http://www.paper.edu.

cn

JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT
Vol. 49, No. 6, NovemberDecember 2012

Landing-Gear Drop-Test Rig Development

and Application for Light Airplanes
Cai-Jun Xue, Yu Han, Wen-Gang Qi, and Jian-Hua Dai
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
210016 Nanjing, Peoples Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
A drop-test rig is developed for the landing gear of a light multifunctional amphibious airplane based on its
drop-test specications. Several key technologies (including the schematic design of the light-aircraft drop test, the
control-system design for the drop test, the high-speed turn of the wheel, the accurate lifting of the drop system,
design of the measuring platform, and the imitation of the runway) are studied. Simultaneously, the system can
realize accurate measurement and conduct the light-aircraft drop test with high-speed belt turn. Based on a drop
test under initial parameters to get the friction between the tire and platform, and the elastic parameters of the
wheel to simulate the interactions of components, the simulation models are repeatedly modied by analyzing the
results of comparisons between drop test and simulation. Thus, an accurate model is established with optimal
parameters, which veries that the shock-absorbing properties of the landing gear with the optimal parameters
meet the requirements of airworthiness rules, and the properties are greatly improved. According to the
requirement of China Civil Aviation Regulations Order No. 132 (CCAR-23-R3) and the application of virtual
prototype technology for the light multifunctional amphibious airplane, the adjusting-parameter drop test, the
limited drop test, and the reserve-energy absorption drop test of the nose landing gear are accomplished. The
limited load measured in the test is less than the design load, and the landing gear can bear the reserve-energy
absorption drop test. The study shows that the adjusting-parameter drop test for establishing a simulation model
is an available and reliable way to optimize the shock-absorbing properties of an amphibious-aircraft landing
gear. The test system can be applied for the landing-gear drop-test of other light airplanes. Moreover, the test
results can be used as the certication of the airworthiness for this airplane.

PS
Py
t
P0
p
t
S
Smax
t
V0


Nomenclature
Aa

= area where the piston rod squeezes out the air (except
for the oil-hole area)
= area where the piston rod squeezes out the oil (except
Ah
for the oil-hole area)
= sectional area of oil hole
A0
= acceleration of hanging basket
at
= ow coefcient of the oil hole
Cd
= vertical damping coefcient of the wheel
C

= diameter of the main oil hole
dm
= diameter of one-way oil hole
ds
Fm
t = total friction force between platform and the four
supported pillars
= horizontal load acting on the wheel
Fx
FY
t = vertical load of the wheel
= vertical load acting on the wheel
Fz
= vertical deformation coefcient of the wheel
K

= calibration value of vertical acceleration sensor xed
kva
on platform.
= calibration value of vertical load sensor
kvg
= mass of platform
M1
N
= number of wheel
NY
t = inertia force of platform
= inertial overload coefcient
nn

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

atmospheric pressure
resultant force measured by four sensors
initial pressure of buffer
tensioncompression load of platform in the drop test
stroke of buffer
maximum stroke of buffer
rst buffering circle time
initial volume of the air chamber
oil density

I. Introduction

OWADAYS, an aircraft landing-gear drop test basically relies

on the design of the drop-test rig. For instance, the American
drop-test rig is designed into a dynamic form as well as being set on
active ground. The American test rig consists of rack car, sprinkler
system (which is used to provide driving force), and a track with
bilateral rails. The simulation accomplished on the drop-test rig is
close to actual landing conditions. The vertical drop-test rig is widely
used in Russia. The working principle of the rig is using the motor to
drive the landing-gear tire, which is xed with a ywheel through the
belt. With the rapid development of the aviation industry, aircraft
landing-gear drop-test technology has received much attention, and
several key technologies have been broken through. The dynamic
analysis and drop tests for specic aircraft landing gear have been
extensively studied by scholars from various countries at different
viewpoints.
As early as 1937, Franz established a linear spring-damper model
for an aircraft landing-gear system [1]. The landing-gear dynamic
model became more meticulous since then. More factors were
considered in the dynamic model, such as nonlinear buffer, tire
damping, and the stiffness of the landing gear. In 1952, Fliigge
applied the method of entering nonlinearity force-displacement
curves and damping formulas, which was related to the vertical
velocity [2]. By this way, the nonlinearity behaviors of the oil buffer
were taken into consideration for the dynamic model. In the same
year, Milwitzky and Cook studied the behavior analysis of a

Received 5 April 2012; revision received 3 May 2012; accepted for

publication 4 June 2012. This material is declared a work of the U.S.
Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition
that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center,
Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0021-8669/
12 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.

Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Fundamental Science for

National DefenseAdvanced Design Technology of Flight Vehicle;
cjxue@nuaa.edu.cn.

Graduate Student, Key Laboratory of Fundamental Science for National

DefenseAdvanced Design Technology of Flight Vehicle.
2064

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2065

XUE ET AL.

