ABSTRACT

This report is based on the Conceptual design, Stress analysis and Finite element analysis
of landing gear system for Medium Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Combat Aerial
Vehicle (MALE U.C.A.V). Starting with initial layout configuration Tri-wheel
configuration has been selected. Geometric Parameters of Configuration such as Wheel
Track and Wheel Base have been calculated. Loads are determined at all the possible
landing conditions. Maximum loads in each direction are picked from all the loads. These
reactions are transferred to, strut attachment and different points along the strut length.
For MLG optimization is performed reducing the weight of MLG.NLG is hybrid of strut
and Oleo Pneumatic shock absorber. Each component is sized by established set of
working procedure.
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................i

List of Figures.....................................................................................................................ix

List of Tables......................................................................................................................xi

List of Abbreviations and Symbols..................................................................................xiii

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Aim and objectives................................................................................................1

2 LANDING GEAR LITERATURE..............................................................................1

2.1 Literature Review..................................................................................................1

2.2 Types of Landing gear..........................................................................................2

2.2.1 Tail Wheel Type............................................................................................2

2.3 Tandem Type:.......................................................................................................2

2.4 Tricycle-Type........................................................................................................3

2.5 Final Selection.......................................................................................................3

3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN...........................................................................................6

3.1 Initial Constraints..................................................................................................6

3.1 Tip Back Angle αc ................................................................................................6

3.2 Turn over angle ϕ ot ..............................................................................................7

3.3 Landing Gear Height Hf .......................................................................................7

3.4 Calculation of Parameters.....................................................................................8

3.4.1 Parameter (L).................................................................................................8

3.4.2 Parameter (N).................................................................................................8

3.4.3 Wheel Base (F)..............................................................................................9

3.4.4 Wheel Track...................................................................................................9

3.5 Final Selection of Parameters.............................................................................10

ii
4 LANDING LOADS...................................................................................................10

4.1 Load Factors........................................................................................................10

4.1.1 Limit Ground Reaction Load Factor nlim...................................................10

4.1.2 Ultimate Ground Reaction Load Factor nul ................................................11

4.1.3 Limit Vertical Inertia Load Factor nVlim....................................................11

4.1.4 Ultimate Vertical Inertia Load Factor nVul .................................................11

4.2 Descent Velocity.................................................................................................11

4.3 Bottoming Load..................................................................................................12

4.4 Rake Angle θ.......................................................................................................12

4.5 Deflections..........................................................................................................12

4.5.1 Main Landing Gear Deflection....................................................................12

4.5.2 Vertical Deflection of Main Landing Gear..................................................13

4.5.3 Vertical Stroke of Oleo Nose Landing Gear dS ..........................................13

4.5.4 Total Required Nose Landing Gear Deflection...........................................14

4.6 Loads...................................................................................................................14

4.6.1 Level Landing Condition.............................................................................14

4.6.2 Level Landing Condition (main landing gear contact)................................15

4.6.3 Tail Down Landing Condition.....................................................................16

4.6.4 One Wheel Landing Condition....................................................................16

4.6.5 Braked Roll Condition.................................................................................17

4.6.6 Static Loads on N.L.G and M.L.G...............................................................18

4.6.7 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (aft)................................................18

4.6.8 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (forward).......................................19

4.6.9 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (side load).....................................19

4.7 Load Table..........................................................................................................19

iii
 4.8 Tires....................................................................................................................20

5 MATERIAL SELECTION........................................................................................22

5.1 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn....................................................................................................22

5.2 Al 7076-T61........................................................................................................23

6 NOSE LANDING GEAR..........................................................................................23

6.1 Nose Landing Gear Layout.................................................................................24

6.2 Kinds of Shock Absorbers..................................................................................24

6.2.1 Leaf Spring.................................................................................................24

6.2.2 Rubber Springs............................................................................................24

6.2.3 Pneumatic Shock Absorber..........................................................................24

6.2.4 Liquid Spring...............................................................................................24

6.2.5 Oleo-Pneumatic...........................................................................................25

6.3 Oleo Pneumatic Shock Absorber........................................................................25

6.3.1 Design..........................................................................................................25

6.3.2 Cylinder.......................................................................................................27

6.4 Critical Load.......................................................................................................29

6.4.1 Loads in Local Axis.....................................................................................29

6.5 Factor of Safety F.O.S:.......................................................................................30

6.6 Sizing and Stress Analysis Nose Strut and Drag Strut........................................30

6.6.1 Al-7076-T61................................................................................................31

6.6.2 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn.............................................................................................31

6.6.3 Final Selection.............................................................................................32

6.7 Layout CAD........................................................................................................33

6.7.1 Fork-Piston Connection...............................................................................34

6.7.2 Torque Link.................................................................................................34

iv
 6.7.3 Upper Mounting Brackets............................................................................35

6.7.4 Female lug for Drag Strut............................................................................35

6.7.5 Fork..............................................................................................................36

6.8 Finite Element Analysis......................................................................................37

6.8.1 FEA Model..................................................................................................37

6.8.2 Boundary Condition.....................................................................................37

6.8.3 Forces...........................................................................................................38

6.8.4 Mesh size 7mm............................................................................................39

6.8.5 Mesh size 6mm............................................................................................40

6.8.6 Mesh size 5mm............................................................................................40

6.8.7 Results..........................................................................................................43

7 MAIN LANDING GEAR..........................................................................................44

7.1 Constraints..........................................................................................................44

7.2 Critical Loads......................................................................................................44

7.2.1 Loads in Local Axis.....................................................................................45

7.3 Sizing and Stress Analysis..................................................................................45

7.3.1 Al-7076-T61................................................................................................46

7.3.2 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn.............................................................................................46

7.3.3 Final Selection.............................................................................................47

7.3.4 Buckling.......................................................................................................47

7.4 Spring Coil Shock Absorber...............................................................................49

7.4.1 Static Load...................................................................................................49

7.4.2 Static Deflection..........................................................................................49

7.4.3 Spring Rate (K)............................................................................................49

7.4.4 Force on Lug................................................................................................50

v
 7.4.5 Lug for Spring Coil shock absorber.............................................................50

7.5 Layout CAD........................................................................................................53

7.5.1 Upper Mounting Bracket.............................................................................54

7.5.2 Lower Mounting Bracket.............................................................................54

7.5.3 Link Assembly.............................................................................................55

7.5.4 Spring Coil Actuator....................................................................................55

7.6 Finite Element Analysis......................................................................................56

7.6.1 FEA Model..................................................................................................56

7.6.2 Boundary Conditions...................................................................................57

7.6.3 Forces Applied.............................................................................................57

7.6.4 Model 1........................................................................................................58

7.6.5 Model 2 with bush collar.............................................................................59

7.6.6 Finalized Model...........................................................................................59

7.6.7 Final Model Mesh Size 8mm.......................................................................60

7.6.8 Final Model Mesh Size 7mm.......................................................................60

7.6.9 Final Model Mesh Size 6mm.......................................................................61

7.6.10 Final Model Mesh Size 5mm.......................................................................62

7.6.11 Results.........................................................................................................63

8 Conclusion.................................................................................................................64

References..........................................................................................................................66

APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................68

vi
 List of Figures
Figure 1 Tail Wheel type configuration...............................................................................3
Figure 2 Tandem type Configuration..................................................................................3
Figure 3 Tricycle configuration...........................................................................................4
Figure 4 Ch-5 Reference aircraft.........................................................................................5
Figure 5 MQ-9 Reaper.........................................................................................................6
Figure 6 Isometric view of design UCAV...........................................................................6
Figure 7 Tip back angle.......................................................................................................8
Figure 8 Schematic of rear-fuselage clearance at the take-off operation............................9
Figure 9 Schematic diagram showing wheel base and wheel track...................................10
Figure 10 Layout showing parameters of Landing gear [4]..............................................11
Figure 11 Schematic diagram of Level Landing Condition (three-point contact).............17
Figure 12 N.L.G Layout....................................................................................................29
Figure 13 Leaf Spring type................................................................................................30
Figure 14 Rubber Springs schematic.................................................................................30
Figure 15 Schematic Diagram of Oleo Pneumatic Strut...................................................31
Figure 16 N.L.G Layout showing cylinder, piston and Drag Strut...................................33
Figure 17 Axis Transformation.........................................................................................34
Figure 18 Ansys APDL Nose Landing Gear Model..........................................................36
Figure 19 Loads at Attachment point of N.L.G Strut and Drag Strut...............................36
Figure 20 Tubular Section.................................................................................................38
Figure 21 Nose Landing Gear Layout CAD......................................................................41
Figure 22 Fork-Piston Connection.....................................................................................42
Figure 23 N.L.G Torque Link............................................................................................42
Figure 24 N.L.G Upper Mounting Bracket.......................................................................43
Figure 25 Female lug for Drag Strut..................................................................................44
Figure 26 N.L.G Fork........................................................................................................44
Figure 27 FEA Model........................................................................................................45
Figure 28 NLG Force applied at Fork...............................................................................46
Figure 29 Boundary Condition Fixed Support..................................................................46

