This
republication has been made possible thanks to
the assistance of The
Royal Aeronautical Society and
Dr. James C. Floyd. This is quite a
lengthy lecture and was presented in
December 1958. At that time the Arrow
was in phase one flight tests.
We hope you enjoy this piece of aviation history. Scott McArthur. Webmaster, Arrow Recovery
Canada.
The Fourteenth British
Commonwealth Lecture
The Canadian Approach to All-Weather
Interceptor Development
by
J. C. FLOYD, A.M.C.T., P.Eng., F.C.A.l.,
M.I.A.S., F.R.Ac.S.
(Vice-President, Engineering, Avro Aircraft Limited, Canada)
The
Fourteenth British Commonwealth Lecture," The
Canadian Approach to All-Weather Interceptor Development," by
Mr.J. C. FLOYD, A.M.C.T., P.Eng., F.C.A.l., M.I.A.S.,
F.R.Ac.S. was given in the 9th October 1958 at the
Royal Institution, Albemarle Street, London, W.1.
The Chair was taken by Dr. E. S. Moult, C.B.E., Ph.D., B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S.,
Vice-president of the Society, deputising for the President, Sir Arnold
Hall, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.Ae.S., who was ill.
Dr. Moult first read a telegram from the President and then introduced
the Lecturer, a distinguished Canadian engineer, for this Fourteenth
Commonwealth Lecture. Mr. Floyd joined A. V. Roe and Co. Ltd., at Manchester,
as an apprentice in 1929, progressing through the design and production
offices to become Chief Projects Engineer in 1944. Immediately after
the War he joined A. V. Roe Canada Ltd., at first as Chief Technical
Officer, becoming Chief Design Engineer in 1949, Works Manager 1951,
and Chief Engineer in 1952. He is now Vice-President, Engineering, Avro
Aircraft Ltd. Mr. Floyd became a naturalized Canadian in 1950 and in
the same year was the first non-American to receive the Wright Brothers
Medal, which was awarded for his contributions to aeronautics, including
his design of the Avro Jetliner. More recently, he had been known for
his work on the Avro CF-100 interceptor and for the Avro Arrow, which
made its first flight in March 1958.
Studies
on flutter included extensive investigation of wing
modes, fin and rudder modes, and control surface
buzz (Fig. 10(a)).
FIGURE 10(a). Flutter model.
WING
The
wing was treated as a plate, because of the low aspect
ratio, and the modes were calculated for the complete
aircraft, since it was obvious that it would be impossible
to separate the wing and fuselage in a structure
of this type. Cantilever modes were also calculated,
as a check. Calculations involving the complete aircraft
in the symmetrical case involved 6 degrees of freedom,
plus control effects.
Vibration modes were calculated by a matrix iteration method from
a 60-point matrix. The frequencies were found to be quite low, and it was later
decided to include all wing modes up to the anticipated control surface frequencies.
A number of methods of calculating flutter were tried, and we came to the conclusion
that a conventional strip theory analysis using two-dimensional derivatives was
inadequate for highly swept wings, and that a form of lifting surface theory
was required. The aircraft's flutter speed appeared dependent on the fuselage
bending and torsional stiffness, with the wing torsional stiffness playing a
secondary role.
FIN
AND RUDDER
Three
degrees of fin freedom were included in the analysis,
together with the rudder fundamental mode. A wide
range of rudder frequencies was covered to establish
the stiffness required of the control circuit for
flutter prevention.
The results showed that flutter should be no problem on the fin,
providing the rudder frequency was kept to twice the fundamental bending frequency.
A stream wise strip method was used for the supersonic analysis and no flutter
speeds were encountered.
The low speed model programme demonstrated except for very low rudder
frequencies, the calculations were conservative. A very high margin was obtained
and the flutter point agreed well with N.A.C.A. data on similar plan forms. In
view of the high margin it was considered worthwhile to proceed with a transonic
model programme.
CONTROL
SURFACE BUZZ
Three
types of control surface buzz were considered, the
first being the shock wave boundary layer interaction
problem which occurs at a speed slightly higher than
the wing or fin critical Mach number. An oscillatory
condition arises when the shock waves move rapidly
back and forth across the control surface hinge line,
influenced by the trailing edge shape of the control
surface, and the particular flight manoeuvre being
made.
