Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A244044 PDF
A244044 PDF
A244044 PDF
AFIT/GA/ENY/9 1-1
DTI
LECTE,
7
819928
THESIS
AFIT/GA/ENY/9 ID-I
92-00045
92 1 2 '54
AFIT/GA/ENY/9 ID- 1
THESIS
December 1991
Accession fti
DTIC TE 0
Ju-,It lf!C' 1t
By
D .Ir cut r!
Avvlfstil1itV N408
j I-,-
AV"A'A3-
ii Dist i Specl
Table of Contents
Page
Preface ................................................ ii
iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Time Domain Specifications ....................... 17
2. Pitch Rate Response Measurements from
MIL-STD-1797A .................................... 20
3. Pitch Rate vs Time at 1000 ft, 660 KCAS, Pitch
Force - 5 Pounds .................................. 55
4. Pitch Rate vs Time at 1000 ft, 660 KCAS, Pitch
Force = 20 Pounds .......................... 56
iv
Page
v
List of Tables
Table Page
vi
AFIT/GA/ENY/9 ID-I
vii
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF REMOVING NOSE BALLAST FROM
THE F-15 EAGLE
I. Introdution
1
handling qualities that will result from the shift in c.g.
2
nominal aircraft c.g. location for the worst case air
superiority configuration (external wing tanks and pylons, a
3
II. Center 2f Grvt calculations
4
being flown in the field. The most significant changes in
avionics that have occurred in the F-15 fleet have been the
incorporation of an internal countermeasures set (ICS) at a
weight addition of 323 pounds, and the addition of a signal
data recorder (SDR) at a weight addition of 42 pounds
(6:11).
When the first F-15A was fielded, neither the ICS nor
equipment. When the F-15C model came out, both the ICS and
the factory with the black boxes. Therefore, the worst case
aft c.g. would still occur and be flown in the aircraft that
.ent by bciore the entire F-15C fleet all had the ICS and
5
The specific effects of including the ICS and the SDR
equipment in the F-15A/C were surprising. (The F-15B/D are
the two seat trainer variants of the F-15A/C. Since the aft
TABLE 1
Center of Gravity Limits in % MAC
6
critical aft c.g. configuration (5:15). The aircraft also
has 356 pounds of lead ballast located between fuselage
stations 208 and 228 (5:4). By removing 108 pounds of
ballast located between fuselage stations 219 and 227, the
7
TABLE 2
8
McDonnell Douglas Mass and Inertia report and calculated the
effects on the c.g. location and moments/products of inertia
of the aircraft as the lead ballast was incrementally
removed (7:3.13). The new c.g. location and the new inertia
information were then used in the computer simulation work,
TABLE 3
Summary of C.G. Configurations Used in Simulation (Gear Up)
Ballast Aircraft
C.G. Removed Weight
(%MAC) (Lbs) Ix Iy Iz Ixz (Lbs)
9
The baseline aircraft has a critical aft c.g. location
10
A 6 degree of freedom F-15E computer simulation was
11
fuel remaining and spent ammunition casings) were accounted
for in the c.g. and inertia moments calculations, as shown
in Appendix B.
The major limitation of this simulation from an
the aircraft had to start the run from a straight and wings
level position with enough flying airspeed such that engine
thrust capabilities could sustain the initial conditions.
12
since all changes are internal to the aircraft. Therefore,
13
input was made for a low Ig' commanded input (fine tracking
task simulation) at the baseline c.g. configuration of 28.7%
MAC. The test point was then repeated at 29.0, 29.5, and
30.0% MAC c.g. locations (Configurations 1, 2, and 3,
respectively) and the results plotted on the same graph for
direct comparison to baseline. Typical plots were either
pitch rate or normal 'g' versus time. Next, all 4
14
various conditions that were examined and their rational for
selection.
15
IV. Results And nlyi
of 28.7, 29.0, 29.5, and 30.0% MAC. 28.7% MAC was the
nominal c.g. of the baseline aircraft before removing any
ballast. 29.0% MAC is the current allowable aft c.g. limit
for the F-15A/C. Removing all of the 243 pounds of lead
ballast in the nominal F-15C aircraft placed the c.g.
location at 30.0% MAC, and 29.5% MAC was selected as an
intermediate test point between the allowable and maximum
aft location. The graphical data presented from this
portion of the analysis and located in Appendix D is
typically labeled with a "B" on the plot for the baseline
configuration of 28.7% MAC, and a "3" on the plot refers to
16
-"/ - -- °v --...-----
1.2 -- --
MAX OVERSHOOT
""- - -
.9 -
I I -STEADY STATE
.8 ERROR t)**
c(t) - -
I II
i I
i II
.4 I I I
- I
I I
.2 I I
I I I
Tr TIME
17
In order to find the damping ratio, the maximum peak
overshoot, Mp, must first be converted to ratio form with
18
TABLE 4
19
TANGENT AT
MAX SLOPE
1 2 3
time. sec
1797A.