vii
Figure 30 NLG mesh size-7mm........................................................................................47
Figure 31 NLG mesh size 6mm.........................................................................................48
Figure 32 NLG Mesh size 5mm........................................................................................50
Figure 33 Tubular Section.................................................................................................54
Figure 34 Schematic Spring Coil Shock Absorber............................................................58
Figure 35 Layout of Lug....................................................................................................60
Figure 36 Lug in tension....................................................................................................60
Figure 37 Lug bearing failure............................................................................................61
Figure 38 Lug in Shear......................................................................................................61
Figure 39 Upper Mounting Bracket...................................................................................64
Figure 40 Lower Mounting Bracket..................................................................................64
Figure 41 Link Assembly..................................................................................................65
Figure 42 Spring Coil Actuator modeled as a rod.............................................................65
Figure 43 FEA Model........................................................................................................66
Figure 44 Fixed support on upper mounting bracket.........................................................67
Figure 45 Force 1 applied at lower mounting bracket.......................................................68
Figure 46 Initial Model FEA at mesh size 5mm................................................................68
Figure 47 Model 2 with added bush collar FEA at mesh size 5mm..................................69
Figure 48 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 8mm.................................................................70
Figure 49 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 7mm.................................................................70
Figure 50 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 6mm.................................................................71
Figure 51 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 5mm.................................................................72
Figure 52 Equivalent Stress at Lug mesh size 5mm..........................................................73

viii
 List of Tables
Table 1 Comparison of Design Parameters.........................................................................5
Table 2 Initial Design constraints........................................................................................7
Table 3 Final Selected Parameters.....................................................................................12
Table 4 Load Summary.....................................................................................................24
Table 5 Main Gear Tire.....................................................................................................25
Table 6 Nose Gear Tire......................................................................................................25
Table 7 Predicted tire Radiuses.........................................................................................26
Table 8 Properties of Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn [6]..........................................................................27
Table 9 Properties of Al7076-T61 [7]...............................................................................28
Table 10 Nose Landing Gear Constraints..........................................................................29
Table 6.2 Transformed Loads............................................................................................34
Table 6.3 Cylinder Sizing and Stress Analysis..................................................................35
Table 13 Critical Loads.....................................................................................................36
Table 14 Transformed Loads Main Strut and Drag Strut..................................................37
Table 15 N.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Al-7076-T61...................................38
Table 16 N.L.G Shear Stress Analysis Al7076-T61..........................................................39
Table 17 N.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn................................39
Table 18 N.L.G Shear Stress Analysis..............................................................................40
Table 19 Final Selected Size..............................................................................................40
Table 20 Parameters of N.L.G Upper Mounting Brackets................................................43
Table 21 Loads acting on Female Lug..............................................................................44
Table 22 Female Lug Parameters......................................................................................44
Table 23 Finalized Results for FEA Analysis...................................................................51
Table 24 Main Landing Gear Constraints.........................................................................52
Table 25 Critical Loads.....................................................................................................53
Table 26 Transformed Loads.............................................................................................53
Table 27 M.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Al-7076-T61..................................54
Table 28 M.L.G Shear Stress Analysis Al7076-T61.........................................................55
Table 29 M.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn...............................55
Table 30 M.L.G Shear Stress Analysis..............................................................................56

ix
Table 31 Final Selected Size..............................................................................................56
Table 32 Buckling Stress Analysis....................................................................................57
Table 33Lug Dimensions...................................................................................................62
Table 34 Finalized Results for FEA Analysis...................................................................73

x
 List of Abbreviations and Symbols

N.L.G Nose Landing Gear

M.L.G Main Landing Gear
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
mL Maximum Landing weight
Ψ Lateral Tip over angle
αc Tip Back Angle
𝑯𝒇 Landing Gear Height
ϕ ot Turn over angle
n lim ¿¿ Limit Ground Reaction Load Factor
nul Ultimate Ground Reaction Load Factor
nVlim Limit Vertical Inertia Load Factor
n vul Ultimate Vertical Inertia Load Factor
dS Vertical Stroke of Oleo Nose Landing Gear

xi
 1 INTRODUCTION
Landing gear is a major component for any Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and it is of
significant importance. It enables the UAV to perform its tasks. It empowers the Takeoff,
Landing and Taxiing of fixed wing UCAV as in our case. It provides stable ground
support to UCAV during non-operational period and at the most critical phase of landing.

1.1 Aim and objectives

The aim and objectives of the project are as followed:

 Define Landing Gear Configuration

 Perform Wheel Track Calculation
 Conduct Wheel Base Calculation
 Calculate Geometric Parameters
 Compute Ground Reaction Load Factor
 Select Landing Conditions
 Calculate Reactions at Attachments
 Compute Reactions at Strut Attachment Point and along Strut Lengths
 Size Main Landing Gear (M.L.G) Strut, Nose Landing Gear (N.L.G) Strut and
Drag Strut
 Design Oleo Pneumatic Shock Absorber for N.L.G and M.L.G:
 Conduct Finite Element Analysis of N.L.G and M.L.G

2 LANDING GEAR LITERATURE

2.1 Literature Review
The landing gear of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is one of the most crucial parts.
Landing gear, like any other gear system in a car, gives the UAV a way to carry out its
mission. It makes it possible for UAVs to take off, land, and taxi—in our instance,
UCAVs are fixed-wing aircraft. During the non-operational phase, landing gear provides
stable ground support, and during the most essential landing phase, landing gear serves as
a mechanical shock-absorbing structure. The fuselage, which is a stronger component
than the other, receives the loads thereafter. In order to prevent failure, the landing gear

1
strut transfers and absorbs impact energy. A landing gear strut that is highly favored has
to be technically possible, lightweight, and strong. [1]

2.2 Types of Landing gear

There are different types of the landing gear which can be used for UAV landing gear
configurations.

2.2.1 Tail Wheel Type

It is a conventional type of landing gear also called Tail Dragger. Main landing gear is
positioned ahead of center of gravity. Such type of configuration is beneficial where
propeller with long blades is used to compensate for engines with less power. [1]

Figure 1 Tail Wheel type configuration

2.3 Tandem
Type:
Tandem type landing gear have main landing gear ad tail gear are arranged in a aligned in
a straight line along the longitudinal axis of aircraft. Tandem configuration is commonly
used in sail planes. Most of the time wheels are configured in bicycle type layout and few
times small wheels are attached under wings for best balance and stability. Such as

Harrier Jump jet and U2 spy plane and many other uses this configuration. Such type

2
permits the aircraft to use wings with high aspect ratio. Major disadvantage is that
landing and takeoff operation become unstable and difficult to execute. [1]

2.4 Tricycle-Type
The tricycle gears have one wheel is placed at the nose and other two main wheels are
connected either to the wings or fuselage. The nose wheel enables the steering of UAV in
required direction during ground operation. The main wheels bear the most of total
weight of UAV and also provide stability. [1]

Figure 3 Tricycle configuration

2.5 Final Selection

It is clear from the aforementioned specifications that the tricycle type design is the ideal
option for the landing gear of a UCAV. With a wing span of 62 feet as opposed to a
length of 35 feet, this design offers much-needed stability. The primary benefits of this
arrangement are the ease of maneuvering, quick braking for UAVs without tipping over,
and protection of UAVs from crosswinds. The fact that this configuration is used by the
time-tested MQ-9 Reaper and the reference UCAV CH-5 is another reason for selecting
it. This configuration is most suitable for the intended use because both reference UCAVs
belong to comparable weight categories and have similar applications.

3
Table 1 Comparison of Design Parameters

Figure 4 Ch-5 Reference aircraft

4 Reaper
Figure 5 MQ-9
 3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
The initial constraints of the landing gear design are considered after finalizing the
configuration. Some of the initial parameters of the landing gear are taken from the
UCAV data are as followed.

3.1 Initial Constraints

Table 2 Initial Design constraints

3.1 Tip Back Angle α c

Clearance angle is the maximum aircraft nose up attitude with the tail touching the
ground and strut fully extended. [2]. To ensure that UAV does not tip on its tail, the angle
between the vertical drawn from the main wheel to the aircraft c.g. ( α c) should be 15
degrees or greater than the tip back angle whichever is greater. Tip back angle is taken to
be 15 deg.

