AERSP 420 Principles of Flight Test Final Report - #1 Brian S.

Harrell Linda John October 23, 2013

ABSTRACT The Piper Arrow III-28R-201 belongs to a family of light aircraft design for flight training, air taxi, and personal use. This report analyzes the performance of the Arrow III in a series of flight tests. Throughout the report, takeoff will be analyzed and compared to a theoretical model. Furthermore, this report compares experimental data results to manufacturer provided data in regards to pitot-static calibration and the power required to maintain level flight. The takeoff roll test provided data to compare with the predicted values determined via an algorithm and custom code implemented in MATLAB using characteristic quantities of the Arrow III provided in the Pilots Operating Handbook. Upon inspection of this comparison, the takeoff simulation was found to follow the same trend and be of the same numerical magnitudes as the values found experimentally. Therefore, the simulation does accurately depict the Arrow's behavior during the takeoff roll. Deviations from theoretical and experimental values could be due to analytical error in area estimations, human error during the flight test, or the presence of head or tail winds. Similar to the takeoff roll data, the experimental values gathered during the pitot-static calibration test were compiled and reduced in MATLAB in order to determine true airspeeds and then converted into calibrated airspeed for comparison with the in flight indicated airspeed. It was determined that the calibrated airspeed was in accordance with the indicated airspeed, falling with 1.22% of each other. The aircraft airspeed indicator was thus correctly calibrated prior to takeoff. Potential sources of error include not holding indicated airspeed completely constant as well as deviations in static and pitot pressures due to variable pressure fields and angles of attack. The level flight power required test yielded plausible values for equivalent power and velocity required, but implausible values for coefficients A and B for the for the equation Peq*Veq = A*(Peq^4)+B. The value of A and B turned out to be 10003 and 1.2378*(10^8) respectively. This inaccuracy could be due to the inherent sensitivity of the equation's effect on the values, specifically being multiplied and raised to the fourth power. Other potential errors could arise from the utilization of charts to estimate power calculations, along with in-flight errors such as not maintaining exactly constant altitudes or tail wind effects.

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The following describes the purpose of the flight test experiments, a breakdown of the test aircraft, and the scope and methodology of the tests performed for analysis. 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the combined analysis-flight test program is to Analytically predict the performance of a Piper Arrow III-28R-201 and compare it to experimental data gathered in flight for takeoff Collect and reduce flight test data for the Piper Arrow III-28R-201 for pitot-static calibration, and level flight power required and compare the experimental data results to manufacturers documentation when appropriate 1.2 Description of Test Airplane

The Arrow III is a single engine, retractable landing gear, all metal airplane frequently used for air taxi, flight training and personal use. It has seating for up to four people, a 200 pound luggage compartment, and a maximum takeoff weight of 2750 pounds. The aircraft is not configured for stunt maneuvers since its structure is not designed for aerobatic loads. The fuselage is a semi-monologue structure with a conventionally designed, semi-tapered wing, which employs a NACA 652-415 airfoil section. The four-positioning wing flaps are mechanically controlled by a handle located between the front seats. When fully retracted, the right flap locks into place to provide a step for cabin entry. A vertical stabilizer, all-movable horizontal stabilator and a rudder make up the empennage. The Arrow III incorporates a Lycoming 10-360-C 1C6 four-cylinder engine rated at 200 horsepower at 2700 rpm. The aircraft is equipped with McCauley 90DHA-16 propeller, which is a constant speed, controllable pitch propeller with a maximum diameter of 74 inches. The propeller control is located on the power quadrant between the throttle and mixture controls. Engine controls consist of a throttle control, propeller control and a mixture control lever. The throttle lever is used to adjust the manifold pressure. The propeller control lever is used to adjust the propeller speed from high to low rpm. The mixture control lever is used to adjust the air to fuel ratio. The horizontal stabilizer features a trim tab mounted on the trailing edge that provides trim control and pitch control forces. The rudder is of conventional design and includes a rudder trim as well. Fuel is contained in two 38.5 U.S. Gallon tanks, one in each wing. Of the total 77 gallons, only 72 gallons are usable. The aircraft also has a system that supplies both pitot and static pressure for the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Pitot pressure is picked up by the probe on the bottom of the left wing. The Arrow III uses a traditional flight control configuration. A three-view drawing of the Arrow III is shown below in figure 1. 3

Figure 1. Three-View drawing of the Piper Arrow III (test aircraft)

