Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:13:56.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development of the Cranfield University Bulldog flight test facility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

N.J. Lawson*
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
R. Correia
Affiliation:
Engineering Photonics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
S.W. James
Affiliation:
Engineering Photonics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
J.E. Gautrey
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
G. Invers Rubio
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
S.E. Staines
Affiliation:
Engineering Photonics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
M. Partridge
Affiliation:
Engineering Photonics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK
R.P. Tatam
Affiliation:
Engineering Photonics, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds, UK

Abstract

Cranfield University's National Flying Laboratory Centre (NFLC) has developed a Bulldog light aircraft into a flight test facility. The facility is being used to research advanced in-flight instrumentation including fibre optic pressure and strain sensors. During the development of the test bed, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been used to assist the flight test design process, including the sensor requirements. This paper describes the development of the Bulldog flight test facility, including an overview of the design and certification process, the in-flight data taken using the installed fibre optic sensor systems and lessons learned from the development programme, including potential further applications of the sensors.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Pamadi, B.N. Performance, Stability, Dynamics and Control of Airplanes, 2nd ed., 2004, AIAA, Reston, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
2. Cook, M.V. Flight Dynamics Principles, 2nd ed., 2007, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
3. Jameson, A. Perspective on computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2001, 37, pp 197243.Google Scholar
4. Jameson, A. and Ou, K. 50 years of transonic aircraft design, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2011, 47, pp 308318.Google Scholar
5. Chapman, D.R., Mark, H. and Pirtle, M.W. Computers vs wind tunnels in aerodynamic flow simulations, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1975, 13, (4), pp 2230, 35.Google Scholar
6. Barlow, B., Rae, W.H. JR and Pope, A. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 3rd ed., 1999. Wiley, New York, US. Google Scholar
7. Ulbrich, N. Correlation of wind tunnel and flight test results for a P-51B airplane, AIAA Paper 2010-742, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4-7 January 2010, Orlando, Florida, US, pp 1–31.Google Scholar
8. Manuel, G.S. and Doty, W.A. Flight-test investigation of certification requirements for laminar-flow general aviation airplanes, J Aircr., 1991, 28, (10), pp 652656.Google Scholar
9. Boden, F., Lawson, N., Jentink, H.W. and Kompenhams, J. Advanced In-Flight Measurement Techniques, 2013. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
10. Kirmse, T. Recalibration of a stereoscopic camera system for in-flight wing deformation measurements, Measurement Science and Technology, 2016, 27, (5), p 054001.Google Scholar
11. Augere, B., Besson, B., Fleury, D., Goular, D., Planchat, C. and Valla, M. 1.5 μm lidar anemometer for true air speed, angle of sideslip, and angle of attack measurements on-board Piaggio P180 aircraft, Measurement Science and Technology, 2016, 27, (5) p 054002.Google Scholar
12. Kopecki, G. and Rzucidlo, P. Integration of optical measurement methods with flight parameter measurement systems, Measurement Science and Technology, 2016, 27, (5) p 054003.Google Scholar
13. Wuest, W. Pressure and flow measurement, AGARD and RTO Flight Test Instrumentation Series AGARDograph 160 (AG 160), In: A. Pool and K.C. Sanderson (Eds), Volume 11, 1980, Technical Editing and Reproduction Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
14. Borek, R. and Pool, A. Basic Principles of Flight Test Instrumentation Engineering (Issue 2), AGARD and RTO Flight Test Instrumentation Series AGARDograph 160 (AG 160), In: R.W. Borek and A. Pool (Eds), Volume 1, 1994, Specialised Printing Services Ltd, Loughton, UK.Google Scholar
15. Trutzel, M.N., Wauer, K., Betz, D., Staudigel, L., Krumpholz, O., Muehlmann, H.-C., Muellert, T. and Gleine, W. Smart sensing of aviation structures with fiber-optic Bragg grating sensors, Proc. SPIE, 2000, 3986, pp 134143.Google Scholar
16. Ko, W.L., Richards, W.L. and Fleischer, V.T. Applications of ko displacement theory to the deformed shape predictions of doubly tapered Ikhana wing, NASA/TP-2009-214652, November 2009, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, US.Google Scholar
17. Chehura, E., James, S.W., Tatam, R.P., Lawson, N. and Garry, K.P. Pressure measurements on aircraft wing using phase-shifted fibre Bragg grating sensors, 20th International Conference on Optical Fibre Sensors, 5-9 October 2009, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
18. Rao, Y.J. Recent progress in fibre-optic extrinsic Fabry-Perot interferometric sensors, Optical Fibre Technology, 2006, 12, (3), pp 227237.Google Scholar
19. Schmid, M.J., Müller, M.S., Kuhnle, B.A., Bauer, M.W., Pongratz, R. and Altmikus, A. Fibreoptic acoustic pressure sensor with high dynamic range and low noise, 36th European Telemetry and Test Conference – ETC2016, 10-13 May 2016, Nuremberg, Germany. pp 90–92. DOI: 10.5162/etc2016/2.7, paper 2.7.Google Scholar
20. Meltz, G., Morey, W.M. and Glenn, W.H. Formation of Bragg gratings in optic fibres by transverse holographic method. Optics Letters, 1989, 14, pp 823825.Google Scholar
21. Rao, Y.J. Recent progress in applications of in-fibre Bragg grating sensors, Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 1999, 31, pp 297324.Google Scholar
22. Nesson, S., Yu, M., Zhang, X. and Hsieh, A.H. Miniature fiberoptic pressure sensor with composite polymer-metal diaphragm for intradiscal pressure measurements. J Biomedical Optics, 2008, 13, (4), p 044040. doi: 10.1117/1.2967908.Google Scholar
23. Lawson, N.J., Correia, R., James, S.W., Gautrey, J.E. and Tatam, R.P. Development of fibre optic strain and pressure instruments for flight test on an aerobatic light aircraft, European Test and Telemetry Conference June 9–11, 2015. Toulouse France, Paper 1.5.Google Scholar
24. Lawson, N.J., Gautrey, J.E., Salmon, N., Garry, K.P. and Pintiau, A. Modelling of a Scottish aviation bulldog using reverse engineering, wind tunnel and numerical methods, IMechE Part G, J Aerospace Engineering, 2014, p 7, DOI: 10.1177/0954410014524740.Google Scholar
25. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes CS-23. Amendment 4, EASA, Cologne, Germany, 15 July 2015.Google Scholar
26. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. Type Certificate Datasheet BA 7 (Issue 18), Scottish Aviation Bulldog Series 100, July 2002.Google Scholar
27. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). Aresti Power Catalogue 2017, FAI Aresti Committee, Madrid, Spain, 2017.Google Scholar
28. Riou, S. CFD and flight test investigation of the bulldog aircraft beacon structure on a pressure sensor plate, MSc Thesis, 2015, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
29. Kissinger, T., Correia, R., Charrett, T., James, S. and Tatam, R. Fibre segment interferometry for dynamic strain measurements, J Lightwave Technology, 2016, 34, (19), pp 46204626.Google Scholar