force P that force is balanced by the reaction; poax™ g where: aig the acceleration, gis the universal gravitational constant, = 92.2 feet /sec/sec when a is in feet/sec/sec units and W and P are measured in pounds? Accordingly, if L is the total lift and we measure the acceleration a in units of gin direction perpendicular to the flight path; bax” = nxWw with n = a/g, where n is the acceleration factor. In straight and level fight the total lift is equal to the weight and for equilibrium in a direction perpendicular to the flight path n = 1. The weight W of course represents the sum of many distributed weights balanced about the aeroplane centre of gravity and the distributed lift is assumed to be a concentrated force L acting at the centre of gravity. When the nose of an aircraft is raised abruptly the wing lift will increase to exceed the weight by a substantial margin. If it is assumed that this manoeuvre is so rapid that no change takes place in airspeed or flight path the aircraft will be subjected to an acceleration which is given by the value of the factor n. Each element of weight w within the airframe, a passenger perhaps, will react to this acceleration with a (downwards) force of n x w. This leads to the common practice of calling n an inertia factor or load factor. The result is what we would expect intuitively. If the lift is suddenly increased by a factor of three, for example, the acceleration is $g in engineering terms and the force applied to the airframe by each item of weight w is multiplied by three. This enables the ‘Un the design of small aeroplanes, the common practice on this continent is to use English units. 1.3. LOAD FACTORS 3 designer to treat the balancing of an aeroplane in a manoeuvre as a problem in statics, provided that the load factor is known. A similar argument applies to loads and accelerations in a direction parallel to the flight path. If a manoeuvre produces a sudden drag increase of D 1b. the inertia reaction of any element w in the opposite direction will be; fxwlb where f, the load factor = D/W. For the vertical direction the load factors are assigned arbitrarily by the airworthiness authority. In the horizontal direction, depending oa the manoeuvre, the drag increment and hence the load factor f can be calculated from the aerodynamic properties of the airplane. Although f is smaller than the vertical component n it will contribute to the total load. In the above it was assumed that the line of action of the external force passed through the aircraft centre of gravity. If the force vector P is offset at a distance X it will exert a moment about the C of G in the amount P x X. This force system can be replaced by a force P at the C of G plus a pure couple P x X. (Figure 1.2). We then have, in addition to the linear acceleration at the C of G due to P, an angular acceleration about a lateral axis through the C of G due to Px X. The magnitude of this acceleration will depend upon the polar moment of inertia of the aeroplane, as discussed in Chapters 9 and 11. 1.3. Load Factors The designer may wish to exceed the minimum specified values of n to allow for future growth and the uses to which the aeroplane may be put. If it is to be flown by qualified pilots, who will use it solely as a means of transportation the Normal category with a load factor of 3.8 positive, 1.8 negative may be suitable. Many authorities consider these to be the minimum acceptable in a light aircraft. In strenuous activities where abrupt manoeuvres are more likely to occur, such as in low level surveys, pipeline patrols, and crop dusting, the Utility category factors may be preferred. Typically these are a minimum of 4.4 positive, 2.4 negative. For an Acrobatic category the factors generally specified on this Continent are +6 and ~4, These may be accepted with some reserve, since uninhibited performers have been known to produce values as high as +8, -6 in unrestricted aerobatic competitions. Aircraft C of G aw (a) P+ nW = 0, Equi- Kibrium, No Moment J—x—4 P (©) System Equivalent to () CHAPTER 1. LOADS, GENERAL e ‘Acro Centre —x—- {b) Offset Load, No Equilibrium MP xX aw (4) Equilibrium plus Unbalanced Moment Figure 1.2: Force System These examples do not exhaust the possibilities. For Ultra Light and Homebuilt aircraft, which may be flown by pilots with limited experience many authorities suggest minimum factors of +4, -2. Training aircraft require factors higher than the minimum, since acrobatics, intentional or otherwise, are not unlikely. For civilian trainers most authorities will accept +6, -4, an ab initio military trainer will usually be higher. With higher load factors there is a growing penalty in airframe weight to be subtracted from payload. A compromise is to design for the Normal category at a gross weight which is set by the performance that is desired, A reduced gross weight, and payload, may then 1.4. DYNAMIC PRESSURE 5 be selected to satisfy the load factor requirements of the Utility category. 