| File Name: | jetstream 31 manual.pdf |
| Size: | 3599 KB |
| Type: | PDF, ePub, eBook, fb2, mobi, txt, doc, rtf, djvu |
| Category: | Book |
| Uploaded | 4 May 2019, 20:14 PM |
| Interface | English |
| Rating | 4.6/5 from 812 votes |
| Status | AVAILABLE |
| Last checked | 1 Minutes ago! |
Unfortunately, escalating costs and protracted development of the aircraft led to bankruptcy of the company. The aircraft found success in the 1980’s and over 400 were eventually built. The original aircraft scored a rare success with a USAF order as the C-10, but none were delivered before the order was cancelled. Small batches of both main variants served with the RAF and Royal Navy as trainers, There are also two manufacturers brochures on the later BAe built aircraft. The files have been scanned from the original flight manuals and retain any colour pages. Publication TSP 225 dated April 1984 with 28 pages. Publication SP 49 undated with 4 pages. This includes flying surfaces, cowlings, ducts and fairings to name but a few of the less popular and harder to store components. We hold existing relationships with various OEMs and MROs who have the capability to re-certify and release many metal and composite surfaces for continued service. We have in-house capability to tear down many smaller turbine and jet engines. Our warehouse is designed to be able to handle everything up to a Trent 900. We stock and distribute parts for the following engine types: We provide everything from technical support, obsolescence services and LRU teardown, through to cockpit upgrades to altimeters, transponders, dials, connectors, gears and electrical chassis. We provide state of the art Glass Cockpit and EFIS Exchange programmes, AHARS, TCAS, RVSM, TAWS, FMS, CVR, FDR, Gyroscopes, Autopilot and ADIRUs, all drawn from our UK stock of avionics material and expertise. We stock and distribute LRUs and spares from the following manufacturers: It is certified for a full range of platforms, meeting certification requirements for Part 23, 25, 27 and 29 operators worldwide. In addition to the MFDs, we also carry inventory for the FMS, DCU, EIU and RCU elements of the system. We also have an extensive repair management capability on the rotable products within the aircraft cabin environment.http://www.oli.com.br/lojas/admin/uploads/ic-718-service-manual.xml
These headsets are used in all Airbus and Boeing classic and next generation aircraft and we can also repair and offer a full exchange and warranty service on all existing Sennhesier and Peltor models. Should you require an alternate headset, we also support David Clarke, Telex and Bose units for both sales and repairs. We specialise in volume orders for airline fleet requirements We also offer technical advice on upgrading your aircraft to the latest standard of LED lighting for increased MTBF rates and greater aircraft availability. These products include PBEs, Smoke Hoods, Fire Extinguishers, Slides and Slide Spares, Engine Fire Bottles, Fire Detection and Oxygen Bottles. We work closely with various OEMs at the forefront of aircraft safety systems including Zodiac Aerospace, Kidde Graviner (UTAS) and BE Aerospace. Wheel and Brake consumable spares are also available through our OEM partners and approved supplier base; we specialise in Landing Gear actuators manufactured by Liebherr Aerospace, Sensors manufactured by Crane, and jacks and steering equipment from Heroux Devtek (formerly APPH). Our stock includes Bins, Valves, Motors and Pumps applicable primarily to the Airbus and Boeing narrow body fleet of next generation aircraft. Depending on the windshield damage we also have an established vendor network capable of repairing most windshield damage. In co-operation with manufacturers such as Dowty, Hamilton Sundstrand and Agusta we maintain inventory pools of helicopter blades for the A109 Series of aircraft. We also use various OEM approved composite repair partners for the maintenance of our prop and blade inventory. We recommend you upgrade to a newer version of Internet Explorer or switch to a browser like Firefox or Chrome. John, British Columbia and touched down 320 feet short of the runway striking approach and runway threshold lights.http://thefaceandbodyclinic.co.uk/dynamicdata/ic-7100-manual.xml
) JS31, Kardla Estonia, 2013 ( On 28 October 2013 a BAe Jetstream 31 crew failed to release one of the propellers from its starting latch prior to setting take off power and the aircraft immediately veered sharply off the side of the runway without directional control until the power levers were returned to idle. The aircraft was then steered on the grass towards the nearby apron and stopped. The runway excursion was the consequence of an unstable non-precision approach, with airframe ice accretion, and a very heavy touchdown, which caused severe aircraft damage and loss of control. ). Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.The installation of wing tip devices has not been a popular choice for regional turboprop aircraft, and the novelty of the current study is to investigate the feasibility of retrofitting the British Aerospace (BAe) Jetstream 31 with an appropriate wing tip device (or winglet) to increase its cruise range performance, taking also into account the aerodynamic and structural impact of the implementation. An aircraft model has been developed, and the simulated optimal winglet design achieved a 2.38% increase of the maximum range by reducing the total drag by 1.19% at a mass penalty of 3.25%, as compared with the baseline aircraft configuration. Other designs were found to be more effective in reducing the total drag, but the structural reinforcement required for their implementation outweighed the achieved performance improvements. Since successful winglet retrofit programs for typical short to medium-range narrow-body aircraft report even more than 3% of block fuel improvements, undertaking the project of installing an optimal winglet design to the BAe Jetstream 31 should also consider a direct operating cost (DOC) assessment on top of the aerodynamic and structural aspects of the retrofit.