1.3

Scope of Test

The flight test consists of three separate tests Takeoff Roll Model (two sets of data taken) Pitot-Static Calibration Level Flight Power Required An actual takeoff weight was determined to be 2514 pounds and the altimeter was set at 29.92. This weight includes the empty weight of the aircraft, the combined weight of the passengers and pilot, and the weight of the fuel. At the time of takeoff the fuel level in the aircraft was at 20 gallons. All three tests had a combined duration of approximately one hour and were filmed for later analysis. The level flight power required and pitot-static calibration tests occurred at an altitude of about 3000 feet, both with gear up and flaps up. The takeoff roll data was approximated based on the atmospheric conditions at the time of the experiment. All tests were completed within the limitations of the Pilots Operating Handbook. Tables 1 and 2 provide important atmospheric conditions and aircraft configurations during each specific flight test. Table 1. Atmospheric Conditions during Flight Tests Abbreviation Takeoff Test Pitot-Static Calibration Level Flight Power Required TO PS LFPR PA (feet) 1100 2800 2900 2700 2900 OAT (deg F) 70 72 70 68 72 Density (slugs/ft^3) 0.00233 0.00244 0.00211 0.00210 0.002112

Table 2. Configurations during Flight Tests Abbrev. TO PS LFPR Flaps Up Up Up Gear Down Up Up

Additional operating limitations and weights for the aircraft are shown in table 3 and important physical parameters of the Arrow III are presented in table 4.

Table 3. Operating Limitations and Weights

2700 RPM Max Power 29 in Manifold Pressure 200 hp. Max Takeoff Weight 2750 lbs.

Table 4. Important Physical Parameters of the Piper Arrow III

Name Wing Planform Area Surface Area Wing Span Aspect Ratio Wing Span Efficiency Factor Abbreviation S SA b AR e Value 170 ft^2 638.25 ft^2 35.417 ft 7.3786 0.6

1.4

Method of Test

Takeoff Following the performance of all pre-flight checks and procedures, team members boarded the plane and taxied to the hold short line. At this point outside air temperature, pressure altitude, and fuel level were recorded. Engine RPM should remain constant at 2700 for the duration of the takeoff test. The aircraft then pulled up to the first of several runway lights, spaced 200 feet apart along the runway. The engine was run up to full power with the brake held. A countdown of 3-2-1-Mark was called out by one of the team members and filming of the dashboard began. On mark, the pilot released the brake and the aircraft began its roll down the runway. At each runway light, one team member called out mark to indicate a data point, at which airspeed and manifold pressure were recorded. The data recording continued until just before the aircraft takes off, at which point the pilot aborted the first takeoff and repeated the steps previously described for a second takeoff roll, which resulted in two sets of data. From the data collected, plots of position versus time, velocity versus time, and velocity versus position were generated and compared to calculated theoretical values. These theoretical plots were derived from Newtons second law, which will be further explained in sections 2.1 and 2.2. Pitot-Static Calibration After the second set of takeoff data was gathered the pilot began takeoff and climbed to an altitude of about 3000 feet. Once the aircraft was in steady flight, the pilot flew 4 consecutive headings at a target air speed of 65 knots. Ideally these headings would be 240, 330, 060, and 150. After each heading was established, the following values were recorded for each heading Indicated Air Speed GPS Track True Ground Speed Pressure Altitude Outside Air Temperature Manifold Pressure From these values, true airspeed and wind speed can be determined using the methods described in (Niewoehner, 2006).

Level Speed Power Required The aim of this portion of the flight test was to experimentally reduce data in order to calculate flat plate area and span efficiency factor for the Arrow III. The raw data gathered during the course of this flight test includes Fuel Level Pressure Altitude Manifold Pressure RPM Outside Air Temperature For this portion of the flight test, the pilot established a constant speed of about 65 kts. Once a consistent heading and air speed had been established, a timer was started. At 0 seconds, 30 seconds, and 60 seconds mark was called out by the team member with the stopwatch and data was recorded. At the 60 second mark, the deck angle was also recorded. Once values were recorded for 0, 30, and 60 second marks, the entire procedure was repeated at speeds increasing by 10 knot increments (75kts, 85kts, 95kts115kts) until wide open throttle was reached at which point the test was completed.

1.5

Instrumentation
Table 5. List of Instruments used and the parameters that they were used to measure.

Parameter Airspeed Altitude Manifold Pressure Track Ground-Speed Time Fuel Levels Deck Angle Outside Air Temperature Heading

Instrument On-board ASI On-board Altimeter On-board gauge On-board GPS On-board GPS Hand-held Watch On-board fuel indicator (iPhone App) On-board temperature gauge On-board heading indicator

2.0

ANALYSIS

The following describes the theory behind each of the three flight test experiments, as well as the methods for reducing the pitot-static, and level flight power required data. The following sections also describe the method used in writing code to analyze and simulate the experiments done during the flight test. Several examples are given validating the analysis and the code. 2.1 Theory Takeoff Simulation The primary theory behind the takeoff simulations is Newtons second law. (1) A quick free-body diagram analysis on the aircraft during ground roll and takeoff will show that the only two forces acting in the horizontal (x) direction are Thrust and Drag. With this in mind, Eq. (1) becomes, (2) The thrust on the aircraft during takeoff can be determined based on the static thrust to power loading, the power absorbed by the propeller and the thrust fraction. All of these parameters were found in the Pilots Operating Handbook or in (McCormick, 2011). The actual values used for calculating thrust will be further explained in section (2.2 Implementation). The drag term in Eq. (2) must be calculated by evaluating Rolling Drag, Profile Drag, and Induced Drag separately and adding them together to get the total drag on the aircraft. The Rolling Drag on the aircraft is (3) where W represents the gross weight of the aircraft and the coefficient of static friction, is assumed to be 0.02. The Lift, referred to as L in Eq. (3) is (4)

where is the density of the air at the time of the experiment, S is the wing planform area of the aircraft, and the coefficient of lift for the aircraft is, 9

