Source: http://autodocbox.com/Trucks_and_Accessories/73521620-Dot-fa78wa-4198-unlsi7ed-faa-na-nl.html
Timestamp: 2019-03-24 10:47:39
Document Index: 760605640

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 31', 'ART 30', 'ART 50', 'ART 31', 'ART 10', 'ART 16', 'ART 30', 'ART 76', 'ART 26', 'ART 300', 'ART 19', 'ART 25', 'ART 31', 'ART 31', 'ART 7', 'ART 172', 'ART 13', 'ART 16', 'ART 22', 'ART 12']

DOT-FA78WA-4198 UNLSI7ED FAA-NA NL - PDF
DOT-FA78WA-4198 UNLSI7ED FAA-NA NL
Download "DOT-FA78WA-4198 UNLSI7ED FAA-NA NL"
Kelly Kenneth Hicks
1 "A-A8 $64 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO LONG BEACH CA PIG/ 1/2 GG EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF TOWING DC-9 TRANSPORT AIRPLANES AT -ETC(U) MAY G0 E A HOOVER DOT-FA78WA-4198 UNLSI7ED FAA-NA NL
2 Report No. FAA-NA-8O-23 <LY EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF TOWING DC-9 TRANSPORT AIRPLANES AT BOSTON-LOGAN AIRPORT E. A. Hoover 0Douglas Aircraft Company 0Long Beach, California * * DTIC ELECTE 11 ', ;.,.-,.JUL FINAL REPORT198 MAY 1980 B DncLrment ), a -. -ib ' f t0 tie U S. pubic through the Nat onj T, r,ca, h -nrrmatior Ser\ice, St 1' o c: q~nii a ,...~ - r') C 2 TAINKD A,4[ Prepared for*,.e yg.._... "" U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION AOMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER $ Atlantic City, New Jersey
3 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The report treats only the safety aspect of the impact of towing on aircraft nose gear structures. Additional activities being conducted by the Office of Aviation Policy and International Affairs address other safety and economics aspects of the problem. Hence, this report does not constitute a final agency decision on the proposed Airplane Towing Program at Boston-Logan Airport.
4 DISCLAIMER NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
5 J.. 'Technical Report Documentation 1P 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession Recipient's Catlog Tt~e~gflj~4e...Transpo...Ma... -'Evaluation of the Impact of Towing DC-9Transpr Airplanes at Boston-Logan Airport, [ 6. Perfor ng Organization Code oover 8. Performing Oganization Report No. 9. Performing Organisation Name and Addres 10o Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Douglas Aircraft Co _ Menentwil _ Douglas Corporation 3865 Lakewood Boulevard DOT-FA78A-41g8' Long Beach, Cal4fet4e Typo of Repor and Period Covered Department of Transportation J) F na- ' 12. Sponsoring Agency Namo and Address "SepfA f78, Vct,79 Federal Washin,,.J)n, Aviation D. C. Administration I.: Sp;.6.;so Aincta,... ' 15. Supplementary Notes 16l lbstroct his report summarizes an investigation to determine the impact of the proposed revisions to airport rules at Boston-Logan International Airport regarding ground movement of aircraft by towing in lieu of taxiing as it affects the fatigue life of the DC-9 aircraft. Tests were conducted using an instrumented tow bar to determine the range of loads which could be expected to occur in service. These loads were then incorporated into a loads model which represents the Boston-Logan towing regime. This loads model was then utilized to perform analysis on the DC-9 nose landing gear and its support structure to determine the fatigue effects. Cost estimates of additional testing, inspection and replacement of affected parts is provided. The results of this investigation indicate that several nose landing gear components could be seriously affected depending upon the degree of exposure to the additional towing at Boston and the number of flights already accumulated by the part at the time the additional towing is initiated at Boston. The immediate effect on these components could be minimized by a redistribution of aircraft within the airline fleet to reduce the exposure of high-time parts to the Boston towing regime. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Towing - Aircraft This document is available to the U. S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia Security Cleseif. (of this reort) 20. Security Closef. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 128 Fern DOT F (-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized C,.4 -
6 PREFACE This study was conducted by and report prepared by the Douglas Aircraft Company, a Division of McDonnell Douglas Corporation, under a contract for the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation. Technical monitors for the Federal Aviation Administration were Mr. H. V. Spicer and Mr. V. G. Sanborn. Acknowledgement is made to Eastern Airlines Personnel for their assistance during observations of operations at Boston-Logan Airport. ACCESSION for.* JUSTIICATION - NTIS White Section DDC Buff Secto (3 UNA1NNOLCEO 0 * By- OISBTNUTION/AVAILAOIO W Dst. A AL and/ o r M -,i i. ' ' : -.
7 igatin a A 0' 0. a'ss - eon 61ef it i -I -. P. -c iici -i -2 Lo I 0
8 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS * TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv * LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS viii 1. INTRODUCTION II. TESTING LOADS MODELS IV. ANALYSIS LOWER DRAG BRACE UPPER DRAG BRACES PIN-END, CROSS TUBE BOLT-KNEE HINGE NUT-KNEE HINGE BOLT-SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE HOUSING PISTON-AXLE ASSEMBLY SUPPORT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS - SUMMARY V. OPTIONS OPTION 1 - AIRCRAFT ASSIGNMENTS OPTION 2 - REMOVE, INSPECT AND/OR REPLACE OPTION 3-TSS OPTION 4 -ALTERNATIVE TOWING a) POWERED MAIN LANDING GEAR (INTEGRAL SYSTEM) b) POWERED MAIN LANDING GEAR (GROUND VEHICLE SYSTEM) c) POWERED NOSE LANDING GEAR d) STEERING TOW BAR
9 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued PAGE e) TOW BAR f) PARTIAL LIFT TRACTORS g) COORDINATED BRAKING h) SUMMARY VI. CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A Al APPENDIX B Bl APPENDIX C Cl APPENDIX D Dl FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES 1 PROPOSED TOWING AREA AT BOSTON-LOGAN AIRPORT TOWING TEST AREA AT LONG BEACH NORMAL TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT MODERATE TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT HARD TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT VARIATION OF DRAG BRACE AXIAL LOAD VERSUS TURNING ANGLE FOR A CONSTANT TOW LOAD NOSE LANDING GEAR HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES LOWER DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , LOWER DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , LOWER DRAG BRACE DC-9.SERIES 50 PART NO , LOWER DRAG BRACE iv
10 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE PAGE 15 UPPER DRAG BRACE DC-9.SERIES 10 PART NO , UPPER DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , UPPER DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , UPPER DRAG BRACE PIN-END, CROSS TUBE DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , PIN-END, CROSS-TUBE DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , PIN-END, CROSS-TUBE DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , PIN-END, CROSS-TUBE KNEE HINGE DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE BOLT, SHOULDER - DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO BOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO BOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO BOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE HOUSING DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO AND PART NO , HOUSING DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO AND PART NO , HOUSING DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , HOUSING Bl DC-9 NOSE LANDING GEAR B-2 12 TOWING OVER GATE TRACKS (ROUGH SURFACE)... B-3 B3 TYPICAL TURNING MANEUVER B-4 B4 NOSE GEAR ANGLE DURING TYPICAL TURNING MANEUVER B-5 B5 TOWING ON WET SURFACE B-6 B6 TOWING OVER "BUMP" B-7 87 NORMAL FORWARD TOW B-8 B8 NORMAL AFT TOW B-8 89 FORWARD HARD JERK TO MODERATE SPEED B-9 LV
11 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 810 PUSH AFT WITH MODERATE TO HARD JERKS B-9 Bil MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING STOP FROM MODERATE SPEED B-10 B12 LIGHT TO MODERATE BRAKING STOP B13 TOW OVER ROUGH SURFACE B-1l 814 TOW OVER TAXIWAY, RUNWAY INTERSECTION B-11 B15 ACCELERATE TO 8 KTS, THEN MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING B16. FORWARD TOW TO SLOW SPEED THEN TO SLOW STOP B-12 B17 MODERAT E TO HARD JERK START B18 ACCELERATE WITH LIGHT TO MODERATE JERK B-13 B19 NORMAL FORWARD TOW THEN LEFT TURN B-14 B20 TOW FORWARD AT SLOW SPEED B NORMAL STOP FROM 7 KTS LEFT TURN B23 FORWARD TOW, NORMAL ACCELERATE TO 12 KTS CONTINUATION OF FIGURE B23, STOP WITH LIGHT BRAKING B25 PUSH AFT, MODERATE HARD JERK B FORWARD TOW MODERATE JERK TO SLOW SPEED THEN HARD BRAKING B26A FIGURE B26 WITH EXPANDED TIME SCALE B27 WET TAXIWAY, NORMAL PUSHBACK SLOW SPEED WET TAXIWAY, MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING TO A STOP FROM 12 KTS B28A FIGURE 828 WITH EXPANDED TIME SCALE PUSH DOWN SLOPE WITH HARD BRAKING TO STOP, THEN PULL UP SLOPE STOP GOING DOWN, PULL DOWN, STOP, PUSH UP PUSH UP SLOPE AND STOP PULL UP SLOPE AND STOP PUSH DOWN SLOPE, STOP THEN PULL UP AND START TURN PULL DOWN SLOPE, STOP AND THEN PUSH UP PUSH UP AND STOP PULL DOWN SLOPE AND STOP B-23 B37 PAGE PUSH AFT, NOSE GEAR OVER BOARD THEN PULL FORWARD NOSE GEAR CVER BOARD r vi
12 j I I LIST OF FIGURES - Continued I SFIGURE PAGE B38 PULL FORWARD OVER BOARD BOTH NOSE AND MAIN GEAR AT SLOW SPEED B-24 B39 PUSH AFT MAIN GEAR OVER BOARD THEN SLOW SPEED UNTIL NOSE GEAR PASSES BOARD B-25 B40 PULL FORWARD OVER BOARDS AT MODERATE SPEED THEN STOP B-25 B41 PULL FORWARD NOSE GEAR OVER BOARD B-26 B42 PULL FORWARD MAIN GEAR OVER BOARD B-26 TABLE LIST OF TABLES 1 DC-9 SERIES 10 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR DC-9 SERIES 30 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR DC-9 SERIES 50 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR DC-9 SERIES 10 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS DC-9 SERIES 30 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS DC-9 SERIES 50 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS LABOR AND MATERIAL COSTS PER AIRCRAFT (REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH NEW PART) LABOR AND MATERIALS COST PER AIRCRAFT - INSPECTION (REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH ORIGINAL PART) vii
13 LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS AF N-A Load condition "A", maximum load level, normal aft towing AT N-A Load condition "A", minimum load level, normal aft towing BF N-F Load condition "B", minimum load level, normal forward towing BT N-F Load condition "B", maximum load level, normal forward towing CF M-A Load condition "C", maximum load level, moderate aft towing CT M-A Load condition "C", minimum load level, moderate aft towing DF M-F Load condition "D", minimum load level, moderate forward towing DT M-F Load condition "D", maximum load level, moderate forward towing EFl H-A Load condition "E", maximum load level, hard aft towing EF2 H-A Load condition "E", minimum load level, hard aft towing EF3 H-A Load condition "E", maximum load level, hard aft towing ET H-A Load condition "E", minimum load level, hard aft towing FFI H-F Load condition "F", minimum load level 1, hard forward towing FF2 H-F Load condition "F", minimum load level 2, hard forward towing FT H-F Load condition "F", maximum load level, hard forward towing KF MAC PSI Factor applied to the calculated stress level in order to produce cumulative damage of unity for a given number of flights Mean aerodynamic chord Pounds per square inch viii
14 INTRODUCTION The Massachusetts Port Authority has proposed airport rules and regulations in response to petitions to reduce noise. (Ref. Appendix A) In these rules, prohibitions on self-propelled aircraft operating movements are mandated within the south and southwest terminal apron and taxiway area as indicated in figure 1. Compliance with these regulations is proposed by the operational towing of arriving and departing aircraft within the designated areas. On the surface, one logical solution would seem to be to have aircraft towed in lieu of operating under their own power. These additional towinq operations could, however, induce severe fatigue related problems for the nose gear and its supporting structure. The purpose of this report is to investigate the effect of the additional towinq, as proposed at Boston-Logan, as it concerns the Douglas DC-9 and make recommendations which will ensure safe operation of the DC-9 aircraft. It is important to recognize that the DC-9 was originally designed as a small maneuverable transport which would require very little ground supnort equipment. As a consequence the DC-9 was considered to be an airplane which would not reauire extensive towing. For this reason, a complete study of the effects of additional towing, such as Proposed at Boston-Loaan, is considered essential to ensure the safety of DC-9 operations. This report determines the effects on the fatinue life of the DC-9 nose landina gear and sunporting structure resultinq from operational towina such as proposed at Boston-Logan International Airport. This report provides for incorporating the "ivitional loading cycles due to towino operations, as proposed at Boston-Luoan, into an overall loads model which describe the towinq environment of the DC-9. Recommendations are made, as to structural modifications, inspections, maintenance or operating procedures and limitations which can reasonably be instituted to ensure the safety of the DC-9 subjected to the proposed towing operations. k '1 LL, '.' :'w." ,.- : ,,..
