Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Effect Of Bogie Tilt On Landing  
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 56
Posted (2 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 8361 times:

Conventional wisdom holds that aircraft with forward-tilted main landing gear bogies (767, A380) where the front axle touches down first will land "harder" than aircraft with rearward tilted, trailing MLG bogies (A330, 757) where the rear axle touches down first.

That sounds nice in theory, but is there a good physical explanation?

The MLG bogie articulation is for all intents a pinned joint, so which way it rotates should not matter one bit given the enormous loads involved. The only plausible explanation that I can think of is that the total stroke (between first wheel contact and strut compression) is longer for a rearward-tilted MLG bogie since the tilt angle can be much steeper... would that extra fraction of a second provide enough feedback for the pilot to better "finesse" the landing?

Or is this another aviation myth that people swear up and down is true? Physics please, no swearing it's true!

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineak907 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

I'm with you, the landing gear strut itself should not compress until all wheels are on the ground. The plane lands with a nose up attitude and a forward tilting bogey will be more level to the ground than an aft tilting bogey. For example, the plane lands with a 5 degree nose up attitude, and the fwd tilt bogey is also at 5 degrees. All wheels will be parallel to the ground. An aft tilted bogey on the other hand will have a 10 degree tilt relative to the ground.

User currently offlinepwdalmech From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 8322 times:

On most aircraft the tilt or angle position of the bogie is dictated by the position the gear is stowed in the wheel well. The landing gear must retract in a configuration to fit in the wheel well.


Pure Power
User currently offlineChimborazo From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 8242 times:

When the wheels touch down there is a large transfer of energy in a short time to spin the wheels up from 0 to circa 150mph. That energy is transferred from the wheels through the bogie into the strut.

On a bogie with front wheel hanging low the action of the wheel spinning up tends to pull the bogie down onto the runway, biting hard is the best way I can think to describe it. That force goes straight into the strut as a bending moment.

On a bogie with rear wheels hanging low I would think it would be a lighter touch as the pivot is in front of the wheel and so if the bogie rotates it will tend to lift the weight from the wheels.

Effectively, front wheel first on a twin or triple axle, the bogie has no choice but to bite down as the forward acceleration of the wheel tends to rotate the bogie down.

That's how I've visualised it. With no crabbing angle they probably feel the same, but in a crab, the front axle down will tend to try and rotate to the actual vector. Similar to a shopping trolley, the wheels prefer to trail when the force is not not straight. With rear axle low I would imagine this force is lower as the bogie can 'lift'.

No direct experience of either type to compare as I'm not a pilot. Also, anecdotally, I've travelled on 777s a lot and nearly always found the landng has quite a "lurch" as the mlg gets fully planted. Have always put that down to the length of th 3 axle bogie: relatively higher side loads for a given crab angle compared to a twin axle bogie. A380 inboard gears would I imagine get this too but the effect is less as the track is much narrower compared to T7 mlg.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8001 times:

Try

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvbZe87zQ4g&feature=related

Not much of a youtube fan myself, this was posted on Civil Av a while back, but these landings are worth watching.

Notice rudder involvement, anti-skid bouncing the gear, spoiler/lift dumper deployment.



Okie


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7277 times:

Quoting ak907 (Reply 1):
For example, the plane lands with a 5 degree nose up attitude, and the fwd tilt bogey is also at 5 degrees. All wheels will be parallel to the ground. An aft tilted bogey on the other hand will have a 10 degree tilt relative to the ground.

No, it doesn't work that way... the tilt of the bogie is independent of the aircraft's pitch angle. If a bogie tilts forwards 5 degrees, it will be 5 deg forwards whether the pitch angle is 10 degrees nose down or 30 nose up. The same goes for backwards tilting (this obviously ceases to be true at very high nose pitch angles). So no, the wheels will not be parallel to the ground.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7160 times:

The only adverse effect landing with a forward tilted bogie can make is that the wheel touches down in front of the strut. If the aircraft is slightly crabbed this will create a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising. But the rear wheels will touch very soon afterwards so if this has any effect it will not last long. Clearly this isn't a significant problem for the many 767s flying around. However the 777, which also needs the gear to be tilted forwards during retraction and extension then has the bogies tilted rearwards for landing so the rear wheels touch first. So perhaps that extra system complication was worthwhile in terms of the touchdown dynamics?