Figure 7 Tip back angle

5
3.2 Turn over angle ϕ ot
Turn over angle is proportion of tendency of airplane to turn over when aircraft
turns about sharp corners. It is the angle between main wheel and C.G when
aircraft is seen from rear side as illustrated in Fig 3.4. It should be 25< ϕ ot <63.
Lateral Tip over angle was provided in initial constraints with a value of 64.3 deg
so Overturn Angle is 90-64.3=25.7 deg.

3.3 Landing Gear Height H f

It is the vertical distance from ground to attachment of landing gear with aircraft
structure. [3] Landing Gear height has vital role in following ways

 It provides aircraft during ground taxi.

 It provides clearance for rear-fuselage in take-off operation.
 It helps to prevention of tip-back.
 It helps to prevention overturn.
 It fulfills loading and unloading requirements.

Where AB=14.5ft i.e. Distance from M.L.G to beginning of upsweep

H f = AB∗ta n α c =3.88 ft

According to F.A.R if there is a propeller then a ground clearance of 7inches is required

without any contact with ground during maximum pitch attitude attainable during takeoff

and landing [3]. Therefore, adding 7in=0.583 ft clearance height becomes

Figure 8 Schematic of rear-fuselage clearance at the take-off operation

6
 0.583
H f =3.88+ =4.47 ft
cos 15

3.4 Calculation of Parameters

In order to correctly fix the initial configuration parameters detailed calculation has been
carried out according to a case study presented in conference paper by Akhilesh Jha [2].
Different parameters are calculated according to Fig 3.3. These parameters are very
important for completely designing the configuration of landing gear.

Figure 9 Schematic diagram showing wheel base and wheel track

3.4.1
Parameter (L)
Parameter L is calculated using aircraft Forward C.G location and C.G location of Nose
Landing gear.

L=( Fwd ) X C . G−( N . L ) X C .G

L=17.92−8.2=9.72 ft

3.4.2 Parameter (N)

Parameter N is calculated using aircraft Forward C.G location and C.G location of Nose
Landing gear.

N= ( Aft ) X C .G −( N . L ) X C . G

7
 N=18.11−8.2=9.91 ft

3.4.3 Wheel Base (F)

Wheel Base (F) is the distance amid NLG and MLG as displayed in Fig 3.4. Wheel base
has an essential role on the distribution of load amongst M.L.G and N.L.G. It also effects
the ground controllability and ground stability. [3]

F n max=(F−L)
[ ]
W
F

F n max=0.10∗W Assuming 10% aircraft load acts on N.L.G

F=(F−L)
[ W
0.10W ] Fig. 3.1 Wheel track

0.10 F=(F−9.72)

F=10.8 ft

3.4.4 Wheel Track

Wheel track is known as the distance between tires of MLG and is measured at the
ground as shown in Fig.3.5. Using Norman S.Currey [4] book section Lateral Location of
Main Landing Gear fig 3.7 i.e. calculations for Turn over angle. The wheel track can be
found as follow

Z
tan ϕ ot = where Z is half of wheel base
wheel base (F)

8
Figure 10 Layout showing parameters of Landing gear [4]
3.5 Final Selection of Parameters
After calculation of Landing Gear configuration parameters for conceptual design using
two different approaches, we are in a position to finalize the parameters.

Table 3 Final Selected Parameters

4 LANDING LOADS
The CS-23 Certification Specifications' Subpart C - Structure assumes that limit ground
loads will be employed during the landing gear design cycle [5]. The airplane structure
bears the external loads and inertia forces that correspond to the limit ground loads
mentioned in the subpart. All external responses and ground load conditions must be in a
balanced or customary way with respect to linear and angular inertia forces. With the
exception of ground load criteria outlined in subpart C, which should be met at the
maximum design weight, paragraphs CS 23.479, 23.483 and 23.481 may very easily be
met at the design landing weight allowed by subparagraph CS 23.473 (b).

4.1 Load Factors

4.1.1 Limit Ground Reaction Load Factor n lim ¿¿
It is defined as ratio of assumed lift less inertia load factor and UCAV design
landing weight. It is needed to define assumed lift. Assumed lift is taken as two

9
thirds of UCAV design landing weight. Ground Reaction Load Factor n L
calculated as follow.

n
lim ¿=n−
( DesignAssumed
LandigWeight (W ) )
Lift
L
¿

2
Assumed Lift = (W L )=3913.33 lb
3

n
lim ¿=2.67− (3913.33
5870 )
=2.00 ¿

4.1.2 Ultimate Ground Reaction Load Factor nul

Ultimate Ground Reaction load factor is 1.5 time limit ground reaction load factor.

nul =1.5∗n lim ¿=3 ¿

4.1.3 Limit Vertical Inertia Load Factor nVlim

According to STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT no vertical inertia load factor
should not be lower than 2.67 at maximum design weight. [5] Limit vertical inertia load
factor is calculated as followed:

nVlim =n lim ¿+ L¿

2
nVlim =2+ =2.66
3

4.1.4 Ultimate Vertical Inertia Load Factor nVul

Ultimate Vertical Inertia load factor is 1.5 time limit ground reaction load factor.

nul =1.5∗n lim ¿¿

nVul =4

4.2 Descent Velocity

The least possible vertical descent velocity that might be used for designing application is
indicated by the CS-23 Certification Specifications as it needs not be greater than 3.0 ms -1
and may not be lower than 2.1 ms-1. It is calculated as follow.

10
 [ ]
1
ml 4
V z=0.90∗ where S is wing area∈m 2∧ml is design landing weight ∈kg
S

[ ]
1
2662.58 4
V z=0.90∗ =3.03=3 m s−1
20.62

4.3 Bottoming Load

The bottoming load is dependent upon the highest possible ultimate ground reaction load
factor of the selected main landing gear tires.

F B=ml g nul

F B=2662.58∗9.81∗3=78359.72 N =3993.86 kg( per tire)

4.4 Rake Angle θ

By overlaying the main attachment points on the side view of aircraft longitudinal
position of NLG is found. The resulting angle called Rake angle.

−1 K nvlim
θ=ta n where K isdrag component coefficient
2
nvlim −
3

−5
K=5.88∗10 m L +0.17=0.26

−1 0.26∗2.66
θ=ta n =23.12 deg
2
2.66−
3

4.5 Deflections
4.5.1 Main Landing Gear Deflection
The maximum deflection of main landing gear energy dissipated by the landing gear
depends upon the; standard gravitational acceleration, limit ground reaction load factor,
design landing weight, landing gear deflection, and the landing gear absorption efficiency
which is assumed to be 50 percent. The main landing gear deflection required
approximately is determined by applying the law of conservation of energy. By modifying
equation and solving for maximum main landing gear deflection we have

11
 2
Vz
d ML= 2
3
2g n 2 = ¿
lim ¿ η− g 2
3
2(9.81∗2∗0.5)− g
3

d ML=0.68 m

4.5.2 Vertical Deflection of Main Landing Gear

Vertical Deflection of main landing gear which is static deflection of M.L.G under full
weight of aircraft is given as follow

mL g d ML (cos 15)a
d z=
2 Fc
 𝑎 is the relative distance between the nose wheel and C.G [m]

 𝑐 is the relative distance between the nose and main landing gear [m]

 𝐹 is the tail-down limit vertical ground reaction load [N]

2622.57∗9.81∗0.68∗( cos 15 )∗2.67

d z= =0.29 m
2∗26119.90∗3.02
4.5.3 Vertical Stroke of Oleo Nose Landing Gear d S
The energy dissipated by Oleo Pneumatic Shock absorber is reliant on the; standard
gravitational acceleration, landing weight, limit ground reaction load factor, vertical
stroke of the oleo pneumatic, and the oleo pneumatic absorption efficiency. The oleo
pneumatic absorption efficiency is taken to be 80 %, as it is achievable by a traditional
oleo pneumatic shock absorber and nose wheel tire absorption is assumed to be 45 %.

2
Vz
d S= +d ¿ ¿
2g t

2
3 1
+ 0.101( −2∗0.45)
2∗9.81 3
d S= =0.32 m
1
2∗0.8−
3

12
4.5.4 Total Required Nose Landing Gear Deflection
d NL=d S + d t

d NL=0.32+0.101=0.42 m

4.6 Loads
4.6.1 Level Landing Condition
In level landing condition (3-point contact) it is supposed that the aircraft is in a level
attitude with the NLG and MLG tires touching the runway surface at the same time, as
displayed in Fig 4.1. It is supposed that MLG is fully deflected, while the NLG is
deflected in such a manner which is most critical for each component of the landing gear.
It is supposed Tire deflection is static.

