Simplified Proof Loading
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Simplified Proof Loading By William E. Brown, EAA 10669 Capt., USAF APO 9247, New York, N.Y. INTRODUCTION BROWN-JODEL D-9FG WING The following sequence illustrates the steps which Airfoil NACA 23012 were taken to static test the modified folding wing of my Spa. Chord 47'/<" Jodel D-9 e severa n lighth I . f o t l in-flight structural fail- Chord 39H" ures which have taken e past place informatioth th ,n i e n shoulf intereso e b do anyon t t e buildin n originaa g r o l modifyin provea g n design originalito N . s claimedi y e th , methods having been lifted from a number of sources and simplified where possible to suit the test undertaken. De- tails of the test have not been described and emphasis has been placee analyticath n do l procedure b y thao ma s e t i t applied to other aircraft. Stations 4 -vw-2 W- W-W- 3l p Ti 6 8 W-W- W- W-57 e tesTh t describe undertakes - dwa en n para a f s no a t FIG. I —WING LAYOUT 12-28-64 gineering special-problems cours takine Unim a th e I t -ga versity of Missouri. I am indebted to Richard N. Pugh, 2. Gross Weight my instructor e interesth r fo ,t e projectaketh d n i nan t Maximum design-gross s weighuseIbs5 r 57 wa .dfo f o t assistance th e give carryinn ni teste th t . gou all calculations. single-spaJodee a s Th ha l r cantilever win. g 1) (se g eFi 3. Drag Effects Only the spar box itself was tested (see Fig. 2). Primary Airfoil drag effects were ignored in the test. This was interest was in verifying strength of the wing-folding felt to be justified, since it is small compared to the modification. If the test were applied to a two-spar wing, lift. t i woul e necessarb d o computt y e loath e d divisio- be n 4. Center of Pressure Effects twee e sparnth s (see Refr Refo . 2 .4) . The twisting moments on the wing were ignored. This thin I s case e entirth , e wing would e testehavb o t ed is valid for the airfoil in question (NACA 23012) which and the weights hung over the spars by straps or some has little center of pressure movement, but would not other means. l airfoils al e vali b r fo d , especially e oldesomth f ro e ones. 5. Angle of Attack Effects LOADING ASSUMPTIONS The wing was tilted 12 deg. for the test to simulate e entirTh e validit tesy an te assump f th restyo n o s - e angle winth th f attact o ea g k givin e maximuth g m tions made. Onl f thesi y e carefullar e y verifiede th n ca , lift coefficient. test represen e conditionth t s mean wa o represent t t ti s . 6. Effects of Wing Weight With thi n mindi s e loadinth , g assumptionse th use n i d e winTh g weigh tt involveitselno s i f n creatini d ga tese describedar t e b . t Rememberno y ma r o , they ma y beam load on the spar. Wing weight was subtracted valid for another type of test and should be carefully ex- from the gross weight to obtain the net weight carried amined before the e applieyar anotheo dt r airplanee Th . winge byth . Wing weigh estimates wa t d usin gweigha t assumptions made were: of 1.35 Ibs. per sq. ft. for cantilever wings (Ref. 2). 1. Load Factor This proved to be very close to the actual wing weight s chose wa loaA s suitabla G nd 4 facto4. o t ef o r whe e winnth g components were weighed later. demonstrate basic airworthines e winth f g o s (CAR Gross wt. = GW = 575 Ibs. utility category) e win s designe. .Th G gwa 9 r dfo Wetted Wing Area/Semi-span = A = 47.84 ft.2 TABLE 1 — LOAD SUMMARY p Ti 8 W- 7 W- 6 W- 5 W- 4 W- 3 W- 2 W- Station ] W- s AREA TOTAL WETTED BETWEEN 6 19 5.73 483 387 WING ARF>, STATIONS 576 6 19 6.19 9.08 (FT/') 47.84 ft .' FRACTION OF C,. REMAINING 1 0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 046 0.38 AFTER LOSSES EFFECTIVE TOTAL EFFECTIVE WETTED = WETTED WING AREA AREA 5.76 6 19 6.19 908 6.19 573 222 7 4 1 BETWEEN STATIONS 42.83 ft.' NET WING 521 521 521 521 521 521 521 521 LOADING LBS /FT' SPAR LOAD LBS/G 30.0 32.2 322 473 322 30.0 116 7.7 BAGS NEEDED . BrowE . nW 2-l5Lb 2-16 Lb 2-16 Lb 3 16 Lb 2-16Lb. 2-. 