1.4 Dynamic Pressure The loads on an airframe originate in the pressure that is applied to the flying surfaces by the motion of the air. This dynamic pressure depends upon the air density and the speed squared. The intensity falls off slowly with altitude, but increases very rapidly with airspeed. This is the reason that every aeroplane cockpit has a placard with a Never Eaceed speed Vre, prominantly displayed. If we recall the Bernoulli equation from high school physics the pressure change in an incompressible fluid flowing between points (a) and (b) in a pipe is given by the relationship; Pa— Ps _ Vi?—Va? 0 qd (og where p is the pressure, V the velocity, d the density of the fluid and g is the gravitational constant. We can think of the streamlines around an object as tubes of air. When the flow is brought to rest at the nose of an airfoil, or at the entrance to a pitot tube the velocity at that point is zero and the pressure increase in terms of the velocity some distance upstream is; - = ay Pe — Pa Vix ae liya = hve This expression, which is known as the dynamic pressure ¢, is the quantity measured by a conventional airspeed indicator. If the density of air at sea level is 0.0765 Ib./cu-ft., and g = 32.2 ft/sec. squared, the constant p = 0.00238 and the dynamic pressure at sea level measured in pounds per square foot is given by; 2 340° vi 4 = ggy when V isin mph. when V is expressed in fps. units, or 6 CHAPTER 1, LOADS, GENERAL When the flow around an object is examined in two dimensions the velocity of the fow is increased and the pressure drops when the stream tubes are crowded together. If the flow is smooth around the nose of a wing profile, for example, the pressure at the side of the section is reduced according to the Bernouli equation given above. Consider the flow at points (a) and (b) in Figure 1.4; PeVe Paty Figure 1.4; Streamline Flow =liy?—lpy? Pa — Ps = 50M? ~ 50Va 0 At the stagnation point (b) the velocity V, = 0, therefore; L Pe- Pe = 5PVa? = q, the dynamic pressure. Suppose that, as a result of the streamlines crowding together at point (c) on the top surface of the section; V, = 2 V,. Since; Pa—Pe = 1/2p[V.? — V2], substituting for V5 Po ~ Pe 1/2p[4V.? — Va"), oF: Pe~ Pa —3q. This shows that the pressure reduction on the top surface at point ¢ is equal to 3 times the pressure increase at the stagnation point on the nose of the profile. If we could maintain this reduced pressure over most of the upper surface with no velocity increase on the lower surface of the profile the lift coefficient would be impressive! 15, AIRSPEED 7 Lift gains of this magnitude have been the target of inventors since the beginning of aviation. Passive devices, such as slots and flaps and Powered Lift schemes, intended to speed up the flow on the upper wing surface fill the patent literature. Unfortunately Nature exacts a high price in drag and mechanical complexity for any substantial gains, and in light aircraft we must be content with simple devices. The airspeeds at Sea Level usually produce the maximum values of dynamic pressure to determine maximum loads. If the speed (squared) increases with altitude more rapidly than the reduction in air density it will be necessary to check loads at the critical height. Indeed if the airplane flies high enough and fast enough to approach the speed of sound it may be necessary to consider compressibility effects as well,- a prospect we will defer. 1.5 Airspeed There is a maximum angle of attack for any given wing beyond which the lift will fall off, sometimes abruptly. Depending upon the load factor this angle determines the stalling speed. In level fight the speed is a minimum when the lift is equal to the weight of the airplane . At higher speeds, with no change in this angle of attack the lift increases directly with the dynamic pressure q as described above. If the speed is doubled at this stalling angle the load factor and air loads are increased by a factor of four. As a result the airspeeds for manoeuvres are restricted. In transport aircraft it is common practice to specify a maximum speed for Aight in turbulence. This is intended to ensure that the maximum load factor will be set by the stalling characteristics rather than the strength of the wings, 2 precaution which pilots regard with mixed feelings. For the design of the structure the cruising speed, V. is usually taken as ninety percent of the level flight speed at the maximum continuous power rating of the engine. In light aircraft it so happens that this speed is often not greatly different from the stalling speed Vy at the maximum permissible value of the load factor and a detailed analysis is not required. It may be necessary to investigate gust loads. The choice of a design diving speed Vj requires a compromise between safety objectives and an acceptable structural weight. High