JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 49, No. 6, November–December 2012

Landing-Gear Drop-Test Rig Development

and Application for Light Airplanes

Cai-Jun Xue,∗ Yu Han,† Wen-Gang Qi,† and Jian-Hua Dai†

Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
210016 Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
A drop-test rig is developed for the landing gear of a light multifunctional amphibious airplane based on its
drop-test specifications. Several key technologies (including the schematic design of the light-aircraft drop test, the
control-system design for the drop test, the high-speed turn of the wheel, the accurate lifting of the drop system,
design of the measuring platform, and the imitation of the runway) are studied. Simultaneously, the system can
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

realize accurate measurement and conduct the light-aircraft drop test with high-speed belt turn. Based on a drop
test under initial parameters to get the friction between the tire and platform, and the elastic parameters of the
wheel to simulate the interactions of components, the simulation models are repeatedly modified by analyzing the
results of comparisons between drop test and simulation. Thus, an accurate model is established with optimal
parameters, which verifies that the shock-absorbing properties of the landing gear with the optimal parameters
meet the requirements of airworthiness rules, and the properties are greatly improved. According to the
requirement of China Civil Aviation Regulations Order No. 132 (CCAR-23-R3) and the application of virtual
prototype technology for the light multifunctional amphibious airplane, the adjusting-parameter drop test, the
limited drop test, and the reserve-energy absorption drop test of the nose landing gear are accomplished. The
limited load measured in the test is less than the design load, and the landing gear can bear the reserve-energy
absorption drop test. The study shows that the adjusting-parameter drop test for establishing a simulation model
is an available and reliable way to optimize the shock-absorbing properties of an amphibious-aircraft landing
gear. The test system can be applied for the landing-gear drop-test of other light airplanes. Moreover, the test
results can be used as the certification of the airworthiness for this airplane.

Nomenclature PS = atmospheric pressure

Aa = area where the piston rod squeezes out the air (except Py
t = resultant force measured by four sensors
for the oil-hole area) P0 = initial pressure of buffer
Ah = area where the piston rod squeezes out the oil (except p
t = tension–compression load of platform in the drop test
for the oil-hole area) S = stroke of buffer
A0 = sectional area of oil hole Smax = maximum stroke of buffer
at = acceleration of hanging basket t = first buffering circle time
Cd = flow coefficient of the oil hole V0 = initial volume of the air chamber
C
= vertical damping coefficient of the wheel  = oil density
dm = diameter of the main oil hole
ds = diameter of one-way oil hole
Fm
t = total friction force between platform and the four I. Introduction