conventional landing gear during its landing impact process literally

[3]. Several key factors of landing gear were discussed, and the
analysis model for the landing-gear system model was simplied
rationally. In 1967, Garba described the correlation between the
predicted and measured dynamic behavior for a full-size surveyor
drop test [4]. In 1974, Daughetee described a laboratory facility
developed by Vought Systems Division of the LingTemcoVought
Aerospace Corporation and techniques used to realistically simulate
landings of full-scale aircraft under precisely controlled conditions
[5]. He reported that the load of the landing gear had reached the peak
in the rst 0.2 s when the wheel touched down, and the wheels
passing through deck with obstacles caused an increase about 16% in
landing-gear load during the landing progress. From 1979 to 1982,
Ross [6] and Ross and Edson [710] presented the design of an
active-control landing-gear system that was motivated by an
electronic controller. The control effect of the controller was veried
by the landing-gear drop test.
In the early 1970s, Bender et al. [11] and Corsetti and Dillow [12]
elaborated on the feasibility of the research and design scheme of the
main landing gear. From then on, NASA plunged a lot of human and
material resources to carry out the research [13]. In 1976, McGehee
and Carden established a mathematical model of an active-control
landing gear for load control during impact and rollout with the
simulation technology being applied in the study of its performance
[1417]. In 19791982, the results of an evaluation of an active loadcontrol landing-gear computer program for predicting the landing
dynamics of airplanes with passive and active main gears were
presented. It showed that the active gear reduced airframe-gear forces
and airplane motions following initial impact and had the potential
for signicant reductions in structural fatigue damage relative to
that which occurred with the passive gear [18]. In 1990, Howell
and McGehee conducted an experimental investigation on the
series-hydraulic active-control nose gear of an F106-B [19]. The
experiments involved testing the gear in both passive- and activecontrol modes. Results of this investigation showed that a serieshydraulic active-control gear was feasible and that such a gear was
effective in reducing the loads transmitted by the gear to the airframe
during ground operation. In 1997, Underwood described the nal
system drop test of the diskgapband parachute system [20]. The
system consisted of three diskgapband parachutes of different
designs, each of which was optimized for its own task within the
mission [21,22]. In 1999, Wang and Udo simulated the operation of
an Airbus A320 as an example and set up the main landing-gear
model [23]. The highly nonlinear aircraft dynamics coupled with
varying landing and runway conditions were handled with the
proposed fuzzy controller.
At the end of 20th century, the landing-gear dynamics model had
developed to the depth of making a complete layout from the
whole aircraft. The structural exibility of the body, dynamic load
distribution between the nose and main landing gear, aerodynamic
response on the body, and its inuence on landing-gear impact loads
were fully taken into account. In 2000, Ghiringhelli used a twofreedom model to investigate the simulation of a semi-active-control
landing-gear test with different subsidence velocity [24]. In 2004,
Ghiringhelli used a multibody dynamics software ADAMS to set up
a complete model without considering the exibility of the airframe,
and the Proportion Integration Differentiation (PID) controller was
designed and improved to carry out simulation research on the semiactive landing-gear control [25]. In 2004, Adams summarized the
testing and analysis used to quantify the expected airbag landing
loads for the Mars exploration rovers [26]. The airbag drop-test
setup, landing instrumentation, and the test-data-reduction method
were discussed to provide an understanding of the empirical loads. A
favorable comparison was made between the empirical data and
available computational airbag models, boosting condence in the
results. In 2006, Lernbeiss and Plch introduced an Multi-Body
System (MBS)-based landing-gear model and investigated the
numerical simulation of a simple static and dynamic load by
comparing with a nite-element model [27]. In 2009, Kong et al.
conducted drop-impact analyses for the landing gear of smart
unmanned aerial vehicles using the explicit nite-element code

LS-DYNA [28]. Experimental data were used to revise the impact

model for the landing gear. Structural particularity and airworthiness
specications should be considered in the landing-gear drop test
of light aircraft. For the light-aircraft landing-gear drop-test
technology, a test and control system had been introduced by Xue
et al. in 2011 [29].
Conclusion demonstrates that Chinese scholars have investigated
various aspects of airworthiness drop test, including airworthiness
test systems and dynamics investigation of the adjusting-parameter
tests. They have some achievements, and they have laid the
foundation for the research and execution of airworthiness tests. But
there are quite a few reports on the systemic investigation of the
airworthiness certication test for civil aircraft, few reports about the
application of the drop test to amend and verify the drop-simulation
model, and none about the application of the simulation result to
guide the adjusting-parameter test. To meet the requirements of the
airworthiness of a Seagull 300 aircraft landing gear, this paper reports
the systemic investigation of the airworthiness drop test as well as
effective combination between the advanced simulation technology
and the actual engineering needs. The research possesses certain
academic values and engineering application values. And the
achievement can be used as the reference of drop test and dynamics
analysis for light-airplane landing-gear drop test.

II. Drop-Test System

A.

Structure of the Test System and Working Principle

The vertical drop-test system consists of the platform system, the

low-friction sliding system, the up and down system, the wheels
turning-speed system, the impact-platform system, the xture
system, and the acquisition system, as shown in Fig. 1.
We must simulate the aircraft landing weight, angle of attack,
sinking velocity, forward velocity, wing aerodynamic force, and ratio
of the friction between the wheel and the runway at the moment of
touchdown. The drop test is in progress by adapting to the way of free
fall. In this test, the effective dropping weight (which consists of
landing gear, xture, core barrel, and additional weight) is simulated
by the weight of the drop system. The ways to adjust the xture of
the landing gear and the height of the drop test are used to simulate
the angle of landing attack and the sink velocity, respectively. The
reverse rotation of the wheel at a preset velocity and the concrete at
are used to simulate the horizontal landing velocity of aircraft and the
surface of the pavement, respectively. The friction coefcient
between the wheel and the contact at is varied through modifying
the toughness of the at. Meanwhile, the reasonable methods for
imitating rotating loads and spring-back drag loads are studied
through using different imitation platforms. The research is carried
out under the condition of guaranteeing the friction coefcient.
B.

Design of Core Barrel and Sliding Way

The core barrel is connected with the rack by eight tackles, and its
free sliding along the rack is accomplished through the tackles.

Fig. 1 Drop-test rig for a landing gear.


2066

http://www.paper.edu.cn
XUE ET AL.

Meanwhile, four axles with a diameter of 60 mm are installed under

the big core barrel to increase the balance weight of the landing-gear
system; thus, the equivalent load exerted on the real landing gear will
be imitated conveniently. The three-dimensional graphic of the core
barrel is shown in Fig. 2.
The free sliding of the core-barrel system is accomplished
through the tackles. The sliding way should be of certain
smoothness so that the friction between the core-barrel system and
the sliding way will be decreased fully. Thus, the errors occurred in
the instantaneously sinking velocity of the dropping test will be
decreased, and the test to imitate the sinking velocity in the process
of landing will also be enough. Considering the parking problem of
the core-barrel system, the top as well as the bottom of the sliding
way should be stretched so as to park the core-barrel system
conveniently. The three-dimensional graphic of the sliding way is
shown in Fig. 3.
The core barrel consists of the framework structure, counterbalance component, guide wheel, and xed plate for the landing
gear. The low-friction sliding way adopts four cylindrical columns
with 180 mm diameter and is xed at both ends with bearings on the
bench column. To ensure the free fall of the drop-test system, the core
barrel is xed with a concave guide wheel to combine with the
low-friction sliding way. The dimensions of the core barrel are
1600  1700  450 mm.
The verticality of the sliding way is guaranteed by seton
technology in the process of installation. Simultaneously, the
combination between the guide wheel and the sliding way is
regulated. Before the formal test, we should make the guide wheel
slide along the low-friction sliding way 100 times, and then we need
to smear lubricating oil on the surface of the sliding way. It is difcult
to measure the dynamic friction between the guide wheel and the
sliding way directly. Therefore, we can collocate several pullpressure sensors around the hook to measure the tension subjected to
the guide wheel when it locates at different height. Thus, we can get
the percentage of effective weight loss. The effective weight loss

Table 1
Height , mm
100
204
300
410
501
595

Efcient weight expense due to friction

Weight loss, % Height, mm
3.2
4.2
5.0
2.4
2.9
4.3

Weight loss, %

152
246
353
452
548
average

2.8
4.0
3.7
3.4
4.3
3.7

caused by static friction is less than 5%, and the average loss is 3.7%,
as shown in Table 1.
C.