speeds may result from what is described in official texts as an inadvertent upset. A pilot who is not skilled in instrument fying loses reference to the horizon in conditions of poor visibility and with uncoordinated controls the airplane falls into a high speed dive. Sailplane pilots are well aware of the hazards of being drawn into turbulent clouds by up drafts and often make an expeditious descent using the drag of wing spoilers to avoid excessive speeds. The provision of speed brakes in slippery acroplanes has merit, 8 CHAPTER 1. LOADS, GENERAL and some authorities require that the design Vg be linked to aeroplane drag. For light aircraft the design diving speed is usually expressed as a multiple of the design cruising speed. The values of this multiplier given in Ref.8,10,17, are 1.4, 1.5, 1.55 for the Normal, Utility and Acrobatic aircraft categories respectively. 1.6 Flight Envelope The airspeeds and load factors for a particular design can be combined to form the V-n diagram or Flight Envelope, as it is commonly called, shown in Figure 1.6. Figure 1.6: Flight Envelope It provides a simple statement of the loads that may be applied to the airframe throughout the entire operating range of airspeeds and symmetric manoeuvres. ‘The curves O to A and O to G on the diagram represent flight at the maximum angle of attack, +ve and ~ve. Since the wings will stall if the angle is increased any further these boundaries represent the maximum Joad factor that will occur at speeds below Vs or Ve. For higher speeds the maximum permissible values of Joad factor are arbitrary. When the aeroplane is properly loaded a well designed control system will provide increasing 17, ULTIMATE AND LIMIT LOADS 9 control forces to warn the pilot if the aeroplane is approaching the boundaries of the envelope. The values of n are not necessarily the same at all the Points A,C,D or G,F,E. Some authorities will accept a reduced factor at Point E. Others require an additional factor at C and F if the wing loading is very low, or if Ve exceeds Vq by a substantial margin. Charts are provided in Ref.8, 10. The Points connecting the boundaries of the envelope represent Limit loads which are the maximum to which the airplane may be subjected without damage. Usually it is not necessary to examine intermediate points. The envelope is drawn for the altitude at which the values of dynamic pressure are a maximum, ‘An additional diagram is required for a flaps eztended condition, as shown in Figure 1.6. The required load factor is usually n = 2, and the maximum design speed for flaps extended, Vj is required to provide a margin of 80% above the flaps extended stalling speed and 40% above the flaps retracted stalling speed. 1.7 Ultimate and Limit Loads Although encounters with Limit loads are infrequent in any given civil aeroplane they occur often enough to require a factor of safety. By convention this Ultimate factor is usually one point five. Additional factors may be required if the strength properties of the structure are variable, with castings for example. Accordingly the structure is required to support Limit loads, as defined by the bound- aries of the flight envelope, without significant damage. Ultimate loads are usually re- quired to be supported for a minimum of three seconds (!) when demonstrated by test. In the later chapters of this text the loads implied by a typical fight envelope are applied to a light aeroplane example. To assist in this some familiarity with the more important aerodynamic coefficients is required, - the subject of Chapter 2. Chapter 2 Wing Section Properties 2.1 Coefficients, General We need to know the aerodynamic forces applied to the wings at various angles of attack jn order to balance an aeroplane in the manoeuvres described by the Flight Envelope. To determine these, some properties of the wing profile are required. With the modern computer it is relatively easy to develop a wing profile which is ideal for a given set of performance requirements, in theory. Unfortunately, as many designers have learned to their sorrow, simple theory does not always apply. It may be feasible to verify theoretical results with tests in the wind tunnel. Wind tunnel tests are an expensive luxury in the design of a light aircraft and the results must be interpreted with great care where the finer points of aerofoil performance are of concern. ‘As a result the cautious designer will be very conservative in the choice of a new aerofoil for a project, aware of the potential of the computer, the limitations of the theory, and especially of the lessons to be learned from experiences reported in the literature. Many of the wing section profiles developed by NACA and NASA over the years have given good service. The earlier sections are well described in Reference 1. There is an informative update and discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the various types in References 2 and 16. When the aerodynamic characteristics of these acrofoils are described by coefficients a large volume of technical data can be presented in a form that is convenient to use. Calculations are reduced to manageable proportions, and in the design of a light aircraft the effort required is in selecting numbers from the data, and simple arithmetic. 