Fx
supported pillars
= horizontal load acting on the wheel
FY
t = vertical load of the wheel
N OWADAYS, an aircraft landing-gear drop test basically relies
on the design of the drop-test rig. For instance, the American
drop-test rig is designed into a dynamic form as well as being set on
Fz = vertical load acting on the wheel active ground. The American test rig consists of rack car, sprinkler
K
= vertical deformation coefficient of the wheel system (which is used to provide driving force), and a track with
kva = calibration value of vertical acceleration sensor fixed bilateral rails. The simulation accomplished on the drop-test rig is
on platform. close to actual landing conditions. The vertical drop-test rig is widely
kvg = calibration value of vertical load sensor used in Russia. The working principle of the rig is using the motor to
M1 = mass of platform drive the landing-gear tire, which is fixed with a flywheel through the
N = number of wheel belt. With the rapid development of the aviation industry, aircraft
NY
t = inertia force of platform landing-gear drop-test technology has received much attention, and
nn = inertial overload coefficient several key technologies have been broken through. The dynamic
analysis and drop tests for specific aircraft landing gear have been
extensively studied by scholars from various countries at different
Received 5 April 2012; revision received 3 May 2012; accepted for viewpoints.
publication 4 June 2012. This material is declared a work of the U.S. As early as 1937, Franz established a linear spring-damper model
Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. for an aircraft landing-gear system [1]. The landing-gear dynamic
Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition model became more meticulous since then. More factors were
that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, considered in the dynamic model, such as nonlinear buffer, tire
Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0021-8669/
damping, and the stiffness of the landing gear. In 1952, Fliigge
12 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
∗
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Fundamental Science for
applied the method of entering nonlinearity force-displacement
National Defense–Advanced Design Technology of Flight Vehicle; curves and damping formulas, which was related to the vertical
cjxue@nuaa.edu.cn. velocity [2]. By this way, the nonlinearity behaviors of the oil buffer
† were taken into consideration for the dynamic model. In the same
Graduate Student, Key Laboratory of Fundamental Science for National
Defense–Advanced Design Technology of Flight Vehicle. year, Milwitzky and Cook studied the behavior analysis of a
2064
 XUE ET AL.
conventional landing gear during its landing impact process literally
[3]. Several key factors of landing gear were discussed, and the
analysis model for the landing-gear system model was simplified
rationally. In 1967, Garba described the correlation between the
predicted and measured dynamic behavior for a full-size surveyor
drop test [4]. In 1974, Daughetee described a laboratory facility
developed by Vought Systems Division of the Ling–Temco–Vought
Aerospace Corporation and techniques used to realistically simulate
landings of full-scale aircraft under precisely controlled conditions
[5]. He reported that the load of the landing gear had reached the peak
in the first 0.2 s when the wheel touched down, and the wheel’s
passing through deck with obstacles caused an increase about 16% in
landing-gear load during the landing progress. From 1979 to 1982,
Ross [6] and Ross and Edson [7–10] presented the design of an
active-control landing-gear system that was motivated by an
electronic controller. The control effect of the controller was verified
by the landing-gear drop test.
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
In the early 1970s, Bender et al. [11] and Corsetti and Dillow [12]
elaborated on the feasibility of the research and design scheme of the
main landing gear. From then on, NASA plunged a lot of human and
material resources to carry out the research [13]. In 1976, McGehee
and Carden established a mathematical model of an active-control
landing gear for load control during impact and rollout with the
simulation technology being applied in the study of its performance
[14–17]. In 1979–1982, the results of an evaluation of an active load-
control landing-gear computer program for predicting the landing
dynamics of airplanes with passive and active main gears were
presented. It showed that the active gear reduced airframe-gear forces
and airplane motions following initial impact and had the potential
for significant reductions in structural fatigue damage relative to
that which occurred with the passive gear [18]. In 1990, Howell
and McGehee conducted an experimental investigation on the
series-hydraulic active-control nose gear of an F106-B [19]. The
experiments involved testing the gear in both passive- and active-
control modes. Results of this investigation showed that a series-
hydraulic active-control gear was feasible and that such a gear was
effective in reducing the loads transmitted by the gear to the airframe
during ground operation. In 1997, Underwood described the final
system drop test of the disk–gap–band parachute system [20]. The
system consisted of three disk–gap–band parachutes of different
designs, each of which was optimized for its own task within the
mission [21,22]. In 1999, Wang and Udo simulated the operation of
an Airbus A320 as an example and set up the main landing-gear
model [23]. The highly nonlinear aircraft dynamics coupled with
varying landing and runway conditions were handled with the
proposed fuzzy controller.
At the end of 20th century, the landing-gear dynamics model had
developed to the depth of making a complete layout from the
whole aircraft. The structural flexibility of the body, dynamic load
distribution between the nose and main landing gear, aerodynamic
response on the body, and its influence on landing-gear impact loads
were fully taken into account. In 2000, Ghiringhelli used a two-
freedom model to investigate the simulation of a semi-active-control
landing-gear test with different subsidence velocity [24]. In 2004,
Ghiringhelli used a multibody dynamics software ADAMS to set up
a complete model without considering the flexibility of the airframe,
and the Proportion Integration Differentiation (PID) controller was
designed and improved to carry out simulation research on the semi-
active landing-gear control [25]. In 2004, Adams summarized the
testing and analysis used to quantify the expected airbag landing
loads for the Mars exploration rovers [26]. The airbag drop-test
setup, landing instrumentation, and the test-data-reduction method
were discussed to provide an understanding of the empirical loads. A
favorable comparison was made between the empirical data and
available computational airbag models, boosting confidence in the
results. In 2006, Lernbeiss and Plöch introduced an Multi-Body
System (MBS)-based landing-gear model and investigated the
numerical simulation of a simple static and dynamic load by
comparing with a finite-element model [27]. In 2009, Kong et al.
conducted drop-impact analyses for the landing gear of smart
unmanned aerial vehicles using the explicit finite-element code
2065
LS-DYNA [28]. Experimental data were used to revise the impact
model for the landing gear. Structural particularity and airworthiness
specifications should be considered in the landing-gear drop test
of light aircraft. For the light-aircraft landing-gear drop-test
technology, a test and control system had been introduced by Xue
et al. in 2011 [29].
Conclusion demonstrates that Chinese scholars have investigated
various aspects of airworthiness drop test, including airworthiness
test systems and dynamics investigation of the adjusting-parameter
tests. They have some achievements, and they have laid the
foundation for the research and execution of airworthiness tests. But
there are quite a few reports on the systemic investigation of the
airworthiness certification test for civil aircraft, few reports about the
application of the drop test to amend and verify the drop-simulation
model, and none about the application of the simulation result to
guide the adjusting-parameter test. To meet the requirements of the
airworthiness of a Seagull 300 aircraft landing gear, this paper reports
the systemic investigation of the airworthiness drop test as well as
effective combination between the advanced simulation technology
and the actual engineering needs. The research possesses certain
academic values and engineering application values. And the
achievement can be used as the reference of drop test and dynamics
analysis for light-airplane landing-gear drop test.
II. Drop-Test System
A. Structure of the Test System and Working Principle
The vertical drop-test system consists of the platform system, the
low-friction sliding system, the up and down system, the wheel’s
turning-speed system, the impact-platform system, the fixture
system, and the acquisition system, as shown in Fig. 1.
We must simulate the aircraft landing weight, angle of attack,
sinking velocity, forward velocity, wing aerodynamic force, and ratio
of the friction between the wheel and the runway at the moment of
touchdown. The drop test is in progress by adapting to the way of free
fall. In this test, the effective dropping weight (which consists of
landing gear, fixture, core barrel, and additional weight) is simulated
by the weight of the drop system. The ways to adjust the fixture of
the landing gear and the height of the drop test are used to simulate
the angle of landing attack and the sink velocity, respectively. The
reverse rotation of the wheel at a preset velocity and the concrete flat
are used to simulate the horizontal landing velocity of aircraft and the
surface of the pavement, respectively. The friction coefficient
between the wheel and the contact flat is varied through modifying
the toughness of the flat. Meanwhile, the reasonable methods for
imitating rotating loads and spring-back drag loads are studied
through using different imitation platforms. The research is carried
out under the condition of guaranteeing the friction coefficient.
B. Design of Core Barrel and Sliding Way
The core barrel is connected with the rack by eight tackles, and its
free sliding along the rack is accomplished through the tackles.
Fig. 1 Drop-test rig for a landing gear.
 2066 XUE ET AL.

Meanwhile, four axles with a diameter of 60 mm are installed under Table 1 Efficient weight expense due to friction
the big core barrel to increase the balance weight of the landing-gear
Height , mm Weight loss, % Height, mm Weight loss, %
system; thus, the equivalent load exerted on the real landing gear will
be imitated conveniently. The three-dimensional graphic of the core 100 3.2 152 2.8
barrel is shown in Fig. 2. 204 4.2 246 4.0
The free sliding of the core-barrel system is accomplished 300 5.0 353 3.7
410 2.4 452 3.4
through the tackles. The sliding way should be of certain 501 2.9 548 4.3
smoothness so that the friction between the core-barrel system and 595 4.3 average 3.7
the sliding way will be decreased fully. Thus, the errors occurred in
the instantaneously sinking velocity of the dropping test will be
decreased, and the test to imitate the sinking velocity in the process
of landing will also be enough. Considering the parking problem of caused by static friction is less than 5%, and the average loss is 3.7%,
the core-barrel system, the top as well as the bottom of the sliding as shown in Table 1.
way should be stretched so as to park the core-barrel system
conveniently. The three-dimensional graphic of the sliding way is C. Design of the Wheel’s Turning-Speed Mechanism
shown in Fig. 3. As the effective diameter of the wheel for aircraft landing gear is
The core barrel consists of the framework structure, counter- relatively small, the effective way to imitate the horizontal landing
balance component, guide wheel, and fixed plate for the landing
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

velocity is to improve the rotational speed of the wheel.