Design of the Wheels Turning-Speed Mechanism

As the effective diameter of the wheel for aircraft landing gear is

relatively small, the effective way to imitate the horizontal landing
velocity is to improve the rotational speed of the wheel.
Simultaneously, it is quite necessary to improve the evacuation
speed to decrease the loss of the wheels turning speed.
The wheels turning-speed mechanism consists of the hydraulic
pressure moving tube, the stent, the dc motor, and the friction wheel,
as shown in Fig. 4. The friction wheel is in contact with the wheel
through the hydraulic-pressure moving tube, and the dc motor drives
the friction wheel to rotate. Then the friction wheel turns the wheel in
reverse. After the tangential velocity of the wheel achieves the
desired speed, the hydraulic-pressure moving tube will shrink, and
the friction wheel will return rapidly.
D.

Impact Platform and Measuring System

The impact platform is composed of three layers. As shown in

Fig. 5, the upper layer lled with concrete is used to simulate the

Fig. 4 Working theory of the wheels turning-speed mechanism.

Fig. 2 Design of the core barrel.

Fig. 3

Low-friction sliding way design.

Fig. 5

Measuring at for a landing-gear drop test.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2067

XUE ET AL.

runway. Four sensors to measure heading load are installed alongside

the upper layer, and the other four sensors to measure side loads are
installed alongside with the middle layer. The bottom layer is
supported by three pillars, and there are vertical sensors in it.
There are circular guide grooves that are perpendicular in the
interface. The steel balls are used here to keep point contact and
reduce the friction.
The parameters needed to be measured in the drop test are as
follows: the horizontal vertical loads of the wheel, the vertical
displacement of the wheel center, the axial compression of the buffer
and the wheels compression. Four load sensors are installed on the
force platform to measure what can be converted into the vertical load
Fz acting on the wheel. Two load sensors and an accelerometer are
installed alongside the force platform to measure what can be
converted into the horizontal load FX acting on the wheel. A guyed
displacement sensor is installed between the hanging basket and the
pillars to measure the vertical displacement of the hanging basket
center. An acceleration sensor is installed at the center of the bottom
of the hanging basket to measure the acceleration of the hanging
basket (at ). A linear displacement sensor is installed at the two
ends of the buffer to measure the compression of the three
supported pillars. The sensor-installation schematic diagram is
shown in Fig. 6.
E.

Control System

The whole control system consists of the hydraulic system, the up

and down mechanism, the structure of turning speed, and telecontrol.
Just after the drop system is dropped by the electric motor to a preset
height, the hook will be locked. Then the structure of turning speed
turns the wheel in reverse and evacuates when the speed of wheel
reaches to the preset one. As long as the drop system is ensured to be
located safely, the drop system is dropping down and the test data are
collected.
The drop test is dominated by the Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC) control system, which adapts an OMRON CP1H-XA40D
programming with CX Programmer version 7.3. The computer is
connected with CP1H by RS232, the type of host link, 9600 baud rate
for the port, 7 bit even parity check. The software of King View
version 6.5 is used to monitor the process of the drop test. All I/Os of
the input and output signals are adapted to the photoelectric isolating
equipment. Thus, the anti-interference ability of the deoxidization
device and the electrical circuit inside the controller can be insulated.
The software of King View is used to realize the development of
the control interface for the drop test, and the prompt communication
with the PLC control program is also enforced. Corresponding
processes are used to realize high-precision, good-tracking
performance and a high level of visualization. According to the
specialties of the aircraft landing gear and the requirements of
airworthiness certication, the interface of the control system is
developed to meet the requirements on the platform of King View
software. The adjusting-parameter drop test, the limited drop test,

Fig. 6

Sensor-installation schematic diagram.

Table 2

Major technical index of hydraulic system

Name of parameter

Technical index

Pump motor
Hydraulic pump
System rated ow
Control voltage

1.5 KW
Pmax  20 MPa, dextrorotation
Q  20 L= min
DC24V

and the reserve-energy absorption drop test for the light-aircraft

landing gear are accomplished by operating the interface of the
control system.
The design proposal of the hydraulic servo system is achieved
according to the design research of a control system for a landinggear drop test, which includes the following:
1) The pressure supplement for the system is proposed in view of
the high pressure supplied for the prototype pump.
2) The actuation time of the executive components is set up
judging by the requirements and the project design of the drop test.
3) The maximum working stroke is determined in view of the
reference height of the drop test, the limited dropping height, and the
simulation results.
4) The maximum load of the actuator cylinder is calculated
according to the weight of the wheels turning-speed mechanism, the
requirements of the test, and the contact force between the friction
wheel and the wheel of the landing gear.
The original design parameters are as follows:
1) The time of protracting the structure of turning speed is 820 s,
and the time of withdrawal is 13 s.
2) The maximum effective diameter of the actuator cylinder is
24.62 mm.
3) The maximum stroke of the actuator cylinder is 400 mm.
4) The biggest load is 10,000 N.
5) The temperature is 50 to 50 C.
6) The pressure of the oil sump tank is 0.15 MPa.
The technical index is shown in Table 2.
F. Test System
1. Transient Rotational Speed Test

In the measuring of the rotational speed of the wheel, we will meet

the following troubles:
1) The structures of different landing gears are compact so that the
x of sensors is limited.
2) The wheel will generate vibration and deformation when it
impacts the platform, and the test requirement should be somehow
higher than ever.
3) The drop-test platform will bring electromagnetic interference
to the measuring sensors.
On account of these reasons, the rotational speed of the wheel
should be measured by noncontact photosensors and grating trays.
Then, the variation curve of the rotational speed of the wheel can be
measured by time counting. As shown in Fig. 7, as the room of the
wheels is compaction, the directed sensor and grating tray are not
suitable to install here, so the reective sensor is applied and the
grating tray is replaced by the grating patch, which are uniformly

Fig. 7

Measurement of the wheels transient rotational speed.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

2068

XUE ET AL.