TABLE 5
Flying Qualities Requirements (4:218)
Equivalent Transient
Level Time Delay Peak Ratio
1 < .12 sec < .30 9/V < t < 500/V
2 < .17 sec < .60 3.2/V < t < 1600/V
3 < .21 sec < .85 N/A
*Nonterminal flight phases, V is true airspeed in ft/sec.
20
flying qualities levels based on the measurements of the
transient peak ratio, equivalent time delay, and effective
rise time.
21
degrees/second, or 19% higher for configuration 3 over
baseline, was observed with the CAS off and with no other
TABLE 6
Summary of Results at 1,000 ft. PA, 660 KCAS
Effective
Rise Time .1/.12 .09/.11 .1/.03 .16/- .008< t <.45
22
Figure 8 in Appendix D shows the CAS off low 'g' command
2.4 and 2.6 seconds, and that beyond 2.6 seconds, airspeed
change effects caused the decrease in pitch rate. The
23
increase from subsonic to supersonic, the effects of an aft
c.g. shift at supersonic speeds were negligible.
This completed the "corners of the flight envelope"
the F-15.
24
seconds after applying the step input, configuration 3
not experience the same pitch reversals that the low force
step input sees. Because of the unstable response of this
25
.7 Mach, differences in peak overshoots were typically less
than 1 degree/second in pitch rate between baseline and
26
Therefore, altitudes were limited in further analysis to
between 15,000 and 25,000 feet PA.
15,000 feet PA and .75 Mach. With the c.g. located at 29.5%
MAC (labeled configuration 2 on the graph) the pitch
response is very close to being neutrally stable. Figure 15
in Appendix D, which is the normal 'g' response of the same
test condition, shows this a little more clearly. After the
initial transient peak occurs from the 4 pound step input at
1 second elapsed time, the baseline configuration damps out
very quickly to a minor oscillation around positive 2 g's
27
MAC or configuration 5 at 29.4% MAC do not meet this
system time, all with the CAS off. The roll was added in an
28
unsuccessful attempt to reduce airspeed effects in trying to
yield a steady-state value of pitch rate. As can be seen on
the graph, the pitch response of the 29.2% MAC c.g. location
seems to be better damped than the currently approved for
29
improvements. The test conditions that were examined also
assumed that the CAS would be on. This assumption was made
airspeed was 200 KCAS at the start of the maneuver and was
at 120 KCAS at 15 seconds of system time. Therefore, the
one maneuver actually presents a range of pitch authority
30
not be trimmed in level flight on the computer simulation at
these slow airspeeds. A final point to be made in the area
Other Considerations
31
rolls. In other words, no additional kinematic coupling
32
all configurations through configuration 2 at 29.5% MAC
demonstrate positive static stability after the stick
release is made.
33
V. Conclusions ajnd Recommendations
34
MIL-STD-1797A also has had 2 revisions in the past few
years, pointing to the fact that the design industry
continues to find better ways of assessing flying qualities
performance. With that viewpoint in mind, this section of
easy to understand why the ICS and SDR were left out of the
critical aft c.g. balance calculation. By leaving this
equipment out, it would ensure that all models of the F-15
(including the 2 seat trainer variants) could use the same
calculation sheet to ensure that their c.g.'s remained
within limits. It would also ensure that if the avionics
were pulled out for maintenance, the aircraft would not
35
when the ICS is installed. However, it makes no
36
RECOMMENDATION 1. INCLUDE THE INTERNAL COUNTERMEASURES SET
37
particular mission based on the aircraft's takeoff
configuration, and not on some extreme, single configuration
that may or may not be applicable. There probably is not a
38
is that the F-15 should be optimized for c.g. location based
on its operational configuration. And it should be
optimized to just reach aft c.g. limits at missions end, and
not be well forward of the limit.
Realistically, 10 years ago, this requirement would
have probably kept a wings QA shop busy doing nothing but
c.g. calculations. However, with the advent of small
computers that can accompany units to battle zones today, a
software program could probably generate that information in
a matter of seconds. (Possibly a good future thesis topic.)