The coefficient of lift was found by back calculating using Eq. (4) and assuming steady level flight (L = W), using max takeoff weight, standard atmospheric properties and a cruise velocity of 100 kts. The Profile Drag on the aircraft is found using, (5) where f, is the flat plate area of the aircraft. Flat plate area is found by multiplying the surface area of the aircraft by the coefficient of skin friction.

Finally, the Induced Drag on the aircraft is (6) where

Summing the three components of drag found in Eq. (3), (5), and (6) results in an equation for total drag as a function of velocity. (7)

Pitot-Static Calibration The purpose of the Pitot-Static experiment is to calculate a calibrated airspeed and compare that with the indicated airspeed in the cockpit. This is done by flying a square flight pattern at a specified, constant Indicated Airspeed, and collecting data during each leg of the experiment. Representing each leg of the experiment as a vector with GPS ground speed as its magnitude, and GPS track as the vector direction, the four legs of the experiment can be combined to yield true airspeed and wind speed. The four data vectors are projected onto a Cartesian plane with their roots at the origin. A circle can then be drawn through the tips of each 10

data vector. The radius of this circle is representative of the true airspeed. Additionally, the vector pointing from the origin of the Cartesian plane to the center of the circle is representative of the wind speed and direction. The primary reason for performing this calibration is error in the static pressure. This error is the result of pressure fields surrounding the aircraft that interfere with static pressure measured along the body of the aircraft Once the true airspeed has been experimentally calculated, it can be converted to a calibrated airspeed using, (8) where,

Ultimately, the calibrated airspeed should relate to the indicated airspeed in such a way that it follows closely with the chart shown below in figure 2 (The New Piper Aircraft Inc., 2011).

Figure 2. Airspeed System Calibration chart for the Piper Arrow III. Note that it accounts for some discrepancy between calibrated and indicated airspeed.

11

Level Flight Power Required The aim of the Level Flight Power Required (LFPR) portion of the flight test was to reduce the experimental data in order to find the flat plate area and span efficiency factor of the Arrow III. In the takeoff simulation, the values for flat plate area and span efficiency were estimated. The experimental results from the LFPR portion of the flight test will be compared to these estimates in order to ensure accuracy. After power, pressure altitude and airspeed data have been gathered and reduced, a relationship between equivalent power and equivalent velocity can be established according to,

(9) where,

2.2

Implementation

Takeoff Simulation Breaking the takeoff roll down into many small (0.01 second) time increments, the horizontal acceleration of the aircraft can be calculated for each time step, where thrust and drag are both functions of the horizontal velocity of the aircraft at time step k. (10) The thrust for each time step is calculated from the equation,
,

(11)

where Static Thrust to Power Loading (McCormick, 2011) is (12) and Prop Power Absorbed (McCormick, 2011) is

(13) 12

The thrust fraction is a function of velocity and is found by performing a linear curve fit on the curve shown in figure 3 (McCormick, 2011).

Figure 3. Plot of Thrust Fraction versus Velocity (feet per second) for the Piper Arrow III

The resulting equation after performing the linear curve fit is , (14)

where the velocity, V, is in units of feet per second. Plugging Eq. (12)-(14) into Eq. (11), results in an equation for thrust as a function of velocity. Equation (11) becomes (15) Additionally, by combining Eq. (3)-(6) into Eq. (7), the drag for each time step k, becomes

13

(16)

Substituting Eq. (15)-(16) into Eq. (10), results in an equation for horizontal acceleration at each time step that is dependent on the horizontal velocity at that time step. Now that an expression for horizontal acceleration has been derived, it can be used to calculate velocity and position at each future time step. The time step used in the theoretical takeoff model was t = 0.01seconds. (17) (18) (19)

Using Eq. (17)-(19), velocity, position and time can be calculated iteratively over a given time interval to simulate the takeoff roll. The complete calculations can be seen in the Takeoff Code in Appendix B. Pitot-Static Calibration Once the ground speed and GPS track have been found for each data point, they must be converted to Cartesian coordinates using (20) (21)

After the data points have been converted to Cartesian coordinates, an initial guess vector was created, , (22)

where,

14

Note: With the exception of extremely windy days, a good guess center point is the origin, (0,0). This guess vector is then iterated using the equation below in order to zero-in on the resulting vector containing actual airspeed (radius of the circle) and wind speed (from center of circle). , (23)

Note: \ represents a MATLAB operator finding the pseudo-inverse of J

where, , (24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

where i represents each incremental data point (total of 4). Once Eq. (23)-(28) have been coded into a program, one simply needs to iterate Eq. (23) in order to arrive at a final vector,