Table 3 Measuring instruments and their precision

distributed in the wheel. Then, the transient rotation speed of the

landing-gear wheel will be measured in the counting way.
The turning system turns around the wheel in the opposite
direction to simulate the horizontal velocity of the aircraft, and the
horizontal velocity of the wheel is based on the Eq. (1):
N
2.

60Vx
2R

1
2
3
4
5
6

(1)

Equipment

Type

Collection system
DH5927
Force sensor
5114
Acceleration sensor
DH311
Displacement sensor DH801
Speed sensor
DH5640
Electronic scale
OCS

Precision

Quantity

0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
2T=0:2 kg

1
8
2
2
1
1

Horizontal Load Test

In recent studies, the horizontal and vertical loads are measured by

the drop platform, which is supported by three points. In this paper,
the platform is supported by four points and the impact platform is
constituted by three layers. As shown in Fig. 8, the upper layer lled
with concrete is used to simulate the runway. Four sensors to measure
the heading load are installed alongside the upper layer, and the other
four sensors to measure side load are installed alongside the middle
layer. The bottom layer is supported by four pillars, and there are
four sensors in them. There are circular guide grooves that are
perpendicular in the interface. The steel balls are used here to keep
point contact and reduce friction, which applies the upper layer
sliding along the course and side direction.
After turning, the rotating wheel of the landing gear drops on the
platform and the friction force is produced as the horizontal load of
the wheel. It is difcult to measure the friction force directly, and the
indirect method which is to arrange dynamic force sensors on both
sides of the platform along the course only meets. The heading load is
shown in Eq. (2):
Fx  p
t  Fm
t  Nx
t
3.

No.

(2)

Vertical Load Test

drops on the platform, the impact load of the wheel is passed by the
platform and steel balls, and it is gained from the sensors. The
conversion relationship between the vertical load of the wheel and
the load measured by the sensors is based on the theorem of static
force balance, and Eq. (3) is based on the mechanism mode shown
in Fig. 9:
Fy
t  kyg Py
t  kya ay
tM1
4.

Axial Compression of Buffer and Wheel Compression

The drop test is to verify whether the buffer system satises its
capacity of absorbing energy and the wheel compression satises the
requirements of design. According to the original parameters of the
buffer pillar stroke and the wheel stroke, a cable-type displacement
sensor is installed between the basket and the pillar to measure the
vertical displacement h of the basket center, and another sensor is
installed at the end of buffer to measure the compression
of the
buffer. The wheels compression can be obtained from the vertical
displacement h, the compression
, and the strut front angle of the
landing gear, which is also the angle of attack.
5.

The measurement of general loads usually adopts the method of

pasting the strain gauges on the test sample or xing the force sensors
directly on it. However, it is difcult to measure the vertical load of
the landing gear directly, and so the indirect method is used. Before
measurement of the vertical load, we assume that the platform and
steel balls are both rigid bodies. Four sensors are symmetrically
installed under the laminate of platform. When the landing gear

Data Collection of Drop Test

The data measured in the drop test are collected by the system of
impact test data acquisition with 48 channels, concurrent working,
100512 kHz frequencies from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Table 3 is the list of the equipment needed in the drop
test.
The parameters needed to be measured in the drop test are as
follows: the horizontal load and vertical load of wheel; the vertical
displacement of the wheel center; and the axial compression of the
buffer and the wheel compression. Four load sensors are installed on
the force platform to measure what can be converted into the vertical
load FZ acting on the wheel. Two load sensors and an accelerometer
are installed alongside the force platform to measure what can be
converted into the horizontal load FX acting on the wheel. A guyed
displacement sensor is installed between the core barrel and pillars to
measure the vertical displacement of the core-barrel center. An
acceleration sensor is installed at the center of the bottom of the core
barrel to measure the acceleration of the core barrel (at ). A linear
displacement sensor is installed at the two ends of the buffer to
measure the compression
of the three supported pillars.

Fig. 8 Measuring at for landing-gear drop test.

wheel Py
sensor
N(t)

Fig. 9 Vertical mechanical model of the platform.

(3)

Fig. 10 Force diagram of the landing gears various parts.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2069

XUE ET AL.

Table 4 Results of formal test under initial parameters

Maximum stroke of
buffer (S)

Maximum vertical
loads FZ

Energy absorption of
system (Ac )

Limited vertical load

factor n

Efciency factor of
buffer

Efciency factor of
system

17,980 N

1521 J

4.37

64.9%

55.1%

126 mm

Table 5

Initial parameters of the formal drop test

Drop height H

Effective drop weight We

Diameter of main oil hole (dm )

Diameter of one-way oil hole (ds )

Initial pressure P0

Rolling speed

410 mm

329.8 kg

2.6 mm

1.8 mm

0.6 MPa

1300 rpm

Table 6
Test program
number
1
2
3

Release Maximum stroke

height H,
of buffer (S),
mm
mm
250
300
350

96
99
106

Results of auxiliary drop test under initial parameters

Vertical
loads Fz ,
N

Energy absorption
of system (Ac ), J

14,769
15,342
17,520

III. Drop Test and Simulation Under

the Adjusting Parameters
A.

Dynamic Model of Landing Gear

In accordance with the characteristics of movement to various

parts, the structure mass of the landing gear is divided into three parts:

Fig. 11

Limited vertical
load coefcient n

989
1159
1532

3.56
3.73
4.26

Efciency
coefcient of
buffer, %
62.1
67.5
64.5

Efciency
coefcient of
system, %
52.3
59.0
54.4

the elastic supporting mass, the inelastic supporting mass, and the
rotating mass. By this means, the mechanical model can preferably
imitate the actual condition and simplify the dynamic equation. The
elastic supporting mass is the mass of the upper air spring buffers
including the mass of the fuselage, the wing, and the outer cylinder,

Energy absorption of the buffer.

Fig. 12 Simulation results of the energy absorption.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

2070

XUE ET AL.