15 C YORK 4.1 4L PARKING HEARING 1 r- i /.%"ACl I NATI M10-L TERMINAL OPCAs ME GATES ITII)~.AKGO~~~~ & PRON 40LA \ II~'O :AC IIT / A OA FAR r7r. - CA -- A ~ 0tAlCVD-2 AE P*TOWI. AI.I.SJVO J ME- AAI'OVLO'EYAi An. 1. TE
16 Measurement of tow loads were made in order to obtain parametric data which can be applied to any towing operation at any airport. Observations of powered operations at Boston-Loqan were conducted in order to provide data on typical aircraft maneuvers. Towing loads were measured under a variety of conditions in order to provide a range of tow loads which could be expected to occur in service. I Loads models were considered for three operational modes. These models represent towing during various time periods. The differences in the models used in the original design and the new loads models are discussed. The loads models are then used to determine the fatigue critical structural components and analyses are carried out in order to provide reconmmendations as to the options available to ensure safe operation of the DC-9. Special consideration is given to new and inovative concepts in tow vehicles and tow bars and the economic impact of the available options is provided. 3
17 TESTING In order to conduct a meaningful test program, observations of operations I' at Boston-Logan International Airport were conducted. These observations were accomplished on November 19, 20 and 21, Included in the observations were typical push-out maneuvers, distance required to taxi, turns, and towing for maintenance purposes. Most of the observations were conducted at the Eastern Airlines Terminal. Eastern Airlines was extremely cooperative II in permitting observations. Informal discussions were held with maintenance personnel in order to gain a feel for actual towing procedures. During several towing operations Douglas Engineers accompanied Eastern Airlines personnel in order to gain first hand knowledge of towing procedures. In I addition to observing the existing towing procedures particular attention was given to the additional towing which would be required to perform the maneuvers now conducted under power. In this same context congestion was studied at various times of the day in order to determine the typical number of starts and stops which would be required during towing in the designated area. All testing to obtain towing loads was accomplished at Long Beach Municipal Airport and the Douglas Aircraft Facility, Long Beach, California as indicated in Figure 2. The testing was accomplished using a DC-9 Series 40 aircraft at a gross weight of 100,000 lbs and a center of gravity position of 9% MAC. The aircraft weight and center of gravity position was not varied during the test. Since the tow force required to push or pull the aircraft is directly related to the coefficient of friction at the tire ground interface, the tow force is considered to be directly proportional to the aircraft gross weight. The variation in aircraft center of gravity would merely redistribute the aircraft weight between the main and nose gears but would not affect the overall tire ground interface. The tow vehicle was a United Shop Mule weighing 22,380 lb with a rated constant pulling power of 16,200 lb. The vehicle is equipped with two forward and two reverse speeds. The transmission is a fluid drive with manual shift to the higher speed range. This tow vehicle is more than adequate for towing the DC-9 and has sufficient power to tow the DC-9 at speeds up to 15 knots. 4
18 31 l 1 V/ ~ a 0., 0 40/ Lu I -O) 1VO V AA3 L4JSV,O~l-,rCOS " I/ A -%, *ll t3'4r7. S - Adb3HD~9L VA _- I a ILI I, c0 Cn o -"NOW, f! en U." Z
19 Commnunications were maintained between the tow vehicle and aircraft crew. The aircraft crew did not apply aircraft brakes at any time during the test. Application of aircraft brakes during towing is extremely hazardous and is to be considered only in extreme circumstances. Serious damage could be incurred by the nose gear due to aircraft braking and therefore braking ty' the aircraft crew was ruled out as a test variable. 'It The aircraft was considered to be in the normal serviced condition with tire pressures and landing gear servicing as required by the maintenance manual. Normal variations in tire pressures and landing gear strut extensions are not considered significant enough to affect the test results. The weather conditions on the day of the test were generally overcast with I partial clearing in the afternoon. The temperature was in the low 60's and the winds were light. Winds of moderate force are not considered to significantly affect towing loads for the DC-9. Winds of considerable force are accoi~nted for during the development of the loads models. The tow bar used during testing was of a rigid type. This type tow bar is essentially the same as currently in use by Eastern Airlines at Boston- Logan. There are currently no tow bars available for the DC-9 which incorporate a shock absorbing device. An aluminum insert for the tow bar was designed and manufactured in order to obtain the necessary sensitivity for the strain gage installation. The insert was instrumented to record axial load and side bending in the tow bar. In addition, the steering angle of the nose gear was recorded during the test. The ground speed as indicated by the inertial navigation system was noted during testing by the flight test engineer. The data was recorded on board by a six channel pen recorder for real time data acquisition in order to provide information necessary to alter the test procedure should a potential damaging condition occur. In addition, 6
20 the data was recorded continuously by means of a wide band one-inch tape recorder. The tape recorded data was then processed at the Douglas Long Beach Facility using the computing and graphic display capabilities of the Douglas Flight Data Center. The Flight Data Center is equipped with a XDS Sigma 7 digital computer, five Sanders ADD/960 graphic data display stations and the necessary peripheral equipment. All towing was conducted on asphalt surfaces. Both wet and dry surfaces were investigated. Dry tests were accomplished using taxiways A, B, D and the apron area of the Douglas Aircraft Facility as indicated in Figure 2. The wet tests utilized taxiway K and the Douglas apron. Long Beach airport taxiways A, B, D and K are essentially level. The Douglas apron is also level except for a portion directly in front of Building No. 41. This area was used to investigate towing on slopes. The slope in this area varies to 1.75% with an average slope of approximately 1.25% in the area used for testing. The towing tests were conducted under a variety of conditions. The aircraft was towed over the gate tracks which enclose the Douglas Aircraft Facility to provide data for towing over a "rough" surface. Runway and taxiway intersections were traversed. The aircraft was pushed back with varying degrees of force from light to hard. Forward towing was accomplished with light to hard jerks. Light to heavy tow vehicle braking from speeds of up to 14 knots was investigated. All tow vehicle braking and jerking maneuvwrs were repeated on wet asphalt. Towing on a sloping surface was investigated utilizing the area immediately in front of Building 41 of the Douglas Aircraft Facility as previously mentioned. Various maneuvers of pull-up, push-down, push-up and pull-down were accomplished on both wet and dry asphalt. In order to simulate apron and taxiway surfaces which become ice and snow covered forming bumps and ruts, the aircraft was towed over one-inch thick 7 OVA 0 a
21 j plywood sheets. The simulated bumps were not intended in any way to simulate the friction characteristics of ice and snow but merely to provide data as to the towing loads required to pull or push the aircraft out of a rut or over a thick patch of ice or snow. The boards were placed directly behind the nose gear and alternately the main gear and the loads required to push the aircraft over the "bump" recorded. Similarly the boards were placed in front of the nose and main gears and the aircraft pulled over the boards. Loads required to tow the aircraft over the bumps at slow and moderate speeds were also recorded. The results of the towing tests indicated that the only significant loads occurred during starting and stopping. Steady state towing produced tow bar leads of one to three percent of the aircraft gross weight. No significant increase in this steady state load occurred during towing over I runway and taxiway intersections. Towing over a "rough" surface produced loads equal to or less than those experienced during normal pull out or push-in maneuvers. Peak loads during normal push-out and pull-in maneuvers were on the order of five percent of the aircraft gross weight. Moderate braking by the tow vehicle produced loads of approximately eight percent of the aircraft gross weight. Heavy tow vehicle braking resulted in loads of twelve percent of the aircraft gross weight and in some cases higher loads were recorded. Little difference was noted between loads recorded on wet and dry surfaces. Towing loads required during maneuvers conducted on a sloping surface were generally seven percent of aircraft gross weight as opposed to five percent of aircraft gross weight on a level surface. Appendix B contains time history plots of the loads encountered during the various towing maneuvers conducted. 8
22 LOADS MODELS Three loads models were investigated. One model depicts 24 hour per day hours per day towing from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM in the designated areas and the third model depicts one one-way tow per day from midnight to 6:00 AM. I Careful consideration was given to the three loads models presented and one loads model was selected which in effect includes all three. Current schedules of Eastern and Allegheney Airlines indicate that no DC-9 operations are conducted between the hours of midnight and 6:00 AM. This in effect, eliminates one loads model. The number of DC-9 operations between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM is approximately 20% of all DC-9 operations by Eastern and Allegheny during a typical day. Beyond these considerations the need to develop specific loads models for specific aircraft during specific times of the day does not appear to be a viable approach. Since the aircraft in question fly to other airports where extensive towing is not required a more logical approach would seem to be to develop a loads model which would provide the load environment experienced by a particular aircraft based upon the percent of time that aircraft is required to be towed at Boston. That is to say if an aircraft flies into Boston every fourth flight it would accrue half the fatigue damage associated with the Boston towing regime as an aircraft which flies into Boston every second flight (i.e. shuttle aircraft). Aircraft which arrive and depart Boston during hours in which towing is not required would be considered as not operating at Boston. Using this approach, it is relatively easy to determine the effect of the Boston towing requirement on the fatigue life of nose landing gear components not based upon the various time periods in which towing is required but merely on whether or not the aircraft in question operates at Boston during those time periods. This in effect provides one loads model which includes all three. All that is of concern is the loads associated with
23 F7 the Boston towing and the number of occurrences of these loads for a particular aircraft. The number of occurrences would only depend on whether the aircraft is operated at Boston during the hours in which towing is required. The actual loads used in the model are developed from those recorded during the towing tests. describe the various maneuvers. The terms "normal", 'moderate" and "hard" are used to "Normal' maneuvers are those which are considered to occur under good weather conditions and in which no abrupt maneuvers are performed. These maneuvers would be perceived as normal by passengers in the cabin. "Moderate" maneuvers are those maneuvers which occur during marginal weather conditions and include maneuvers in which inadvertent stops are made. These maneuvers would be perceived as "different or unusual" ty passengers in the cabin. "Hard" maneuvers are those maneuvers which occur during adverse weather conditiors in which control of the aircraft is difficult to maintain or situat ins in which evasive or abrupt action by the tow operator is required. perceived by the passengers in the cabin as objectionable. These maneuvers would be In order to establish the percent of time each load regime, i.e., "normal", "moderate", or "hard" would be considered, consideration was given to the degree in which the maneuver would be felt in the cabin. To more fully appreciate the terms "normial", "moderate" and "hard", other ground maneuvers such as landing, braking and turning were investigated. It was discovered that on the average, maneuvers judged to be "normal" occurred 80 of the time, "moderate" maneuvers occurred 17% of the time and "hard" maneuvers occurred 3'. of the time. addition, an investigation of weather conditions at boston, (Appendix C) indicate adverse weather conditions (snow, ice, high winds, etc.) occur about 3% of the time. These two iter~s correlate well. It was therefore decided that the Boston towing loads model wkuuld consider "normal" loads for 80% of the time, "moderate' loads 17 of the tiwe and 'hard" loads 3% of the time. In During the observations at Boston-Logan it was noted that during day to day push back operations it was not uncomm~on to stop before the push back was 10
24 complete. This additional stop was required due to congestion and vehicular traffic. In effect, two tow cycles are occuring on some push-back maneuvers currently. Extensive observation of operations over a three day period at Boston-Logan concluded that a typical tow-out maneuver would require three start-stop cycles and a typical tow-in maneuver would require two start-stop cycles in the area in which towing would be required. Therefore the loads model considered for Boston-Logan towing consists of axial tow bar loads of 5% of aircraft gross weight occurring 80% of the time, loads of 8% of aircraft gross weight occurring 17% of the time and loads of 12% of aircraft gross weight occurring 3% of the time as indicated in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Figure 5 indicates an extra load reversal for the hard maneuvers. It was discovered during the towing tests that an extra load reversal occurred nearly every time a hard maneuver was conducted. For this reason the additional load reversal is included in the "hard" condition. The loads considered thus far have only been axial tow bar loads. Loads associated with side bending of the tow bar are considered also. Reference is made to excerpts from the DC-9 maintenance manual, (Appendix D, Paragraph C) in which specific mention is made of placing the nose wheel steering bypass valve in the bypass position, making nose gear steering inoperative. It is essential that this be accomplished in order to avoid overloading the nose gear by torque loads. With the bypass valve in the bypass position the nose gear is free to swivel. Side loads input by the tow vehicle simply steer the nose gear with the only reaction being the tire-ground interface. Side loads at the tow vehicle are small while turning the aircraft as indicated in Appendix B. The largest side loads at the two vehicle occur when the tow vehicle is braking to a stop. The torque loads developed during heavy tow vshicle braking are of the same order of magnitude as those encountered during static swiveling of the nose gear. The current fatigui criteria considers static swiveling to occur once per flight and since static nose gear swiveling is less likely to occur when
25 NORMAL PUSHBACK +5% o 0-5% NORMAL FORWARD TOW +5% 0 A -5% FIGURE 3. TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT (POSITIVE DRAG LOAD AFT) 12
26 MODERATE PUSHBACK +8% 0V -8% MODERATE FORWARD TOW +8% 0-8% FIGURE 4. TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT (POSITIVE DRAG LOAD AFT) 13 r.
27 HARD PUSHBACK +12% +12% 0A -12% HARD FORWARD TOW 412% 0A 12% FIGURE 5. TOW FORCE ON NOSE GEAR AS A PERCENTAGE OF AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT (POSITIVE DRAG LOAD AFT) p.