Then, the information could quickly be relayed to a crew
chief, who, armed with a speed wrench, could probably
optimize the ballast load on his F-15 in a matter of
minutes.
Turning towards the analysis of actually trying to
change the aft c.g. limits for the F-15, the conclusions
that can be drawn are not so straightforward. Obviously, a
maximum aft limit exists according to simulation at 30.0%
MAC c.g. location due to lack of positive aircraft
stability. This means that the gear up limit can be at no
greater than 29.5% MAC c.g. location, since when the landing
gear is extended, the c.g. moves .5% MAC aft, thus putting
the aircraft at the 30.0% MAC limit again. Further
39
29.5% MAC c.g. location, as several CAS off test points
revealed close to neutral stability at this c.g. location.
However, due to limitations in allowable starting conditions
in the computer simulation, accurate predictions of aircraft
flying qualities levels for c.g. locations forward of 29.2%
MAC could not be measured. In fact, even the currently
flown baseline c.g. location of 28.7% MAC showed instability
at one test point. What can be said from the simulation
work, though, is that the aircraft appears to be positively
stable at all conditions sampled in the corners of the
40
during the worst case test condition will decrease aircraft
instability and provide a suitable recovery technique for
the test pilot to follow in the event that controllability
problems develop. Therefore, the aircraft should be safely
41
capabilities for landing with degraded pitch flight control
anomalies.
42
VI. Proosed Flg Test Profile
43
aircraft. The first sortie will be the control flight,
where the baseline aircraft is flown in its currently
operational normal c.g. location, with a standard load of
44
disengaging the CAS first in straight and level flight, and
then at increasingly elevated g-loadings. However, in
accordance with the flight manual guidance, the aircraft
should be immediately unloaded when the CAS axis is
disengaged and slowed below 600 KCAS for each test point.
Simulating a wartime scenario, if an F-15 experiences a
flight control malfunction (pitch CAS loss, in this case),
the major consideration should be for safe egress from the
battle zone and a return to base. Therefore, a majority of
the CAS off handling tasks should explore cruise conditions
at varying altitudes and at airspeeds up to 600 KCAS. Both
low and high g turns should be performed at the various
conditions, simulating navigation turns and reactions to
hostile threats, respectively. Another area that requires
CAS off exploring is aerial refueling, since the damaged
45
As far as CAS on maneuvers are concerned, a f':'. range
46
Appendix A: Aircraft Reference Datum and Center of Gravity
Calculation Example
47
V Z' REFE RENCE PLANE
X.7
REFERENCE
% XI
NCHZN
~~X *REFERENCE
PLANELCAIS
48
To calculate the effects of removing ballast, the resulting
moment arm must also be known (weight * arm). For example,
removing 100 pounds of ballast located at fuselage station
220 inches, the effect on c.g. location is determined as
follows:
Horizontal
Item Weight (LbsL Arm (in,. Moment (in-lbs)
Aircraft 33467 563.1 18845268
Ballast Removed -10Q 220 -22000
Results 33367 18823268
If the ICS and the SDR are included in the calculation, the
Horizontal
Item Weight (Lbs) Arm (in.) Moment (in-lbs)
Aircraft 33467 563.1 18845268
ICS 323 348.7 112630
SDR 42 484.6 2035U
33832 18978251
49
AWendix B: Moments of Inertia Calculations
50
H ~ o Tqo
r L a D
0'I ol-wc( N N q:-00 . ko 1%.