The limit drags load which is linked with each vertical ground reaction load amps the

Figure 11 Schematic diagram of Level Landing Condition

(three-point contact)
forces needed to speed up the landing tires up to aircraft landing speed. These loads may
be mentioned to as spin-up loads, and are demarcated by a drag component coefficient.

M.L.G
F 1 z is the limit ground reaction load [N]

F 1 z=n mL a
lim ¿ g ¿
2 c

2∗9.81∗2.662.58
∗2.67
2
F 1 z= =23092.76 N
3.02

13
F 1 x is the limit drag load [N]

mL a
F 1 x =KnVlim g
2 c
0.32∗2.66∗9.81∗2.662 .58
∗2.67
2
F 1 x= =9828.28 N
3.02

N.L.G
F 2 z is the limit ground reaction load [N]

F 2 z=n b
lim ¿ g mL ¿
c

2∗9.81∗2.662 .58
∗0.35
2
F 2 z= =6054.28 N
3.02

F 2 x is the limit drag load [N]

b
F 2 x =KnVlim g m L
c
0.32∗2.66∗9.81∗2.662.58
∗0.35
2
F 2 x= =2576.70 N
3.02

4.6.2 Level Landing Condition (main landing gear contact)

In level landing condition (main landing gear contact) supposes that the aircraft is in a
level attitude with only the MLG tires touching the runway, while the nose wheel remains
just clear of the ground. Landing gear and tire deflections are supposed to be equal to
those which were used in the prior landing condition.

Similarly, the limit vertical ground reaction load acting on the MLG is calculated in a
way analogous to method applied in the prior landing condition. The only modification is
that the entire weight of the aircraft now acts on the MLG instead of distribution amongst
the MLG and NLG.

F 1 z is the limit ground reaction load [N]

14
F 1 z=n mL
lim ¿ g ¿
2

2∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 z= =26119.90 N
2

F 1 x is the limit drag load [N]

mL
F 1 x =KnVlim g
2
0.32∗2.66∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 x= =11116.63 N
2

4.6.3 Tail Down Landing Condition

In this condition the aircraft is supposed to be in a tail-down attitude, pitched up to the
stall angle, while only MLG tires are touching the runway. Landing gear and tire
deflections are supposed to be equal to those which were used in the prior landing
condition.

There is only a vertical component of ground reaction load since the MLG tires are
supposed to be at speed afore maximum vertical load is achieved.

F 1 z is the limit ground reaction load [N]

F 1 z=n mL
lim ¿ g ¿
2

2∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 z= =26119.90 N
2

4.6.4 One Wheel Landing Condition

In one-wheel landing condition, the aircraft is supposed to be in level attitude and
contacts the runway on single side of MLG. The ground reactions are equal to those
calculated on that side in paragraph CS 23.479.

The prescribed limit vertical load factor is 1.33, along with the vertical ground reaction
load distributed equally amongst the main landing gear tires. The limit vertical ground
reaction load arising on MLG is determined as

15
 mL
F 1 z=1.33 g
2
1.33∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 z= =17369.74 N
2

For the side load condition, the aircraft is supposed to be in a level attitude with only the
MLG wheels touching the ground and with the landing gear and tires in their static
positions. The recommended limit side inertia load factor is 0.83, with the side ground
reaction load distributed amongst the MLG wheels so that one half of the max design weight
is applied inboard on single side of the MLG, and one third of the weight is applied outboard
on the other side.

The limit side ground reaction load acting inboard on the main landing gear is calculated as
mL
F 1 y =0.83 g
2

0.83∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 y= =10839.76 N
2

The limit side ground reaction load acting outboard on the main landing gear is calculated as
mL
F 1 y =0.83 g
3

0.83∗9.81∗2.662 .58
F 1 y= =7226.50 N
3

4.6.5 Braked Roll Condition

In Braked Roll condition the aircraft is supposed to be in level attitude while landing gear
and tires are deflected to their static position. The recommended limit vertical load factor
is 1.33. The limit vertical ground reaction load acting on the main landing gear is
calculated

a 1.33 g mL
F 1 z=
2(0.8 H c . g +c)

2.67∗1.33∗9.81∗2662.58
F 1 z= where H c .g =5.96 ft =1.81m
2(0.8∗1.81+3.02)

F 1 z=10379.85 N

16
A drag reaction equivalent to the vertical reaction at the wheel times a coefficient of
friction 0.8 acts at the contact point ground of each of the MLG wheels.

F 1 x =0.8 F 1 z

F 1 x =0.8∗10379.85=8303.88 N

Using static equilibrium. The limit vertical ground reaction load acting on the nose landing
gear is the calculated.

F 2 z=1.33 g mL −2 F1 z

F 2 z=1.33∗9.81∗2662.58−2∗10379.85=13979.78 N

4.6.6 Static Loads on N.L.G and M.L.G

Supplementary conditions for nose wheels commend additional loads that act on the NLG.
These conditions suppose that the wheels and shock absorber are in their static position and
they are defined by the static load which acts on the NLG.

Static Load M.L.G

a
F 1 z=g md
c

where md is design maximum weight 6433.2 lb=2877.68 kg

9.81∗2877.68∗2.67
F 1 z= =24958.34 N
3.02

Static Load N.L.G

a
F 2 z=g m d
c
9.81∗2877.68∗2.67
F 2 z= =24958.34 N
3.02

4.6.7 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (aft)

For aft loads the limit vertical component at the axel is 2.25 multiplied by the static load
whereas the drag component is 0.8 multiplied by the vertical load.

s s
F 2 z=2.25 F 2 z where F 2 z is the static load on nose landing gear

17
 F 2 z=2.25∗3027.14=6811.06 N

F 2 x =0.8 F 2 z

F 2 x =0.8∗6811.6=5448.85 N

4.6.8 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (forward)

For forward loads, the limit vertical component at the axel is again 2.25 multiplied by the
static load whereas the drag component is 0.4 multiplied by the vertical load.

s s
F 2 z=2.25 F 2 z where F 2 z is the static load on nose landing gear

F 2 z=2.25∗3027.14=6811.06 N

F 2 x =0.4 F 2 z

F 2 x =0.4∗6811.6=2724.42 N

4.6.9 Supplementary Condition Nose Wheel (side load)

For side loads, the limit vertical component at the axel is 2.25 multiplied by the static
load whereas the side component at the ground contact is 0.7 multiplied the vertical load.

s s
F 2 z=2.25 F 2 z where F 2 z is the static load on nose landing gear

F 2 z=2.25∗3027.1=6811.06 N

F 2 x =0.7 F 2 z

F 2 x =0.7∗6811.6=4767.74 N

4.7 Load Table

The loads recommended by the CS-23 Certification Specifications are summarized in table
3.1

18
Table 4 Load Summary

4.8 Tires
There are two load rating for tires;

 maximum load: the maximum static load the tire can bear
 estimated bottoming load: the load borne by the tire at maximum deflection.

Bottoming load of the MLG tires describes the maximum possible ultimate vertical
ground reaction load factor. The tires should be selected in such a manner that the

19
selected vertical ground reaction load factor does not surpass the tire’s strength and that
the static load that acts on the tire does not surpass the maximum loading of the tire.
Based on these requirements, the selected MLG tires are

Table 5 Main Gear Tire

Brand Michelin Air

Size 17.5 x 6.25 - 6
Ply Rating 10
Speed Rating 120 [MPH]
TL/TT TT

Main Gear tire is selected based upon bottoming load per tire. In our case bottoming load
is 8804.46 lb (per tire)

Table 6 Nose Gear Tire

Brand Michelin Air

Size 6.50 - 8
Ply Rating 8
Speed Rating 120 [MPH]
TL/TT TT

Nose Gear tire is selected based upon bottoming load on tire. In our case bottoming load
is 3200kg=7055lb

Table 7 Predicted tire Radiuses

Load Condition Main Wheel Radius [m] Nose Wheel Radius [m]
Un-loaded 0.222 0.243
Static Load 0.175 0.203
Limit Load 0.160 0.142

20
 5 MATERIAL SELECTION
The criteria for selecting material are total normal stress and shear stress. The material
used for the construction of aircraft must have enough mechanical and specific properties
such as specific strength and specific stiffness in order to sustain the loads. But the major
requirements are strength and weight. Stresses were compared with yield strength of
material and then materials were selected. For the design of Landing gear strut two
materials were selected on the basis of properties. Aluminum 7075 and Titanium Alloy
i.e. Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn were taken into consideration and used for sizing the strut.

5.1 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn
Titanium alloys are now best where SS (stainless steel) is too heavy and aluminum is too
weak. Light weight, strong and corrosion resistance of titanium make it more satisfactory
in the aerospace industry.