28 towing is in effect no additional fatigue damage is considered to occur due to induced side bending. The loads throughout the nose gear structure due to the towing loads are determined by use of Douglas Computer Program G4TA. This program is capable of obtaining loads in all major nose gear components for any combination of loads input at the ground or axle. In addition the program considers gear deflections due to the loading and includes these secondary effects. The program is currently used by the Douglas Aircraft Compnay in determining loads in the nose and main gears of the DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10 aircraft. All start stop cycles are considered to occur when the nose gear is in its centered position. This is considered to be a conservative assumption since as the steering angle increases loads in the nose gear drag brace system decrease as indicated in Figure 6. * This towing loads model, thus defined, differs substantially from that used to determine life limits of DC-9 gear components submitted in the type certification data. As mentioned in the introduction, the DC-9 was designed as a small maneuverable aircraft which would not require extensive ground support equipment. For this reason the original fatigue criteria considered a tow load of 5% of the aircraft gross weight occurring every other flight. The aircraft gross weights used for each model are the same as used in the original analysis. Each DC-9 model had several mission profiles defined in the original analysis. These mission profiles consisted of a specific takeoff gross weight, C.G., payload, and landing gross weight. Towing loads were obtained for each of these profi'es. The towing condition used in the analysis was a "lumped" condition which included all the cycles of all the profiles but resulted in only one condition. The aircraft gross weight associated with this condition is used in this analysis. Only one gross weight is used for each DC-9 model even though the take-off weight is obviously higher than the landing weight. This weight is considered to be a typical weight associated with towing. The typical gross weight for the DC-9 Series 10 is considered to be lbs. The typical gross weight for the DC-9 Series 30 15
29 AXIAL LOAD -2 C DEGREES PULL FIGURE 6. VARIATION OF DRAG BRACE AXIAL LOAD VERSUS TURNING ANGLE FOR CONSTANT TOW LOAD ' I
30 is considered to be lbs and the typical gross weight for the DC-9 Series 50 is considered to be lbs. The loading conditions used in this analysis for DC-9 Series 10, Series 30 and Series 50 are indicated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The conditions represent the "normal", "moderate" and "hard" maneuvers. The vertical load applied to the nose gear is the same as used in the original analysis. The applied drag load represents the cyclic loading shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. I 17
31 TABLE 1 DC-9 SERIES 10 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR AIRCRAFT WEIGHT = 78,000 LB TYPICAL TOWING CONDITION NOSE GEAR VERTICAL LOAD =6000 LB USED TO ESTABLISH SERIES 10 STRUT EXTENSION = 2.1 IN. LIFE LIMIT DRAG LOAD VERTICAL LOAD CONDITION (LB) (LB) AF N-A AT N-A BF N-F BT N-F CF M-A CT M-A DF M-F DT M-F EF1 H-A EF2 H-A EF3 H-A ET H-A FF1 H-F FF2 H-F FT H-F
32 TABLE 2 DC-9 SERIES 30 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR AIRCRAFT WEIGHT = 90,000 LB TYPICAL TOWING CONDITION NOSE GEAR VERTICAL LOAD =8310 LB USED TO ESTABLISH SERIES 30 STRUT EXTENSION =2.2 IN. LIFE LIMIT -DRAG LOAD VERTICAL LOAD CONDITION (LB) (LB) AF N-A -4, AT N-A 4, BF N-F -4, BT N-F 4, CF M-A 7, CT M-A -7, OF M-F -7, DT M-F 7, EFI H-A 10, EF2 H-A -10, EF3 H-A 10, ET H-A -10, FF1 H-F -10, FF2 H-F -8, FT H-F 10,
33 TABLE 3 DC-9 SERIES 50 GROUND LOADS ON NOSE GEAR AIRCRAFT WEIGHT = 102,000 LB TYPICAL TOWING CONDITION NOSE GEAR VERTICAL LOAD = 7900 LB USED TO ESTABLISH SERIES 50 STRUT EXTENSION = 2.0 IN. LIFE LIMITS DRAG LOAD VERTICAL LOAD CONDITION (LB) (LB) AF N-A 5, AT N-A -5, BF N-F -5, BT N-F 5, CF M-A 8, CT M-A -8, DF M-F -8, DT M-F 8, EF1 H-A 12, EF2 H-A -12, EF3 H-A 12, ET H-A -12, FF1 H-F -12, FF2 H-F -9, FT H-F 12,
34 ANALYSIS The nose landing gear of the DC-9 consists of a piston-axle assembly, cylinder assembly, housing assembly and drag brace assembly as shown in Figure 7. The gear retracts forward into the wheel well with the drag brace assembly folding at the upper and lower tace attach point. Ground loads on the gear are reacted at the trunnion points of the housing and at the attachment of the upper drag links to the fuselage. The nose gear for all models of the DC-9 has remained essentially unchanged. Some components have been strengthened but the geometry has remained unchanged. This analysis will be concerned with the DC-9 Series 10, Series 30 and Series 50 since these are the only models currently operated by Eastern and Allegheny Airlines at Boston-Logan Airport. Of primary concern in the analysis is the drag brace structure. Drag loads at the ground or axle provide the most adverse loading for the drag brace system. The drag brace system consists of the upper and lower braces and their associated attaching hardware. Of secondary concern is the housing in the area of the lower drag brace attach, the axle and the fuselage support structure. Previous fatigue and safe life analyses indicate that these are the components adversely affected by towing loads. The safe life limits of the nose landing gear components were determined in the original type certification data by means of fatigue tests and comparative analyses. The original DC-9 Series 10 nose landing gear was fatigue tested to an equivalent of three life times (120,000 flights). Included in this test spectrum was 60,000 cycles of towing loads. loads consisted of a push-pull cycle of 5% of the aircraft gross weight These tow considered for the test. The push-pull cycle provided a complete reversal of tow bar load. Subsequent models of the DC-9 were analyzed by comparison to the original fatigue test. This technique is referred to as comparative analysis. This 21
35 BUGE SPRINGS END BEARING BUNGEE CYLINDER NOSE GEAR ACTUATING CYLINDER CRANKLEFT STEERING UPPER DRAG LINK \~ ~~ RIGHT STEERING S:DE BRACE AFT DOOR DRIVyE ARM FIGURE 7. NOSE LANDING GEAR 22
36 analysis consists of considering the test part being analyzed as having accumulated enough fatigue damage at the conclusion of the original fatigue test to cause failure. A factor hereafter referred to as KF, is determined which when multiplied by the test stress in the part for all conditions affecting the part produces a cumulative fatigue damage of unity. This procedure determines thre stress factor (K.,) to produce failure at the conclusion of the test. Miners hypothesis of cumulative damage is used in determining the fatigue damage by use of appropriate fatigue strength data. Once the factor has been determined for the test stresses it can be used for similar parts on other models of the DC-9. Applying the KF factor to the stresses associated with other models of the DC-9 and taking into account changes in section properties and material properties, life limits for other DC-q models can be established. All analysis is accomplished considering total flights and a scatter factor of three on cycles. This procedure works well in most cases, however, the KF determined sometimes turns out to be unrealistically large. In cases where the K F is larger than three the fatigue stress is calculated by traditional means and multiplied by a factor of three. A factor of three on the calculated stress is considered to be extremely conservative, however in some lightly loaded parts a factor of three on the calculated fatigue stress can be tolerated. When a life limit is determined using a factor three on stress no scatter factor on cycles is incorporated. These two methods of determining safe life limits were the only ones approved by the FAA. All DC-9 life limits currently in effect were determined by the afore mentioned techniques. In the case of the Boston towing loads model, neither of these techniques worked well for several of the parts being analyzed. In these cases a "lead the fleet" concept was adopted. This concept simply considers high time aircraft as having successfully completed a test program in the field. In the case of the DC-9 Series 10 several individual aircraft have accumulated 40,000 flights or more as shown in Figure 8. Several Series 30 aircraft have accumulated 32,000 flights or more (Figure 9) and several Series 50 aircraft have 23
37 // NUMBER 14 IOF AIRCRAFT r// b NUMBER OF LANDINGS PER AIRCRAFT (1000) FIGURE 8. HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES i,. L,.,.. *,_...,,.-.., ' eli l ~
38 I NUMBER 24 OF AIRCRAFT NUMBER OF LANDINGS PER AIRCRAFT (1000) FIGURE 9. HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES NUMBER 10 OF AIRCRAFT NUMBER OF FLIGHTS PER AIRCRAFT (1000) FIGURE 10. HIGH-TIME FLEET EXPERIENCE, DC-9 SERIES 50 25, = ',, *, -
39 accumulated 8000 flights or more (Figure 10). Considering that these high time aircraft are pushed-out from the ramp at least once per flight, and observations at Boston indicate that two start-stops occur often, and the loads experienced are the same as determined in this report then a test has been performed in the field under the loading conditions developed herein for push-back. The KF is then determined using flights for the Series 10, flights for if the Series 30 and 8000 flights for the Series 50. Once the K is determined it is applied to the loads model for the additional Boston towing. In other words, the fatigue life of the nose gear components are at least fligbts for the Series 10, flights for the Series 30 and 8000 flights for the Series 0, for the aircraft which have already experienced that number. The 40,000 flights is used for the DC-9 Series 10. Whereas 32,000 flights is used for the Series 30 and 8000 flights used for the Series 50. It is felt that enough fleet experience has been gained for the various models at these number of flights to warrant basing the future life limit on this approach. The basic assumption in this approach is thot a Series 10 aircraft which has already accumulated flights at the time towing is initiated at Boston will have the KF determined considerinj the Boston towing regime on all future flights. Since the existing fatigue criteria for the DC-9 considers total flights, are considered as push-back only, since push-back operations are assumed to have occurred, and considered in the Boston towing regime. The push-back and the Boston towing loads used are as determined by the loads wodel herein. For all conditions contribution( to the fatigue damage of the part being analyzed a KF is determined which when rultiplied by the stress in the part results in a total cumulative fatigue dama(ie ot unity tor flights. A scatter factor of three is then applied nod i life lim-it of 4Q000 flights is obtained. This procedure, in effect, uonier, a JC-3 Series 10 aircraft with flights as having no additional lite x.nail,;ie it flights is of the Bostun type. towir<j on all subsequent The KF factor determined for a Ivarticalar D( - Series 10 part is then applied to the similar Series 30 ind series 51' p,&t. 1f hcwe~er, the Series 10 KF dtf
40 32000 accumulated flights or a life limit of 8000 flights for a Series 50 with 8000 accumulated flights a new K F is developed for these models using the same procedure as the Series 10. The calculation of the KF factor is accomplished by trial and error until the required number of flights is obtained using a scatter factor of three on cycles. However at no time is the K F factor permitted to be less than 1.0. This would mean that the actual stress is less than the calculated stress. This procedure will produce a lower K F for the Series 30 and Series 50 than for the Series 10. This lower KF will not be applied to the Series 10 however. The fleet experience of each model is applied to each model. The Series 10 experience is used for the Series 10, the Series 30 experience for the Series 30 and the Series 50 experience for the Series 50. The exception to this is that the higher fleet experience of the Series 10 may be applied to the Series 10 and 30 and the higher fleet experience of the Series 30 may be applied to the Series 50. However the lesser fleet experience of the Series 50 may not be applied to the Series 10 and 30 and the lesser Series 30 experience may not be applied to the Series 10. One item which must be considered in the analysis is the accumulated fatigue damage at the time towing at Boston is initiated. An aircraft, or more properly the nose landing gear component in question, which has been experienced to thousands of flights before towing is required at Boston would have a different life limit than a new part which will experience Boston towing from the beginning. For this reason the analysis of each part is accomplished considering it new, with 8,000 flights, with 24,000 flights and with 40,000 flights. This applies for all three LIC-9 models with the exception of the Series 50 which is considered to a maximum of 20,000 flights since the high time Series 50 is on the order of 18,000 flights. This analysis provides a curve of life limit versus the number of flights on the given part at the time the additional towing is initiated at Boston. Along with this, the number of cycles applied can be adjusted to account for the percentage of time a particular aircraft, that is part, operates at Boston. These curves provide the life limits for the particular part in question considering the aircraft on which it is installed as operating every other flight out of 27