gear. The low-friction sliding way adopts four cylindrical columns
with 180 mm diameter and is fixed at both ends with bearings on the
bench column. To ensure the free fall of the drop-test system, the core
barrel is fixed with a concave guide wheel to combine with the
low-friction sliding way. The dimensions of the core barrel are
1600  1700  450 mm.
The verticality of the sliding way is guaranteed by seton
technology in the process of installation. Simultaneously, the
combination between the guide wheel and the sliding way is
regulated. Before the formal test, we should make the guide wheel
slide along the low-friction sliding way 100 times, and then we need
to smear lubricating oil on the surface of the sliding way. It is difficult
to measure the dynamic friction between the guide wheel and the
sliding way directly. Therefore, we can collocate several pull-
pressure sensors around the hook to measure the tension subjected to
the guide wheel when it locates at different height. Thus, we can get
the percentage of effective weight loss. The effective weight loss
Simultaneously, it is quite necessary to improve the evacuation
speed to decrease the loss of the wheel’s turning speed.
The wheel’s turning-speed mechanism consists of the hydraulic
pressure moving tube, the stent, the dc motor, and the friction wheel,
as shown in Fig. 4. The friction wheel is in contact with the wheel
through the hydraulic-pressure moving tube, and the dc motor drives
the friction wheel to rotate. Then the friction wheel turns the wheel in
reverse. After the tangential velocity of the wheel achieves the
desired speed, the hydraulic-pressure moving tube will shrink, and
the friction wheel will return rapidly.
D. Impact Platform and Measuring System
The impact platform is composed of three layers. As shown in
Fig. 5, the upper layer filled with concrete is used to simulate the

Fig. 4 Working theory of the wheel’s turning-speed mechanism.

Fig. 2 Design of the core barrel.

Fig. 3 Low-friction sliding way design. Fig. 5 Measuring flat for a landing-gear drop test.
 XUE ET AL.
runway. Four sensors to measure heading load are installed alongside
the upper layer, and the other four sensors to measure side loads are
installed alongside with the middle layer. The bottom layer is
supported by three pillars, and there are vertical sensors in it.
There are circular guide grooves that are perpendicular in the
interface. The steel balls are used here to keep point contact and
reduce the friction.
The parameters needed to be measured in the drop test are as
follows: the horizontal vertical loads of the wheel, the vertical
displacement of the wheel center, the axial compression of the buffer
and the wheel’s compression. Four load sensors are installed on the
force platform to measure what can be converted into the vertical load
Fz acting on the wheel. Two load sensors and an accelerometer are
installed alongside the force platform to measure what can be
converted into the horizontal load FX acting on the wheel. A guyed
displacement sensor is installed between the hanging basket and the
pillars to measure the vertical displacement of the hanging basket
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
center. An acceleration sensor is installed at the center of the bottom
of the hanging basket to measure the acceleration of the hanging
basket (at ). A linear displacement sensor is installed at the two
ends of the buffer to measure the compression of the three
supported pillars. The sensor-installation schematic diagram is
shown in Fig. 6.
E. Control System
The whole control system consists of the hydraulic system, the up
and down mechanism, the structure of turning speed, and telecontrol.
Just after the drop system is dropped by the electric motor to a preset
height, the hook will be locked. Then the structure of turning speed
turns the wheel in reverse and evacuates when the speed of wheel
reaches to the preset one. As long as the drop system is ensured to be
located safely, the drop system is dropping down and the test data are
collected.
The drop test is dominated by the Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC) control system, which adapts an OMRON CP1H-XA40D
programming with CX Programmer version 7.3. The computer is
connected with CP1H by RS232, the type of host link, 9600 baud rate
for the port, 7 bit even parity check. The software of King View
version 6.5 is used to monitor the process of the drop test. All I/Os of
the input and output signals are adapted to the photoelectric isolating
equipment. Thus, the anti-interference ability of the deoxidization
device and the electrical circuit inside the controller can be insulated.
The software of King View is used to realize the development of
the control interface for the drop test, and the prompt communication
with the PLC control program is also enforced. Corresponding
processes are used to realize high-precision, good-tracking
performance and a high level of visualization. According to the
specialties of the aircraft landing gear and the requirements of
airworthiness certification, the interface of the control system is
developed to meet the requirements on the platform of King View
software. The adjusting-parameter drop test, the limited drop test,
Fig. 6 Sensor-installation schematic diagram.
2067
Table 2 Major technical index of hydraulic system
Name of parameter Technical index
Pump motor 1.5 KW
Hydraulic pump Pmax  20 MPa, dextrorotation
System rated flow Q  20 L= min
Control voltage DC24V
and the reserve-energy absorption drop test for the light-aircraft
landing gear are accomplished by operating the interface of the
control system.
The design proposal of the hydraulic servo system is achieved
according to the design research of a control system for a landing-
gear drop test, which includes the following:
1) The pressure supplement for the system is proposed in view of
the high pressure supplied for the prototype pump.
2) The actuation time of the executive components is set up
judging by the requirements and the project design of the drop test.
3) The maximum working stroke is determined in view of the
reference height of the drop test, the limited dropping height, and the
simulation results.
4) The maximum load of the actuator cylinder is calculated
according to the weight of the wheel’s turning-speed mechanism, the
requirements of the test, and the contact force between the friction
wheel and the wheel of the landing gear.
The original design parameters are as follows:
1) The time of protracting the structure of turning speed is 8–20 s,
and the time of withdrawal is 1–3 s.
2) The maximum effective diameter of the actuator cylinder is
24.62 mm.
3) The maximum stroke of the actuator cylinder is 400 mm.
4) The biggest load is 10,000 N.
5) The temperature is 50 to 50 C.
6) The pressure of the oil sump tank is 0.15 MPa.
The technical index is shown in Table 2.
F. Test System
1. Transient Rotational Speed Test
In the measuring of the rotational speed of the wheel, we will meet
the following troubles:
1) The structures of different landing gears are compact so that the
fix of sensors is limited.
2) The wheel will generate vibration and deformation when it
impacts the platform, and the test requirement should be somehow
higher than ever.
3) The drop-test platform will bring electromagnetic interference
to the measuring sensors.
On account of these reasons, the rotational speed of the wheel
should be measured by noncontact photosensors and grating trays.
Then, the variation curve of the rotational speed of the wheel can be
measured by time counting. As shown in Fig. 7, as the room of the
wheels is compaction, the directed sensor and grating tray are not
suitable to install here, so the reflective sensor is applied and the
grating tray is replaced by the grating patch, which are uniformly
Fig. 7 Measurement of the wheel’s transient rotational speed.
 2068 XUE ET AL.
distributed in the wheel. Then, the transient rotation speed of the
landing-gear wheel will be measured in the counting way.
The turning system turns around the wheel in the opposite
direction to simulate the horizontal velocity of the aircraft, and the
horizontal velocity of the wheel is based on the Eq. (1):
60Vx
N (1)
2R
2. Horizontal Load Test
In recent studies, the horizontal and vertical loads are measured by
the drop platform, which is supported by three points. In this paper,
the platform is supported by four points and the impact platform is
constituted by three layers. As shown in Fig. 8, the upper layer filled
with concrete is used to simulate the runway. Four sensors to measure
the heading load are installed alongside the upper layer, and the other
four sensors to measure side load are installed alongside the middle
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
layer. The bottom layer is supported by four pillars, and there are
four sensors in them. There are circular guide grooves that are
perpendicular in the interface. The steel balls are used here to keep
point contact and reduce friction, which applies the upper layer
sliding along the course and side direction.
After turning, the rotating wheel of the landing gear drops on the
platform and the friction force is produced as the horizontal load of
the wheel. It is difficult to measure the friction force directly, and the
indirect method which is to arrange dynamic force sensors on both
sides of the platform along the course only meets. The heading load is
shown in Eq. (2):
Fx  p
t  Fm
t  Nx
t (2)
3. Vertical Load Test
The measurement of general loads usually adopts the method of
pasting the strain gauges on the test sample or fixing the force sensors
directly on it. However, it is difficult to measure the vertical load of
the landing gear directly, and so the indirect method is used. Before
measurement of the vertical load, we assume that the platform and
steel balls are both rigid bodies. Four sensors are symmetrically
installed under the laminate of platform. When the landing gear
Fig. 8 Measuring flat for landing-gear drop test.
wheel Py
sensor
N(t)
Fig. 9 Vertical mechanical model of the platform.
Table 3 Measuring instruments and their precision
No. Equipment Type Precision Quantity
1 Collection system DH5927 0.5% 1
2 Force sensor 5114 0.1% 8
3 Acceleration sensor DH311 0.1% 2
4 Displacement sensor DH801 0.5% 2
5 Speed sensor DH5640 0.3% 1
6 Electronic scale OCS 2T=0:2 kg 1
drops on the platform, the impact load of the wheel is passed by the
platform and steel balls, and it is gained from the sensors. The
conversion relationship between the vertical load of the wheel and
the load measured by the sensors is based on the theorem of static
force balance, and Eq. (3) is based on the mechanism mode shown
in Fig. 9:
Fy
t  kyg Py
t  kya ay
tM1 (3)
4. Axial Compression of Buffer and Wheel Compression
The drop test is to verify whether the buffer system satisfies its
capacity of absorbing energy and the wheel compression satisfies the
requirements of design. According to the original parameters of the
buffer pillar stroke and the wheel stroke, a cable-type displacement
sensor is installed between the basket and the pillar to measure the
vertical displacement h of the basket center, and another sensor is
installed at the end of buffer to measure the compression
of the
buffer. The wheel’s compression can be obtained from the vertical
displacement h, the compression
, and the strut front angle of the
landing gear, which is also the angle of attack.
5. Data Collection of Drop Test
The data measured in the drop test are collected by the system of
impact test data acquisition with 48 channels, concurrent working,
100–512 kHz frequencies from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Table 3 is the list of the equipment needed in the drop
test.
The parameters needed to be measured in the drop test are as
follows: the horizontal load and vertical load of wheel; the vertical
displacement of the wheel center; and the axial compression of the
buffer and the wheel compression. Four load sensors are installed on
the force platform to measure what can be converted into the vertical
load FZ acting on the wheel. Two load sensors and an accelerometer
are installed alongside the force platform to measure what can be
converted into the horizontal load FX acting on the wheel. A guyed
displacement sensor is installed between the core barrel and pillars to
measure the vertical displacement of the core-barrel center. An
acceleration sensor is installed at the center of the bottom of the core
barrel to measure the acceleration of the core barrel (at ). A linear
displacement sensor is installed at the two ends of the buffer to
measure the compression
of the three supported pillars.
Fig. 10 Force diagram of the landing gear’s various parts.
 XUE ET AL. 2069