15

(29)

where

Once a true airspeed had been calculated, the calibrated airspeed was hand calculated using Eq. (8)

Level Flight Power Required Once data had been gathered for the LFPR portion of the flight test, it was used to calculate the equivalent velocity and equivalent power. These equivalent values represent the theoretical velocity and power that the aircraft would have if it were flying at sea level at standard atmosphere and standard weight. The equivalent velocity was calculated first using , (30)

where,

Before calculating equivalent power, the power required during the flight test had to be estimated using the IO-360 C1C6 Engine Chart, provided in class. Additionally, a change in power had to be added or subtracted from the power required based on whether or not the aircraft changed altitude during the course of the test. Total power required can be expressed as

Once

had been determined for each of the data points, it could be plugged into 16

(31)

in order to find equivalent power. After this, and could be plotted against each other for each data point gathered. A linear curve fit would then yield , in which A and B are constant coefficients . From there, flat plate area and span efficiency coefficient can be found based on the coefficients, A and B, derived from Eq. (9). (32)

(33) , (34)

and (35) (36)

2.2.1 Verification Approach Takeoff Simulation After the takeoff code had been written, it was tested using realistic atmospheric conditions in order to check that the simulation produced realistic values for velocity and position over a short time period (approximately 30 seconds). The results from this test run included position values of up to about 2000 feet, which is an accurate takeoff distance for the Arrow III. Additionally, the test results show corresponding velocity values ranging up to about 17

80 feet per second which is a realistic takeoff velocity for the Arrow III. The fact that test run yielded real and reasonable results is verification that the code we developed is functional. Pitot-Static Calibration In order to verify the Pitot-Static Calibration code, we considered a best-fit circle based on the following points: (70,0) (-10,80) (-90,0) (-10,-80), shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. A plot of the example used to validate the pitot-static code. The vectors extend from the center of the circle to each of the four data points.

We know that the center point of this circle is located at, x=-10, y=0. We also know that the radius must be 80 in order to satisfy the data points as closely as possible. When the Pitot-Static Calibration code was run with those data points (as ground speeds and GPS Track angles), we found a result that matched. Our results are shown below in figure 5.

18

X_final = 80.0000 -10.0000 0 This Vector represents the radius of the circle (TAS (kts)): r = 80 kts. The Center of the Circle is located at, x = -10, y = 0
Figure 5. The resulting vector after the Pitot-Static Calibration code was run with the points, (-90,0) (-10,80) (70,0) (-10,-80). This result matches with what we already know to be the answer, validating and verifying the code.

Level Flight Power Required For the LFPR data reduction, our approach was verified simply based on the fact that our results for flat plate area and for span efficiency factor were feasible values for a small propeller aircraft like the Arrow III.

2.3

Example Results Several examples of our validation and verification results are shown below. Figures 6, 7, and 8 are sample results from our takeoff code. It is clear by examining these plots that the results from the takeoff code are realistic for a small propeller aircraft like the Arrow III. Additionally, figure 5 (above) shows our example result from the pitot-static calibration code. The fact that figure 5 (above) returned an answer and furthermore returned the correct answer, verifies and validates the code.

19

Figure 6. Theoretical plot of position versus time. The slightly parabolic trend of the plot fits well with the how the aircraft actually behaved during takeoff, verifying and validating the code.

Figure 7. Theoretical plot of velocity versus time. The shape of the curve, as well as the range of values represented by the curve fit well with the how the aircraft actually behaved during takeoff, verifying and validating the code.

20

Figure 8. Theoretical plot of velocity versus position. The shape of the curve, as well as the range of values represented by the curve fit well with the how the aircraft actually behaved during takeoff, verifying and validating the code.

21

3.0

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Takeoff Simulation Figures 9, 10, and 11 below show the theoretical takeoff simulations using the atmospheric data at the time of the first takeoff roll. Experimental data from the first takeoff roll is plotted on the same set of axes with the theoretical takeoff roll. Examining figure 9, one can see that the experimental data follows a trend similar to the theoretical takeoff data. The experimental position values tend to lie lower on the plot than the theoretical values. This is likely the result of interference drag between the fuselage, landing gear and other instrumentation mounted on the aircraft. Interference drag was not accounted for in the theoretical analysis. Figure 10 shows a plot of velocity versus time for the first takeoff roll. Similarly to figure 9, the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data. Again this is likely due to interference drag on the aircraft that was not accounted for in the theoretical model of the takeoff roll.

Figure 9. A plot of position versus time for the 1 st set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

22

Figure 10. A plot of velocity versus time for the 1 st set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

In figure 11 shown below, velocity is plotted against position for the first takeoff roll. Again, the experimental data from the first takeoff roll is plotted on the same set of axes. The experimental data follows a trend similar to that of the theoretical data, although the experimental data lies below the theoretical takeoff roll, indicating that at each given position, the actual velocity of the aircraft was slightly less than what was calculated in the theoretical model. Again this is likely due to drag that was unaccounted for in the theoretical model.

