Transcript Cessna H Specs - University of Texas at Austin

The Use of Flight Simulation
to Analyze Aircraft Design
and Performance
Douglas L .Wilson – Chief Test Pilot
Abraham Gutierrez – Chief Systems Engineer
Anh Huy Nguyen – Chief Flight Engineer
Advisor – Basil Philip
Sponsor: Dr. Ron O. Stearman
Objectives
 Look into the background of two crashes
-
Mooney 305-1998
Cessna 172H-2000
 Conduct Several Test
-
Flight Simulator (X-Planes)
Real Test (Cessna 172H or similar version)
 Perform Test Runs
-
Weather Conditions
Plane configurations
 Determine if Phugoid Mode can be
Demonstrate
-
Mooney 305
Flight Simulator
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Background
 Mooney Rocket 305
- Engine modification to the Mooney M20K
- Modified engine caused the aircraft to enter
a phugoid mode
 Cessna 172H
- Engine Power
- Flap Settings
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Presentation Outline
 Outline
-Mooney 305
 Crash Report
 Timeline of the crash
 Comparison
 305 Rocket Airplane
 What is Phugoid Mode?
 Phugoid Mode Analysis
 Future Work
-Cessna 172H








Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
-Cessna 172H
 Cessna specifications
 Performance
 Weight and Balance
 Cessna Crash
 NTSB Investigation
 Suggested Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Crash Report
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez
 Accident
-In May 5, 1998 the Mooney 305 crashed near
Bakersfield, California
-In the accident the pilot suffer fatal injuries
 Investigation (2 Reports)
-The (NTSB) report indicated that pilot exceeded the
never to exceed velocity which caused flutter:
consequently the airplane suffer severe damage in
the airframe.
-Another (Dr. Stearman) report, indicated that the
airplane didn’t exceed the never to exceed velocity
but that the flutter was triggered by an overload
damage to the horizontal tail brought on by the
aircraft maneuvering in an unstable phugoid mode.
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Timeline for the 305 Rocket
Crash Report
Timeline
1
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
2
19000ft
3
15000ft
2300ft
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Changes
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
Analysis
Summary
Specifications
Horsepower
Propeller
Max takeoff weight
Max landing weight
Empty weight
Max. useful load
Stall Speed
Service Ceiling
Max. Level Speed
Cruise Speed (kts)
Takeoff over 50ft
obstacle
Abraham Gutierrez
Mooney M20K
210HP
2 blades
2900lbs
2900lbs
1860lbs
1040lbs
60kts
24000ft
198kts
188kts
1500ft
Anh Huy Nguyen
Mooney 305
305HP
3 blades
3200lbs
3040lbs
2068lbs
1132lbs
61kts
24000ft
240kts
230kts
1200ft
Douglas Wilson
305 Rocket Airplane
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
Analysis
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez
 Mooney 305
-The Mooney 305 is a modification of the Mooney M20K.
In which 45 percent more horsepower and a new
propeller was added to the airframe of the Mooney
M20K
-The Federal Aviation Administration awarded the
certificates
 Mooney 305 Autopilot
-Insufficient testing
-The autopilot was not modify
-If a control system fails during a phugoid mode then
accident like the on in Bakersfield can occur.
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
What is Phugoid Mode
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
 Phugoid Mode
-Is simply an oscillatory mode in the aircraft dynamics which last for
a long time compared to other aircraft oscillations.
For example:
δ
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
Analysis
Summary
t
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Phugoid Analysis
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is Phugoid
Mode?
Phugoid Analsis
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez

Equation of motion
-we are going to use the principle of
conservation of energy:
1) T+V=K (T=kinetic energy) and (V=potential
2) State variables or inputs x=(v,v’)
3) External Vertical Force U=F
4) State Matrix Equation x’=Ax+Bu
0
1
x’ =
x +
-2*g^2/vo^2
5)
0
0
F
g/mvo
Output (position,kinetic/potential energy,)
Damped or Undamped
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Summary
Crash Report
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?