Table 7
System performance
Result of simulation
Result of test
Deviation of two results

Contrast between results of simulation and test

Maximum stroke of
buffer (S), mm

Maximum vertical
loads FZ , N

Energy absorption of
system (Ac ), J

Efciency factor of
buffer, %

Efciency factor of
system, %

126.0
126.0
1.5

18,590
17,980
3.4

1885
1721
9.5

65.8
64.9
1.9

53.6
55.1
3.5

which is the mass supported by the air spring. The elastic supporting
mass is the mass of the low air spring buffers including the mass of the
piston cylinder, the brakes, and the tire, which is the mass supported
by the nonair spring. The rotating mass is part of the nonelastic
support quality, which includes the mass of the wheel and the rotating
part of the brake apparatus.
The stress states of the wheel, the inner cylinder, and the outer
cylinder are shown in Fig. 10. The interaction between the buffer
pillar and the wheel forms a commonly used two-mass model. The
following assumptions are contained in the model:
1) All the forces of the landing gear are exerted within the vertical
plane of the landing gear.
2) The elastic supporting mass can be idealized as rigid bodies
concentrated near the trunnion.
3) In addition to the horizontal deection of the buffer pillar, the
other deformations of the structure are ignored.

Table 8

Energy absorbed by the buffer system corresponding

to different parameters

Diameters of the
main oil hole
(dm ),mm

Diameters of
one-way oil
hole (ds ), mm

3.4
3.8
4
2.6
3
3.4
3.8
4
4
4
4
4

1.

Initial pressure
of the buffer
(P0 ), MPa

1.8
1.8
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.66
0.62
0.64
0.68
0.7

Energy
absorption of
the system
(Ac ), J
1943
1973
1988
1924
1948
1974
2002
2014
2012
2011
2007
2006

Motion Equations of System

Coordinate System: Here, the coordinate refers to the local

coordinate system, which is moving along with the mass. The origin
of the coordinate is located at the mass centroid. Based on the
assumption, the centroid of the inelasticity supporting mass is
located in the landing-gear axle. The Z coordinates positive
direction is vertically downward, and the X coordinate is
perpendicular to the Z coordinate. The reverse course is referenced
as the positive direction.
Motion Equations of Wheel Rotating Stage: This is the
synchronous motion stage of the elastic supporting mass and the
inelastic supporting mass (only the wheel is compressed, whereas
the buffer pillar is not). The horizontal gliding speed of the wheel is
"_ X  X_ m 
R 
=3!  VX

(4)

At the buffer compression stage (while the tire continues to

compress), the horizontal motion equation of concentrated mass
retains the same, while the vertical motion equation is shown in
Eq. (5):
FS
Nu  Nl
L
(5a)
sin n 
Z
M  g  cos n 
M
M
M
Ft  Fz
Z
m  g 
m

(5b)

ZM  S cos n  Zm

(5c)

Fig. 13 Simulation model for optimization.

Motion Differential Equation of the Rebound Stage:

Nt
R 

R 
=3
X
U 
Im  m
R 

R 
=3
!_ 
2.

Nt
R 

Im  m
R 

R 
=3

(6a)

(6b)

Stress Analysis of Buffer Pillar

The stroke of the buffer (S) is zero:

Fig. 14

Iteration history of optimization.

FS 
mX
m  Fx  cos n 
mZ
m  Fz  mg sin n

(7)

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2071

XUE ET AL.

Table 9 Optimization results of the buffering performance

dm

ds

P0

Smax

FZ

nn

Ac

4.0 mm

2.0 mm

0.66 MPa

153

14675

4.39

3.56

0.38 s

2014 J

The stroke of the buffer (S) is larger than zero:

FS  Ph A1  Pa
A2  A1   Ff
The buffer stroke (S) equals the mechanism stroke:
FS  Fa  Ff  Fl

(8)
(9)

where Fa can be calculated from Eq. (9) The chamber volume can be
calculated by subtracting the result, which is the gas pressure being
multiplied by the area from the initial volume of structural itinerary.
3.

Oil Damping Force

The oil damping force is produced due to the pressure difference

caused by the ow of hydraulic oil through both ends of the hole. The
calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (10):
A3h
_ Sj
_
Fh 
Sj
(10)
2
Cd A0 2
4.

Air Spring Force

The air spring force is determined by the initial pressure, the area
covered by the gas pressure and the instantaneous compression ratio.
The calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (11):



n
V0
(11)
 Ps
Fa  Aa P0
V0  Aa S
5.

Internal Friction Force

The friction emerged at the collar between inside and outside of the
buffer cylinder is only taken into consideration. The calculation
formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (12):
Ff 
u jNu j  l jNl j
6.

(12)

buffer system and the maximum stroke of the buffer are less than
the requirement; the maximum vertical load of wheel is larger than
the requirement (15,362 N); and the limited vertical load coefcient
is larger than the requirement. According to the analysis of the
inuence of buffer parameters toward the shock-absorbing
properties, the following adjustments should be done: 1) enlarging
the oil hole of the buffer, and 2) enhancing the initial pressure of the
buffer. The results of auxiliary drop test are shown in Table 6 and
Fig. 11. According to the maximum strokes of the buffer and the
maximum vertical loads at different heights, it can be deduced that
the maximum stroke of the buffer and the maximum vertical load of
the wheel can meet the requirements when it is released at the height
of 410 mm.
Figure 12 is the dynamic simulation results of the energy
absorption. Figure 12a is the energy absorbed by the buffer.
Figure 12b is the energy absorbed by the buffer system. Contrast
between results of simulation and test has been listed in Table 7. As
shown in the table, the maximum vertical loads in simulation is 4.5%
higher than in the test; deviation of the maximum stroke of buffer is
1.5%; and the deviation of energy absorbed by system is 9.5%.
Considering that the error of the model is quite small, it can be used in
parameter-optimization analysis.
On the basis of the virtual prototype of the landing gear, the drop
test under initial parameters has been simulated. The initial condition
parameters including the drop height, the rolling speed, and the initial
air pressure are set as shown in Table 7. The friction coefcient
between the wheel and the platform is dened by the z 
curve,
and the elastic constant of the wheel is dened by the kT 
curve.
The two curves are all measured from the test. The friction factor
between the inner barrel and the piston rod of the buffer is set at 0.11,
which is the calculated test result.

Stress Analysis of the Wheel

The wheel suffers the vertical reaction force from the ground. The
calculation formula of oil damping force is shown in Eq. (13):
Fz  NK
Zm  NC
Z_ m

(13)

B. Dynamic Simulation Under Adjusting-Parameter Drop Test

1. Analysis of Simulation and Test Under Initial Parameter

The results of the initial drop test and the adjusting-parameter drop
test are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Comparing the shock-absorbing
performance parameters of the initial drop test with that of the
adjusting-parameter drop test on the requirements of shockabsorbing capacity, we can nd that the energy absorbed by the

2.