41 Boston (1/2 time), every third flight (1/3 time), every fourth flight (1/4 time) and every fifth flight (1/5 time). Therefore the final curve for any given part consists of a family of curves representing the Boston operation percentage. The life limit of a part can be determined by knowing the number of flights already accumulated by the part when towing at Boston is initiated and the percent of total operations at Boston. A curve is also provided which indicates the life limit parts would have if the Boston towing spectrum were instituted at all airports served by the aircraft. If one-way towing were instituted then the life limits for any particular part would merely shift. The curves provided consider towing inbound and outbound. If towing were instituted in one direction only the full time curve would shift to the 1/2 time curve and the 1/2 tiiie curve would shift to the 1/4 time curve. A brief description of each part considered and the analysis performed follows: 1. LOWER DRAG BRACE The lower drag brace is vade of HY-TLF steel heat treated on ultimate tensile strength of 20,000 to 240,C CG PSI and 100 shot peened. The lower drag brace transmits the load from'i the housing assembly to the upper drag braces. This part is loaded primarily by draq loads at the ground or axle. attach point at the housing assembly consists of a bolt through the single lug of the lower drag brace. The upper end of the lower drag brace consists of a clevis end (double lugs) which is attached to the upper drag braces by means The of a bolt. The lugs at either end of the lower drat brace are the fatigue critical areas. Figure 11 indicates the areas of interest. DC-9 SERIES 10 P/ Section A-A was found to be the imore critical section for the DC-9 Series 10. Existing analyses in which a cowpairativ analysir was used produced a factor which mas unrealisticl hioh. Considering a factor of three on the calculated fatigue stress p'roduced,! life limit vhich oid. nct obltain a life limit of flights for an aircraft with '40000 flights already accuiiiulated. A KF was then determined which Lroduced a life limit of fliqhts for an aircraft with flig;hts already accuiullated. The K F was determined to be This factor was tren used to calculate the life limits for the DC-9
42 B DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N DC-9 SERIES 300 P/N P/N I I = BA SECTION A-A: LOWER LUG SECTION B-B: UPPER LUG FIGURE 11. LOWER DRAG BRACE '.2 - f.2~-i
43 Series 10 lower drag brace as indicated in Figure 12 incorporating a scatter factor of three. DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N The lower drag brace for the Series 30 was strengthened over that for the Series 10 at Section A-A. The analysis indicates that Section B-B is now the critical fatigue area for the Series 30 (Ref. Figure 11). Since the part has been strengthened at Section A-A a K F = 3.0 was applied to Section B-B and the life limits calculated as shown in Figure 13 with no scatter factor applied. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N This part is the same as used on the Series 30. A K F =3.0 was used but a life limit of 8000 flights for an aircraft having already accumulated 8000 flights could not be obtained. The upper lugs (Section B-B) for this part are slightly smaller than the similar Series 10 part due to the larger bolt used in the assembly. The KF determined for the Series 10 was used by modifying it by taking into account the differences in the lug areas. The K F for the Series 50 was then determined to be 2.6. This K F was then used to calculate the life limits shown in Figure 14 incorporating a scatter factor of three. 2. UPPER DRAG BRACES The upper drag braces are made from HY-TUF steel heat treated to an ultimate tensile strength of to PSI and 1000,1 shot peened. There are two upper drag braces as indicated in Figure 7. The load from the lower drag brace is transmitted to the fuselage by weans of the two upper, drag braces. lower end of the upper drag brace has a single lug while the upper end has a lug-socket arrangement. The DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N Analysis indicates that Section C-C at the upper lug-socket is the fatigue critical area. The two methods used in the original analysis did not produce a life limit of flights for an aircraft having already accunmulated flights. This K F was determiined to be The life limits were then determined using this K F and are shown in Figure 16. The scatter factor of 30
44 LIFE LIMI 3C
45 270 _ T )3 180 T LIFE LIMIT (1000 FLIGHTS) f ' 110 'I / 0 00 A) NO Of f I louis ON PART i10001 FIGURE 13. DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , LOWER DRAG BRACE 32
46 lo f9 I7 Is LIELMI / TM T OTN 1/ IEATBSO LIGHT 60 BS LTIMEAT \
47 DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N C / / '-UPPER DRAG /, BRACE ASSEMBLY A A SECTION A-A: LUG AT OF KNEE HINGE SECTION B-B: MINIMUM CROSS SECTION OF BRACE ASSEMBLY SECTION C-C: LUG SOCKET AT OF CROSS TUBE FIGURE 15. UPPER DRAG BRACE 34
48 80 60T 05O LIF LIMIT" (100 FLIGHTS)- S 50~j NO.~~~~jp OFFIHTINPRT(00 FIGUR C SRIES 0 PAR NO ,k PPE RG RC _*t,,gn J-"- - A7SMN SOS O
49 I 3 on cycles was reduced to 2.58 for two specimens as in the original analysis. I critical DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N The analysis indicates that Section C-C at the upper lug-socket is the fatigue area. Neither the two methods used in the original analysis nor the KF determined for the Series 10 upper drag brace produced a life limit of flights for an aircraft which had already accumulated flights. Therefore a KF was determined which would produce the required flights. This KF was calculated to be The life limits were then determined using this KF as shown in Figure 17, incorporating a scatter factor of three. Icritical area. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N The analysis indicates that Section C-C at the upper lug-socket is the fatigue Neither the two methods used in the original analysis nor the KF determined for the Series 30 upper drag brace produced a life limit of 8000 flights for an aircraft which had already accumulated 8000 flights. Therefore a KF was determined which would produce the required 8000 flights. This KF was calculated to be The life limits were then determined using this KF as shown in Figure 18, incorporating a scatter factor of three. 3. PIN-END CROSS-TUBE The Pin-end is the means of attachment of the upper side brace and the cross tube to the fuselage as shown in Figure 19. The pin is manufactured from 4340 steel and heat treated to an ultimate tensile strength of to psi. DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N Section A-A as shown in Figure 19 was determined to be the fatigue critical section. Neither of the two methods used in the original analysis would produce a life limit of flights for an aircraft which had already accumulated flights. A KF of 1.05 was then determined which would produce the required flights. The analysis was then conducted using this K F and a scatter factor of 2.58 for two specimens and the life limits are shown in Figure
50 70 50 t 40 LIFE LIMIT 1 (1000 FLIGHTS) NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 17. DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , UPPER DRAG BRACE 37
51 b TIME IE5 AT BOSTON 17 1,4TIME AT BOSTON I f TME A BOSTON LIE TIME AT BOSTON LIELIMIT (1000 I FLIGHTS) ASSUMING BOSTON TOWING AT ALL AIRPORTS I NO OF FLIG ~r ~ ~ FIGURE 18. DC.9 SERIES 50 PART No UPPER DRAG BRACE 38
52 w U) U C., 0 1 C.)J CN U.LLU. w. ' z UwU 9) 39 u L) I
53 135 I ~~~~~~~ LIFE LIMIT k~ (1000 FLIGHTS) 80-14\1 40k L. N" -
54 DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N The KF developed for the Series 10 would not provide the required flights for an aircraft which has already accumulated landings. Therefore a K F was determined for the Series 30 which would produce the required flights. However this KF was determined to be less than 1.0. Therefore a K F of 1.0 was used in the analysis along with a scatter factor of 2.58 for two specimens and the life limits are shown in Figure 21. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N The KF of 1.0 used in the Serie; 30 analysis was used for the Series 50 and the life limit for an aircraft with 8000 accumulated flights exceeded the required 8000 flights. The analysis was conducted using a KF = 1.0 and a scatter factor of 2.58 for two specimens and the life limits are shown in Figure BOLT-KNEE HINGE The bolt at the knee hinge provides the means of attachment for the lower and upper drag braces as shown in Figure 23. The Series 10 bolt was originally manufactured from 4340 steel heat treated to an ultimate tensile strength of to psi. A subsequent revision (-501) changed the material to HY-TUF steel heat treated to to psi. The Series 30 and 50 bolts are of a larger diameter and have a different part number than the Series 10. DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N The two methods of determining life limits in the original analysis did not provide the required flights for a Series 10 aircraft which had already accumulated flights. The KF required to meet this criteria was less than 1.0, therefore K F = 1.0 was used in the analysis along with a scatter factor of three. The life limits obtained are indicated in Figure 24. DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N As previously explained, this part was modified using HY-TUF steel. A KF of 1.0 was determined for this part also and using a scatter factor of three the life limits are indicated in Figure 25. The -l part has been discontinued and all subsequent parts are of the -501 (HY-TUF) configuration. 41
55 _ _ 50 == LIFE LIMIT (1000 FLIGHTS) ) I 40? -t -S.30
56 /5 TIME AT BOSTON 1/4 TIME AT BOSTON LIFE LIMIT 1/3 TIME AT BOSTON (1000 FLIGHTS) 1/2 TIME AT BOSTON 20 ASSUMIN IG BOSTON TOW IING AT ALL AIRPORTS NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 22. DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , PIN-END, CROSS-TUBE 43
57 .o"upper DRAG BRACES /7 - r77 1, _I NUT X _i (ALL MODELS) BOLT (SERIES 10) BOLT (SERIES 30 AND 50) FIGURE 23. KNEE HINGE _:'---LOWER DRAG BRACE 44 n4
58 30 25 t LIFE LIMIT (1000 FLIGHTS) FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 24. DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE 45
59 60 AI A BOSTON 40 (1000 LIFE FLIGHTS) LIMIT 30 /2_ME BOSTO 20 BSO O IG AIT ALL At SPORTS FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 25. DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , 46 BOLT-KNEE HINGE
60 DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N The two methods of determining life limits in the original analysis did not provide the required flights for a Series 30 aircraft which had already accumulated flights. The KF required to meet this criteria was less than 1.0, therefore KF = 1.0 was used in the analysis along with a scatter factor of three. The life limits obtained are indicated in Figure 26. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N The two methods of determining life limits in the original analysis did not provide the required 8000 flights for a Series 50 aircraft which had already accumulated 8000 flights. Therefore the KF =1.0 used in the Series 30 analysis was used for the Series 50 along with a scatter factor of three. The life limits obtained are indicated in Figure NUT-KNEE HINGE The nut used in conjunction with the bolt in the knee hinge is loaded by induced axial loads in the bolt due to the angle of the attaching parts. The nut is indicated in Figure 23. The analysis was conducted using a factor of three on the calculated fatigue stress CKF =3.0) and life limits in excess of flights were realized for all DC-9 models. 6. BOLT-SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE This bolt is the means of attachment of the lower drag brace to the housing assembly as shown in Figure 28. The bolt is manufactured from HY-TUF steel heat treated to an ultimate tensile strength of to psi. DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N 395E414 Neither of the two methods of determining life limits used in the original analysis provided the required flights for a Series 10 aircraft which had already accumulated flights. A KF of 1.3 was required to produce the needed flights. This KF along with a scatter factor of three was used to arrive at the life limits shown in Figure
61 LIFE LIMIT ) NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 26. DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO , BOLT-KNEE HINGE 48
62 /2 TIME AT BOSTON LIFE LIMIT (1000 FLIGHTS) 20ToJN TALAROT ASSUMING BOST()" TOWNATLLIPOS 10 o 0 10 NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) 20 FIGURE 27. DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO BOLT-KNEE HINGE 49
63 ) FIGURE ~ './///~i~ 7 ~~HOUSING BOLT (SERIES 10) LWRDRAG BRACE BOLT (SE R IES 30 AN D 50) 28. BOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE 50
64 80 70 ) ~~ LIFE LIMIT (1000 FLIGHTS) 5 ~~~ OF 20 PAT FIGURE 29. DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO , BOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE 51 A'.t
