Professional Documents
Culture Documents
H. Walgemoed
Fokker Aircraft B.V. 1117 ZJ Schiphol-Oost THE NETHERLANDS
12.0 INTRODUCTION
The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same. Before planning the flight test program, the Flight Test Engineers (FTEs) tasked with establishing a flight envelope must be aware of design goals and ground test results to understand the capabilities and anticipated limitations of the vehicle. (While it is important to have the results of many of these tests in hand, the FTE cannot wait until all results are in before planning the tests. The test plan must be established using best information available and modified when additional test results become available). Once flight tests start, it is imperative that there be an on-going dialogue between the FTE and the
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 1
FLIGHT ENVELOPE designers and ground test team so that adjustments in the goals of each result in a safe and efficient test program. Also, the FTE must work with designers, ground testers, and instrumentation engineers to ensure that the right instrumentation is installed at the right places to ensure valid comparisons of ground and flight data so that confidence in projected flight vehicle characteristics is gained in areas not yet explored in flight test. Sections 28 and 29 cover the reporting requirements both during and after testing. This Section concentrates on the influence of structural strength on the flight envelope. However, as noted above, parts of the flight envelope may be determined by the onset of unsatisfactory characteristics such as flutter or vibration, an unacceptable deterioration in the aircraft's flying qualities, or in engine or other subsystem behavior. Section 12A examines flight envelope expansion for rotary wing aircraft.
12 - 2
RTO-AG-300-V14
FLIGHT ENVELOPE
12.2 LIMITATIONS
12.2.1 Weight and Loading Limits
The aircraft mass must be within limits defined by the so-called design weights, including: Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW), the maximum weight of the aircraft above which the aircraft weight may only be increased with fuel (or payload) in the wings or, in some cases, stores under the wings Maximum ramp weight (MRW), the highest weight at which the aircraft may operate on the ground Maximum take-off weight (MTOW), the highest weight at which flight is permitted Minimum weight, the lowest gross weight at which flight is permitted Maximum landing weight (MLW), the highest weight at which the aircraft is allowed to land in normal operations. Landing at a higher weight is permitted in emergency conditions and may also be permitted for certain flight test purposes.
Limits on the distribution of mass are generally applicable as well, such as: Limits on the distribution of payload in the fuselage of a transport aircraft, e.g., maxima for the loading per unit of length or per unit of area on the main deck and in the belly cargo holds The order in which the fuel tanks are emptied may be prescribed Maxima for the weights with external stores and asymmetric rolling moments created by fuel asymmetry or by combinations of stores to be installed at hard points.
Also, care must be taken that the center of gravity (cg) of the aircraft is always within the prescribed limits. For civil transport aircraft usually two cg-weight diagrams are applicable: one for undercarriage (u/c) down conditions and a slightly wider one (to enable movement of crew members and passengers) for u/c up conditions. It should be noted that there may be angle of attack limitations due to cg location and/or external stores. There also may be additional limitations on maximum asymmetric store loading as a function of flight conditions (e.g., angle of attack and Mach number).
12.2.2 Altitudes
Aircraft may be flown from sea level up to the maximum operating altitude which is normally defined by the performance capability of the airplane/engine combination (i.e., service cruise, or combat ceiling), but could be defined by other considerations such as pressure differential limitation. If the aircraft is pressurized, the specified maximum pressure differential must never be exceeded in flight. In certain configurations (e.g., flaps down) the maximum allowed altitude may be lower than in the clean configuration. Since cabin pressurization is physiologically essential at altitudes above 45,000 feet, the crew of a military aircraft (which may lose pressurization due to combat damage) operating at these altitudes must wear pressure suits.
12.2.3 Airspeeds in the "Clean" (Flaps, Slats, and Gear Retracted) Configuration
The following speeds, where V is the equivalent or calibrated airspeed measured in knots and M is the Mach number, are of importance in a flight test program. Some of these are related to the structural capabilities and are termed "design" speeds, being those used in calculating structural loads, flight control
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 3
FLIGHT ENVELOPE requirements, etc. (It should be noted that the definitions given below are not rigorous, and there are often differences between those used by the various airworthiness authorities). VS, the stall speed. Currently, this is interpreted as the minimum speed at which steady horizontal flight (nz = 1) is possible. VA, the design maneuvering speed. VA may not be less than nz.VS, where nz is the design maneuvering load factor of the airplane. VA is the highest speed at which maximum elevator displacement is allowed. VB, the design speed for maximum gust intensity VC/MC, the design cruising speed VD/MD, the design dive speed VH, the stall speed in inverted flight VRA, the rough-air speed. encountered. VRA is the airspeed to be selected when heavy turbulence is
VMO/MMO, the maximum operating speed. VMO/MMO may not be greater than VC/MC (see FAR/JAR 25.1505) and may not be deliberately exceeded unless a higher speed is authorized (e.g., for certain flight tests). If, in normal operations, VMO/MMO is exceeded unintentionally, the speed must be reduced as soon as practical.