23

Figure 11. A plot of velocity versus position for the 1st set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

The same analysis was done using the atmospheric conditions at the time of the second takeoff roll and the experimental data from the second takeoff roll. The results of this analysis are shown below in figures 12, 13, and 14. The experimental data for the second takeoff roll tends to be slightly less than the theoretical model, similarly to the first set of takeoff data. While both the first and second sets of takeoff data follow similar trends, the second set of experimental data lies closer to the theoretical model than the first set of data. This is due to the fact that the crew had a better idea of how to properly execute the experiment during the second test.

24

Figure 12. A plot of position versus time for the 2nd set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

Figure 13. A plot of velocity versus time for the 2nd set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

25

Figure 14. A plot of velocity versus position for the 2nd set of takeoff data. Note that the experimental data lies slightly below the theoretical data.

Pitot-Static Calibration The pitot-static calibration data was reduced using the MATLAB code shown in Appendix B. The test data (GPS Track, and Ground Speed) was plugged into the program with an Indicated Air Speed of 65 knots and a tolerance of 0.5 knots; the results are shown in figure 15 below. An illustration of the best fit circle for our data points is also shown below in figure 16. X_final = 69.7342 6.7638 3.7529 This Vector represents the radius of the circle (TAS (kts)): r = 69.73418 kts. The Center of the Circle is located at, x = 6.763753 y = 3.752868
Figure 15. The resulting vector of the Pitot-Static Calibration data reduction.

26

Figure 16. Best fit circle for the four experimental data points. The dotted vectors represent the experimental data points while the solid vector represents the wind speed, and center of the circle

As shown above in figure 15, for an indicated airspeed of 65 knots, the true airspeed was 69.7 knots. Using Eq. (8), we found calibrated airspeed, shown below.

A comparison of the indicated, true and calibrated airspeeds are shown below in table 6. The results of the pitot-static calibration show that the airspeed indicator inside of the cockpit is well calibrated and accurate as it was within 1.22% of the calibrated airspeed we calculated. When compared to the plot shown in figure 2, one can see that the calibrated airspeed is expected to be slightly higher than the indicated airspeed at a low velocity such as 65kts. This further confirms the accuracy of our pitot-static calibration results.

27

Table 6. Indicated, True and Calibrated airspeeds as well as percent error between the indicated and calibrated airspeeds

Indicated Airspeed 65.0 kts

True Airspeed 69.7 kts

Calibrated Airspeed 65.8 kts

Error 1.22%

Additionally, the center of the cirle, created by the four pitot-static data pointsis representative of the wind speed during the experiment. Based on these coordinates, a wind speed and direction were calculated. The resulting wind speed and direction are shown below,

Level Flight Power Required After all of the experimental data had been converted to equivalent power and velocity data using the equations given in the Implementation section (2.2), the data could be plotted and analyzed. A plot of the and data points was then generated and a linear trend line was fit to the data set using MATLAB. The resulting linear equation corresponds to Eq. (32). The linear best fit equation as well as the plot of the data points are shown below in figure 17.

Figure 17. Plot of

, with a linear trend line fitted to the data. Note the equation for the best fit line in the upper left hand corner.

28

Where,

Using Eq. (34) and (36), we calculated flat plate area and span efficiency coefficient based on the coefficients A and B found above. The results of our calculations are shown below in table 7, compared with the guesses used in the takeoff model.
Table 7. Estimated and calculated values for flat plate area and span efficiency factor. In both cases, there were large amounts of error, largely due to poor experimental data.

Parameter flat plate area, f span efficiency, e

Estimated Value 6.0634 0.6

LFPR Experimental Value 0.081387 -301.32

Error 98.66% 50120%

29

4.0

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout the entirety of this flight test, many things were learned, verified, and accomplished. The aim of the takeoff test was to gather experimental data over the course of two takeoff rolls, and compare that data to a theoretical takeoff model. The theoretical takeoff model was computed via a custom code implemented in MATLAB and using equations and important parameters from the POH for the Piper Arrow III. The results of the takeoff simulation seemed to fit well with our experimental data. Based on the results from the takeoff test and simulation we can conclude the following things: The takeoff simulation produced using our code is in fact accurate and provides a realistic picture of how the aircraft actually behaves during takeoff There are other forces effecting the aircraft during takeoff that went unaccounted for including, increased drag forces and gravity forces due to the runway not being completely level While the takeoff test was successful in providing a realistic picture of takeoff for the Arrow III, there are some potential sources of error including: Inaccuracies in the flat plate area estimation, leading to inaccuracies in the drag calculations Headwinds or Tailwinds exerting extra force Rounding and analytical error that could arise from using a non-infinitesimal time step Human error arising from the method of calling mark at each runway marker. Any swerving resulting in the aircraft not traveling in a straight line down the runway Overall, the takeoff simulation and experiment was a success, although in the future, we would suggest several changes. It would be beneficial and fairly simple to account for the wind at takeoff in future iterations of this experiment. Additionally, GPS data could be used to measure distance along the runway, making the timing of the data collection more accurate. The goal of the pitot-static calibration portion of the flight test was to calibrate the airspeed indicator, and in doing so, check that it had been calibrated correctly by the factory before takeoff. After all necessary data had been gathered, a calibration code was written in MATLAB to take the experimental ground speeds and tracks and convert them to a true airspeed. The code was verified using a simple test case in which the answer (TAS output) was intuitive and already known. Once the code was verified, it was run using the experimental data and a true airspeed was found for the experiment. It was then converted to a calibrated airspeed and compared with the indicated airspeed at which the pilot was flying. The results from this portion of the test were accurate, yielding a calibrated airspeed within 1.22% of the indicated airspeed. Some conclusions drawn from the pitot-static calibration are as follows: The MATLAB code used to determine true air speed and wind speed is accurate The dashboard airspeed indicator had been correctly calibrated prior to takeoff 30