Mooney M20K
-Model of the Mooney 305 in X-plane
-Flight Simulator

Matlab code
- Matlab program to fix the autopilot of the
modified Mooney M20k
-Matlab programs to identify the phugoid mode
-Matlab program provided for us.
Phugoid Mode
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Summary
Crash Report
 Damping Stages
Timeline
Comparison
305 Rocket
Airplane
What is
Phugoid Mode?
Phugoid Mode
Summary
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Cessna 172H Specifications
Cessna specifications
Specifications
Top Speed at Sea Level
138 mph
Rate of Climb at Sea Level
645 fpm
Weights and Balances
Service Ceiling
13,100 ft
Performance
Propeller
76 in
Timeline of Crash
Landing
NTSB Investigation
Landing Roll
520 ft
Further Investigation
Total Distance over 50-foot
Obstacle
1250 ft
Probable Causes
Take-off
Abraham Gutierrez
Ground Run
865 ft
Total Distance over 50-foot
Obstacle
1525 ft
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Timeline of the Cessna 172H
Crash
Cessna specifications
Timeline of Crash
Weights and Balances
Performance
NTSB Investigation
Further Investigation
Probable Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Weights and Balances
Cessna specifications
Max Gross Weight
2300 lbs.
Timeline of Crash
Empty Weight
1400 lbs.
Weights and
Balances
Full Fuel Tanks
252 lbs.
Pilot
264 lbs.
Front Passenger
251 lbs.
Rear Passenger
120 lbs.
Performance
NTSB Investigation
Further Investigation
Probable Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
The aircraft was close to max weight.
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Performance
Cessna specifications
Timeline of Crash
Weights and Balances
Performance
NTSB Investigation
Further Investigation
Probable Causes
(Cessna Pilot Handbook)
•Standard atmospheric conditions
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Cessna NTSB Findings
Cessna specifications
Timeline of Crash
Weights and Balances
Performance
NTSB Investigation
Further Investigation
 The airplane was found 300 yards southwest of the







end of runway 31
The engine and nose was found aft in the cabin area
Chord-wise crush damage sustained aft to the wing
forward spars
Propeller blade bent and scratched
Left door torn from fuselage
Flap actuator was working properly
No mechanical malfunction to engine assembly
Wing flaps were set at 40 degrees (Manufacturer
recommended 0 degree settings for take-off)
Probable Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Further Investigation
Cessna specifications
Timeline of Crash
Weights and Balances
Performance
NTSB Investigation
 At impact the tachometer was
stuck at 1500 RPM
 If this was the correct engine
output, the aircraft would not be
able to maintain a climb attitude.
Further
Investigation
Probable Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Probable Causes
Cessna
specifications
Timeline of Crash
Weights and
Balances
Performance
NTSB Investigation
 Pilot attempted a touch-andgo landing and left the flaps
down at 40 degrees
 Engine malfunction during
take-off that resulted in a
partial or total power loss
Further Investigation
Probable Causes
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight
Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Flight Testing
 Test SP4-E101
 February 22, 2004
 Georgetown Municipal Airport
(KGTU)
 Weather Conditions
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary
Results
Proposed Flight
Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgeme
nts
Abraham Gutierrez
Flight Testing
 Cessna 739ZY
 172 N model
 160 HP (O-320 engine)
 Tests performed
 2 weights
 2 altitudes
 5 flap settings
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Cessna 739ZY – Weight 1
Proposed Flight Test A/C empty weight tested
Fuel Capacity (40 gal)
Flight Simulation
Passengers/gear
Cost Analysis
Preliminary Results
1469.1 lbs
240.0 lbs
~400.0 lbs
Time Analysis
TOTAL TEST WEIGHT
~2109.1 lbs
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Flight Testing
R/C Chart - Cesssa 172N - Weight 1
Data Conversion
900
Preliminary Results
800
700
Proposed Flight
Test
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
R/C (feet/min)
Flight Simulation
600
0 deg flaps
10 deg flaps
20 deg flaps
30 deg flaps
40 deg flaps
Poly. (40 deg flaps)
Poly. (30 deg flaps)
Poly. (20 deg flaps)
500
400
300
200
100
Acknowledgements
0
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Airspeed (KIAS)
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Flight Testing
Cessna 739ZY – Weight 2
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
A/C empty weight tested 1469.1 lbs
Fuel (22 gal)
132.0 lbs
Passengers/gear
~615.0 lbs
TOTAL TEST WEIGHT ~2216.1 lbs
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Flight Testing
R/C Chart - Max Gross Cessna 172N (N739ZY)
Data Conversion
700
Preliminary Results
600
Proposed Flight Test
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
R/C (feet/min)
Flight Simulation
500
0 deg flaps
10 deg flaps
20 deg flaps
30 deg flaps
40 deg flaps
Poly. (20 deg flaps)
Poly. (30 deg flaps)
Poly. (40 deg flaps)
400
300
200
100
Acknowledgements
0
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Airspeed (KIAS)
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data conversion
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Ch