Many of these improvements from the airframe manufacturer’s perspective are focused on the aerodynamic efficiency and the structural design. Aligned to the public’s increasing awareness of the environmental footprint of the airline industry and to the uncertainty in airline revenue stemming from the fluctuating oil prices, there has been a push toward developing eco-friendly designs.Unfortunately, the induced drag reduction does not necessarily translate directly to better aircraft performance in terms of range increase or fuel saving when compared against the baseline aircraft configuration, as is the case for a retrofit study. A span extension reduces induced drag and increases the wetted area, therefore increasing profile drag; hence, there exists a crossover point at which increasing span is no longer beneficial. From the structural perspective, the ideal spanload may not result in an efficient structural design due to the forces and moments experienced by the structure. Therefore, the aerodynamic efficiency resulting from induced drag reduction should be analyzed in the context of both the parasitic drag and the structural analysis considerations for the configuration in question, and their overall effect on the aircraft performance needs to be evaluated. The aerodynamic and structural objectives work against each other, and a meta objective becomes necessary to evaluate the effects at the aircraft level rather than the component level. The most widely used method in assessing the structural impact measures is the wing-root bending moment (WRBM), but that does not accurately represent the loads transmitted on the structure, such as torsion or inertia moments. There is a limited number of studies on wing-tip implementation or research for relatively smaller turboprop aircraft, and especially regional commuters. A summary of those studies is provided below.
These two factors compounded by the short operating missions and the low flight altitudes minimize the benefits of winglets, as their optimum flight condition is in higher altitudes for higher wing-tip loadings and longer cruise segments in lower density air. The study has focused on the aerodynamic design using CFD, without performing a detailed study on the structural impact of the winglet. The literature review yielded no previous study on an aircraft similar in configuration to the BAe Jetstream 31. Increase in flight ceiling. Reduced take-off runs. Increased time between engine maintenance. 1.4. General Framework for the Use of Winglets in Regional Turboprop Aircraft An overview of regional turboprop aircraft offering a capacity of 19 passengers is presented in the Table 1. Table 1 is a representative market overview of various aircraft that are still in service and offer a capacity of 19 passengers. It is observed that the majority of the aircraft have at least two common characteristics: Their first flight was more than 35 years ago, and they are not equipped with winglets. Those factors form the rational of the framework of Table 1. Regarding the operational aspects of the framework, the DHC-6 offers a very similar range to the Jetstream 31 with a 1-ton lower MTOW, and has a very similar range performance in comparison to the Chinese Harbin Y-12. The Jetstream 31 would have outperformed the Y-12 in terms of range with a 6% increase of its current range. Furthermore, the only aircraft that is currently in production is the DHC-6 Twin Otter, and as such, a potential winglet retrofit of the Jetstream 31 might provide an incentive to maintain it in service for longer, if it proved to be worth undertaking. It is considered that the incentive to keep the Jetstream 31 in service is significant, since there are only a few options for an aircraft of similar characteristics.
The widespread availability of the Jetstream 41, a stretched and re-engined variant, can also provide common spare parts to the Jetstream 31 to sustain the existing fleet, thus justifying further investment into a Jetstream 31 airframe with performance improvements. For all the above reasons, the application of a winglet retrofit for the Jetstream 31 has been undertaken, and it is presented in the sections that follow. The BAe Jetstream 31 is a regional turboprop derived from the earlier Handley Page HP.137 Jetstream. Designed for regional routes, it is a small twin-engine turboprop with pressurized fuselage carrying from 12 to 19 passengers. The Jetstream 31 was designed for a niche market aimed at airlines wishing to offer regional commuter service at higher speeds between small regional airports. A wing-tip retrofit option entails maintaining the original wing shape and structure as close as possible, while achieving a performance improvement with the installation of an efficient tip device. There are differing views on the feasibility of wing-tip treatments for short domestic flights, as the aerodynamic improvements may not have a net fuel usage improvement (or range trade-off) due to the multidisciplinary nature of the modification. Therefore, the design scope of the present study includes planar extensions as well as non-planar devices based on Whitcomb’s winglet. Figure 1 and Table 2 illustrate the design variables that have been chosen for evaluation, together with their respective values. A Design of Experiment was set featuring a full factorial on the design parameters, yielding 1296 design points. The analysis of the design points was automated using Python (v2.7.13, released on 17 December 2016. Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, DE, USA). As the study compares a reference and project aircraft configuration, an initial reference model was created, verified, and validated.