 Much of this difference is due to errors in the pitot-static system of the aircraft A few potential sources of error during the pitot-static calibration include: Error resulting from the pilot not holding a constant IAS Errors in the data collection due to improper reading of the dashboard instrumentation In future iterations of this experiment, it would be advisable to record angle of attack as well for the data points gathered. It would also be advisable, if possible, to measure dynamic and static pressure out in front of the aircraft using some kind of boom. This would eliminate any error due to the pressure fields directly around the aircraft body. The third and final portion of this flight test was the Level Flight Power Required test. This test yielded reasonable values for equivalent power required and equivalent velocity required, however, when the data was plotted, the resulting coefficients were very inaccurate. We believe that the method of our test was correct, leading us to believe that the data gathered was too inaccurate and discrete. Overall, after performing the LFPR test we can conclude that: More data points at various speeds would improve our estimates for flat plate area and span efficiency factor The data gathered during the LFPR test is very sensitive due to the fact that during data reduction, it was multiplied and raised to the fourth power. This greatly expands any small error in each data point Some sources of possible error for the LFPR test include: Inaccuracies in the power calculations due to utilizing a chart to estimate the power Inaccuracies in power due to the pilot not maintaining a constant altitude throughout the test In the future, this experiment could be improved fairly easily providing a more accurate method for finding the power required by the engine during the flight test. Additionally, angle of attack could have been better utilized by considering the way in which it affects the power data. Finally, in future iterations of this test, the importance of maintaining a constant airspeed must be stressed to the test pilot. Overall, many things were learned, and many conclusions were drawn throughout the course of this test flight and the three experiments performed during flight.

31

5.0

REFERENCES

Arrow PA-28R-201 Pilot's Operating Handbook. The New Piper Aircraft Inc., Publications Department. Rev 24, Oct. 24, 2011. McCormick, Barnes W. AIAA (2011), Introduction to Aeronautics and Flight Testing. 312-314. Niewoehner, Roibert J. (2006). "Refining Satellite Methods for Pitot-Static Calibration." Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43. Operator's Manual, Textron Lycoming Aircraft Engines. 7th Edition, (2000). Textron Lycoming Inc. (3): 33-40.

32

6.0

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Raw Data Sheet

33

Appendix B: Takeoff Code (MATLAB)

% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell % Takeoff Model (Flight Test 1) % Set constants for Piper Arrow III S = 170; Surface_Area = 638.25; b = 35.417; AR = (b*b)/S; e = 0.6; %Estimate for low wing prop airplane mew = 0.02; %Assumed in class % Set Precalculated Constants Static_Thrust = 4.8; Prop_Power_Absorbed = 200*0.85; C_L = 0.477; % Input Initial Atmospheric Conditions Temp_F = input('Please enter the Outside Air Temperature at the time of takeoff (degrees Fahrenheit) \n \n'); Temp_R = Temp_F + 460; Pressure_Alt = input('\n \nPlease input the Pressure Altitude in (feet) at the time of takeoff \n \n'); Weight = input('\n \nPlease input the gross takeoff weight (lbs) for the takeoff roll \n \n'); % Calculate air density % Gas constant for air R = 1716; % Find air pressure in (in Hg) P_inHg = 29.92 - (Pressure_Alt/1000); % Convert from (in Hg) to (psf) P_psf = P_inHg * 70.7261979206; % Use ideal gas law to determine density at altitude Density = P_psf / (R*Temp_R); % Coefficient Calculations C_f = 0.0095; %Given C_Di = (C_L*C_L)/(pi*AR*e); % Calculate Flat Plate Area f = C_f*Surface_Area; % Set Initial Conditions time = (0:0.01:30)'; t_step = 0.01; % % X V Creates empty arrays for position, velocity, acceleration, Thrust and all three Drags = zeros(3001,1); = zeros(3001,1);