qz nNH%6r4L LA r- O0Ll LA) r)"0
C~N LA LA)
o I LA i DI -1 -1A~ --
ILL4
04 04 04 0 ().1"J)(N C'I
r- L 10 0 1 ON0 '
r (IN N ON
N'-IW N NLr % ID LA )%
NNW I
001~I
Lrl (N mLn I %D0'0 I LA0 'D (N -,r M%0
N m I
(N; -WW 'D1
'D0NO' I'0WIW~
'0 I INO ICTI( ICT V IIr.4, m
I'--qLAIOIOmIOITOI10 Y0
. 0 (Y H 0 1 0 !0 10 !0 0
N )00 LA LA) LA LA IL '
'-H40 -1 0 40
H 4-qr-I r-4 -
0 LAV0 0 0 M O C(14 () N
r--C 0r r 10 (Y) 0 (N (N (Y)(N 04 N CLA' (N N
0'
m C'LA) c %0 4-) 4-) 1 4-~ c)
4 m4) 4
or- (Y)
NNr-0 4-4 4-4 IC'Y) 4-4 4-4 .ICN 4 -
4-) Y0S (V) R 8tJ)9'
OO(N'O%DC".ULALA r-I -4 'ri r- H
1Iq
O0'(LnC'L0, 02 (Y)
00N CCV) 00
%. m 0'NO-4)( r-N1 co '10 LAn 0r-4i
O- m0r
OD(Y
k00' D % 0 .- LA 1'0 C'1(') LA. -I
0 -414
( () IW m
LA (N IWOD kor-4 1W00 ODC
00 1 cW LA r-I co IVr-I ODWq
LA) -1 '-4 I'D I- %-0 1 .-i ko I
r-A~
LAOC LA.-0W' 0 (Y)i
N LAO 0LA 00
OO W4 '4
1- 0Ha r - H1 H -r-I HH1-4 H
N- r-4-4 - r4-i1 Ir4
** C'4 lILA C1ILA (4
C 1 C 4 9' OLA
X -f LAn -0) -zr0)m * (a w2 020
ca(VU) 'i u 2
%D .....
D....%D .N .-40 - 10O 4 oa
LA RTLOALA)LAN04LAn04 a 0 (N41LA(NC .-ir-I (N LnN ITr4
-~0 (N4 0()M00r
(N LA C4NQ'0 0
00 m mOOlT'0 N4 ND Ln N 0'0 v'( NC'4)0
N 0404% % TH C)I -4
HH
5]
Appendix C: Simulation Pr2oram Descrition
52
Ann Arbor, Michigan) which is a high speed, floating point
scalar processing machine manufactured for real time
simulations using 6 degrees of freedom. Detailed
information about the program or simulation equipment is
available thru ASD/SCES, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
53
Appendix D: Simulation Results graphs
54
.. ..... ....
..... ...
. . . . . ....
.0...
.. . .....
.....
.0
-I
- - - --
..
..
.. ..
....
.. ..
..
....
... ...
... .
... ... ..
... ... ..
... ..
... .
...
* CV
(U
..........
Da/Sep qb
55
7 -
.111 K 1
PI 1
V_ . . . . . . . . 0
m 0)
0 ... . .
1. L
~0 -77
..
--
.. .. .. . ....
I
. .. .. . . 0
vi L;
~4056
... . ....
..........
...... ..... .. ..
....
. .... ........... ....
......... ............ ... ........
.... ....... . .......
.... .
.. ... .. . . . . ..
. ..... 0..
................
... .....
. .
..... 7 7
.......
... ..... .. .. .....
.....
..........
.. . . .. . . .
> u . . . . .4
* 'V40
4,
..... . ...
0 0CD
.....
......
0...
...... ......
.. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .
-- 7*1 7-r- *d
I
5457
.........
.... .......... .............
.... ....... ...
P4 0
..
....
...
..... ...... ........
.... . ..
....... ............ ......................... ..........
.........
: i : : S:
... ....
..... ..
. . . . .. .
.. . .. . .. . .. .
> . .. . . .
. ...
. .. .. ... .. .. 0
... ......
........ .... ..... ... .. .
...
.I.
... ... ..
...
..
. .0 .A ..... ......... 0
..................
......... ......
....
4 .
..a...
. . . . . . . . . . .
.........
0 0
U'k
lop'qb -
58
7-7
....
......
......
.....
..
......
...... ....
. ..... ..
.. ..
...
. ....
..1 11.....
.. ......
....... 0...
.. .. . .. . .. .
.........
.....
.............
.. 0.
......
...
. ..
. ...
jLL4
I 00
........
-..... ... 0)
.....
....
....
......
...
......
..
I I I-b
I I I59
t.4
.. . . . . .. . . . 0
-7 .
-11A
IVV
I-4U1 -~4-4
-7 1
..........
A-
00
.1'- N '-
T T)
.....
. .. .....
.o
Sep-qb
60
~A4 4
......
....
.. .. . . ..
..0.. ..............
... .... ........ ....
. .. . . . . . .
..
....
........ .. ....... ..
.... ........ ........
....
. . ...
. . . .... . . .. . .. . .
. ....
Ai
P4
.. .4-L
> -:
0-41
...... c
.. . . . . . . .
S.'
-cc
....
.. .. ... .. . ... .... .. .....
.......
...
.......
63
. . . . . . .4-4
-T-
. . .. . . . . 0
w 77 T-:
- U
.. . . . . . . . . .