Table 4 Results of formal test under initial parameters

Maximum stroke of Maximum vertical Energy absorption of Limited vertical load Efficiency factor of Efficiency factor of
buffer (S) loads FZ system (Ac ) factor n buffer system
126 mm 17,980 N 1521 J 4.37 64.9% 55.1%

Table 5 Initial parameters of the formal drop test

Drop height H Effective drop weight We Diameter of main oil hole (dm ) Diameter of one-way oil hole (ds ) Initial pressure P0 Rolling speed
410 mm 329.8 kg 2.6 mm 1.8 mm 0.6 MPa 1300 rpm

Table 6 Results of auxiliary drop test under initial parameters

Test program Release Maximum stroke Vertical Energy absorption Limited vertical Efficiency Efficiency
number height H, of buffer (S), loads Fz , of system (Ac ), J load coefficient n coefficient of coefficient of
mm mm N buffer, % system, %
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

1 250 96 14,769 989 3.56 62.1 52.3

2 300 99 15,342 1159 3.73 67.5 59.0
3 350 106 17,520 1532 4.26 64.5 54.4

III. Drop Test and Simulation Under the elastic supporting mass, the inelastic supporting mass, and the
the Adjusting Parameters rotating mass. By this means, the mechanical model can preferably
A. Dynamic Model of Landing Gear imitate the actual condition and simplify the dynamic equation. The
In accordance with the characteristics of movement to various elastic supporting mass is the mass of the upper air spring buffers
parts, the structure mass of the landing gear is divided into three parts: including the mass of the fuselage, the wing, and the outer cylinder,

Fig. 11 Energy absorption of the buffer.

Fig. 12 Simulation results of the energy absorption.