65 DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N This bolt is similar to the Series 10 bolt with the inside diameter reduced to provide additional strength. Neither of the two methods of determining life limits used in the original analysis provided the required flights for a Series 30 aircraft which had already accumulated flights. A KF of 1.63 was required to produce the needed flights. This KF along with a scatter factor of three was used to arrive at the life limits shown in Figure 30. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N This bolt is the same as used on the Series 30 aircraft. The KF used in the Series 30 analysis provided a life limit greater than 8000 flights for an aircraft which had accumulated 8000 flights. Therefore the same KF (1.63) was used in the Figure 31. Series 50 analysis and the life limits are indicated in 7. HOUSING The housing is the main load carrying structure of the nose landing gear. area of concern in this analysis is the drag brace attach point as indicated in Figure 32. The housing is nmanufactured from 7075-T73 aluminum forging. The DC-9 SERIES 10 P/N AND The two parts which are currently in use for the Series 10 are identical in the area of the drag brace attach and will be analyzed together. A KF of three was used in this analysis without a scatter factor and adequate life in excess of the required flights for a Series 10 aircraft which had already accumulated flights was obtained. The life limits calculated are shown in Figure 33. These life limits are for the brace attach area only and any life limit already established for these parts which is less than those indicated in Figure 33 will take precedence. DC-9 SERIES 30 P/N AND These two parts which are currently in use for the Series 30 are identical in the area of the drag brace attach and will be analyzed together. A KF of three was used in this analysis without a scatter factor and life limits in excess 52
66 S0 70 ac ) 60 LIFE LIMIT12 (1000 FLIGHTS) NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 30. DC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO SOLT, SHOULDER-DRAG BRACE 53
67 50-f TIM0E AI BOSTON L0 IT BOS ON1 1( UGH 0ki I NO 0I t IGIH 18,N P~AR FIGURE 31 DC 9SERIES 50 PART No HOLT- SHOULDER DRAG BRACE 5 4
68 DC-9 SERIES 10 P'N , DC-9 SERIES 30 P'N DC-9 SERIES 50 P N TRUNNION BEAM 1 i ; SIDE BRACE A A SECTION A-A: DRAG BRACE ATTACH LUGS BR FIGURE 32. HOUSING 55 L I i
69 of the required flights for a Series 30 aircraft which had already accumulated flights was obtained. The life limits calculated are shown in Figure 34. These life limits are for the brace attach area only and any life limit already established for these parts which is less than those indicated in Figure 35 will take precedence. DC-9 SERIES 50 P/N A KF of three was used in this analysis without a scatter factor and adequate life in excess of the required 8000 flights for a Series 50 aircraft which had already accumulated 8000 flights was obtained. The life limits calculated are shown in Figure PISTON-AXLE ASSEMBLY Towing is not considered to be a fatigue critical condition for the pistonaxle assembly. Conditions producing large vertical loads (landing and braking) and conditions producing large vertical loads in combination with side loads (braked turns) are more damagino to the piston-axle assembly than the proposed Boston towing regime. Airplane braking and braked turns would be less frequent in the Boston towing regime therefore any small additional damage caused by towing would be overcome by the less frequent braking maneuvers. In addition the points of maximum stress on the axle would differ for the towing conditions versus the braking conditions. A combination of vertical and drag loads (towing) would result in a maximum stress in the axle at approximately 45' from the bottom centerline where as a combination of vertical and side loads (braked) turn) would result in a maximum stress in the axle near the bottom centerline. By a similar rational, the piston would be exposed to bending about the side axis for towing and about the drag axis for braked turns. The fatigue damage accumulated under these conditions would not, therefore, be directly additive. The life limits for the piston-axle assembhy is not considered affected by the Boston towing operation and existing; life limits for these parts would apply. 9. SUPPORT STRUCTURL The fuselage support structure in the area of the upper drai brace attach is not considered to be a fatilue crii al area. The socket thas redundant load paths and a crack of any si;nitic nt size would be readily detectable. A periodic
70 LIFE LIMIT 120 (1000 FLIGHTS) 120 Pj BOS-TO.N _14_TIM 'O A/ IG- LI T NO. OF FLIGHTS ON PART (1000) FIGURE 33. DC-9 SERIES 10 PART NO AND PART NO , HOUSING 57
71 lo LIFE LIMIT FLIGHTS)60 "sjk T-~O NO O1 F IS ON PAR T 1000) FIGURE 34. OC-9 SERIES 30 PART NO AND PART NO , HOUSING
72 SO LIFE LIMIT IN (SO (1000 FLIGHTS) Bs I Nml 0 11M 110 N 0f I I OI G O1SN PA R I( (100) FIGURE 35. DC-9 SERIES 50 PART NO , HOUSING 59
73 inspection of this area would be sufficient to preclude a severe fatigue problem. ANALYSIS-SUMMARY A summary of the life limits calculated for the various components of the nose landing gear is shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6 for the DC-9 Series 10, Series 30 and Series 50 respectively. As can be seen some parts associated with high-time aircraft would require evaluation in the near future if the aircraft is operated at Boston 1/2 of the time. It must be emphasized that the life limits presented herein are directly related to the number of flights accumulated by the component in question at the time towing is initiated at Boston and the degree of exposure to the additional towing (% of time at Boston). Any method of towing which would reduce the loads associated with the nose gear would dramatically increase the life limits presented herein. A relatively small reduction in loads (stresses) results in greatly increased life (cycles). The fatigue damage calculated in this report is almost entirely the result of the "moderate" and "hard" maneuvers. If the tow bar loads introduced to the nose gear could be limited to approximately 5% of the aircraft gross weight the life limits of the nose gear components would be dramatically increased above those indicated in this report. It must be pointed out that these life limits are presented only to provide a basis for comparison. These limits are not approved by the FAA and are not to be considered true life limits. If the Boston towing regime were adopted, a complete analysis would be required and submitted to the FAA for approval. Several parts analyzed herein have life limits determined based upon fleet experience. This concept would require FAA approval. 60 L_ "
74 TABLE 4 DC-9 SERIES 10 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS NUMBER OF FLIGHTS NUMBER OF PERCENT OF TIME AT BOSTON FLIGHTS PART NO. ITEM ONPART FULL TIME* 1/2 TIME 1/3 TIME 1/4 TIME 1/5 TIME LOWER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 31,000 48,000 59,000 66,000 72,000 24,000 36,000 54,000 65,000 72,000 77,000 40,000 41,000 59,000 69,000 76,000 81, , UPPER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 30,000 47,000 58,000 65,000 71, ,000 35,000 53,000 64,000 71,000 76,000 40,000 40,000 58,000 68,000 75,000 80, HOUSING NEWPART 50,000 79,000 98, , , ,000 58,000 90, , , ,000 40,000 66,000 98, , , , PIN-END, CROSS TUBE NEWPART 31,000 50,000 64,000 73,000 81, ,000 36,000 57,000 71,000 81,000 88,000 40,000 42,000 64,000 77,000 86, KNEE HINGE NUT NEW PART UNLIMITED LIFE KNEE HINGE BOLT NEW PART 10,200 16,800 21,400 24,800 27,400 40,000 13,800 21,400 26,200 29,500 31, KNEE HINGE BOLT NEW PART 16,500 27,000 34,200 39,400 43, ,000 22,300 34,200 41,500 46,600 50, SHOULDER-DRAG NEW PART 30,200 47,000 57,600 65,000 70,400 BRACE BOLT 40,000 40,000 57,600 67,900 74,500 79,200 'FULL TIME ASSUMES THAT BOSTON TOWING OPERAI ION OCCURS AT ALL AIRPORTS ,.,.. p
75 TABLE 5 DC-9 SERIES 30 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS NUMBER OF FLIGHTS NUMBER OF PERCENT OF TIME AT BOSTON FLIGHTS PART NO. ITEM ONPART FULL TIME* 1/2 TIME 1/3 TIME 1/4 TIME 1/5 TIME LOWER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 76, , , , ,000 24,000 89, , , , ,000 40, , , , , , UPPER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 26,000 40,000 49,000 55,000 60, , ,000 30,000 45,000 54,000 60,000 64,000 40,000 34,000 49,000 58,000 63,000 67, HOUSING NEW PART 300, , , , , , , , , , ,000 40, , , , PIN-END, CROSS TUBE NEWPART 19,000 31,000 40,000 46,000 51, ,000 23,000 36,000 44,000 51,000 55,000 40,000 26,000 40, ,000 59, KNEE HINGE NUT NEW PART UNLIMITED LIFE KNEE HINGE BOLT NEW PART 25,000 40,700 51,600 59,600 65,600 40,000 33,600 51,600 62,800 70,400 76, SHOULDER-DRAG NEW PART 31,700 49,400 60,600 68,400 74,100 BRACE BOLT 40,000 41,700 60,600 71,400 78,400 83,300 *FULL TIME ASSUMES THAT BOSTON TOWING OPERATION OCCURS AT ALL AIRPORTS "..."" " '. - ": " " '
76 TABLE 6 DC.9 SERIES 50 NOSE GEAR COMPONENT LIFE LIMITS NUMBER OF FLIGHTS S NUMBERTO PERCENT OF TIME AT BOSTON PART NO. ITEM ON PART FULL TIME* 1/2 TIME 1/3 TIME 1/4 TIME 1/5 TIME LOWER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 31,000 48,000 59,000 67,000 72,000 8,000 33,000 50,000 61, ,000 24,000 36,000 54,000 65,000 72,000 77, UPPER DRAG BRACE NEW PART 7,500 11,800 14,600 16,600 18, ,-502 8,000 7,900 12,300 15,200 17,100 18,600 24,000 8,800 13,400 16,200 18,100 19, HOUSING NEW PART 172, , , , ,000 8, , , , , , , , , , , PIN-END, CROSS TUBE NEW PART 13,000 21,000 26,000 31,000 34, ,000 13,400 21,800 27,500 31,600 34,800 24,000 15,000 23,900 29,700 33,800 36, KNEE HINGE NUT NEWPART , , , , , , , ,000 24, , , , , , KNEE HINGE BOLT NEW PART 16,300 26,700 33,900 39,300 43,300 24,000 19,300 30,600 38,100O 43,300 47, SHOULDER-DRAG NEW PART 22,200 34,600 42,400 47,900 51,900 BRACE BOLT 24,000 25,900 38, ,900 55,600 -FULL TIME ASSUMES THAT BOSTON TOWING OPERATION OCCURS AT ALL AIRPORTS 63
77 V. OPTIONS A review of Tables 4, 5 and 6 indicates that the immediate effect of the proposed towing at Boston-Logan, if adopted, would be minimal. The immediate or short-term areas of concern would be those parts which have already accumulated a high number of flights. Two options are available as concerns these parts. One would be to replace them with new parts or with parts which have fewer accumulated flights. The other option would be to reroute the aircraft on which these parts are installed so as to reduce their exposure to the Boston towing regime. The long-term effects of the additional towing, as proposed at Boston- Logan, would be much more extensive. Depending upon aircraft utilization by the airlines involved (i.e., percent of operations at Boston), periodic replacement, and/or inspection of the affected parts would be required. There are several options which are available which would ensure the safety of operations. 1. OPTION 1 - AIRCRAFT ASSIGNMENT Aircraft and/or parts which have accumulated substantial flights and are currently operated at Boston could be rotated with other aircraft and/or parts in the airline fleet which have fewer accumulated flights. The purpose is to expose parts with fewer accumulated flights to the Boston towing regime instead of the high-time parts. This procedure could pose considerable logistics problems for the airlines involved. This procedure could, however, allow the airlines flexibility in determining which option would be most cost effective. This procedure could solve any immediate problems which may arise when towing is initiated at Boston. 2. OPTION 2 - REMOVE, INSPECT AND/OR REPLACE Tesecond option would be to simply remove, inspect, and/or replace the affected part. The parts could be periodically replaced as their life limit is approached. The cost of such a remove and replace option for some specific nose landing gear components is given in Table 7. An alternate 64
78 NN (1 (.4 C1 C- tn 0. () CN 0j Nf c (0 0 0l NO ' 0 ui d LL z w3 < C- w C- CN C- N N - - N N - - ccc0 0 0 a~ L. Lui 4 z 4: w 0 - ) D L) -Du 44 cc cc 0 0d c 0r (o cc~ - m (0 CN N N N 0 0 Nr L 0 C u d Lr - N (L.I m (rd, 04 U L LLIu il Lu U L LU 0C Lu ( L u L z- 0)a)7 l 0 0 N 0)?! cc Lr N N N C C65
79 to replacing the parts would be to periodically inspect them for fatigue damage. The inspection period for all affected parts would not necessarily be the same. Some would require inspection more frequently than others. These inspection intervals would be determined by acceptable means using damage tolerant design practices and/or tests. Determination of specific inspection intervals for the parts in question was not considered within the scope of this report. Typical cost figures for removal, inspection and reinstallation are given in Table 8 for some representative nose landing gear components. 3. OPTION 3 - TESTS The third option under consideration is one of testing the DC-9 nose landing gear using the loads model developed in this report. Such testing could be accomplished in two ways. One would be to fatigue test a complete nose gear assembly to all the loads associated with the nose landing gear including the towing as envisioned at Boston. This type of test is desirable from the standpoint of having all the nose gear structure subjected to the appropriate loads, deflections and interactive effects associated with the actual gear. It is felt that the DC-9 nose landing gear and its supporting structure is inherently more fatigue resistant than is shown by analysis in this report. The only acceptable method of determining the true fatigue strength is to perform a test incorporating the expected service loads. A test of this nature would be relatively expensive and would require approximately to man hours. Another approach would be to test individual gear components separately. This approach could be used for the drag brace system. The input loads would be those associated with the lower drag trace and would be determined using the loads obtained herein and any additional loading conditions considered to cause fatigue damage in the drag brace system. This type of testing would be less expensive than that previously mentioned buit since the entire gear would not be represented, allowances would need to be 66