10 22, LIFT COEFFICIENT, Cr at 2.2 Lift Coefficient, C;, To illustrate an application of a coefficient we might picture a model wing in a wind tunnel set at the angle of attack for cruising flight. If the area S, of the wing is 5 square feet, and the wind speed V, is 60 mph. suppose that the lift L, corrected for any peculiarities of the flow in the tuanel measures 23 Ib, Using a lift coefficient this would be expressed as; lift coefficient, multiplied by the dynamic pressure in the air flow, times wing area, L=0nxax5, (2.2.1) From Chapter 1.4, the dynamic pressure, q, in the airstream at 60 mph., at sea level is; y 7 351 60? 391 = 92psd. therefore axS = 92x5 = 461. and the coefficient a CL 23/46 = 05 The model test has established a lift coefficient of 0.5. with the wing set at the angle of incidence for the cruising flight condition. This will enable us to calculate the lift of a full scale wing of similar shape in the same flight condition. If the cruising speed for the full scale wing at the same angle of attack is 90 mph the dynamic pressure at sea level is now 20.7 psf, and if the wing area is now 150 sq. ft. the lift, from equation ( i 0.5 x 20.7 x 150 1550 Ib. 12 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES We are assuring here that the model is is a very large tunnel, so that the tunnel walls do not restrict the vortex flow at the wing tips. To avoid the requirement for a very large tunnel, the usual practise is to span the tunnel from wall to wail with the test wing and eliminate tip losses. The flow is then two dimensional and the measured coefficients apply to a wing section, only. For a full span wing in free air the lift, and hence the lift coefficient, will be a maximum near the wing root and fall off toward the wing tip. As a result the coefficient for the complete wing will be an average value, and somewhat less than the section coefficient. Span loadings are discussed in Chapt. 10, for a quick estimate a wing Cz of 85 to 90% of the section value is reasonable for a constant chord wing that uses the same section over the entire span. Fig.2.2 provides an example of the convenience of using coefficients. Under JAR-VLA Rules the measured landing speed of a light aeroplane may not exceed 45 kt. We know from experience that a simple wing will not develop a maximum lift coefficient ' in excess of Gy, = 1.5 to 1.6. From figure 2.2, it is apparent that the designer would be unwise to use a wing loading W/S = w in excess of 10 p.s.f. if the design is to meet the standards of JAR-VLA. To obtain the minimum flight speed of an aeroplane we need only to know the wing loading w and to have an estimate of the maximum lift coefficient, Cimaz for the wing. Alternatively, knowing that simple wings without flaps do not develop lift coefficients well in excess of 2 we may express surprise if a landing speed of 40 mph. say, is claimed for an aeroplane with a plain wing loaded to 10 psf! TA convention used in many technical notes is Cj for wings in two dimensional flow from theory and wind tunnel measurements, and Cy to represent the average value for a full scale wing in three dimensional flow, é.e., with tip losses. 2.2, LIFT COEFFICIENT, Cy ‘Wing maximum lift coefficient Cy 10 12 14s 18 5 10 ws 0 Wing Loading w, pif Figure 2.2; Minimum Flight Speed, Vigia; 2 = 1 20 v 13 14 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES 2.3 Lift Curve Slope. a =C;/a Measured in two dimensional flow the lift coefficient of a wing section, Ci, is conveniently plotted against wing angle of attack, a, as shown in Fig.2.3. Figure 2.3: Lift Curve Slope If the value of the thickness to chord ratio, t/c, does not exceed 0.15 to 0.18 the relation is given by a straight line up to a maximum angle approaching flow separation and the stall. The slope of the line Ci/a does not depend upon the shape of the profile, it is the same for all sections and thin aerofoil theory with a perfect fluid provides a value of 6.28/radian. Since air, being viscous, is not a perfect fluid and allowances must be made for sections that are not thin or perfectly smooth the values of Ci/e commonly used in design are 6.0/radian or 0.1/degree. These numbers apply only to two dimensional flow, or section velues. With wings of finite span the effect of lift losses at the wing tips must be taken into account. The corrections that are required are described in Chapt. 