Gear Load Factor (Reaction Load) Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richtdow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gear Load
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between gear load factor and shock stroke in aircraft landing gear design. A gear load factor of 5 is used for Navy fighter aircraft, particularly for STOL designs that require precise landings. An increase in gear load factor results in a decrease in shock stroke because a higher load factor indicates a quicker deceleration of vertical velocity, necessitating less compression distance. The analysis highlights that a lower load factor requires a longer stroke to gradually reduce vertical velocity, while a higher load factor allows for faster stops with less distance. Understanding the deceleration time is crucial for effective landing gear design.
Richtdow
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Why does an increase in gear load factor decrease shock stroke?
Using the equation to determine shock stroke I input a gear load factor. For the aircraft landing gear that I am designing, I am assuming a gear load factor of 5 which is what is generally used for Navy fighter aircraft. This is because I am designing landing gear for a STOL aircraft and I want it to be able to drop right onto the landing spot more like a carrier landing. The question I have is why does an increase in gear load factor decrease the shock stroke? Perhaps I don't understand the concept of gear load factor very well, but I would assume that a harder landing would demand a greater shock stroke.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aircraft landing gear design starts with an assumed vertical velocity component. The landing gear absorbs that vertical velocity component by compressing the shock strut. The load on the airframe depends on how fast that vertical velocity is reduced to zero. If the landing gear has long struts with soft springs and low damping, the force is low while the compression distance is long. If the landing gear is rigid, with no compression distance, then the force is very high and things get broken.

Your analysis is turning that around by starting with the allowable load factor, and using that to find the required shock strut compression distance. A low load factor requires a long stroke to gradually decelerate the vertical velocity component. A high load factor stops the vertical component faster, so needs less distance.
 
That makes sense and thank you. It looks like taking into consideration the time necessary to decelerate the vertical component to zero is a factor that I was overlooking.
 
Venus does not have a magnetosphere, so the Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) environment shall be much worse than in a LEO environment. Looking to the std radiation models for Venus, the standard radiation-hard space level electronic component with tested immunity LET = 85 MeV-cm2/mg seems not enough, so, for example, a 1cm2 Si die will suffer considerable flux above this level during a long mission (10 years for example). So, the question is, usually we are not paying attention to latch-up...
Due to the constant never ending supply of "cool stuff" happening in Aerospace these days I'm creating this thread to consolidate posts every time something new comes along. Please feel free to add random information if its relevant. So to start things off here is the SpaceX Dragon launch coming up shortly, I'll be following up afterwards to see how it all goes. :smile: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/
Thread 'SpaceX Starship development: 7th flight January 10'
Watch the progress live This is a fully stacked Starship (top) and Super Heavy (bottom). A couple of too-small-to-see cars near the bottom for scale, I also added a Saturn V and the Statue of Liberty for comparison. 120 meters tall, about 5000 tonnes when fully fueled. Twice the mass and over twice the thrust of Saturn V. The largest rocket ever built by mass, thrust, height, and payload capacity. N1 had the largest diameter.[/size] But its size is not the revolutionary part. It is designed...
Back
Top