80 0 ' 4A Ir, AlC 2f 0 LL 0 co a- < W. r- CL -i - Cw - - U. -jj o CL N1 0 C14 C14 C14n P wj LZJu 4 ~ 0 - N C cn~ j a. 00 -o Zw 0) 4L 0 c. 0 0 z Do 0. j 0L U ccc U0 c< 0 C oc z w w 9 ) 7 0 L 04W 0 0 D w u Uj D w LU LU Z L 0 m 4 m 0) a) F 0 M 0 N 0 o 0 0 N I n IO LO I N N LO CN (D N In N (D 9-C N C2 O 0 0 N0 - I n N N N N N N N N 40) 0) a) S M M 0 I)m n a) 0) 0) ~ LU.mmc &~ L) w U W > c n V) V) 67
81 made to account for this fact. This type of test would require approximately 20 to 25% of the man hours needed to accomplish a full scale test. 4. OPTION 4 - ALTERNATIVE TOWING In addition to the above mentioned options other methods and concepts in towing are investigated. Historically the airlines have been concerned about employing a safe, efficient and economical aircraft ground movement system. At the present time taxiway movements of any distance primarily depend on aircraft self-propulsion and, from the standpoint of time required, are impressively efficient. Changes to this procedure, unless carefully implemented would increase the time required for airport arrival and departures. Tl'e material suninarized under this option investigates several concepts in aircraft ground movemrent. The assumption is that the feasibility of developing a mover system must comply with environmental requirements and ultimately result in dollar savings. This section is not intended to derive the optimum miiethod for aircraft movers but to present the best information available on which to base a comprehensie study that is technically possible and operationally desirable. a. POWLRED MAIN LANDING GLAR LINTLCKAL.YSILMJ) One of the most attractive techniques for movin aircraft on the ground without use of the main engines would be to incorporate an internal drive system to the main landing gear of the aircraft. Considering the high " of aircraft gross weight on the main landin(; lear this seew.m like a practical approach to deal with the low tractive coefficients in ad erse weather. Other advantages aside from noise, pollution eission re.iiitions, and jet blast problems are elimination of time requirements for attachinr;, eta.in,: tow vehicles to the aircraft. With the capability for reverse, v, w, ll as fornard operation, there would be less congestion in the terwinal areo a1d i reduction in requirements for airport service vehicles. The most apparent a i sd,arntaes would be a reduction in aircraft payload and relativel\ hi,: at i'f retrofittino, such a system to aircraft now in service. Boeing has tetirmated that added weight for a 727 type aircraft, for drive and install.itiol Of a high capacity APU, would be approximately 1,000 pounds. This would provide 100 HP to the landing gear wheels and pernt a ground speed Of abo'ut 10 Wph. HOi
82 b. POWERED MAIN LANDING GEAR (GROUND VEHICLE SYSTEM In this system the towing tractor consists of a leading power element joined to a trailing twin boom assembly. Torque is applied directly '-o the main landing gear. The tractor generates all power required for traction. The aircraft nose landing gear would fit into a wheel unloading device just aft of the tractor and steering would be accomplished y yawing the power inputs to the main landing gear wheels. This concept like the integral system utilizes the aircraft weight to develop traction and braking force. Another advantage is that the weight penalty to the aircraft would be less than the integral system. The primary disadvantages to the concept would be the complexity of developing a system configuration. c. POWERED NOSE LANDING GEAR This concept is a Lockheed Aircraft service design for drive/braking the aircraft. This towbar-like device would offer means to drive the nose gear wheels with a relatively standard lightweight tractor. Basically the system consists of a towbar with a drive motor which drives the aircraft nose gear. Power to the drive motor is supplied from the towing tractor. Steering the aircraft requires tractor, and cockpit operator coordination with aircraft power. The advantages to this concept are the relatively low cost and little retrofitting such a system to the aircraft. The most apparent and perhaps decisive disadvantage is the low percentage of aircraft weight borne by the DG-9 nose gear. Because of the possibility of low tractive coefficients on airport paved surfaces during adverse weather conditions, powering the nose gear does not seem to be a practical system as a prime mover of aircraft. d. STEERING TOWBAR An effective method of providing towbareactuated steering has been conceived which is aball-socket joint used as tetowbar/aircraft interface. The socket fitting is miounted integrally in the aircraft bottom fuselage structure. This socket is capable of handling all towing loads imposed by the ball fitting on the towbar. External pins on the ball will transmit steering torque through a compact universal joint arrangement to a cable drum in the aircraft, which will 69
83 in turn actuate steering valves which control the position of the nose landing gear. No disconnect of normal cockpit steering controls will be required. The only requirement is that hydraulic power from the aircraft be available. Apparent disdavantage would be high cost of retrofitting such a system to aircraft now in service. e. TOWBAR This concept incorporates conventional towing and pushing forces through a rigid towbar. Steering is a coordinated function between the tractor driver and responsible personnel in control of the aircraft. it is assumed that towing practices will not produce forces which exceed towing force limits. To avoid damage to the aircraft the towbar can be designed with shear pins. The problem with shear pins is after the pin has sheared, on wost designs, the aircraft towing fitting can still be over-stressed by continued operation against the retaining pin. Also, in most cases, only partial steering control is retained. Warning devices on conventional towbars consist of mechanical pins, flags and flashing beacon. Also available are shock ansorbing devices to help damp shocks induced during start and stopping. in this system of moving aircraft the responsibility for safe and effective operation lies with the selection and training of personnel. f. PARTIAL LIFT TRACTORS There hdve been many concepts develovac i i t I rcraft mover takes advantage of the aircraft weight. One desi, invr!,,, i,.ir tractor equipped with a hydraulically movable ball assewbly loroteo o, tht,,er structure of the tractor. With the tractor positioned under tle artt a socket located on the underside of the air,irrt. ball asse,: bly is continued until the rose lindir: ot aircraft weight is tranolfer-red te the tro Vill assembly is raised into ertical extension of the ewr is unloaded and a portion. ra r to aid in tractive effort. Two other designs worth iuentiorini tractor. In the Chrysler's Inn the it try, tcr i, then a special jacking wechari,, thereby adding the nose wh, oire tri, vhnir/ I tractor and the Secmaker backed up to the aircraft tht jir iiv lane nasewneel off the ground crr aker concept the
84 tractor backs up to the aircraft until a ramp slides under the nose wheel, almost at the same time raising the ramp hydraulically and inclining it continuously towards the center of the tractor. The coupling process ends with the nose wheel resting on the tractor's rotating platform and being fastened by special locking system. Designed for speeds up to 44 mph the Secmafer tractor was able to tow a Boeing 747 at 32 mph. Should the pilot decide to make an emergency stop, he can do so by full application of the brakes; the nose gear then disengages from tractor and rolls down the ramp onto the ramp. For forward loads on the nose gear a sensor at a preset load automatically applies the tractor brakes. Other advantages claimed by Secmafer, with the nose gear platform free to rotate lateral loads are eliminated. Also "jack-knifing on i..e" need not be serious, the tractor could rotate about the nose gear without damaging the aircraft. The most obvious advantgage of these concepts is the utilizing of aircraft weight to gain traction and elimination of towbar and shear pin. Another advantage is the elimination of coordination requirement between tractor and aircraft. Two obvious disadvantages are the cost of the vehicles and the other is the problem of size. They are not capable of push from underneath the aircraft, a standard practice at some airports. There would have to be a change of tractor after the push back was completed. g. COORDINATED BRAKING A new concept has been propos& by the Douglas Aircraft Company for one DC-9 aircraft, which would allow the flight crew to control braking both for the tc.lng vehicle and aircraft. Provisions can be incorporated into the towing system which whe~n the aircraft brakes are applied, an electrical signal through a cable attacl, d to the underside of the aircraft from the towbar, would also apply braking to the tn,~ vehicle. A conventional tow vehicle and tow bar can be modified tr accept this concept. The major components for the aircraft are readily available and costs are at a practical level. Retrofitting existing DC-9 aircraft with this system is possible at a relative low cost. The advantages of this concept are less nose gear strain, lower inciaenc, of shear pin separation and shorter stopping distance with more control, especially on low friction surfaces. 71
85 h. SUMMARY Among the possible methods studied, with the exception of the conventional towbar, all have been limited in proving the feasibility of the aircraft ground system. Studies have suggested advantages in noise and pollution reduction concepts and several companies have produced designs for suitable aircraft ground movements but, before a company will make a major investment in such equipment, guidelines must be established jointly by airport planners, aircraft manufacturers and airlines. Another important consideration would be a single organization to operate the aircraft ground system; the airport, a consortium of all the airlines or an outside company. In this way the equipment and manpower needed to operate the system would be kept to minimum and equipment would have maximum use 24 hours a day. ) product. Until such programs can be justified economically, effort should be made towards improving avdilable towing vehicles and towbars. It is less difficult to suppress noise and improve air pollution in ground equipment than the current generation of aircraft. Current design in tow vehicles and towbars should not be selected on the basis of cost, but on new features for improved safety, reliability and ease of use, etc. Suppliers are reluctant to spend time and money on innovative concepts unless they have a firm commitment that there is a market for their 72
86 VI CONCLUSION The loads developed during the variety of towing conditions tested at Long Beach are considered representative of those loads likely to occur during normal service operations. The only significant loads encountered were those associated with the start and stop portions of the maneuvers. Loads due to runway/taxiway cross slopes and intersections, turning and steady-state towing were not considered significant. The loads miodel developed using the loads obtained from the tests, observations at Boston-Logan and experience with other ground maneuvers is considered to adequately represent the DC-9 towing regime as envisioned at Boston-Logan. loads of 5T, 81 and 12% of aircraft gross weight for "normal", moderate" and 'hard" maneuvers are considered to be representative of those types of maneuvers without introducing undue conservatism. The percentage of time spent in these maneuvers, 80% for "normal", 17T. for "moderate" and 3%A for "hard" is considered to be representative of service conditions taking into account congestion, weather and the human element. The The analysis was conducted using the loads model for towing as developed herein and any additional conditions from the original analysis which were considered fatigue damaging. Where possible, the method used in the original analysis were used to calculate the new life limits considering the additional towing as described by the loads model. In cases where the life limit obtained by these methods was unrealistically low a "lead the fleet" concept was adopted. concept considers the fleet experience qained and uses it to determine the life limits. A fleet experience of L10,000 flights was adopted for the DC-9 series 10 while 32,000 and 8,000 flights were used for the series 30 and 50 respectively. It is f elt. that enough experience has been gained by airplanes which have accumulated more than these numbers of flights to assume that individual DC-9 This series 10 aircraft have experienced tow cycles where as the series 30 and series 50 aircraft have 32,000 and 8,000 tow cycles respectively. 73
87 VI CONCLUSION (Continued The analysis indicated that several nose landing gear components could be affected by the additional towing as proposed at Boston-Logan. The irmediate effect would concern those aircraft which have already accumulated a large number of flights and are operated at Boston extensively. The options available include re-assignment of aircraft to reduce exposure to the Boston towing regime. This could be a short-time solution for those aircraft which would be affected immiediately. Other options would include removal and replacement of parts as their life hints are reached and periodic inspection of parts to detect fatigue damage. Other methods of t~wing were investigated and descriptions of the various methods included.the single most important object in alternate methods of towing as concerns this report is to reduce the loads applied to the nose gear. A simple shock absorbing device built into existing tow bars would seem to be the most practical solution for the short term. No such tow bar currently exists for the DC-9 and the design, manufacture testing of one could take several months. The shock absorbing tow bar would require extensive testing to insure that the loads introduced at the nose gear are reduced significantly to ensure that the fatigue damage to the nose gear is reduced dramatically or eliminated. and 74