Another type arises from the interaction between the structure and
the integrated electronic system and auto-pilot. The accelerometers in the auto-pilot
sense airframe vibrations, as well as primary motion, control surface movement
results. Work was done to arrange sensor location to minimise these false signals.
T'he third type of buzz is associated with a one degree of freedom flutter due
to the theoretical loss of damping at low supersonic Mach numbers.
GROUND
RESONANCE
Ground
resonance was an important factor, since with an
aircraft the size and weight of the Arrow, the complete
dynamic structural characteristics had to be completely
investigated on the three-point under-carriage suspension.
The tests showed that the aircraft, fuselage, and
the wing were better than calculated. However, the
fin appeared to be less easily predictable, since
there was considerable rudder torsion coupling. Further
fin flutter tests have been made to check the predictions.
FLIGHT
FLUTTER TESTING
The
modes of interest are easily excited by the controls
in flight, and we have done considerable stick tapping
in an attempt to obtain records throughout the speed
envelope. From this, by telemetry, the time and magnitude
of damping are checked. Fig. 10(b) shows the excellent
damping recorded from these tests.
MATERIALS
To
eliminate time delays, due to development of unfamiliar
production processes, we did not go in for extensive
use of the newer techniques, such as steel honeycomb,
and used titanium only where its high temperature
properties were required, rather than from a strength
consideration. However, a number of the newer materials
were used.
The inner wing skins are machined out of a solid billet, using a
75ST aluminium alloy. This was stretched a nominal 2 per cent immediately after
solution treatment and before artificial ageing, to produce an essentially stress-free
condition. We felt that fully heat-treated alloy would contain residual stresses
which would be relieved during machining and result in distortion.
The stress relieved plate is also much less susceptible to stress corrosion.
For, components machined from hand forgings, we used a new aluminium
alloy 7079, which has a chemical composition and heat treatment which is guaranteed
to have a minimum transverse elongation of 4 per cent, and which can be heat-treated
to achieve its maximum mechanical properties with almost negligible stress, even
on sections up to 6 in. in thickness.
On certain of the external surfaces we had a need for magnesium alloy
sheet, which was determined by the necessity of achieving the required degree
of stiffness, as well as maintaining the highest possible strength to weight
ratio. The standard magnesium alloys of the aluminium zinc type were found to
lose much of their strength at the temperature corresponding to a Mach number
of 2, i.e. approximately 250'F, and they failed to recover their original properties
on return to room temperature.
The specification finally used was ZE41H24, and we had little difficulty
with it after establishing the proper techniques of hot forming.
ZH62, a new casting alloy, was used on the windshield and canopy
castings, which are complex and difficult to cast in any magnesium alloy. Strength
is maintained quite satisfactorily in this alloy to over 300'F, with almost complete
recovery. The alloy is weldable, which makes possible the salvaging of complicated
castings which might be scrapped if they happened to be unacceptable through
minor surface defects, such as miss-runs or local surface porosity.
On the undercarriage, which had to be relatively slim to go into
the thin wing section, the manufacturers of this component went to 280,000 p.s.i.
high strength steel. Extensive investigations had been made on several steels
to determine the best compromise between high tensile strength and an inevitable
reduction in ductility and impact strength, which results from the use of high
tensile strength. Great care had to be taken to reduce the hydrogen content,
since hydrogen embrittlement has a marked effect on the fatigue strength and
impact properties.
Titanium was used in sheet form extensively in the shrouds and portions
of the structure adjacent to the jet pipe, where the low weight and high strength
at temperatures up to 800'F are required. This is mainly commercially pure titanium.
Extensive investigations were made into the possible use of titanium
as a structural material, but although at that time some of the titanium alloys
appeared to be promising as a replacement of high strength aluminium alloys in
the structure, the manufacturers were unable to obtain uniformity of the product
to ensure that the higher strength was in fact available.
Titanium is being used as a replacement for steel in some joints
and fastenings, since there is a distinct weight saving from this.
CONVERTED TO HTML,
AND HYPERLINKS ADDED, MARCH 28, 2001.
Scott McArthur.