The static mechanical stiffness properties of aircraft tires are fundamental to any computation of wheel and landing gear shimmy characteristics, and are important guides in anti-skid system and aircraft wheel design. While the mechanical stiffness properties of aircraft tires are frequency sensitive, the static or low frequency values are important because they are the ones most easily obtained by laboratory testing and are most commonly found in literature. The following recommended methods for measurement of such properties are believed to represent practices which will give reliable and repeatable measurements, either at one facility or among different facilities, using equipment which is commonly available in most tire testing installations.
This specification covers a direct reading, remote control, pneumatic pressure inflator assembly, for use on aircraft tires and struts having pneumatic pressure requirements up to 600 psi. It includes pressure relief provisions to provide for safe inflation. Also included are dual chuck stem gages for measuring tire pressure.
This specification covers a direct reading, remote control, pneumatic pressure inflator assembly, for use on aircraft tires and struts having pneumatic pressure requirements up to 600 psi. It includes pressure relief provisions to provide for safe inflation. Also included are dual chuck stem gages for measuring tire pressure.
This document categorizes the different types of storage requirements, either on the aircraft or new unused or overhauled on the shelf, for aircraft landing gears/components. Recommendations and examples of proper landing gear storage are outlined. Reclamation recommendations are provided for aircraft landing gear returning from long-term storage.
This document discusses the work done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in support of SAE A-5 Committee activity on Aerospace Landing Gear Systems. It is an example of how seemingly unrelated disciplines can be combined effectively for the eventual benefit of the overall aircraft system, where that system includes the total airfield environment in which the aircraft must operate. In summary, this AIR documents the history of aircraft flotation analysis as it involves WES and the SAE.
This document discusses the work done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in support of SAE A-5 Committee activity on Aerospace Landing Gear Systems. It is an example of how seemingly unrelated disciplines can be combined effectively for the eventual benefit of the overall aircraft system, where that system includes the total airfield environment in which the aircraft must operate. In summary, this AIR documents the history of aircraft flotation analysis as it involves WES and the SAE.
This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) includes recommended ground flotation analysis methods for both paved and unpaved airfields with application to both commercial and military aircraft.
This document is divided into five parts. The first part deals with flotation analysis features and definitions to acquaint the engineer with elements common to the various methods and the meanings of the terms used. The second part identifies and describes the various methods used. To accomplish the minimum intent of this document, techniques could be limited to those needed for flotation analysis only; however, because of the close relation between flotation analysis and runway design, methods for the latter are also included. In fact, runway design criteria are used for flotation and evaluation in some cases, and are periodically the governing procedure in specific, if isolated, instances. From time to time, it may be necessary to deal with runways built to obsolete criteria. Therefore, a listing of most of these constitutes the third part.
The substance of this report is divided into five parts. The first part deals with flotation analysis features and definitions to acquaint the engineer with elements common to the various methods and the meanings of the terms used. The second part identifies and describes the various methods used. To accomplish the minimum intent of this report, techniques could be limited to those needed for flotation analysis only. Because of the close relation between flotation analysis and runway design, methods for the latter are included. In fact, runway design criteria are used for flotation and evaluation in some cases, and are periodically the governing procedure in specific, if isolated, instances. From time to time, it may be necessary to deal with runways built to obsolete criteria. Therefore, a listing of most of these constitutes the third part.
This document is divided into five parts. The first part deals with flotation analysis features and definitions to acquaint the engineer with elements common to the various methods and the meanings of the terms used. The second part identifies and describes current flotation analysis methods. Due to the close relationship between flotation analysis and runway design, methods for the latter are also included in this document. As runway design criteria are occasionally used for flotation evaluation, including some for runways built to now obsolete criteria, a listing of the majority of these criteria constitutes the third part. The fourth part of this document tabulates the most relevant documents, categorizing them for commercial and civil versus military usage, by military service to be satisfied, and by type of pavement. This document concludes with brief elaborations of some concepts for broadening the analyst’s understanding of the subject.
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 MIL-G-5514, the accepted gland standard for MS28775. Piston diameters, gland internal diameters, and the groove sidewall angles and surface finish are defined by MIL-G-5514, but the gland outer retaining wall diameter is changed. AS4088 is similar to this document, but was developed by SAE A-6 for flight control and general purpose cylinders. It differs from this document primarily by the clearance between the rod (piston) and outer gland wall. Since landing gears are more susceptible to dirt contamination, the additional clearance provides a larger path to allow excessive dirt accumulation to exit the gland.
This SAE Aerospace Information Report (AIR) describes the performance of plating’s and coatings for landing gear that potentially provide environmental compliance benefits versus the current baseline processes. The hazardous systems addressed in this version of the document include cadmium plating, chromated primers, and high VOC (volatile organic compounds) topcoats. The AIR applies to landing gear structures and mechanisms for all types of civil and military aircraft. The potential replacements apply to both Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) hardware and overhaul of in-service landing gears.
This SAE Aerospace Information Report (AIR) describes the performance of platings and coatings for landing gear that potentially provide environmental compliance benefits versus the current baseline processes. The hazardous systems addressed in this version of the document include cadmium plating, chromated primers, and high VOC (volatile organic compounds) topcoats. Available data are presented for various standard tests in order to compare the replacement candidates. Conclusions are made as to the best performer(s) for each test section presented. These conclusions are not to be regarded as recommendations for or against any of the candidates. The AIR applies to landing gear structures and mechanisms for all types of civil and military aircraft. The potential replacements apply to both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) hardware and overhaul of in-service landing gears.
This SAE Aerospace Information Report (AIR) describes the performance of platings and coatings for landing gear that potentially provide environmental compliance benefits versus the current baseline processes. The hazardous systems addressed in this version of the document include cadmium plating, chromated primers, and high VOC (volatile organic compounds) topcoats. Available data are presented for various standard tests in order to compare the replacement candidates. Conclusions are made as to the best performer(s) for each test section presented. These conclusions are not to be regarded as recommendations for or against any of the candidates. The AIR applies to landing gear structures and mechanisms for all types of civil and military aircraft. The potential replacements apply to both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) hardware and overhaul of in-service landing gears.
Electrolytically deposited chrome plate is the current standard surface treatment for landing gear component interface surfaces that require good wear resistance and corrosion protection. Chrome plated components are typically plagued by a slight debit in fatigue performance, detrimental mud cracking surface pattern, susceptibility to scoring, wear, and seal leakage. In addition, recent changes in environmental compliance standards place further restrictions on the use of electrolytically deposited chromium. Some commercial applications have already eliminated the use of chrome plate on current and future products. As a result, a substitute for electrolytically deposited chrome plate has been sought for several years. High Velocity Oxygenated Fuel (HVOF) thermal spray coatings have been developed to the point where they are being implemented as an alternative to hard chrome plate on high strength low alloy steels for external surfaces on landing gear applications.