 2070 XUE ET AL.

Table 7 Contrast between results of simulation and test

System performance Maximum stroke of Maximum vertical Energy absorption of Efficiency factor of Efficiency factor of
buffer (S), mm loads FZ , N system (Ac ), J buffer, % system, %
Result of simulation 126.0 18,590 1885 65.8 53.6
Result of test 126.0 17,980 1721 64.9 55.1
Deviation of two results 1.5 3.4 9.5 1.9 3.5

which is the mass supported by the air spring. The elastic supporting Table 8 Energy absorbed by the buffer system corresponding
mass is the mass of the low air spring buffers including the mass of the to different parameters
piston cylinder, the brakes, and the tire, which is the mass supported
by the nonair spring. The rotating mass is part of the nonelastic Diameters of the Diameters of Initial pressure Energy
support quality, which includes the mass of the wheel and the rotating main oil hole one-way oil of the buffer absorption of
part of the brake apparatus. (dm ),mm hole (ds ), mm (P0 ), MPa the system
(Ac ), J
The stress states of the wheel, the inner cylinder, and the outer
cylinder are shown in Fig. 10. The interaction between the buffer 3.4 1.8 0.6 1943
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

pillar and the wheel forms a commonly used two-mass model. The 3.8 1.8 0.6 1973
following assumptions are contained in the model: 4 1.8 0.6 1988
2.6 2 0.6 1924
1) All the forces of the landing gear are exerted within the vertical
3 2 0.6 1948
plane of the landing gear. 3.4 2 0.6 1974
2) The elastic supporting mass can be idealized as rigid bodies 3.8 2 0.6 2002
concentrated near the trunnion. 4 2 0.66 2014
3) In addition to the horizontal deflection of the buffer pillar, the 4 2 0.62 2012
other deformations of the structure are ignored. 4 2 0.64 2011
4 2 0.68 2007
4 2 0.7 2006

1. Motion Equations of System

Coordinate System: Here, the coordinate refers to the local
coordinate system, which is moving along with the mass. The origin
of the coordinate is located at the mass centroid. Based on the
assumption, the centroid of the inelasticity supporting mass is
located in the landing-gear axle. The Z coordinate’s positive
direction is vertically downward, and the X coordinate is
perpendicular to the Z coordinate. The reverse course is referenced
as the positive direction.
Motion Equations of Wheel Rotating Stage: This is the
synchronous motion stage of the elastic supporting mass and the
inelastic supporting mass (only the wheel is compressed, whereas
the buffer pillar is not). The horizontal gliding speed of the wheel is

"_ X  X_ m 
R 
=3!  VX (4)

At the buffer compression stage (while the tire continues to
compress), the horizontal motion equation of concentrated mass
retains the same, while the vertical motion equation is shown in
Eq. (5):
FS Nu  Nl L
Z
M  g  cos n  sin n  (5a)
M M M

Fig. 13 Simulation model for optimization. Ft  Fz

Z
m  g  (5b)
m

ZM  S cos n  Zm (5c)

Motion Differential Equation of the Rebound Stage:

Nt
R 

R 
=3
X
U  (6a)
Im  m
R 

R 
=3

Nt
R 

!_  (6b)
Im  m
R 

R 
=3

2. Stress Analysis of Buffer Pillar

The stroke of the buffer (S) is zero:

Fig. 14 Iteration history of optimization.

FS 
mX
m  Fx  cos n 
mZ
m  Fz  mg sin n (7)
 XUE ET AL. 2071

Table 9 Optimization results of the buffering performance

dm ds P0 Smax FZ n nn t Ac
4.0 mm 2.0 mm 0.66 MPa 153 14675 4.39 3.56 0.38 s 2014 J

The stroke of the buffer (S) is larger than zero:
FS  Ph A1  Pa
A2  A1   Ff (8)
The buffer stroke (S) equals the mechanism stroke:
FS  Fa  Ff  Fl (9)
where Fa can be calculated from Eq. (9) The chamber volume can be
calculated by subtracting the result, which is the gas pressure being
multiplied by the area from the initial volume of structural itinerary.
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
buffer system and the maximum stroke of the buffer are less than
the requirement; the maximum vertical load of wheel is larger than
the requirement (15,362 N); and the limited vertical load coefficient
is larger than the requirement. According to the analysis of the
influence of buffer parameters toward the shock-absorbing
properties, the following adjustments should be done: 1) enlarging
the oil hole of the buffer, and 2) enhancing the initial pressure of the
buffer. The results of auxiliary drop test are shown in Table 6 and
Fig. 11. According to the maximum strokes of the buffer and the
maximum vertical loads at different heights, it can be deduced that
the maximum stroke of the buffer and the maximum vertical load of

3. Oil Damping Force

the wheel can meet the requirements when it is released at the height
The oil damping force is produced due to the pressure difference
caused by the flow of hydraulic oil through both ends of the hole. The of 410 mm.
calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (10): Figure 12 is the dynamic simulation results of the energy
absorption. Figure 12a is the energy absorbed by the buffer.
A3h _ Sj
_ Figure 12b is the energy absorbed by the buffer system. Contrast
Fh  Sj (10)
2
Cd A0 2 between results of simulation and test has been listed in Table 7. As
4. Air Spring Force shown in the table, the maximum vertical loads in simulation is 4.5%
The air spring force is determined by the initial pressure, the area higher than in the test; deviation of the maximum stroke of buffer is
covered by the gas pressure and the instantaneous compression ratio. 1.5%; and the deviation of energy absorbed by system is 9.5%.
The calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (11): Considering that the error of the model is quite small, it can be used in

 n  parameter-optimization analysis.
V0 On the basis of the virtual prototype of the landing gear, the drop
Fa  Aa P0  Ps (11)
V0  Aa S test under initial parameters has been simulated. The initial condition
parameters including the drop height, the rolling speed, and the initial
5. Internal Friction Force air pressure are set as shown in Table 7. The friction coefficient
The friction emerged at the collar between inside and outside of the between the wheel and the platform is defined by the z 
curve,
buffer cylinder is only taken into consideration. The calculation and the elastic constant of the wheel is defined by the kT 
curve.
formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (12): The two curves are all measured from the test. The friction factor
between the inner barrel and the piston rod of the buffer is set at 0.11,
Ff 
u jNu j  l jNl j (12) which is the calculated test result.

6. Stress Analysis of the Wheel

The wheel suffers the vertical reaction force from the ground. The
calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (13):
Fz  NK
Zm  NC
Z_ m (13)
B. Dynamic Simulation Under Adjusting-Parameter Drop Test
1. Analysis of Simulation and Test Under Initial Parameter
The results of the initial drop test and the adjusting-parameter drop
test are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Comparing the shock-absorbing
performance parameters of the initial drop test with that of the
adjusting-parameter drop test on the requirements of shock-
absorbing capacity, we can find that the energy absorbed by the
2. Optimization Model for Buffer Parameters
The appropriate allocation of the buffer parameters should be
found to meet the design requirements. Actually, we optimize the
shock-absorbing performance on the basis of adopting the buffer
parameters as design variables. The model of optimization is
described as follows: 1) objective function (energy absorption of the
buffering system, Ac ), and 2) design variables (dm , ds , four one-way
holes with same diameters, and P0 ). Considering the actual minimum
adjustment mount of the initial pressure of the buffer and the diameter
of the main oil hole (dm ), we regulate dm , ds , and V0 as discrete
variables. The step sizes of dm and ds are all 0.2 mm. And the step size
of P0 is 0.02 MPa.