Then, the reference model was modified with specific design values to yield the project aircraft for each design point. OpenVSP (v3.10, released on 8 January 2017. NASA, Washington, DC, USA) was used for the geometry modeling of the aircraft. The benefits from using OpenVSP were the existing integration of the VSPAero aerodynamic solver based on the vortex lattice method (VLM), which was used for the purposes of this study, as well as the capability of meshing outputs for various finite element analysis packages. Aircraft components not modeled for this study are: nacelles, propellers, aft fuselage vertical strakes, landing gear doors, belly fairing, fuselage-wing root fairing, and vertical tail plane fillet. The local axis of the wing is defined as the leading edge at the centerline. The geometrical reference data for the wing is provided in Table 3. Two extra panels were added to the wing: one transition panel after the wing tip, and a winglet panel. The purpose of using the transition panel was to allow the application of a toe-out angle to the wing-tip base. Applying the toe-out angle at the wing tip without this additional transition panel would have effectively changed the washout angle from the root, affecting the aerodynamic characteristics. Furthermore, on a retrofit study, the inner wing geometrical shape is assumed to be kept constant, or it would become a wing redesign project. The geometrical reference data for the fuselage is shown in Table 4. 2.1.4. Vertical and Horizontal Tailplanes Both vertical and horizontal tailplanes “WING” sections were modeled with the same method as the main wing, with the vertical tailplane differing in that it was rotated 90 degrees to align with the Z axis. The aerofoils for the tail planes were generated in the OpenVSP NACA four-digit aerofoil generator tool. The geometrical reference data for the horizontal and vertical tailplanes are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. 2.2.
Aerodynamic Analysis VSPAero, which is an integrated aerodynamic tool of OpenVSP, has been used. The 3D potential flow tool offers both VLM and panel implementations, with VLM simplifying the geometry to the mean camber lines, and the panel method representing the surface of the aircraft with vortex sheets. The VLM has been chosen, having considered the computational cost and the number of designs to be analyzed. The outcomes of the method were validated using published flight test data (the validation is analyzed in Section 2.3, below). The cruise conditions of the aircraft model are shown in Table 7. VSPAero does not predict viscous effects on lift and drag. XFoil (v6.99, released on 23 Dec 2013. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA) was used to predict the maximum viscous lift coefficient C L at the operating conditions to constrain wing sectional lift coefficient C l to 1.49. At the cruise condition: The actual flight test data have been best represented by the following equations for the lift and drag coefficients: The technique achieves high levels of accuracy (average error on the total wing weight is consistently lower than 2%) and design sensitivity with low computational cost. Structurally, the wingbox was simplified to two main spars (front and rear, the middle spar has been omitted). The fuel tank was modeled to occupy the complete wingbox volume enclosed between the front and rear spars. The material defined for all panels is aluminum alloy 7075-T6. A kink was identified in the front spar after the power plant, and the structure was defined in four sections: center, root, kink, and tip.The smallest aircraft used in the validation of the power equation was the Fokker F50, which is an aircraft that is nearly three times heavier than the Jetstream 31.
Furthermore, the student version of EMWET used for the calculations for both reference and project wing models relies on a different, simplified regression analysis when compared to the full version. This methodology uses the Breguet range equation, together with statistical factors that estimate the fuel weight of the typical segments of the aircraft flight mission. The statistical factors are shown in Table 9. Each fuel weight fraction M ffi indicates the ratio of the total aircraft weight at the end of the flight segment to the total aircraft weight at the beginning of the segment. Thus, the total fuel weight fraction defines the consumed fuel as a ratio of the total aircraft weight at the end of the flight mission to the total aircraft weight at the beginning. The total fuel weight fraction is also equal to the product of all the fuel weight fractions; thus, the following equation applies: The specific payload-range point is defined as the cruise range for a specified payload. Assuming 19 passengers at 94 kg per passenger (including luggage), the specified payload is 1786 kg with a calculated cruise range of 1018.15 km for the reference model aircraft. The variation of the fuel weight affects the range of the aircraft; therefore, the structural impact on range can be assessed as well. 2.6. Python Integration Framework Python has been used to create an automated integration framework. The Python environment was used to write OpenVSP script files to apply the design variables written also by Python from a separate file. The data generation workflow was split into the following major Python functions, while the flowchart of its implementation process is illustrated in Figure 7: OpenVSP and VSPAero Runner: Create a pool of design points for the desired range of variables. Then, the geometry generated by OpenVSP was read in VSPAero and executed to calculate the aerodynamic data for 1 and 2.5-g conditions.