Optimization Model for Buffer Parameters

The appropriate allocation of the buffer parameters should be

found to meet the design requirements. Actually, we optimize the
shock-absorbing performance on the basis of adopting the buffer
parameters as design variables. The model of optimization is
described as follows: 1) objective function (energy absorption of the
buffering system, Ac ), and 2) design variables (dm , ds , four one-way
holes with same diameters, and P0 ). Considering the actual minimum
adjustment mount of the initial pressure of the buffer and the diameter
of the main oil hole (dm ), we regulate dm , ds , and V0 as discrete
variables. The step sizes of dm and ds are all 0.2 mm. And the step size
of P0 is 0.02 MPa.

Fig. 15 Optimized energy absorption.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

2072

XUE ET AL.

Table 10 Results of the drop tests with 4 mm main oil hole

Maximum stroke of
buffer (S)

Maximum vertical
load FZ

Capacity of buffer
system (Ac )

Limited vertical load

coefcient nn

Efciency coefcient of
buffer (s )

Efciency coefcient of the

buffer system ()

152.9 mm

15,789 N

1841 J

3.83

64.6%

56.8%

The constraint functions are Smax , Fz , nn , and t, which are

mathematical expressions of the optimization model on shockabsorbing performance. The aforementioned functions are shown in
Eq. (14):
8
Smax  156:3 mm
>
>
>
>
>
>
< Pz  15362 N
n  4:42
>
>
>
t  0:8 s
>
>
>
:
max Ac
dm ; ds ; V0 

(14)

According to the results of the initial drop test, we can conclude

that the diameters of the oil holes and the initial pressure of the buffer
should be enhanced. Combining with the practical experience, the
range of design variables is determined, as shown in Eq. (15):
dm 2
2:8; 3:0; 3:2; . . . ; 5:2

ds 2
1:8; 2:0; 2:2; . . . ; 3:6

(15)

P0 2
0:60; 0:62; 0:64; . . . ; 0:80

3. Optimization Analysis of Shock-Absorbing Performance in LMS
Virtual.Lab Software

Design variables and the response function are set in the

simulation model; the range of design variables are added as shown in
Eq. (15). Variation ranges of the constraint function are applied, and
the objective function is set as max Ac . The simulation model for
optimization is established as shown in Fig. 13. The optimization is
carried out through software, and the iteration process is shown in
Fig. 14. The curve shows that the objective function that represents
the energy absorbed by the buffer system is increasing greatly. Parts
of the objective function values corresponding to the design variables
are output during the iterative process, which are shown in Table 8.
The results of the optimization, design variables, values of
constraints, and objective functions are shown in Table 9. We can see
the shock-absorbing performance has been further enhanced. The
optimized energy-absorption curves are shown in Fig. 15. The curves
are much better than the initial ones, which are the simulation results
under initial parameters. It indicates that the buffering performance
has been improved.

4.

Drop Test with Optimized Buffer Parameters

Other parameters, such as rolling speed, release height, and

effective drop weight are kept the same as the parameters listed in
Table 6. Test procedures are also kept the same as that in the initial
test. The auxiliary drop test is done at rst. The drop heights are 200,
250, 350, and 380 mm in turn. Attention should be paid in the test;
before each test, the landing gear should be hung in the air for more
than half an hour to ensure that the oil and gas are separated
adequately, and the pressure in the buffer should be kept the same
during each test. The results of the auxiliary drop test are shown in
Table 10, and the shock-absorbing capacity is listed in the appended
drawing. According to the results, we can conclude when the landing
gear is released at the height of 410 mm in the drop test, the maximum stroke and the maximum vertical load can meet the design
requirement.
The auxiliary drop test has veried the security of the test. The
landing gear should be hung for half an hour before the formal test.
The capacity curves of the buffer and the system are shown in Fig. 16.
The capacity curve of the buffer has four humps, which are the same
as that in the initial test. The curve is much better than the initial one.
It indicates that the buffering performance has been improved. The
calculated buffering parameters are listed in Table 10. The data show
that the maximum stock of the buffer is increased, the maximum
vertical load is reduced, and the energy absorbed by the system is
slightly less than before when compared with the results of the initial
test. As a result, the following modications should be done:
1) enlarging the oil hole of the buffer, and 2) enhancing the initial
pressure.
5. Buffer Parameter Optimization with the Pulleys-Sliding Friction
Taken into Account

The coefcient of friction between the wheel and the sliding way
causes an average loss of 3.7% in acceleration. The average loss of
acceleration is taken as the loss of acceleration at random time. Thus,
we can compute that the drop height should be increased to 427 mm
to keep the sink rate at Vy  2:84 m=s when the wheel touches down.
There is no loss of sink rate in the simulation without the addition
of the wheel-sliding way friction coefcient. It results in a little error;
thus, the model should be modied. The specic methods are
keeping the drop height at 410 mm and setting the acceleration of the
falling body as 9:8 
13:7%  9:44 m=s2 with the friction being

Fig. 16 Energy capacity of drop tests with 4 mm main oil hole.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2073

XUE ET AL.

Table 11 Simulation result of buffering performance

dm

ds

V0

Smax

Fz

nn

Ac

4.2 mm

2.0 mm

0.70 MPa

152.7 mm

14,226 N

4.40

3.45

0.71 s

2008 J

Table 12 Contrast between results of test and simulation with modied model
System performance

Maximum stroke of buffer (S) Maximum vertical load Fz

Simulation result
Test result
Error between results of test and simulation, %

158.2 mm
152.9 mm
3.5

taken into account. The results of the simulation with modied model
are shown in Table 11. The table shows that the error of the simulation
results is less than 8%, and so the model is sufciently accurate. The
next step for optimization can be taken.
The optimization results are listed in Table 12, which shows that
shock-absorbing performance has a further improvement. The
capacity curves shown in Fig. 17 are very similar to the test with a
main oil-hole diameter of 4.0 mm, and the curves are much better
than the initial ones.
C.

Results of Adjusting-Parameter Drop Test

The drop test has been done three times based on the
aforementioned simulation results. In the test, the drop height is
increased to 427 mm, the diameter of the main oil-hole is 4.2 mm, the
initial pressure of the air cavity is kept at 0.7 MPa, and the other

15,480 N
15,789 N
2.2

Energy absorption of system (Ac )

2014 J
1841 J
9.4

parameters are kept the same. Attention should be paid in the test;
before each test, the landing gear should be hung in the air for more
than half an hour to ensure that the oil and gas are separated
adequately; and the pressure in the buffer should be kept the same
during each test.
The capacity curve of the second test is shown in Fig. 18, which is
similar to the ones with the main oil-hole diameter of 4.0 mm. The
curves also present four peaks, and the buffer compressions
corresponding to the peaks are almost consistent. They are preferable
with the optimum parameters. In the capacity curve of the buffer, the
change of the load is smooth at the maximum axial force point (at the
second peak). In the capacity curve of the system, the change of
the vertical load is smooth at the second and third uctuation. The test
results with optimum parameters are recorded, which are shown in
Table 13.