Table 8 Properties of Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn [6]

21
 5.2 Al 7076-T61
Modern aircraft construction is done by using aluminum alloys because of their high
strength to weight ratio. Their high corrosion resistance, light weight and good
machinability properties make it valuable in the aerospace industry.

Table 9 Properties of Al7076-T61 [7]

6 NOSE LANDING GEAR

The NLG is a type of oleo pneumatic shock absorber that is steerable and fixed. It has a
tubular strut that supports a piston and cylinder assembly. The process for doing this
requires not just engineering the N.L.G. to support the necessary load but also to adhere
to weight and length restrictions.

The primary landing gear has to be engineered to adhere to a certain set of limitations and
fulfill the stability standards outlined in CS-23. During the N.L.G. size process, certain
restrictions have been met, and certain requirements—like weight and length—have been
satisfied.

22
 Table 10 Nose Landing Gear Constraints

Constraint Value
Nose Landing Gear weight 62.52 lb.
Nose Landing Gear length 5 ft.
X C.G (N.L.G) 8.2 ft.

6.1 Nose Landing Gear Layout

Along with main Nose Oleo Shock Absorber there is a drag strut included in the N.L.G.
This Drag strut is attached to the main strut just above
the starting point of Cylinder. Its length is 2ft and it is
mounted at an angle of 33.44 which is half of the angle
between N.L.G and ground.

6.2 Kinds of Shock Absorbers

Figure 12 N.L.G Layout
6.2.1 Leaf Spring
One of the most common landing strut systems on
general aviation aircraft is the spring steel strut. They
are used for aircrafts that have nonretractable landing
gears. These are simple, reliable and maintanable.

6.2.2 Rubber Springs

It consists of a bearing , Guide rod and vulcanized Figure 13 Leaf Spring type

rubber disks stacked. Its efficeincy depends upon the amount to which stress is uniformly
transferred to absorbing medium.

6.2.3 Pneumatic Shock Absorber

These are similar in design to oleo-pneumatic shock absorber but
these only have air as working fluid. These have less Figure 14 Rubber Springs schematic
efficiency & reliablity and are heavier as compared.

6.2.4 Liquid Spring

It is a type of shock absorber similar to Pneumatic but uses liquid
such as oil hence the name liquid spring. These were used first time in Second world war.
23
6.2.5 Oleo-Pneumatic
The hybrid of both penumatic and liquid spring shock absorber us tge oleo-pneumatic
strut and it is the most used shock absorber.The reason for its selection for our UCAV is
its mechanism to dissipate energy efficently and its design simplicity, seviciablity and
maintability.

6.3 Oleo Pneumatic Shock Absorber

An oleo-pneumatic shock absorber uses compressed nitrogen or dry air within a
compartment to force oil against it in order to disperse impact energy. After the initial
impact, air pressure regulates the rebound by forcing the oil to flow back into its chamber
through a recoil orifice. Energy is absorbed by the oil as it is forced through one or more
orifices. The aircraft will bounce higher if there is a rapid flow back of oil; conversely, if
the flow is too sluggish, the short wavelength bumps that are often present during ground
taxiing will not be adequately damped because the strut has not returned to the static
position fast enough.

Figure 15 Schematic Diagram of Oleo Pneumatic Strut

6.3.1 Design
For this UCAV a single acting shock absorber is designed according to procedure
described by Norman S. Currey [4] in his book. The vertical stroke of oleo has been
already calculated in section 4.5.3.

Stroke=0.32 m=12.6∈¿

24
P2=1200 psi , P2 is static pressure

1.9
Compression ratio= compressed ¿ static
1

Max static Load=14291.06 N max vertical load picked ¿ Load table 4.1

Max static Load=3211.78 lb

P3=1.9∗P2 , P3 is compressed pressure

P3=2280 psi

Max static load 3211.78 lb 2

Piston Area= = =2.67 ¿
static pressure 1200 psi

Piston Diameter =
√ A∗4
π
=
√
2.67∗4
π

Piston Diameter =1.87∈¿ 47.5 mm

V 3=0.10∗Displacement =0.10∗( Stroke∗Piston Area )

V 3=0.10∗( 12.6∗2.67 ) , V 3 is compressed Volume

3
V 3=3.36 ¿

V 1=V 3 + Displacement , V 1 is Extended Volume

3
V 1=3.36+ 33.64=37 ¿

P3∗V 3 2280∗3.36
P 1= = , P1 is Extended Pressure 60< P1 <300
V1 37

P1=207.04 psi

Minimum Permissible Overlap =2.75∗Piston Diameter

Minimum Permissible Overlap =2.75∗1.87=5.14∈¿

25
6.3.2 Cylinder
Cylinder Length=Stroke +Overlap

Cylinder Length=12.6 +5.14=17.74∈¿

Cylinder Length=17.74 +1∈ ( margin )=18.4∈¿

Force from the wheel axel is transferred to the cylinder

attachment point and then the cylinder sizing is carried out
along with stress analysis. Displacement vector from wheel
axel to cylinder attachment point

Rc=[ 0.356 i ¿ +0 j ¿ −0.838 k ¿ ] m Figure 16 N.L.G Layout showing

cylinder, piston and Drag Strut
F=[ 5448.85 i¿ +4767.74 j ¿−14291.64 k ¿ ] N

Applying Equilibrium Equations we get at attachment point

C=[ −5448.85 i ¿−4767.74 j ¿ + 14291.64 k ¿ ] N

With force transfer there are equal and directionally opposite force reactions at the point
of transfer along with these force reaction moments also arise at the point of transfer.

Moments=Rc X F=[ 3995.4 i ¿ + 521.48 j ¿−1697.3 k ¿ ] N

They are identified as Axial, Bending, Shear and Torsion Loads as Shown.

Table 6.11 Transformed Loads

Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
Reactions
(N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
-15283 -4768 600 7.8 521.5 -4340.9 Figure 17 Axis
Value Transformation
Axial Shear Shear Torsion Bending Bending
26
Along with these 6 reactions cylinder is subjected to hoop stresses also. Cylinder has to
be sufficient in size to withstand these stresses along with hoop stresses included. Ri
=24.24 mm is fixed and Ro is found with suitable thickness.

Axial force F
Axial Stress= = =15.60 MPa
Area A

M∗ro
Bending Stressdue ¿ My=σ B , My = =54.80 MPa
I

M∗ro
Bending Stressdue ¿ Mz=σ B , My = =221.67 MPa
I

Hoop Stress=σ hoop =66.30 MPa

Net Normal= Axial+ σ B , My +σ hoop=124.84 MPa

Net Normal= Axial+ σ B , Mz + σ hoop =439.90 MPa

Table 6.12 Cylinder Sizing and Stress Analysis

Ro Ri Fx Axial My σ B , My Mz σ B , Mz P Hoop Net Net

(m) (m) (N) Stress (Nm) (MPa) (Nm (MPa) (Nm) Stress Normal Normal
(MPa) ) (MPa)
0.0 0.024 1528 15.60 521.5 54.80 4341 221.67 1.57E07 66.30 124.84 439.90
3 3

27
6.4 Critical Load

For the sizing the most critical load in each direction is picked from the landing
conditions. The loads are transferred to attachment of Landing gear and Drag strut i.e.
point where maximum loading occurs using Ansys APDL.

Table 13 Critical Loads

LOADS (N)

X Y Z
5448.85 +4767.74 -14291.64

Point 3 is attachment of N.L.G Strut

Point 4 is attachment point of Drag Strut

Figure 18 Ansys APDL Nose Landing Gear Model

6.4.1

Figure 19 Loads at Attachment point of N.L.G Strut and Drag Strut

Loads
in Local Axis
Loads at attachment point are then transformed into Local Landing Gear axis and they are
identified as Axial, Bending, Shear and Torsion Loads as Shown.

28
 Table 14 Transformed Loads Main Strut and Drag Strut

Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
Reactions
(N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
-10862 3034 1293 119.3 1176.4 -4758.1
Main Strut
Axial Shear Shear Torsion Bending Bending
1733.
4071 1858.4 -1114.2 1200.1 -2612.8
Drag Strut 8
Axial Shear Shear Torsion Bending Bending

6.5 Factor of Safety F.O.S:

For sizing and stress Analysis will use F.O.S=2.3. For manned aircrafts F.O.S of 2 is used
whereas for general structures design F.O.S 1.7 is used. Therefore, it is obvious that for
unmanned aircrafts F.O.S would be higher than 2 as landing is sometimes uncontrolled.
All the time the landing surfaces for a UAV are not prepared to cater this F.O.S is higher
than 2. During the preliminary design phase loads are not finalized for the whole design
process but after Prototype aircraft testing the loads are again revised so there should be
already some leeway to accommodate the changes in sizing according to finalized loads.
Keeping these aspects in mind F.O.S 2.3 is used for this design cycle.