88 AFrMaLE V - Certain Cr-otud IMov_-nts Sv Jet And 'lrcr AicatNot To Ee C-.4uctec. -ev Sal--Pr,=uJsicn A. Definitions: As u~sed in this regulaticn the follcwing ter-s are defined as follc,,-: 1. Aircra-ftk, C'erat.nc7!qt Any =rc -nt of jet or turboprcp a rt c.n ti'.e arr== directly to or frcx a runway in ccnnection with a takeoff or 1aza-.ing by that 2. *Aircraft Fecsitior'Jzir z~rc:t Anv rm-vent ofm a jet or tuzr0aaizcraz cn te groulnd,,hich is not an Aircraft Ctjarating Mo~ant. B. Within the daily tiefericd-s established!:y, the folic,,ing ca TLn sc-hedule, no aircaft_ repositic.inrng.cvie-ert shall ::e conducted by self-prcpulsion. Caml1iance Schedule: Catn~ncing Febrv-aryv 1, :00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Canrencizg July 1, h=_rs per day C. withdn the daily tlaae periods esabisedb the follc,,i&-, cniliancoz_ schc-~iul, rzar~ c-p-rsatingrz~~t(' zirrival:s. or ~zzr~sf=, Sc-Lth Te~" gatznz 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 shall b,2 ccluz -y se~po"inwest-aly o-f zln area near the Airport Fire Station, desic(nated by the Air-cz-t - -nzcer as the areaa for tcwirng nitiaticn (~~z or tz-%ving ta'iz an(cut- Cc~li =-Ce Sclic-cule: De tr- Aircarzt OcningF~2~. 7 1, : 00 a.m. C~xnLnCnC~41 1., ll:co p.m.-7:co a.m. Cr~coh~ uly 1, :00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. Cczrnoi~ ~ r~a 1,1973 this rc-.zlaicn shall. ar~1y E*>:c'(c"tivc ~f ti~~::o, ro~io to ba ~v- nct Lcz thf Cc~r 0,1977 1x,-cd f 4_.dTL~ *~YT5~w~c-~ ~:(~ QtLflor ry.z viiti~l Jum±,0, 1973 te c:2w:m.ct i tn- A-i
89 Ccrnplianice Schedule: Arriving Aircraft Camencing Februy- 1, Ydnight -7:00 a.mi. Ccancilng July 1, :00 p.2. -7:00 a.m. Ccznencing October 1, :00 p.m..-7:oo a.m. Ccxrnencing Ja-,"a'y 1, 1978 this regulition shall1 apply to arrivirg aircraft c-etyf hcurs oer d.,y'. Th-e Ex~ecutive Director uizcn notice to be given not later- * than Novearber 30, 1977 based on a fi~~that a extension is rneccssar; to pert~~l r-aicf of the progr;an withcut uc cc-..estacn or delay, ray extend until June 30, 1978 the cc=-::c~-t date for twenty-four= h.ur -pp-,l-,ci of this ccupliance sche&dule. D. An aircraf t prohibited frctm usin,- self -propulsicn Under- thi s regulztion shall not cperate a=ny engine used in propusicn whi-ile engaged in an aircraft operatingz moxv=-t or an aircraft repositionirg =w-cnt. E. E-xcept in c-.,es of a sa-fety cmegc.-i y, no -uor tractor shall towz m aircraft: tzless toiyr-dio c=~-ication is maintained with the Control Tc7;;-r on app=oatec 'f~rencies in use. F. Upon request the AL-to-<rt -2er may exc~t fr=i the re str-ic t-i cns o-n airc-fz c,!o rzflg fl t5 m- a ir c- r- ni ch is not equi.ped with- an Alt. G. The restrictic-rs on a raft operating nrcer&-nts ane aircraft repositic-airg v,-,z in thiis Article =.a7 be temporarily suspcrncc by thearrr.ca;~ if rc -ruied to alleviate cc-lgostdcn or do-llv o-, th.a aircr-rtr-fren are-as or be autcrzatically -urnc tevc-.,ic-- or suhon operatia- PZIC!v.;2nt sl-rzaces uedzas p=rc~r crcl.:ion of tcw;:ag proceduzcs. m~ay b zina rj rzte*rjt..c& fcr zan- I.,t-:-- and~eui~ iczc h21'~~:n '-~no poses ZInd S:a1 icic-i- crc L: -rqztr h AU thoriy A- 2
90 APFENDIX B This appendix contains photographs of typical test procedures and time history plots of the test parameters recorded during the towing tests at Long Beach Municipal Airport and the Douglas Aircraft Facility. The tests utilized a DC-9 Series 40 aircraft at a gross weight of lbs and a center of gravity position of 9% MAC. Each time history plot contains the tow bar axial load, the side load at the two bar.attach point to the tow vehicle and the nose wheel steering angle. The title of each figure describes the condition represented. B-1, I,
91 CD Aw 114 z -J D eow
92 Ch, U 'SL C14 m- p -3
93 CD C., coi w CD S10 /j7
94 z * 0 0 z U Ac
95 .1. 4 cc 4 V t a )9I L
96 AWI fr -it'
97 FLT 2.1 0'-9-4 E-)T(898) OR WT,T DC-9 TOWING LOADS CO AC TEST NO A/S OW KTS E15:07:20.0 ALT -60 FT o"< I-~ I r I '_ J IS:07:20 0 TIME - SEC 1$:C"-,.. " S- FIGURE B7 - NORMAL FORWARD TOW FLT 0C-9-43 SE-DCT(9S8) OR WT t jisdc- TONING LOADS co 9PAC TEST NO 'O G' A/S K TS Et" IS:42:20. 0 ALT -.. FT LA ill., _ ) IS 4Z' 0 h TIME -SEC 15 z. FIGOURE 99 - NORMAL AFT TOW S-8
98 F/B 1/2 AD7AO DOUGLAS EVALUAT ION AIRCRAFT OF THE CO IMPACT LONG OF BEACH TOW ING CA OC-9 TRANSPORT AIRPLANES AT --ETC(U).A, So E A HOOVER DOT-FA7BWA-4I98 UNCLASSIFIED FAA-NA NL
99 LT?.I Cc-9-4 S-WT(998) ( wt /00 K TEST NO Oe DC-9 TOWING LOADS AS90#T IENUR JK FW HARD JERK7O MM SMD 12: S6:20.0 ALT -70 FT - I IJ I I I1 1 1 I 1 I I I _--L I SI I I I A _ TIME - SEC -- Z FIGURE B9 - FORWARD HARD JERK TO MODERATE SPEED FLT 2. 1 DC-9-40 SE-MT(e8 OR WT 100 ic 02/ISIs DC-9 TOWING LOADS A/S eee.ts TEST ND 03.-6G : winglc A/S OW 1TS ENR JLK PUSH AFT WITH M-3 To tafd JEWS 12:59:00. ALT -'0 FT _lcj, I I r!i I I ;L 1 ',.1".1 IIJJJ2 l I-i 1 1lL I LI!,.E. TIM.ieo 13: , _ --,., _ o FIGURE BlO - PUSH AFT WITH MODERATE TO HARD JERKS B-9
100 FLT 21 DC-9-40 SE-WT(O89) OR lt' " TEST eisis NO 8)3-UZ.02 DC-9 TOWING LOADS OI q % AiS OW f(ts c ENOR J'K IO) TO HARD BRM1140 STOP FROM MOO SPED 2: S7:20. 0 ALT -79 FT S I L...L I!1 1"I ;! -. 1I.-10, l,._!_!! 1 " I - I 12:$7:20.0 TIME -SEC 1 FIGURE B11 - MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING STOP FROM MODERATE SPEED FLT 2.1 DC-9-4 SE-CT(899) OR 14T IOt Kl TEST NO DC.-9 TOWING LOADS A/S OW KTS ErCR J LITE TO MCCOBAKING STOP 12:28:00.0 ALT -W FT _ 1! ".' '! I 1I I I I I l Ii!i I 1' I!.L.JWL..L... Il...J...IJ I l I I I I I I I I l!i 20,18 68O FIGURE B12 - LIGHT TO MODERATE BRAKING STOP B-I10
101 OLT e.. C94 SE-ODT(e9S) O UT loo K MuS1,S DC- TOWING LOADS CO,% AC 'EST NO eT AIS M IATS ENOR JLI TO4 OQ ROUGH SURFACE 12:27:0.OALT -i*ft ' I - L.U_.*_L. I...I p:',0, -lei, I I I I 1' L I I I I 12:27 O.0 TIME - SEC I, FIGURE B13 - TOW OVER ROUGH SURFACE FLT 2. 1 DC-9-40 SE-MT(698) OR,oo /0 V11519-~20 DC:--9 TOWING LOADS cc KPA c ENOR,Tti c~strmay WIN 12: 36: 00. 0ALT -70 FT. LA A _i IL I I l L L 11I J.- I -loi i I I I I I I I t I~ ii I I tii I I I ~ 1 TIME -SEC I z -so1 FIGURE TOW OVER TAXIWAY, RUNWAY INTERSECTION B-11
102 FLT 2.1 DC-,-,0 SE-DOT(699) OR 6T IV 0 JC ESN9 DC.-9 TOWING LOADS o 9OPIAc IENOR JK ;ACEiLERAYE.TtEN O TO maro AKIN0 12:38:00.0 AL.T -60 FT S I., I 1 1 I 1 I J I j I! 1 I 1 I I! I I ' 1 I II " 1 : _ I 1I I.... I.I...I I ii[ I. I! I II I 1 1 I I11 N 0:! L - ifj,li so i2:36:00.0 TIME - SEC 12:?".L FIGURE B15 - ACCELERATE TO 8 KTS. THEN MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING FLT 2.1 DC-9-40 SE-00T'e983) 14T /00 k 02125/9 CO % tivc 'TETW DCr9 TOWING LOADS AiS OW TS ENOR JLK. SLOW SPED. STOP 3:IS:20. ALT -70 FT 100 LLI I I _ J_... LL _ j I -_'I 1 1._- I l-j I0 13:: TIME - SEC 13:1 rv4. FIGURE B16 FORWARD TOW TO SLOW SPEED THEN-TO SLOW STOP a B-12 mom
103 t.1 ILY OC-- 0 SE-COT(e99) OR WT 10Io 021is1s co 9 % Pc 7EST W DCr9 TOWING LOADS A/S WO tts EMR J? tw TOH O Jt START 12:46:28.3 ALT 4FT _--II, El.,f,i i -- _. - -, i I I I I l I I I t I I t i :2 I24. T ME E :- " ". FIGURE B17 - MODERATE TO HARD JERK START ' T 2 1 DC3- S O F- T( 89 ) GIM T 100,A aeis/s DC.-B TOWING LOADS o 9m TEST A/S 00 e',ts JUAe W1l THLIT1eor j 13:48:303.G AT -,p'f "r "'-- 1 1J,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, m,! I I t I I I II I I I I I i I I I I I 12: ~~~' IM E 13:49:39.0 TI - SEC 13:4.',3 0 FIGURE B18 - ACCELERATE WITH LIGHT TO MOrDERATE JEPK B-13
104 PLoT SE-MOT(SS) ORWT 10 X gelwisj DC-9 TOWING LOADS 0c U KAC 'EST NO A/S WO 1TS EWOR JUI pr, mo- try. L TUN.SLOW SPEED 13:14:10.3 ALT -7O FT IG ~ I L L. I * I I I I I I I I I I I l l I t. _ II I.. I :14:1.0 2 TIME - SEC i3: - O FIGURE B19 - NORMAL FORWARD TOW THEN LEFT TURN 1,Es, 3 420DC-9 TOWqING LOADS ca/ O0,PT ENG JLI' SL.I SPEEDI I 13: T:0.0ALT -6iw FT U - 1 I 1 I I I I I J J.J l J.J I 1 JT I I 1.l 1I.L.L1! _ 0 _I, rln._' I 1 l 13:17;:00. TIME - -SEC 13:21..' FIGURE B20 - TOW FORWARD AT SLOW SPEED 8-14
105 Ui.T e. I DW.40 IE-DOV(S.) (p IWT 100 K wilsi DC--9 TOWING LOADS "TEST NO co A/S ONKTS 9&KS EiOR 33:.2 :00. 0 AT - FT -I _ J _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I :00.0 TIME SEC 13 FIGURE B21 - NORMAL STOP FROM 7 KTS. FLT 2. 1 DC-9-A4 SE-DOT(8,08) OR it /00 K TE, S mo N-642 DCr-9 TOWIING LOADS CO 000 KTS EN - JLI 12:37:00.0 ALT -60 FT I I I 11 i 1 I III -10- I l I 1 1i I jj 11 I l I 1 1 I 1 I I I so 12:37:00.0 TIME - SEC FIGURE B 22 - LEFT TURN B-15
106 FLT 2. 1 ;DC-C4 E-T(9S) (t)r WTo K TESTW 3-W.s DC-9 TOWING LOADS AcS OW,TS 00, F6D TOW 13:54: 0.0 ALT -6 FT 22I, I 1 Lf IJ i l l I I -I~~ ~~~~~~ I' I I ' I I I! l! 1 I t I 13:S4:00. TIME - SEC 13:S%,. 0 FIGURE B23 - FORWARD TOW, NORMAL ACCELERATE TO 12 KTS. FLT 2. 1 i - SE--DO T(.9) a.wt" too k TEST No DC-9 TOWING LOADS A/S OW TS ENOR JL F6D TOW. TIEN RAINO 13:$S:,00. _ALT -6 FT S i I I I I I_ I,10 FIGRE 4-2,,OTNAINOFFGR STOP THLGHT AKIN RIX~ 10-1 _- I 1 1 _ 1 13;S ss 0 * TI HE -SEC 13! S~x 0 FIGURE B24 -CONTINUATION OF FIGURE B23, STOP WITH LIGHT BRAKING B-16
107 P'r 2.1 M-e-40 SE-0T(8) O wr /O0 K meniiss c 9 e w EST DC-9 TOWING LOADS A/S O P TS P PJSAFT. MODTO AF4 JW 13:57:15.I0ALT..-70 FT - II I! c., I i I -- I I I j.I...jl.1.1 l I I!.-.! - i :57:15.0 TIME - SEC 5. o FIGURE B25 - PUSH AFT, MODERATE HARD JERK FLT 2 1 OD--Ae E--T(8.9 ) ot IOo K sells/9 No -S.e DC79 CEST TOWING LOADS co AIS 4;TC P TS 94JR JUK FID.tD JEW TO SLQ, VPEED TM-EN K vamirg 13:S:00. ALT -70 FT -,,. "'- -' "' -._ _J" " _ -- _ :. _ , DJ I I! I ' I I II J24.I I..." J t! 2 I I I I I 13: TIME - SEC 14:,%Z.0 FIGURE B26 - FORWARD TOW MODERATE JERK TO SLOW SPEED THEN HARD BRAKING B-17 Af
108 2. DC4 C-9-SSE-T (S98) m T OOK TESNois DC-9 TOWING LOADS co it TS (te J.K P SACK. S.0A SPE 14.01:30. 0 ALT -70 FT - I ' I! I I I 1I Ji 1 I -j _ I I I I I V IEMEC 20 A 60 14:01:30.0 TIME SEC 4 FIGURE B27 - WET TAXIWAY, NORMAL PUSHBACK SLOW SPEED k'xt 2.t DC2-la-AZ S-Molt6e) opr Igot Kp EST NO DC79 TONING LOADS co O KTc TTO.-- DTORD.AK I OASTP 14:13:00.0ALT -70 FT -j ',, 'I I [ 1A.I3:.. TIME - SEC!"'- 0 FIGURE B 28 - WET TAXIWAY, MODERATE TO HARD BRAKING TO A STOP FROM 12 KTS. B-18 0
109 Lt e SE-OOT(OS) Oj WT 10OO K TESST N DC-9 TOWING LOADS CoM8 9V SKTs EtM 13:S9:20.0 NT -70 FT -1I" I, 13:S9:20.0 TIME - SEC FIGURE B26A - FIGURE B26 WITH EXPANDED TIME SCALE FLT 2.1 DC-9-40 SE-DOT(838) OR W.T / O " 02/Ss/9 DC-9 TOWING LOADS CO 9 MAC TEST NO AIS 000 KTS ENUR i:13:12.0 ALT -70 FT......,,.\ v, A+....p... "'- ','... a, 'j\j,-^~,, :: il ',+. ill~i,." -1m. "..+ ',.,+',,,~i.... ' i:i+ra 14: *TIME - SEC 1J:11J- E, 10-00' , FIGURE 28A - FIGURE 828 WITH EXPANDED TIME SCALE B-19
110 F LT 2.l 1DC-S-40 SE-OOTl8%) OR wr foo / T NO DC-9 TOWING LOADS co w? K< P JL FPUH CO SLOPE. TtEN STOP 1 4: 32 : SO. 0 AL.T -6 FT -i ISO0 4 I._. I _ 100 I ---- ar _ I-_L I I 1 1 t I I 1 I 1 1 I ] I _ o _ ILL 7 I ] ")_ L.L I I 1 14:32:50.0 TIME SEC FIGURE B29 - PUSH DOWN SLOPE WITH HARD BRAKING TO STOP, THEN PULL UP SLOPE FLT 2. 1 DC-9-40 SE-WCT(S98) OR WT / 00 K 02,'S/' DC-9 TOWING LOADS co -f % MC TEST o A/S = vts E R, PLLL 00 SLOPE AJD STOP!4:3S:35.0,ALT - FT I- I i m "0 4 14:3S:3S. 0 TIME SEC 14:,"-. 5 FIGURE B30 -STOP GOING DOWN, PULL DOWN, STOP, PUSH LIP B-20
111 FLT 2 As OC- -,0 se- Wr(s ) OR WT r 1oo P 'TES No DC-9 TOWING LCADS co ok TS IENOR JL P tpl, S I S LOPFE_ - Op 14 : 3 6 : Z S.0 LT -6 0 FT I.... i. t...± p _......, - 0- A U 3 L <2S 0~ FLB 1, 21 TES s NO DC79 TOWING LOADS AtS OW KT E N R J r P I LLI P S L.O PE M Z% S TO P 1 4 :4 4 : AT -f- F T gv ' FIGURE 3 1 PU UP SLOPE AND STOP 14 : 4i4 :4.0 T IM E - S E C 1 4 : -4e.4 s, 0 FIGURE B32 - PULL UP SLOPE AND STOP B-21 '-ALA "t",
112 I! P C--4 S-WT(838) 1Est3 DC79 TOWING LOADS co fkc TlEST NO a AlS % ITS V0R A PUSH D%", N. STO]P. T4N PULL RO UP A) STI"ART TUN -j I1 L"- - -'i T 14.4S:30.0ALT -,SOFT S..... U - I! I I i 1! I1 I 1 jj,i ] I I1 1 g2 : ' ,,_1,11.. I',1 i 'w 0gII L2iI,, I TIME - SEC 14 4.?2 FIGURE B33 - PUSH DOWN SLOPE, STOP THEN PULL UP AND START TURN FLT 2 1 fx-9-4 SE-CT(698) (R W /0. 1 TESTNo03-4 DC-9 TOWING LOADS oas ON :TS Et-R JK FLLL C 4I o STOP 14:47:30.0 ALT -60 FT -, I 5&.x.,>- -- '! tr :is-ij o I.L..LJL.j I I 1 I I i i i 1, 1 I FTGURE B3 ULDONSOE STOP AND THEN PUSH U I I L I, I._ II 14:47:33.0 TIE- SEC 1A4~..Z 0. FIGURE B34 -PULL DOWN SLOPE, STOP AND THEN PUSH UP I - 1" B-22
113 I I FLT" 2. C-9-4 SE -OT(8E ) OR "T 00 02,iSis DC79 TOWINIG LOADS co 9 % w TEST W0e A/S O stts ENOR k PJ4 LP AM STOP 14:48:IS.0 ALT - FT _.--- _= -.., i,,-i Ir-- / I i i_ ' I 1 i. I I I. 14:48:15.0 TIE - SEC 14.'-S 0 FIGURE B 35 - PUSH UP AND STOP FLT E I ZDC-9-40 SE-C-OT(398) OR UT w O D" E &W DC-9 TO'A INO LOADS AS KOMTS P..L D06N SLOPE A.t' STOP 14: S T -6 FT l_(,- - T h-1,n- 14-o.3 TIMF- SEC 7z~ ~ B- 23 -,. ".t j
114 vest NO 3-"42.Ie 1" JKPUSH NLO WT OAER APD i S: 20:03.3 ALT -- F-0F SIM II t Iii l l I t I I IS Tm E FIGURE B 37 -PUSH AFT, NOSE GEAR OVER BOARD THEN PULL FORWARD NOSE GEAR OVER BOARD 2L e I mic-a-0 -T(8e8) OuR 0 a2is D 36Q DC-s TOW't40 LOADSDD1MA -WF T ~a~ckpo itolcto I S.28:1.0 &T TOMA I Tt'. - 4p ~ T IS: 28:IS. 0 TIME -SEC JS:23:IS.0 FIGURE B 38 -PULL FORWARD OVER BOARD BOTH NOSE AND MAIN GEAR AT SLOW SPEED B- 24
115 vt r.) I C-0-40 [E-(T(SW) ap r I OOK 1Elsl- DC-9 TOWI11G LOADS Ao q,vs TIEST oe ok/ 5 o o TS O D JLA U. AFT (M.,,. K-0 TEN WL I S: 29.,300 ALT -W FT.J ' I e 8I Y 21_,i77 1_7 ~:-~-- :IL - 1-X --ii77]77.- IS: 29: 3.0 TIME -SEC is 30-7.Y 0 FIGURE B 39 - PUSH AFT MAIN GEAR OVER BOARD THEN SLOW SPEED UNTIL NOSE GEAR PASSES BOARD ' FLT 2 1 DC-9"-40 SE-CO' O WT 10 0 k TEST NO 0-r=4 0 0C-9 TO'Ir. O -:ADS Ao A/S &z %, MC KS T E",R.. PtX... L F C O.'-P P -TAPZS. ',_C. 7I, j L -;A FT -... _ I O-W T--- - _,-_......J. ' -----,., _ -D (3 O ' _ _. _ IS 30 4S 0 T IME -SEC FIGURE B 40 - PULL FORWARD OVER BOARDS AT MODERATE SPEED THEN STOP B-25