Fig. 17 Energy absorption of drop tests with 4.2 mm main oil hole.

Fig. 18 Energy absorption with optimal parameters.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

2074

XUE ET AL.

Table 13 Test results with optimum parameters

Serial number

Item

First

Second

Third

Average value

1
2
3
4
5

Stroke of buffer (S), mm

Vertical load Fz , N
Energy absorbed in system (Ac ), J
Efciency of buffer
Efciency of system

155.6
15,283
1964
70.7
55.3

157.6
15,324
2013
69.2
59

155.2
15,522
1972
64
55.3

156.1
15,309
1983
67.9
56.5

Table 14 Drop parameters for the limited drop test

Drop height

Theoretical drop weight

Theoretical drop work

Rolling speed

0.4108 m

325.0 kg

1967 N m

1366.5 rpm

Table 15 Result of the limited drop test

Stroke of
buffer, mm
152.9
155.8
158.0

Vertical
load, N

Vertical load
factor

15,789
14,996
16,766

3.9
3.6
4.1

Testing
capacity, J
1841
1985
1884

Error of
capacity, %
6:4
0.9
4:2

Efciency
of buffer, %
64.6
69.2
64.0

Efciency
of system, %

Friction coefcient
of platform

51.8
59.0
55.3

0.62
0.71
0.55

Fig. 19 Energy capacity of the drop test.

Fig. 20 Energy capacity of the reserve-energy absorption drop test.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
2075

XUE ET AL.

Table 16 Drop parameters for the reserve-energy absorption drop test

Drop height

Theoretical drop weight

Theoretical drop work

Rolling speed

0.5916 m

305.1 kg

2427 N m

0 rpm

Table 17 Result of the reserve-energy absorption drop test

Stroke of buffer, mm

Vertical load, N

Vertical load factor

Testing capacity, J

Error of capacity, %

Efciency of buffer, %

Efciency of system, %

153.0
153.6

18,897
19,135

4.60
4.67

2442
2373

0.6
2:2

71.3
71.2

58.4
59.8

IV.

Limited Drop Test

According to the certication of airworthiness, drop parameters

for the limited drop test of the Seagull 300 are shown in Table 14.
After the drop test is repeated three times, the test data are collected
comprehensively. The result is shown in Table 15. Analysis suggests
that consistency of the result is relatively superior. The drop test is
accomplished.
The limited drop test has been repeated three times for the
HO300 nose landing gear. The buffers capacity and the systems
capacity of the limited drop test are shown in Fig. 19. FZ is the
vertical load, and FX is the horizontal load. As can be seen from the
buffers capacity of the limited drop test, the axial load of the buffer
has a similar trend in the repeated tests. The peak exists four times
in the rst compression, and the maximum value exists at the
second peak, which is about 70 mm off the stroke. The maximum
peak is caused by the increase of the buffer-damping force. From
the systems capacity of the limited drop test, we can also nd the
similarities. With the declining of the center of gravity, the
maximum vertical load exists at the second peak, which is caused
by the increase of the buffers axial force. The experimental results
agree with the expected results of the theoretical analysis, which
satises the airworthiness requirements.
The sample is examined after the test, and there is no permanent
plastic deformation. This result indicates the strength of the landing
gear meets the design requirements. As can be seen from Fig. 20, the
consistency of the three tests is rather high. The following conditions
are all satised: the buffer efciency is more than 60%, and the
system efciency is more than 50%. The limited drop test meets the
airworthiness standards, the experimental results meet the design
requirements, and the limited drop test gets through the airworthiness
certication.

V. Reserve-Energy Absorption Drop Test

The reserve-energy absorption drop test has been repeated two
times for the Seagull 300 nose landing gear. The buffers capacity and
the systems capacity of the reserve-energy absorption drop test are
shown in Fig. 20. As can be seen from the buffers capacity of the
reserve-energy absorption drop test, the axial load of the buffer has
similar trends in the repeated tests. The peak exists three times in the
rst compression, and the maximum value exists at the rst peak,
which is about 80 mm off the stroke. The maximum peak is caused by
the increase of the buffer-damping force. From the systems capacity
of the reserve-energy absorption drop test, we can also nd the
similarities. With the declining of the center of gravity, the maximum
vertical load exists at the rst peak, which is caused by the increase of
the buffers axial force. This result indicates the strength of the
landing gear meets the design requirements, and the consistency of
the three tests is rather high. The following conditions are satised:
the buffer efciency is more than 65%, and the system efciency is
more than 55%. The systems capacity of the reserve-energy
absorption drop test satises the airworthiness requirements. Drop
parameters for the reserve-energy absorption drop test of Seagull 300
are shown in Table 16. After the drop test is repeated twice, the test
data are collected comprehensively. The result is shown in Table 17.
Analysis suggests that consistency of the result is relatively superior.

According to the relative provisions of airworthiness, the censors

review the test materials and the test equipment calibration certicate
as well as the test personnel qualications certicate and examine the
test pieces and the manufacturing compliance of the test equipments.
The aforementioned items all satisfy the airworthiness requirement.
The installation of the test pieces is examined, which meets the
requirement of the test programs. The limited drop test and the
reserve-energy absorption drop test are performed successfully, and
the whole process was witnessed. This item meets the requirement of
the test programs. The test records are checked, and it is complete.
The test data-processing method is examined, and it is reasonable.
After the test, the applicants of the airworthiness test complete the
test report and submit it to the airworthiness authorities. Then, we get
the conclusion: the airworthiness certication test is in line with the
provisions of the ordinance, and the test results meet the design
requirements. The airworthiness certication for the drop test of the
HO300 nose landing gear is approved on 11 July 2011.

VI.

