03.11.2014 Views

TP 13579 PROCEEDINGS of the 2nd International Meeting ... - UQAC

TP 13579 PROCEEDINGS of the 2nd International Meeting ... - UQAC

TP 13579 PROCEEDINGS of the 2nd International Meeting ... - UQAC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

IMAPCR ’99<br />

19. Mr. Croll presented several overheads showing correlation between aircraft µ braking versus<br />

ground speed; <strong>the</strong> Falcon 20 µ braking versus CRFI; slip ratios; and directional control<br />

problems on low friction surfaces. He presented a video that elaborated on <strong>the</strong> test program.<br />

It also showed instances where snow was ingested into <strong>the</strong> engines, causing a flameout, and<br />

two recorded cases <strong>of</strong> aircraft lateral departure from <strong>the</strong> test section.<br />

20. Conclusions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se tests indicated no consistent variation <strong>of</strong> aircraft braking coefficients<br />

with ground speed. A good correlation existed between <strong>the</strong> Falcon 20 and <strong>the</strong> CRFI on<br />

uniformly contaminated surfaces. Increase in wheel slip ratios with decreasing ground speed<br />

was noted. Reduction in directional control at lower speeds on ice-covered surfaces was also<br />

recorded. Mr. Croll recommended that additional testing should be done using different<br />

aircraft and runway conditions, including slush and chemicals. O<strong>the</strong>r testing on <strong>the</strong> Falcon<br />

20 should include contaminant drag and crosswind effect.<br />

21. Questions were raised about using different braking coefficient measures in testing (Falcon<br />

tests versus <strong>the</strong> NASA tests). Mr. Croll replied that a need exists to standardize <strong>the</strong><br />

coefficient given to <strong>the</strong> pilot. In response to o<strong>the</strong>r questions, Mr. Croll explained that tests<br />

were not done on damp or wet runway conditions; <strong>the</strong> antilock braking system (ABS) was<br />

disabled on <strong>the</strong> test runs and thrust reversers were not used.<br />

Dash 8 Aircraft Performance Testing on Contaminated Runway<br />

Surfaces<br />

22. Edward Lim, Chief <strong>of</strong> Performance at Bombardier Aerospace, de Havilland division,<br />

Canada, presented <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> testing done in February 1998 at North Bay. The test<br />

sequence was:<br />

• ground vehicle tests;<br />

• RTO and landing tests;<br />

• ground vehicle re-tests.<br />

23. The objective was to determine contaminant drag and aircraft braking coefficients for <strong>the</strong><br />

Dash 8 under three contaminant types: rough ice, moderately smooth ice, and sand on<br />

moderately smooth ice.<br />

24. Test results indicated no appreciable impingement or displacement drag on <strong>the</strong> three surface<br />

types. Second, brake friction coefficient (as a percentage <strong>of</strong> dry) was established for all three<br />

surface types.<br />

25. In response to questions on <strong>the</strong> test, Mr. Lim pointed out that a triple axis accelerometer was<br />

used. The outside temperature was -10°C, and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aircraft breaking<br />

through <strong>the</strong> ice surface.<br />

4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!