1 5Lb M2Lb l-8Lb PER G 12-28-64 6 1 NOVEMBER 1965 12 percent was applied from Station W-8 to the tip and percen4 t from o StatioW-8t 7 . ThesW- n e reductions e arbitrarar d represenan y t besa t t gueso what s a ts e win effece tipTh ge th washou. t th alsta os thinha t s t s thiignorede tipbu th wa s, o t fro8 . mW- 9. Load Concentration at the Ribs A distributed loadin s use wa o gsimplift d y sand bag- ging. In the actual wing, loads are concentrated at the ribs. FIG. 2 The spar with the maximum 4.4 G load ap- plied t thia . s .in loadingDeflectio 6 3. tips e .th swa t na 1.3x = 64.Estimate 55 A Ibs= . W d = Win . gWt Net Load Carrie r Semi-spadPe N = n N= y 2=(GW Ibs./W 3 %(575— )22 G 64.= — 5) 7. Tip Effects FIG6 Spa. r center sectio mountes a ne fuselage th o t d . e lifTh t coefficien s assumei t e halveb o t dd froa m t beeye nplywoot e fronaddee no Th th d r reao o tdt ha r point one chord width from the tip (see Ref. 1). Station e spaoth f r box. ] W-7 was chosen as it lies 32 /4 in. from the tip which METHO COMPUTINF DO G BEAM LOADINGS has a chord of 29 25/32 in. The method applied in correcting for the tip and 8. Washout Effects washou t reduco effectt s e winwa eth s g are r calculafo a - The wing washout starts at Station W-7 and is a maxi- tion purposes. Thiwinw ne sg arecalles awa e effectiv dth e e tipth . t mu4 degFroa f .m o m NACA 23012 airfoil wetted wing areae winTh . g area reduction from Station dat e lifath t , (Refcoefficien3) . s determinewa t e b o dt W-7 to W-8 was 50 percent for tip loss and 4 percent for reduced a maximum of 12 percent at the tip. The full washout, or a total of 54 percent. From Station W-7 to e tip 2 e reductioth 1 th ,percen0 losp d 5 ti s an sr nwa fo t percen r washoutfo t 2 percent6 a tota, f o l . Effective wetted are s the percena6 wa n4 fro 8 mW- t Statioo t 7 nW- of actual area. Effective wetted area from Statio8 W- n thes percen8 wa n3 p toti t actual area. The total effective area was then tabulated and the net wing loading determined. Net weight carried per semi-span Net wing Effective wetted wing area per semi-span = loading t loadinne s thee gwa Th n multiplie e effectivth y b d e wing area between stations to determine the load carried be abovy Th eac . e G he wincalculation r th par pe f g o t s showe ar winTable n ni th . Refegr e1 layout fo Figo 1 t r . FIG. 3 The method of taking deflection readings. The fron reaand tr readin averageis g determinto d inthe e- STATIC TEST METHOD cremen f deflectioo t n after each increas loadn i e . spae mountes (seg ji Th wa er a ) usin Fig5 n de o . gth same attachment bolts that attace fuse th e spa th -ho t r lage. The jig attachment was made identical to the fuse- lag teso attachmene t th t t portio e spa th wels a rf s no a l the spar itself. After calculation of the load carried between each station per G, sand bags were prepared to permit adding G 4 loadina e weight 3. t th , ge G go 4 t s 2. sequenc , G 1 f eo and 4.4 G. Some large bags were used, but 15 Ib. bags were the easiest to handle. The biggest job is sacking the sand. A set of deflection measurements was taken at five points along the wing. Five foot sticks were attached to the wing (see Figs. 3 and 4), and front and rear readings were averaged to measure deflections. A shakedown run thed wawine an nth s gG mad 1 unloaded o et . This served to remove slack in the jig and fittings. A set of zero de- flection readings was then taken and subsequently taken t eaca h loading e deflectioTh . s alsowa n taken afte- un r loading from the maximum load. This served to deter- e spa mountes Th a r e tes FIG4 th t .