3, 24, ZERO LIFT ANGLE as-0 : 15 2.4 Zero Lift Angle az-5 Profiles that are symmetrical about a mean line as shown in Fig.2.3 are popular in acrobatic aircraft which are expected to perform equally well when inverted. If the designer is more concerned about profile drag in cruising fight or maximum lift in landing a section with a cambered mean line as shown in Fig.2.4.1 will be preferred. ou Sat azao Cr = (at anno) xa Angle of Attack Figure 2.4.1: Cambered Airfoil With the introduction of camber the angle between the aerofoil datum line and the wind axis is no longer zero when the lift coefficient is zero. In this case the zero lift angle, az-o, is offset a negative distance from the datum, Fig.2.4.1, which depende on the amount and to some extent the chordwise location of the maximum camber, Camber has no effect on the slope of the lift curve. With camber it is important to note that the wing datum is merely a convenient axis of reference, the lift depends upon the angle a, between the wind vector and the zero lift line as shown in Fig.2.4.1. Zero lift angles for a number of conservative NACA profiles are shown in Fig 2.4.2. ‘These depend upon the amount of camber and chordwise position of maximum cam- 16 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES ares etyeo = ~1005, 3.25 414 rt zt Zero Lift Angle, degrece neo a a 0.2 08 Ot 08 06 a7 Maximum Camber Location, x/¢ (2) Conservative NACA Profiles, Zero Lift Angle Mean Line {b) Zeto Lift Angle, Schematic Figure 2.4.2: Zero Lift Angles ber, They are represented by the equation; ateo = —100 x x -3axFs14 (2.4.1) 2.5. DRAG COEFFICIENT, Cp 17 where Y and X are the max. camber, and the location of the max camber, respectively as 2 fraction of the chord, C. If data are lacking on profiles suitable for a small aircraft Fig.2.4.2 or equation 2.4.1 may be used as an engineering approximation. ’ The optimum section camber for a particular design depends upon the trade offs between high lift at low airspeeds, low drag at cruising speeds and torsion loads. To obtain a high lift coefficient a plain wing without flaps requires a highly cambered section. Unfortunately with a cambered wing a down load is required on the tail to balance the aircraft. This subtracts from payload and may pose structural problems at bigh airspeeds. For the wing profile drag to be a minimum in cruising flight and moderate tail loads a section camber should not exceed one tenth of the lift coefficient in cruising flight. In the example considered above, with Cy, = 0. for cruising fight, the maximum camber would be Y/C = 0.03. 2.5 Drag Coefficient, Cp By comparison with the lift coefficient, drag is expressed as: D=CyxaxS For example if the drag of the model in Para 2.2 measured 1.15 Ib. in the wind tunnel at 60 mph.the drag coefficient would be: 1.15 Co = S556 = 1.15/46 = 0.025 Accordingly the estimated drag of the full scale wing at 90 mph. is; D = 0,025 x 20,7 x 150 77.6 Ib In estimating wing drag care must be taken to distinguish between data from two dimensional and from three dimensional model tests. For purposes of illustration three dimensional flow was assumed in the example above, including losses which would occur at the wing tips. 18 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES Published drag data are usually taken from 2D tests or calculations that apply only to the wing profile. The drag created by the vortices at the tips of a real wing is then treated separately, taking into account the span of the wing as described in Chapt.3. The profile,drag coefficient of two typical aerofoil sections, plotted against lift coefii- cient, is shown in Fig.2.5. The camber of the sections has been selected to provide minimum drag in the cruising range of Cy, values. The NACA 65 Series is one of the early laminar sections designed to produce a very low drag and the bucket indicates a considerable extent of laminar flow on the smooth section. By comparison the more modern LS section shows less drag at the higher lift coefficients for a negligible penalty in minimum drag. The curves for the sections with a rough surface are probably a better indication of what to expect with a real wing, and here again the conservative section is superior. These comparisons are discussed further in Para.2.8. Although profile drag has a critical effect on the performance of an aerofoil it is small compared to other flight loads and for structural design purposes a precise number is seldom required. ‘Aeroplane components that do not contribute to the lift produce a drag force that is often described as parasitic. Wind tunnel test results are documented in many reports and the drag numbers can be converted to coefficients for particular applications, as in the example above. It is important to note that total drag is more than the sum of the components due to interference effects. [A method of avoiding this conundrum is suggested in Chapt.4]. 