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 5):
No, it doesn't work that way... the tilt of the bogie is independent of the aircraft's pitch angle.

That's not correct. The bogie is held in position, relative to the strut, by hydraulic pressure so it will always be at the same angle relative to aircraft pitch too.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7134 times:

It's really the same reason landings are softer if you don't land on the nose gear and bounce I think. The landing gear should have "flare" to it.

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Chimborazo (Reply 3):
When the wheels touch down there is a large transfer of energy in a short time to spin the wheels up from 0 to circa 150mph. That energy is transferred from the wheels through the bogie into the strut.

On a bogie with front wheel hanging low the action of the wheel spinning up tends to pull the bogie down onto the runway, biting hard is the best way I can think to describe it. That force goes straight into the strut as a bending moment.

While locally a fair bit of energy is involved in spinning up a wheel, it's a pretty small amount relative to the mass and kinetic energy of an airliner. Assuming a 1.5m diameter wheel massing 200kg (and assuming it's a solid disk, which it's not), getting spun up to ~450rpm (~150kts), the total energy required is only about 60kJ. For comparison, a 100t aircraft at the speed will have kinetic energy around a quarter of a billion Joules. Even spinning up four wheels in that situation would only scrub off a thousandth of the kinetic energy of the aircraft.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
The only adverse effect landing with a forward tilted bogie can make is that the wheel touches down in front of the strut. If the aircraft is slightly crabbed this will create a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising. But the rear wheels will touch very soon afterwards so if this has any effect it will not last long.

No - only if the wheel is ahead of the CG of the *aircraft* will it tend to increase the yaw. If the wheel is ahead of the strut, but behind the CG, it will produce an anti-yaw force on the aircraft as a whole, but a definite torque in the other direction on the strut.

I don't know, but while mains are always mounted behind the CG on a tricycle gear aircraft, it seems plausible that the forward-most main wheels on at least some aircraft could actually be forward of the CG (in which case they would generate a pro-yaw force if they touched down first*), particularly with exceptionally long bogies like on the 777, or on configurations with "extra" bogies, like on the 747 or A380.

In any event it would be a minor force – it’s not that hard to tilt the bogies (absent some locking mechanism, like that used, *on takeoff*, on the longer 777s), so the pressure on the pavement when only one set of wheels is down is modest, hence the maximum amount of force they can generate is small as well.


*obviously not the case with the 777, 747 or A380 used in the rest of the example


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6695 times:

Quoting Chimborazo (Reply 3):
On a bogie with front wheel hanging low the action of the wheel spinning up tends to pull the bogie down onto the runway, biting hard is the best way I can think to describe it.

The "biting hard" is reacted by an upward force on the aircraft through the strut. Could that really be felt as a harder landing?

The only difference from "biting hard" is that the wheel is spun up more quickly (due to greater normal force), but the total impulse--force times time or moment times time--imparted to the aircraft once the wheel is spun up is the same regardless of timing, and therefore regardless of front or rear axle first. With this in mind, I'm not sure how this "biting" phenomenon would make a big difference.

Quoting okie (Reply 4):
anti-skid bouncing the gear

Oh man, that really begs for a better control system... those bogies are bucking like crazy!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
The only adverse effect landing with a forward tilted bogie can make is that the wheel touches down in front of the strut. If the aircraft is slightly crabbed this will create a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising.

Not if the front wheel is behind the CG of the aircraft-- which it clearly always is. While there is as you describe a toe-in moment about the strut, the moment about the CG is in the opposite direction because the CG is forward of the gear.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
The bogie is held in position, relative to the strut, by hydraulic pressure so it will always be at the same angle relative to aircraft pitch too.