-7t
T T
cc
* C)
-- -7 7 - .- - - 7 -7 --
.~~~~~~~-
- - - - .- -7 --
....... 7 T - - - -
Co in: 30s/
62l
*cc
i m
-7-
aj
0
. . . .. . . .. .
.. I.
. ..
.. . . . .. . . . . .
7 r7 7-i
. ... . .. ..
00
0 -4
. .. .4.
.... . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . ..u
...
.. .. .. ...
63. .. .
r 7-.--- --. -T- -T 7 7-
0. . . . .
........ .....
....
.....
....
..
....
. ...........0
.. .
...
.. ..
. .. . ..... .
...
..
..
....
...
... ...
....
..
. . . . .. .
. . . . . I .)
...
.. A!.
.......-. ......c
0 Lr0
-j
oo-q
64-
..... Tm
..........
..
. ... ...... . ..... . . 0..
. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .
T . . . .
.... ....
.... ... ...
P4 . .4
: . . .
.44I
N 3)
* Lf)
U, C
4 65
. .i.... . . ...
o~.
-- .- -- . . ....-.-.
..... ... 0
Co)
- - - - -
P4A
f4-i
663
. .. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
- - -
. . . . . . . .
70
..... ....
.... . .. . .. . .....
. . . . . . . . .
ce..
.. . ... .. . . .
. ... . . . ....
ova-i
67w
...
...
..... ..............
.....
. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .0
rb0
0 (1
VoL
'-4 cn
I=0
I-' 0~
.. . . .. . . . ... . 4lLj
J.J
I4-)
wU
......... - - -- -- - - -- - . -~...---. -
cc
-,4
o E-
uooq
68,
* 0
. .. . .. ... . . . .
u 0
-4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. (
-. . . .-- -.. -.-..-. .-..-.-.-- .. -. . . . . . . . . - S
4.)
I ~4I
00
9-69
.. . . . . .....
...
0
....... ..
311 %&
..
.. ..C
~
...... . . . . . .. . . 4
..
.... ...
.... . .... .. . .....
.. c
.. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .
00
700
. . . . . . . . .
0 7
. . .. ... . .....
.. . 0..
~~co
00
0 cc
*
. ...... ....
A -. ... . r-4
.,
..... ... . . .
. . . .
...... . . .. .. . . . .
~I4 -
09SI sop-)
71 4.
..
. . . .
.. .. .... . . . .......
.. .. .
- - -- -- - --
- - -
... ......
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
. 0
. . ..
. ..
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . ...... . .... . ....
. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . ..
.. . . .. . . .. .. . . . ..
. ..- . . . . . .
-'.4
Z)OS/oop-q
72C
Bibliography
73
Shalimar, Florida
74
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 0MB No. 0704-0188
PuOhc reDOrtng owrien for this (olleclo, of .niormatton s estirmated to aerage 1 hour per -esoorse. including the time for reviewng instructions. searching exis ng data sources.
gatherrg ind r,- r l g the data needed, and comooeting and re. e.*nq the :clIection of informatiOn Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
cOlleCtion )t ifD-4-tn cw dung ugestt. ns for reducing thls 0 Oer to dvashnton -ieaouarlers Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. 1215 jef son
Dais Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. 4A 22202-4302 and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Prolec (0704-0188). Washington. DC 205O3
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Dec 91 Master's Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Analysis of the Effects of Removing Nose Ballast
From the F-15 Eagle
6. AUTHOR(S)
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This study investigated the results of reing lead ballast
from the nose section of the F-15 Air Superiority fighter. The goal of the
investigation was to determine if aircraft handling qualities remained acceptable
%iththe ballast removed, and also to determine wrat improvements in aircraft nose
pinting authority resulted. Actual F-15 weight reports were used to calculate the
iorst case aft center of aravity location shift due to the ballast removal. Several
-onfigurations with different center of gravity locations (based on various amounts
:f lead weights removed) were used for ccrrarison to the baseline aircraft. Mcrents
:f inertia were calculated for each configuration, which in turn were used in a 6
3egree of freedom coputer simulation of the F-15. Simulation test points were then
xarnined t ,&oughout the flight envelope of the F-15. Simulation results and better
3ircraft weight management results support removing (on average) approximately 200
ounds of lead ballast from the nose section of the single seat Air Superiority F-15
5agle, with a resulting 3 percent increase in pitch rate. A suggested flight test
:rofile is presented for flight verification of the simulation results.