Fig. 15 Optimized energy absorption.

 2072 XUE ET AL.

Table 10 Results of the drop tests with 4 mm main oil hole

Maximum stroke of Maximum vertical Capacity of buffer Limited vertical load Efficiency coefficient of Efficiency coefficient of the
buffer (S) load FZ system (Ac ) coefficient nn buffer (s ) buffer system ()
152.9 mm 15,789 N 1841 J 3.83 64.6% 56.8%

The constraint functions are Smax , Fz , nn , and t, which are 4. Drop Test with Optimized Buffer Parameters
mathematical expressions of the optimization model on shock- Other parameters, such as rolling speed, release height, and
absorbing performance. The aforementioned functions are shown in effective drop weight are kept the same as the parameters listed in
Eq. (14): Table 6. Test procedures are also kept the same as that in the initial
8 test. The auxiliary drop test is done at first. The drop heights are 200,
>
> Smax  156:3 mm 250, 350, and 380 mm in turn. Attention should be paid in the test;
>
> before each test, the landing gear should be hung in the air for more
>
< Pz  15362 N
>
than half an hour to ensure that the oil and gas are separated
n  4:42 (14) adequately, and the pressure in the buffer should be kept the same
>
>
>
> t  0:8 s during each test. The results of the auxiliary drop test are shown in
>
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

>
: Table 10, and the shock-absorbing capacity is listed in the appended
max Ac
dm ; ds ; V0 
According to the results of the initial drop test, we can conclude
that the diameters of the oil holes and the initial pressure of the buffer
should be enhanced. Combining with the practical experience, the
range of design variables is determined, as shown in Eq. (15):
dm 2
2:8; 3:0; 3:2; . . . ; 5:2 ds 2
1:8; 2:0; 2:2; . . . ; 3:6
(15)
P0 2
0:60; 0:62; 0:64; . . . ; 0:80
3. Optimization Analysis of Shock-Absorbing Performance in LMS
Virtual.Lab Software
Design variables and the response function are set in the
simulation model; the range of design variables are added as shown in
Eq. (15). Variation ranges of the constraint function are applied, and
the objective function is set as max Ac . The simulation model for
optimization is established as shown in Fig. 13. The optimization is
carried out through software, and the iteration process is shown in
Fig. 14. The curve shows that the objective function that represents
the energy absorbed by the buffer system is increasing greatly. Parts
of the objective function values corresponding to the design variables
are output during the iterative process, which are shown in Table 8.
The results of the optimization, design variables, values of
constraints, and objective functions are shown in Table 9. We can see
the shock-absorbing performance has been further enhanced. The
optimized energy-absorption curves are shown in Fig. 15. The curves
are much better than the initial ones, which are the simulation results
under initial parameters. It indicates that the buffering performance
has been improved.
drawing. According to the results, we can conclude when the landing
gear is released at the height of 410 mm in the drop test, the maxi-
mum stroke and the maximum vertical load can meet the design
requirement.
The auxiliary drop test has verified the security of the test. The
landing gear should be hung for half an hour before the formal test.
The capacity curves of the buffer and the system are shown in Fig. 16.
The capacity curve of the buffer has four humps, which are the same
as that in the initial test. The curve is much better than the initial one.
It indicates that the buffering performance has been improved. The
calculated buffering parameters are listed in Table 10. The data show
that the maximum stock of the buffer is increased, the maximum
vertical load is reduced, and the energy absorbed by the system is
slightly less than before when compared with the results of the initial
test. As a result, the following modifications should be done:
1) enlarging the oil hole of the buffer, and 2) enhancing the initial
pressure.
5. Buffer Parameter Optimization with the Pulleys-Sliding Friction
Taken into Account
The coefficient of friction between the wheel and the sliding way
causes an average loss of 3.7% in acceleration. The average loss of
acceleration is taken as the loss of acceleration at random time. Thus,
we can compute that the drop height should be increased to 427 mm
to keep the sink rate at Vy  2:84 m=s when the wheel touches down.
There is no loss of sink rate in the simulation without the addition
of the wheel-sliding way friction coefficient. It results in a little error;
thus, the model should be modified. The specific methods are
keeping the drop height at 410 mm and setting the acceleration of the
falling body as 9:8 
1–3:7%  9:44 m=s2 with the friction being

Fig. 16 Energy capacity of drop tests with 4 mm main oil hole.

 XUE ET AL. 2073

Table 11 Simulation result of buffering performance

dm ds V0 Smax Fz n nn t Ac
4.2 mm 2.0 mm 0.70 MPa 152.7 mm 14,226 N 4.40 3.45 0.71 s 2008 J

Table 12 Contrast between results of test and simulation with modified model
System performance Maximum stroke of buffer (S) Maximum vertical load Fz Energy absorption of system (Ac )
Simulation result 158.2 mm 15,480 N 2014 J
Test result 152.9 mm 15,789 N 1841 J
Error between results of test and simulation, % 3.5 2.2 9.4

taken into account. The results of the simulation with modified model parameters are kept the same. Attention should be paid in the test;
are shown in Table 11. The table shows that the error of the simulation before each test, the landing gear should be hung in the air for more
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

results is less than 8%, and so the model is sufficiently accurate. The
next step for optimization can be taken.
The optimization results are listed in Table 12, which shows that
shock-absorbing performance has a further improvement. The
capacity curves shown in Fig. 17 are very similar to the test with a
main oil-hole diameter of 4.0 mm, and the curves are much better
than the initial ones.
C. Results of Adjusting-Parameter Drop Test
The drop test has been done three times based on the
aforementioned simulation results. In the test, the drop height is
increased to 427 mm, the diameter of the main oil-hole is 4.2 mm, the
initial pressure of the air cavity is kept at 0.7 MPa, and the other
than half an hour to ensure that the oil and gas are separated
adequately; and the pressure in the buffer should be kept the same
during each test.
The capacity curve of the second test is shown in Fig. 18, which is
similar to the ones with the main oil-hole diameter of 4.0 mm. The
curves also present four peaks, and the buffer compressions
corresponding to the peaks are almost consistent. They are preferable
with the optimum parameters. In the capacity curve of the buffer, the
change of the load is smooth at the maximum axial force point (at the
second peak). In the capacity curve of the system, the change of
the vertical load is smooth at the second and third fluctuation. The test
results with optimum parameters are recorded, which are shown in
Table 13.