25. DRAG COEFFICIENT, Cp = = NASA 18, - 0415mod NACA 65 415 (a) Rough Surface (b) Smooth Surface Figure 2.5: Profile Drag Comparison 19 20 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES 2.6 Pitching Moment Coefficient, Cy The pitching moment on a wing depends on the distribution of the pressure forces around the wing section. Usually profile drag can be ignored, the important force is the magni- tude and chordwise distribution of the pressures that produce lift. For the wing sections of most interest in light aircraft the pitching moments produced by these pressures can be estimated from thin aerofoil theory. According to this theory the pressures on an acrofoil may be treated as the sum of the pressures on three fictitious sections; (a) The pressures, at zero lift, around a symmetrical aerofoil section with the same thickness distribution along the chord. (b) The pressures on a flat plate,-treated as a thin aerofoil, at the angle of attack required to provide the correct total lift. (c) The pressures on the cambered mean line of the aerofoil section, treated as an aerofoil of zero thickness. With the symmetrical profile of (a) at zero angle of attack it is apparent from Fig.2.6(a) that the pressures around the section will balance, and the contribution te the lift and pitching moment is zero. For (b) the chordwise distribution of the pressure difference between the upper and lower surface of a flat plate at an angle of attack is shown in Fig.2.6b. The theoretical derivation of this curve involves complex functions and will not be given here. The shape is fixed, and ignoring the approach to infinity at the leading edge, is in good agreement with test results. The area under the curve, which depends upon the angle of attack, represents additional lift. The centroid of this area is at the 1/4 chord point, measured from the nose of the section. Since the shape of the curve is fixed the pitching moment measured about this point is zero regardless of the magnitude of the lift or the angle of attack. When the two components (a) and (b} are combined to form a symmetrical aerofoil (a) + (b) it follows that the moment which results from the sum of the two pressure distributions will also be zero about the 1/4 chord point at any angle of attack. This point is known as the aero-centre of the section. 2.6. PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENT, Cy 21 @=0 Cu =0 (a) Symmetzical Section, @ = 0 Pr 4 ig 10 Cassber Pr 3 a0 \ oo on ou ols os 10 Wi c at (c) Basie Lie Wine Chore Auzo Centre ot 0/4 ae on 06 08 10 Wing Chard © (b) Additional Lift Figure 2.6: Chordwise Lift Distribution 22 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES With a wing alone the aero-centre is the point of neutral stability. If the aircraft centre of gravity is behind this point it will be unstable. The function of a tail, or equivalent, is to move the neutral point behind the most rearward location of the aircraft C.G. When an aerofoil section is cambered the pressure contribution of the mean line, (c), makes an important contribution to the pitching moment. Typically, at the ideal angle of attack, where there is no additional lift, jand profile drag is a minimum with a real aerofoil], the shape of the chordwise pressure distribution curve is similar to that of the mean line itself, as shown in Fig.2.6(c) for the NACA 64 series aerofoil section. This area, balanced about the 1/4 chord point, produces a pitching moment. The magnitude is determined by the amount of camber and the shape of the mean line. Since it is determined by the choice of aerofoil, and does not depend upon the angle of attack, it is called the basic lift, If the symmetrical form (a)+(b) is now folded about a mean line with camber (c) to form a real aerofoil section the additional plus basic lift will determine the total lift, and the moment about the 1/4 chord point of the basic lift will determine the wing pitching moment. This result greatly simplifies the calculation of pitching moments, The coefficient Cwcja is determined by the choice of the camber and once determined is fixed, there is no worry about the location of an elusive centre of pressure which may diseppear off the trailing edge of the wing at high speeds! It is now relatively easy to proceed with a simple test to determine the pitching moment of a section, and to reduce the measurement to a coefficient that cait be applied to a full scale wing. The moment can be expressed as; M=CyeaxexgxS (2.6(a)) ‘The force in this equation, provided by q x 5, [para. 2(a)] is multiplied by the arm ¢ to provide « moment, The measured moment M, is related to this expression by the cocflicient, Cate/a- To use the tunne] model of Para 2.2 we may suppose that the wing chord is 0.75 ft. and the measured pitching moment —3.lb, x ft. Since the sign is negative, the moment ia nose down, and the coefficient; 3.1 [075 x92 x5] —0.09 Cu = If it is assumed that the chord of the full scale wing in the example is 5 ft., the full 26. PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENT, Cu 23 scale pitching moment at 90 mph. will