For military aircraft designed in accordance with US Military Specifications, VRA, VC and VD are replaced by VG (the slow-down speed for gust), VH (level-flight maximum speed) and VL (limit speed), respectively, which have more or less the same definition.
VMC tests should be conducted under near-ISA/sea level conditions where the engine thrust is greatest and the resulting VMC is highest. For the airborne tests (VMCA and VMCL) it is customary to establish the minimum control speed, sometimes called the critical speed, under static conditions (i.e., by reducing speed with simulated engine failure established until directional control is lost). A large margin, typically 30 knots, is then added to the critical speed for the first tests accomplished under dynamic conditions (i.e., with simulated sudden engine failure) and with, typically, a two-second delay before the pilot takes any corrective action. The speed for simulated engine failure is then progressively reduced on successive tests
12 - 4
RTO-AG-300-V14
FLIGHT ENVELOPE until VMCA has been established. It should be noted that these tests may be very difficult to execute accurately for aircraft which have high thrust to weight ratios due to the high levels of acceleration (or rates of climb) involved.
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 5
FLIGHT ENVELOPE
Figure 12-1. Typical Civil Aircraft Maneuvering Envelope for a Given Weight and Altitude.
Figure 12-2. Typical Military Aircraft Maneuvering Envelope for a Given Weight and Altitude.
12 - 6
RTO-AG-300-V14
FLIGHT ENVELOPE
12.3.3 Gusts
For many aircraft, in particular transport aircraft, a significant part of the structure is critically loaded by gusts. However, unlike maneuver and landing conditions, gust load calculation procedures cannot be validated through in-flight load measurements. The reason is that the input gust signal is difficult to determine unless special measuring equipment is installed. Also, the actual gust input will differ from the idealized gusts used for calculating the design gust loads. Therefore, the measurement of gust loads will not normally be a part of the flight test program and/or the certification process.
FLIGHT ENVELOPE adequate to the processing task, initiate actions to modify the equipment, and/or notify the FTE that his data processing requirements cannot be met so that alternative courses of support can be evaluated. Sections 6 and 7 contain information on establishing instrumentation and data processing requirements/ support. Structural loads such as shears, bending moments, and torques are mostly measured by means of strain gauges at appropriate locations. See reference 12-8 for more information. The strain gauges must be calibrated and the relationships between loads and strains must be established experimentally prior to flight. This should be done by applying loads in steps up to approximately the highest load to be expected in flight testing. However, this may not always be possible. For example, applying calibration loads to the wing of a relatively large aircraft such that the limit wing root bending moment is approached may be beyond the capabilities of the available equipment. In cases where aerodynamic forces are the major contributors to the critical structural loads it may be appropriate to measure the airloads directly, e.g., by means of pressure belts located at a few spanwise locations on the wing and/or tailplanes. With such pressure measurements, the spanwise and chordwise airload distributions can be checked. Where dynamic loads are predominant, the use of accelerometers may be useful. The highest frequency with which a certain structural component may significantly respond to any excitation (e.g., maneuvers, turbulence, landing and taxiing, and buffeting) should be estimated analytically or on the basis of previous experience. In order to avoid any data aliasing, the sampling rate should be at least twice the expected frequency of the measurement. The selection of parameters to be monitored in real time depends on the characteristics of the aircraft concerned, but loads on tailplanes, engine supports (e.g., pylons), and flaps may be included.
FLIGHT ENVELOPE As far as the speed range is concerned, it is obvious that the lower and upper speed limits are of special interest. On the low-speed side VS and VMC are the critical speeds which have to be determined experimentally. Stall tests must be carried out for a number of aerodynamic configurations, including every position of the high-lift devices, for high and low engine power or thrust, and at both forward and aft cg positions. If deep stall is a potential problem, appropriate recovery means must be provided. The flow separation associated with wing stall produces a wake which may hit the empennage, possibly resulting in high, fluctuating empennage loads and/or even resulting in a nose-up pitching tendency. Theoretical prediction of these loads is difficult or even impossible, so it is advised to monitor them during flight testing by means of calibrated strain gauges. At the high-speed range a number of aeroelastic properties, including flutter, have to be investigated (see Section 14). As the carriage of external stores may significantly decrease the flutter boundary (i.e., the lowest speed at which an aeroelastic vibration mode becomes unstable), all possible combinations of external stores (or at least the most critical ones) have to be tested. In flutter testing the critical combination of speed and altitude, mostly the combination of highest Mach number and highest dynamic pressure, must be approached carefully. It must be established that, on the basis of damping measurements at previous test points, positive damping is expected before permission can be given to proceed to the next test point. Absence of other adverse aeroelastic phenomena, such as divergence, control reversal, or buzz, must also be demonstrated. For modern aircraft equipped with an electronic flight control system the loads and other parameters may depend on the system parameters. Consequently, the influence of modifications to the flight control system should be checked when necessary. In addition, the buffet boundary must be established. High-speed buffet is associated with shock waves and flow separation in the transonic flight regime which produce vibration with a pseudo-random character. It is therefore necessary to establish that adequate maneuver capability is available before the onset of heavy buffet when operating at high altitude/high speed. The following paragraphs illustrate typical test maneuvers.