6.6 Sizing and Stress Analysis Nose Strut and Drag Strut
For Sizing both Aluminum and Titanium were used. The Design Stresses was limited by
using a Factor of Safety F.O.S = 2.3. The outer radius (Ro) was determined by varying
the thickness as a percentage of outer radius. The values of Ro which satisfy both the
Design Bending Stress and Design Shear Stress were selected. The selection focused on
finding Ro with thickness of 10% and 15% of Ro.

29
 6.6.1 Al-7076-T61
τ design=130.43 Mpa σ design=248.7 Mpa. For F.O.S= 2.3 sizing was done along with Stress
analysis and following results were obtained.

Table 15 N.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Al-7076-T61

Strut t Ro Ri Fx Axial My σ B , My Mz σ B , Mz Net Net

(m) (m) (N) Stress (Nm) (MPa) (Nm) (MPa) Normal Normal
(MPa)

Mai 10% 0.043 0.038 10862 9.85 1176.4 54.80 4758.1 221.67 64.65 231.52
n 15% 0.038 0.032 10862 8.63 1176.4 57.13 4758.1 231.09 65.76 239.72
Drag 10% 0.035 0.031 4071 5.57 1200.1 103.68 2612.8 225.73 109.25 231.30
15% 0.031 0.0263 4071 4.86 1200.1 107.35 2612.8 233.73 112.22 238.59

Table 16 N.L.G Shear Stress Analysis Al7076-T61

Strut t Ro Ri Fy Fz τ Fy τ Fz Mx τ T , Mx Net Shear Net Shear

(m) (m) (N) (N) (MPa) (MPa (Nm) (MPa) (τ Fy+¿ τ T ¿ (τ Fz+¿ τ T ¿

Mai 10% 0.043 0.038 3034 1293 5.49 2.33 119.3 2.77 5.11 8.26
n 15% 0.038 0.032 3034 1293 5.03 4.8 119.3 2.89 4.94 7.69
Drag 10% 0.035 0.031 1733. 1858.4 5.81 11.02 1114.2 48.13 53.20 52.86
8
15% 0.031 0.026 1733. 1858.4 5.03 9.56 1114.2 49.83 54.25 53.96
8

6.6.2 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn
τ design=330.43 Mpa σ design=526.08 Mpa. For F.O.S= 2.3 sizing was done along with Stress
analysis and following results were obtained.

30
 Table 17 N.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn
Strut t Ro Ri Fx Axial My σ B , My Mz σ B , Mz Net Net
(m) (m) (N) Stress (Nm) (Nm) Normal Normal
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Main 10% 0.033 0.0297 10862 16.72 1176.4 121.26 4758.1 490.44 137.98 507.16
15% 0.03 0.0255 10862 13.85 1176.4 116.12 4758.1 469.65 129.97 483.5
Drag 10% 0.027 0.0204 4071 9.36 1200.1 231.36 2612.8 503.71 239.47 511.82
15% 0.024 0.0243 4071 8.11 1200.1 225.85 2612.8 491.71 235.21 501.07

Table 18 N.L.G Shear Stress Analysis

Strut t Ro Ri Fy Fz τ Fy τ Fz Mx τ T , Mx Net Shear Net Shear

(m) (m) (N) (N) (MPa (MPa) (Nm) (MPa) (τ Fy+¿ τ T ¿ (τ Fz+¿ τ T ¿

Mai 10% 0.03 0.0297 3034 1293 9.32 3.97 119.3 6.14 10.12 15.47
n 3
15% 0.03 0.0255 3034 1293 7.7 3.28 119.3 5.88 9.17 13.59
Drag 10% 0.02 0.0204 1733. 1858.4 7.95 8.53 1114. 104.84 114.77 114.3
7 8 2
15% 0.02 0.0243 1733. 1858.4 6.87 7.37 1114. 107.4 113.37 112.8
4 8 2

6.6.3 Final Selection

The Finally Selected Size is that of Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn for both 10% and 15% of Ro
thickness. The reason for selection is that Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn provides better strength to
weight ratio as compared to Al7076-T61.

Table 19 Final Selected Size

Strut t Ro (m) Ri (m)

Main 10% 0.033 0.0297

15% 0.03 0.0255

31
 Drag 10% 0.027 0.0204
15% 0.024 0.0243
Cylinder 6 mm 0.030 0.02425

6.7 Layout CAD

After the sizing and design of Nose Landing Gear and lug for its attachment now we are
in position to make a CAD model of Nose Landing Gear. The layout CAD consist of
several parts listed below. Some parts have been described above and a brief description

Figure 20 Nose Landing Gear Layout CAD

of few is given below.

32
 1. Main Strut
2. Drag Strut
3. Oleo-Pneumatic Cylinder
4. Oleo-Pneumatic Piston
5. Fork
6. Fork-Piston connection
7. Torque Link
8. Upper mounting brackets for both main strut and drag strut
9. Drag strut lower mounting
bracket
10. Female lug on main strut for
drag strut connection

6.7.1 Fork- Piston Connection

The part highlighted in red is
the fork-piston connection assembly. It connects the piston with the fork which then
connects wheel through wheel axel

Figure 21 Fork-Piston Connection

6.7.2 Torque Link

The torque link is an essential component
of Nose Landing Gear. It is used for steering
the aircraft during ground operation. It is connected with the cylinder and the other end is
connected with the connection assembly.

33
6.7.3 Upper Mounting Brackets
The upper mounting bracket connect the main strut and drag strut with the fuselage. It is
connected with main strut and drag strut either by welding or bolting which ever method
is feasible. It transfers the loads of landing gear to the bulkheads present in the fuselage.

Table 20 Parameters of N.L.G Upper Mounting Brackets

Parameter Main Strut Drag

Figure 23 Strut
Male lug for Drag Strut
Outer Radius (mm) 40 30
Inner Radius (mm) 15 12
Thickness (mm) 17 12

6.7.4
F

emale lug for Drag Strut

The first step is to decide the layout of the lug. It will be a single lug and a male double
lug attached with the drag strut will make connection with it. This lug will transfer force

Figure 24 N.L.G Upper Mounting Bracket

from main strut to the drag strut.

34
 Table 21 Loads acting on Female Lug
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
Reactions
(N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
4071 1733.8 1858.4 -1114.2 1200.1 -2612.8
Drag Strut
Axial Shear Shear Torsion Bending Bending

Table 22 Female Lug Parameters

Parameter Female Lug

Outer Radius (mm) 30
Inner Radius (mm) 12
Thickness (mm) 27

6.7.5 Fork
The fork is another essential part of Nose Landing Gear. It connects the rest of Nose
Landing Gear assembly with tire thorough wheel axel.

Figure 25 N.L.G Fork

35
6.8 Finite Element Analysis
Next step is to apply Finite Element Analysis on the designed Main Landing Gear and
obtain reasonable results.

6.8.1 FEA Model

The FEA model consists of the main strut and drag strut with upper, lower mounting
bracket. The drag strut is connected to main strut as a welded connection to ensure proper
load transfer and to resolve the contact problems arising during FEA analysis.

6.8.2 Boundary Condition

Figure 26 FEA Model

The upper mounting brackets of main strut and drag strut connect the landing gear with
the fuselage bulkhead. It transfers the loads to bulkhead also. Therefor the lugs are
constrained as fixed support.

36
 6.8.3
F

Figure 27 Boundary Condition Fixed Support

orces

Figure 28 NLG Force applied at Fork

37
6.8.4 Mesh size 7mm

Figure 29 NLG mesh size-7mm

38
6.8.5 Mesh size 6mm
6.8.6 Mesh size 5mm

Figure 30 NLG mesh size 6mm

Figure 31 NLG mesh size 5mm

39
40
Figure 32 NLG Mesh size 5mm

41
6.8.7 Results
Table 23 Finalized Results for FEA Analysis

Model Nodes Elements Max Stress (MPa) Min Stress (MPa)

7mm 145165 43295 506 0.1487
6mm 185118 52520 519.48 0.169
5mm 243751 65800 525.07 0.049
Our Criteria was Von-misses stresses arising in the structure should not exceed the yield
stress of material, also the weight of strut should not exceed the weight constraint both
are satisfied. With different elements size mesh the number of nodes and elements change
but there is no significant change is stress which means it is insensitive to mesh size
therefore it is concluded the FEM Analysis is valid.