Fig. 17 Energy absorption of drop tests with 4.2 mm main oil hole.

Fig. 18 Energy absorption with optimal parameters.

 2074 XUE ET AL.

Table 13 Test results with optimum parameters

Serial number Item First Second Third Average value
1 Stroke of buffer (S), mm 155.6 157.6 155.2 156.1
2 Vertical load Fz , N 15,283 15,324 15,522 15,309
3 Energy absorbed in system (Ac ), J 1964 2013 1972 1983
4 Efficiency of buffer 70.7 69.2 64 67.9
5 Efficiency of system 55.3 59 55.3 56.5

Table 14 Drop parameters for the limited drop test

Drop height Theoretical drop weight Theoretical drop work Rolling speed
0.4108 m 325.0 kg 1967 N m 1366.5 rpm
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913

Table 15 Result of the limited drop test

Stroke of Vertical Vertical load Testing Error of Efficiency Efficiency Friction coefficient
buffer, mm load, N factor capacity, J capacity, % of buffer, % of system, % of platform
152.9 15,789 3.9 1841 6:4 64.6 51.8 0.62
155.8 14,996 3.6 1985 0.9 69.2 59.0 0.71
158.0 16,766 4.1 1884 4:2 64.0 55.3 0.55

Fig. 19 Energy capacity of the drop test.

Fig. 20 Energy capacity of the reserve-energy absorption drop test.