EMWET input file parsing: As EMWET requires the geometry, spanload, and the quarter chord pitching moment, the VSPAero output files were parsed and written onto the EMWET initialization and load files. Each individual EMWET case was appended onto a Matlab.To process the results, two functions were developed in Python to ultimately output a comma-separated values file in ASCII for data visualization and allow oprimization work in the future. Parsing of VSPAero aerodynamic coefficients and associated wing weight and joining each case input to its output. Drag savings range from 0.05% to 5.105% at a weight penalty of 3% to a significant 35%. Comparable drag savings are obtained from a wide range of structural weights, which show the importance of an optimized structure. The study focused on cant and span, as they are the most significant drivers in terms of aerodynamic efficiency and weight. A positive trend between the non-dimensional WRBM and the wing weight has been observed ( Figure 9 ). 3.1. Cant Angle Effects Designs with 80 degrees of cant experienced the lowest drag reduction for any combination of the other five parameters in comparison to a planar extension (7 degrees) or 43.5 degrees of cant angle ( Figure 10 ). The spread in drag and wing weight increases with decreasing cant angles, and for a cant angle of 43.5 degrees, the maximum drag saving of 5.11% is achieved at a penalty of a 19.26% increase in wing weight. Although the designs were constrained by C Lcruise, resulting in equal aerodynamic force and moment distribution, at lower cant angles, the bending load increases due to the increased bending arm, spanwise distance from the root. Since EMWET only uses lift force in the Z-axis as an input, the net bending effects might not have been fully accounted for the 80-degree designs during the structural sizing, as most of the force is perpendicular to the lift (normal to the wing surface).
Therefore, it provides an explanation for the insensitivity to the weight change. Another simplification assumed with EMWET was modeling the wing and the winglet as a single unity, resulting in the tool-adding material across the span of the wing. The tool is programmed to add material inboard whenever possible to minimize outboard stress concentrations and take advantage of the root section’s higher second moment of area to resist bending loads. 3.2. Span Effects Figure 11 is the same as Figure 10 with shaded iso-span regions of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2. For each cant angle, the drag savings are higher for increasing span ratios, incurring a higher weight penalty. For 80-degree cant, the distribution of points appears to be near vertical with each span ratio stacking in columns against each other. For each span “column”, the range between the highest and lowest drag range increase as the span increases. At a 0.1 span ratio, the 7-degree and 43.5-degree columns result in the same behavior, albeit with an offset in the X-axis with the 7-degree “column” resulting to be heavier and an offset in the Y-axis with decreased drag reduction effects. The same behavior can be observed for the 0.15 and 0.2 span ratios. 3.3. Pareto Front Plotting the result of two conflicting objectives, the drag and weight on each axis resulted in the formation of a Pareto front delimiting the feasible and unfeasible region of the design space ( Figure 12 ). The Pareto front is formed from all Pareto efficient design points where the design points are found to be optimal to both objective functions without being able to improve one criterion without sacrificing the second criterion. For the purpose of the performance assessment of our model, the Pareto optimal solution that provided the maximum cruise range was selected. 3.4.
Optimized Winglet Design When assessing the best cruise range for the design points, a Pareto optimal design point for maximum cruise range was identified with a drag reduction of 1.19% and weight increase of 3.25%. The optimal winglet parameters were found to be the following ( Table 11 ). An isometric view of the optimal winglet is shown in Figure 13. Regarding the aerodynamic characteristics of the optimal winglet configuration, the lift coefficients are nearly identical to the reference configuration. The lift-to-drag ratio exhibits an average increase of 7.2% across the polar due to the reduction of the induced drag, and subsequently, the overall drag. The structural impact of the optimal winglet configuration was isolated to the upper and lower skins without any changes to the spars. The combination of those design and operational parameters does have an effect on the expected winglet benefits. However, the key finding of their work is that there exists an optimal aspect ratio at which winglets offer maximum effectiveness for a given flight condition. From an operational point of view, their work encourages retrofitting the aircraft with winglets, but at the same time, it underlines the importance of incorporating the winglet design and optimization as an integral part of the early conceptual design of a new aircraft platform. The absence of commercial operational data for aircraft of similar size and engine types as the Jetstream 31 sets some validation challenges to the current study. The developed model has predicted aerodynamic loads and coefficients, which match very well with published flight test data for the reference Jetstream 31 aircraft, while the estimated wing weight was accurate to 1% of the statistical wing weight fraction for small turboprop aircraft. The optimal winglet design for maximum cruise range performance was not found to be the one that provides the greatest drag reduction, but a design with 80 degrees of cant, which resulted in a 1.
