4.7 Article

Landing Performance Study for Four Wheels Twin Tandem Landing Gear Based on Drop Test

期刊

AEROSPACE
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/aerospace9070334

关键词

drop test; twin tandem landing gear; landing impact; pitch damper; overload coefficients; buffer system efficiency

资金

  1. Shanghai Aircraft Design & Research Institute, China Commercial Aircraft Corporation, Shanghai, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drop tests were conducted on a twin tandem landing gear with different filling parameters, showing its ability to absorb landing impact. The pitch damper only absorbs a small portion of the pitching kinetic energy during tail-down landing. Furthermore, the orifice diameter has little effect on the axial load, while the pressure can affect the vibration attenuation.
The drop tests of a twin tandem landing gear with different filling parameters are carried out in two different landing attitudes (level and tail-down). The overload coefficient and power absorption efficiency are obtained. Curves of dynamic oscillation and pressure change for the pitch damper are obtained. The results show that twin tandem landing gear has a good ability to absorb the work of landing impact. Under landing weight, the vertical overload coefficients during level landing and tail-down landing are 1.14 and 1.07, respectively, when the corresponding efficiencies of its buffer system are 80.9% and 83.3%. During tail-down landing, the work absorbed by the pitch damper accounts for only 14.9% of the maximum pitching kinetic energy of the trolley. When the orifice diameter of the pitch damper keeps the same, its peak axial load does not change significantly with the change of its initial pressure. When the initial pressure of the pitch damper keeps the same, the decrease of its orifice diameter is beneficial to the vibration attenuation of the trolley. The smaller recoil channel may lead to a significant increase in the peak pressure of the pitch damper, which should be a consideration in its design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据