Conclusions

A drop-test rig is developed for the landing gear of a light

multifunctional amphibious airplane based on its drop-test
specications. The system can realize accurate measurement and
conduct the light-aircraft drop test with high-speed belt turn.
Simultaneously, several key technologies including the schematic
design of the light-aircraft drop test, the control-system design for the
drop test, high-speed turn of the wheel, accurate lifting of the drop
system, design of the measuring platform, and imitation of the
runway have been accomplished. The test shows that the test system
is secure and reliable, which can be applied for the landing-gear droptest of other light airplanes.
According to the requirement of China Civil Aviation Regulations
Order No. 132 (CCAR-23-R3) and drop-test outline for the Seagull
300 light multifunctional amphibious airplane, the adjustingparameter drop test, limited drop test, and the reserve-energy
absorption drop test of the nose landing gear are accomplished. The
drop test with initial parameters is executed on the base of the droptest system, and the uncertain parameters including the initial shockabsorbing performance and friction coefcient are obtained in the
simulation. The adjusting-parameter process will not stop being
repeated until we get the optimal parameters. Finally, we obtain the
buffer-parameters conguration that meets the design requirements.
The optimized conguration parameters of the buffer are adjusted as
follows: enlarging the main oil hole from 2.6 to 4.2 mm, enlarging the
one-way hole from 1.8 to 2.0 mm, and enlarging the initial pressure
from 6.0 to 7.0 MPa. All testing results show that the limit load is
lower than the design load and the landing gear could bear the
reserve-energy absorption drop test. Moreover, the test results can be
used as the certicate of the airworthiness for this airplane.

Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the operating expenses of basic
scientic research project (number NS2012081) and the Foundation
of Graduate Innovation Center (number KFJJ20110201) in Nanjing
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

2076

XUE ET AL.

References
[1] Franz, M., Theoretical and Experimental Principles of Landing Gear
Research and Development, Luftfahrtforschung, Vol. 14, No. 8, 1937,
pp. 387416.
[2] Fliigge, W., Landing Gear Impact, NACA TN 2743, Washington,
D.C., 1952.
[3] Milwitzky, B., and Cook, F. E., Analysis of Landing-Gear Behavior,
NASA TR 1154, 1952.
[4] Garba, J. A., A Comparison of Some Predicted and Measured
Variables for a Full-Scale Surveyor Drop Test, NASA Rept. 32-1084,
March 1967.
[5] Daughetee, C. C., Drop Testing Naval Aircraft and the VSD Landing
Gear Dynamic Test Facility, 15th ASME, and SAE, Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Las Vegas, NV, AIAA
Paper 1974-343, April 1974.
[6] Ross, I., Flightworthy Active Control Landing Gear for a Supersonic
Aircraft, NASA CR 3298, 1980.
[7] Ross, I., and Edson, R., An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Aircraft Landing Gear, NASA CR 3113, 1979.
[8] Ross, I., and Edson, R., An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Landing Gear for the F-4 Aircraft, NASA CR 3552,
1982.
[9] Ross, I., and Edson, R., An Electronic Control for an Electrohydraulic
Active Control Landing Gear for the F-4 Aircraft[R], NASA CR 3552,
1982.
[10] Ross, I., and Edson, R., Application of Active Control Landing Gear
Technology to the A-10 Aircraft, NASA CR 166104, 1982.
[11] Bender, E. K., Berkman, E. F., and Bieber, M., A Feasibility Study of
Active Landing Gear, U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory TR
70-126, 1971.
[12] Corsetti, C. D., and Dillow, J. D., A Study of the Practicability of
Active Vibration Isolation Applied to Aircraft During the Taxi
Condition, U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory TR 71-159,
1972.
[13] Wignot, J. E., Durup, P. C., and Gamon, M. A., Design Formulation
and Analysis of An Active Landing Gear, U.S. Air Force Flight
Dynamics Laboratory TR 71-80, 1971.
[14] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., A Mathematical Model of an
Active Control Landing Gear for Load Control During Impact and RollOut, NASA TN D-8080, 1976.
[15] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., Improved Aircraft Dynamic
Response and Fatigue Life During Ground Operations Using an Active
Control Landing Gear System, AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology
Conference, Los Angeles, AIAA Paper 1978-1499, Aug. 1978.
[16] McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., Analytical Investigation of the

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

Landing Dynamics of a Large Airplane with a Load-Control System in

the Main Landing Gear, NASA TP 1555, 1979.
McGehee, J. R., and Carden, H. D., Experimental Investigation of
Active Loads Control for Aircraft Landing Gear, NASA TP 2042,
1982.
Howell, W., McGehee, J. R., Daugherty, R. H., and Vogler, W. A.,
F-106B Airplane Active Control Landing Gear Drop Test Performance, NASA TM 102741, 1990.
Howell, W., and McGehee, J. R., Landing Gear Drop Testing,
Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 11, June 1991, pp. 4244.
Underwood, M. A., A System Drop Test of the Huygens Probe, 14th
AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference, San
Francisco, AIAA Paper 1997-1429, June 1997.
Daniels, J. N., A Method for Landing Gear Modeling and Simulation
with Experimental Validation, NASA CR 201601, 1996.
Horta, L. G., Daugherty, R. H., and Martinson, V. J., Modeling and
Validation of a Navy A6-Intruder Actively Controlled Landing Gear
System, NASA TP 1999-209124, 1999.
Wang, X., and Udo, C., Fuzzy Control of Aircraft Semi-Active
Landing Gear System, 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1999-265, Jan. 1999.
Ghiringhelli, G. L., Testing of Semi-Active Landing Gear Control for a
General Aviation Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2000,
pp. 606615.
doi:10.2514/2.2672
Ghiringhelli, G. L.,Gualdi, S., Evaluation of a landing gear semi-active
control system for complete aircraft landing, Aerotecnica Missili e
Spazio, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2004, pp. 2131.
Adams, D. S., Mars Exploration Rover Airbag Landing Loads Testing
and Analysis, 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA,
AIAA Paper 2004-1795, April 2004.
Lernbeiss, R., and Plch, M., Simulation Model of an Aircraft Landing
Gear Considering Elastic Properties of the Shock Absorber,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part K,
Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics, 221, No. 1, 2007, pp. 7886.
Kong, J. P., Lee, Y. S., Han, J. D., and Ahn, O. S., Drop Impact
Analysis of Smart Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (SUAV) Landing Gear and
Comparison with Experimental Data, Materialwissenschaft und
Werkstofftechnik, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 192197.
doi:10.1002/mawe.200900426
Xue, C.-J., Qi, W.-G., and Nie, H., Test and Control System
Development and Application of a Landing Gear Drop Test Rig,
Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Vol. 28, No. 2, 2011, pp. 145151.