34

a = zeros(3001,1); Thrust = zeros(3001,1); D_r = zeros(3001,1); D_p = zeros(3001,1); D_i = zeros(3001,1); Drag = zeros(3001,1); for i=1:3000 % Lift as a function of Velocity L = 0.5*Density*(V(i,1)*V(i,1))*S*C_L; % Drag Calculations % Rolling Drag D_r(i,1) = mew*(Weight - L); % Profile Drag D_p(i,1) = (0.5*Density*(V(i,1)*V(i,1))) * f; % Induced Drag D_i(i,1) = (0.5*Density*(V(i,1)*V(i,1))) * C_Di * S; % Total Drag Drag(i,1) = D_r(i,1) + D_p(i,1) + D_i(i,1); % Thrust Calculation based on the linear curve fit from Figure 6.21 Thrust_Fraction = (-0.0039 * V(i,1)) + 1; Thrust(i,1) = Static_Thrust * Prop_Power_Absorbed * Thrust_Fraction; % Acceleration Calculation a(i,1) = (Thrust(i,1)-Drag(i,1))/(Weight/32.2); % Solves for the next step of position and velocity X(i+1,1) = (V(i,1)*t_step) + X(i,1); V(i+1,1) = (a(i,1)*t_step) + V(i,1); end % Experimental Data, Team #5 %Takeoff #1 Exp_Time_1 = [0, 7.09, 10.65, 13.51, 15.71, 17.56, 19.50, 24.31]; Exp_X_1 = [0, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, Exp_V_1_kts = [0, 20, 38, 46, 54, 58, 62, 64, 66, 70]; %Takeoff #2 Exp_Time_2 = [0, 7.52, 10.77, 13.21, 15.53, 17.50, 19.52, 24.88, 25.81]; Exp_X_2 = [0, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, Exp_V_2_kts = [0, 20, 40, 47, 53, 57, 61, 64, 69, 70, 72,

21.42, 22.91, 1800]; 21.34, 22.7, 23.8, 1800, 2000, 2200]; 74];

% Convert experimental Velocity from knots to feet per second Exp_V_1 = Exp_V_1_kts .* 1.6878; Exp_V_2 = Exp_V_2_kts .* 1.6878; % Plotting the experimental Data versus the Theoretical Data figure(1) plot(time, X, 'b', Exp_Time_1, Exp_X_1, '*-r')

35

title('Position vs. Time') xlabel('Time (seconds)') ylabel('Position (feet)') legend('Theoretical Data (Run #1)', 'Experimental Set 1') figure(2) plot(time, V, 'b', Exp_Time_1, Exp_V_1, '*-r') title('Velocity vs. Time') xlabel('Time (seconds)') ylabel('Velocity (feet per second)') legend('Theoretical Data (Run #1)', 'Experimental Set 1') figure(3) plot(X, V, 'b', Exp_X_1, Exp_V_1, '*-r') title('Velocity vs. Position') xlabel('Position (feet)') ylabel('Velocity (feet per second)') legend('Theoretical Data (Run #1)', 'Experimental Set 1')

**Note: When executing the code, you must adjust the arguments of the plot functions in order to plot each experimental data set separately

36

Appendix C: Pitot-Static Code (MATLAB)

% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell % Find the center of a circle from (4) data points % Used to find True Airspeed and Winds % Takes the GPS Track and GPS_1 = input('\n\nPlease point\n\n'); IGS_1 = input('\n\nPlease data point\n\n'); GPS_2 = input('\n\nPlease point\n\n'); IGS_2 = input('\n\nPlease (2nd) data point\n\n'); GPS_3 = input('\n\nPlease point\n\n'); IGS_3 = input('\n\nPlease data point\n\n'); GPS_4 = input('\n\nPlease point\n\n'); IGS_4 = input('\n\nPlease (4th) data point\n\n'); IGS as inputs input the GPS Track of the first (1st) data input the Indicated Ground Speed of the first (1st) input the GPS Track of the second (2nd) data input the Indicated Ground Speed of the second input the GPS Track of the third (3rd) data input the Indicated Ground Speed of the third (3rd) input the GPS Track of the fourth (4th) data input the Indicated Ground Speed of the fourth

% Converts the IGS and Track to Cartesian points X_1 = IGS_1*sind(GPS_1); Y_1 = IGS_1*cosd(GPS_1); X_2 = IGS_2*sind(GPS_2); Y_2 = IGS_2*cosd(GPS_2); X_3 = IGS_3*sind(GPS_3); Y_3 = IGS_3*cosd(GPS_3); X_4 = IGS_4*sind(GPS_4); Y_4 = IGS_4*cosd(GPS_4); % Takes the IAS for the experiment V_t = input('\n\nPlease enter the Indicated Airspeed that was held during the experiment\n\n'); % Sets the fist "guess" x vector x_w = 0; y_w = 0; X_guess = [V_t; x_w; y_w]; % Objective F_1 = V_t F_2 = V_t F_3 = V_t F_4 = V_t Function F sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w)); sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w));