be; M = —0.09 x 5 x 20.7 x 150 —1400 Ib.x ft. We should note that neither the total lift on the wing or the angle of attack is required to determine the moment. ‘Test values for the NACA four digit airfoil series are shown in Fig 2.6(d). When lines of best fit are drawn the test results can be represented very simply in terms of maximum camber, Y/C and the chordwise location, X/C of that maximum. This plotting, in turn, can be reduced to a formula: 4X Cuter = —* [ +0.7| (2.6(4)) e This can be used to a reasonable degree of engineering accuracy for conservative profiles. With these profiles the maximum camber and thickness are well forward of the mid chord point and the trailing edges are formed by straight lines in the region of flaps or ailerons. It does not apply to extreme laminar flow sections with a maximum thickness aft of the 0.35 chord station, a maximum camber location aft of the 0.45 chord location and a trailing edge cusp or reflex. These require test results, or a reliable computer program. Cc N 24 0.08 Celt Section “0-09 Pitching Moment -0.10 CHAPTER 2. WING SECTION PROPERTIES Chordwise Position of Maximum Camber X/C Maximum Camber=¥/C, a--d. et eal ¥/c=0.02 Cmeya = -Y¥/C(4X/C + 0.7) 6212 * ¥j/o=0.03 ‘¥/C=0.04 08 Not Valid with « Cusp or Reflex ‘ot Trailing Bdge Figure 2.6(d); Section Pitching Moment 2.7. WING FLAP EFFECTS 25 2.7 Wing Flap Effects With a trailing edge flap a wing is equipped, in effect, with a camber that is variable and under the control of the pilot. Depending on the type it may have a strong influence on the section maximum lift, zero lift angle and drag. With increasing deflections a flap, or aileron, will produce large increments in wing pitching moment and it is usual to limit the deflection to small angles at high airspeeds. Wind tunnel test results of a typical flap with « flap chord to wing chord ratio of 0.2 are shown in Fig.2.7(a). At a flap angle of 40 degrees the maximum lift coefficient is increased by about 50% to permit « reduced wing area, or lower airspeed for landing. For this test the gap at the hinge line was sealed,- it is important to note that flap effectiveness is reduced by leaks through a large gap. . In the absence of wing flaps the attitude of an aircraft in landing is nose high, possibly to restrict forward vision and require a landing gear with long legs. This is the result of selecting a wing datum setting, relative to the aircraft longitudinal axis, that will provide a level floor in the cabin and minimum drag in cruising fight, With efficient flaps the angle of attack at high lift coefficients can be reduced considerably, as shown in Fig.2.7(a). ‘At partial deflections flaps of this type will also provide a relatively low drag in conjunction with a moderately high lift to improve the take-off, especially on flosts, and the climb gradient. ‘The effectiveness of a simple flap is measured by @ factor which relates the deflection of the flap to the angle of attack change that would be required in the plain wing to obtain the same increment in lift. Typical values are shown in Fig.2.7(b). According to this a flap with cy/c = 0.2, deflected through 15 degrees, is equivalent to a wing angle of attack change of 0.45 x 15 = 6.75 degrees. Usually it is convenient to work from the zero lift line. From Fig.2.7(b) it is apparent that the application of +15° flap requires the main profile to be rotated —6.75° to maintain zero lift, or ay = Kay At large angles the effectiveness of a flap is reduced. The increment in the pitching moment on a wing section with a simple flap at angles up to about 20 deg. may be taken as; ACueja = —0.01/degree of flap or aileron deflection. 26 CHAPTER 2, WING SECTION PROPERTIES 24 Section Lift Fp Defeton. dy Coefficient grees a 16 8 ° 36 0 8 16 Angle of Attack, Degrees a ° er oO Mement Cocflicient _ Omals a a SS 40° 44 8 04 oo oO os 10 Section Lift Coefficient C, Figure 2.7(a): Lift and Moment Coefficients with 0.2 C Flap At large deflections the results shown in Fig.2.7(a) for a sealed 20% chord flap may be used. In the absence of reliable data it is often assumed that the increase in pitching moment is proportional to the lift increment, or, if the fap produces an increment in Cr = 1.0; Ratio, flap chord/wing chord 0.1 0.2 0.3 Increment in moment, Cmroja - 0.22 - 0.18 - 0.15 7, WING FLAP EFFECTS 7 from TR721 ete. Zero lift sey 04 08 08 07 0 cL 02 09 04 05 06 O7 08 09 10 lap Chord/Wing Chard ¢;/0 Note reduction in K at Large Flap Angles. NACA 0009 Section, Plain Flap Figure 2.7(b): Flap Effectiveness K These increments apply to simple flaps. For slotted flaps that use a convergent nozzle to postpone separation on the upper surface the above values should be increased by about 25 %, provided the wing chord is not greatly extended with flap deflection. With flaps that extend the wing chord, and double slotted flaps, moment coefficients in the order of Cyy

    You might also like