19% drag reduction at a penalty of a 3.25% wing weight increase. The optimal design has come out of a non-convex design space, and as such, a potential future work item for the present study would be to find a convex formulation of the problem that would be more stable and easy to solve. Previous studies indicate that the winglets are most beneficial when operating at high-altitude long-cruise segments for transonic jets, the design characteristics of which, and especially the aspect ratio, do not resemble those of the Jetstream 31.Funding This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Luuk van der Schaft, Odeh Dababneh, and Vishagen Ramasamy for contributing with ideas and advice. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. National Research Council. In New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics VI. Jetstream 31 Outlook. Available online: (accessed on 25 September 2019).Reference model top view.Reference model top view. Payload-range diagram.Payload-range diagram. Implementation flowchart.Implementation flowchart. Design point values for drag and wing weight ratio.Design point values for drag and wing weight ratio. Wing-root bending moment (WRBM) vs.Wing-root bending moment (WRBM) vs.Cant angle distribution at the design space.Cant angle distribution at the design space. Winglet span effect on design point distribution.Winglet span effect on design point distribution. Pareto front in the design space.Pareto front in the design space. Isometric view of the optimal winglet.Isometric view of the optimal winglet. Overview of regional turboprop aircraft (19 passengers capacity). (Data sourced from the respective aircraft manufacturer brochures, not an exhaustive list of all operating types). MTOW: maximum take-off weight.Overview of regional turboprop aircraft (19 passengers capacity).
(Data sourced from the respective aircraft manufacturer brochures, not an exhaustive list of all operating types). MTOW: maximum take-off weight. Design variables and evaluated values (1296 design points).Design variables and evaluated values (1296 design points). Cant angle (absolute, from XY plane) (deg) 7, 43.5, 80 Planar 7 degrees, same as the main wing dihedral. An 80-degree maximum angle, with 43.5 being the middle value of the range. Winglet span (or winglet height, as a ratio of wing semispan) 10%, 15%, 20% As a ratio of the wing semispan with the upper boundary constrained by the Jetstream 31 certification airport reference code (B-II), stipulating a maximum 24 m of span. The upper boundary was scaled down to a more reasonable maximum 20% of semispan. Quarter chord sweep (deg) 14, 26, 38, 50 Although mostly suitable as a parameter for aircraft operating in the transonic regime, it is kept to investigate the aerodynamics and the torsional effects on the wing structure. Toe-out (deg) ?4, ?2.5, ?1 Toe-out angle dictated by the local lift coefficient requirement.MZFW: Maximum Zero-Fuel Weight. OEW: Operating Empty Weight.)MZFW: Maximum Zero-Fuel Weight. OEW: Operating Empty Weight.) Optimal winglet parameters.Optimal winglet parameters. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( ). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Read more about our cookies here. Would anyone know if smartcopilot works in xp11 for this aircraft. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk Would anyone know if smartcopilot works in xp11 for this aircraft. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk There is no smartcopilot.cfg in the root of my plane. Not yet tested the old file.There is no smartcopilot.cfg in the root of my plane.
Not yet tested the old file. Ok thanks, might try the FJS727 in XP11 and see if that one works. Flying with a real copilot is fantastic Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.Paste as plain text instead Display as a link instead Clear editor Upload or insert images from URL.Do not use chat for extended support, only basic questions. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab This amount is subject to change until you make payment. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Programme terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab This amount is subject to change until you make payment. If you reside in an EU member state besides UK, import VAT on this purchase is not recoverable. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Programme terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods and will depend on when your payment clears - opens in a new window or tab. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request a postage method to your location. Please enter a valid postcode. Please enter a number less than or equal to 1. Sellers may be required to accept returns for items that are not as described. Learn more about your rights as a buyer. - opens in a new window or tab You're covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee if you receive an item that is not as described in the listing. All Rights Reserved. User Agreement, Privacy, Cookies and AdChoice Norton Secured - powered by Verisign. Among the new aeroplanes are the Airbus A380, A340-500 and A340-600, the Boeing 777-300 and various Bombardier and Embraer types. The site may not work properly if you don't update your browser.http://chamabusinesscenter.com/images/bryce-7.1-manual.pdf