%Takes derivatives of F, to be used in the Jacobian dF_V_t = 1; dF_X_1 = (X_1-x_w)/sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); dF_X_2 = (X_2-x_w)/sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w));

37

dF_X_3 = (X_3-x_w)/sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); dF_X_4 = (X_4-x_w)/sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w)); dF_Y_1 dF_Y_2 dF_Y_3 dF_Y_4 = = = = (Y_1-y_w)/sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); (Y_2-y_w)/sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w)); (Y_3-y_w)/sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); (Y_4-y_w)/sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w));

%Compute the Jacobian and Hessian F = [F_1;F_2;F_3;F_4]; J = [dF_V_t, dF_X_1, dF_Y_1; dF_V_t, dF_X_2, dF_Y_2; dF_V_t, dF_X_3, dF_Y_3; dF_V_t, dF_X_4, dF_Y_4]; H = (F_1*F_1) + (F_2*F_2) + (F_3*F_3) + (F_4*F_4); X_plus_1 = X_guess - J\F; % Set tolerance for your answer Tol = input('\n\nPlease input the tolerance for your answer\n\n'); % Loop iterates the array X_guess until it gets within the given tolerance if abs(X_plus_1 - X_guess) <= Tol X_final = X_plus_1; else while abs(X_plus_1 - X_guess) > Tol X_guess = X_plus_1; V_t = X_guess(1); x_w = X_guess(2); y_w = X_guess(3); F_1 F_2 F_3 F_4 = = = = V_t V_t V_t V_t sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w)); sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w));

dF_V_t = 1; dF_X_1 dF_X_2 dF_X_3 dF_X_4 dF_Y_1 dF_Y_2 dF_Y_3 dF_Y_4 = = = = = = = = (X_1-x_w)/sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); (X_2-x_w)/sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w)); (X_3-x_w)/sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); (X_4-x_w)/sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w)); (Y_1-y_w)/sqrt((X_1-x_w)*(X_1-x_w)+(Y_1-y_w)*(Y_1-y_w)); (Y_2-y_w)/sqrt((X_2-x_w)*(X_2-x_w)+(Y_2-y_w)*(Y_2-y_w)); (Y_3-y_w)/sqrt((X_3-x_w)*(X_3-x_w)+(Y_3-y_w)*(Y_3-y_w)); (Y_4-y_w)/sqrt((X_4-x_w)*(X_4-x_w)+(Y_4-y_w)*(Y_4-y_w));

F = [F_1;F_2;F_3;F_4]; J = [dF_V_t, dF_X_1, dF_Y_1; dF_V_t, dF_X_2, dF_Y_2; dF_V_t, dF_X_3, dF_Y_3; dF_V_t, dF_X_4, dF_Y_4]; H = (F_1*F_1) + (F_2*F_2) + (F_3*F_3) + (F_4*F_4); X_plus_1 = X_guess - J\F; end

38

X_final = X_plus_1; end fprintf('\n\nThis Vector represents, The radius of the circle (True Airspeed, kts):\n\n r = %d kts.\n\nThe Center of the Circle is located at, x = %d, y = %d', X_final(1), X_final(2), X_final(3));

39

Appednix D: LFPR Code for curve fitting (MATLAB)

% AERSP 420 -- Brian Harrell % Level Flight Power Required plotting and data reduction % P equivalent and V equivalent data points for Team #5 P_ew = [121.39, 115.74, 120.30, 127.63, 125.52, 125.16]; V_ew = [61.01, 70.54, 80.06, 89.54, 95.95, 108.14]; %in knots % Converts V_ew from knots to feet per second V_ew_fps = V_ew.*1.6878; P_ew_4 = P_ew .^ 4; P_ew_V_ew = [P_ew(1)*V_ew_fps(1), P_ew(2)*V_ew_fps(2), P_ew(3)*V_ew_fps(3), P_ew(4)*V_ew_fps(4), P_ew(5)*V_ew_fps(5), P_ew(6)*V_ew_fps(6)]; % Plots the arrays formed above figure(1) plot(P_ew_4, P_ew_V_ew, '*') title('P_ew*V_ew versus P_ew^4') ylabel('P_ew*V_ew (hp*ft/second)') xlabel('P_ew^4 (hp^4)') legend('Experimental Data') % Flat Plate Area and Span Efficiency Factor Calculation % Computing flat plate area and span efficiency factor based on the best % fit line A = input('Please input the P_ew^4 term of the linear regression result\n'); B = input('\nPlease input the constant term of the linear regression result (final term)\n'); % Input the span, and Ws value for the aircraft being analyzed b = 35.417; %feet Ws = 2500; %lbs rho_0 = 0.00237; %slugs/ft^3 % Calculates f and e f = (2*A)/rho_0; e = (2*(Ws/b)*(Ws/b))/(pi*rho_0*B); sprintf('\nThe flat plate area of the aircraft is: %d efficiency factor for the aircraft is: %d \n', f, e) feet^2\n\nThe span

40

Appendix E: Flight Test Hazard Mitigation:

41