 XUE ET AL.
Table 16 Drop parameters for the reserve-energy absorption drop test
Drop height Theoretical drop weight
0.5916 m 305.1 kg
Table 17 Result of the reserve-energy absorption drop test
Stroke of buffer, mm Vertical load, N Vertical load factor Testing capacity, J
153.0 18,897 4.60 2442
153.6 19,135 4.67 2373
IV. Limited Drop Test
According to the certification of airworthiness, drop parameters
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
for the limited drop test of the Seagull 300 are shown in Table 14.
After the drop test is repeated three times, the test data are collected
comprehensively. The result is shown in Table 15. Analysis suggests
that consistency of the result is relatively superior. The drop test is
accomplished.
The limited drop test has been repeated three times for the
HO300 nose landing gear. The buffer’s capacity and the system’s
capacity of the limited drop test are shown in Fig. 19. FZ is the
vertical load, and FX is the horizontal load. As can be seen from the
buffer’s capacity of the limited drop test, the axial load of the buffer
has a similar trend in the repeated tests. The peak exists four times
in the first compression, and the maximum value exists at the
second peak, which is about 70 mm off the stroke. The maximum
peak is caused by the increase of the buffer-damping force. From
the system’s capacity of the limited drop test, we can also find the
similarities. With the declining of the center of gravity, the
maximum vertical load exists at the second peak, which is caused
by the increase of the buffer’s axial force. The experimental results
agree with the expected results of the theoretical analysis, which
satisfies the airworthiness requirements.
The sample is examined after the test, and there is no permanent
plastic deformation. This result indicates the strength of the landing
gear meets the design requirements. As can be seen from Fig. 20, the
consistency of the three tests is rather high. The following conditions
are all satisfied: the buffer efficiency is more than 60%, and the
system efficiency is more than 50%. The limited drop test meets the
airworthiness standards, the experimental results meet the design
requirements, and the limited drop test gets through the airworthiness
certification.
V. Reserve-Energy Absorption Drop Test
The reserve-energy absorption drop test has been repeated two
times for the Seagull 300 nose landing gear. The buffer’s capacity and
the system’s capacity of the reserve-energy absorption drop test are
shown in Fig. 20. As can be seen from the buffer’s capacity of the
reserve-energy absorption drop test, the axial load of the buffer has
similar trends in the repeated tests. The peak exists three times in the
first compression, and the maximum value exists at the first peak,
which is about 80 mm off the stroke. The maximum peak is caused by
the increase of the buffer-damping force. From the system’s capacity
of the reserve-energy absorption drop test, we can also find the
similarities. With the declining of the center of gravity, the maximum
vertical load exists at the first peak, which is caused by the increase of
the buffer’s axial force. This result indicates the strength of the
landing gear meets the design requirements, and the consistency of
the three tests is rather high. The following conditions are satisfied:
the buffer efficiency is more than 65%, and the system efficiency is
more than 55%. The system’s capacity of the reserve-energy
absorption drop test satisfies the airworthiness requirements. Drop
parameters for the reserve-energy absorption drop test of Seagull 300
are shown in Table 16. After the drop test is repeated twice, the test
data are collected comprehensively. The result is shown in Table 17.
Analysis suggests that consistency of the result is relatively superior.
2075
Theoretical drop work Rolling speed
2427 N m 0 rpm
Error of capacity, % Efficiency of buffer, % Efficiency of system, %
0.6 71.3 58.4
2:2 71.2 59.8
According to the relative provisions of airworthiness, the censors
review the test materials and the test equipment calibration certificate
as well as the test personnel qualifications certificate and examine the
test pieces and the manufacturing compliance of the test equipments.
The aforementioned items all satisfy the airworthiness requirement.
The installation of the test pieces is examined, which meets the
requirement of the test programs. The limited drop test and the
reserve-energy absorption drop test are performed successfully, and
the whole process was witnessed. This item meets the requirement of
the test programs. The test records are checked, and it is complete.
The test data-processing method is examined, and it is reasonable.
After the test, the applicants of the airworthiness test complete the
test report and submit it to the airworthiness authorities. Then, we get
the conclusion: the airworthiness certification test is in line with the
provisions of the ordinance, and the test results meet the design
requirements. The airworthiness certification for the drop test of the
HO300 nose landing gear is approved on 11 July 2011.
VI. Conclusions
A drop-test rig is developed for the landing gear of a light
multifunctional amphibious airplane based on its drop-test
specifications. The system can realize accurate measurement and
conduct the light-aircraft drop test with high-speed belt turn.
Simultaneously, several key technologies including the schematic
design of the light-aircraft drop test, the control-system design for the
drop test, high-speed turn of the wheel, accurate lifting of the drop
system, design of the measuring platform, and imitation of the
runway have been accomplished. The test shows that the test system
is secure and reliable, which can be applied for the landing-gear drop-
test of other light airplanes.
According to the requirement of China Civil Aviation Regulations
Order No. 132 (CCAR-23-R3) and drop-test outline for the Seagull
300 light multifunctional amphibious airplane, the adjusting-
parameter drop test, limited drop test, and the reserve-energy
absorption drop test of the nose landing gear are accomplished. The
drop test with initial parameters is executed on the base of the drop-
test system, and the uncertain parameters including the initial shock-
absorbing performance and friction coefficient are obtained in the
simulation. The adjusting-parameter process will not stop being
repeated until we get the optimal parameters. Finally, we obtain the
buffer-parameters configuration that meets the design requirements.
The optimized configuration parameters of the buffer are adjusted as
follows: enlarging the main oil hole from 2.6 to 4.2 mm, enlarging the
one-way hole from 1.8 to 2.0 mm, and enlarging the initial pressure
from 6.0 to 7.0 MPa. All testing results show that the limit load is
lower than the design load and the landing gear could bear the
reserve-energy absorption drop test. Moreover, the test results can be
used as the certificate of the airworthiness for this airplane.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the operating expenses of basic
scientific research project (number NS2012081) and the Foundation
of Graduate Innovation Center (number KFJJ20110201) in Nanjing
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
 2076 XUE ET AL.
References
[1] Franz, M., “Theoretical and Experimental Principles of Landing Gear
Research and Development,” Luftfahrtforschung, Vol. 14, No. 8, 1937,
pp. 387–416.
[2] Fliigge, W., “Landing Gear Impact,” NACA TN 2743, Washington,
D.C., 1952.
[3] Milwitzky, B., and Cook, F. E., “Analysis of Landing-Gear Behavior,”
NASA TR 1154, 1952.
[4] Garba, J. A., “A Comparison of Some Predicted and Measured
Variables for a Full-Scale Surveyor Drop Test,” NASA Rept. 32-1084,
March 1967.
[5] Daughetee, C. C., “Drop Testing Naval Aircraft and the VSD Landing
Gear Dynamic Test Facility,” 15th ASME, and SAE, Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Las Vegas, NV, AIAA
Paper 1974-343, April 1974.
[6] Ross, I., “Flightworthy Active Control Landing Gear for a Supersonic
Aircraft,” NASA CR 3298, 1980.
[7] Ross, I., and Edson, R., “An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Aircraft Landing Gear,” NASA CR 3113, 1979.
Downloaded by UNIV OF ADELAIDE (INTERNET) on November 18, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
[8] Ross, I., and Edson, R., “An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Landing Gear for the F-4 Aircraft,” NASA CR 3552,
1982.
[9] Ross, I., and Edson, R., “An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Landing Gear for the F-4 Aircraft[R],” NASA CR 3552,
1982.
[10] Ross, I., and Edson, R., “Application of Active Control Landing Gear
Technology to the A-10 Aircraft,” NASA CR 166104, 1982.
[11] Bender, E. K., Berkman, E. F., and Bieber, M., “A Feasibility Study of
Active Landing Gear,” U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory TR
70-126, 1971.
[12] Corsetti, C. D., and Dillow, J. D., “A Study of the Practicability of
Active Vibration Isolation Applied to Aircraft During the Taxi
Condition,” U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory TR 71-159,
1972.
[13] Wignot, J. E., Durup, P. C., and Gamon, M. A., “Design Formulation
and Analysis of An Active Landing Gear,” U.S. Air Force Flight
Dynamics Laboratory TR 71-80, 1971.
[14] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., “A Mathematical Model of an
Active Control Landing Gear for Load Control During Impact and Roll-
Out,” NASA TN D-8080, 1976.
[15] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., “Improved Aircraft Dynamic
Response and Fatigue Life During Ground Operations Using an Active
Control Landing Gear System,” AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology
Conference, Los Angeles, AIAA Paper 1978-1499, Aug. 1978.
[16] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., “Analytical Investigation of the
Landing Dynamics of a Large Airplane with a Load-Control System in
the Main Landing Gear,” NASA TP 1555, 1979.
[17] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., “Experimental Investigation of
Active Loads Control for Aircraft Landing Gear,” NASA TP 2042,
1982.
[18] Howell, W., McGehee, J. R., Daugherty, R. H., and Vogler, W. A.,
“F-106B Airplane Active Control Landing Gear Drop Test Perform-
ance,” NASA TM 102741, 1990.
[19] Howell, W., and McGehee, J. R., “Landing Gear Drop Testing,”
Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 11, June 1991, pp. 42–44.
[20] Underwood, M. A., “A System Drop Test of the Huygens Probe,” 14th
AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference, San
Francisco, AIAA Paper 1997-1429, June 1997.
[21] Daniels, J. N., “A Method for Landing Gear Modeling and Simulation
with Experimental Validation,” NASA CR 201601, 1996.
[22] Horta, L. G., Daugherty, R. H., and Martinson, V. J., “Modeling and
Validation of a Navy A6-Intruder Actively Controlled Landing Gear
System,” NASA TP 1999-209124, 1999.
[23] Wang, X., and Udo, C., “Fuzzy Control of Aircraft Semi-Active
Landing Gear System,” 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1999-265, Jan. 1999.
[24] Ghiringhelli, G. L., “Testing of Semi-Active Landing Gear Control for a
General Aviation Aircraft,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2000,
pp. 606–615.
doi:10.2514/2.2672
[25] Ghiringhelli, G. L.,Gualdi, S., “Evaluation of a landing gear semi-active
control system for complete aircraft landing,” Aerotecnica Missili e
Spazio, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2004, pp. 21–31.
[26] Adams, D. S., “Mars Exploration Rover Airbag Landing Loads Testing
and Analysis,” 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA,
AIAA Paper 2004-1795, April 2004.
[27] Lernbeiss, R., and Plöch, M., “Simulation Model of an Aircraft Landing
Gear Considering Elastic Properties of the Shock Absorber,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part K,
Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics, 221, No. 1, 2007, pp. 78–86.
[28] Kong, J. P., Lee, Y. S., Han, J. D., and Ahn, O. S., “Drop Impact
Analysis of Smart Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (SUAV) Landing Gear and
Comparison with Experimental Data,” Materialwissenschaft und
Werkstofftechnik, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 192–197.
doi:10.1002/mawe.200900426
[29] Xue, C.-J., Qi, W.-G., and Nie, H., “Test and Control System
Development and Application of a Landing Gear Drop Test Rig,”
Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Vol. 28, No. 2, 2011, pp. 145–151.