116 orns/l11 LT 3.1 I-9-4 SE-Wt(es) co 00 UT /g0 K st t~o *3-"e.e DC-9 TOwIfG LOADS a "C JEUqS. F& OvRBO M$m0:34 :00O A /LT -F, F T ~ _ bkf SIMA-L.90. 1' X,... - U s: TIME - SEC IS3:. FIGURE B41 - PULL FORWARD NOSE GEAR OVER BOARD.. T.a Ic--41 SE-wI'(898) (P T 14- CK,ST ND DC-9 TOWING LOADS o?%c 043 AAJl ~UL FWD m p boh,:. K-! S;35. AL t o -60FT IT -.] 1 COL I -- j5:3s:00.0 TIME - SEC I8:36: 00. FIGURE B 42 - PULL FORWARD MAIN GEAR OVER BOARD B-26 MINIAL:
117 LOGAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. EAST BOSTON. MIASIL 021U )nbr November 30, Mr. E. A. Hoover Douglas Aircraft Ccmpany Internal Mail Code Lakewood Boulevard Long Beach, CA Dear Mr. Hoover: Per your request regarding weather related data for Logan International Airport, I have attached a copy of the 1977 Armual Summary of Climatological Data. In addition, we have researched our snow removal records and find that the average number of days per year with snow fall of one inch or more is il days. We haye estimated that the n'ix'er of days per year with snow fall of one half inch or more would be approximately 30 percent greater or 14 1/2 days. We have also found that the average number of days per year that Logan Airport was closed due to weather is four days. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MASSACImTr PORT AUTDRITY._, u r t. e r Maager of Airports Attachment C-i OPERATING BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. PORT OF BOSTON GENERAL CARGO MARINE TERMINALS-TOBIN MEMORIAL BRIDGE -HANSCOM FIELD CATALYST FOR NEW ENGLAND COMMERCE ~. t
118 Local Climatological Data 0", 0+o Annual Summary With Comparative Data 1977 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS F 1 *4P i Narrative Climatological Summary Climate is the composite of numerous weather elements. Three important influences are responsible for the main features of Boston's climate. First, the latitude (42* N) places the city in the zone of prevailing west to east atmospheric flow in which are encompassed the northward and southward movements of large bodies of air from tropical and polar regions. This results in variety and changeability of the weather elements. Secondly, Boston is situated on or near several tracks frequently followed by systems of low air pressure. The consequent fluctuations from fair to cloudy or stormy conditions reinforce the influence of the first factor, while also assuring a rather dependable precipitation supply. The third factor, Boston's east-coast location, is a moderating factor affecting temperature extremes of winter and summer. Hot summer afternoons are frequently relieved by the locally celebrated "sea-breeze," as air flows inland from the cool water surface to displace the warm westerly current. This refreshing east wind is more commonly experienced along the shore than in the interior of the city or the western suburbs. In winter, under appropriate conditions, the severity of cold waves is reduced by the nearness of the then relatively warm water. The average date of the last occurrence of freezing temperature in spring is April 8; the latest is May 3, 1874 and The average date of the first occurrence of freezing temperature in autumn is November 7; the earliest on record is October 5, In suburban areas, especially away from the coast, these dates are later in spring and earlier in autumn by up to one month in the more susceptible localities. Boston has no dry season. For most years the longest run of days with no measurable precipitation does not extend much more than two weeks. This may occur at any time of year. Most growing seasons have several shorter dry spells during which irrigation for high-value crops may be useful. Much of the rainfall from June to September comes from showers and thunderstorms. During the rest of the year, low pressure systems pass more or less regularly and produce precipitation on an average of roughly one day in three. Coastal storms, or "inortheasters," are prolific producers of rain and snow. The main snow season extends from December through March. The average number of days with four inches or more of snowfall is four per season, and days with seven inches or more come about twice per season. Periods when the ground is bare or nearly bare of snow may occur at any time in the winter. Relative humidity has been known to fall as low as 5% (May 10, 1962), but such desert dryness is very rare. Heavy fog occurs on an average of about two days per month with its prevalence increasing eastward from the interior of Boston Bay to the open waters beyond. The greatest number of hours of sunshine recorded in any month was 390, or 86% of possible, in June 1912, while the least was 60 hours, or 21%, in December Although winds of 32 m.p.h. or higher may be expected on at least one day in every month of the year, gales are both more common and more severe in winter. n ~ a NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL /NATIONAL CLIMATIC CENTER noaa ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION IDATA SERVICE /ASHEVILLE, N.C. C- 2
119 ... ~~ ~~~ IL."-- ' iii ad Sii i a aw oooooo0oooo -mmm -- a oooo oo~" WA... -z*a-- -",f1 "mo om*oo a-- p au...aa sa -.- VA.'C ae Asaali a ace. aaw a...., - N. e,, ca. c.o.. -a"'+%.. I ~ klllj~llsldi 3 d,t 4Oa 4C d * - 4- ma a -6r_ l v ama " A u " sl... ".. --,.-, a aas Uoo oo a.i t a-- ".. ".. "" '-" a-'.a l, +J*Ac. a m o ;.., a......,, i ~ ~ ~ T..... " "+*I Ec..... ' am... "" " Z - A I I 0<' t -"1"."- " "=^13, o ae.. nuz , M. -. A M b"w aao. 000 oa sa ~* ~ m : a nna~ 1z:-: n... 17,a~lf~ -1 a i id.. ii i,'-,.c c"'.';:- a s"' ac..0ca0.-acc1.,.!=21 I I a. - - a A-C.a
120 Average Temperature Heating Degree Days MO, N.A V. JON F"', ar1 " AiAg No I -cjnu I o aijljasiet ;lot OtIoiDeIJnIFb alar so + t +~ 11?. 1 t I 8[1T;Il;i e hd 4l * u ":*"!1 11il[ 1i66 W.: i iI7 i J"l~ 34S 4~ 4 O * loss is. go i*..: 3' *"0 IA $..U,?,1 1 6 a, 9 4 t. 6.1 :. 9 : IGS : 7, 7.I 11, ':,.1.,, ll t II Ie l I: 51 l l + i1 1 6 :1 :: : :: : :...,."1,0 3,,0,13 's 0...'all l? * 76 1, S 41. 0,* : ?32 ' N 1, A M * so* 1 : 1 1: :": 1, : 1;1a be. SO* 1r6"67 'on.011 Iol 1, 1.0,-, 1 ": at36 4 S ST : e O &7 ~ [ 2. 7 IS sl 1 l " S'61L Its 6O 1. 7.I?. ot, 3::: to. IN* MIl & 1"-&, O0 lo" 1' ; P l 7617 asl 3 As '* 7" " oi O o es 1 07~o se l IZO s~t71 l l l1 1 "" I I IZ. fi" : :.: 4O aoi s1o :1 7 2: o o5: *1 90 $ IS 111 IS I 16 1 : 7, 1 : 6, 1::... S 11, :73-? MS 16 X1I~l*is I t i 1 1 : 2. 11l a :s A, * 1, 1:. 66.! T71.?* OO Ol *I 51lol 7 1,7, I,) l~,i7l 0l 1I.1!1, 1 le 1',.6 :0 13'1 1l1 :1 SO, f* 710 IS 111': 11 '111 00,1: 11. * 51.1, 72,I?!*:. ": $ , " I as, 49* bi,] 64 7,?0, " I 7+ 0 ;S: 0:N 9: N :, I 4 :?., 17, 7 * l 1.:I 3.* 4 '? s i o 0, 1 9 Y e a J a e b I M A p r I a u n [ J l y l e I N o I D o c 1' :.... * 7.1, N :. " '.4 1,..6,.91:; ; z x,, 0 N.1 31, : , :*l 6 I: 7:M 10, e8~ M, 1 I'l 6 I7 N*, 46 7*1:?7, 70.! 17. 0l* 61 0?* 21:.1 I'l, I..l I16 I+. 1, 71, 00, 19. :I. 1:*3 0t 0I 0I* to 1: U 0 I. )::: Itl 1 5l 'so, 1.4,t IS. 1 1S13 a 1R7N * :1. 910& 41*13,4 7 1,N Ns. 19 Prciiato ".: Snowfalla:7T o o9.0.. o52 7t :a 3.. 1: 6: 0. 7:: : *.- )0 * 9$ * *8* : : V * i 2 9., o3 :.3.?' 4.1?, " t N:: SON I t3io.. 7* Y a e n r I F b o r0 I* My+ J u n e I.1 ul I, A ug* I S epti O cti N ov I o n u l S a o ul A g1e t c o v I D c I J n I F b I M a p a p n o a Io ; q ; 0.,17 2. O 3 0,19I.7 360s 1+0"0 " 0*0 T 1; ' o ;* ~ I6 4SL*Ol~ * 0.0 I : :0 0: * T. 0 :0 3. L Z*+ 10 S 17 I*) + S ;.Z 0. I ) * *.0a I.: S 0 0,.I " I T... T T. 0. 0*1 7:, 1t' i : :40: 0.00 T3? 0.03 I ;.5 *4 1,4 14 S.I 0..) 4 ;,Is 5:3 0.5 IO*3 15,:: a ,*,:$ O ? + 1: ~f : 3 1.: J 0 : 0 0: 0 S. : to5 7: ?t ::. 100 Oo ) t.9 1*1; 3* +1 0:.9 1; : '. 0+ MO5 I's * , ; *) :0 1:0 0:.0 10:. 5, O 1 1. *.000, 2..0 '. 9i ' : I*Oe ,.3, * +,.?,., t. L : ;.7 1.: ; (.2*5 I * ) 4: I0. ON,1 4.: 45. )I. *0 Z* 3+ s.io ) *,' , , *1 7.., :0. A 6T ON0 241 " 0,0:4 0, 5.3 0:00.5i,: I M* : 3 1 3: : ; to *0 t ",,16 1 ", 3.3 0*.0.6 4:.60 2 * , , Z /, 1:00, 00: I, 6.59, 4.; *,1 ;,: 1, 0 1:3,? 19-6 T, 0:, -:0 0:00 0), I, , d,. N,, 1. : ' 3 : 1, ), a a *0 *.i 3:61 0 *.:' 5? 1 1:3-.+ S. * :.t T * I2o II.I. 1:.11;!,.9 I? II, Z6I+3. T:: 0eI 0. Z..o17 1.:I S J T T I*2 1:12l ?. 1o ,,? 3. 1,+ 12,I I* 01O* 6 1',16 I 7-1 0,01 )* :7t ; 0.1 ':0' 4 1 : ,.1 0.3q 0, IN*+ ':LI.I 0 31, 5.:3 13 :,7 :" :*0 S.., , Z *e le :0 0:0 0.0 T lo. S3 0 * 1.1,7,?* * 0 ) , 0.0 1: ?, 5: 0:7 3, 0 1.1, ,.2i a *?. 11.? 1?-7 0. ) ** *0 11.,I 1.Is *7 * o6 Z1 13* Of I I t-,M C-4 "a
121 STATION LOCATION DosM.. MssA.,,sE - lrabove St - St te h. dourthnohse Seeo h. /27 1/0 / ' 71-02' 16 22un c T.O appero ndaoe Cor 20 eter So s/12/7 / ft. NW 42-22' 71 01,,3l pp r ei n, 0.O3 Cortn HoS reetent071 /66 11 O 40 ft. NCd ' 71 = EutCoaste Buil ding 8 /0 1/ ft. S ' l6 Lron d vaiop / A E.qui I-11: -n oty as Builtg Wter Streets No /01/1427 0fs t2o 22' 71 02' b56olv 7/127i 11. Main e igh o ng to. ousi 3 Bostoserpk6 New.S a t ort Office i 9/0194 6/0712/9 00 ft. NE 42' 21' 71-04' O eaionch T. a m a rd Soldos U. AS. Bost ie 40/01/2+ 107/2 13/0 mit. NS 42 21' 71 02' inch ran olo oedf. You.ngsto Busiding 6/071 /29 Prs 70 ft. N 42-22' 71' 02' [t F6p olt ln, slotr ADHA,- r ' C is on 11 f /1-3. t tn r dine Bosornd '1s Aot i ste losvet.,. I, I2 15t4 ' 5 I' coscyi~ 11 5 P ps ct vnegror d oegn Sas it. A ~si BSate V C~mya S An. t Hangar a o ld ose As,, No. /0/I6 l=present 2 14 fi. N 42' 22' 71 03' 2 [ ' a - Added.. l 21/B.. Ua. We t 1/i5/27i 4101/ ' 71-02/2 /l ony. o s.nt Ofic /29/3 / 06/ ftj. SE 42-21' 71' W Ob.../ i- 1,205 tandferre P A~nSec tion ArmyI!9 As ldr~ ootn Bosto A6p Iast d 1117 /UI/27 1-/ o P ' 71' 02' u P..I,. East Botst/n1/ Indi a/d St e/3ret Itmrr, wn'at ofsonpc. t. t afst/ Boston AP, z -t Buasta i last run atol Ia C e C d B Avl C. 8 E-1~2" B.oI -t cer.bk eaar dlt nb tidin ll/atlnn2 h d b a' t i.t2a 2' li 71 ne2' 12-2 i Ash v2 2 N. C. 28 At -le, o 30 foo Int -,s t tha A t trla n foa atrof t ton setnd.el Ad n tnndt n I 2'' e /1 rof 1/3. f /1a/4.t fi 3 W 1 SW t4s e.5-2-,, 15 B PA/II u 1dn Log- nt l I f 't, /2057, 7 ansdwn Bulig., e [ alst l. 3t~,pr oy ~dadnns ccssol end payaonle* to Onines fcoe;res"a Rnltnts ot't-apo,,tcencrd e g E - a - to 52 7v. a l e r ice 20 bck n oe ores hol hemd pybl todpr f~t Se en of Iopy om re.na. R itn c nicor epondeniel t aq ~ ~ " -~ t ~ hlntedrra ~ ~ ~ T ietr ~ -la~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ focdll: al-lciai r"" ntr eea ietr Naioa S:I~~~~~~~~~~~~tlr~~~~~~~0 C I "uoe I et120c- h 1 pbetodprmn fcomre OAB i -dn O A.SH EV ill, N.C 2801 readn h DLa bl-to II C ldc,, CEremitaces POSTlLLM" ~e p-1 NATIONAL~~edra Building.C Asheille N.IU~ C.ORUNT 28t8OVI U DI" A MnT OF tim[ US[I-NAAASEVLL -utdn snt,.. m01first CLASS C-5
122 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., INC. DC-9 MAINTENANCE MANUAL TOWING - DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION FC. 1. General A. Forward or aft towing (pushing) is normally accomplished through the nose gear axle, using a yoke-type towbar and a towing vehicle. B. The nose gear towing load, directly forward or directly aft with the towbar parallel to the ground, is limited to 16,200 pounds. The maximum load limit in any turn is 8100 pounds. The towing vehicle should be equipped with a torque converter to minimize acceleration and deceleration loads on the nose gear. Figure 1 shows towbar pull required to tow the airplane over various surfaces. During the towing operation, the vehicle operator must make certain that turning limits of the nose gear are not exceeded. Maximum nosewheel turning angle is 90 degrees either side of I center. Turning limits are displayed on the nose gear and nose gear door with red lines visible from the towing vehicle operator's position. During nosewheel towing all turning is accomplished through the towbar. The nosewheel steering control is made inoperative by placing the steering bypass valve in bypass position and installing the steering bypass valve lockpin. D.If the airplane is off the runway in soft sand, earth, or mud, towing can be accomplished at the main gear. This method of towing is used when conditions such as those above would exceed the towing load limits of the nose gear. Cables or ropes are attached from each main gear to the towing vehicles. when cables are used for towing, it is good practice to attach connecting ropes at frequent intervals to minimize whipping in the event of cable break. The maximum main gear towing load limit, within 30 degrees of directly forward or directly aft, is 12,150 pounds each gear. steering during main gear towing * is accomplished through the nosewheel steering control, when hydraulic power is available. E. A qualified person shall be stationed in the flight compartment during all phases of towing to watch for hazardous conditions and to stop the airplane using the airplane brakes in the event the towbar breaks or becomes uncoupled. Station wing and/or tail walkers as necessary to insure adequate clearance between airplane and adjacent equipment-and structures. I top ~
123 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., INC. D C-9 MAINTENANCE MANUAL F. it is desirable to establish some form of communication between the towing vehicle operator and person in the flight com-' partment; either two way radio (walkie-talkie) or through the airplane interphone system. Electrical power for airplane lights, radio communication with the control tower, hydraulic power and interphone commiunication may be furnished by theauxiliary power unit (APU). SD-2
Memorandum Federal Aviation Administration Date: To: From: Prepared by: Subject: Memo No.: Proposed See Distribution Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service Victor Wicklund,