Verification of landing gear design strength is accomplished by dynamic and static test programs. This is essentially a verification of the analytical procedures used to design the gear. An industry survey was recently conducted to determine just what analysis and testing are currently being applied to landing gear. Timing in relation to first flight of new aircraft was also questioned. Opinions were solicited from designers of the following categories and/or types of aircraft: a Military - Large Land Based (Bomber) b Military - Small Land Based (Fighter) c Military - Carrier Based (Navy) d Military - Helicopter (Large) e Military - Helicopter (Small-attack) f Commercial - Large (Airliner) g Commercial - Small (Business) h USAF (WPAFB) - Recommendations It is the objective of this AIR to present a summary of these responses. It is hoped that this summary will be useful to designers as a guide and/or check list in establishing criteria for landing gear analysis and test.
This Aerospace Information Report (AIR) will examine considerations relative to the use of mechanical switches on aircraft landing gear, and present "lessons learned" during the period that these devices have been used.
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) covers an alternate gland design for the installation of scraper/wiper rings in the lower end of landing gear shock struts for the purpose of contaminant exclusion. The defined scraper gland covered by this document, as shown in Table 1, is a variant of AS4716, the accepted gland standard for MS28775, O-ring packing seals. Piston rod diameters, gland internal diameters, groove sidewall angles and the surface finish are all defined by AS4716, but the gland outer retaining wall diameter is changed. The traditional scraper design installed into the glands detailed in Table 1 typically utilize components made from urethane or nitrile materials. These scraper designs, while still acceptable, must be reviewed in consideration to deicing, cleaners and disinfectant fluids applied to or in contact with the landing gear, as the materials of construction for the installed scrapers may not be compatible to these fluids.
The intent of this SAE Aerospace Information Report (AIR) is to document the design requirements and approaches for the crashworthy design of aircraft landing gear. This document covers the field of commercial and military airplanes and helicopters. This summary of crashworthy landing gear design requirements and approaches may be used as a reference for future aircraft.
The intent of this SAE Aerospace Information Report (AIR) is to document the design requirements and approaches for the crashworthy design of aircraft landing gear. This document covers the field of commercial and military airplanes and helicopters. This summary of crashworthy landing gear design requirements and approaches may be used as a reference for future aircraft.
The purpose of this SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) is to provide a practical definition of external hydraulic fluid leakage exhibited by landing gear shock absorbers/struts. The definition will outline normal (acceptable weepage) and excessive leakage (unacceptable leakage) of shock absorbers/struts that is measurable. The definition of leakage is applicable to new gear assemblies, refurbished/remanufactured (overhauled) shock absorbers/struts, leakage of shock absorbers/struts encountered during acceptance flights, newly delivered and in-service aircraft. This ARP is intended to provide guidelines for acceptable leakage of landing gear shock absorbers/struts between the ambient temperatures of -65 °F (-54 °C) and 130 °F (54 °C) and to outline the procedure for measuring such leakage. The specific limits that are applied to any particular aircraft shall be adjusted by the aircraft manufacturer before inclusion in the applicable maintenance manual.
The scope of this document is to discuss the differences between electromechanical and proximity position sensing devices (sensor or switch) when used on landing gear. It also contains information which may be helpful when applying either type of technology after the selection has been made. The purpose is to help the designer make better choices when selecting a position-sensing device. Once that choice has been made, this document includes information to improve the reliability of new or current designs. It is not intended to replace recommendations from sensor manufacturers or actual experience, but to provide a set of general guidelines based on historic infromation of what is being used.
The scope of this document is to discuss the differences between electromechanical and proximity position sensing devices when used on landing gears. It also contains information, which may be helpful, when applying either type of technology after the selection has been made. The purpose is to help the designer make better choices when selecting a position-sensing device. Once that choice has been made, this document includes information to improve the reliability of new or current designs. It is not intended to replace recommendations from sensor manufacturers or actual experience, but to provide a set of general guidelines.
This document will examine the more important considerations relative to the utilization of "one piece", or integral electronics proximity switches, and "two piece", or separate sensor and electronics proximity switches, for applications on aircraft landing gear.
This document will examine the more important considerations relative to the utilization of "one piece", or integral electronics proximity switches, and "two piece", or separate sensor and electronics proximity switches, for applications on aircraft landing gear. In general, the recommendations included are applicable for other demanding aircraft sensor installations where the environment is equally severe.
This document will examine the more important considerations relative to the utilization of "one piece", or integral electronics proximity switches, and "two piece", or separate sensor and electronics proximity switches, for applications on aircraft landing gear. In general, the recommendations included are applicable for other demanding aircraft sensor installations where the environment is equally severe.
This document examines the most important considerations relative to the use of proximity sensing systems for applications on aircraft landing gear. In general, the recommendations included are applicable to other demanding aircraft sensor installations where the environment is equally severe.
This information report provides general guidance for the design considerations, qualification in endurance, strength and fatigue of landing gear using composite components as principle structural elements. The information discussed herein includes the development and evaluation of design data considering: the potential for imbedded manufacturing defects, manufacturing process variations, the component operating environment, potential damage threats in service, rework and overhaul, and inspection processes. This AIR mainly discusses the use of thick composites for landing gear structural components. Considerations and recommendations provided in this AIR may therefore differ greatly from considerations and recommendations found in widely accepted composite design references such as CMH-17 and Advisory Circulars such as AC 20-107(B).
This recommended practice covers the fixed structure, or independent energy absorbing system affixed to the airframe to afford protection to the control surfaces, engine and other portions during ground handling, take-off and landing.
This recommended practice covers the fixed structure, or independent energy absorbing system affixed to the airframe to afford protection to the control surfaces, engine and other portions during ground handling, take-off and landing.