Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:16:53.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Measured and Calculated Effects of Runway Unevenness on a Supersonic Transport Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

C. G. B. Mitchell
C. G. B. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Formerly Structures Dept, now Transport Research Assessment Group, RAE Farnborough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Theoretical studies of the response of supersonic transport aircraft (SST) taxying and taking-off on uneven runways showed several years ago that the vertical acceleration in the cockpit of an SST of typical configuration would be greater than that in a subsonic transport on the same runway. The vibration would occur mainly at the frequency of bending of the fuselage, which might be 2 Hz, and would be forced by long, shallow undulations of the runway. These might have wavelengths of 50 ft to 300 ft (15 m to 90 m) and amplitudes of 1½ in to 4 in (0·04 m to 0·10 m) peak-to-peak, and are so unlike the usual concept of a rough surface that a different term, unevenness, is used to describe them.

Type
Technical Notes
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 75 , Issue 725 , May 1971 , pp. 339 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1971 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Silsby, N. S. An analytical study of effects of some air plane and landing-gear factors on the response to run way roughness with application to supersonic transports. NASA TN D-1492, 1962.Google Scholar
2. Tung, C. C, Penzien, J. and Horonjeff, R. The effect of runway unevenness on the dynamic response of supersonic transports. NASA CR-119, 1964.Google Scholar
3. Mitchell, C. G. B. Vertical acceleration in the cockpit of a subsonic transport aircraft during take-off measured during airline operation. ARC Current Paper 1120, 1970 (replaces RAE Technical Report 69215, 1969).Google Scholar
4. Morris, G. T. Response of a turbojet and a piston-engine transport airplane to runway roughness. NASA TN D-3161, 1965.Google Scholar
5. Hall, H. Vibration levels experienced in take-off on a large flexible aircraft. ARC Current Paper 1149, 1970 (replaces RAE Technical Report 68193, 1968).Google Scholar
6. Irwin, K. S. and Andrews, W. H. Summary of XB-70 airplane cockpit environmental data. NASA TN D-5449, 1969.Google Scholar
7. Harwood, K., Lovesey, E. J. and Rowlands, G. F. A comparison of the effects of vertical and lateral vibration on a simulated SST take-off and climb, when using three types of take-off director. Unpublished Ministry of Technology Report. 1968.Google Scholar
8. Wignot, J. E. et al. The development of dynamic taxy design procedures. The Lockheed-California Company. Federal Aviation Administration Report FAA, DS-68-11, 1968.Google Scholar
9. Mitchell, C. G. B. A theoretical analysis of under carriage loads and taxying vibration on a supersonic transport aircraft with experimental comparisons and an assessment of modifications to reduce ground loads. Unpublished Ministry of Technology Report, 1970.Google Scholar