42
 7 MAIN LANDING GEAR
The strut that absorbs the majority of the energy from impacts during airplane landings is
the primary focus of the MLG's design. The process to do so requires not only
engineering the strut to support the load, but also to adhere to the weight and length
requirements set out by the Design Group. Utilizing beam design techniques, the initial
stage, or strut sizing, is completed. With an F.O.S. = 2.3, the strut is intended to
withstand the appropriate normal and shear stresses that result from loads and moments
acting on it.

7.1 Constraints
In accordance with the specified restrictions and the stability criteria outlined in CS-23,
the main landing gear needed to be developed. Several limitations, including ground
clearance, lateral stability, and horizontal stability, have been met, based on work
completed earlier in the conceptual design phase (see chapter 3). The M.L.G.'s remaining
dimensions, including weight and length, have been met. The design group Aero 14
carried out a weight study using the crow approach, which employs an F.O.S. of 1.5 for
size. Since we are using an F.O.S. of 2.3, our strut will weigh more than the weight
specified by the above method.

Table 24 Main Landing Gear Constraints

Constraint Value
Main Landing Gear weight 183.2 lb.
Main Landing Gear length 4.4 ft.
X C.G (M.L.G) 18.5 ft.

7.2 Critical Loads

Landing loads were worked out in detail in Chapter 4. For the sizing the most critical
load in each direction is picked from the landing conditions. The loads are transferred to
attachment of Landing gear i.e. point where maximum loading occurs. Then these loads
are transformed into local landing gear axis with the help of Matlab code attached in

43
appendix. The following loads are picked from Load Table 4.1. These loads are
according to aircraft axis system defined in section 3.6.

Table 25 Critical Loads

LOADS (N)

X Y Z

11116.63 -10839.76 -26119.90

7.2.1 Loads in Local Axis

Loads at attachment point are then transformed into Local Landing Gear axis and they are
identified as Axial, Bending, Shear and Torsion Loads as Shown.

Table 26 Transformed Loads

Loads Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
(N) (N) (N) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm)
Value -1116.63 -18835 21095 32504 -13368 -10345
Shear Axial Shear Bending Torsion Bending

7.3 Sizing and Stress Analysis

For Sizing both Aluminum and Titanium were used. The
Design Stresses was limited by using a Factor of Safety
F.O.S = 2.3. The outer radius (Ro) was determined by
varying the thickness as a percentage of outer radius. The
values of Ro which satisfy both the Design Bending Stress
and Design Shear Stress were selected. The selection
focused on finding Ro with thickness of 10% and 15% of
Ro. The sizing was done using absolute values in order to size for maximum stresses.

44
7.3.1 Al-7076-T61
τ design=130.43 Mpa σ design=248.7 Mpa. For F.O.S= 2.3 sizing was done along with Stress
analysis and following results were obtained.

Table 27 M.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Al-7076-T61

t Ro Ri Fy Axial Mx σ B , Mx Mz σ B , Mz Net Net

(m) (m) (N) Stress (Nm) (Nm) Normal Normal
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
10% 0.08 0.072 18835 4.93 32504 235.16 10345 74.84 230.23 69.91

15% 0.071 0.0603 18835 4.29 32504 242.03 10345 77.03 237.74 72.74

Table 28 M.L.G Shear Stress Analysis Al7076-T61

t Ro Ri Fx Fz τ Fx τ Fz My τ T , My Net Shear Net Shear

(m) (m) (N) (N) (MPa) (MPa (Nm) (MPa) (τ Fx +¿ τ T ¿ (τ Fz+¿ τ T ¿

10 0.08 0.072 1111 21095 5.81 11.02 13368 48.35 59.39 54.16
% 7
15 0.071 0.06035 1111 21095 5.03 9.56 13368 49.77 59.33 54.81
% 7

7.3.2 Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn
τ design=330.43 Mpa σ design=526.08 Mpa. For F.O.S= 2.3 sizing was done along with Stress
analysis and following results were obtained.

45
 Table 29 M.L.G Sizing and Normal Stress Analysis Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn

t Ro Ri Fy Axial Mx σ B , Mx Mz σ B , Mz Net Net

(m) (m) (N) Stress (Nm) (Nm) Normal Normal
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)

10% 0.06 0.0558 18835 8.01 32504 505.20 10345 160.79 497.18 152.78
2
15% 0.05 0.0476 18835 6.72 32504 493.27 10345 156.99 486.54 150.27
6

Table 30 M.L.G Shear Stress Analysis

t Ro Ri Fx Fz τ Fx τ Fz My τ T , My Net Shear Net Shear

(m) (m) (N) (N) (MPa) (MPa) (Nm) (MPa) (τ Fx+¿ τ T ¿ (τ Fz+¿ τ T ¿

10% 0.06 0.0558 11117 21095 9.67 19.06 1336 103.88 122.95 113.56
2 8

15% 0.05 0.0476 11117 21095 8.10 15.96 1336 101.43 117.40 109.53
6 8

7.3.3 Final Selection

The Finally Selected Size is that of Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn for both 10% and 15% of Ro
thickness. The reason for selection is that Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn provides better strength to
weight ratio as compared to Al7076-T61. Another reason is its far greater strength than
Al7076-T61.

Table 31 Final Selected Size

Thickness Ro Ri
(mm) (mm)

46
 10% 62 55.8
15% 56 47.6

7.3.4 Buckling
Buckling is checked in the final selection of size. [8] The critical stress for the strut is
determined and it is compared with Stress produced by axial load i.e. Normal Stress. If
the Normal Stress exceeds the Critical Stress, then the strut will buckle otherwise strut is
structurally safe.

2
π E
σ critical=
()
L
r

-σ critical is the normal stress in column just before it buckles

-E is modulus of Elasticity

-L is unsupported length

1
-r is smallest radius of gyration i.e (Moment of Inertia/ Area) 2

-n is the reserve factor n<1 means buckling occurs

Table 32 Buckling Stress Analysis

t Ro Ri Fy Axial Stress Radius of σ Critical

(m) (m) (N) (MPa) Gyration (MPa)
(m)
10% 0.062 0.0558 18837 8.01 0.041 1115.64

15% 0.056 0.0476 18837 6.72 0.036 866.16

For 10% case

σ ultimate=1.5∗σ limit
normal normal

47
σ ultimate=1.5∗8.01=12.01 MPa
normal

σ critical 1115.64
n= = =92.89i . e n>1
σ ultimate 12.01
normal

Reserve factor shows that stress caused by critical load is far lower than the capability of
material so the strut will not buckle under loading.

7.4 Spring Coil Shock Absorber

A spring coil actuator is designed using M.L.G using Maximum Static Deflection
calculated in section 4.5.2 and Maximum Static
Load which is calculated as follow. It consists
of a coil spring and it takes the cyclic load and
damps it, after its full compression the main
strut takes the load. The design focuses on
determining the Stiffness of spring and force it
transfers to the main strut by means of a lug
which is also designed.

7.4.1 Static Load

a
F static=g m d
c
9.81∗2877.68∗2.67
F static= =12479.17 N
3.02

7.4.2 Static Deflection

Vertical Deflection of main landing gear which is static deflection of M.L.G under full
weight of aircraft is given as follow

mL g d ML (cos 15)a
d static=
2 Fc Figure 33 Schematic Spring Coil Shock
-𝑎 is the relative distance between the nose wheel Absorber
and center of gravity [m]

-𝑐 is the relative distance between the nose and main landing gear [m]

48
-𝐹 is the tail-down limit vertical ground reaction load [N]

2622.57∗9.81∗0.68∗( cos 15 )∗2.67

d static= =0.29 m
2∗26119.90∗3.02
7.4.3 Spring Rate (K)
F static 12479.17
K= =
d static 0.29

3 N
K=43.03∗10
m

7.4.4 Force on Lug

For initial layout it is assumed that one third of total stroke which is already calculated in
section 4.5.1 is utilized in moving from static to compressed position. [4] Therefore for
Stroke 0.68m=26.77 in. One third i.e. 8.92 in and adding 1 in margin approximately 10 in
is the maximum deflection ( Xmax ) of Spring Coil Shock Absorber.

X max=10∈¿ 0.254 m

F max=K X max=10929.87 N

7.4.5 Lug for Spring Coil shock absorber

The first step is to decide the layout of the lug. From review of lug of similar aircrafts
such as MQ-9 the layout is chosen as shown in following figure. It will be a double lug
and a single lug will be attached with the end of Shock absorber.