That could be true of the 773ER (for tail clearance reasons), but is it generally true of all airliners? I would think a simple spring would do the job of properly positioning the bogie for retraction.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6642 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 9):
Not if the front wheel is behind the CG of the aircraft-- which it clearly always is. While there is as you describe a toe-in moment about the strut, the moment about the CG is in the opposite direction because the CG is forward of the gear.

It doesn't matter whether it's ahead of the CG or not. There is a destabilising turning moment relative to the strut, which will then be transmitted as a turning moment to the aircraft.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 9):
That could be true of the 773ER (for tail clearance reasons), but is it generally true of all airliners? I would think a simple spring would do the job of properly positioning the bogie for retraction.

Well it's certainly a hydraulic actuator on the 747 and 767 (and of course the 777), the bogie is hydraulically moved relative to the strut. A330 and A340 bogies are also hydraulically aligned. In each case the bogie must be in a given position to extend and retract the gear, so a spring simply isn't positive enough. It's nothing to do with 773 tail clearance either as when on ground the bogie is held level with the ground, a hydraulic strut would not resist the aerodynamic forces at rotation. Simple springs in landing gear is something you can only get away with in light aircraft.

This video shows a 777 gear swing and how bogie tilt changes during extension and retraction. When the gear is down and locked it tilts rearward. When UP is selected the bogie rotates to tilt forwards. This would not be possible with a simple spring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ3i_QNYASY

Even if a spring was used it would still push the bogie onto an end stop and so it would hold its position relative to the strut and therefore relative to the aircraft.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 10):
There is a destabilising turning moment relative to the strut, which will then be transmitted as a turning moment to the aircraft.

Not quite. If the left gear's left front wheel touches the runway while the aircraft is yawed to the right, the moment about the strut axis will be clockwise (viewed from above) but the moment about the aircraft CG will be counter-clockwise, straightening out the aircraft. Moments are not "transmitted" like forces... they depend on the reference point.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6475 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 11):
Not quite. If the left gear's left front wheel touches the runway while the aircraft is yawed to the right, the moment about the strut axis will be clockwise (viewed from above) but the moment about the aircraft CG will be counter-clockwise, straightening out the aircraft.

Your're thinking of the wheel as creating a moment about the CG, which it does of course. I'm looking at the wheel moment about the strut and the strut moment about the CG separately. Just as valid and the same total effect. I mentioned the wheel moment about the strut in isolation because that's the moment which changes depending on whether the front or rear wheel touches first, so that's what makes the difference to the ground handling.

Touching down front bogie wheel first is just like moving the main gear forward a few feet. It reduces the directional stability of the gear until the rear wheel touches and balances things out. Landing rear wheel first increases directional stability. The effect only lasts briefly. Only a 767 pilot could say if it's noticeable or not. However as Boeing took the trouble to make the 777 gear touch down rear wheel first it must have a beneficial effect.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 11):
Moments are not "transmitted" like forces... they depend on the reference point.

Moments are transmitted and add up, just like forces. Structures 101. If you apply a yawing moment to a rigid aircraft structure at the wingtip the effect on its motion is exactly the same as applying the same yawing moment at the CG.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 11):
Moments are not "transmitted" like forces... they depend on the reference point.

I think you're thinking of force-distance pairs (which give rise to moments). The moment you get from a particular force does depend on the reference point. But an applied moment (which already includes both the force and the arm if it's moment due to a force) absolutely does "transmit" just like a force. You can also directly apply moments (aka torques) which don't have a reference point and do "transmit" just like forces.

Tom.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
But an applied moment (which already includes both the force and the arm if it's moment due to a force) absolutely does "transmit" just like a force.

Then in my example from reply 11, would the clockwise moment in the left strut result in right yaw of the aircraft? Jetlagged clearly seemed to think so in reply 6 ("a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising"). Upon re-reading this, I think I understand now that he was describing only the direction of the strut moment, and not the resulting motion of the aircraft.

My point was that the clockwise moment reacted by the strut is overwhelmed by the counter-clockwise moment that the force transmitted through the strut applies about the aircraft CG. The result is left yaw of the aircraft, or a reduction of crab angle, regardless of bogie tilt or which axles touches down first.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 12):
Touching down front bogie wheel first is just like moving the main gear forward a few feet.

