Search Results

Implementing Design for Environment (DfE) into the design process requires a strategic integration. Furthermore, as DfE is continuously evolving, flexible processes need to be implemented. This article focuses on the integration of DfE into an optimization framework with the objective of influencing next-generation aircraft. For this purpose, DfE and Structures groups are developing together a set of new environmental indicators covering all life cycle stages of the product by coupling a list of yes/no questions with an environmental matrix. The following indicators are calculated: Regulation risk, Impact of manufacturing the part, CO2 emissions and Recyclability potential. These indicators will be used as constraints in the multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework, meaning that the structure will be designed while complying with environmental targets and anticipating future regulation changes.

During the course of an aircraft program, cost and weight savings are two major areas demanding constant improvements. An Integrated Product Development Team (IPDT) was set to the task of proposing potential improvements to an aircraft under development. From a list of potential parts, the IPDT selected one which was considered as the most suitable to leverage a co-curing process. In the aircraft manufacturing industry, any major modification to a part design should follow the program's means of compliance to certification. Furthermore, to demonstrate the new design's safety, sizing methodology and all supplementary testing must fit in the certification strategy. The IPDT approach was used to ensure the maturity of both process and part. Indeed, a mature turnkey solution can be implemented quickly on the shop floor. This IPDT approach is detailed in another SAE 2013 technical paper entitled: “A Novel Approach for Technology Development: A Success Story” [3].

Traceability has always been considered a useful but costly activity and different methods have been applied to reduce this cost. The current paper constitutes an attempt to improve these methods by introducing an optimal traceability process to be used in the context of RTCA DO-297 “Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) Development Guidance and Certification Considerations”. The paper starts by comparing the definitions of traceability from DO-297 and the related development guidelines (i.e. ARP4754A, DO-254 and DO-178B). The paper continues by classifying the traceability methods recommended by the guidelines and introducing a performance criterion for optimal traceability based on category theory. This criterion addresses the possibility of information loss present in the current traceability methods. The paper proposes an optimal traceability process (i.e. that guarantees that information is not lost) and exemplifies it. The paper ends by recommending further enhancements.

During the NASA/FAA Tailplane Icing Program, pilot evaluations of aircraft flying qualities were conducted with various ice shapes attached to the horizontal tailplane of the NASA Twin Otter Icing Research Aircraft. Initially, only NASA pilots conducted these evaluations, assessing the differences in longitudinal flight characteristics between the baseline or clean aircraft, and the aircraft configured with an Ice Contaminated Tailplane (ICT). Longitudinal tests included Constant Airspeed Flap Transitions, Constant Airspeed Thrust Transitions, zero-G Pushovers, Repeat Elevator Doublets, and, Simulated Approach and Go-Around tasks. Later in the program, guest pilots from government and industry were invited to fly the NASAT win Otter configured with a single full-span artificial ice shape attached to the leading edge of the horizontal tailplane.

In 1991, shortly after acquiring Learjet, Bombardier consolidated all flight testing of new aircraft at the Wichita, Kansas facility. Since then, nine new aircraft were certified, and the Flight Test Center grew from 20 dedicated flight test personnel, to nearly 500 dedicated flight test personnel. The Canadian based company in conjunction with several international risk sharing partners, has created a highly dynamic flight test environment, tasking the Flight Test Center with the challenge of bringing a new product to market each year. This rapid growth was centered on supporting three aircraft product lines; Learjet, Canadair, and DeHavilland. New hangars, telemetry, and ground support facilities were built to accommodate the increased flight test demands. The Bombardier Flight Test Center, otherwise known as BFTC, conducts flight test operations on a seven day per week schedule, and in 1999, flew over 5000 flight test hours in development and certification testing.