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 9
FLIGHT ENVELOPE Other longitudinal maneuvers may be specified, depending on the type of aircraft and the applicable requirements.
Often, these yawing conditions are critical for stressing the vertical tailplane and the rear fuselage. It should be noted here that if an oscillatory rudder displacement is not in the structural design requirements, such a maneuver should not be executed in flight, because it may lead to structural failure.
12 - 10
RTO-AG-300-V14
FLIGHT ENVELOPE made. The parameters should be selected carefully and it may be advantageous to consider combinations of structural load parameters as well as these parameters themselves, e.g., combinations of shear and torque or bending and torque at certain spanwise locations on a lifting surface. Needless to say that a thorough pre-flight preparation is essential. Post-flight data analysis must be carried out to check the aircraft's behavior, the aerodynamic data, and the design loads. Generally, flight test measurements do not agree completely with predictions. Aerodynamic predictions are based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) calculations and on windtunnel measurements, each having its advantages and drawbacks. But the final and most reliable set of aerodynamic data is the flight test results. Since most data to be analyzed (e.g., trimmed flight conditions, maneuvers, and loads) depend on several basic aerodynamic coefficients, improving the aerodynamic database is often a cumbersome process, requiring a lot of expertise. It is essential that the measured data are sufficiently complete to make this task possible, i.e., no "missing links" may exist. Again, careful preparation is needed regarding the parameters to be measured.
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 11
FLIGHT ENVELOPE
12.12 REFERENCES
[12-1]
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 25 - "Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes", U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Joint Aviation Requirements JAR-25 - "Large Aeroplanes", Joint Aviation Authorities (of several European countries). Military Specification MIL-A-008861A(USAF), "Airplane Strength and Rigidity - Flight Loads", United States Air Force, 31 March 1971. Military Specification MIL-A-8861B(AS), "Airplane Strength and Rigidity - Flight Loads", Naval Air Systems Command, 1986. Military Specification MIL-F-8785C, "Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes", United States Department of Defense", 5 November 1980. Military Standard MIL-STD-1797A, "Flying Qualities of Piloted Aircraft", US Department of Defense, January 1990. Military Specification MIL-D-8708B(AS), "Demonstration Requirements for Airplanes", United States Navy, 31 January 1969, incl. Amendment 1, 3 June 1982. Kottkamp, E., Wilhelm, H., and Kohl, D., "Strain Gauge Measurements on Aircraft", AGARDograph 160, Vol. 7, AGARD Flight Test Instrumentation Series, 1976.
[12-2]
[12-3]
[12-4]
[12-5]
[12-6]
[12-7]
[12-8]
12.13 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Various, "AGARD Flight Test Instrumentation Series", AGARDograph 160. Various, "AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series", AGARDograph 300. Ecole du Personnel Navigant D'Essais et de Reception Pratique des Essais en Vol Helicopteres (2 Vol), ref EPNER 25. Pratique des Essais en Vol Avions (3 Vol), ref EPNER 24. Pratique de la Reception (1 Vol), ref EPNER 27.
McDonell, J.D., AFFDL-TR-68-76, "Pilot Rating Techniques for the Estimation and Evaluation of Handling Qualities", December 1986.
12 - 12
RTO-AG-300-V14
FLIGHT ENVELOPE Cooper, C.R. and Harper, R.P. Jr., "The Use of Pilot Ratings in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities", NASA TN D-5153, April 1969. MIL-A-8870C, "Airplane Strength and Rigidity - Vibration, Flutter, and Divergence", Naval Air Systems Command, 1993. MIL-A-87221, "Airplane Strength and Rigidity - Flight and Ground Operations Tests", Naval Air Systems Command.
RTO-AG-300-V14
12 - 13
FLIGHT ENVELOPE
12 - 14
RTO-AG-300-V14