That I agree with.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
Then in my example from reply 11, would the clockwise moment in the left strut result in right yaw of the aircraft?

Nope, it would result in left yaw like you said. It's not really an applied moment, it's an applied force (which is where I think the confusion is coming from). The resulting moment about the strut is different in amount and direction than the resulting moment about the CG.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
Jetlagged clearly seemed to think so in reply 6 ("a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising"). Upon re-reading this, I think I understand now that he was describing only the direction of the strut moment, and not the resulting motion of the aircraft.

I had the latter interpretation (just talking about the strut).

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
My point was that the clockwise moment reacted by the strut is overwhelmed by the counter-clockwise moment that the force transmitted through the strut applies about the aircraft CG.

I agree, but we're getting pretty fuzzy between forces and moments here. For an analysis like this, it's much easier to treat the airplane as a rigid body and ignore forces & moments within the strut...the aircraft is getting a off-CG force applied to the gear (there is no applied moment), causing a resulting moment and force on the aircraft.

Tom.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 12):
Touching down front bogie wheel first is just like moving the main gear forward a few feet. It reduces the directional stability of the gear until the rear wheel touches and balances things out. Landing rear wheel first increases directional stability. The effect only lasts briefly. Only a 767 pilot could say if it's noticeable or not. However as Boeing took the trouble to make the 777 gear touch down rear wheel first it must have a beneficial effect.

I agree - but so long as the front wheel on the bogie remains behind the aircraft's CG, it will produce force contributing to positive directional stability, if somewhat less of that than if the read wheel had touched down first. But you originally said: "The only adverse effect landing with a forward tilted bogie can make is that the wheel touches down in front of the strut. If the aircraft is slightly crabbed this will create a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising." which is not true, unless that forward wheel is in front of the CG.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6017 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 16):
agree - but so long as the front wheel on the bogie remains behind the aircraft's CG, it will produce force contributing to positive directional stability, if somewhat less of that than if the read wheel had touched down first. But you originally said: "The only adverse effect landing with a forward tilted bogie can make is that the wheel touches down in front of the strut. If the aircraft is slightly crabbed this will create a yawing moment tending to increase the crab angle, i.e. directionally destabilising." which is not true, unless that forward wheel is in front of the CG.

I said it was destabilising, i.e. less directionally stable than if the rear wheel touches first. I didn't say it was unstable (which it would be if the wheel was ahead of the CG).

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
My point was that the clockwise moment reacted by the strut is overwhelmed by the counter-clockwise moment that the force transmitted through the strut applies about the aircraft CG. The result is left yaw of the aircraft, or a reduction of crab angle, regardless of bogie tilt or which axles touches down first.

All this is true, but having the initial ground contact point forward of the gear strut makes the directional stability temporarily worse.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Effect Of Bogie Tilt On Landing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Effect Of Air Pollution On Jet Engines posted Sun Sep 23 2007 07:52:40 by Thai744
Effect Of Temp/Density On HP/LP RPM posted Sun Jan 15 2006 22:10:18 by Tg 747-300
Effect Of Altitude /temperature On Aircraft Range posted Thu Feb 12 2004 10:42:01 by Thestooges
Effect Of Aspect Ratio On Wing Aerodynamics? posted Sat Mar 24 2001 13:12:34 by Aerokid
Effect Of Airport Closures On Etops? posted Fri Dec 1 2000 18:55:17 by Kaitak
Effect Of Temperature On Boundary Layer? posted Tue Dec 22 2009 02:30:03 by Faro
ERJ 190 Angle Of Attack On Landing posted Wed Mar 4 2009 23:25:58 by N701AA
Effect Of Sand On Aircraft posted Tue Jun 12 2007 16:15:38 by OHLHD
What Is The Effect Of Rain On Jet Engines? posted Sun Feb 25 2007 23:03:32 by JAM747
The Effect Of Wind On An Aircrafts Indicated Speed posted Thu Mar 2 2006 21:19:43 by Jamesbuk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format