Loads

F= 10929.87 calculated in section 7.4.4

Lug tension strength:

49
Figure 34 Lug in tension
At = (w - d) t where “t” is thickness

At = (0.03 - d) t

Using the equation (1) as shown below:

Ptu = Stu At

Aluminum Stu =1210MPa

10929.87 = (1210x106) (0.03 - d) t

9.03x10-6 = (0.03 – 2r) t (1)

Lug bearing strength:

Figure 35 Lug bearing failure

Abr = d t =2rt
Using the equation (2) as shown below:
Pbru = Sbru Abr = Sbru (2rt)
Aluminum Sbru =1700MPa

10929.87= (1700x106) (2rt)

50
 rt = 6.4 x10- (2)

Lug shear strength:

Figure 36 Lug in Shear

As = 2 y t
Using the equation (3) as shown below:
Psu = Ssu As
Aluminum Ssu =700MPa

10929.87= (700x106) (2 y t)

y t= 1.56x10-5 (3)

Solving all three equations through MATLAB we get a combination of different values
of r, y and t. Most suitable values are as followed,

Table 33Lug Dimensions

Outer Radius 30mm

Inner Radius 8.8mm

Thickness 3.6mm

Spacing between Lugs 19mm

51
7.5 Layout CAD
After the sizing and design of Spring Coil Shock Absorber and lug for its attachment now
we are in position to make a CAD model of Main Landing Gear. Layout consists of
several parts such as

[1]

Figure 37 Main Landing Gear Layout CAD Model

Upper Mounting Bracket

[2] Lower Mounting Bracket
[3] Main Strut
[4] Link Assembly
[5] Shock Strut modeled
[6] Shock Strut lugs
[7] Tires

52
7.5.1 Upper Mounting Bracket
The upper mounting bracket connect the main strut with the fuselage. It is connected with
main strut either by welding or bolting which ever method is feasible. It transfers the
loads of landing gear to the bulkheads present in the fuselage.

7.5.2 Lower Mounting Bracket

Lower Mounting Bracket connects the main strut to a lever assembly which in then
connected to wheel axel.

Figure 38 Lower Mounting Bracket

53
7.5.3 Link Assembly
The link Assembly connects the main strut through lower mounting bracket, Spring Coil
Actuator and tire. It acts as a lever during loading and it is the most appropriate model for
transferring vertical loads to spring coil actuator. The idea behind this link assembly is
taken from MQ-9 Reaper M.L.G.

7.5.4 Spring Coil Actuator

Figure 39 Link Assembly

The Design of Spring Coil Actuator has already

been completed in section 7.4 along with its
function. Here it is modeled as a rod in CAD model
as shown along with its connecting lugs.

Figure 40 Spring Coil Actuator

modeled as a rod

54
 7.6 Finite Element Analysis
FEA is conducted for main strut with upper, lower mounting bracket and connecting Lug
of Shock Actuator rest of the parts as defined in section 7.5 are not analyzed for FEA.

7.6.1 FEA
Model
FEA model
has main
strut with
upper

mounting bracket, lower mounting bracket and connecting Lug of Shock Actuator.

7.6.2 Boundary Conditions

The upper mounting bracket connects the landing gear with the fuselage bulkhead. It
transfers the loads to bulkhead also. Therefor the lugs are constrained as fixed support.

55
7.6.3 Forces Applied
Two forces are applied at two different points of Main landing gear Strut. Force 1 which
is the maximum loads from all the landing conditions is applied at the lower mounting
bracket. Force 2 is applied on inner surface of lug of Shock Coil actuator and if it is
applied on the half area of inner surface of lugs. The magnitude is defined in the given
table generated by ANSYS. To better understand the direction a force vector should be
made to visualize the forces in ANSYS.

56
 Figure 43 Force 1 applied at lower mounting bracket

7.6.4 Model 1
Initial model without any changes in the geometry of lug of upper mounting bracket is
analyzed for FEA. The analysis was carried out at mesh element size 5 mm. The stress
concentration occurs at the edge of lug.

Figure 44 Initial Model FEA at mesh size 5mm

57
7.6.5 Model 2 with bush collar
Model 2 is generated by making changes in the model 1 geometry. Now a bush collar is
added to the lug of upper mounting bracket by padding 0.012ft thick Circular pad on each
side for both holes with Ro=0.115ft and Ri that of hole radius. Reducing the
concentration of stress is possible by increasing the area of contact with the bush collar.
A mesh element size of 5 mm was used for the study. The bush collar's edge is where the
stress concentration occurs, albeit its magnitude is much smaller.

7.6.6 Finalized Model

Figure 45 Model 2 with added bush collar FEA at mesh size 5mm

To further reduce the stress Bush collar is removed and the thickness of bush collar i.e.
the area increase by bush collar is included in the lug itself by increasing its thickness and
reducing the hole diameter about 2mm. The FEA is carried out various mesh sizes as
follow.

58
7.6.7 Final Model Mesh Size 8mm
7.6.8
Final

Figure 46 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 8mm

Model Mesh Size 7mm

Figure 47 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 7mm

59
7.6.9 Final Model Mesh Size 6mm

Figure 48 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 6mm

60
7.6.10 Final Model Mesh Size 5mm

Figure 49 Equivalent Stress at mesh size 5mm

61
7.6.11

Figure 50 Equivalent Stress at Lug mesh size 5mm

Results
Table 34 Finalized Results for FEA Analysis

Model Nodes Elements Max Stress Min Stress Max

(MPa) (MPa) Strain(Von-
mises)
Model 1 5mm 291055 67821 945.41 0.360 0.00985
Model 2 5mm 290053 66962 722.06 0.433 0.00808
Final Model 8mm 158754 43713 604.98 0.147 NA
7mm 224661 60104 611.19 0.207 NA
6mm 345644 91325 626 0.1185 NA
5mm 510917 131293 642.4 0.192 0.00669

62
Our requirements were that Von-miss stresses that develop in the structure should not be
more than the material's yield stress and that the strut's weight should not be greater than
the weight restriction, both of which were met. When compared to yield strain, or
0.010341mm/mm, the resultant strain values for the various models demonstrate that the
deformation stays within the elastic limit, indicating that linear elastic FEA is appropriate
in this situation. It is determined that the FEM Analysis is legitimate since, although the
number of nodes and elements varies with different mesh element sizes, stress does not
significantly alter.

8 Conclusion
In conclusion, the project commenced with the establishment of a fundamental
conceptual design, focusing on the layout configuration of a Tricycle aircraft.
Subsequently, key parameters such as wheel base, wheel track, lateral tip-over angle, and
over-turn angle were determined. Adhering to CS-23 requirements, a suitable landing
gear design was formulated for a U.C.A.V., with a meticulous consideration of loading
conditions to guide the design process. Nine distinct landing conditions were identified,
and corresponding loads were calculated, facilitating the selection of appropriate tires for
both the Nose and Main Landing Gear.

Transitioning to the detailed design phase, the emphasis was placed on sizing and stress
analysis of struts, beginning with the Nose Landing Gear. Significant loads from various
landing conditions were identified and transferred to attachment points, where stress
levels are typically highest. Through iterative analysis and sizing, optimal dimensions for
both the main and drag struts were determined, culminating in the creation of a Layout
CAD.

Similar procedures were followed for the Main Landing Gear, leading to the development
of Layout CAD models for both landing gear systems. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
was then conducted, with various mesh sizes employed to obtain accurate results.
Optimization efforts focused on the Main Landing Gear, resulting in the successful
reduction of strut weight by nearly half through iterative sizing and stress analysis,
validated by subsequent FEA.

63
The project demonstrated a systematic approach to landing gear design, encompassing
conceptualization, detailed analysis, and optimization, all while ensuring compliance with
regulatory standards. The successful outcomes validate the effectiveness of the design
methodology employed and underscore its potential for application in future aerospace
projects.

64
 References

[1] J. Parmar, V. Acharya and D. J. Challa, "SELECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE

LANDING GEAR," International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 10-18, Feburary 2015.

[2] A. Jha, "Landing Gear Layout Design for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle," in 14th
National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (NaCoMM09),, Durgapur,
India,, 2009.

[3] M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft design: A system engineering approach, John Wiley and
Sons.

[4] N. S. Currey, Aircraft Landing Gear Desig: Principles and Practices, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc.

[5] J. A. MORENO, "UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES SYSTEMS

AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS (USAR)," 2009.

[6] "Titanium Ti-6Al-6V-2Sn (Ti-6-6-2) STA 910°C/540°C," Aerospace Specification

Metals Inc, [Online]. Available:
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP663. [Accessed
23 07 2020].

[7] "Aluminum 7076-T61," Matweb, [Online]. Available:

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?
matguid=8916a21e7d604d3499f7637fde053930. [Accessed 23 07 2020].

[8] I. Elishakoff, Y. Li and J. H. Starnes, Non-Classical Problems in the Theory of

Elastic Stability, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

65
66
APPENDIX A

67