Pa  Pr 

 33,000
W
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Provides for the analysis of the 172 H
model
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Preliminary Results
172 H Conversion
Data Conversion
Data Analysis - 172 H Projected Performance
400
Preliminary
Results
300
Proposed Flight Test
R/C (feet/sec)
Flight Simulation
200
0 deg flaps
10 deg flaps
20 deg flaps
30 deg flaps
40 deg flaps
Poly. (20 deg flaps)
Poly. (30 deg flaps)
Poly. (40 deg flaps)
100
Cost Analysis
0
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Time Analysis
-100
Acknowledgements
-200
Airspeed (KIAS)
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Proposed Flight Test
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight
Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
 Cessna 172 E model





O-300 engine
2300 lb gross take-off weight
42 gal max fuel capacity
40 degree flap settings
Cruise prop installed on the A/C
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Flight Simulation
 Mooney Simulations
 Performed at WRW Laboratories
 X-Plane software
 Easy to use
 Allows for proper data output
 Autopilot will be engaged
 Monitor output to determine if phugoid
mode is present
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Aircraft Modifications
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Modification
Horsepower
Propeller
Max Weight
Empty Weight
Stall Speed
Abraham Gutierrez
Bravo
210 HP
2 blade
2900 lbs
1860 lbs
60 kts
Anh Huy Nguyen
Rocket 305
305 HP
3 blade
3200 lbs
2068 lbs
61 kts
Douglas Wilson
Flight Simulation
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
 Presently have 5 test aircraft
 172 SP
 172 SP – modified for 40 degrees
of flaps
 172 H – A/C in accident
 172 N – A/C in actual flight test
 172 E – Proposed test A/C
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Aircraft Modifications
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
PART
172 SP
172 SP
172 H
172 N
(N463QB)
(N463QC)
(N463QD)
(N463QE)
Flaps
30 deg
40 deg
40 deg
40 deg
Horsepower
180 hp
180 hp
145 hp
160 hp
Fuel
System
Fuel
Injected
Fuel
Injected
Carburetor
Carburetor
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Flight Simulation
 Cessna Testing – Stage 1
 Verification flights
 Repeat previous flight tests
 Performance tests to compare to
manufacturer and actual flight data
 MOST IMPORTANT PHASE OF
TESTING!
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Simulation
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
 Cessna Testing – Stage 2
 Attempt to recreate the accident
 Take-offs with 40 degrees of flaps
at desired weight
 Takeoff with engine failure at ~300
feet AGL
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Cost Analysis
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
 Currently 4.2 hours of real flight
testing
 Aircraft rental:
$79/hr - $331.80
 Instructor fee:
$35/hr - $147.00
 Total current cost:
$478.80
 Projected 5 hours of additional real
flight testing
 Total expenses
~ $1000
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Time Analysis
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
 Phase 1 – Completed
 Background investigations into both accidents
 Phugoid mode analysis
 A/C modifications made in flight simulators
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
 Phase 2A – Completion projected March 5
 Actual flight testing of Cessna A/C
 Added to validate flight simulator data
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight
Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Time Analysis
 Phase 2B – Completion projected April 10
 Flight Simulator Testing
 Validation phase – completion projected March 20
 Accident Recreation
 Cessna 172 H
 Mooney Rocket
 Phase 3 – Completion projected May 5
 Analysis of flight data
 Final reports and recommendations
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Acknowledgments
Flight Testing
Data Conversion
Preliminary Results
Proposed Flight Test
Flight Simulation
Cost Analysis
Time Analysis
Acknowledgements
Abraham Gutierrez
 Wright Aviation in Georgetown, TX
 Bill Eldredge and staff
 Alan Weaver – Flight Instructor
 Dr. Ron O. Stearman
 Basil Philip
 Marcus Kruger
 Joshua Foxworth
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson
Summary
 Mooney 305
 Bakersfield, CA accident
 Phugoid Mode
 Cessna 172H
 Falcon Field Accident
 Flap settings and Engine Concerns
 Flight Testing
 Real Flight tests
 X-Plane Simulator testing
Abraham Gutierrez
Anh Huy Nguyen
Douglas Wilson